Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Why climate change action requires "degrowth" to make our planet sustainable

News Feed
Friday, May 3, 2024

Climate change truly is a major existential threat, one we're clearly not addressing fast enough. But as individuals, there's little we can do to stop it on a grand scale — it will require global cooperation to overcome. Nonetheless, the accompanying feelings of helplessness when faced with such a daunting crisis can make many feel paralyzed with despair. So what can be done? "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto," a new book from University of Tokyo philosophy professor Kohei Saito, offers more than a diagnosis of the systemic problems that brought us to this moment; it lays out, in clear and well-researched language, how those problems can be thoroughly addressed. In 2020, when "Slow Down" was originally published in Japan, it went by the far more fitting title "Capital in the Anthropocene" — with "Anthropocene" being the proposed geological era that began when human activity started radically altering natural conditions on the planet. "My idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production." Saito's argument, as translated by Brian Bergstrom, is that climate change exists because humans as a species prioritize economic growth instead of economic sustainability. Capitalism itself, Saito asserts, is unsustainable. Even though well-meaning liberal politicians like to push for Green New Deals in the hope of continuing non-stop economic growth without the consequent ecological harm, Saito argues capitalist societies need to perpetually consume resources to remain prosperous. As a result, capitalism itself inevitably brings about planet-wide problems like climate change, habitat destruction, plastic pollution and other environmental issues. The only solution is for humanity as a whole to slow down our obsession with work, productivity and materialism. Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us. Saito doesn't take credit for these observations. Philosopher Karl Marx developed a philosophy in the 1860s that Saito describes as "eco-Marxist" (particularly in Saito's previous work, "Karl Marx's Eco-Socialism"). While the German philosopher's early works like "The Communist Manifesto" urged the working class to insist on receiving its fair share of the benefits of industrialism, Marx's later writings praised Indigenous peoples in the Americas, India and Algeria for living in communes that stressed sustainable environmental practices. As such, "Slow Down" is that rare hybrid among ideological manifestos: It opens new insights into an existing ideology while uplifting something distinct of its own. Salon spoke with Saito about "Slow Down" and the relationship climate change has to economics. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. For those who are totally unfamiliar with the works of Karl Marx, can you please explain how one must distinguish between his early works and the later works that you describe as "eco-Marxism"?  Marxism is known for socialism, and socialism is often described as the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism has a tendency to increase technologies and promote innovations because of market competition. But Marx thought that once the workers take over power and kick out the capitalists, they can utilize the development of productive forces for the sake of themselves — more wealth, more well-being. But there is one problem: Sustainability. Because as Marx started to study natural sciences later in the 1850s and 1860s, he came to realize the development of technologies in capitalism actually don't create a condition for emancipation of the working class. Because not only do those technologies control the workers more efficiently, they destabilize the old system of jobs and make more precarious, low skilled jobs. At the same time those technologies exploit from nature more efficiently and create various problems such as exhaustion of the soil, massive deforestation, and the exhaustion of the fuels, and so on. Marx came to realize that this kind of technology undermines material conditions for sustainable development of human beings. And the central concept for Mark at that time in the sixties is metabolism. He thinks that this metabolic interaction between humans and nature is quite essential for any kind of society, but the problem of capitalism is it really transforms and organizes this entire metabolism between humans and nature for the sake of profit-making. Technologies are also used for this purpose. So technologies are not for the purpose of creating better life, free time and sustainable production, but rather it exploits workers and nature at the same time for the sake of more growth, more profit, and so on. My point is basically Marx was quite optimistic when he was young in terms of the development of technologies, but later he came to realize actually technologies have more damaging impact on both humans and nature. So he became more critical of that possibility of solving those problems of poverty and ecological problems using technology. That's how the issue of degrowth and eco-socialist ideas came to be central for his ideas. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, 'You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important.' But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this." There's another distortion in Marxist thought, what you described as "the monster known as Stalinism." What ideological corrections do you offer to the Marxist model to avoid a repetition of history?  So I advocate for a kind of eco-socialism, that kind of socialism that is more sustainable, that is not based on exploitation of nature. Because in the 20th century, Stalinism and other kinds of socialist experiments was a disaster. It was un-democratic. It was a dictatorship of the Communist Party, but at the same time it was also destruction of the environment. I think their ideas were rather based on the development of progress through technology, and productive force is the condition for the working class emancipation. And the most efficient way of developing these technologies and productive forces is the monopoly of the means of production by the bureaucrats and the party. It just created a kind of the central planning, which is very top-down and authoritarian and anti-democracy. At the same time, they didn't care about the environment, so it basically destroyed nature. In Marx's later works, he quite intensively studied natural sciences. He also studied at the same time other societies, non-Western societies, that were more sustainable. He came to realize that these societies were not driven toward endless growth. They were communally managing land. They were also democratically redistributing wealth. So he came to realize that more of a kind of bottom-up management of the commonwealth is good for people and creates a more equal society. It's also good for the environment. It was more sustainable because that's why those [Indigenous] societies lasted for many, many years. In America, they lasted many, many years before those people coming to conquer the land. Marx came to recognize that not necessarily Western societies are more progressive in creating a better society for the workers, but rather Western society also need to learn from non-Western societies. This is another very radical transformation for Marx in his late years. But then he came to realize not a top-down Soviet style dictatorship is necessary for the sake of establishing socialism, but rather more democratic, horizontal management of commonwealth lands, water, forests and other resources. That is quite essential for creating a better society. And he actually uses the term association — not socialism or communism. He often describes the future society with "association." And so my idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production. This is why I still use the term "communism," because the society based on capital is capitalism and a society based on the commonwealth, the democratic management of commonwealth is actually to be called "communism." Could you elaborate on how the degrowth philosophy that you say has been implemented in locations like Quito, Ecuador or Barcelona, Spain, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. My book, originally in Japanese, was published like three years ago, so it was published in the middle of pandemic. Japan is also a captive society and it's a very conservative society. I didn't expect that this call for going back to Marx and reviving the tradition of communism combined with new idea of degrowth would attract so much attention and interest from people. But it was, I think, because of the pandemic, that we came to recognize how destructive our economic activities were. It was obviously deforestation and that kind of thing. Ugly business was a main cause of the pandemic. Now at the same time, the climate crisis was deepening. So it was a moment we saw how our daily life was quite clearly destructive, but at the same time, we had to stop the economy for the sake of protecting our lives. Shutting down departments, shopping malls and restaurants and so on. We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, "You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important." But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this. We came to realize that these things are actually possible. And once we started working from home, once we stopped taking trains and going to hang out with people, buying new clothes all the time and so on, we came to realize, 'Why did we consume so much? Why did we work so hard?' The pandemic created some kind of space for reflection upon our previous life, the massive consumption, massive production, and massive waste. This is really the moment when the degrowth idea appeared more attractive, because people could spend more time with family, friends — not necessarily friends because of the pandemic, but maybe with friends — they could read more books and newspapers, and they enjoyed different ways of life that are not necessarily consumptionist.  "The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south." At the same time, a new crisis is coming — the climate crisis — and it will accelerate inflation. It will create a bigger economic inequality. And various natural disasters will also create a food shortage, which might lead to various kinds of conflicts. Geopolitical tension will increase, and so on. My claim in my book is basically this crisis cannot be simply overcome by investing in new green technologies. It is like early Marx: We overcome the crisis of capitalism by technologies, the state should intervene, the Green New Deal must be new investments, blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that works. My idea is basically we need to learn from the experience of the pandemic — that capitalist society is driven for the sake of creating more profit, not necessarily able to provide what is necessary. Because what is necessary, like medicine and education and hospital masks and so on — are not necessarily profitable. Capitalism doesn't produce what is necessary unless it is profitable. This gap creates disparities for us to tackle. My idea is basically degrowth is focusing on what is necessary rather than what is profitable. We should share more with the commonwealth like public transportation, the education system, the medical care system. These necessary things, essential goods, must be shared more equally instead of some rich people monopolizing all the wealth of the planet.  Can you explain the "Netherlands Fallacy" — namely, the idea that the Netherlands proves that socialism can be ecologically sustainable and prosperous. Can you elaborate on why that is indeed a fallacy?  I don't know why it's really the Netherlands. It can be the U.S. Fallacy or whatever, but it's traditionally called the Netherlands Fallacy. The Netherlands had some environmental pollution and basically they overcame this issue with new technologies. Everything seems fine, but the problem is this fallacy. The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south. One contemporary example is electronic vehicles, EVs, which are today very important; Tesla making massive profits, and so on. For the sake of a decarbonized society, I totally agree that we need more electronic vehicles and we need to produce them more, and that gasoline should be abandoned as fast as possible. I totally agree. But the problem is, are electric vehicles totally sustainable?  "This is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd." The answer is obviously no. It is not just that usage of electric vehicles still consumes electricity, which might be produced by using fossil fuels, but the problem is — instead of fossil fuels — we also need a lot of rare metals: Lithium, copper, cobalt. And those rare metals are often located in the global south: Latin America, China, Russia, Africa and so on. And in these places now, the extraction of metals are creating very poor working conditions for even children. Child labor is obviously a problem in Congo, where a lot is massively extracted, but also the problem of environmental pollution, massive deforestation and the lithium use uses a lot of water. Chile is now suffering by wildfires, but they are also suffering from drought. And then mining lithium consumes a lot of water when people actually need water for their lives, and also for producing food, and so on.  People like us and affluent people in the global north can continue a very comfortable life by buying new electric vehicles like Tesla instead of Toyota. And they think that, "Okay, we did something good for the environment. I feel my responsibility for the next generations and so on." They are actually falling into this fallacy of believing their sustainability. No, they're not. Their behavior is not sustainable because the real problem is only hidden: massive extraction of the lithium in the global south. It's still causing quite a damaging impact upon people and the environment. So the metabolism between humans and nature, it's still distorted and disrupted in a quite serious manner. And my idea of degrowth is not a negation of technology. We need electric vehicles. I repeat again because this is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd, but at the same time, I clearly want to say that there are too many cars. We need to shift to a society where we share electric vehicles with neighbors. So sharing cars. And we also need to invest in more green technologies like public transportation and also bicycles. And the bicycles of today are kind of dangerous because all the roads are created for the sake of cars. So the city urban planning is centering around all industries, and that needs to be challenged, that needs to change. And these are idea that degrowth will create a more eco-friendly, pedestrian friendly kind of society. The new kind of fair mobility is a central idea of degrowth. But this is just one example we need. My basic point is that often technologies simply hide the true environmental impacts, and we needed technological development, but at the same time, we need to reduce our excessive consumption. Otherwise we will fall into the Netherlands Fallacy.  I'm reading a book by billionaire philanthropist, Tom Steyer, who argues for more traditional approaches to addressing climate change: Funding green technologies, pushing voter registration drives, supporting a Green New Deal platform. Do you think there is anything fundamentally flawed about approaches for dealing with climate change when they come from billionaires or from others in the elite classes?  Yes. I don't actually deny some kind of Green New Deal, but not a Green New Deal for people like the American people. Because my idea of sustainability is more comprehensive. It includes the people in the global south. So greening or decarbonization in the U.S. can be achieved at the cost of people in the global south, and that doesn't make sense, right? And the same thing can be said within the U.S. The green transformation for the sake of billionaires could be achieved at the cost of many people in the global south. Minority indigenous people could be sacrificed for the sake of sustaining today's capitalism. What do I mean by this? Growth is always good for billionaires. They say, "Okay, we'll invest more in something good — green technologies — and it will grow the economy. And then all the poor people working class people will also benefit from growth." Growth actually hides the necessity of redistribution. When we talk about redistribution and compensation or reparation, billionaires needs to give up some of what they have gained. Not just wealth, but also private jets, massive houses and cruise ships and those luxury items, too. But when we invest in green technologies, flying jets can be sustainable, blah, blah, blah. And they also don't have to redistribute their own wealth because the entire pie of the economy will be bigger, so that the working class can also gain higher salaries and so on. My idea of degrowth is much more challenging because the degrowth doesn't seek after continuous growth of the economic pie.  When the pie doesn't grow, we need to share more. So it really clearly demands the massively distribution of the wealth from the rich people to the poor people. But also we should give up what is actually unnecessary. I claim that, but the most obvious example is private jets. Private jets are unnecessary because people can still fly with business class or whatsoever. So my point is, rich people should give up their wealth, rich people should give up private jets and so on, other unnecessary things. And when people now talk about the Green New Deal, they hide the necessity of such a radical transformation of our lifestyle for the sake of everyone. Read more about climate change

