Foods for thoughts

Can we save ourselves?

People often find it difficult to imagine situations that are far removed from their own reality, ­whether in terms of space or time: for example, what it means for the people on a Pacific island that their home is slowly disappearing due to rising sea levels. Or what the consequences of climate change will be for us in 10 years’ time. Although we see pictures of the threatened islands and know that our glaciers are melting, far too little is being done to stop the climate catastrophe.

How can the things we see and know move us to action?

Will the comfort we live in today be our downfall ­tomorrow?

We feel safe in our ‘comfort zones’ (warm showers, having coffee with friends, being in our homes): they feel familiar and harbour no surprises. Some of our comfort zones are being invaded by climate change (water shortages, bad coffee harvests, flooding at home). This challenges us to break out of our comfort zones, to become active, dare new things and do something about climate change.

What are ways of reconciling comfort and a healthy environment?

Whose voice is heard?

In principle, all citizens have the right to participate in the democratic process (elections, voting). However, children and future generations, animals, plants, rivers, ecosystems and others do not have this opportunity. In some cases, they also lack other rights that are already granted to them in other countries. In Ecuador, for example, nature has been enshrined in the constitution as a legal entity since 2008 and can sue for its protection.

What rights do those without a voice have in our country, and how can and should we take their interests into account?

Climate crisis & democracy (1): Challenges for our society

In crises, democracies often seem slow and inflexible and expert opinions are often ignored. Should we therefore rely on expert governments (technocracies) to implement necessary, albeit unpopular, measures in crises such as the climate crisis? But how are such experts selected? And how do they weigh up different values and perspectives – an essential feature of democracy?

Climate crisis & democracy (2): Challenges for our society

What are the limits of a self-determined democracy? Should every opinion, no matter how far removed from science, be given equal consideration during a crisis? How can society and democracy be held together in a world in which fake news, information manipulation for the sake of power, disillusionment with governance and climate change fatigue promote currents that reject expert opinions and exacerbate our climate threats?

Climate crisis & democracy (3): Challenges for our society

Are climate decisions undemocratic if large companies and powerful people influence decisions in their favour through strong lobbying?

Are climate protection ­measures an imposition or an opportunity?

‘The climate crisis is a huge challenge that we want to overcome on the one hand, but in the face of which we are quite helpless on the other.

But are we really overwhelmed by climate protection? Or are we being led to believe this because too little is happening in politics? Shouldn’t politicians communicate better that current measures against climate change, which are perceived as an imposition, are an opportunity to prevent a catastrophic development in the near future?’

– Simon Teune in Spiegel Online

Can climate protection ­measures (always) be fair?

Fairness is an important aspect in the acceptance of climate protection measures, as different groups can feel differently burdened. Accordingly, they may tend to give reasons why it makes no sense for them, of all people, to contribute at all or more than others. These objections have their justification and must be taken into account when discussing and developing measures.

However, if we understand the measures as investments in a future worth living rather than as a burden, as a step forward and not backward, then could we better accept that even with the greatest efforts, not all measures can always be completely fair? But that by adapting our lifestyle today, our children will have a future worth living – and won’t be confronted with the truly unfair situation of having to pay the price for our failings?

How do we create climate justice?

The countries that are most affected by climate change are often those that contribute the least to its causes. Often they are poorer countries which lack the money for measures to protect against climate change.

How can this injustice be corrected? Who should take responsibility? Those who cause the emissions, those who benefit from the emissions, or those who are best placed to do something about it because they have the money, technology and opportunity? How do we determine who must contribute and how much?

How do we reconcile our values, wants and desires?

Many people harbour values that are important for sustainable development: enjoying nature and caring for others – family, friends and neighbours. However, certain values sometimes come into conflict: should I fly to visit my family or decline to do so for sustainability reasons? It is often a challenge to reconcile our wants, desires and commitments and live up to all our values at the same time.

How can we manage this balancing act regardless?

We are inspired by people who manage to remain true to their convictions and act responsibly and fairly (‘with integrity’). They show us how to deal with such inner contradictions and find ways to reconcile different values.

Who could be such a role model for you? And: Are you perhaps a role model for others yourself?

How much is nature worth to us?

Nature does not exist outside and around us: we are part of it. We cannot exist without it. Intact ecosystems provide not only the resources we need to live, but are also part of many people’s identity – think of indigenous peoples’ connection to the land, or the ­glaciers, lakes and green hills that are a part of Swiss identity. We therefore cannot and should not measure the value of nature in monetary terms. Never­theless, preserving and restoring nature costs money.

How much are we prepared to pay for this? How much is nature worth to us? Do we recognise the existential value it has for us?

