First, let’s have a look at the origin of the concept.

The Green New Deal borrows its name from the “New Deal” economic program that was enacted during the 1930s in the United States by president Roosevelt after the Great Depression. It aimed for rebuilding the United States’ economy, reducing unemployment, and reforming the financial system to avoid future major crises. The presumed success of the New Deal in ending the great depression, although contested, and the fact that many of its programs laid the foundations of the US social welfare system, gave its title the eminence it enjoys until now. A New Deal also evokes a new beginning and possibly, a fair and right one.

In a somehow similar context, the idea of a “Green New Deal” emerged in the wake of the last financial crisis of 2007. It came about in the American press, advocating for investments in renewable energies, energy efficiency, and the reduction of CO2 emissions. Since that time, the idea was reclaimed in different countries by different political parties, movements and organizations.

The following year, the British think tank “New Economic Foundation” issued a report titled “A Green New Deal”, calling for a set of policies aimed to initiate the transition to a low carbon energy system, increasing financial regulation and green investment, and more climate action.

In 2009, a report titled “A Global Green New Deal” (GGND) was prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) by Edward Barbier.This GGND was articulated around three main points: Revive the world economy by creating employment opportunities while providing protection for the most vulnerable people. Reducing carbon dependency and resource degradation. And lastly, moving forward with the Millennium Development Goals.

Although the origins and scopes of these different projects and ideas are very different, they converge on two major points. The first one is the imperative energy and environmental transition needed towards a more sustainable, less polluting and wasteful economic system. The second point is providing the economic security and welfare to the people who will be primarily affected by this transition.

The ideas of the GND made it to the public debate nearly a decade later. But there isn’t just one GND. There are different competing initiatives and groups. And even if the projects revolve around the same core ideas, there are many differences that could change the outcomes of the projects completely, in the extent and speed of implementation of the planned transition, and how it is going to unfold economically.

In the following, I present the main projects in the two biggest economies of the world.

The United States Green New Deal

A progressive fraction of the US Democratic Party has adopted the Green New Deal as a political program for the next elections and seems determined to rally the whole party under its banner. The most prominent figures in this movement are undoubtedly the young US senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Until now, their GND is rather a set of sweeping proposals about phasing out the use of carbon energy and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This would be achieved by investing massively in green and renewable energies, highly skilled jobs, and social justice measures. To follow detailed updates from the GND, you could check this news stream from Vox.

But this should not hide the fact that a GND was also the title of the political program of the Green Party in the US for the last elections. Both projects seem to agree on the necessity of transitioning to a 100% renewable energy system by 2030 and on investing massively into the creation of green jobs. However, this is not to the liking of many other groups. The Republican Party, for example, opposes vigorously such proposals for different reasons ranging from considering such an orientation bad for the economy to denying both man-made climate change and the merits of climate mitigation investments. On the other hand, not all democrats believe the GND is a good idea either. For example, some key figures in the party think this 2030 planned transition is not feasible, and if initiated, could backfire on the undertaken climate efforts if it initially results in disappointment and frustration.

The US civil society is also highly mobilized towards climate action. In January 2019, more than 600 environmental organizations published an open letter to the Congress urging it to act on key points that describe a GND, even if the letter does not explicitly mention it.

But with Donald Trump in power, a GND is not likely to see the light of the day anytime soon. He has already backed off from US international commitments for global climate action by finalizing the pulling out of the Paris Agreement in the beginning of this month. This not only makes the way to the GND, but also to the success of the global climate action, go necessarily through the White House.

European Green Deal

Things seem to be much more optimistic in Europe. The first point of the newly elected EU commissioner’s agenda, Ursula von der Leyen, is the commitment to a European Green Deal. This might look surprising as she comes from a conservative political party (the Christian Democratic Union of Germany). But in Europe, and especially in Germany, the environmental and climatic questions do not seem as cleaving between conservatives and progressives as in the US.

Overall, the key announcements describe the highlights of what would constitute a GND. The new President of the European Commission is determined to uphold theEU’s 2030 engagement to the Paris Agreement, and has the ambitious plan of making Europe a climate neutral continent by 2050. Also, the agenda announces the intention to invest heavily in climate finance, setting the course towards a circular economy and clean technologies. Of course, the economic backbone of this agenda will be “an economy in the service of the people”. Of the announced measures, many highlight a leaning towards a fairer economy and a just transition in a market system reconciled with the European societies.