Salon spoke with Japanese philosophy professor Kohei Saito about his new book, "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto"

Climate change truly is a major existential threat, one we're clearly not addressing fast enough. But as individuals, there's little we can do to stop it on a grand scale — it will require global cooperation to overcome. Nonetheless, the accompanying feelings of helplessness when faced with such a daunting crisis can make many feel paralyzed with despair. So what can be done?

"Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto," a new book from University of Tokyo philosophy professor Kohei Saito, offers more than a diagnosis of the systemic problems that brought us to this moment; it lays out, in clear and well-researched language, how those problems can be thoroughly addressed. In 2020, when "Slow Down" was originally published in Japan, it went by the far more fitting title "Capital in the Anthropocene" — with "Anthropocene" being the proposed geological era that began when human activity started radically altering natural conditions on the planet.

"My idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production."

Saito's argument, as translated by Brian Bergstrom, is that climate change exists because humans as a species prioritize economic growth instead of economic sustainability. Capitalism itself, Saito asserts, is unsustainable. Even though well-meaning liberal politicians like to push for Green New Deals in the hope of continuing non-stop economic growth without the consequent ecological harm, Saito argues capitalist societies need to perpetually consume resources to remain prosperous.

As a result, capitalism itself inevitably brings about planet-wide problems like climate change, habitat destruction, plastic pollution and other environmental issues. The only solution is for humanity as a whole to slow down our obsession with work, productivity and materialism. Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us.

Saito doesn't take credit for these observations. Philosopher Karl Marx developed a philosophy in the 1860s that Saito describes as "eco-Marxist" (particularly in Saito's previous work, "Karl Marx's Eco-Socialism"). While the German philosopher's early works like "The Communist Manifesto" urged the working class to insist on receiving its fair share of the benefits of industrialism, Marx's later writings praised Indigenous peoples in the Americas, India and Algeria for living in communes that stressed sustainable environmental practices.

As such, "Slow Down" is that rare hybrid among ideological manifestos: It opens new insights into an existing ideology while uplifting something distinct of its own. Salon spoke with Saito about "Slow Down" and the relationship climate change has to economics.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

For those who are totally unfamiliar with the works of Karl Marx, can you please explain how one must distinguish between his early works and the later works that you describe as "eco-Marxism"? 

