Today’s post is by regular contributor, Richard Jurin. Before his retirement, Richard led the Environmental Studies programme at the University of Northern Colorado, where he launched a degree in Sustainability Studies. His academic interests are environmental worldviews and understanding barriers to sustainability. As ever, with our blogs, the views expressed are not necessarily shared by NAEE.
Richard writes:
“The vast possibilities of our great future will become realities only if we make ourselves responsible for that future.” Gifford Pinchot.
It is no understatement to say that we at a crucial point in how we move forward. A decision has to be made on how we will live in the future. The most dangerous decision – a crossing of the Rubicon – would be to put that decision into the hands of global economic forces completely blind to the consequences of their actions in their continued pursuit of money as the sole measure of success. Another decision would be to think the unthinkable (to think totally differently than we have before) – to think in a way that many individuals have embraced, but that collective humanity has not considered yet. The question we all have to ask ourselves is simple: What kind of world do we want?
I alluded previously that some localized systems are approaching a model of sustainability, but are there any national models that would assist us? Iceland, Denmark and Norway all tout themselves as models of sustainability, but a recent trip I took through those countries shows a different reality. All the Scandinavian countries have low populations and large resource bases with plenty of renewable energy options (mainly Hydropower & Wind) that work well for those regions. One feature that is notable is how ‘peaceful’ those countries seem with no heavy police presence noted while I was traveling around. As journalist Michael Booth said in a 2014 Guardian article about Scandinavia, “The myriad successes of the Nordic countries are no miracle, they were born of a combination of Lutheran modesty, peasant parsimony, geographical determinism and ruthless pragmatism …”elite” is a dirty word; displays of success, ambition or wealth are frowned upon.” Outside of any other social problems these countries may have there does seem to exist a unique social cohesion to these places. But does that make them a model of sustainability to follow?
One other feature I always look at closely are the trash/waste cans and waste per capita. I find them a good proxy measure of how they are moving away (or not) from an unsustainable consumer-materialist worldview towards a sustainable system. While they do have good waste management and recycling systems, they still generate amazing amounts of waste per capita, close to double that of the USA and the UK, showing how ‘conspicuous consumption’ is still rampant. As a national model they are left wanting. While I alluded to Scandinavia being more peaceful, it might be noted that Sweden is one of the world’s largest weapons exporters despite their reputation for working towards international peace!
Scandinavians do seem to love their outdoors, and I did note a lot of local hikers among the throngs of tourists. I couldn’t determine whether they had a deep spiritual connection with nature or that ‘friluftsliv’ (disconnecting from daily ‘stress’ and being part of the cultural ‘we’) extends to living harmoniously with nature or simply being less destructive. Contradictions abound and of course their worldview is still too utilitarian to make true sustainability a reality, even if their technological ‘green’ energy generation is higher than most countries. In the 1980s, we began a rush to globalize and centralize the world placing more and more power and control into the hands of billionaires, technocrats and transnational corporate entities. So, national models do not really exist (maybe Butan?), and we continue with a highly technological world of continued ecological problems and a ruling technocratic hierarchy dictating what we can and cannot do as problems get worse and solutions seem ever more distant. We can chose a safe, peaceful, and technologically advanced society that thrives within the natural world, but that takes a conscious effort and much critical thinking on the current technocratic solutions and more ecocentric worldviews we need rely upon to guide us wisely through the storms of change needed. To think differently reveals major inconvenient flaws in our thinking that may not be easy (or even possible) to come back from, before the planet resets itself in its own way. How might we get to that ‘better’ world from where we are currently?
………………………………………………………………
Richard can be contacted at: richardjurin@gmail.com
Richard writes:
We can chose a safe, peaceful, and technologically advanced society that thrives within the natural world, but that takes a conscious effort and much critical thinking on the current technocratic solutions and more ecocentric worldviews we need rely upon to guide us wisely through the storms of change needed. To think differently reveals major inconvenient flaws in our thinking that may not be easy (or even possible) to come back from, before the planet resets itself in its own way. How might get to that ‘better’ world from where we are currently?
That question: ‘how might we get to that ‘better’ world from where we are’ is one that is a crucial one in the context of plans and promises about net-zero. And yet, I hardly hear a whisper of it. Maybe it’s being drowned out by utilitarian goals driven by the sort of “ruthless pragmatism” Richard writes about. I wonder if there is space in the curriculum for such discussions, and if so, where? PSHE education perhaps where the E stands for ethics? But the E stands for economics; of course, this really ought to have an ethics element, but …