Hur man räddar världen?
Länge sedan vi skrev här på Nya Världen. Kanske för att vi alla har hiskligt mycket att göra i diverse aktiviteter. För att dela med sig av ngt tänkte jag lägga upp en artikel jag nyligen skrev som avslutningsuppgift här i Holland. Den är på engelska och utgör ett referat över en avslutande konferens vi höll som studenter på ämnet: hur man räddar världen. Håll tillgodo:
————————————————————————————————————————-
RAGNARÖK* AND THE PRICE OF ITALIAN TOMATOES
In Italy, the soup kitchens are witnessing a dramatic increase of hungry guests. The hobos and immigrant regulars are joined by retirees and workers. Poor Italians turn to charity when their meager paychecks don’t even feed their families. The newcomers are referred to as “the new poor” and are the unforeseen victims of a plethora of contemporary crises. For the Italians in the soup kitchen line, the food prices dig deep holes in the wallet. However, crises such as the rising food prices, global warming, and oil shocks are all connected, creating destinies such as in Italy. When Europe’s third largest economy can’t provide even basic levels of wellbeing, then one can be sure that our current way of living is in danger. Recent years food, energy and financial crises tell us an important story: we have to reconsider the way we live our lives.
Students at the University of Utrecht took on the task of exploring the largest problems facing today’s world in terms of resources, energy, water and food. Basing their solutions on how people’s values differ, they presented a wide range of measures and ideas on how to save the world.
This could be a story on how we all need to turn down the heat, drive smaller cars and buy organic food. It is not. Indeed, some would argue that changing the way we consume is the best option for saving the human race from self-destruction. Sadly, most people are seemingly not willing to change their way of life in favor of other’s wellbeing. You could blame ignorance and laziness, but how individuals deal with crises reflects their fundamental perceptions of how the world works.
Ask an economist, a tree-hugger or a colonel on what we need to do about global warming or oil prices, and their answers would certainly differ dramatically. This is a story about how people grasp today’s problem and how it inevitably leads to different understandings on how, what and who should do anything about everything.
Different values, different problems
The Utrecht student symposia based their work on the results of a Dutch survey dividing our society into four different “worldviews”. The survey is the result of answers given by over 10.000 Dutch people. The worldviews in which we can divide our society are; market, solidarity, caring and security, all with distinguishable value systems.
The “market” person loves, as the name implies, markets. There is no problem a free market can’t solve. She believes in innovation and technology as key solutions. Most of the worlds environmental problems are only a matter of “getting the price right” then the market would solve even the worst effects of our actions.
The “solidarity” person thinks the world will come together in finding solutions. Global solidarity will eventually flourish. Concepts such as the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals are central in the quest for global coordination. A solidarity person would point out our fight against ozone gasses and the Kyoto-protocol as successful measures.
The “caring” person thinks global and act local. Every problem is rooted in local events and should be solved as such. The “bottom-up” approach is a strong belief in that people can and are willing to change the self-destructive course we are on. The caring person wants you to shop locally, eat organic and take a personal responsibility.
Finally, the “security” person is preparing for doomsday by using an every-man-for-himself tactic. She expects the increasing scarcity of resources to heighten the risk for conflict. This means that people and nations must secure its supply before taking on other’s problems. According to them, recent events in the Middle East and Caucasus are just evidence proving their thesis.
Naturally, this division creates caricatures of individuals but as a matter of fact, you and I could probably be placed into one of the narratives. However, the most problematic feature of this division is that some interests are irreconcilable. Any proposed problem-description or solution will encounter both resistance and approval from the public.
Our common problems
No matter what value system you belong to, there are some pressing problems. All groups in the Utrecht student symposia touched upon the growth of population, growing affluence and when you combine them, an unsustainable use of energy and resources.
That populations will grow worldwide is inevitable. It is merely the projections on how large it will be that differ. Whether we have to sustain a population of 10 or 15 billion people by 2050 is a question of scenarios. If you believe, as does a security person, that the scramble for resources is on and that you have to get as much as possible as soon as possible, then we’re fast reaching enormous population levels. As the already rich become richer and the poor remain entrenched in their situation, then fertility rates will remain high. China and India are frequently cited in this blame-game. This could be called an Armageddon scenario. For, what happens if China reaches 2.5 billion people, increases its meat consumption to western standards and demand the same material prosperity as Europeans? Well, oil prices at $100/barrel and the current food problem will be remembered as the good times.