Marxism is known for socialism, and socialism is often described as the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism has a tendency to increase technologies and promote innovations because of market competition. But Marx thought that once the workers take over power and kick out the capitalists, they can utilize the development of productive forces for the sake of themselves — more wealth, more well-being.

But there is one problem: Sustainability. Because as Marx started to study natural sciences later in the 1850s and 1860s, he came to realize the development of technologies in capitalism actually don't create a condition for emancipation of the working class. Because not only do those technologies control the workers more efficiently, they destabilize the old system of jobs and make more precarious, low skilled jobs. At the same time those technologies exploit from nature more efficiently and create various problems such as exhaustion of the soil, massive deforestation, and the exhaustion of the fuels, and so on.

Marx came to realize that this kind of technology undermines material conditions for sustainable development of human beings. And the central concept for Mark at that time in the sixties is metabolism. He thinks that this metabolic interaction between humans and nature is quite essential for any kind of society, but the problem of capitalism is it really transforms and organizes this entire metabolism between humans and nature for the sake of profit-making. Technologies are also used for this purpose. So technologies are not for the purpose of creating better life, free time and sustainable production, but rather it exploits workers and nature at the same time for the sake of more growth, more profit, and so on.

My point is basically Marx was quite optimistic when he was young in terms of the development of technologies, but later he came to realize actually technologies have more damaging impact on both humans and nature. So he became more critical of that possibility of solving those problems of poverty and ecological problems using technology. That's how the issue of degrowth and eco-socialist ideas came to be central for his ideas.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


"We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, 'You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important.' But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this."

There's another distortion in Marxist thought, what you described as "the monster known as Stalinism." What ideological corrections do you offer to the Marxist model to avoid a repetition of history? 

So I advocate for a kind of eco-socialism, that kind of socialism that is more sustainable, that is not based on exploitation of nature. Because in the 20th century, Stalinism and other kinds of socialist experiments was a disaster. It was un-democratic. It was a dictatorship of the Communist Party, but at the same time it was also destruction of the environment.

I think their ideas were rather based on the development of progress through technology, and productive force is the condition for the working class emancipation. And the most efficient way of developing these technologies and productive forces is the monopoly of the means of production by the bureaucrats and the party. It just created a kind of the central planning, which is very top-down and authoritarian and anti-democracy. At the same time, they didn't care about the environment, so it basically destroyed nature.

In Marx's later works, he quite intensively studied natural sciences. He also studied at the same time other societies, non-Western societies, that were more sustainable. He came to realize that these societies were not driven toward endless growth. They were communally managing land. They were also democratically redistributing wealth. So he came to realize that more of a kind of bottom-up management of the commonwealth is good for people and creates a more equal society. It's also good for the environment. It was more sustainable because that's why those [Indigenous] societies lasted for many, many years. In America, they lasted many, many years before those people coming to conquer the land.

Marx came to recognize that not necessarily Western societies are more progressive in creating a better society for the workers, but rather Western society also need to learn from non-Western societies. This is another very radical transformation for Marx in his late years. But then he came to realize not a top-down Soviet style dictatorship is necessary for the sake of establishing socialism, but rather more democratic, horizontal management of commonwealth lands, water, forests and other resources. That is quite essential for creating a better society.

And he actually uses the term association — not socialism or communism. He often describes the future society with "association." And so my idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production. This is why I still use the term "communism," because the society based on capital is capitalism and a society based on the commonwealth, the democratic management of commonwealth is actually to be called "communism."

Could you elaborate on how the degrowth philosophy that you say has been implemented in locations like Quito, Ecuador or Barcelona, Spain, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic.

My book, originally in Japanese, was published like three years ago, so it was published in the middle of pandemic. Japan is also a captive society and it's a very conservative society. I didn't expect that this call for going back to Marx and reviving the tradition of communism combined with new idea of degrowth would attract so much attention and interest from people.

But it was, I think, because of the pandemic, that we came to recognize how destructive our economic activities were. It was obviously deforestation and that kind of thing. Ugly business was a main cause of the pandemic. Now at the same time, the climate crisis was deepening. So it was a moment we saw how our daily life was quite clearly destructive, but at the same time, we had to stop the economy for the sake of protecting our lives. Shutting down departments, shopping malls and restaurants and so on.

We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, "You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important." But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this. We came to realize that these things are actually possible. And once we started working from home, once we stopped taking trains and going to hang out with people, buying new clothes all the time and so on, we came to realize, 'Why did we consume so much? Why did we work so hard?'

The pandemic created some kind of space for reflection upon our previous life, the massive consumption, massive production, and massive waste. This is really the moment when the degrowth idea appeared more attractive, because people could spend more time with family, friends — not necessarily friends because of the pandemic, but maybe with friends — they could read more books and newspapers, and they enjoyed different ways of life that are not necessarily consumptionist. 

"The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south."

At the same time, a new crisis is coming — the climate crisis — and it will accelerate inflation. It will create a bigger economic inequality. And various natural disasters will also create a food shortage, which might lead to various kinds of conflicts. Geopolitical tension will increase, and so on. My claim in my book is basically this crisis cannot be simply overcome by investing in new green technologies. It is like early Marx: We overcome the crisis of capitalism by technologies, the state should intervene, the Green New Deal must be new investments, blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that works.

My idea is basically we need to learn from the experience of the pandemic — that capitalist society is driven for the sake of creating more profit, not necessarily able to provide what is necessary. Because what is necessary, like medicine and education and hospital masks and so on — are not necessarily profitable. Capitalism doesn't produce what is necessary unless it is profitable.

This gap creates disparities for us to tackle. My idea is basically degrowth is focusing on what is necessary rather than what is profitable. We should share more with the commonwealth like public transportation, the education system, the medical care system. These necessary things, essential goods, must be shared more equally instead of some rich people monopolizing all the wealth of the planet. 

Can you explain the "Netherlands Fallacy" — namely, the idea that the Netherlands proves that socialism can be ecologically sustainable and prosperous. Can you elaborate on why that is indeed a fallacy? 

I don't know why it's really the Netherlands. It can be the U.S. Fallacy or whatever, but it's traditionally called the Netherlands Fallacy. The Netherlands had some environmental pollution and basically they overcame this issue with new technologies. Everything seems fine, but the problem is this fallacy. The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south.

One contemporary example is electronic vehicles, EVs, which are today very important; Tesla making massive profits, and so on. For the sake of a decarbonized society, I totally agree that we need more electronic vehicles and we need to produce them more, and that gasoline should be abandoned as fast as possible. I totally agree. But the problem is, are electric vehicles totally sustainable? 

"This is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd."

The answer is obviously no. It is not just that usage of electric vehicles still consumes electricity, which might be produced by using fossil fuels, but the problem is — instead of fossil fuels — we also need a lot of rare metals: Lithium, copper, cobalt. And those rare metals are often located in the global south: Latin America, China, Russia, Africa and so on. And in these places now, the extraction of metals are creating very poor working conditions for even children.

Child labor is obviously a problem in Congo, where a lot is massively extracted, but also the problem of environmental pollution, massive deforestation and the lithium use uses a lot of water. Chile is now suffering by wildfires, but they are also suffering from drought. And then mining lithium consumes a lot of water when people actually need water for their lives, and also for producing food, and so on. 

People like us and affluent people in the global north can continue a very comfortable life by buying new electric vehicles like Tesla instead of Toyota. And they think that, "Okay, we did something good for the environment. I feel my responsibility for the next generations and so on." They are actually falling into this fallacy of believing their sustainability. No, they're not. Their behavior is not sustainable because the real problem is only hidden: massive extraction of the lithium in the global south. It's still causing quite a damaging impact upon people and the environment. So the metabolism between humans and nature, it's still distorted and disrupted in a quite serious manner.

