The graduated from University of St.Andrews talks about several issues related with climate change. Elsa Kivinen highlights the importance of young people in changing mentalities and attitudes towards environmental problems.
What are the main challenges that society will face in the coming years because of environmental changes?
One challenge we must overcome is the belief that human ingenuity, endless fine tuning of research, and eventually coming up with better technology can save everyone. This belief leads to delaying action and responsibility, and shifting it to the technocratic elite. Climate change should be on everyone’s political agenda. That is because climate issues and social issues are not separate. So far many people have underestimated the politics of climate change, and by that I mean not just the environmental politics but the role of politics in bringing about real change. People are already impacted by climate crisis, and on top of that, this year’s pandemic has highlighted how crises with a global magnitude impact us economically and socially, and how some regions and people in some regions suffer disproportionally more than others. Probably the biggest challenge we face as a collective will be restructuring and reimagining what a more equal world and society would look like: locally, nationally, regionally and globally. To achieve that, recognizing status quo bias is needed. Status quo bias is when you are at the verge of huge progress, but then step back because “what if”. And that is understandable since we are psychologically wired to do that. However, people should not get paralysed by analysis, especially because climate scientists, researchers and activists have done so much analysis and work already. The science is there. Sometimes you have to accept we live in a world where fine tuning and endless research is not enough, and that we have to act even if we don’t know the magical perfect solution and we don’t live in an ideal world. I would even say that is precisely why we need to act—to make the world better. Everyone can do something. It is completely understandable to be biased towards status quo but adhering to status quo can often impede progress. I do believe that when people agree something is bad, such as climate crisis and biodiversity loss, and when we are proposed with two alternative solutions, both feasible, but the other one is more radical insofar as it addresses the root cause of the issues and would have a wider positive impact, it would be good to work towards this more ambitious solution. It could seem a lot less feasible had the momentum not been built up. The momentum in climate politics has been there for a long time, so we need ambitious political action now. There has been enough scientific proof on the negative impacts of climate crisis already.
Which countries are better prepared to fight climate change?
I would say this largely depends on how well recognized of a threat climate crisis is in the country, especially by those who are in the position where they have power to influence/affect change, and how much political capital they are willing to use to focus on various environmental issues. Understanding the context is crucial for effective science-policy interaction. In addition, a lot depends on the extent to which a regime is open to influence from social movements and to what extent social movements can institutionalise. For example, it is harder for Green parties to gain representative power and influence in countries with first-past-the-post electoral system (UK, USA) than in countries where the electoral system is based on some forms of proportional representation. But it is a shame that to some extent environmental issues are still being monopolised by Green parties. Ambitious climate action should be mainstreamed. I’m a strong believer in the capacity of welfare states to be better equipped with handling challenges. An emphasis on accessible and affordable healthcare, as well as gender equality and non-discrimination (everywhere but especially on the labor market and within institutions) will help people to focus on topics such as climate crisis that unfortunately seem “longer-term” but are already affecting us all and require sustained attention. On the other hand, I believe that taking our freedoms and rights for granted is more likely in countries with accessible and affordable healthcare and education. This has historically resulted to a good social mobility, and this situation might paradoxically make it difficult for individuals to realise their individual autonomy and social freedom is partly enabled by national policies. An additional challenge is that in individualistic cultures, the tendency of not acknowledging or embracing one’s community-based identities and enlarging the ingroup is one of the fundamental challenges to overcome for cosmopolitan and privileged people, especially as these people are more prone to not have a strong feeling of belonging to a specific locale in long-term.
How important is the role of young people to sensitize others?
I think it is vital. Younger generations are more likely to see politics through an environmental lens, and we are going to live through the consequences of current (in) action and decisions. However, we shouldn’t be the only people doing the work. Making a clear distinction between conventional and unconventional political participation has become more blurred in the 21st century. Conventional political participation refers to institutionalised participation in electoral politics such as voting in elections and participating in party politics. Unconventional political participation refers to participation from outside the electoral political system. Due to rapidly changing and ever-diversifying forms of political expression, actors taking part in political action as well as the targets of political action, the current political landscape is more complex and fragmented than previously. Different generations use different methods of influencing, and according to many studies older people are more likely to vote, whereas younger generations’ are somewhat more likely to engage in other forms of political participation. This tendency has been reinforced by social media and new forms of communication and instant messaging.
