Avsnitt
-
Heatwaves and floods dominated the headlines in the summer of 2024. This lived reality of climate change is taking place against a backdrop of political shifts as far-right parties across Europe win shares of the vote that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago.
To uncover what is happening and explore what campaigners, politicians and businesses can do to ensure climate action in the run up to COP30 in Brazil in 2025, Philippa Nuttall spoke to Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a key architect of the Paris Agreement, and Sandrine Dixson-Declève, co-president of The Club of Rome and executive chair of Earth4All.
Sandrine and Laurence discuss the growing trend of right-wing politics in Europe and its impact on climate action, emphasising the urgent need to address social inequality and injustice in the energy transition. They highlight strategies for accelerating a globally just transition and call for a comprehensive reform of COP and climate governance to ensure effective implementation of the Paris Agreement.
Watch the video:
Full transcript:
Philippa: Welcome to the Club of Rome podcast exploring the shifts in mindset and policy needed to transform the complex challenges facing us today. I'm Philippa Nuttall, a freelance journalist and editor of Sustainable Views, and in this episode, we're discussing the road to COP30, which will be held in Brazil next year, and what needs to change to ensure that timely climate action is agreed and implemented.
With me today I have Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, and a professor at Sciences Po in Paris. Laurence previously chaired the Board of Governors at the French Development Agency, the board of Expertise France, and is best known for being France's Climate Change Ambassador and Special Representative for COP 21 and a key architect of the landmark Paris agreement. We also have Sandrine Dixson-Declève, co president of the Club of Rome and executive chair of Earth for All. Welcome to both of you today. Thank you. So Laurence, I'd like to start with you. In 2024 we're seeing heat records broken constantly. We've had many months where the temperatures are 1.5 degrees above pre industrial levels. And yet, in many countries, we're seeing people vote, including in France, for parties which whose vision is not aligned with with climate action, who want to slow or even halt climate action. And even if these parties are not, perhaps getting the support that they expect, that they're still there. And we've seen a swing very much to the right, and even the far right, in the European Parliament. Could you explain to us a bit what you think is going on here, and how much perhaps poor communication or mixed messages around climate change are responsible for what we're seeing?
Laurence: I think first of all, this trend towards the right-wing is, of course, now a trend that is distributed across many, many countries, including mostly in Europe, but not only in Europe, as we see in United States and other countries at the same time. It's a probably more nuanced evaluation, because you see in some countries where very much pointing to the right-wing has been showing other direction as well. And Poland is a good example. In Europe, we see the resistance and of Spain and the more progressive parties. So, it's a mixed bag, but you see that the polarisation is there. And I think there is a big element of understanding for that. We have inflation. We have the problem of security because, of course, of the invasion of Ukraine, and of course, these incredible energy prices that have damaged so much, not only to consumers accusative power, but as well the industry and the economy, but the sense that we are missing a very, very important social element in all this, that people feel marginalised. They feel not listened to. They feel that they are not represented. And I think that is a main issue for the climate community at large, the climate policy in general, that the social element should be the first entry point to this big transformation of society we are aiming at, and it cannot. It had been discarded. It has not been taken seriously enough so people legitimately think that they, and that a number of poles are signaling it, that they are paying for the reduction of emission that others are finally the origin of. And in particular, of course, the more affluent people, the higher middle class and even the higher income households that are finally polluting much more than they are, but they are paying the cost for it. So, I think this social dimension is certainly now that's a big moment to rethink all what we do in terms of climate policies. So, it's not only communications even because people feel the climate change impact, but they feel the solutions are not fair. And just one example, you pay a lot of tax on your gasoline when you drive, but then you don't pay any for the one who are flying all the time. So that, I think, is a justice element, and the social element is a key element, in my view, and that's why we see that in France, and the economic insecurity, if you add on that, that you have recommendation that you have to change your boilers or to go to electric vehicle you cannot even buy. And you know, it's a very interesting study recently by OECD, people who have access to mobility and collective transport care about climate change. The people who don't have access to public transport, they tend to deny and don't want to talk about climate change. So, you know, it's a problem of access and fairness much more than anything else.
Philippa: Yeah, no, I think that's come out really clearly in the elections in terms of the pushback. We've heard a lot of this that it's not fair and people shouldn't be paying for the energy transition, especially poorer people in society. And how do you think, why do you think this message has not got through? I mean, the just transition has been mentioned as part of the energy transition, but perhaps not as a core point. And why do you think this message has got lost? And how do you think this can now be changed? Is this something that needs to happen at a national level, or is it something that can work through the international process?
Laurence: Why are government afraid? Because, in a way, I must say, most government hasn't taken the issue of social fairness and justice really seriously enough. Because the trend on the evolution of the economy is a consensus on, you know, that finally, inequality was not a big issue. And so, the response to that, look at the reform of the tax system, for example, that we are now currently discussing at European level. The government doesn't dare to go in that direction for the moment. So, in a way, the only thing they can offer is, you know, more right-wing type of argument, like immigration is a big problem, where, in reality, social justice is a real problem. So, they don't want to reassess the model, and then they don't have the tools or the mindset or the philosophy, the political philosophy, that they can respond to the issue. So, the main, and that has been very, very evidently, even in France, the main response was to talk about security in the hard terms, police and, you know, control and immigration, when they should be talking about social justice. And that, in my view, a contradiction. If we continue doing that, we will never, never have an ambition climate action at home. So, it's a very crucial juncture point. And that's all, of course, all the battle we have in political terms in France these days.
Philippa: Thanks Laurence. Sandrine, the Club of Rome and Earth4All, you've done lots of work around the importance of inequality and social justice. Do you agree with the conclusion that Laurence has come to, and how do you see that this discussion or these policies can now change?
Sandrine: I completely agree, and I think that what's, I must say, a bit disappointing is that we're in a situation, at least at the Club of Rome as saying we warned you and we told you, so if you look at the Limits to Growth, and if you look at the culmination of social and environmental tipping points, which were already pretty much drawn out in our scenarios in 1972 where we indicated that in the 2020s we would start to see these pressure points. And then I think the culmination, obviously, with the polycrisis, exactly as Laurence indicates, and the impacts have made it really difficult at this time to put in place and roll out the climate legislation and the climate implementation that we need. So coming back to the core of the issue, which is the inequality in the poverty issue, better understanding actually what leaders need to do at this time is fundamental for people like ourselves, people like Laurence trying to actually guide our policy leaders so they don't get caught with their pants or their skirts down, as we say, and really have the solutions that they need. And we have to remember that the yellow vest protest was truly a protest, both about wealth issues, because several weeks before, the wealth tax that had been proposed was actually eliminated, as well as a diesel tax issue. And when we look at most of the data that we have from a variety of different sources today, what we see is really interesting, and we've done an analysis of this also because we've been working directly with President von der Leyen's team on communications. One, most people, exactly as Laurence says, understand climate change is here, and they're suffering. They're ready to pay their fair share. The issue is, what's fair, when we see 2.8 billion windfall profits by oil and gas companies per day globally, when we see that actually, we don't and we're not able to pass a wealth tax, when we see that we continue to give subsidies to fossil energy, but not actually to renewables or industrial agriculture, rather than farmers who want to shift to regenerative agriculture. So there are so many perversities in our market and also in the signals that we see from policy that we need to really start to unpack what this means for people's lives. Our most recent IPSOS survey, which actually was undertaken in G20 countries, showed that all citizens across G20 countries believe that we need a new economic reset, that we need to think through indicators that go beyond just productivity, and think through indicators that might place a value on education, place a value on access to health care, social care, etc. And I think the last point Philippa, and this is how we need to get better at describing where we are, is showing the cost of inaction, and then figuring out what does that look like in practice. So new data that's come out of the Potsdam Institute shows very clearly that if we continue at 1.5 degrees, and we know we probably will hit 1.5 degrees very soon, we're already at 1.1 that actually we will start to look at a definite GDP loss of going from 10% between 1.5 to two degrees and potentially more. We'll also look at 26% income loss. So, we need to translate those figures for leaders and then give them the solutions. We've got the solutions. The question is, do we have the political will, and that is where it gets complicated at this time, when we've moved much more towards the radical right.
Philippa: Yeah. I mean, it's interesting what you're saying. You've quoted polls whereby people are in favor of paying their fair share, but the politicians that have been voted in at a European level are not representative of that at the moment. So do you feel that the new European Parliament, which is clearly there is a majority towards the right, has a mandate to introduce what you've just discussed, and also, what are those solutions that they need to put in place, very concretely.