And my idea of degrowth is not a negation of technology. We need electric vehicles. I repeat again because this is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd, but at the same time, I clearly want to say that there are too many cars.

We need to shift to a society where we share electric vehicles with neighbors. So sharing cars. And we also need to invest in more green technologies like public transportation and also bicycles. And the bicycles of today are kind of dangerous because all the roads are created for the sake of cars. So the city urban planning is centering around all industries, and that needs to be challenged, that needs to change. And these are idea that degrowth will create a more eco-friendly, pedestrian friendly kind of society. The new kind of fair mobility is a central idea of degrowth. But this is just one example we need.

My basic point is that often technologies simply hide the true environmental impacts, and we needed technological development, but at the same time, we need to reduce our excessive consumption. Otherwise we will fall into the Netherlands Fallacy. 

I'm reading a book by billionaire philanthropist, Tom Steyer, who argues for more traditional approaches to addressing climate change: Funding green technologies, pushing voter registration drives, supporting a Green New Deal platform. Do you think there is anything fundamentally flawed about approaches for dealing with climate change when they come from billionaires or from others in the elite classes? 

Yes. I don't actually deny some kind of Green New Deal, but not a Green New Deal for people like the American people. Because my idea of sustainability is more comprehensive. It includes the people in the global south. So greening or decarbonization in the U.S. can be achieved at the cost of people in the global south, and that doesn't make sense, right? And the same thing can be said within the U.S.

The green transformation for the sake of billionaires could be achieved at the cost of many people in the global south. Minority indigenous people could be sacrificed for the sake of sustaining today's capitalism. What do I mean by this? Growth is always good for billionaires. They say, "Okay, we'll invest more in something good — green technologies — and it will grow the economy. And then all the poor people working class people will also benefit from growth."

Growth actually hides the necessity of redistribution. When we talk about redistribution and compensation or reparation, billionaires needs to give up some of what they have gained. Not just wealth, but also private jets, massive houses and cruise ships and those luxury items, too.

But when we invest in green technologies, flying jets can be sustainable, blah, blah, blah. And they also don't have to redistribute their own wealth because the entire pie of the economy will be bigger, so that the working class can also gain higher salaries and so on. My idea of degrowth is much more challenging because the degrowth doesn't seek after continuous growth of the economic pie. 

When the pie doesn't grow, we need to share more. So it really clearly demands the massively distribution of the wealth from the rich people to the poor people. But also we should give up what is actually unnecessary. I claim that, but the most obvious example is private jets. Private jets are unnecessary because people can still fly with business class or whatsoever. So my point is, rich people should give up their wealth, rich people should give up private jets and so on, other unnecessary things. And when people now talk about the Green New Deal, they hide the necessity of such a radical transformation of our lifestyle for the sake of everyone.

Read more

about climate change

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘The time is right’ for US to catch up on high-speed rail, says British Amtrak exec

With half a dozen US rail projects in the works, Andy Byford thinks Americans will soon clamor for 200mph train linesAfter years of dashed hopes, delays and the all-consuming dominance of the car and airplane, high-speed trains may finally be about to have their breakthrough moment in the United States, according to one of the country’s top rail executives.Half a dozen high-speed rail projects across the US are currently planned or have already started construction, with a gush of federal infrastructure dollars, a supportive White House, and rising angst over snarled highways and the climate crisis all helping bring the prospect of bullet trains, belatedly, closer than ever before to the American public. Continue reading...

After years of dashed hopes, delays and the all-consuming dominance of the car and airplane, high-speed trains may finally be about to have their breakthrough moment in the United States, according to one of the country’s top rail executives.Half a dozen high-speed rail projects across the US are currently planned or have already started construction, with a gush of federal infrastructure dollars, a supportive White House, and rising angst over snarled highways and the climate crisis all helping bring the prospect of bullet trains, belatedly, closer than ever before to the American public.“This is the golden opportunity for the US to join that high-speed club with all the benefits that it would bring,” said Andy Byford, a British executive who was nicknamed “Train Daddy” during a spell overseeing New York City’s subways. Since last year, he’s been senior vice-president of high-speed rail at Amtrak. “There’s no question the US is for now the outlier when it comes to high-speed rail.“But I think once we get one route up successfully, people will clamor for more. We believe the time is right for this where the topography, population and so on makes sense. I think if it’s not going to happen now, I wonder if it ever will.”Andy Byford rides the subway in New York in 2019 during his brief stint as head of the New York City Transit Authority. Photograph: Marc A Hermann/MTAHigh-speed trains, capable of 200mph (322km/h) or more, have long become commonplace in countries including France, Germany, Japan and even Morocco. Yet the US, despite being an early rail pioneer, has instead prioritized the build-out of vast and ever-widening highways, often choked with traffic and rammed through razed neighborhoods, supplemented by a matrix of flights linking even relatively close cities.This is gradually changing. In April, work started on building a high-speed rail project connecting Las Vegas to southern California, promising 200mph trains that will cut the normal four-hour drive time in half by the time of the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028. “If they pull it off it will be remarkable,” said Byford. “That would be practically a mile a day [of track] construction.”California has another high-speed rail project that has labored under grueling delays and ballooning costs over the past decade that aims to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. Projects in the earlier stages of planning include efforts to link Atlanta, Georgia, to Charlotte, North Carolina, as well as Chicago, Illinois, to St Louis, Missouri, and Vancouver, British Columbia, to Portland, Oregon.Brightline, the company behind the Las Vegas to California route, has already completed a line running from Miami to Orlando, Florida, running at slower, but still brisk, pace of 125mph, while Amtrak is looking to expand its class of east coast trains that can currently get to 150mph.Byford, meanwhile, is spearheading an Amtrak program to revive a moribund plan connecting Dallas and Houston with a high-speed track that will run the fabled Japanese Shinkansen bullet trains, offering people who have to drive three and a half hours down the I-45, one of the deadliest roads in the US, the option of a 205mph journey that will take around 90 minutes, with a stop at Texas A&M University between the two cities.“These trains would have the highest average speed in the world, which would be a real source of prestige for the state of Texas if we were able to go ahead,” Byford said. “We believe there is a very, very strong case.”Amtrak estimates the whizzing trains would remove 12,500 cars from the clogged I-45 as well as negate flights making the relatively short 240-mile hop, slashing planet-heating emissions. For those who want to spend a full day of their lives traveling from Dallas to Houston by train, there are currently two Amtrak services each day that go via San Antonio, taking, with a lengthy stopover, an incredible 23 hours in total, about an hour more than it would take to bicycle between the two cities.The prospects for high-speed rail have been buoyed by recent support, such as the federal bipartisan infrastructure law that retained much of the American fixation upon funding roads but also provided a cash injection to rail. In December, Joe Biden, once known as “Amtrak Joe” due to his regular use of trains when he was a US senator, announced $8.2bn to secure rail corridors to accelerate the building of high-speed rail in what the White House called “historic investments in world-class rail”.Major barriers remain for high-speed rail, however. “I’m not going to sugarcoat the remaining challenges,” Byford said of the Texas project, which still needs to acquire around 80% of the land needed for its route, get federal permission to use Japanese trains, pass environmental reviews and then raise, via partnerships with private companies and others, the $30bn or so needed to build a system that, in the most optimistic scenario, will be completed by 2031.Eye-watering costs and delays have dogged the California scheme, meanwhile, which has rocketed from a $33bn to at least a $113bn project amid contentious re-routes and political wrangling. Opponents of high-speed rail have found reliable allies among Republicans in Congress, who complain it is an expensive indulgence that tramples upon the property rights of rural Americans.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“If you want to look in the dictionary, under the word ‘boondoggle’, you would probably find the California high-speed rail project process,” said Doug LaMalfa, a California Republican congressman. In May, the two top Republicans in the House and Senate transportation committees, Garrett Graves and Ted Cruz, wrote to the US Department of Transportation criticizing the administration’s support for “this highly questionable endeavor”.In Texas, opposition from landowners, hostile state lawmakers and lobbying airlines sunk a previous effort to bring high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas, along with a mooted extension to Austin and San Antonio, in the 1990s. Texas Central picked up the idea of the Houston to Dallas line in 2009, only to put the plan on ice following court challenges and the Covid pandemic in 2022, prior to its resurrection under Amtrak.Building any sort of rail is difficult in a state with a particular zeal for the primacy of cars, with 97% of Texas’s entire transport budget, by law, going to the expansion and maintenance of roads. “People are flocking to Texas and we can’t just keep widening our highways forever,” said Peter LeCody, president of Texas Rail Advocates. “More people are understanding this but it’s been very slow going. We may now be starting to crawl before we walk and then run.”Objections remain, with Byford recently traveling to a ranch near Dallas to meet the Texans Against High-Speed Rail group, to assure them Amtrak wouldn’t use eminent domain to secure needed farmland. Some lawmakers remain unimpressed.Joe Biden arrives to speak at an Amtrak maintenance facility in Bear, Delaware, on 6 November 2023. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP“This project does not only impact rural Texas but all of the United States,” said Jake Ellzey, a Republican congressman who represents a district in the path of the planned rail route. “In a time of a global food shortage, we cannot allow our farmland to be destroyed, and taxpayer dollars squandered for an unsustainable and unnecessary project like this.”Still, optimism is growing among supporters of high-speed rail. Byford is deluged by emails from enthused rail fans suggesting sometimes outlandish ideas, such as bullet trains from New York to Los Angeles, but he can envision a more realistic future of swift connections between US cities lying in the “sweet spot” of distance from each other, around 200 to 600 miles apart.“There are so many cities like that in the US, just in the right zone for high-speed rail,” said Byford. “I hope that we will be able to deliver a network around the north-east, Florida, Texas, on the west coast and the midwest. There’s lots of great city pairings.”Most Americans “don’t know the joy of going downtown to downtown over 200mph without having to go out to the airport, having to line up in security, and then taxi on the runway and take off and land probably miles away from where you actually want to be”, Byford said, adding that the experience of avoiding traffic jams or strolling from a cathedral-like train station to get a meal and a drink also remains a largely foreign concept.“You don’t know what you’re missing,” he said. “I think now is our best opportunity to deliver that, there’s no question.”