To achieve this agenda, whose detailed program should be proposed within the first 100 days of new commissioner in office, von der Leyen will face strong challenges.

Indeed, not all European states are enthusiastic about the climate-neutral continent objective, and three states already officially formulated their obstaining position. Additionally, even if the Paris Agreement objectives are respected, not just by the EU member states, this is not very likely to limit the warming at the hoped 2°C threshold. Therefore, many environmental movements in the EU are dissatisfied with the pledges and current policies, and are requesting stronger efforts in climate action. For example, some groups wish to discontinue further developing the coal industry, whose economic viability is less promising, even without mentioning its disastrous effects on the climate.

The Green New Deal for Europe (GNDE) is a more radical GND recipe. The newly founded campaign is advocating for an even more ambitious plan, and they deem their 10 pillars the basic minimum a GND should have, otherwise, it is not a real one. These pillars question dogmas like endless economic growth and promise a bottom-up transition that will empower the people in Europe economically and politically. The campaign aims to limit global warming at 1.5°C, an objective that few think possible anymore. Interestingly, this initiative is the first that acknowledges the global scale of the challenge and calls for supporting climate justice around the world.

What I think about GNDs

Apparently, GNDs have become the progressive way of framing current political problems to respond to the actual challenges. However, not all GNDs are alike. And I guess history is full of stories of very good political programs that were not put into action.

I am not saying this to claim that GNDs are some political maneuvers that shouldn’t be taken seriously. Quite the opposite. I think today’s environmental challenges, especially climatic ones, are inextricable from the globalized market economic system. Hence, a GND is the right way of formulating both the problems and the preconized solutions. But what I find difficult to understand is the limiting of the scope of the analysis, and the dealing only with one part of the problem.

To give some concrete examples, I think that in our current context, problems and solutions should be formulated in their globalized scope. As it makes sense to argue for limiting inequalities within a single country or continent and adopting social measures, a globalized response to climate change should also take into consideration power structures and economic inequalities between the Global North and Global South, and try to develop new partnerships that would conjugate global climate action and set-up a more sustainable world.

I also find it disappointing that there are no signs of a deep questioning of the causes that led to the current problems. For example, neither the EU’s nor the Democrat’s GNDs plan to limit military expenses or their militaries‘ subsequent pollution and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. For those who don’t know, the military activity is the most polluting on the planet with the heaviest GHG impact. The US army alone, for example, has a larger carbon footprint than most countries in the world.  Both the EU and the US could play a major role in leading the way to a less militarized world for many good reasons, not just the climate’s sake. But this does not seem to be the priority.

Therefore, I think that reaching a consensus on, or adopting a green new deal or not, is not an end in itself. I see it more as a path dependent process that opens new possibilities and shuts down others. We should be mindful about what each path entails, what could be brought up in the discussion, what we see most important to contribute, and hope for the best.

The post Green New Deals: pick your green trend now ! appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The word anxiety has a negative one connotation. In its daily usage, it refers to the irrational fear of something that will not necessarily take place. A paralyzing fear that hinders people from living their lives in a normal way. Wikipedia defines it as “the subjectively unpleasant feelings of dread over anticipated events, such as the feeling of imminent death”.

After reading and reflecting on the topic, I am not sure anymore if climate change anxiety is a negative thing. And this is why…

Is it a perception problem?

Sometimes, rationalizing our fears leads to terrible appreciation mistakes. Anxiety is a subjective or a personal fear. But this does not necessarily mean that this threat is a fictional or a trivial one. In my opinion, in the case of climate change, this could even lead to denying scientific facts or to taking hostile positions against climate activists, to make oneself feel better. However, many people do not realize that the hottest five years on record are the last five years. Even worse, 24 million people were displaced because of climate change related extreme events in 2016,. These are rather staggering facts that need us to pause and think for a while. There is more than just subjective perception or an alarming discourse that is problematic about climate change.

There is a real big fat problem, and anxiety seems like an involuntary reaction to it. Actually, anxiety is a normal and healthy reaction in the face of danger. As climate change is not the first threat of this magnitude lurking human societies. We could even seek out for meaningful comparisons. In the past, many major crises had negative effects on the mental health of entire populations. I could think of economic crises where people feared losing their jobs and wealth, and the disintegration of their families and communities. Wars and the threat of imminent violent conflicts are also traumatic events that influenced the mental health of millions, because of the violence, the loss of the loved ones and the destruction. Another extreme example is colonialism. The French revolutionary psychiatrist Franz Fanon studied its ravaging effects on the mental well-being of Algerians upon independence.