Sandrine: So, I think the first thing is that with this new European Parliament, what we've been saying, and Laurence has also participated in our letter, where we claimed we really needed to have a Green Deal. The Green Deal is still a green and social deal. We need to pass the Green Deal into a moment of implementation. This also means and Laurence was absolutely right- how do we get national parliaments and national governments to start to move towards implementation? And I would take it one step further as well, and bring forward all the mayors and the local governments that are firmly anchored in both the social and the green, because they see it in their cities. And how can we get them more involved? You know, you've got so many incredible mayors who are working in this area across Europe who are fundamentally convinced that this is the way to move forward, and then in terms of solutions, I mean, there are fiscal solutions that are actually already being put in place. We've got now the new letter report, which was actually put forward on the single market, and how importantly, we were able to participate in that process, how important the single market is in terms of ensuring that we implement the Green Deal, we need to ensure that that single market facilitates, as does the IRA and the US, the possibility of more technology transfer between the member states, more implementation of the legislation, the distributional effects of electrification, which we don't see for the moment, and we see huge blockage, reduction of bureaucracy, increasing permitting, so that it goes much faster, all of these kind of single market constraints that we see today, which is why the IRA has been seen and touted as so much better at getting industrial, green industrialization to the US and not to Europe, all of that needs to be facilitated.
Philippa: Thanks Sandrine. And Laurence, where do you see the key solutions? I mean, you're an economist, where do you see the key sort of fiscal or economic solutions that can be put in place, especially because we're talking about fiscal space. But at the same time, we've seen in the elections, there is still a push for low taxes across most of Europe. I mean, the UK is not part of the EU, but the election campaign ended up being very much around low taxes, even though the social justice element was there to a certain extent. So, so how do you change this, this narrative, so that people understand how the the transition can be paid for, and it's paid for in a just way.
Laurence: So of course, we have to recognise that we need a massive investment in Europe and elsewhere. We need at least 2.4 trillion per year by 2030 for the transition developing countries, if we exclude China, and we need at least to double the investment in Europe from 100 billion to 800 billion a year. So that, how we do that in a moment where there is no fiscal space left, there is, of course, reluctance because of these political balances to for the moment, to relaunch a collective European effort to borrow, for example, at international level, to allow for this investment to be recognized as not a debt, but really an investment. I think, by the way, I think we should pursue that avenues that we should not put and recognize investment in the future and in the transition as a normal debt. That's not the same one than to, you know, borrow to pay for the day-to-day expenditure. So we need to invest. We need, of course, to mobilize private capital to do so. So, we need public guarantees. So, we have to think very seriously. And that's why this idea of really having a financial, integrated internal market is so important, because we need to mobilise the resources where they are. How we do that is really to give clear, clear direction of travel, so not to backtrack on the Green Deal, because, if not how will investor, a private investor will go in that direction. So ,we need to keep going in the same direction. And many of them, many of the big companies and the small companies are asking for that clarity. But then we need at the same time, because again, the social element, you cannot have a transformation with, without a social contract that has to be redefined. Yes, it's not a good period, because you have, we have let this far right, very nationalistic or very individualist type of thinking develop, and that migration finally was a problem for everyone, which, of course, is not true, because we know that if, by the way, the all the immigrants in Europe stopped working, one day the economy stopped, that we should be careful about that. We in Europe, we have, in a way, a strong social contract, but still with even in Europe, we have left inequality of revenue, as Sandrine was mentioning, but just to grow enormously and and that I think we need to look at that. And that's why I think now I see that as a more popular initiative, finally, to really tax the 1% or even the 0.2% or whatever the percentage, but the people who are really benefited so much of this crisis. Sandrine was referring to this windfall profit that the oil and gas not only did in 2022 but continue to get and so on the same time, how as taxpayers, we are funding the subsidies for this oil and gas company to continue working. So that is just it's not rational from the point economic point of view, we need to lower the bill of electricity for the consumers, as well as to help them invest into having more energy efficiency. But at the same time, it's not fair that this 1% finally pay a very what on average because of both of their mostly their capital revenue, pay so little tax compared to the average citizen. And that is not that will not work on the long term. So, if we don't want to have this terrible and you know, we have seen that in the past, we have tragical past in Europe. And when you look at what is the discourse and the images and what is happening now, including in France, when I look how the society is divided, we are preparing for very dramatic political revolution. So, I think that the moment where politicians should be serious and responsible, and that really to a tax system that is much more fair, and we need to do that. And yes, we need to have wealth tax absolutely we cannot, just not, because that will solve all the financial problem. Of course not, but it will increase the idea that the other system is not always against the same people, and that where the middle class and the lower middle class are feeling that they are really not recognised, and that's terrible that you create enemies between people finally, that doesn't have access to power. Just so unfair. I'm sure I must say, these days I'm furious. I'm really furious, and it's not my normal state of mind, but in this particular context, I'm really furious about the responsibility of many, many politicians these days.
Philippa: Thanks. Laurence, I think, yeah, lots of people are quite furious at the moment. Who, yeah, who are not seeing the change that they feel should be, should be happening. And Sandrine, what do you think the role is of civil society organisations like the Club of Rome or other organizations? I mean, often we, as a journalist, you know, I received press releases about how people should be installing heat pumps or buying an electric vehicle, but we're talking about social justice. Many people, I mean, rural France, for example, lots of people don't even have access to a bus service. So, do you think that civil society also needs to change the way it's communicating and bring in more of this social justice narrative, and actually, perhaps focus the pressure a bit more on the issues that Laurence has just raised, rather than perhaps individual behavior change?
Sandrine: Yeah, no, absolutely. I think there are several levels to that question. I think the first thing is, as the Club of Rome, we're in a unique position, because we gather, obviously, economists, scientists and former decision makers, and so I see our role, as well as working with other NGOs, as one that does several things. One is continue to base our decision making and our pressure points around science and evidence building, because the other key risk here is that we're getting into this media flurry without actually going back to evidence. You know, as we said, we can see it on our doorstep that climate change is here, and yet somehow the radical right has hijacked the narrative so that people are going to potentially start to vote against climate legislation. The perversity is there, so we need everything that we do to be evidence-based, but what we need to do, and that's why we actually, in our commemoration of The Limits to Growth, wrote Earth For All our entire desire within that publication and the initiative was to streamline the evidence into narratives that would bring people on the journey one is not to forget the reality of the situation, but two, to actually give them hope. And giving hope is not about just talking about the individual. I mean, let us remember that the carbon, some of these carbon models and carbon tracking have actually been invented by the oil companies. Very interesting that actually BP and Shell were the first who were pushing for individual carbon tracking of your own footprint. I think we need to be very clear here that it's the collective action the responsibility, exactly as Laurence indicated, and why we're so angry, of leadership, leaders to set the tone through the legislation, and then obviously, through the fiscal mechanisms that we put in place to start taxing the externalities, to start putting a value on green and social projects, rather than the reverse, which is actually happening. Now how do you do that? Well, one thing we need to do is, actually, I think we need to be on the offensive, not on the defensive. I personally think that the entire climate community has been too much on the defensive and not enough on recreating the visions that we need of a future that actually can be a positive future. That's why we're working with many governments around GDP plus three. You know, how do you actually really shift from just productivity to putting a value on, as I said, education, access to health care, access to social care, etc, etc. How do you actually work with influencers? How do you work with Tik Tokers? How do you work with new media so that we actually go out to an audience that most of us don't have access to. We've been working with some influencers now that have simplified the importance for this shift towards a new economy and what that looks like for every person in the street, and why it's so important. So, it's all those different conversations that we have to have at the same time with a great deal of intelligence and intuition, both emotional and intellectual intelligence when we're moving forward.
Well, one is that I think we need to really move into a space of, as I said, bringing more citizens on the journey. That's why many of us have gone out and started talking about citizen assemblies. That's why we've gone out and said that we need to understand what citizens need and what they're willing to do within this current decade of action, and I think that's part of it. The other is, personally, I think we need to get nastier. I mean, the other side has very simple messaging, and they know exactly what they want. I often talk about the European elections also being hijacked by both Putin and Bannon. Bannon came up when Trump was not reelected, he came to Europe, and he clearly indicated that he and several financial institutes from the United States would actually invest in the right-wing parties across Europe. And here we are, and they did. So, you know, we need to be smarter. We need to be on the offensive. We need to be more strategic and we need to be more tactical. And this is not about us. Clearly, we're doing this because we feel that this is the greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced.