Looming California budget cuts prompt push for climate ballot measure

Environmental groups are pressing California lawmakers to include a multibillion-dollar climate resilience bond on the November 2024 ballot, as related funding faces probable cuts in the annual state budget. Nearly 180 organizations have now signed on to a petition demanding that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and state legislators "pass a robust and equitable climate bond" for the...

Environmental groups are pressing California lawmakers to include a multibillion-dollar climate resilience bond on the November 2024 ballot, as related funding faces probable cuts in the annual state budget. Nearly 180 organizations have now signed on to a petition demanding that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and state legislators "pass a robust and equitable climate bond" for the public's consideration in the upcoming elections. "We have aligned to recommend $10 billion in investments that we view as the floor for California to continue making timely progress on its ambitious climate and natural resources commitments," the groups stated in a letter initially drafted in February but last updated in early June. California, long a national leader on environmental issues, has set lofty targets for emissions reductions in the years to come as it continues to battle drought and wildfires driven by climate change. But the state appears likely to fall short of those goals, and is in the midst of a struggle to close a looming $45 billion budget deficit, an effort that will likely include significant cuts to climate measures for the second year in a row. After California's 2022-2023 budget included $54 billion for climate action over the next five years, about $3.1 billion of that sum was slashed last year. In a January budget proposal for 2024-2025, Newsom suggested $2.88 billion in climate-related cuts, adding $3.35 billion more in his May revision, the groups noted. Stressing that "California's future sits on the edge of a knife," the petitioners warned state lawmakers that they risk "gambling with our children's future and natural heritage found nowhere else." Bond financing in California is a mechanism for long-term borrowing through which the state raises money by selling bonds to investors — repaying those sums with interest in the future. Proposed versions of ballot measures would put billions raised through bond sales toward helping gird the state against the changing climate in an effort to mitigate the impact of looming cuts. From 1986 through 2020, Californians have voted in favor of issuing $178.787 billion in bonds and against issuing $33.092 billion, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office. Among the nearly 180 groups that have signed the letter are the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club California, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Audubon California, California Environmental Voters, and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. “Californians are depending on their leaders to have climate courage, not wave the white flag," Melissa Romero, deputy legislative director of California Environmental Voters, said in a statement. “Voters need a chance to support a robust, equitable climate bond." Lawmakers have a deadline of June 27 to add bond measures to the November ballot. Meanwhile, Newsom and his legislative colleagues have only until July 1 to negotiate the final terms of their annual spending plan. Discussions have come to a standstill on two similar, climate-oriented bond proposals: AB 1567, introduced by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D) in February 2023, and SB 867, introduced around the same time by state Sen. Ben Allen (D). The former would have authorized the issuance of nearly $16 billion in bonds for projects related to drinking water, fire prevention, drought preparation, flood defense, extreme heat mitigation, clean energy and workforce development, per the bill. The latter would have supported $15.5 billion in bonds to finance initiatives related to extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity, nature-based solutions, climate-smart agriculture, park creation, outdoor access and clean energy, as well as drought, flood, water, coastal, forest and wildfire resilience. With the end-of-June ballot measure deadline approaching, negotiations within the state Legislature continue, as lawmakers weigh how they might combine and trim the two proposals. The Assembly was reportedly considering three versions that ranged from $6 billion to $10 billion, while the state Senate was looking at two options from $6.8 billion to $9 billion, according to two spreadsheets originally surfaced by Politico.  While neither Allen nor Garcia could speak to the details of the negotiations, Allen stressed the need “to be careful about how we craft it, both in terms of its scope and also its size.” “This is a challenging time financially for the state, so we certainly want to make sure that it's sized in a way that's responsible, that's going to maintain market credibility,” Allen told The Hill. Garcia last week told the Los Angeles Times that negotiators were leaning toward $9 billion, while explaining to KQED that cuts “would allow us to stay the course.” Speaking to CalMatters, Garcia described the bond as “a can’t-miss opportunity” for closing funding gaps. Asked whether he still maintained that $9 billion estimate, Garcia told The Hill that he and his Assembly colleagues worked on a $9 billion "proposed draft of priorities," and that they are currently having a "conversation" with their state Senate counterparts. Acknowledging that this is "a significantly different bond" than the one he originally introduced, Garcia expressed optimism that the legislators would come to an agreement despite the tight deadline. But the question remains whether voters will have the appetite for borrowing billions and billions of dollars in bonds. Lawmakers had previously intended to place tens of billions in bonds on the November 2024 ballot related to a variety of issues and sectors. But those intentions cooled after a $6.4 billion measure — aimed at supporting homeless and mentally ill individuals — only passed narrowly in the March primary with 50.18 percent of the vote, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Public Policy Institute of California on Friday reported that 34 percent of residents recently surveyed described now as a "good time" to issue bonds for state programs and infrastructure projects, while 64 percent said that this is a "bad time." Allen was not discouraged by those results, noting that “it's hard to feel good about just generic extra spending, if you have no idea what it's for.” Rather, he explained, people tend to become more interested when they understand that a particular investment could “help ensure that the future of the state will be a little brighter, people get more interested,” according to Allen. “We're focused on clean water and fire resiliency — all the kinds of things that are going to help make life better in the state in the future,” he said. Garcia echoed these sentiments, identifying the need "to be very specific with voters, so that they get a really good understanding of what it is that they might be seeing." Every Californian "has experienced some type of climate impact," he said, citing a range of effects from property damage to daily life disruptions. While the lawmakers have signaled that the final bill will include a sum much lower than originally intended, the nearly 180 environmental organizations — dubbed the "climate bond coalition" — are petitioning for the full $10 billion. They are also not the only voices that have been pressing for a robust climate bond's passage: so, too, are water and renewable energy interests. The Association of California Water Agencies described the state as being "underprepared to manage a water system with decreasing snowpack, less frequent precipitation and weather extremes." "State investment in water infrastructure is crucial to providing the reliable delivery of water," the association, which represents public water agencies across the state, said in a policy document. The top priorities highlighted by the agencies are improvements in dam safety and reservoir operations, as well as water recycling and desalination facilities. Offshore Wind California, a coalition of industry partners, is requesting bond funding for port infrastructure, stressing that such facilities are needed to maintain floating wind structures. "No single port will be able to serve all the needs of the offshore wind industry," the group wrote. Garcia emphasized the need to improve water infrastructure and wildfire protection and prevention, while also strengthening nature-based solutions, agriculture and community resilience. Allen, meanwhile, added that the bill must “be driven by where the public" and "our experts see the greatest need.” That public perspective, he continued, routinely returns to the issues of clean water and wildfire resilience. “When you float a bond, you're basically saying that future taxpayers and budgets should help to pay for investments that we're putting in place over the next few years,” Allen said. “Will people 30 years from now feel good about helping to pay for these investments that we put in place today?” he asked. “That has to be our guiding principle.”