Although some resemblance between those examples and climate change as global problems makes sense. One key point has a crucial influence on their perception and is, in my opinion, quite unique. In the three examples mentioned above, a positive horizon was still possible. Reaching it was a matter of time and efforts. One could hope for an economic recovery after a crisis, peace after war, and liberation after colonialism.

This is not the case for climate change, where a positive ending is not possible. Our climatic system is threatened of irreversible deregulation because of the emitted greenhouse gases that are a direct effect of our way of life and consumption. Once this tipping point of deregulation is reached, there is no way back to “normal” (meaning what we consider as normal today). Densely populated parts of the earth will become inhospitable to human life, and the subsequent conflicts over resources will be exacerbated to a point difficult to imagine. Not to mention all the direct victims due to extreme climate  events, whose frequency and intensity is very likely to soar.

Did you say ecoanxiety?

Today, any person with a basic understanding of the climatic crisis should be concerned. Even if what they relate with climate change is completely different.

In my private conversations with friends and relatives, I noticed that for some people climate change has very direct and local consequences. It could mean for example not being able to ski in winter anymore, or the decrease in the level of the river or lake where we bath in summer. In some cases it materializes in the threat of the rising sea level that will destroy one’s city, but does not go far beyond that. For some other people, who may not feel immediately or personally threatened by climate change effects, it means something else. A future filled with horrible stories and news about  wars, conflicts, displacements and human suffering. A world like ours, but worse in every possible aspect. A world destroyed by the greed and carelessness of some humans. How would you like to live in such a world?

Doesn’t the idea make you even a little bit anxious?

Many studies find that people of different countries, age groups and social backgrounds are extremely concerned about the issue. They express their concerns  in very different ways.

A 2017 study of the American Psychological Association, found out that members of an Inuit community were experiencing very unpleasant emotions because of climate change. These unpleasant emotions ranged from fear, sadness, stress, to loss of self-worth and community sense of belonging. In this article published a few days ago, psychologists around the world are noticing that children are more and more worried about the situation of the climate, and more prone to solitude and anxiety, or, “ecoanxiety”. Ecoanxiety here refers to the “chronic fear of environmental doom”.

Some people are even considering not having children. They deem the world not a suitable place anymore to bring them to, and leave them to face a climatic disaster. This position – of not having children anymore – is a clear sign of despair and a hopeless perspective of the future.

What to do?

In my opinion, the first thing you need to do is to understand ecoanxiety in a healthy way. To that end, the work of the swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung could be very helpful. Carl Jung identified anxiety – among other mental disorders – as a type of neurosis. A neurosis refers to a mental disorder that involves no loss of touch with reality. It marks one’s inability to adapt to the surrounding environment properly. I understand it as a warning sign on your dashboard. In the context of climate change, several reasons involving our behavior could cause ecoanxiety. Maybe it is a backlash of our inability or inaction to do anything to change the situation? Maybe it is the guilt we feel for not giving up certain lifestyles and consumer habits that are unnecessary and harmful for the climate?

Jung continues to even present a positive side of neurosis, that could be a motive for one’s development and fulfillment of one’s potential:

 “I myself have known more than one person who owed his whole usefulness and reason for existence to a neurosis, which prevented all the worst follies in his life and forced him to a mode of living that developed his valuable potentialities. These might have been stifled had not the neurosis, with iron grip, held him to the place where he belonged” (Jung, 1966: par. 68).

Therefore, we should not focus strictly on ecoanxiety, but more on its cause: climate change and its drivers. Ignoring this fact and dealing only with its symptom would be like ignoring the red warning in your car’s dashboard while driving on the highway: this is very likely to result in a dramatic accident.

Teenagers in the United States and other countries around the world seem to have understood this fact intuitively. Engaging in the Friday for Future movement, and other actionsis their way of coping with ecoanxiety. They are channeling their sentiments of fear and anger into climate action. In the US, 1 in 4 teenagers has already participated ina climate action.