Philippa: Thanks Sandrine, those are powerful words. Laurence, obviously you were an architect of the COP 21 Paris Agreement, when there was a lot of optimism. And I can remember the feeling there was a real sense of, this is a moment. The world's going to shift. It's going to change. Sandrine has just talked about being on the offensive, about getting nastier. Is this a time as well that not just at a national level, but also an international level, in terms of the moving towards COP 30, that something needs to shift to really sort of ramp up momentum and actually bring about change. And how can that happen?
Laurence: Yes, totally. I think we have to be on the offensive, because it's a crucial battle. It's a battle is not something easy to do. It is difficult. And of course, there are forces that doesn't want to change, for obvious because of their obvious interest in maintaining the situation as it is so. But a number of things have changed. The fact that now, you take the train in France, and people are talking to you about the carbon footprint. You have, of course, an offensive on the side of the incumbents. And you see now in the COPs. COPs were not the place where you would feel or think that a lot of oil and gas contracts would be signed and that now is what is happening. So, you initially, I can understand that, meaning they fight for their legitimate or that they think legitimate interest, and it happens that the polluters don't pay for the pollution they are the origin. So, I think that we are very sort of controversial movement and moment, and that's why I think we need to revamp the system, the governance system, as I know that Sandrine has worked in this excellent climate governance, and we need to really bring many more actors that are understanding this transition the need to happen. We can't have COPs that continuously have a sort of affair of many initiatives you don't know what they happen with afterwards, to have many people doing commitments and at the same time not really having a commitment and accountability. So that's where I think we have to work at and you have different in the chain of accountability. You have a role for different actors in democratic countries. Parliament has a role to make government accountable of what they are committed to. But then we have to integrate accountability mechanism for the companies so the financial actors as well, and to, in a way, redefine the political economy, if I must say, so, just that create this reciprocal accountability, because we need to go all together, because nobody can do that alone. And so how you create accountability in the system, in the climate regime system? And that's why I think we need a reform of the climate governance. And we have been working with Sandrine on how we make this happen, how we don't have all this initiative, we don't know go where, and because it's beginning to weaken the system itself, where you see now countries saying, Oh yes, we agree that in Glasgow, or we agree that in Sharm or in Dubai, but finally, it doesn't commit us very strongly. And so we are at the moment where the system can be weakened from the inside, because there is too many things outside that finally are diluting the effort we are we are geared to. So, I think that we have a fragmentation of the system, which is too dangerous, fragmentation from the geopolitical point of view as well as the in a way, commitment point of view. We have somehow because, of course, the imbalance politically, in particular, the tension between US and China. So we need the Paris Agreement is not a Bible. We have to make it evolve. It's really important. It has to be a living organism. It is living organism, by the way. So we have to revise the structure from time to time to make it more efficient and to include this element of society that are pushing for the implementation.
Philippa: And just very briefly, then, I mean, how optimistic are you that this can actually happen? Because you've said it's not just, you know, national issues or problems in Europe, there's obviously a lot of geopolitical issues. Donald Trump could be in the White House in a couple of months, and obviously he took the US out of the Paris Agreement. So, you know, in a sort of couple of words, how optimistic are you that we can move anywhere towards what you're saying and actually go on arrive in COP 30 within a better place than we are now.
Laurence: You know, I've been in this fight together with Sandrine and with so many others since I know, I don't want to remind how many years. It's not a linear process. We have high and lows. We are absolutely in a low moment. And of course, a potential election of Trump will not improve things, but we have a COP in Brazil with a government that want to link social justice, democracy and climate action. And that's really, really important. And so that one, I think opportunity we have that we make us could be optimist if we are on the offensive side. On the other side, I think people and Sandrine mentioned that earlier on, and maybe we don't factor in enough the cost of the impact of climate change. The government should be asked to table the impact on climate change, on the economy for the different temperature scenarios. But we need to ask these people, this government, to be serious and transparent about risks they are making their society run, and this not on the table now you have a sort of distance between what the government says they want to do or the way they express their concern about climate change, but they don't tell the truth. And I organised, I chaired the convention of on climate change of the French citizen. There was a big, big exercise with 150 people. They told us at the beginning, even if they, of course, listen something about climate change all the time, they nobody told us the gravity of the problem in a way, in transparent and serious and fact-based elements. And that, I think that the dishonesty of the system you talk about climate change, you make beautiful speeches. You say, oh, look at the impact. The floods there, the drought here. You don't say, Look, if we continue, we will lose that much money, and that will cost jobs and health, could death. And that is honesty that should be I would love to see that by COP 30. Let's try to do it.
Philippa: Thank you, Laurence. And then Sandrine, a final word from you, just in terms of of how optimistic are you that we can achieve the vision that you've been setting out?
Sandrine: Well, I think we all have to stay optimistic. We can be angry and frustrated, just like Laurence said, but we wouldn't be continuing to push if we didn't have some level of optimism. I think there are a few things that I want to bring in. One is that the personal feeling right now that both Laurence and myself and others who are the next generation, the third generation, from parents or grandparents that fought actually in the war, and realize that this is a 1930s moment, and I'm going to bring that in as a symbolism. We have to remember that we built back and we built back better, but we built back also because people came together. This is a moment where our coalitions now, whether they be coalitions politically in the European Parliament context, whether they be the coalition in France. People need to show, as leaders, their greatness, because this is a moment where we need to build back better. It's a moment where, as Laurence says, we're really in the low of that roller coaster ride that we've been living, and we have to show the greatness of Europe. Then what I want to add is the new partnerships that we need. We need to be humble enough in Europe and in the United States to realise that geopolitically, we're no longer in the same power positions that we were before. That means that we need to build a totally different relationship with China. We need to build a totally different relationship with the Global South. And the beauty is that some of you know the leads of the bricks, for example, like Brazil as exactly as long said, want to build, want to do things differently, Lula has made it very clear. So I have a lot of hope in not only COP 30, but also in the G20 discussions that Lula is actually leading as well in the way in which we can think about both the new economics, but also the conversations we're seeing with Mia Motley on the Bridgetown Initiative, where we're rethinking our fiscal architecture, because at the end of the day, we are going to have to move into deeper systems change in order to as we started the conversation, come back to the real elephant in the room, which is poverty and inequality is going up, in particular in the Global North, not necessarily the Global South. And so I think those types of conversations, they're live, and now we need to see, how can we actually hijack them, hack them, so that they come to fruition with some real specific shifts that we need at this time, whether it be debt cancelation, new special drawing rights, or whether it be a European Green Deal that is fully implemented the way in which we can work transatlantically with the IRA and a new relationship, I hope, with China. That's that's how I would leave it. So, lots to build on, and that should be exciting. Complex, difficult, yes, but that shouldn't stop us, as we say in those in the sports world, no pain, no gain. And I think that we saw that from building from the Second World War, and we can build better as we move forward.
Philippa: Thank you, Sandrine for those positive words. And I'd like to thank everybody for listening to this podcast. And for more information, please visit Club of Rome.org
-
As the world faces increasing inequality and environmental degradation, the Universal Basic Dividend (UBD) emerges as a promising idea for a more equitable and sustainable economic system. UBD proposes that the wealth generated from our shared resources, such as land, air and water, should benefit everyone, not just a few.
In this episode, Till Kellerhoff is joined by Ken Webster and Sarath Davala to explore the transformative potential of UBD. They discuss the ethical justification for sharing the commons, examine the challenges of implementing UBD and consider how UBD could help transition to a regenerative economy.
Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation on how UBD could pave the way for a fairer and more sustainable future.
Watch the video:
Full transcript:
Till: (0:00) Welcome to the Club of Rome podcast today on the Universal Basic Dividend. My name is Till Kellerhoff. I am Program Director at the Club of Rome and Program Lead of the Earth for All Initiative. We have two great guests today, and I'm very pleased to welcome Ken Webster, who is a visiting professor at Cranfield University, fellow at the Cambridge University Institute for Sustainable Leadership, contributing author of the latest report to the Club of Rome, Earth for All, A Survival Guide for Humanity, and lead author of three Earth For All deep dive papers on universal basic dividend. Welcome Ken. And we have with us today Sarath Davala, who is an Indian sociologist and president of the Basic Income Earth Network, amongst many, many other things, he co authored the book, Basic Income, A Transformative Policy for India. And he's also a contributing author to the Earth for All deep dive paper, unconditional cash transfers and t he five turnarounds, beneficiaries perspectives. Welcome Sarath. Let's dive, dive right into the topic universal basic dividend. And Ken, let's, let's start with you. I think many people have heard the expression universal basic income in the last years. It has been a prominent discussion, basically described as a regular cash payment to all members of a community without any conditions. Today we speak about the universal basic dividend. Maybe you can start explaining in a few words what what that is, and how it relates to the concept of the universal basic income many listeners will be familiar with.
