Climate Change is Driven by Human Need & Greed

Indian Express

1. Introduction and Context

This editorial–interview with Sunil Amrith, environmental historian and author of The Burning Earth, explores the civilizational roots and moral dimensions of the climate crisis — extending beyond its scientific, economic, or policy explanations.

Amrith argues that climate change is not just a technological or economic challenge but a historical and ethical outcome of human ambition, exploitation, and inequality. His central claim: “The crisis is born from both human need and human greed.”

By linking the present crisis to centuries of industrialization, colonial extraction, and moral apathy, Amrith reframes the global climate debate — from one of carbon metrics and innovation to one of justice, ethics, and collective introspection.

2. Key Arguments Presented

a. Climate Change as a Product of Human History

• Amrith situates the climate crisis within the trajectory of industrial capitalism and empire-building, arguing that Western colonial powers reshaped the Earth’s systems through extraction and domination.
• The Industrial Revolution prioritized profit and production over planetary balance, embedding inequality into global systems.
• Drawing on Gandhian thought — “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed” — Amrith highlights that greed, not growth, has driven the planet to ecological collapse.

b. Technology: The Double-Edged Sword

• Technology, once hailed as a liberating force, has also been an enabler of massive ecological degradation — through mining, deforestation, and urbanisation.
• The same technocratic optimism that created the problem now reappears as its proposed solution — in forms like geoengineering, carbon capture, and climate-tech ventures.
• Amrith warns that treating technology as a “silver bullet” risks reproducing the same extractive logic that caused the crisis.

c. The Climate Crisis as a Moral and Social Challenge

• Amrith reframes the issue as an ethical crisis, not just an environmental one.
• He points out that those least responsible — developing nations, small farmers, and island communities — suffer the most severe consequences.
• The Global North’s carbon privilege, built on centuries of colonial exploitation, continues today through climate inequality and resource hoarding.

d. Inequality and Identity in the Climate Debate

• Climate impacts intersect with class, race, and social exclusion.
• Marginalized communities are simultaneously victims and custodians of nature but are largely absent from global decision-making.
• The editorial highlights the moral contradiction of global climate politics — where the rich debate emission targets while the poor struggle for survival.

e. Critique of the “Techno-Fix” Mindset

• Amrith critiques elite-driven climate narratives — including those advanced by figures like Bill Gates — for promoting innovation and carbon removal while avoiding deeper behavioural change.
• He calls this a “moral distraction”: an illusion of progress that allows consumerism to persist under the guise of sustainability.
• True change, he asserts, lies not in machines, but in mindsets and moral accountability.

3. Author’s Stance

Amrith’s stance is humanistic, historical, and morally reflective.
He critiques the reduction of climate change to a technical or economic issue and instead repositions it as a crisis of civilization — rooted in greed, inequality, and spiritual disconnection.

The tone is critical yet compassionate — urging societies to embrace ethical responsibility and historical awareness as preconditions for meaningful climate action.
He calls for a “moral awakening” that complements policy and science, insisting that sustainability is not just an outcome but a value system.

4. Biases Present

• Anti-technology bias: Downplays the transformative potential of green innovation and renewable technologies.
• Historical determinism: Suggests a linear continuity between colonialism and present emissions, overlooking emerging economies’ responsibilities.
• Moral absolutism: Prioritises ethics over pragmatism, offering critique without detailed policy pathways.
• Western critique focus: Attributes excessive blame to Western powers while giving limited attention to current emission trends in nations like India or China.

5. Pros and Cons

 Pros

• Philosophical depth: Shifts focus from carbon metrics to human values.
• Historical context: Connects colonial extraction to present climate injustice.
• Ethical engagement: Brings moral and social justice into mainstream climate dialogue.
• Critical independence: Challenges elite techno-centric narratives with moral realism.

 Cons

• Lack of actionable solutions: Offers moral clarity but limited policy detail.
• Idealistic framing: Underestimates the realpolitik of global climate negotiations.
• Limited economic discussion: Neglects tools like carbon markets or green finance.
• Academic tone: Aimed more at intellectual audiences than policymakers.

6. Policy and Ethical Implications

a. Historical Accountability and Equity

• Embed colonial and historical responsibility within climate finance and compensation mechanisms.
• Ensure fair contributions from the Global North toward loss and damage funds.

b. Ethics-Guided Technology

• Promote technological humility — innovation guided by ethics, equity, and ecology, not profit.
• Prioritise low-impact, community-based solutions over mega-engineered fixes.

c. Inclusive Governance

• Integrate voices of indigenous, rural, and coastal communities into policymaking.
• Strengthen South–South cooperation to promote inclusive, context-specific climate strategies.

d. Behavioural and Cultural Transformation

• Encourage moderation and mindful consumption through education and policy nudges.
• Cultivate ecological citizenship — linking daily behaviour with planetary health.

e. Rethinking Development

• Replace GDP-centric models with indicators of well-being and ecological resilience.
• Support green-growth pathways that merge equity, economy, and environment.

7. Real-World Impact

Positive

• Inspires moral and intellectual reflection in climate policymaking.
• Strengthens advocacy for climate justice and ethical responsibility in international negotiations.
• Encourages integration of humanities and social sciences in environmental studies.

Negative

• Risk of moral paralysis — excessive focus on ethics could delay urgent policy action.
• May alienate technologists and industrial policymakers seeking pragmatic solutions.
• Could oversimplify complex political realities into moral binaries.

8. Alignment with UPSC GS Papers

9. Conclusion

Amrith’s analysis transforms the climate debate from a technical contest to a moral introspection on humanity’s trajectory.
He asserts that while science can diagnose the crisis, only ethics can cure it.
His argument stands as a reminder that climate change is not just about CO₂ levels, but about conscience — the choices societies make between need and greed.

Yet, moral clarity alone cannot suffice.
A durable solution demands ethical commitment backed by innovation, governance, and global solidarity.
The fusion of moral wisdom and scientific progress is essential to ensure that climate action becomes both effective and just.

10. Future Perspectives

1. Climate Ethics Education: Introduce environmental ethics and intergenerational justice in school and university curricula.
2. Global Climate Justice Tribunal: Establish an independent body to assess historical emissions and enforce equitable reparations.
3. South–South Cooperation: Strengthen partnerships among developing nations for low-carbon, culturally rooted development models.
4. Corporate Accountability: Link ESG compliance with measurable ecological and ethical benchmarks.
5. Cross-Disciplinary Research: Merge humanities, environmental science, and technology to develop holistic sustainability models.

Balanced Summary

This editorial positions the climate crisis as humanity’s ethical mirror — reflecting centuries of greed, inequality, and arrogance.
Sunil Amrith’s message is clear: until moral reckoning complements technological innovation, the planet will continue to burn beneath the weight of human excess.
Real sustainability will emerge only when justice, empathy, and humility guide progress — when the race for growth transforms into a journey toward balance.