Let’s Talk Climate: Power, Privilege and the Planet

saltspringexchange.com

Kelda Logan Transition Salt Spring

Climate Prayer Flag of Hope Penticton, BC

8–10 minutes

Let’s Talk Climate: Power, Privilege and the Planet Part 2:

Structural Inequity

Conversations about climate change often stall, even among people who share a deep concern for the planet. The silence doesn’t come from apathy; it comes from the weight and complexity of the problem itself. At its core, climate change is not just an environmental issue but a structural and systemic one, shaped by politics, economics, and entrenched power. This makes talking about it so hard; we feel frustration, guilt, and a sense of helplessness.

The Complexity of Structural Causes

Unlike issues with clear culprits and solutions, climate change emerges from the very systems that organize modern life. Energy grids built on fossil fuels, global supply chains that rely on cheap shipping, agricultural practices dependent on deforestation and industrial fertilizers; all of these structures are deeply embedded in how societies function. Most of us benefit from them in some way, even as they contribute to climate harm.

This makes blame diffuse, responsibility hard to locate, and solutions difficult to envision without radical change. And people really don’t like small changes, let alone radical ones. Don’t believe me? Just have a listen to the complaints the next time the Country Grocer changes the shelves around…!

The Imbalance of Responsibility

One of the most paralyzing aspects of climate conversations is the gap between individual actions and systemic impacts. Ordinary people are told to recycle, bike to work, or become vegan (or at least introduce meatless Mondays).

While these actions matter symbolically and can build cultural momentum, they pale in comparison to the emissions produced by a handful of powerful actors. Studies consistently show that the majority of global emissions come from a relatively small number of corporations - particularly fossil fuel companies - that continue to extract and burn hydrocarbons at staggering rates.

Governments often fail to regulate them effectively, leaving citizens with the sense that their sacrifices are meaningless while major polluters carry on unchecked. The average Canadian citizen currently burns 17 tonnes of C02 to support our lifestyle (which is awful compared to the global average of 4 tonnes). However, the average billionaire uses 90 times the global average every 90 minutes, according to one recent study.

Those numbers are depressing. This imbalance of responsibility creates a psychological burden on us. To talk about climate change is to confront a reality where the problem feels too large for individuals to solve, yet too urgent to ignore. Conversations easily slide into guilt (“I’m not doing enough”), blame (“others are worse than me”), or despair (“nothing we do matters”).

The difficulty lies not only in discussing the science but in managing the emotions of powerlessness and frustration that the systemic imbalance provokes.

The Case of Responsibility for Plastic: Small Communities, Big Hurdles

I have a friend who has created an organization trying desperately to help developing countries rid themselves of the plastic pollution problems that are ruining their rivers, oceans and lakes.

One story he told me was about meeting with executives from large corporations such as Pepsi and Procter & Gamble and telling them, “Did you know that your company brings in millions of pounds of plastic pollution a year to [insert developing country here]?”

The company representatives, time and again, were surprised by the amount of plastic their company brought into these nations - they hadn’t really thought about that before… but then quickly began to talk about community recycling programs, etc. The countries in question are impoverished, without the resources to help citizens with their basic needs, let alone organize and fund recycling programs.

“When,” my friend asked, “Did it become the responsibility of communities to deal with the waste products of a massive corporation with bottom lines that are bigger than the entire GDP of the countries in question?”

Changes at the corporation level are more effective at preventing the problem in the first place, but there are few incentives to take responsibility. The same goes for carbon emissions.

The Imbalance of Power

I have a personal example about the imbalance of power. I have been trying to write to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans frequently about my concerns regarding herring as a keystone species (impacting the entire food system of the Coast, including salmon, heron, ducks, bears, wolves, sea lions, and killer whales, to name a few).

I did get a response from the Minister’s secretary, and will continue to write to her to make sure that this important issue isn’t dropped, as I was unsatisfied with the response!

In comparison, in 2024, representatives from the oil and gas sector had a staggering 1,135 face-to-face meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

My efforts to influence policy, while well-meaning, pale in comparison to that kind of lobbying power. Thankfully, there are changes and updates coming to the rules of lobbying in Canada in 2026, but I am doubtful that this kind of imbalance will be fully mitigated.

The Sinking of the Titanic

I read the story recently of Isodor and Ida Strauss, who died on the Titanic the night it sank. Isodor was the owner of Macy’s and also a Congressman. But in spite of his extreme wealth and privilege, he refused a spot on a life raft “while women and children were still on board.”

This included women and children of the poorer classes. Ida, his wife, is reported to have said, "I will not be separated from my husband. As we have lived, so we will die, together." Ida gave her maid her fur coat and insisted she get into a lifeboat. Isidor and Ida were last seen on deck arm in arm.

I find this story very remarkable, that someone would be so principled, so concerned for others of a different class whom they had never met, they were willing to die for them. While I care about other people on this planet very, very much (especially children), I have found myself wondering if I would die for someone outside my family and community.

In an era when I am reading reports of the ultra-rich such as Mark Zuckerberg, Kim Kardashian and many others building luxury “doomsday bunkers” so they can insulate themselves from the coming climate (and other) disasters, the story of the Strauss’s is perhaps even more remarkable.

Would Zuckerberg give up his seat on the lifeboat if he were on the Titanic? I think not. Rather than using their great wealth and influence to help us find ways out of our predicament, the ultra-rich have extremely lavish lifestyles; they are building lifeboats for themselves, leaving the rest of us to swim with whatever we can find to hang on to.

Why We Must Keep Talking

Despite the structural difficulties we face, silence is not an option, and I do believe there is hope (see the next article). Talking about climate change, even awkwardly, helps shift cultural norms and keeps pressure on leaders and corporations. It reminds us that while individual action may be small, collective voices can shape policy and accountability. The challenge is not to frame our conversations around personal guilt, but around shared responsibility and systemic change.

Climate change is hard to talk about precisely because it is so much bigger than us. Yet finding ways to speak honestly about the imbalance of responsibility, the structural causes, and the need for systemic solutions can turn silence into solidarity. And solidarity, even more than recycling bins or bike lanes, may be the most powerful tool ordinary people have.

Next time, we will discuss… going to the moon…

Kelda Logan is Vice Chair of Transition Salt Spring on Salt Spring Island.In this 5-part series, we explore the reasons we don’t like talking about climate change and offer some practical solutions.