Perceptions of Equality

Author: Rachel Downey

In “Equality, Sustainability, and Quality of Life,” Wilkinson, Pickett, and De Vogli (2010) argue that greater equality
in societies is not only a prerequisite for coping with climate change, but it is essential. In societies with more equality,
both physical and mental health issues are lesser. Presumably, this includes nations such as Sweden,
Denmark, The Netherlands, and Japan. According to the International Panel on Climate Change,
the rise in global temperature this century is estimated to be somewhere between 1.1 degrees Celsius
and 6.4 degrees Celsius.This doesn’t sound too staggering to someone who uses the Fahrenheit system,
but I did the math and the range is between 34 and 43.5 degrees Fahrenheit. This is terrifying.
Imagine a humid summer in St. Louis with temperatures in the 135’s! This could lead to a number of
global health crises, including foodborne illnesses, famine, malnutrition, temperature related deaths,
and deaths from extreme weather. It seems that people are more willing to sacrifice things to avoid the
higher temperature increase, but willing to sacrifice much less to avoid the lower.

With President Trump refusing to sign the Paris Agreement, there has been an increased uprising of people who
are skeptical of climate change, and even climate change deniers. Wilkinson et. al. proposes that these
climate change deniers have cognitive dissonance- a term to describe the feeling someone has when their
thoughts don’t match up with their actions. These people might believe, in light of inadequate evidence,
that if the science is rigged, they don’t have to face major changes in living standard leading up to
changes in the climate. They use these situations in which the science might not be clear in order to
justify their denial.

Unfortunately, in order to reduce carbon emissions, we must make major changes that could potentially
affect our standard of life. This means, not having individual cars, but instead using public
transportation, car pooling, or riding a bike. In unequal societies, people tend to be more materialistic.
So in a smaller city such as St. Louis, which already has bad public transportation, making this change
would be extremely difficult for a lot of people. It is not uncommon for someone to feel embarrassed
to be taking public transportation in St. Louis. You might be seen as poor, or not having adequate
resources to be able to hold a job. People care what other people think of them. So again, feeding into
the idea that people are materialistic within unequal societies, no one would want to give up their car.
But in The Hague, Netherlands, for example, this would not nearly be as much of an issue.
The Netherlands is a fairly equal society, and no one is judging each other for riding bicycles
everywhere. Likewise, in Japan, no one is judging each other for taking the metro everywhere.
Because it is what’s normal for them.  

More equal societies tend to have smaller ecological footprints, consume less water, less meat,
and produce less waste (Wilkinson et. al. 2010). Take for example, Denmark as the cleaner, more equal
society that produces less waste and the citizens eat less meat. Now imagine New Delhi, India.
This society harbors great inequality, poverty, and the poorer citizens eat what is available and
cheapest for them (meat).

Does reducing our carbon footprint reduce standard of living? On the surface, yes. In a city like
St. Louis, citizens would feel the impacts of not having individual cars greatly. But if every society
was more equal, and modeled after Denmark or Copenhagen, it would not. Ultimately, it is a matter
of perspective (if you feel poor, you are poor; if you feel embarrassed, you are embarrassed).
If everyone looked at the bigger picture, and were less worried about how they look compared to
everyone else, we could collectively make a lesser impact of carbon emissions, but it is likely a
long ways off.