The more positive outlook is shared by the other value systems, such as caring and solidarity. As societies become richer, redistribute wealth and develop locally, then fertility rates sink. Take Europe as an example where population is actually experiencing a negative curve; more people die than are born. Only with a constant influx of immigrants is Europe able to sustain a stable population. A security person is fervently opposing these flows, thus the European population decline would continue. Hence, a key difference between the different value systems is what to expect from the future in terms of people inhabiting earth.
Besides population growth uniting people, climate change is included in all scenarios. That the climate will change is not a question, it is its effects that matters.
The caring and solidarity persons share the strong belief that it is imperative that we fight climate change, however, at which level? A caring group at the student symposia took Utrecht city as an example. By increasing public transport, making it green and accessible, the carbon footprint would be reduced. They then hope that this would rub of and spur other municipalities follow. A solidarity group called for global coordination à la Kyoto, hopefully within a UN framework. The upcoming negotiations in Copenhagen next year will show whether the world will answer their call.
Caring and solidarity persons probably sit on important pieces of the puzzle. They just need to be combined with the technology optimism among the market people and the solution would be a multi-level, multi-action plan to combat carbon emissions causing climate change. The black sheep in the debate is the security people. When they’re not openly denying climate change, they wonder if we in the rich world really need to care. One group did, however, note the problems in Europe in case the Mediterranean countries face desertification as global temperature rise.
To connect the Italians in the beginning of this article with the worldviews, we should look closer into the food crisis and its close compadre, the oil crisis.
Is there a food crisis?
The Italian “new poor” aren’t the only ones suffering under increasing food prices. The food crisis affects flood victims in Bangladesh making it impossible to buy rice. Children in Haiti are reported to eat mud cakes as the import of food have stopped due to the high prices. In the US charity organization are having a hard time delivering domestic charity as donations dwindle. Food is apparently a problem, but in what sense and what can we do about it?
On a European level, we are heavily reliant on agricultural imports to sustain our population’s needs and wants. Revisiting self-sufficiency policies dating back to war times is a rational option for a security mindset. A country, or in this case, a region should be able to provide its people with the food it needs to survive. Surely, our climactic preconditions limit European production. For instance, coffee is hard to grow in the EU. Thus, some import is certainly needed, but should be limited.
When talking about food, a solidarity person refers to the top priority in the United Nation’sMillennium Development Goals which states that we should; “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger”. Alleviating hunger is more important than luxury “conspicuous” food consumption. Angry voices blame the rich world’s biofuel policies for the rising food prices, claiming more victims in the developing world than anywhere else. Only in a global forum and with redistribution are we able to feed the world.
The agricultural markets are not free, thus they malfunction. Heavy subsidies and tariffs have plagued and distorted the market mechanisms. A market person acknowledges many of the problems associated with the food prices, such as biofuels and climate change but proposes radically different remedies than the other worldviews.
A tangible proposition is made by a caring person. Eat locally produced and organic food and all the problems are over. It is the practices of today’s food industry which depletes soils, causes climate to change and harms harvests. The local knowledge of people can be harnessed and used so that agriculture can be sustained and provide for its local community.
Clearly, human beings all over the world are starving due to the food crisis. The causes and remedies however, depend on individual perception. A problematic point with the food crisis is its deep connection with high oil prices. As fuel becomes more expensive, so does production and distribution of food. Thus it is in this context imperative to understand the energy problem.
Is there a problem with oil?
Consider Europe, which imports nearly 80% of its oil from outside the bloc. The largest chunk comes from Russia and the Middle East. Some of the Eastern EU members are completely dependent on Russian oil. Adding to this, cars and trucks account for more than 70% of the oil used. Thus, in order for Europeans to roam around, they need oil from politically unstable regions. When diesel prices rose from 30 to 50 euro cent in 2007, French fishermen protested by blocking ports all around the French coastline. In summer 2008 a barrel of oil cost $130 at which point the fishermen added more ports and blocked the English Channel. What would happen if diesel prices goes up to, let’s say, €5/liter? According to a security person, security of supply is surely the biggest problem with oil.
“No, no, no” goes a solidarity person. The problem with oil is forth and foremost related to climate change, induced by humans. Worldwide transport accounts for nearly 25% of the carbon dioxide emissions causing climate change. Then we haven’t even included all other oil related emissions, such as heating and manufacturing. Climate change will hurt the poor parts of the globe disproportionately and cause drought, hunger, and flooding in already vulnerable regions. The fact that the West contributes to the lion’s share of the emissions, makes it a moral obligation to cut down on oil consumption.