Surviving on a ‘new’ planet

We are familiar with the climate movement posters that say: ‘There is no planet B’. But, in fact, we are already living on a planet B, because planet Earth has already been profoundly changed by our actions.

Imagine you have just landed on a new planet. What do you do? First, you check what resources are available that will allow you to survive (air, water, food, protection from wind, heat and cold, etc.). You make sure that you don’t use them all up in one day, but that these resources last as long as possible, stay clean and, if possible, grow more abundant.

Does that sound familiar? Exactly! Because that’s what we must do here on Earth so that we don’t run through all the letters of the alphabet from ‘Planet A’ to ‘Planet Z’!

Why do we find it so difficult to treat Earth like a precious planet, even though we know that there is no substitute?

The freedom to go or to stay

Our understanding of freedom is that we can go wherever we want, whenever we want. However, people in regions threatened by the climate crisis often have a very different perspective on freedom: for them, freedom means, above all, being able to stay in their home country (a summary based on the ideas of Eva von Redecker).

How does our ‘going’, which is usually very resource-­intensive, affect their chances of ‘staying’?

Our freedom to do the right thing

There are two ways of understanding freedom. Freedom can be defined as the absence of restrictions: for example, I can freely express my opinion, practise my religion and consume whatever and as much as I want – regardless whether it is good for me (healthy food, sport) or bad (fast food, television). This ‘negative freedom’ is based on having no external constraints.

On the other hand, there is ‘positive freedom’ – the freedom to set your own rules and boundaries. It means that we consciously bind ourselves to values or principles that seem morally right to us, even if they restrict us at first glance.

This raises the following question: Is a consumption-oriented life really the freer one if it also leads to parts of our planet becoming uninhabitable? Or do we choose the freedom to live in such a way that a healthy planet and a future worth living remain possible for us and our children?

What should we be ­researching?

We live in a world with many uncertainties. The term VUCA describes the situation very well: VUCA is an acronym that stands for the terms

Volatility
Uncertainty
Complexity
Ambiguity.

Colleges and universities have the task of creating and imparting knowledge. Accordingly, they conduct research in many fields in order to improve our lives and be better prepared for the unexpected. In view of the numerous existential threats we are confronted with, the question of research priorities is very important.

What do you think are important research questions?

Who gets what resources, when and how much?

With the escalating climate crisis, resources such as land, liveable habitats, water and food are becoming increasingly scarce. Energy shortages are already a reality, too. Who is entitled to these limited re­sources? Who makes these decisions – and ­according to what criteria? Which industries need to be protected? Or do people have priority? If so, which people and where do they live?

Green colonialism

Green colonialism means that certain regions lead a better life at the expense of others. Take the mining of raw materials for car batteries as an example from the energy transition. These are usually mined for countries in the global North (e.g., Switzerland, Europe) in the global South (e.g., South America)
and in unhealthy and environmentally harmful conditions. For instance, their extraction causes high water consumption and water pollution which lead to water shortages for humans, animals and agriculture. Among other things, these activities can destroy the livelihoods of indigenous people.

Are we aware of such production conditions when we buy our new car? How can we ensure that we have correct information that has not been ‘green­washed’ by companies? How can we ascertain whether the good conditions we have also apply in the countries that manufacture the products we want? How does this knowledge influence our decision to own a car (nor not)?

Are we obliged to protect our climate?

No one can force us to act in a climate-friendly way.

Does your sense of responsibility to protect the cli­mate change when you think about it from the perspective of a child or adult, parent, citizen, voter, consumer, CEO, politician, banker, etc. or simply an inhabitant of this planet?

What are unavoidable ­emissions?

Switzerland wants to achieve net zero by 2050 – meaning reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Switzerland as much as possible and offsetting the remaining emissions. Even with all technologically and economically feasible measures (e.g., low-emission processes and renewable energy sources), an estimated 12 million tonnes of CO₂e per year will likely remain ‘unavoidable’.

But who decides what is truly unavoidable – and can we offset these remaining emissions by removing CO₂ from the atmosphere?

Climate protest & climate crisis

Most people want more climate protection. Nevertheless, many react angrily to more radical climate activists. Why? Of course, they block roads, glue themselves to things and deface artworks. But is there more to it than that?

Are they perhaps disrupting our desire, our illusion that everything can stay as it is? Are the activists visualising this conflict – the conflict between the awareness of urgency and our inaction? Is the ­protesters’ criticism therefore not rather a symbol of how we as a society deal with the climate crisis as a whole: that the media and politics treat climate protest as the problem, and not the climate crisis?

– Simon Teune in Spiegel Online (modif.)

What would be the alternatives? How would you draw attention to the impending climate catastrophe in a ‘society-friendly’ but media-effective and impactful way?