Hardly a day passes without seeing an international news headline or social media post reminding us that climate change is the defining ‘crisis’ of our time.
From stories about drought in Africa, India and the Mediterranean, to wildfires in North America and Australia, to floods in China, Western Europe and the Americas, to collapsing ice shelves in Antarctica, it is clear that nowhere on Earth is immune to its devastating effects. Indeed, climate change is very real and damaging to many people’s livelihoods and natural ecosystems of which we are all a part.
Emphasising and addressing the ways in which humans are catalysts to climatic changes, especially through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) and the destruction of our carbon sinks (forests, oceans and soil) is important, but we cannot continue calling the climate crisis the defining crisis of our time. What’s more important to both recognise and highlight is that the so-called climate crisis is actually a social crisis embedded in economic imperialism and inequality, and that communities (human and non-human) deprived of their resources suffer the most.
On 14 March 2019, Cyclone Idai – one of the worst tropical cyclones ever to hit Southern Africa – made landfall near the port city of Beira in central Mozambique. It then moved across the southeast African region, affecting millions of people in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Six weeks later, Cyclone Kenneth hit northern Mozambique. For the first time in recorded history, two strong tropical cyclones battered the country in the same season.
The social devastation caused by Idai and Kenneth left more than 1,300 people dead, with many more missing, and 2.5 million people in need of basic resources and humanitarian assistance in Mozambique alone. Over 100,000 people continue to live in resettlement sites and accommodation centres in central Mozambique and approximately 600,000 people are displaced in the northern part of the country.
But were these two ‘natural disasters’, which are deemed part of the ‘climate crisis’, the root cause of this tragedy?
Since 2010, the French energy firm Total has invested $20 billion in a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project just off the coast of northern Mozambique, making it one of the biggest investments in Africa. Supported by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as by the Mozambican government, this LNG project is estimated to produce 65 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas by 2024 and will expand to produce 43 million tonnes each year. The gas will be liquified and exported to economically wealthy nations, where it will most likely be used as a fuel for the energy and transportation sectors, as well as a raw material to produce chemicals and fertilisers for the agricultural sector.
Revenue gained through this LNG project raises the hope that Mozambique – one of the economically poorest countries in the world – will propel to middle-income status by the mid-2030s. Moreover, it would provide the Mozambican government with economic resources needed to develop a national infrastructure that could help communities withstand future disasters.
Yet, while many Mozambicans suffer from the effects of annual tropical storms, the process by which natural gas is extracted and transported off the coast of their country leaks methane into the atmosphere. A growing body of climate science research suggests that methane, a greenhouse gas that accounts for about 20 per cent of global emissions, is a far more potent greenhouse gas in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, especially over shorter periods of time, contributing enormously to global warming which increases both the frequency and intensity of tropical storms. Sea-level rise, caused by global warming and the subsequent melting of the polar ice caps, is likely to make future coastal storms more damaging as well.
The case of Mozambique reminds us of an important paradox that we must pay serious attention to, if we are truly to address the root cause of the deadly effects of tropical storms. However, we were already reminded of this paradox in 2005 (and countless other times before and after) when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in the US Gulf South region, when many Americans and people across the world witnessed what has commonly been described as a ‘hurricane-induced’ levee failure that left residents of New Orleans inundated by flood waters.
At the time, what many people failed to understand was that the devastating effects of Katrina were exacerbated by the failure of a social support system for the largely invisible residents who were by and large racially Black, and included grandparents, mothers, children and people with disabilities. Other minority groups, including the Indigenous populations of the US Gulf South region and the Vietnamese-American community, were also heavily affected, and they continue to experience a long-term negative impact on their finances, health and emotional wellbeing.
Similarly, the vast majority of the Mozambican population comprises Black Indigenous groups, who have a long history of colonialism which began the trend of economic inequality, displacement and an uneven distribution of resources and infrastructure throughout the country.
To truly solve the climate crisis requires a cultural shift in reimagining it as a social crisis, since both the causes and effects of climate change (especially global warming) are intertwined with social inequality. Yet, international news and social media continue to present headlines and posts that attach the term ‘crisis’ to climate change, and communicate that climate change is the most daunting, dangerous and defining global issue of our time – which is misleading. The aftermath of Cyclones Idai and Kenneth should be attributed to the social crisis and its dominant economic associations that produce enormous social inequalities. This is what needs to be clearly communicated and addressed.
To help change the narrative and expand our imaginations about the true crisis at hand, we might begin by replacing the word ‘climate’ with ‘social’, and the words ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ with ‘social inequality’.
With this in mind, recent statements made by the United Nations about food and water insecurity should read: ‘Social inequality [Global warming] impacts everyone’s food and water security. Social inequality [Climate change] is a direct cause of soil degradation, which limits the amount of carbon the earth is able to contain. Some 500 million people today live in areas affected by erosion, while up to 30 per cent of food is lost or wasted as a result. Meanwhile, social inequality [climate change] limits the availability and quality of water for drinking and agriculture.’
Or, with regards to conflict: ‘Social inequality [Climate change] is a major threat to international peace and security. The effects of social inequality [climate change] heighten competition for resources such as land, food and water, fuelling socioeconomic tensions and, increasingly often, leading to mass displacement.’
And, finally: ‘Social inequality [Climate change] is the defining crisis of our time and it is happening even more quickly than we feared.’
Marko Salvaggio is an environmental sociologist and Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology at Tulane University. Prior to Tulane, he was Assistant Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies at Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland. He holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Marko is a contributor to the 
Global Agenda for Social Justice 2 edited by Glenn W. Muschert et al. Order here for £14.99.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Individual chapters from the book are available for purchase from Bristol University Press Digital. You can also ask your library to subscribe or sign up for a free trial.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image Credit: Sérgio Rola via Unsplash