This book discusses how environmental policies were developed in the relatively small country of Norway. The author, Peder Anker, a professor at New York University, claims that the evolution of environmentalism in this relatively small “peripherical” country might serve as an example for larger countries, worldwide.
The book’s topic is of course central, namely, how to find effective ways to cope with environmental deterioration, perhaps above all, pollution-related issues leading to adverse climatic changes, the degradation of our world’s water resources, and so on. We are having the fifth global conference on climate change in Glasgow, starting on November 1st. And we are faced with severe deterioration in the world’s climate: record temperature highs, forest fires, torrential storms, strong rainfall, mudslides, and so on. And, at the same time there seem to be a broad realization that previously little has been agreed upon when it comes to controlling these issues, primarily those relating to the emission of CO2 gases. There simply does not seem to be a widely political will to prioritize climate control at the expense of further economic growth. The political will to make such a tradeoff simply does not exist.
But perhaps we might be at a point of change? Can our plant still be saved? Specifically, are we able (and willing) to transfer faster from fossil fuels (coil, oil, …) to renewables? And is it possible to find an agreement on this especially among the world’s largest players, in particular the US, China and India? It might be noted, for instance that while China seems to be coming along well in the process of phasing out coal-fired power plants, this country is nevertheless offering funding for the construction of new coal-fired electric plants to several developing countries in Africa.
Before reviewing the specifics of the book, let us attempt to summarize six factors that might seem to represent “prerequisites” for environmental changes, all of these derived from what is discussed in the book:
Does it seem to be a strong and broad opinion that these issues matter? While previously little has happened since the first global conference on climate in Rio de Janeiro in 1983, there may perhaps currently be a growing realization that timing may now be right.
Can we observe deteriorating effects on our environment such as forest fires, heavy air pollution, floods, etc.? The answer may now increasingly be ‘yes’!
Are we ready to accept that cooperation across national borders may be critical? We saw that this worked well when it came to curtailing acid rain in Northern Europe. Hopefully we might see more of this.
Specific actions are called for, rather than endless discussions leading to nothing. Perhaps this was one of the key lessons one might draw from Mrs. Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway.
Is there a sufficiently strong political willingness to act? The book points out that this seems to have been the case in Norway when the labor party was in charge for more than two decades, from 1945 onwards. And this seems to be the case today when it comes to key countries, such as China or the US.
Tensions and stress among key stakeholders might indeed be a “prerequisite” for progress. We see this when it comes to opposing views between countries that seem to be willing to accept more sustainable societies, such as the US and many European countries, versus countries that may be putting higher focus on continued economic growth, such as India and many African nations, for instance. And, in the book, now to be reviewed, we saw how tensions among academic disciplines as well as many individuals (Rosenquist, a geologist versus Dahl, a botanist) seem to have led to ultimate progress in the end.
Let us now review the specifics of the book. However, two key provisos need to be stated before doing this:
The book’s main focus is on Norway’s “journey” to develop a more sustainable environmental stance. In this review, I shall however, emphasize what seem to be more generalized issues.
There are many names and specific individuals highlighted in the book. I have mostly abstained from getting into this, again, reflecting what I consider to be more in line with the interests of mist of the members of the Lorange Network.
The book’s introduction reports on the Global Seed Vault that has been constructed by Norway’s government deep inside a mountain in Svalbard, the world’s northernmost city, to be able to store over long periods of time seeds from the various plants in the world. This is seemingly an example of Norway’s willingness to commit to broader environmental issues. The book then details main contributions from several Norwegians when it comes to enhancing environmental insights, highlighting an extraordinary exposé to various aspects of ecological issues, rooted on expeditions, back to nature, studying indigenous people, anthropological studies of Sherpa villages in Nepal, and so on.
Ecological concerns came into the forefront after the publication of findings relating to dysfunctional effects from DDT. Biologists now tended to be in the forefront when it came to research on various aspects of ecological issues, with an aim to try to determine when a new steady state might be reached, i.e., with environmental degradation “flattening out”. This also led to an increased interest in ecological issues among philanthropists, the emergence of principles of environmental ethics for how to be good to the world. While some of these Eco philosophers might seem as rather pessimistic in their outlooks, others took a more optimistic stance, even inspired by Mao or Ghandi. Protests against the construction of new hydro-electric plants were therefore peaceful.
