"Loss narratives are not desired by anyone" [ ]
How can we get people more involved in combating climate change? Alena Buyx thinks we need to focus on positive visions and ideas of a healthy lifestyle, rather than exclusively targeting specific groups. She cautions against solely focusing on individual actions and consumption, and encourages considering the larger picture, such as climate-friendly production in construction and agriculture. She emphasizes the importance of politics and industries addressing these issues, rather than solely blaming individuals for not doing enough.
ntv.de: What equitable climate or environmental law would exist?
Alena Buyx: Unfortunately, there's no definitive answer. Our position paper "Climate Justice" highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy, recognizing that different measures will affect people differently.
How do we ensure those affected are treated fairly?
While it's essential to consider the impact of climate change measures on various groups, we shouldn't just focus on individual actions. For example, some people have limited choices in transportation, so it's unfair to rely solely on their decisions.
Creating awareness through positive visions and ideas of a good life is crucial. Suggesting everyone should eat less meat and reduce personal consumption sounds like a moral obligation, or a "moral finger," as some may perceive it. However, it's more complex. There's a significant financial component to these changes, which isn't always recognized.
What if individuals want to take responsibility but face hurdles, such as cost?
Political action can help remove these barriers. For instance, promoting climate-friendly industries like construction and agriculture is essential. Some companies already make environmentally-friendly choices. Society as a whole should focus on these solutions rather than dwelling on individual bans and potential losses.
Are politicians the only ones responsible? With their votes, people determine politicians' actions. People often resist acting for future generations.
It's valid to say politicians might not actively advocate for future projects with long-term benefits, but this doesn't mean they're the sole perpetrators. Finland demonstrates progress in improving cardiovascular health, despite previous poor health outcomes. Similarly, individuals affected by climate change may not experience the consequences immediately, but climate issues are becoming more tangible, and people are beginning to notice changes like the impact of the heat on plants.
Should we replace all current politicians?
This issue isn't always about new leaders, but rather about shifting perspectives. In the past, personal health issues were viewed differently, and these shifts could happen.
This debate involves people facing the realistic choice of rebuilding homes in flood-prone areas. But what about the fairness of society supporting the decisions of those who made poor choices?
This is a complex issue. Some people are deeply tied to specific locations and may perceive leaving as unfeasible. Regardless, it's a political question, regarding whether those responsible for these areas should bear the responsibility or if society should support them.
What if people refuse to abandon flood-prone areas?
If individuals choose to rebuild in flood-prone areas despite warnings, that's a personal decision. However, it's critical to differentiate between new and existing constructions. Politicians play a role in this, as they determine which areas allow construction.
Who should bear responsibility for the damages caused by floods?
This question is challenging, as it involves individual people who may have financial constraints, but it's necessary to address. In a community context, supporting flood victims is commendable, but is it fair to take responsibility for individuals' poor choices?
It's difficult to focus on individual people who don't want to leave flood-prone areas.
Absolutely, that's the crux of the issue. It's not just a personal matter. We shouldn't solely focus on the scenario where a family wants to rebuild their home in the same spot and lose it. Instead, we need to take a step back and consider who authorized this, if a risk assessment was conducted, and if we can change the regulatory system. Taking all these factors into account at once is crucial. However, it's going to get more complex: If the federal government intends to create something lasting within four years, it must consider various sectors. Who is advocating for this?
Should we bring up bans?
It depends on the overall approach. In the Ethics Council, we're hesitant about bans, particularly when it comes to consumption bans, as we're placing too much responsibility on individual people.
What about corporations? Is it practical to incorporate a child labor ban in supply chain legislation?
We'll stay silent on this, but it is simpler to justify enforcing certain restrictions on businesses rather than influencing countless individual consumers. This has been the norm for centuries. For instance, you've been operating in a certain manner up to now. Certain elements need to shift. This is nothing new.
Companies often object to the Supply Chain Act and similar regulations: It'll stifle the German and European economy. We'll lose our industry, jobs, and our standard of living. Then people also object: As long as nobody else participates, I won't either.
This is the notion of free riding, and there are several responses we address in our statement: We have a certain historical responsibility, considering dirty and CO2-intensive technologies like the combustion engine were developed in Germany. Secondly, it's preposterous to claim that Germany is only responsible for 2% of global emissions yet no one mentions the outsourcing of production. That's absurd. Thirdly, you can wait for others to join in, but frankly, you can forget that. Even with major multilateral achievements like the Declaration of Human Rights, the World Health Organization, NATO, and other alliances, no one has ever waited until the last one says, "What a fantastic idea!" You need leaders who champion these changes and narrate them positively. If everything is framed as a loss story, it's no surprise that no one is interested.
How about the city utilities of Trier, projected to be at 100% renewable energy by 2026, and where people are happier with the energy transition than in other parts of the country?
Stories like these need to be shared by the public, or consider examples like Paris, which transformed from a car-infested metropolis into a beautiful and livable city. You won't recognize the area when you visit now. You can feel the change.
Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann spoke with Alena Buyx. The conversation was abridged and simplified for ease of understanding. The complete conversation can be found in the podcast "Klima-Labor".
Read also:
Despite focusing on positive visions, it's crucial to address the ethical implications of climate-friendly production in consumer society. The Ethics Committee should examine the impact of climate-friendly policies on supply chains, ensuring no exploitative practices like child labor are introduced.
The Heating Law needs to consider the affordability of climate-friendly alternatives for all consumers, avoiding an unfair burden on lower-income households. This could involve subsidies or incentives to encourage the transition to sustainable energy sources.
Politicians and industries must work together to promote awareness and education about climate change and its consequences. This could include collaborating with schools and communities to develop programs that teach the importance of climate protection and how individual actions can contribute to a healthier planet.
