Jason Hickel, anthropologist, writer and professor of ecological economics (ICTA-UAB), has published Menos es más (Capitán Swing), in which he collects a wide catalog of proposals for adaptation to climate change.
How should we adapt our behavior to climate change?
To stop the increase in temperatures by 1.5º C, rich countries, and each of us, must reduce emissions very quickly. And right now, no country is on track to achieve this and comply with the Paris Agreement. A lot of energy is used; and the more energy is used, the more emissions are generated and the more difficult it will be to decarbonize the economy. Countries must reduce energy consumption, starting with the elites. And for this reason, the size of some sectors of the economy that are harmful to the climate must be reduced.
like which ones
For example, SUV cars (a mixture of off-road and tourism), meat, weapons... Under the perspective of the dominant neoclassical economy, all economic sectors must grow. This consideration is not rational in the midst of a climate crisis, this is madness. We should decide which sectors should grow, for example, renewable energy, regenerative agriculture, and which should be reduced.
Which ones should be reduced?
We should reduce those that are not necessary and consume a lot of energy; or sectors that are not designed to cover the real needs of the people, but of the elites. Real needs must be answered.
How does the economy adapt to climate change?
We must put a limit on the use of resources and energy so that it is at desirable levels and reduce it every year until we are back within the planetary limits that we have exceeded. It is not a radical idea; after all, we already set limits: in human exploitation, with minimum wage laws or child labor.
An economy of people.
We also see this need in Spain, with 30% youth unemployment; we see it in the difficulties in accessing housing, food insecurity. These problems can be solved, production should be redirected towards goods that people really need. We must do this while at the same time addressing environmental issues.
Why doesn't it happen?
We are subject to the imperative of growth; technology is not used to do the same thing in less time, but to do more in the same amount of time. Lumber companies, equipped with chainsaws, do not let their workers go out before work and take the rest of the day off, but make them cut ten times more trees than before. Increased productivity is not used to free human beings from work, but to fuel continued growth.
I read: "Fighting inequality is a powerful weapon to reduce ecological pressure".
Yes, because it reduces the high-impact consumption of luxury products by the rich and reduces competitive consumption in the rest of society.
An ecological economy?
Much of the production essential to our existence is not included in national accounting. The work of caring for the home (which still mainly falls on women) is not included, nor is environmental or climate damage properly considered.
Would it reduce the working day?
This offers a triple benefit to society: less unemployment, better quality of life and less pressure on the environment
In his book he analyzes the different responsibility of countries with respect to climate change.
Rich countries bear most of the responsibility for climate change. But the responsibility for excess emissions lies largely with its wealthy classes, who have very high consumption and exercise disproportionate power over production and national politics. They are the ones who must bear the costs of the compensation or repair.