The work of environmental organizations has caused more panic than responsibility during the last years?
I wouldn’t say so. Actually, the opposite. Radical climate change action should be mainstreamed, and not just something so-called activists or environmental organizations do, although they do play a crucial role in environmental politics and our society. I’m actually quite excited and curious to see what is coming, because the sustainability circles and communities are finally diversifying from mere lifestylism to actually connecting the dots and thinking about how our society is organized and reconstructed and reinforced politically and socially and what implications this has on our society. Sustainability discourse is no longer about separate actors doing things in a vacuum but about seeing their interplay. If I wasn’t as cynical of society’s ability to change fast enough to avoid the worsening climate crisis I’d be screaming of joy. I would say I am extremely cynical of our ability to act fast enough but I wouldn’t say I’m “hysterical” or that there is too much panic. I’ve just accepted tough times will await the world and I have to do my best in helping to combat against the effects of climate crisis.
Why do you think that voting isn’t the only way to influence environmental politics?
Thinking that voting is the only way to influence environmental politics is an outdated belief and downplays the critical role of environmental movements and activists who hold politicians accountable all year long, not just before important elections are coming up. Individual action can be—and most importantly should be for it to affect any real change—more than mere lifestylism and voting. Group organising, talking to people and sharing information with people who are more active and have different influencing powers than you (networks matter), filling in public consultations or petitions, suggesting ideas or giving constructive feedback about campaigns, directly approaching your representatives to tell them what you’d like to see are all ways in which people can get involved. You cannot do everything for all the causes but that’s why we have elected political representatives in first place, as well as communities where we share our duties. Staying informed about what is going on is what many of us can do. I also believe gobalisation probably makes more and more people identify with “rootless cosmopolitans”. Answering where one comes from, or where ‘home’ is can become increasingly difficult, and might change over the life course in a way that was much rarer before. Even if one felt at home somewhere, do they feel they are capable of influencing local affairs? There are always those who have stayed somewhere for longer, and might feel more entitled or ‘qualified’, or simply put more interested in local issues than others, and for some people this feeling “other people must know better, or they do enough anyway” might get on their way of taking action. At least for me, improving my understanding and enhancing my awareness of the different scales and types of politics and institutions has helped me to see what is relevant and where. Therefore I can channel my energy into things that I find salient at one particular level, rather than picking one cause area and focusing all my energy and dedicating 100% of my time into that one particular thing. This can be a bit overwhelming but ultimately I believe we don’t want to be alienated from any level of politics, if we want to be effective and have a lot of impact. I also believe this approach satisfies me more than any alternative, such as only focusing on topic X locally, for example. Obviously voting matters too, but if climate crisis and environmental matters are not visibly on any candidates’ agenda, it is unfortunately difficult to know what to expect from them, if anything.
How do you rate the work of Greta Thurnberg as the protagonist of the climate change cause?
What Greta has done is remarkable and successful at giving other young people an empowering example to follow. Climate crisis downplayers often criticise social movements such as Friday For Future for their ‘ineffectiveness’, but they fail at recognising effectiveness can also be interpreted from perspectives that do not equate it to direct and immediate ‘policy effectiveness’. Starting a mass mobilization of such a scale is in itself a success, since Fridays For Future has clearly inspired others to act in their respective countries and to found other environmental movements such as Zero Hour that start as marches but evolve to advocating for more conventional forms of participation such as encouraging people to vote for political candidates that support environmentally friendly policies. Not all the burden of action should fall on the shoulders of younger generations, and this is precisely what many of these youth-led environmental movements want to emphasise. The future of Friday For Future is yet to be seen but it will leave an impact on the environmental politics and the way in which civil society actors are drawn into caring about intergenerational justice and the interplay between natural science and policymaking at different levels of governance. The momentum around Greta cannot last forever, which is inevitable, and it should not be treated as a sign of the failure of the movement itself. Even if success for Greta would be for the governing bodies and institutions in power to take more drastic climate action, even if that has not yet happened to the desired extent, a few years ago the political targets that are now asked to be held accountable faced far less pressure to change.