Healthy Discomfort

The Uncertain Solicitor on ... Time

This is the first of three short pieces to coincide with London Climate Action Week looking at some of the challenges confronting lawyers trying to engage with the climate crisis.

I live with a persistent queasiness these days. There are several reasons for this, but one is experiencing time as a concertina. What feel like medium-term issues race into the present, as ‘once in a century’ weather events happen every few years and temperatures are 30 and 40°C above usual at the Arctic and Antarctic poles respectively. Conversely, we know the decisions being taken now will have consequences that will resonate into the far future, as the greenhouse gas emissions of today settle in our atmosphere for centuries, demanding more than a short-term perspective.

Added to this, as Alex Steffen has noted, “change is happening faster than we find it easy to understand, much less easy to talk about. Our sense of the tempo of change is outdated.” In other words, not only do we need to change, in response to changing circumstances, but those circumstances are changing at speeds that are new for us and our familiar ways of responding are inadequate for our needs. Little wonder I feel this time-travel sickness.

Layered on this is another way in which thinking about time makes me nauseous at the moment. David Wallace Wells has described how “half of all of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that have ever been produced in the entire history of humanity have been produced in the last 30 years”. In other words, since the nations of the world met for the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to address the looming challenge of global warming, things have relentlessly and increasingly got worse, as shown in the chart below.

Fig. 1

This has happened during the period in which the careers of all the people leading law firms today have blossomed. Is it reasonable or realistic to expect them to be able and willing to jettison the thinking that has proved so successful for them, in order to address the challenges we collectively face, (even if exacerbated by our inaction over those years)?

In contrast, the young lawyers in their firms and those aspiring to join them in the coming years face a future in which they have to see emissions head even more dramatically in the opposite direction. Most lawyers are aware of the IPCC advice that global greenhouse gas emissions need to reduce by 50% by 2030. The graph below shows what that looks like – and what historic and further delay means to the necessary trajectory. Is it reasonable or realistic to expect young lawyers to act on matters and in ways which they know will contribute to foreseeable harm arising for their peers and themselves?

Fig.2

This means young lawyers need to apply their skills and knowledge in fundamentally different ways to those ingrained in their bosses and to work towards radically different priorities. Where does the greatest sense of urgency lie – is it in not challenging or asking too much of the incumbents, or in doing everything in our gift to enable a liveable future for the next generation?

It is evident from Fig 2 that we do not have the luxury of waiting another thirty years for the current senior figures to retire and for practice gradually to evolve. Without a rapid transition to a global economy delivering emissions reductions at the scale and speed indicated, the IPCC - that is the most extensive consensus of relevant scientific expertise on a global scale you will find on any subject – tells us that it is beyond reasonable doubt that we will send the earth beyond temperature levels ever experienced before by humans, with catastrophic effects on life on the planet for centuries to come. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, has put it more plainly, “Delay is death” – a more sombre depiction of how time may make us unwell.

Knowing this, can any solicitor continuing to practise law in ways which support the production of greenhouse gas emissions at levels clearly incompatible that what Fig 2 demands, live comfortably with the certain prospect of the harm to others flowing from their work? Can we be confident we are acting in the public interest and will continue to earn public trust in doing so, (both requirements of our professional duties)?

Can the legal generations work together on this? Can the incumbents exercise humility and make space for and support new thinking and energy? A global issue demands a global solution, but that begins with individual acts of collaboration that inspire and coalesce with others to create the conditions for systemic change. There may be individual comfort in clinging resolutely to what we know, but that way leads to obsolescence and the fulfilment of Guterres’ prediction. Demonstrate an openness to exploring unchartered territory in the form of new approaches to the law, new relationships with clients and new collaborations across the profession and beyond and maybe something powerful and vital will emerge. What is the worst that can happen (besides a bruised ego) compared to what will follow from failing to follow the IPCC’s urging?

This feeling I have feels like a combination of the wooziness of not seeming to be on solid ground and the gnawing at the pit of the stomach brought on by the adrenalin accompaniment to an imminent challenge. It is not pleasant, but it is probably a healthy response to the circumstances we are in.