Abstract
Albert Einstein is reported to have said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Whether or not this quote is genuine, it contains important wisdom. (1) It implies that we cannot solve problems with the very mindset that created them. It also implies that we cannot solve problems within the very structures that are responsible for their creation. Starting from this premise, I question whether it would be possible to reach climate goals within the existing socio-economic and political system. My answer is no. The existing socio-economic and political system is the main source of the current climate crisis and as such it will not be able to generate comprehensive and effective solutions that we urgently need. It is necessary to rethink our socio-economic and political system if we want to tackle the climate crisis in a sustainable and resilient manner.
Conceptual Framework
The problem—let us call it climate crisis— we created has a long history and seems to have started in the late years of the industrial revolution, namely in the 1830s (Abram, Nerilie J., et al. 2016). This is much earlier than had been assumed. During these almost two hundred years, the climate crisis has firmly taken root in our modern civilization. As such, it is not alone a product of the technologies we have been using but also of our lifestyles in the broadest sense. It is about how we organize our societies socio-economically and politically. It is about how we define welfare and well-being. It is about how we produce and consume.
We, therefore, need to approach the climate crisis in its long history and broad societal context. We need to understand that it is a product of a well-established and deeply-rooted system. However, there seems to be a trend of isolating the climate crisis from its broader context and reducing it to a matter of technology. In doing so, we believe we can overcome the crisis by the means of new clean technologies, without having to change much in our current system. A statement made by the former Austrian Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz from the People’s Party (ÖVP) reflects this view quite well. In the context of a discussion regarding the planned construction of the highway S18 in the province of Vorarlberg, he said, “the only right approach is to rely on innovation and technology” and argued that it is possible to combat climate change without having to make any sacrifices (Salzburger Nachrichten 2021). It is the other way around. We will not be able to combat the climate crisis via innovation and technology alone. New technologies are certainly an important part of the solution, but they are not the solution per se.
It is inevitable that we make sacrifices. We need to consume less, more sensibly, and differently. This is not an easy task. It challenges the very foundations of our convenience and consumption-oriented societies. It demands a strong shift in our mindsets, values, and norms. This, in turn, requires a deep structural change at both individual and collective levels, as well as in all socio-economic and political spheres of our societies.
The problem—let us call it climate crisis— we created has a long history and seems to have started in the late years of the industrial revolution, namely in the 1830s (Abram, Nerilie J., et al. 2016). This is much earlier than had been assumed. During these almost two hundred years, the climate crisis has firmly taken root in our modern civilization. As such, it is not alone a product of the technologies we have been using but also of our lifestyles in the broadest sense. It is about how we organize our societies socio-economically and politically. It is about how we define welfare and well-being. It is about how we produce and consume.
We, therefore, need to approach the climate crisis in its long history and broad societal context. We need to understand that it is a product of a well-established and deeply-rooted system. However, there seems to be a trend of isolating the climate crisis from its broader context and reducing it to a matter of technology. In doing so, we believe we can overcome the crisis by the means of new clean technologies, without having to change much in our current system. A statement made by the former Austrian Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz from the People’s Party (ÖVP) reflects this view quite well. In the context of a discussion regarding the planned construction of the highway S18 in the province of Vorarlberg, he said, “the only right approach is to rely on innovation and technology” and argued that it is possible to combat climate change without having to make any sacrifices (Salzburger Nachrichten 2021). It is the other way around. We will not be able to combat the climate crisis via innovation and technology alone. New technologies are certainly an important part of the solution, but they are not the solution per se.
It is inevitable that we make sacrifices. We need to consume less, more sensibly, and differently. This is not an easy task. It challenges the very foundations of our convenience and consumption-oriented societies. It demands a strong shift in our mindsets, values, and norms. This, in turn, requires a deep structural change at both individual and collective levels, as well as in all socio-economic and political spheres of our societies.
Failed Experiment: Biofuels
The biofuel experiment is a good example of attempting to solve a problem within the existing system, without questioning its underlying principles and structures. As a new source of renewable energy, biofuels—such as bioethanol and biodiesel—were celebrated and regarded as an environmental-friendly alternative to fossil fuels. They enjoyed great popularity as a promising candidate in combating the climate crisis. This is, at first glance, not surprising. As the GreenFact (2) initiative points out, most studies found that first generation biofuels release 20 to 60 percent less greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to fossil fuels. In the case of ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil and second-generation biofuels the figure is even higher: 70 to 90 percent. (3) As a result, production of biofuel has been encouraged worldwide through direct or indirect measures such as subsidies and tax incentives. In 2009, the EU created its Renewable Energy Directive (RED) to “remove barriers, stimulate investments, and drive cost reductions in renewable energy technologies” (European Commission) which—among others—has been supporting biofuel production.
However, the reality differed from the expectations. It became apparent that the issue of biofuel production is complex and multi-layered—like all socio-economic and environmental issues. Evidence from practice showed that biofuel production has a number of undesirable side-effects. The GreenFacts initiative (ibid.) points in particular to the following: (1) The land available for the production of biofuel crops is limited. It can expand only at the expense of other types of land, for example land used for food crops or forests. (2) Biofuel crops production requires large amounts of water and cannot be rain-fed in most parts of the world. The need for intensive irrigation affects water availability and quality. (3) Different types of biofuel crops require different growing techniques. Some demand intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers, which has a strong impact on soil and water quality. (4) Biofuel production requires large scale mono-cropping, which has an adverse effect on biodiversity. Furthermore, “[T]he biofuel sector is characterized by a wide range of stakeholders with diverse interests” (ibid.) and usually places commercial interests above the social and environmental ones.