‘We want the audience to feel there is hope’: how to write a play about the climate crisis, by the team behind The Jungle and Little Amal

The latest play from the writing duo focuses on the landmark 1997 climate conference in Kyoto, Japan. During rehearsals, they talk about the importance of consensus, and the challenges of turning negotiations into dramaThe rehearsal room in London’s Bethnal Green has a concentrated, businesslike and anticipatory atmosphere. It is filled with people sitting at tables with microphones in front of them, as though a conference were about to begin, which, in a sense, it is. On the stage’s periphery are directors Stephen Daldry and Justin Martin and the playwrights Joe Robertson and Joe Murphy, co-founders of the Good Chance company, and I can see, even from a distance, how purposeful they all are. This is the same team that was responsible for The Jungle, the internationally celebrated show about the theatre the two Joes set up in Calais’s refugee camp. Now, they are halfway through rehearsals of a fascinating, meticulously researched and high-risk new project, Kyoto, about the UN’s climate conference of 1997.The conference’s stated aim was to cut global greenhouse gases by 5% by 2012 and was the first building block in the introduction of climate legislation across the world, starting the process that led to the adoption of the Paris agreement in 2015, which included emissions pledges for all. The Kyoto protocol was signed, against seemingly impossible odds, by 84 countries and more than 100 more have since joined. Its effectiveness has been limited - the developed nations all met their targets (some with some judicious offsetting with other countries’ reductions), but global emissions have since soared. However, as the first summit at which the world’s nations started to come together, it has become an historic environmental landmark. Continue reading...

