Despite recent warnings from different scientists about the possible domino effects of reaching more than two degrees of global warming, governments don’t act on this threat, just as they always didn’t. Not in France, not in Germany nor elsewhere. A recent article in Mediapart explained why that is and even exculpated politics from non-acting on more ambitious climate targets. Those people we love to blame. I agree.
They also partly exculpated media, as their part in creating the knowledge of the forseeable dangers was fulfilled, even years ago, as shown in the brilliant (and free to read) NYT dossier “Losing Earth“. (I would not completely exculpate the media as with the knowledge of the dangers they need to help promoting behavioural change, but that’s not the point here.)
The Eco-Social Question
Mediapart is right, when they say: to enable politics (and media) to enact change (meaning real change, the due change when looking at what’s at stake) we need majorities. And what ideas do they offer on how to obtaun these majorities? At least one thought:
La révolution énergétique à mener entraînerait un tel bouleversement du cadre économique qu’elle doit être totalement redistributive afin d’être acceptable socialement.
In other words: without raising distribution inequality issues, the sustainability revolution will not gain social acceptance. I was reflecting a bit on what this means for future campaigns on the climate crisis issue:
We have to make clear, that social justice will not be obtained by reaching the resource consumption level the rich had a generation earlier, as within the current economic regime, this will mean that they are now on an even higher level.
We have to make clear, that resource waste will be on the expense of the children of the poor. They are the ones which have neither the rootless lifestyle nor the means to settle anywhere in the world, as long as their air conditioning works well.
We have to raise the new Eco-Social Question
New Answers, Alliances, Majorities!
Then, we need to take a close look at the possible alliances: Who would benefit from the due changes? Can we form alliances with the inhabitants of big cities, once they realise they gain more from sustainable mobility than they lose? Can we build alliances with the poor, if we demand, that for financing the cost of the sustainable energy infrastructure, we need a more just financing system than the poll-tax style consumption price top-up that made the poor pay the profit for the rich who were able to invest in Renewables. And the most difficult part: Can we find alliances with the majority of people who use the plane for holidays by re-improving alternatives like overnight and car trains? And by resetting the incentives from frequent-flyer programmes to a low carbon reward system?
Even though I still don’t have all the answers, for me this article made it crystal-clear that any approach, rewarding the more affluent with a better conscience for having been able to spend more on organic or local food or for offsetting their carbon emissions with an extra fee, will not lead us to the majorities and alliances that will be necessary to enact the due change of our lifestyle.