Ken: (1:42) Okay, thank you Till. The universal basic dividend is really a kind of basic income, because it is an unconditional cash transfer. It is regular, and it is, if you like, an obligation towards the fellow members of our communities. But the basic dividend differs in the use of the word dividend, rather than just income, and the dividend is a reward, if you like, for owning something, or co-owning something, or having a share of something. Now a basic dividend is connected to common resources. It might be the atmosphere, it might be the ocean, it might be forests, it might be the local Tool Lending Library. These are commons. These are resources which people can access and also as part of a community manage so the basic dividend is a reward, or a share of a reward, for resources which have been captured, enclosed is generally the word people use, and it's an ethical obligation to give people a share of these surpluses. In the economic language it's called economic rents. These are surpluses which are not required to keep the business going. So if some of our shared heritage has been captured, the idea is part of the gains from that should be put into a fund, and the benefits of the fund should feed back to everyone in the community, either nationally or in the grand scheme of things, globally,
Till: (3:23) Super thank you, Ken. And we will dive a bit deeper into the practicalities of all of that. And Sarath, you have worked for many, many years on the universal basic income and ideas around that, and we know that there are many, many different concepts on how to implement that. Do you feel like language matters a lot in this regard? We speak about universal basic dividend today, you have worked a lot on universal basic income. What's your approach towards that whole debate?
Sarath: (3:46) As long as the vision aligns, I think I would say, what's in a name that's not the point. I think philosophically, like Ken has just mentioned, philosophically, we come from the same pedigree. I mean, it's, it's to say that every individual on Earth is entitled. So I think we belong to the same blood group.
Till: (4:10) Super. Well, you mentioned the entitlement. Where does that come from? Why do you think people are entitled? Can you mention the obligation right in the context of the comments? Why do you think Sarath, we are entitled to receive something like a universal basic income?
Sarath: (4:24) Because I think natural resources, and all resources basically belong to people of the land, any given land, okay, so, and then the wealth that is created in any given society is a kind of, comes from several generations of contribution. So a few individuals cannot stand today at the end of the road and say that we made this, we made that money. So I think we have to really go to the roots of what wealth is and who owns it. I think those questions, these are the civilizational questions we are raising now. I'm glad to be alive at this time.
Till: (5:03) That's good, and it really comes to fundamental points, right? And can you argue that there's something like the commons that might be a little bit difficult for everyone to understand, and is it, is it right to say that it might be something in between private and public ownership, and that there is a category we need to we might have forgotten, is the dichotomy between private and common.
Ken: (5:25) That's the key point Till, I think that many people have forgotten or not been able to engage with the concept of the commons in more recent times, because you say on one side is either private ownership, which is very familiar. And equally familiar is state ownership. You know, public ownership and control, whereas in the middle there always used to be, if you like, meso scale or middle scale, social institutions. I've got a lovely little quote here about that from a writer called Dil Green. He said, commons are mesoscope social institutions, not micro, individual or macro, collective, but meso. But it's in the middle where life takes place. I like that, where we all live. The missing middle is the key, build commons. Now the commons are a set of resources people who have access and to those resources, and a set of rules by which those resources are used. The aim is to maintain those resources for all generations. This is what the commons if it was grazing back in the 14th century in England, or it was the use of the forests. It exists all over the world in different forms, but I think this is an opportunity to revive the middle, the missing middle, Green called it, the opportunity to look more at what we can do for each other. And it's rooted in the idea that the state of economic and technological development makes the adoption of openness, quoting again, cooperation and shared ownership and governance a more rational economic choice in meeting the needs and wants of humanity than one based on competition, artificial scarcity and the pursuit of profit. So I think it's an exciting area to recover the notion of the commons. But the very strong element of this is it's taking unearned income, it isn't making a firm any less competitive, and giving it as unearned income, as a dividend, in the language I use. And it also ties in with what Club of Rome's been very interested in, which is, how do we get prices to tell the truth? You know, we can't run an economy if environmental and social costs are exported with no comeback. But if we put the prices up on fossil fuels, etc, there's a lot of resistance to that, of course, because the poor suffer the most. So it does two jobs at once, there or three. It's ethically the right thing to do. It allows us to charge the real price for resource extraction and damage of the environment, and it gets the poor on side, because they feel more secure, and in this economy at the moment, what many millions of poor people are saying is, I don't feel secure. And everybody has perhaps begun to realize that you need a different way to approach this problem, and you need to bring economic security as well as social and environmental concerns to the fore, and I think it's really brave of the Club of Rome to make that point.
Till: (8:49) Thank you very much, Ken and you mentioned various aspects of this whole debate, and kind of a holistic approach towards the universal basic dividends, in the sense that it has an ethical component, it has a strong economic component in what is often now described in internalization of externalities. But Sarath, I mean,that's a debate many economists have today as well, right? Like we make certain products we don't want that have environmental harm more expensive, but that is usually in the form of kind of taxes that then go to the government. Why do you think it's important to have this dimension of cash transfer to citizens, which is different to kind of taxes where the government then decides where the money goes?
Sarath: (9:32)
Yeah, let me go back to the point that Ken was making. I would not take this very artificial binary of private versus state ownership. No, I think it is not a settled matter, we should go back a little and then say, how did we come here is a question we should ask now, like, for example, there is a does government really own all that it says it owns? Is a question. There was a big Supreme Court case in India where a group of people who were working asking the government to close down the mines. They said that people own the mines, natural resources, and government is only a custodian. Okay, so the Supreme Court gave it the judgment, which said that, yes, people are the owners of the mines and the land, and the government is only a custodian and so we start unpacking that, and start breaking it down into pieces that what is the difference between the custodian and the real owner? So I think we need to, we have, we are at the brink of both the climate emergency, we are destroying the planet, and also the large scale precarity is also causing, going to cause the point that Ken mentioned about the large scale insecurity in the society, which is going to be extremely damaging, and it will blow on our face very soon. So on this twin crisis, I would say that we actually accept those principles and work on those principles and have a dream. And I would say tax and all are the mechanics that will will eventually have to be sorted. So I would only say that let I would not front load the mechanics. I would really say we should have this vision to disrupt the kind of the kind of order that has brought us to the brink.
Till: (11:26)
Thank you. And I think it's a very important point to point out that we're confronted kind of with two crisis. We have the climate crisis, but we also have the social and inequality crisis that has taken shape. And both of them is fundamental also in the way we think about our economies, and one could say that for a large part of the 20th century, in simplified terms, one could say that the model of progress was jobs and growth, right? It was assumed that increasing production and consumption ideally also increasing wages and more productivity and more goods and services were often used as a proxy for well being, almost. And there is now Thomas Palais has this quote saying, we are in an era of transition. Employment was a fundamental problem of the 20th century. Income distribution will be the fundamental problem of the 21st century. So maybe first Sarath, we speak, of course, also about different economies, right? When we speak about kind of high income countries, this aspect of, yes, it's really more about distribution now is, of course, very apparent, because we see that the ever increasing production of goods and services is not a good model of progress there anymore. How do you see that in the context of the model of progress in the Indian case, the Indian economy, where, of course, an important discussion is also still the lifting people out of poverty. So how does kind of increasing the production relate to the distributional component in your context?
Sarath: (13:00)
Well, I think no country can escape the kind of growth imperative that is now ruling all our minds, that every country wants to be on that highway of growth, and we have come to a kind of growth trap where we say that unless there is growth, there's no there's not going to be enough money. There's not money, enough money to give to people if we want to give through welfare schemes, okay, but, but I would say from the ground, I think the pressure is coming to the governments to really relook at the current disposition of some, some parties are saying that, you know this, we should create jobs. We should create jobs. I mean, I can sit and put a put on a graph that it is impossible to create jobs. We cannot create jobs with the kind of technological, technological stage we have come to. So what we have to do is that wellbeing of people has to be seen as part of a macro economic priority. You see, it's not about just numbers, it's about people. So to keep people alive and standing and working, I think we have to take that as a factor into your macroeconomic thinking and balancing.
