For a cup of coffee more

While I ponder one of my great loves, intersection cohomology, and a cat meows in protest because I can only really think while pacing around, which prevents cuddling (apologies also to the neighbors living below me), I want to discuss, for a second, the issue of sustainability.

There are immediate things we can and have to do to preserve the planet, such as more sensible and sustainable encounters with our waste, our energy, or transport, with respect to what we eat and what and how much we buy. Most of what we buy and produce is not actually needed, and that includes the hyperloop (which is an interesting engineering project at best).

But these notions are obvious (well, they should be). Then why is it still getting pushback, why are changes slow?

1. Because constant is not constant

There is an idea that I cannot quite attribute to any specific person (it might be one of Žižek’s ramblings) that there is an extraordinary amount of violence needed to keep society going as it is. I read this in less sensational terms: there is an extraordinary amount of force needed to keep us going.

It is quite simple: We can consume less, it leads to less production, which means that people in production jobs have less means to maintain their life. If we decrease consumption (without any additional steps) people with the least will feel the effect the first (which we saw during the pandemic). Hence, it becomes easy to convince anyone with few freedoms to begin with to oppose measures against it.

So I would argue that any measure that is lasting and environmental has to be socialist; it has to come with an increase of taxes on the top earners, with an expansion of public services and with an increase in paid holidays. Which, ironically, you would think comes with more travel. But the increase in public transport would more than offset the issues. In addition, creating more vacation opportunities in the local vicinity, as opposed to subsidized airtravel, will additionally decrease our impact.

And herein lies the issue. There are entire regions, industries and countries that, currently, are financed out of consumption of luxury goods (meaning that which is not necessary). Hence any measure against climate change and environmental impact has to provide alternatives, in order not to increase inequality. In other words, again, inequality and environment are inextricably linked.

2. Because we do not actually want constant

My second thesis is that it is always more sexy to create, rather than to maintain. And in such aspects, it is always easier to, politicially, advocate for creation rather than for sustainability. And in the case policies argue for sustainability, they still often do this via the creation of fancy inventions of dubitable value, from hyperloop and electric cars to carbon catching plants. It is easier to argue for the invention of technologies that fight climate change, rather than measures to maintain parts of our environment. And we maintain a collective anxiety for not producing enough each day that actually hinders creativity.

This is is maintained by social media and advertisements, which drive us to consume more by comparing us to luckier few. But it has also more delicate aspects.

An example. I am, for instance, happy to see programs that teach young kids how cool it is to go into science. It is something amazing to see eyes light up because they understand something. And I personally love dissemination of science programs.

But I am also somewhat dismayed at the subtext of such programs. The reason that we fund these programs, the reason that we tell kids these jobs are better than others is that they are motors of growth. Implicitly showing them that as society, we value the jobs that maintain and sustain less (which creates issues when there is, for instance, less staff available to care for the sick and elderly, and the staff that is available is overworked and underpaid).

Hence, again, I argue that to work towards sustainability has to come with the additional measure of evening out and rethinking our approach to what we value and promote in society.

3. The effect of crisis

I think the pandemic and the war following it, together with China’s inability to end their Covid crisis, has several good effects towards our future. We have learned to live more digitally (and I think online conferences and virtual vacations are a way of the future) and we are forced to adapt to a reality where we cannot rely on countries delivering fossil fuels any longer. But you know, would have been nice to go without a crisis.