This Eco philosophic movement evolved into what the author has labelled ‘deep ecology’. This was broadly based, with eclectic focus, study groups, and with inspiration primarily from “oriental ecological wisdom”, as opposed to “accidental stupidity”. And now university courses were introduced to focus on environmental studies, such as at University of Oslo from 1972. But this movement became more politically left wing, building more on Marxist’s ideology, and gradually lost importance. Instead, so-called “shallow” ecology became more prominent, with less focus on left wing social analysis. Maybe an important learning here might be that ecological institutions that re relatively closely linked to specific political dogmas might tend to be less easily “acceptable” as examples to be followed more broadly. The “shallow” ecological findings outlined in the report Limits to Growth, on the other hand, seem to have quite broad impacts.
The link to religion might be seen as critical. This meant a new focus on nature, not only wilderness in a narrow sense, but also on plants, insects and animals, i.e., on the “life necessities society”, in contrast to “industrial growth society”. The focus was on do good, finding harmony. Action research sprawled, with the aim to find eco-friendly solutions. Unfortunately, some of these solutions might be labelled as having missionary undertones and with a “do-gooding gaze”. Again, we see that too strong links to theology might weaken acceptance of various types of ecological actions. This being said, it seems important to recognize that environmental topics have become vital to most Christians. The church as a whole seems to have moved more towards eco-theology. But science, not religion, should be at the core of new knowledge. This brings us back to what might be seen as a sustainable society. Sustainability might be seen as normative, a vision for how an environment of the future might be. And a Christian perspective might be key here. Moral strength seems to be important to drive sustainability. So-called “shallow” ecology focusses on pollution control and depletion of natural resources, more than enough for the development of new ecological norms. Commonly named “deep ecology” on the other hand, seem to focus on too many factors to be able to have any sense of realism, i.e., also on ways of life, economic systems, societal power structures and national differences.
The soi-disant acid rain phenomenon provides a good example of what new norms might lead to. Mrs. Brundtland, then Minister for Environment in Norway, came up with a system for measuring the emission of CO2 from coal-fired power plants in various northern European countries, and these countries agreed to limit their emission levels in line with what was now agreed on as new norms. As a result, emissions from Poland and, in particular, the UK, were scaled down. The result was immediately noticeable: less acidity in rivers and less damage on forests.
So, what does the author see as our common future? The climatological side of the ecological equation seems to be more and more under control, with cost-benefit analysis, to come up with “solutions” for climate changes. How might a peripheral country such as Norway be a driving force, a world pioneer, regarding environmental changes, especially those that relate to the emission of CO2, acid rain and depletion of the Ozone layer? We have already discussed the need to come up with cross-national accepted new norms, such as the one that specified maximum acceptable emission level from coal-fired power plants, and this led to a reduction of acid rain. Another approach pioneered by Norway is so-called trading in carbon emission certificates between countries. Norway, for instance, would finance clean development mechanisms in various relatively poor countries, for then to purchase the resulting carbon emission certificates that these countries would then have. These certificates would then off-set dysfunctional effects from Norway’s burgeoning off-shore oil industry.
Perhaps this is an example of trying to avoid a binary thinking regarding the “life necessities” society versus the industrial growth society. Perhaps there might be ways to combine the two as we saw when it came to carbon emission certificate trading. There is nevertheless a potential tension between the two sides, for good and bad. Norway’s “do-good” profile, now focused primarily on climatological issues, emission issues, rather than broader ecological issues seem to have led to positive results! Good! But this “do-good” profile has also provided a profile for various Norwegian firms to pollute abroad. Bad! There is of course no end to this saga of more versus less effective environmental initiatives. More will clearly come. This book represents a welcome contribution to what we might expect in the upcoming climate conference in Glasgow towards the end of this year. As such, the book should be a recommended reading for all concerned with the global climate challenges, policy makers, politicians and ordinary citizens alike.
Comments