Till: (14:23)
Thank you and Ken, maybe also in this context, before we dive deeper into the practicalities of the universal basic dividend. But how do you feel like does this approach relates to our kind of economic paradigm? I mentioned that, you know, growth is a paradigm to a certain extent. What does this suggestion, how does it relate to, to to how we think about our economies today?
Ken: (14:46)
Yeah, in the 20th century, as we know, jobs and growth led. The good thing about that, of course, was the jobs were largely full, full time, and they would last for a whole career. Since the orientation of the world moved towards much more freedom for financial organizations, lots of globalization, some of which had great, great plus to it, income disparities have rather ruined the idea of growth and jobs, because the rich don't spend that much actually, they keep it and then acquire more assets. Acquiring more assets often means real estate, for example, and or stocks and shares. It was an extractive, it became an extractive financial system. So what does it mean to say, we want jobs and growth if most of the growth ends up in income being given to the already wealthy, and that in the other direction, precariat, precarity in employment just multiplies. This also fits in with the resources question too, because if we talk quite a lot about a circular economy, making sure it's not extractive in materials and energy sense, so much. We also need to get away from an extractive monetary economy. In other words, it's about circulating and maintaining capitals. So we need to be able to circulate money back to the base quite deliberately. It's not going to happen in a sort of 20th century sense anymore. And that's part of that shift in thinking towards it from extraction to circulation in money and material stroke energy cycles. And this is an important, I agree with Sarath that at the moment, let's just get the vision sorted out. I'm very convinced that getting a heuristic, a narrative that's quite tight and people can go, yeah, I like that. Now in the opposite direction, the right wing are very good at harnessing emotional content, you know, outrage or fear or so good grief, there should be some space to make some very positive moves without resorting to downright lying.
Till: (17:13)
Many, many good points. Ken, thank you. And indeed, I mean, the question of narratives is very important, because we know that reality is very much shaped by that as well. Right? It's shaped by ideas. We know the quote by John Maynard Keynes saying the ideas of economists, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. So, you know, we have a lot of narratives that shape reality. We see a lot of myth and counter narratives in this world as well. I mean, we grew, you know, I grew up in the times of trickle down economics and the thought that accumulation of capital at the top would, by any ways, lead to wellbeing gains for the broad masses, because it trickles down in a way. And Ken you describe that there might, in certain areas, even be a trickle up effect. So it is important to build and to paint this attractive news story of where we could move towards to. And Sarath, you're doing, that for many, many years. And, and one of the attractive ideas in this context is really the unconditionality, right? You speak about that it's important. It doesn't really matter where the money, what is being spent for, but it is an obligation for society. Why do you think it's so important to have this unconditionality In this whole debate?
Sarath: (18:26)
I feel that of the five pillars of universal basic income we talk about, unconditionality is the real cutting edge, and that is probably the central and the core value of the universal basic income or university dividend. It should. It's unconditionality, because we want to decouple work, work and wage linkages that we started believing as something organic and nature given, or it's like a, you know, it's, it's so in the current imagination, but I think it is not we shouldn't even call a wage. That's why we're calling it dividend or income, which is unconditional. So unconditional because we say that it should be the ground to stand on and give you the choice to either participate or not participate in the labor market. That is going to be the only possible way of surviving in the next couple of decades, because that is the direction we are all moving towards. And only that unconditionality, I would say, and the choice and the freedom that people will gain from it will make them raise that question the right kind of questions that we have been talking since the beginning of this podcast. And I think those questions have to be raised, and those questions need to be resolved in an entirely 21st century way, rather than this kind of a dilapidated 20th century imagination.
Till: (19:14)
And indeed you mentioned the unstable societies again we see also in, you know who votes to which parties that very often populist and extreme right parties are voted by people who fear a lot about the future. It's economic insecurity in the future which makes, makes people lose trust in our current economic system. And you would - yes, go for it.
Sarath: (20:17)
I mean, on just one brief thing on this narrative that absolutely you were saying this, and then Ken was saying this, the right wing parties have gotten their narrative. I think, which is which is really playing out, not because their narrative is absolutely utopian, but I think their narrative is answering some of the questions that are coming from the insecurity of the populations. I think it is only because of that alignment that today we have progressively more and more, you can see everywhere right wing parties actually coming to power because they are on. I mean, this is exactly what Guy Standing's thesis is, that, what happens to the precariat, what are the political implications, electoral, political implications of the precariat, the growing precariat? I think those are the things we are already seeing. So I think we should, we should get our narrative here. And I'm not saying we are great guys and we are virtuous and all that. That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that it is necessary, and this is part of what we believe in our vision, that Ken and I are talking about.
Till: 21:29
Very good point. And then I think what a narrative really makes attractive is kind of the combination of a vision and then practical steps to get there. And so I think it's important for us to have that vision, but then also be able to at least describe the way a little bit there, because it's, I think, in this approach, important to point out that it's not utopia, and we see some practical examples. And one aspect you mentioned in the papers very often is the Alaska Permanent Fund. We mentioned that as well in the Earth for All book. So maybe Ken, maybe you can say a few words about the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Ken: (22:01)
The Alaska Permanent Fund was an attempt by its originator to get a lot of that done by saying it's going to be put in a fund, and then that fund's going to invest in things which are beyond the fossil fuel age, and the dividends from that investment will be shared with everybody in Alaska, every you know registered citizen. I like Sarath's definition there. It's a platform, it's a foundation. It's not a safety net. That makes it look like, oh, you've not done very well. We'll, we'll look after you a little bit, rather than this is what you have earned, in a sense, as a citizen, it's a foundation. You can do more care work, you can do, get, earn more income. You do what you want with it. It's up to you. And incidentally, Sarath probably you'd come on to this. But it goes to women too. It goes to individuals too. It's not money anymore in control of men, as can happen in some societies, and because it's not a voucher, and because it's not in kind, real decisions can be made about this. I love one of the comments from a recipient, I think it was in in Africa, who said, I don't want to buy another goat. I'm going to buy a guitar. So this idea of a citizen's wealth fund, or it's got different terms, is really a key element of the Alaska Permanent Fund. It got tweaked, you know, politics never is as pure as that. But the idea was, it's transparent. There's the money coming in, there's the money going out. You can see what happens, and it can expand. It doesn't just have to be around fossil fuel resources. It's anything where surplus economic rents, surplus profits can be earned. The classic one Henry George was writing about this in the 19th century, was increasing land values. You know, I bought a house 30 years ago. It's worth a lot. Now, okay, I decorated it, but I didn't do anything to earn that money. I just sat here, whereas people now who buy a house, they've got very high mortgages, it might not go up so much. Now, why did I get something for free? Because it was actually everybody around me that made the community I happily live in. It's not down to my effort. So there are lots of ways of extending a basic dividend to other resources. It might be financial transactions, fees or taxes. It might be around carbon emissions you were talking about. Just briefly I'll finish here Keynes and his comments about economists. There was one I think I flagged in an earlier discussion, which was that men possess thoughts, but some ideas can possess men. And it was a 19th century thing, so it's men, but you get that difference. I think we're chasing here. I'm getting excited about it, just talking about it, about ideas that will possess people and go, this is what I want. I don't know how the details are going to work, but this, I'm going to vote for this. Get annoyed about this. Protest about this. I want it. I want this. It's only fair. And I think there's enormous power in that.