The rehearsal room in London’s Bethnal Green has a concentrated, businesslike and anticipatory atmosphere. It is filled with people sitting at tables with microphones in front of them, as though a conference were about to begin, which, in a sense, it is. On the stage’s periphery are directors Stephen Daldry and Justin Martin and the playwrights Joe Robertson and Joe Murphy, co-founders of the Good Chance company, and I can see, even from a distance, how purposeful they all are. This is the same team that was responsible for The Jungle, the internationally celebrated show about the theatre the two Joes set up in Calais’s refugee camp. Now, they are halfway through rehearsals of a fascinating, meticulously researched and high-risk new project, Kyoto, about the UN’s climate conference of 1997.The conference’s stated aim was to cut global greenhouse gases by 5% by 2012 and was the first building block in the introduction of climate legislation across the world, starting the process that led to the adoption of the Paris agreement in 2015, which included emissions pledges for all. The Kyoto protocol was signed, against seemingly impossible odds, by 84 countries and more than 100 more have since joined. Its effectiveness has been limited - the developed nations all met their targets (some with some judicious offsetting with other countries’ reductions), but global emissions have since soared. However, as the first summit at which the world’s nations started to come together, it has become an historic environmental landmark.Rehearsals for Kyoto in Bethnal Green, London. The play opens in Stratford on 25 June. Photograph: Karen Robinson/The ObserverGood Chance’s project has (if the phrase can pass in context) been in the pipeline for a while and been taken on by Daniel Evans and Tamara Harvey – like an exciting statement of intent – as part of their first season as joint artistic directors of the RSC.At the centre of the drama is Don Pearlman, the morally ambiguous American lawyer and smooth operator who earned himself the tag “high priest of the carbon club”. Pearlman was never obliged to reveal who funded him, although the likelihood is that he was supported by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the big oil companies. A formidable spanner in the conference’s works, he is to be played by Tony-nominated Stephen Kunken – one of those actors who has you instantly in his thrall. In rehearsal, he stands on stage as relaxed and ready as a conductor who has nothing but contempt for his orchestra: cool in his stance, tweaking his bow tie, his sense of his own rightness laconically unassailable.Pearlman is in patriotic cahoots with Nancy Crane, representing the US delegation, and I watch them, riveted by the throwaway casualness of their self-interested exchanges – a sinister flexing of shared power. Other countries in attendance are represented by an international cast, and the giant oil companies are reconfigured as “the seven sisters”, stirrers of trouble, intended to suggest the witches in Macbeth. In the front two rows of the theatre there will be space for audience members to sit, alternating with the actors playing delegates. Decisions about the climate crisis – the point could not be clearer – involve us all.How can we find a common ground? Because we can keep arguing but… how do we move forward?There are negotiations about negotiations in rehearsal before the lunch break is declared and I get to meet Joe Robertson and Joe Murphy over tea and sandwiches in a bright conference room of our own. In their early 30s, they are delightful company: engaged and engaging. It is extraordinary how seamlessly they pick up on each other’s thoughts, as if they were of one mind (it was sometimes hard to be sure, in retrospect, who had said what). They met at Oxford as English undergraduates and have been writing plays together for 15 years. But I tell them that what I have been puzzling over is: why Kyoto? How does going back in time contribute to thinking about the climate crisis now?They were drawn to Kyoto, Robertson volunteers, partly because it was “the first time this consensus had happened and it was about asking: how do you turn round the juggernaut of the world – this huge oil tanker – from a total lack of consensus and lack of certainty in the science?” Murphy describes Kyoto as “a parable about agreement”. And they explain that, long before hitting upon their subject, they had been asking questions about the “scary” world in which we all live, and had begun to see how critical consensus was. The Jungle, they add, touched on this too – asking how people from different countries can live together: “How can we find a common ground? Because we can keep arguing but… how do we move forward?”Little Amal, the giant animatronic refugee puppet created by Robertson and Murphy’s Good Chance, in Dublin last month. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty ImagesWhat, then, does agreement depend upon? “Human will, energy, force of character – the conviction there is a way forward together. But the even bigger question is: do we have what it takes to see the other side even when we might not like what we see?”A play about a conference could be a dead weight but the text is entertainingly precise. The pedantry involved in negotiations is used to build tension in a way that is masterly – fiddling with language while the planet burns. And incredibly, the Joes have achieved this seamlessness jointly. Their affinity makes it easy to imagine a writing process as shared as their conversation: “We write with our backs to each other and our heads in the Google doc…”; “I can see where his mind is…”; “You begin to think about where that cursor hovers and what is going through that brain…”; “Sometimes you don’t have to speak out loud to understand what the other is thinking.”Actors from Shakespeare’s Globe perform Hamlet at the Calais “Jungle” refugee camp at a theatre set up by Good Chance, 2016. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty ImagesThey watched six hours of footage from the UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) of the conference and admit they would have found it impenetrable had they not done months of research. But knowing the characters, it became “really exciting”. They talked to delegates, chief scientists and to Pearlman’s widow. But for them, the issue remained: “Can you take these rooms in which the great questions of our time are discussed and put them on stage?” The conundrum that has arisen in rehearsals is about Pearlman’s motivation. Did he not believe the climate science? Or did he think that the costs of taking action were too great?Taking action is something Murphy and Robertson have not hesitated to do themselves. Looking back on their achievements with Good Chance, do they ever wonder at their sheer nerve in moving into the Calais camp? “We do sometimes look back at our 25-year-old selves and think: that was a bit mad… There are a hundred reasons why you shouldn’t build a theatre in a refugee camp, such as the idea of being a white saviour… or another objection: what is your right even to go into this place when you can leave whenever you like?”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRobertson and Murphy’s play The Jungle at the Playhouse, London, in 2018. Photograph: Tristram Kenton/The GuardianBut today they are rejoicing because: “We keep going to incredible permanent citizenship ceremonies in the UK for some of our best friends who we met in Calais and we see how these incredible artists – we know they are because we were working with them – are growing. It is really moving.” They celebrate, too, the continuing travels of Little Amal, the giant animatronic refugee puppet (also a Good Chance production) who after her first walk through Europe, Robertson says, was recognised to have “a million more footsteps in her”.But I say that we need now to return to the subject of Kyoto, if only to consider the ending, which is, in mid-rehearsal, still being fine-tuned. Robertson and Murphy praise the readiness of Stephen Daldry and Justin Martin to re-examine and, where necessary, rethink. Daldry, they say, has “an amazing ability to make you feel better and more daring than you are. He does it for his actors too – you see it in the room every single day.”Nothing in the show will be simplified for convenience. And it is likely to be a complicated watch because of Pearlman’s calculatedly ambiguous presence. The play seems, in part, to be an uncomfortable inquiry into the extent to which we have something of Pearlman in us: self-interest, willed blindness, determination to sustain an unsustainable way of life. But Robertson insists they are not peddling pessimism: “I want the audience to feel the euphoria that something is possible, that there is hope, that we can do this together.” Then they amend this by saying hope cannot be the only message given the reality of where we are. When I put it to them that the ending of their current draft is anything but hopeful and press them on whether they feel gloomy about the climate crisis themselves, they retreat behind “that’s a good question” – ambivalence their comfort zone.Later, I go back to them to try to pin them down further about how they see the way forward and to ask what our governments should be doing. In its way, their reply is a mission statement: “We’re artists, not climate experts or policy-makers. But it seems to us that we have to change the weather, literally and metaphorically. How do we stop the defining question of our time being dragged into a wider culture war of disagreement that only benefits a small group of people? We have to conduct our discourse in a more compassionate and productive way, and make arguments that bold, innovative and immediate mitigation will not only prevent climate catastrophe but also create jobs and livelihoods for the future, strengthen our economies and ensure energy security in an increasingly dangerous world.”

Why this small state is picking a fight with Big Oil

Vermont has enacted the first state law requiring fossil fuel firms to pay for damages caused by climate change. Will it survive a near-certain legal challenge?

Nearly a year after catastrophic flooding struck Vermont, the city of Barre confronts the overwhelming task of steeling itself for the next climate disaster.Two bridges need to be raised. Barre’s north end “literally needs to be rebuilt,” said Mayor Thom Lauzon, who was recently elected and now oversees the city’s recovery. Of the 300 properties damaged by the flooding, many are still in various states of disrepair, and at least 50 are uninhabitable.Across the country, state and local leaders are scrambling to find the money they need to protect their communities from worsening disasters fueled by climate change. For Barre, needed flood mitigation projects will cost the city an estimated $30 million over the next five years, Lauzon said.Yet Vermont has a new answer to this problem.Earlier this month, it became the nation’s first state to require fossil fuel companies and other big emitters to pay for the climate-related damage their pollution has already caused statewide. While conservative legal experts are skeptical the law will survive challenges, some Vermonters said they are both grateful and a little nervous that one of the nation’s least populous states has picked a fight with one of America’s most powerful industries.“I’m proud to have this state stand up and say, ‘Look, you need to be held accountable, and you need to help us with the damage we incurred,’” Lauzon said. “But I’m also scared to death. I feel like we’re a pee wee football team going up against the 2020 New England Patriots.”The Vermont law comes as oil and gas companies face dozens of climate lawsuits, both in the United States and abroad. While only a few have succeeded — and they are on appeal — they pose a growing threat and add to the companies’ potential liabilities. If Vermont’s novel approach endures, it could reverberate across the industry.Republicans are pushing back, arguing that individual states cannot apply their own laws to a global pollutant. Last month, Republican attorneys general in 19 states asked the Supreme Court to block the climate change lawsuits brought by California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island against fossil fuel companies.Vermont’s law authorizes the state to charge major polluters a fee for the share of greenhouse gas emissions they produced between 1995 and 2024. It is modeled on the 1980 federal Superfund law, which forces polluting companies to clean up toxic waste sites.The law doesn’t spell out how much money should be paid; instead, it tasks the state treasurer with assessing the damage Vermont has suffered from climate change and what it will cost to prepare for future impacts. The final tally is expected to be comprehensive, factoring in an array of possible costs from rebuilding and raising bridges and roads to lower worker productivity from rising heat.Bills similar to Vermont’s have been introduced in several states, including California, Maryland and Massachusetts. Last week, New York lawmakers passed a climate superfund law that would require polluters to pay $3 billion a year for 25 years. It is now awaiting Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature.The timing of the Vermont law was no accident, said Ben Edgerly Walsh, the climate and energy program director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. Memories of last July’s flooding, which inundated the state capitol of Montpelier, damaged thousands of homes and trapped people in small mountain towns, are still fresh.Over the last year, Vermonters have also endured a freak late-spring frost that damaged crops, hazy skies from smoke blown south from hundreds of wildfires in Canada, and more flooding in mid-December. All these events primed state lawmakers to tackle climate change at the beginning of 2024.“When we brought this idea to legislators, they came to it with a very open mind in a way that may have taken more time, more convincing, in another year,” Edgerly Walsh said. “But this was a moment we just knew we needed to act.”As disaster recovery costs mount, it has not been lost on state leaders that oil companies are enjoying massive profits. In 2023, the warmest year on record, the two largest U.S. energy companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron, together made more than $57 billion.It might seem unlikely for a state like Vermont, with a population just under 650,000, to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. The state’s Republican governor, Phil Scott, expressed skepticism in a letter to the secretary of the Vermont Senate, writing, “Taking on ‘Big Oil’ should not be taken lightly. And with just $600,000 appropriated by the Legislature to complete an analysis that will need to withstand intense legal scrutiny from a well-funded defense, we are not positioning ourselves for success.”Yet Vermont’s small budget — it has the lowest GDP in the country — means that it feels the rising risks from heavy rains more acutely than wealthier states. A report by Rebuild by Design, a nonprofit that helps communities recover from disasters, found that Vermont ranked fifth nationally in per capita disaster relief costs from 2011-2021, with $593 spent per resident.The costs are only expected to climb. A 2022 study from University of Vermont researchers predicted that the cost of property damage from flooding alone may top $5.2 billion over the next 100 years.Ultimately, the governor allowed the law to go into effect without his signature, saying he understood “the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that has hurt our state in so many ways.”Legal challenges will inevitably follow — the only question is when.The oil and gas industry’s top lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, has said that states don’t have the power to regulate carbon pollution and can’t retroactively charge companies for emissions allowed under the law. It has also emphasized individuals’ responsibility for climate change, noting that Vermont residents use fossil fuels to heat their homes and power their cars. Scott Lauermann, a spokesman for the group, said API is “considering all our options to reverse this punitive new fee.”“I think the courts are going to have problems with the idea that Vermont can penalize the companies for past actions that were completely legal and the state itself relies on,” said Jeff Holmstead, an energy lawyer who served in the Environmental Protection Agency under George W. Bush. “I’m skeptical this will actually pass muster.”Supporters and environmentalists involved in drafting the law said they believed they had created a legally defensible way to recover damages from polluters by modeling it after the Superfund law, which has been repeatedly upheld in court. Several legal experts said the state had also taken a more conservative approach than others by requiring a study before assessing companies’ liability, ensuring the fines levied against them are proportional to the amount of damage caused by their products.Cara Horowitz, executive director of the UCLA School of Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said that, inevitably, fossil fuel companies will challenge any bills Vermont submits for damages. But that is years off, she said, and the industry is likely to move sooner than that.The lawsuits “will start soon and last a long time,” Horowitz said. “It would surprise me if they don’t preemptively try to undermine the entire exercise by declaring the whole thing unlawful.”In Barre, Lauzon said he isn’t confident litigation over the law will be resolved in his lifetime. But even if the fossil fuel companies are never made to pay, he said, the law’s passage was the right thing to do.“I can’t look at the north end, I can’t look at the city of Barre and say no one needs to be held accountable,” he said.