This would be the second advice. To engage for the climate. We could engage in a first step by reading and understanding the scientific proofs of the causes and consequences of climate change. When ready, there are many possibilities in which you can have a positive impact on the climate. On personal level, you can change some of your consumption habits, like eating less meat and dairy products. Collectively, there are many initiatives and networks of climate action you can join and support to make a difference. Although the clock is ticking, action is still possible. Even if the pace is slow and what is being done is not enough, many achievements are emerging all around the world. Resigning in despair is a commodity we can’t afford.

The post Do you suffer from climate anxiety? This might not be a bad thing! appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

In addition to the fact that it is the first global report on land use, it could also be described as the most ‘inclusive’ IPCC report to date. The report has more contributor scientists from the global south than the global north and 40% female scientists. Simultaneously, this highlights the growing importance of the topic, and the rising interest in the question in the global south.

The body of knowledge on climate change, its causes, consequences and mechanisms is already extensive. I think that what we need is more awareness raising, and more climate action, for a better future for everyone. Therefore, every new IPCC reports is a good occasion to debate the climatic crisis.

Land use and Climate Change

The first chapter is a general introduction to the issue. It presents the scope of the report and the related topics to land use that will be undertaken. Land use describes the activities, arrangements and inputs that humans use to modify the land cover according to their interests and needs. These activities could result in more greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, or on the contrary, result in a decrease of greenhouse gases. Since humans directly affect around 70% of the global ice-free land surface, this issue and its impact on the climate and the climate action is of extreme importance.

Land use and the climate

The second chapter of the report treats the land-climate interaction in detail, building on the accumulated knowledge of the previous IPCC reports. The land use and climate change interactions are difficult to forecast, as they intertwine in a complex net of casualties and action-reaction. Nonetheless, the general trends are well described in the report, as well as their potential outcomes.

The growing human pressure on land is driving the greenhouse emissions to increase beyond the fixed limits to mitigate climate change. Moreover, the land is used more intensively and extensively to satisfy an increasing food demand through agricultural production. Compared to the pre-industrial levels, this caused the mean temperature over land to increase by 1.5°C, compared to the global 1°C increase over land and ocean. 

The pressure on the land comes from increasing pressure for resources and agricultural products. for example, since 1961, the total production of cereals increased by 240%. This results in increased land degradation and adverse effects on the ecosystems, and interacts also with the climate.

According to the report, the current changing trends of the climate will have potential benefits to agriculture in high latitude areas, as it will expand the arable lands in the north. But eventually, it will trigger a chain of events (known as feedback loops) such as snow melting and release of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere that will lead to further warming and climate extreme events in many parts of the world. These consequences will negatively affect land use and agricultural production in many areas, such as drylands. This will probably exacerbate the negative land use practices even more. It could also put the food security of large populations at risk.

Land degradation

Chapters 3 and 4 of the report treat the topic of desertification and land degradation. In addition to the study of the ongoing processes and their impacts, they present future scenarios and projections.

Among the consequences of climate change, the intensification of the hydrological cycle will lead to more intense rainfalls which in turn will result in increased soil erosion and land degradation. In dry regions of the world, land degradation will happen because of decreased rainfall and increased warming and leading to desertification. In both cases, it will cause the loss of fertile soil and vegetation. The report claims that a sustainable management of land could prevent land and forest degradation. It would alsod contribute to reversing the negative effects of climate change. In turn, this could support the implementation and achievements of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and even create benefits for adaptation measures. The three last chapters (5-6-7) focus on food security, sustainable development and risk management. They present useful insights on the current opportunities to limit the adverse effects of the combined land use-climate change effect. They also present how new policies and governance approaches could lead to a more sustainable way of living. That could avoid a climatic worst case scenario, and preserve the environmental rights of future generations.

We are on a crossroad

My take home message from the report, is that the situation of land use is critical. Humans are approaching a crossroad, in which we will have to choose a development path. This choice will have huge consequences on the climate, positively or negatively, and consequently on humanity’s future ways of life.

Accordingly, humans need to adopt a less economist evaluation of the value of lands and land exploitation in general. Perusing pure economic profit-driven interests will only lead to the further degradation of the environment and destabilization of the climate. Knowing that the consequences of such actions will not be distributed equally means that there will be winners and losers.  This leaves no doubt that the current exploitation of the earth and its resources will not change spontaneously.

Sources:
Press release https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/
Climate change and land, summary for policymakers: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf
Climate change and Land https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl-report-download-page/

The post Climate Change and Land Report – Why this report is important and why we all should care about land use… appeared first on Global Change Ecology.