“Ridiculous” argues a market person. The major problem with oil is that supply would have to meet demand, and if it doesn’t, prices will skyrocket. People are ingenious and entrepreneurial, meaning that if oil becomes too expensive or would run out, we invent an alternative. In the end technological breakthroughs such as fuel cells, carbon capture sequestration and energy efficiency will enable us to continue living in a society of mass-consumption.
Finally, for the caring person, oil is a normative problem. The immaterialist life is an ideal, creating a cleaner environment, better health and more peaceful surroundings. It is up to the local community to coordinate and create things such as car-free spaces and improve public transport. Caring persons are sometimes a caricature of a tree-hugger.
Again the case of oil shows how worldviews plays a paramount part in determining what types of problems and remedies the world should accept.
How to save the world
Causing mayhem to its own race seems unavoidable for humankind. We make war, we starve each other, and we enslave each other. However, in time of crisis, we seem to have a capability to come together. The mere complexity of the food crisis and the oil price’s causes and effects, makes scientists and policy makers tear their hair. In the end, it all comes down to individual perception of human nature, the natural environment’s resilience and our capacity to interact and adapt. Sustainability is the key (buzz) word for the human race to survive itself.
The Utrecht student symposia presented a whole range of solutions for the world’s largest issues. As they were based on the worldviews, the discussions led to fundamental rejections and approvals among the audience, however, all agreed that any strategy must incorporate the whole society and accommodate the diverging value systems.
An idea transcending almost all worldviews is a strong belief in new technology. Statements such as: “Technology and knowledge is fundamental to overcoming problems of oil scarcity”, “[measures] that both stimulate technologies that reduce CO2 emissions and favour the use of alternative sources of energy will be most helpful in dealing with energy security” and “In order to increase the efficiency of motorized transportation, it is inevitable to focus on a technological approach to counter the problem”, were common place in all strategies. For example; the “caring” group argued for a transition to electrical and hybrid public transportation. The “solidarity” group wanted inter-governmental coordination stimulating research and knowledge transfer. The “market” group noted the decline in research & development (R&D) and urged the facilitation of policies, creating incentives for these activities. Finally, the “security” group focused on hydrogen as a potential salvation in the quest for self-sufficiency. Thus far the interest in technology reconciled the different value systems.
The problem is how to achieve technological innovation. Should companies be forced to invest in clean technology via tariffs and taxes? Should citizens be irritated to leave the car and take the bus via measures making car driving and parking difficult? Lure, force or tempt; it all depends on your value system.
The trick is probably to combine the different levels. Take labeling as an example. Governments create a standardization system, which could be applied worldwide. This would appease the solidarity people in terms of international coordination. The system is used in industry as an incentive to “out-perform” their competition and thus gain market shares. This appeals to a market person. The choice to buy an environmentally friendly and energy efficient product might induce behavioral change, thus appealing to the caring person. And finally, the individual freedom to chose is preserved and you are still able to buy a regionally produced stove, which contains capital and resources within a region, liked by a security person. Whether real change can be brought by eco-labeling is questionable but it makes a good example on how worldviews does not have to be exclusive.
Will we save the world?
To rely on eco-labeling might be risky. It hasn’t proved itself to be a silver bullet up until this point. And maybe is that the major risk we face when dealing with people with different worldviews. The lowest common denominator effect results in lame political compromises, pleasing everyone but not solving the problem. Drastic solutions such as banning carbon emissions or even cars in a city always fall flat in face of economic growth. However, the Utrecht student conference shows how we need to restructure our thinking when dealing with immense problems and crises such as food, oil or climate change. The presentations proved that fanatics are as dangerous in the environmental debate as they are in the Middle East. If we want to solve the world’s problems and increase our capacity to respond to crises such as the food or oil crises, then we need to understand what people are saying, how they look at the problem, and what kind of solutions they propose. If not, feeble compromises are just going to make us wish that we did more, much earlier.
The Utrecht student symposia and the focus on worldviews proved to be an eye-opener for how complex the problems facing the world actually are. It also showed how problems are intrinsically interlinked which could spur new thinking. If only all could start off with the same problem definition, the prospect of saving the world comes much closer. It doesn’t make sense to only focus on the price of tomatoes in Italy. We need to incorporate oil, climate change, financial systems, trading systems, technology and global equity if any viable and sustainable solution is to be found.
*(In Scandinavian mythology Ragnarök refers to a series of major events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Freyr, Heimdall, and the jötunn Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterwards, the world resurfaces anew and fertile, the surviving gods meet, and the world is repopulated by two human survivors., wikipedia)