The world is farming more seafood than it catches. Is that a good thing?

Both aquaculture and fisheries have environmental and climate impacts — and they overlap more than you'd think.

A new report from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, has found that more fish were farmed worldwide in 2022 than harvested from the wild, an apparent first. Last week, the FAO released its annual report on the state of aquaculture — which refers to the farming of both seafood and aquatic plants — and fisheries around the world. The organization found that global production from both aquaculture and fisheries reached a new high — 223.3 million metric tons of animals and plants — in 2022. Of that, 185.4 million metric tons were aquatic animals, and 37.8 million metric tons were algae. Aquaculture was responsible for 51 percent of aquatic animal production in 2022, or 94.4 metric tons.  The milestone was in many ways an expected one, given the world’s insatiable appetite for seafood. Since 1961, consumption of seafood has grown at twice the annual rate of the global population, according to the FAO. Because production levels from fisheries are not expected to change significantly in the future, meeting the growing global demand for seafood almost certainly necessitates an increase in aquaculture.  Though fishery production levels fluctuate from year to year, “it’s not like there’s new fisheries out there waiting to be discovered,” said Dave Martin, program director for Sustainable Fisheries Partnerships, an international organization that works to reduce the environmental impact of seafood supply chains. “So any growth in consumption of seafood is going to come from aquaculture.” But the rise of aquaculture underscores the need to transform seafood systems to minimize their impact on the planet. Both aquaculture and fisheries — sometimes referred to as capture fisheries, as they involve the capture of wild seafood — come with significant environmental and climate considerations. What’s more, the two systems often depend on each other, making it difficult to isolate their climate impacts.  A worker removes a stack of oyster baskets during harvest. Bloomberg Creative / Getty Images “There’s a lot of overlap between fisheries and aquaculture that the average consumer may not see,” said Dave Love, a research professor at the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University.  Studies have shown that the best diet for the planet is one free of animal protein. Still, seafood generally has much lower greenhouse gas emissions than other forms of protein from land-based animals. And given many people’s unwillingness or inability to go vegan, the FAO recommends transforming, adapting, and expanding sustainable seafood production to feed the world’s growing population and improve food security. But “there’s a lot of ways to do aquaculture well, and there’s a lot of ways to do it poorly,” said Martin. Aquaculture can result in nitrogen and phosphorus being released into the natural environment, damaging aquatic ecosystems. Farmed fish can also spread disease to wild populations, or escape from their confines and breed with other species, resulting in genetic pollution that can disrupt the fitness of a wild population. Martin points to the diesel fuel used to power equipment on certain fish farms as a major source of aquaculture’s environmental impact. According to an analysis from the climate solutions nonprofit Project Drawdown, swapping out fossil fuel-based generators on fish farms for renewable-powered hybrids would prevent 500 million to 780 million metric tons of carbon emissions by 2050.  Other areas for improvement will vary depending on the specific species being farmed. In 2012, a U.N. study found that mangrove forests — a major carbon sink — have suffered greatly due to the development of shrimp and fish farming. Today, industry stakeholders have been exploring how new approaches and techniques from shrimp farmers can help restore mangroves.  Meanwhile, wild fishing operations present their own environmental problems. For example, poorly managed fisheries can harvest fish more quickly than wild populations can breed, a phenomenon known as overfishing. Certain destructive wild fishing techniques also kill a lot of non-targeted species, known as bycatch, threatening marine biodiversity. But the line between aquaculture and fish harvested from the wild isn’t as clear as it may seem. For example, pink salmon that are raised in hatcheries and then released into the wild to feed, mature, and ultimately be caught again are often marketed as “wild caught.” Lobsters, caught wild in Maine, are often fed bait by fisherman to help them put on weight. “It’s a wild fishery,” said Love — but the lobster fishermen’s practice of fattening up their catch shows how human intervention is present even in wild-caught operations.  On the flipside, in a majority of aquaculture systems, farmers provide their fish with feed. That feed sometimes includes fish meal, says Love, a powder that comes from two sources: seafood processing waste (think: fish guts and tails) and wild-caught fish.  All of this can result in a confusing landscape for climate- or environmentally-conscientious consumers who eat fish. But Love recommends a few ways in which consumers can navigate choice when shopping for seafood. Buying fresh fish locally helps shorten supply chains, which can lower the carbon impact of eating aquatic animals. “In our work, we’ve found that the big impact from transport is shipping fresh seafood internationally by air,” he said. Most farmed salmon, for example, sold in the US is flown in.  From both a climate and a nutritional standpoint, smaller fish and sea vegetables are also both good options. “Mussels, clams, oysters, seaweed — they’re all loaded with macronutrients and minerals in different ways” compared to fin fish, said Love.  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The world is farming more seafood than it catches. Is that a good thing? on Jun 14, 2024.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.