In this regard, the Oxfam briefing paper on bioenergy (2016: 2) delivers interesting facts. It criticizes the EU’s bio-energy policy for having left “a trail of destruction around the planet” and demonstrates how the powerful European biofuel industry captured the EU’s bioenergy policy. It provides various examples of environmental and social destruction, especially in developing countries. Just to mention one of them:
“In Tanzania, Dutch company BioShape Holding BV acquired 34,000 hectares of land in 2008 to grow jatropha in order to supply 'green‟ electricity and biodiesel to the Dutch and Belgian markets. Four communities were deprived of their customary rights to the land. The project has failed, the investors have left, but local communities are still struggling to recover their land and rebuild their livelihoods.” (ibid.)
For all these reasons, environmental-friendly, socially-responsible and sustainable production of biofuel is not an easy task. Our advanced technologies allow us to produce biofuels from plants. However, our socio-economic and political system, as well as our consumerist habits, prevents us from using this technology in a sustainable manner. Here we face a serious dilemma. If we want to produce biofuels in a responsible manner, the output is not large enough to make a substantial change. If we, on the other hand, want to produce larger amounts, disadvantages tend to outweigh the advantages.
Can We Transform?
The key question is whether or not we will manage to break away from the existing structures and make a societal transformation possible. The answer is: Yes, it is possible. Let us remember how individual countries and the international community responded to the immediate economic and social threats posed by COVID-19. Their policy responses, both in monetary and non-monetary terms, were enormous. This leads us to expect that the international community will respond to the climate crisis, whose consequences are far more devastating and long lasting—if not irreversible, with the same determination. It seems this is already happening. The EU’s post-COVID-19 recovery plan for creating a “greener, more digital and more resilient Europe” reserves 30 percent of its funds for fighting the climate crisis. This is the highest share of the European budget ever. Furthermore, the recovery plan will be financed by a long-term budget of more than 2 trillion Euros, making it “the largest stimulus package ever financed in Europe” (European Commission 2020).
It is however important that these measures are accompanied by a profound transformation process that cuts deep into the roots of the existing socio-economic and political structures. We have to act on what we have learned from past lessons, such as the biofuel experiment, and apply this knowledge in other areas, for instance electric mobility. Replacing conventional vehicles with the electric ones will not bring about the sort of change we need. First, we need to conduct comprehensive life cycle analysis (4) to understand “how eco-friendly” electric cars are (BUM 5). Second, we need to analyze how environmentally-friendly the electricity that powers our vehicles is produced. Third and most importantly, we need to understand that electric vehicles make sense only as a part of a holistic solution that allows us “higher mobility [with] fewer cars” (Eurocities). This implies that we individuals alter our mobility consumption habits radically, and rely heavily on alternative modes of mobility such as bikes, electric bikes, public transportation, railways, and so on. It also means governments need to invest heavily in cycling infrastructure, public transportation, and railways, but also create incentives for individuals to use these. This is possible through education and social awareness campaigns, as it was in the case of the anti-smoking movement.
We must address the roots of the problem rather than combatting its symptoms. We must transform our social systems so that they no longer are the source of crisis. If we fail to do so, we will fail to stop the climate crisis, no matter how advanced our technologies and how large our recovery packets are. Let us change ourselves and the system but not the climate!
Endnotes
1. Robinson (2018) points out that “Among the hundreds of quotes […] are misattributed to Einstein are many that are subtly debatable. Some are edited or paraphrased to sharpen or neaten the original.”
2. Facts provided by the GreenFact initiative are based on a scientific consensus report produced in 2008 by the Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO): "The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities"
3. These calculations do not include the carbon releases related to land-use change.
4. “This kind of analysis takes into account the whole vehicle life cycle, including the production of the individual components, the energy the vehicle needs in order to operate, the level of maintenance required and finally, its disposal.” (BMU 5)
Works Cited
Abram, Nerilie J., et al. “Early Onset of Industrial-Era Warming across the Oceans and Continents.” Nature, vol. 536, no. 7617, Aug. 2016, pp. 411–418, 10.1038/nature19082.
Eurocities “Greater Mobility, Fewer Cars - Eurocities.” Eurocities - Home, 20 Oct. 2021, eurocities.eu/stories/greater-mobility-fewer-cars.
European Commission (2020) “Recovery Plan for Europe.” 11 Nov. 2020, ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_en.
European Commission “Renewable Energy Directive.”
energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-directive_en. Accessed 20 May 2022.
GreenFacts “Liquid Biofuels for Transport Prospects, Risks and Opportunities.” www.greenfacts.org/en/biofuels. Accessed 20 May 2022.
Herman, M. O., Mayrhofer, J., & Oxfam. (2016). Burning Land, Burning the Climate. Oxfam Online.
Robinson, Andrew. “Did Einstein Really Say That?” Nature, vol. 557, no. 7703, 30 Apr. 2018, pp. 30–30.
Salzburger Nachrichten. “Kurz Will Klimawandel Ohne Verzicht Bekämpfen: “Kein Weg Zurück in Die Steinzeit.”” 21 July 2021, www.sn.at/panorama/klimawandel/kurz-will-klimawandel-ohne-verzicht-bekaempfen-kein-weg-zurueck-in-die-steinzeit-106918420. Accessed 18 May 2022.
Comments
Post a Comment