Sarath: 25:27
Yeah, Till I think one quick I think we started with the question of Alaska, and then we went to many places. Now I think this universality and unconditionality are absolutely non negotiable. I'm not going to the practical. I'm not talking from the practical end of the game. I'm talking from the supply end of the game. Now, 200 years ago, or 250 years ago, universal suffrage would have, people would have laughed at it. The reason why slaves and women were not given voting rights is because they thought that they were not simply capable of thinking about the public affairs, and then choose the right kind of so I think to give voting rights to every individual, every adult, I think, is, came from a vision, right about a democratic society. Okay? Now they didn't have pilot studies, and they didn't have any of that burden at that time. They had a vision. Abolition of Slavery was a vision. Came out of a vision William Wilberforce. Now, the point I'm trying to come to is that, why unconditional and why universal? I think if we look at it from a kind of a spiritual and poetic angle, I think we look at giving the basic income or dividend as the light, the sunlight that everybody gets. I know some parts of the world don't get enough sunlight. But then I think it is unconditional. It's available to everybody. Okay, so it's like rain that is available to everybody. No, we are actually trying to equate this to that, that these are the vehicle, because we are talking about natural resources. So this should be that. Now coming to the other question of how it will play out is one question I would like to address, and that is where I get this interesting example of Nepal. Where we, I think we have to distinguish between human systems and the mechanical systems. Our industrial imagination kind of forces a mechanical system on us, which is a kind of static. Once you make it, it has to have all the components and it will fly. Okay. Otherwise it won't fly. Whereas a human system has a learning curve, an airplane on its own doesn't have a learning curve. It doesn't automatically become from A airplane to Z airplane. So in Nepal in 1990s they introduced a universal pension for people above 72 years old, everybody, including the former prime minister to the last man in the village, will get this pension. Everybody's entitled. Okay, there's no selection, there's no targeting. There's no nothing, okay? And they started with $1 a month. This was, I'm saying, about the 90s, okay? And today it is for everybody above 62 I think 62 or 65 and continues to be universal in that bracket, and it's $40 a month. Now, how did $1 become $40? I think that is the learning curve. That is where the political economy has worked, and that is where all the dynamics of political economy work. So we should first of all accept the human system. And whenever we introduce a great idea, I think the system has human system has its own learning curve, and when we do that, we we don't have to have everything in place and say that is it practical? On the one hand, I would say you should have a vision. Forget about practicalities. They will come eventually, Number one. The second extreme example I give is that if a wild animal is chasing you, you will not sit and deliberate. That is it practical that I will be able to run and save myself. You won't deliberate, you don't have, you just run.
Till: 29:30
Thank you, Sarath. And maybe coming to the end. We see that sometimes there is a kind of tendency of people voting against their own benefits. We see that in Germany, for example, in the context of inheritance tax, right, inheritance tax should be something most people would benefit off, and many people think of the little house they inherit from their grandma, and therefore are against bigger inheritance tax. For very wealthy and high income people, and we see that there is a very, very well functioning machinery of myth around the economy that many people tend to believe and that makes it difficult to implement more radical solutions. Ken how do we overcome that in the context of universal basic dividend? It is an attractive vision. It is a feasible option, but still we see starting points in many countries we see still seem to be miles away from that. How do we manage that transition, and how do we get people on board?
Ken: 30:30
I thought you were going to say kilometers away, but let's let's have miles. Let's be Imperial about it. No joking apart. I often have to reach for Milton Friedman here, a right wing economist who says that we have to have a utopia in mind, and for two reasons, one, to know whether we're going towards it or away from it. And secondly, when a crisis, real or imagined, he says, arrives, politicians will scrabble around for things that might work. You know, you have you've got to have the idea ready. And that's, I think, what Sarath and I are part of, and yourselves, honing the idea, getting it, getting it portable, and then it depends on the time. It depends on the times. There will be a crisis, real or imagined. We're almost, we're maybe in it when and when people will be looking the politicians be looking for something new and fresh and probably workable.
Till: 31:43
Yeah. And as we know, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And crisis are moments of reshaping our systems that can, however, always go two directions. At the moment in Europe, we see a lot of right wing parties benefiting from that. But Sarath, do you also share some optimism that this crisis can be shaped in the right direction, and we are able to have transformative change in the good direction that benefits planets and people?
Sarath: 32:14
I think many things globally, at a very, very global level, are coming together that in the next, even 20 years, also I see, I see things will be changing rapidly, a transformation happening in which direction it will go is again, matter of how the human, the elasticity of human systems, go this way. It could go this way. But I think what is our role in this our our role and the institutions that they represent, is to be ready, as Ken was pointing out, is to be ready with a vision. When somebody for some politician, I'm not a politician. I can't think like a politician, but then I can have an engagement with a politician. And when they come and ask, can you tell me something? I have a story to tell. I have narrative to tell, and I have a vision to share. And it's up to them what they want to do. To do it. So let me do my job. Well, is my thing, and I feel very optimistic that it is happening.
Till: 33:09
Excellent Sarath, and last question to both of you, what role do you see for the Club of Rome and this whole thing?
Ken: 33:16
Well, to keep on doing what it's been doing so successfully, which is to make, if you like, a super structure, a superstructure around ideas. You've got the modeling. So the ideas aren't just, yes, it's great we have a vision, but you've been able to model things to say, well, if this happens, then that is quite likely, because your original modeling is still fantastically relevant. You got it right. And if you keep making reasoned, rational, pertinent comments and publications, you're honest, you're on the right, definitely on the right side of things. And I think many people refer back to the Club of Rome as a place where they can find intelligent, constructive forward looking work. I'm very proud to have been able to support your work, and I hope it goes on for a very long time.
Sarath: 34:13
Absolutely, I echo what Ken has said. I think you've been doing fantastic work, and I think this kind of this, in the cusp of this, bringing the social ecological concerns together and articulating them is extremely important. In fact, I think it has really it can go very far. I don't know how your outreach, but I think you should reach out to the youth and to the music. I think it should translate your vision needs to get translated into something that reaches the youth and young people. They are the largest demographic, and then they are the ones who are going to take all this into the future. Thank you very much for making me part of this.
Till: 34:53
Thank you very much. And has been a fascinating discussion. I would still have many questions, but maybe we just meet again in a year or so, discuss progress ands ee where we are then. Thank you very much for joining, and thanks everyone for listening to the Club of Rome podcast. For more information, please visit Club of rome.org and see you next time. Thanks for joining. Thanks Ken, thanks Sarath.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
The impacts of extreme weather events and climate crises are threatening many of the hard-won advancements in public health infrastructure across African countries.
In this episode of the special series ‘We Kinda Need a Revolution’, host Nolita Mvunelo is joined by Saad Uakkas, a medical doctor and executive chair of the African Youth Initiative on Climate Change. They discuss the profound effects of nature crises on public health and the urgent need for systemic solutions. Together, they explore the importance of intergenerational leadership in building resilient and sustainable public health systems.
This episode is part of a series highlighting the need for a New Generational Contract.
How can we foster equity and mutual support between generations? This is one of the key questions being asked by The Fifth Element, an initiative from The Club of Rome and partners. To find out more visit: www.thefifthelement.earth
Watch the video:
Full transcript:
Nolita: We kinda need a revolution. Welcome to this special edition of The Club of Rome Podcast exploring how we can work together across generations to mobilise action for a regenerative future. To get there, we need some systemic change, a revolution of sorts, maybe. I am Nolita Mvunelo, programme manager for The Club of Rome.
And in this episode, we'll be diving into the topic of public health in nature crises. Joining us today is Saad Uakkas a Moroccan medical doctor and a youth engagement and empowerment specialist. We're seeing a growing frequency of nature crises across the world. More recently, the floods in Kenya have resulted in a loss of over 230 lives and 40,000 households displaced. And similarly, in 2022 on the east coast of South Africa, flooding claimed over 300 lives. These events are catastrophic and pose a serious threat to the lives of many with far reaching impact tearing away hard won gains in public health and infrastructure. So I turn over to you Saad, firstly, thanking you for joining us and also asking you to briefly introduce yourself.
Saad: Dr Saad Uakkas here, I am the Executive Chair of the African Youth Initiative for Climate Change, which represents and unites African young people all over the continent. I'm also in the environment working group of the global Mental Health Action Network. So, working on the intersection of climate change and mental health on the global level. Medical doctor by background, climate actor by passion, and young African from Morocco, so great to be here.
Nolita: Thank you so much for joining us. So in January 2024, the World Economic Forum released a report quantifying the impact of climate change on human health, which projects that by 2050, climate change could result in an additional 14.5 million deaths and 1.1 trillion US dollars in extra health care costs. With your extensive experience as an MD working with young people on climate change issues, what specific health challenges have you observed, that could contribute to such significant impacts in the next few decades ?
