Jason Hickel, anthropologist, writer and professor of ecological economics at the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientales (ICTA-UAB) has published Less is more (Captain Swing), where he includes a wide catalog of proposals to adapt the economy to the climate crisis. He is a specialist in social inequalities but his forays into the world of ecological economics have made him a benchmark
How should we deal with climate change?
To stop the rise in temperatures by 1.5ºC, rich countries, and each one of us, have to reduce emissions very quickly. And right now no country is on the path to achieve it and comply with the Paris Agreement. The main reason is that they use a lot of energy; and the more energy that is used, the more difficult it will be to decarbonise the economy. Scientists are very clear that these countries must reduce their energy consumption, starting with the elites. And to achieve these reductions in energy as a whole, you have to reduce the size of some climate-damaging sectors of the economy.
As which?
For example, SUV cars, meat, weapons... Under the perspective of the dominant neoclassical economics, all economic sectors must grow. That could be considered normal and rational in other times; but in the middle of a climate crisis like the one we have obviously, that's crazy. We should decide democratically which sectors should be reduced and which should grow, for example renewable energy, regenerative agriculture, and in which others we should decrease.
And what activities should be reduced?
We should concentrate on reducing the sectors of activity that are not necessary and consume a lot of energy; or in sectors that are designed for the elites but that do not cover the real needs of the people. We must respond to real needs.
In other words, the economy must adapt to climate change.
We must put a cap on the use of resources and energy that are at current desirable levels and reduce it each year until we are once again within the planetary limits that we have exceeded. It doesn't seem like a radical idea to me; after all, putting limits on the exploitation of people is what has already been done, including the laws of the minimum wage, the legislation on child labor and the regulation of work on the weekend
It calls for an economy of the people.
We also see this need in Spain, with 30% youth unemployment; we see it in the difficulties to access housing, food insecurity. These problems can be fixed in no time; production would simply have to be redirected towards goods that people really need. We must meet people's needs while simultaneously addressing environmental issues.
Why doesn't it happen?
We are subject to the imperative of growth; technology is used not to do the same thing in less time, but to do more in the same amount of time. Chainsaw-equipped logging companies don't let their employees leave before work and take the rest of the day off, but make them cut down ten times as many trees as before.
He says in his book that fighting inequality is a powerful option to reduce ecological pressure.
Fighting inequality reduces high-impact consumption of luxury products by the rich and reduces competitive consumption in the rest of society. A recent study predicts that only millionaires will consume enough energy and generate enough CO2 emissions to “occupy” the 72% of our remaining carbon emissions budget, that is, the emissions that still remain to avoid dangerous warming. The dimension of social classes is very important here because there are people, for example, who have difficulties meeting their basic needs.
And he talks about a green economy.
Much of the production that is essential for our existence is not included in the national accounts. The work of personal caretakers in the home is not included (which still falls mainly on women), environmental damage and now the impact on the atmosphere, that is, climatic damage, are not duly considered. The consequences of gas emissions are not paid. Increased productivity has not been used to free humans from work but to fuel constant growth that only benefits elites.
Would it reduce the working day?
This solution can offer a triple benefit to society: less unemployment, more quality of life and less pressure on the environment.
You talk about the atmosphere being colonized.
Obviously, the idea of colonizing the atmosphere did not come from me; It arose in a meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in 2010, in the so-called meeting of the peoples, and where this idea is pointed out. They were the first to use the idea of colonizing the atmosphere.
But you highlight in your book the different responsibility of the countries regarding climate change. Explain to me...
The first thing to recognize is that rich countries bear most of the responsibility for causing climate change.
But who should bear those compensation costs?
Indeed, attention must be paid to the great class inequalities within nations. The responsibility for excess emissions falls largely on the wealthy classes, who have very high consumption and wield disproportionate power over production and national politics. They are the ones who must bear the costs of compensation.
Should China pay or receive compensation?
Obviously, we must consider that China is a very big country. When you look at their historical responsibility per capita it is very low because there are a lot of people; It is very different from the situation in rich countries. If we think that China can reach climate neutrality in 2050 or 2060, as it has set as its objective, and if you do the global accounting, they can conclude that it would not have exceeded the limits of what can be considered its fair contribution in relation to the target of 1.5ºC while we know that rich countries have already crossed that threshold right now. This does not mean that the countries of the South should not decarbonise; everyone must do it. But it is clear that some countries have more responsibility than others.
Who should pay, the wealthiest countries or people?
The nation-centric concept is no longer adequate. The reality is that the elites of the global South also emit a lot and are a problem in this regard. Well, it must be the elites, here in Spain too, since they are the ones that control the financial and productive capital. The fundamental idea of this compensation process is that you are moving power and resources from the elites to the people; from the capital to the people.
Is capitalism responsible for climate change?
Yes, but you have to make a distinction because when people think of capitalism they tend to think of markets, trade and so on. But these are activities that have been going on for thousands of years. What is capitalism?
What is it?
This is a system where production is dominated by the elites, by capital, by that 1% that controls the financial markets and therefore production. We see that the motivation that moves him is not to satisfy human needs, but the accumulation of capital and the obtaining of benefits. The result is that we have very perverse forms of production, and we have highly profitable sectors, with a very high return in the form of capital. And it is not invested in other sectors, such as social housing, public services or renewable energies that are sometimes not so profitable.
And what role do social policies play?
They are key. I want to emphasize very clearly the social policies that are necessary. When I ask for universal public services and job guarantees, I don't say it as something "extra", but that they are fundamental. Without these social policies there can be no ecological policy. It is urgent that the environmental movement assume the demands of social policies, and thus take them to the working classes and union leaders together. This is the kind of political alliance that will be necessary. And it could be a very popular political platform.
You highlight the role that renewable energies must play. Is green growth a solution?
It must be taken into account that the more the economy grows, the more energy it consumes, which makes it more difficult and slower to decarbonise the economy. And at the same time, that means more depletion of resources, and more extraction of land and materials to produce turbines. And many of these materials are mined in the global south and come from there in very uneven relationships. Renewable energy is important and we need it for the transition. However, by themselves they are not the solution, since we need to reduce the total energy consumption.
