Planet under Pressure

ECONOMIC LESSONS
We are going to do that through our
massive advertising budgets, but actually
it’s not our fault if they buy those
products. And governments are saying:
Well that is capitalism, right? It’s up
to free markets, that’s how the system
works.
I have worked in community development
with vulnerable and marginalized
groups, and I think there is very often
an assumption that if someone is on
the breadline that they don’t care about
things. And actually they do, they just
don’t have the platform to say so.
Julian Hill-Landolt: Just one remark: I
just feel we might be using a view of the
public that is not as broad as it needs to
be. I am a committed environmentalist,
I want the world to change. But I
don’t see a world yet in which people
are as open to changes as we (people
working to bring about more sustainable
societies) want them to be. And I
don’t see a world in which people are
sufficiently well-off, stable, and secure
to have the time available to care about
these things, particularly right now. For
a lot of people, their pandemic has been
absolutely awful. There are millions
who have lost their jobs, who don’t
have outdoor spaces to use, who have
no access to healthcare, or who live in
countries with no safety net and therefore
have to keep on working because
they live from one meal to the next. So,
it’s important for us to have empathy
– as governments, as companies, as a
sustainability sector – and have the
right conversations with people. I agree
wholeheartedly with everything that has
been said. But unless we get the public
Julian Hill-Landolt
on board, we won’t see transformation
at the rate and scope required.
Maja Göpel: Here I would like to add
that being forced to do things that are
environmentally harmful is not the
same as not caring about these effects.
That is exactly my point when I say we
need to pull the social and environmental
co-benefits of sustainability proposals
and policies to the forefront. Justice runs
across both domains and to me is a key
building block for acceptance.
I would like to turn to Emily.
Emily Auckland: I’m going to be a mediator
and sit somewhere in between
the two of you because I think that both
points are right. I think that there is
an assumption that people can’t make
the right decisions, and there has been
a history of business and government
behaviors that reinforce that within
society. So we are going to push them
toward these products that are not good
for them and are not good for the planet.
I also think that business and government
have to take really serious responsibility
for their role in consumer
behavior. I heard a quote recently from
Myles Allan, who is the physicist that
came up with the net-zero concept. He
said that we cannot entrust the future
of the planet to the individual decisions
of eight billion people, and I think that
is ultimately it. We can’t say it’s down
to individual choice to change these big,
complex, systemic issues. It is down to
those that have the power and that are
able to pull the right levers for change.
Pietro, what are your remarks or your narrative
for Agenda 2030?
Pietro Bertazzi: Well, actually, I think
we should highlight what is possible,
because there are some niches where
things are actually happening and going
in the right direction, and we should
put a spotlight on those. In Canada, the
government did link their economic
recovery package to the climate agenda.
Companies that want to be beneficiaries
of the recovery funds must disclose
their climate risks in line with the TCFD
recommendations. That’s great. Why
can’t we propose this to other jurisdictions?
The interview was conducted by Dr. Elmer
Lenzen, publisher of the Global Goals Yearbook
and chair of the macondo foundation.
Global Goals Yearbook 2020
49