Saad: I already started seeing that when I was a medical student seeing more respiratory diseases in the city I worked on Kenitra, which has really large industrial parts. And that was one example how pollution both air water pollution affected health of you know, the local population. So we have seen that we have see more people come in with also infectious diseases also that was something not only in Morocco, but all over the continents, you know, in the way that weather pattern change, and rains, patterns also change, this affects the habitats of vector-borne diseases. And also, when the weather is warmer, more insect-borne diseases can spread more easily and for longer periods. So this constitutes a huge threat for us in Africa, especially with all the neglected tropical disease with like infectious diseases like malaria, and those insects being able to live longer and in more places, you've been talking about disasters, you know, recently in Morocco, we had this earthquake, and you know, I remember people in Pakistan in Libya, with those floodings that they had in UAE, and you know, the houses that are being lost and the habitats and all those infrastructure, this usually has a direct impact on people's livelihood, on people's food security, and then the thing that I work most on, on people's mental health, and I can't tell you enough, how crucial that is, when you lose your house, when you lose your livelihood, your daily life. Here, we're talking, for example about farmers in the rural areas that don't have access to water to agriculture anymore. So livelihood lost, And they're obliged to migrate to find a new source of income. Those people usually they have huge mental health consequences out of that and with with psychologists with mental health professionals, we've been seeing that, you know, the need for mental health supports for people because of all the uncertainty because of all the impacts of climate change has been immense and then finally, you know, health systems and usually here we're talking about, you know, for example, the continents, we have hospitals and weak infrastructure, and especially in the rural areas, so the health system is not ready to cope up with the impacts of climate change. So when a disaster happens, resilience is not there. So usually you have a health system which loses electricity or which loses, you know, people lose access to hospitals, because of climates or disaster events, you know, when something related to climate change happens, people really get affected lose access to health, basic health care services, and it can affect them, you know, just losing access to medication can really have huge effects in your life if you're in a rural area. And then, of course, you have food security, you know, with the lack of water with all the effects of agriculture, food security is a very, very important one. So impacts of climate change on health, we can talk about a lot of aspects. And, you know, one thing is, recently, the World Health Assembly that happened in Geneva, recognize that and they voted for a resolution for the first time they adopted that in the World Health Assembly related to climate change and public health, recognising that today, climate change is the number one killer is the number one disease. And as you said the amount of lives that are threatened because of climate change is huge. So today, this is a very relevant discussion for all of us to be aware of this intersection, and to know what steps we need to take in order to, you know, take care of our health to improve the health system resilience, and prevent climate change in the future.
Nolita: Thank you for such a comprehensive answer. It makes me want to ask a very specific question because of your background. Having worked as a medical doctor, you have a particular focus on healthcare. Additionally, you work closely with young people on climate change and climate resilience. Practically speaking, what interventions have you seen coming from the youth constituencies you work with in addressing climate-related disasters and healthcare?
Saad: One concrete example is young people conducting research by being in the field and gathering data. That's step number one for me. I've seen many young people across the continent working at the intersection of climate and health, being on the ground, doing surveys, and identifying issues within their communities. For instance, we have a strong collaboration with the International Federation of Medical Students Association and the African Youth Public Health Association. These health-related youth groups are collaborating to conduct data gathering and research actions. Young people are working on improving food systems by promoting climate-smart agriculture and agroecology. This involves using natural seeds, reducing water consumption, and creating holistic ecosystems that minimize pesticide use. Such practices lead to more sustainable and healthier agriculture, which enhances food quality and, consequently, the health of local populations. Another area is advocacy. Young people are using health arguments to advocate for policies and decisions aimed at preventing and controlling climate change.
Here, for example, I'm talking about people gathering data on pollution, the effects of industry, and the impacts of greenhouse gases on people's livelihoods. They then advocate together using media, joining the voices of health professionals, and pushing for policies to improve the situation. Additionally, engaging in dialogue with the private sector is crucial. This involves discussing how to prevent negative health outcomes, holding industries accountable, and pressuring them to reduce emissions. By including the private sector in the conversation, we can collaboratively work to decrease the health impacts of climate change. Policy action is essential in driving these efforts forward.
One very good example is the youth group in Nigeria, Susty Vibes. They are doing great work in addressing climate change and mental health. One specific aspect they focus on is climate care for activists who are working within the space and constantly witnessing the negative impacts of climate change. They emphasize the importance of self-care for young people, as it can become overwhelming when facing such a large issue. Susty Vibes addresses climate anxiety among the youth generation, acknowledging that young people often feel that the problem is too big to solve alone. They stress the importance of taking breaks and having a support system to avoid being consumed by the enormity of the challenge. Susty Vibes provides this support system for young activists in Nigeria and West African countries, helping them care for themselves. Climate anxiety and self-care are crucial not only for climate activists but for everyone. In today's fast-paced world, where we strive to make a positive impact, it's essential to remember to take care of ourselves and maintain a support system. Mental health and well-being keep us going, and it's vital to prioritize them on this journey. Young people are actively engaging in community action and using health arguments to advocate for change.
When engaging with people and promoting individual actions, such as recycling or adopting a waste management approach within the community, it's important to educate them about the health impacts. For example, choosing to walk or bike instead of using a car directly benefits personal health. Encouraging a more sustainable lifestyle can have immediate positive effects on health. When advocating for behavior change, emphasize the benefits of eating more local food, more vegetables, and generally more sustainable food options. This not only supports a healthier diet but also promotes overall well-being.
If you are living a sustainable lifestyle, incorporating more walking and an active lifestyle, you are taking better care of your health. For the government, pushing for smart cities and clean cities with green spaces and accessible walking areas can significantly impact public health. Cities designed with better public transport and reduced car usage directly benefit the health of their residents.
Nolita: Thank you. That’s such a comprehensive answer. It speaks to the systemic nature of the problem, as you touched on many crucial points. The way we build our cities is one consideration; mental health is another critical aspect. Collaboration among young people in different sectors and specialties, as well as advocating for change in the private sector, is also vital. My next question is: Have you seen examples of successful collaboration with the public sector, both at the local and international levels? I ask this because public health is a significant part of the social fabric of society.
There are interventions that can be implemented at the community and individual levels. However, the resilience of healthcare systems requires substantial participation and planning from all parties involved. Do you believe there is room for young people to work with various public sectors in different countries? If so, what examples have you seen of this collaboration?
Saad: The first action the public sector needs to take to recognize this intersection is to work together. For example, having a climate change department within the Ministry of Environment is a concrete step where public health professionals can begin integrating climate reflections and discussions into their work. The intersection between climate and health has been acknowledged for a while, but concrete actions have only started recently. In many regions, this conversation is still ongoing. One practice I have observed is pushing for climate education and awareness within the health community. For instance, doctors and health ministries are advocating for better climate change knowledge among healthcare professionals. This is crucial for effectively addressing issues like vector-borne diseases, malnutrition, and air pollution-related health problems.
If you are managing a healthcare facility at the local level and you encounter the impacts of disasters or climate change affecting the local population, what types of healthcare services should you offer? How can you address these challenges effectively within your facility? Ensuring the resilience of your healthcare facility is crucial in the face of events like earthquakes or flooding. For instance, if there's a power outage due to climate-related issues, how can you enhance the resilience of your facility? These are essential dialogues that need to take place with the public sector.
Another crucial aspect to consider is how to reduce the climate impacts of the healthcare system itself. While healthcare is not the biggest polluter, making it greener is still essential. For example, in Marrakesh, Morocco, there's a green hospital that is exploring waste management systems for healthcare facilities. There's a need for dialogue about integrating health and climate strategies at the local level. This involves working with health ministries and climate ministries to develop models for green, clean, and healthy cities. The goal is to create environments with access to clean air, green infrastructure, and healthy lifestyles.
These discussions need to be localised, as solutions will vary from city to city and region to region. Building a green, clean, and healthy community is a shared responsibility. Engaging the public sector, making them aware of the intersection's importance, and pushing for concrete policies and infrastructure improvements is the way forward. You mentioned that addressing these issues is not only incredibly local but also deeply personal, as health is closely tied to individual well-being and the availability of resources. My next question concerns intergenerational leadership. We’ve discussed collaboration across different sectors and the need for transformation, but how can intergenerational leadership and learning contribute to accelerating progress in public health and environmental crises?
Intergenerational dialogue and collaboration can significantly accelerate progress on climate change and public health issues. For example, in Tunisia, there is a youth negotiators group that has been active for the past two years. This initiative trains young people in climate negotiations and involves them as negotiators representing their country. By integrating the expertise and innovative perspectives of young people, the country benefits from fresh ideas and community insights that can lead to more effective climate policies. Young leaders, particularly those involved in NGOs and grassroots movements, are crucial in bridging the gap between policy and community action. They not only participate in policy discussions but also play a vital role in implementing these policies at the local level. Their energy and expertise in community mobilization help drive education, capacity-building, and social media engagement. Also, fostering innovation through intergenerational collaboration is essential. Hackathons and working sessions that bring together young innovators with public and private sector leaders can generate new solutions for the climate and health crises.
It's either technology or indigenous solutions that are brought back and amplified to address these issues locally. Additionally, intergenerational action plays a key role in global policy. I mentioned how young people can play a role in diplomacy by sharing experiences and learning from each other. For example, within the African Youth Initiative for Climate Change, young people reflect on what's happening and share their insights. We are also organizing the Regional Conference of Youth Africa soon, where young people will come together to engage in similar intergenerational dialogues. These discussions extend to the global level with significant entities like the African Development Bank, the African Union, UN agencies, and various foundations.
