The message from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) is unequivocal—we must reduce emissions to net-zero by 2050 or risk facing dire climatic consequences. Seems like an easy choice to make, doesn’t it? Unfortunately it is not. Making the choice isn’t what is hard. It is the act of changing one's behaviour. Humans are creatures of habit and that is what makes addressing climate change additionally challenging. All too often, the general response to environmental and climate issues is to blame or rely on stringent legislation and progressive policy changes. While this is crucial for inducing action and limiting global warming, as citizens and consumers, we need to change as well. We need to make greener behavioural changes ourselves and demand environmentally-conscious alternatives, as these can propel political decision-making and markets towards pursuing a 1.5°C consistent path when they are not. The IPCC Special Report highlights different mitigation pathways that are in line with meeting the 1.5°C goal and they all assume substantial demand-side mitigation, and behavioural and lifestyle changes to be able to limit warming to 1.5°C. The report states the following ways in which one can take climate action with examples: Related Stories Ruckus over IPCC's global warming data Global warming set to breach 1.5 degree limit: IPCC Draft Report Countries negotiate key messages of IPCC’s controversial ‘Special Report’ Implementing resource efficiency in buildings—Insulation, low carbon construction material Adopting low-emission innovations—Electric vehicles, heat pumps, district heating and cooling Adopting energy efficient appliances—Energy-efficient heating/cooling and energy efficient appliances Adoption of renewable energy—Solar rooftops, solar water heaters Energy saving behaviour—Walking or cycling for short distances, using mass transit, line drying for laundry; reducing food waste Consumption of products with low Green House Gas (GHG) emissions—Reducing meat and dairy intake, buying local and seasonal food, replacing aluminium products by low-GHG alternatives Organisation behavior—Designing low-emission products, replacing business travel by video-conference when possible Citizenship behavior—Engage through civic channels to push for low-carbon climate resilient development in the state Making such consumer choices and behavioural changes can significantly reduce energy consumption, generating substantial reductions in GHG emissions. While knowing these actions is crucial, it is often not sufficient to drive behavioural change. The report suggests that people are generally motivated to address climate change when its risks directly affect them at present, and that “high impact events with low frequency are remembered more than low impact regular events”. However, we should not have to wait for another climate disaster to strike to spark climate action. So what can be done to catalyse such action? We need to revive our relationship with nature that has otherwise been severed by capitalism. One of the ways to do so is to change the conventional social norm of environmental indifference to environmental cognizance. A Science review on climate psychology outlines that sustainability leaders and “transformational” individuals—those who have changed their ways to adopt a more climate-conscious lifestyle and have stepped outside accepted social norms—can play a vital role in galvanising collective action and bringing about substantial change through their social networks and organisations. Additionally, all of us can play a pivotal role in inspiring action by collectively supporting such individuals and their initiatives. Highlighting our interdependence with nature through our social interactions can drive the behavioural change we need to limit warming to 1.5°C. Physical science has made clear what actions we must take to fight climate change, but it is high time that we tuned our mind and soul towards nature to bring about the large-scale change we need to save the planet. Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter : Email India Environment Portal Resources : Global warming of 1.5 °C Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change A Commentary on Consumption Rich Indians versus Rich (and Poor) Americans WILDLIFE & BIODIVERSITY How these two remote districts in Andhra are tackling wild elephant intrusions The forest department in Srikakulam and Vizianagaram, which border Odisha, are doing their best to manage pachyderms that regularly stray from Odisha. But they need local support 40 shares NEXT NEWS ❯ By V Sundararaju Last Updated: Tuesday 09 October 2018 Human-elephant conflict Wild elephants being chased away with the help of Wild elephants being chased away with the help of "Kumkis" in Srikakulam Credit: V Sundararaju On March 28 this year, people inSrikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, were startled to hear that eight wild elephants had come to the Dusi Railway Station, about 10 km away from Srikakulam town. Forest officials immediately jumped into action. Using “Kumkis”(domesticated and trained elephants) brought from the Chittoor Forest Division, they were able to chase the jumbos back to Odisha, from where they hadcome. However, almost four months later, on July 26, the same herd returned. This time, tragedy struck when one young elephant got electrocuted after coming into contact with a transformer accidentally. The above lines give you an idea of the tension that prevails in this area due to interaction between man and elephant. But this was not always the case. Elephants started moving from Odisha to the two border districts of Andhra (Srikakulam and Vizianagaram) only from 2007 onwards. They usually move from State Forests in Odishato the Vizianagaram Forest Division and then migrate towards Srikakulam Forest Division. The reason for the migration of elephants from Odisha to Andhra Pradesh is said to be large-scale quarrying permitted in the revenue hills contiguous to the Reserve Forest areas in Odisha districts bordering Srikakulam and Vizianagaram. In general, permission for quarrying even in revenue and private lands is not granted if such areas are within 10 km of the boundary of any Protected Area like a Wildlife Sanctuary or a National Park. This rule should be made applicable to revenue hills and hillocks which are located close to the Reserve Forests where the elephants live. If this system is followed, chances of migration of the pachyderms due to human disturbance may be very much reduced. However, that being not the case for now, sincere efforts are being made by the Forest, Revenue and Police officials to mitigate human-elephant conflict in the area. There are usually two kinds of mitigation: prevention and response. Prevention refers to the measures that are taken to not attract elephants to the area or to see to it that even if they come, no human being crosses paths with them. In many parts of the agricultural lands that are close to the boundary of Reserve Forests in Srikakulam and Vizianagaram, crops like sugarcane, banana, pineapple andmaize are raised, which in turn, attract the pachyderms. People, especially the farming community who are cultivating close to the Reserve Forests inhabitedby elephants, are persuaded not to raise such crops. Instead, they can raise crops like garlic, turmeric, mulberry, castor, chilli, cotton, ginger, onion, tobacco and tea.