When it comes to the continental and regional levels, it's crucial to reflect on the current realities and identify opportunities we can tap into today. Engaging young people in these discussions and supporting the momentum on a regional level is vital. This ensures that while we act locally, we also think globally. Tapping into expertise, as you mentioned, highlights the importance of having a systems perspective, which allows us to see the whole picture. This approach helps us understand the complexity of the challenge and recognize that we can be masters of our own fate by seeing the entire problem for what it is.
Nolita: Thank you for showing us the intricate nature of this issue. If you had one last piece of advice or a question someone of any age should ask themselves when starting to work on public health and nature crises, what would it be?
Saad: Health and climate are both realities that we must care about today. As a young person, understanding that these are the two biggest factors that can affect my life and the life of my children is crucial. They need to be healthy and have a good life, which requires a good environment around them. Recognising that health and climate are the most important existential conversations for our generation is essential. So, how can we take care of our environments in our daily lives? How can you take care of your health in daily life? Eating healthy, walking, and maintaining an active lifestyle are essential. Given our diversity, it's important to consider how you can contribute to making your country or the world healthier and cleaner from your own space and through your daily activities. Whether you're an engineer, working in the private sector, or in any other profession, ask yourself how you can make your work less polluting and improve the health and well-being of yourself and your community. If you're an architect, a medical doctor, a health professional, or involved in environmental work, think about how you can incorporate climate and health conversations into your work. Depending on your role, asking yourself how you can make your world healthier and greener is a very important action.
Of course, it differs from person to person. You don't have to be an activist, an advocate, or part of an NGO to make a difference. It's the small actions that count. Recognising the importance of these issues and understanding what you can do on a personal level are key. Contributing to resilience is what truly matters.
Nolita: This is the key issue that truly matters: how can we make our societies more resilient? As individuals, how can we become more resilient to the risks we face? How can we improve the infrastructure and systems we live in to make them more resilient to health and climate impacts? This is the most important discussion we need to be having because numerous consequences are at stake. We can contribute to this resilience on a daily basis from our own perspectives.
A collaborative approach is essential. What systems, networks, and groups are out there taking action in a specific area you care about? How can you join them and bring your perspective to the table? Collaborative action is the way forward. It's about contributing to resilience.
Saad Uakkas, thank you so much for joining us today and for this engaging discussion. Thank you also to our listeners for tuning in to the Club of Rome podcast. For more information, please visit our website at clubofrome.org.
-
1 billion urban citizens live in informal settlements like slums and shanty towns, vulnerable to the most extreme impacts of climate change - flooding, prolonged drought and unprecedented heatwaves. India is in the eye of this storm — in May 2024, places in northern India, including Delhi, were suffering under temperatures as high as 50C, with those experiencing poverty most affected.
In this episode Philippa Nuttall is joined by Sheela Patel, activist, founding director of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers and member of The Club of Rome to talk about the challenges faced by informal communities and the need for the experiences of these often excluded citizens, particularly women, to contribute to ensure effective climate initiatives and urban planning.
Watch the video:
Full transcript:
Philippa: Welcome to the Club of Rome podcast exploring the shifts in mindset and policy needed to transform the complex challenges facing us today. I'm Philippa Nuttall, a freelance journalist and editor of Sustainable Views. And in this episode, we're going to be talking about climate resilience. I'm going to be speaking to Sheela Patel, the founder and director of The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres, which is an NGO based in Mumbai in India that has been working since 1984 to support community organisations of the urban poor to secure housing and basic amenities. Sheela, thank you for being with us today. It's a great pleasure to speak to you.
Sheela: Me too.
Philippa: To kick us off. Perhaps you can explain to us what we mean by climate resilience and what's your interest in the subject?
Sheela: We believe that for any change to happen, behaviour, values, investments, knowledge, transitions have to happen in communities who are vulnerable, with all of us who are professionals who work with them. One of the flaws of the past development paradigm has been that we treat poor communities like charitable beneficiaries of whatever we throw at them, and we expect them to be very substantial and benevolently accept everything. And if it doesn't work for them, they don't take it. So we have worked very hard to produce strategies in which the transition produced by new knowledge for any change we believe has to happen across the board. So when we approached climate, which was not very long ago, just before the Paris Agreement, we were very uncomfortable with these silos that emerged in development and climate right from the UN, down. In the lives of poor people it's all meshed up and it's integrated. And therefore we believe that it's as important for communities to understand what is adaptation for changing your resilience, to dealing with unplanned episodes of climate, of extreme weather, that are now coming faster and faster at all of us, how they have to acknowledge themselves as first defenders whenever any crisis happens, and to take on that role seriously in making representation, in producing data, in producing evidence and demanding accountability from state and non state actors, while making their own contributions. So this is the way in which we work and we bring that same process into the climate space.
Philippa: Thanks. And sort of concretely, what have you been actually doing in the area of climate resilience with the urban poor to help them achieve the aims that you've just outlined?
Sheela: So a lot of our work has been to learn, as professionals working with communities, what is the climate science, theorisation and practical action, what does it mean in the lives of poor people? And what we explored together with community women was that extreme weather of wind, of high velocities, rain that came down in sheets, in ways and times that people didn't understand, and heat, which are the most common things that people experience when they live informally, was impacting every element of their lives. And in the conversation that we have with women, we started a campaign called What Women Want, which is to ask women leaders of very poor communities, not only in India, but through Slum Dwellers International's network of women leaders collectives in almost 17 countries, of what were the challenges that they were facing? And there were lots of challenges, but their priorities was their homes, which is symbolic by saying that their roofs were just unable to deal with extreme weather. The roofs flew away, they leaked, and they made their homes into ovens, and they didn't know what to do with it because that didn't happen 15 years ago. The second thing they said is that COVID demonstrated to them that food that was not grown nearby was completely inaccessible to them when there were curfews and where there were problems. So food, health. COVID brought out all the ways in which we don't look at the social determinants of health and the need for women to understand how climate was affecting both chronic and infectious diseases. So, health. The fourth one was transport. We all know in COVID, we were all stuck at home, but poor women had to go and work, and they had to find informal transport, which often ended up being as much as the wages that they earned. And so all these helped us look at the flaws in how our cities coped with crisis and how it impacted poor people. And the last one, which was traumatic. And interestingly, this was long before, you know, the climate change process understood the concept of losses and damages. They basically talked about how their lives are completely destroyed equally by physical demolitions of their homes, by their cities, and by climate episodes. There's no difference in our lives whether it's done by the city and bulldozers, whether it's done by a cyclone or something like that. So these kind of insights, the starkness of what was not designed to include them, like, for instance, all our cities all over the world, and definitely in the global south, are putting in a lot of investment in public transport to try and get more and more people out of cars into public transportation. Well, they're designed in a way that has nothing to do with informal settlements. So people have to use informal tuk tuks and bicycle rides and all those and walking to reach a public transport point. And as the public transport gets more and more sanitised to attract people like you and me. It got more and more expensive. So a lot of our work is now attempting to produce large groups of people all over the world, aggregating evidence to show what they needed and the starkness of what was not being done for them. And a very good example of that is the, is the campaign we started with the first of the five things called Roof Over Our Heads.
Philippa: Before we go into the campaign specifically, could you explain to us a little bit why you're working specifically with women rather than men?
Sheela: Several reasons. From the time we started this work 40 years ago, we realised that the challenges that we were picking up were not quick and easy wins. If you want tenure, you want basic amenities. We've often taken 15 or 20 years to get legislation. It's taken another ten years to actualise it in the form of investment that will produce evidence that such a thing is possible. All of us in our network, including the men we work with, say that men are, you know, men are very good at hundred metre dashes. You want something done quickly, you go to the guys, you want something that's going to take a long time, requires patience and perseverance and tenacity. You go to the women.
Philippa: And is also part of the reason for working with women, because they are particularly impacted, especially in some of these informal communities, in terms of having to, they're the ones that, I presume, put food on the table, who are responsible for the children, who could be impacted more if there is damage to the house, either through destruction, through the city being changed, or through climate impacts?
Sheela: Well, that's true, but I'm also very critical of campaigns, processes and projects that instrumentalise women. You know, everybody says, oh, you educate a woman and you educate the family, you give a loan to a woman and it invests. But nobody talks about that woman's emancipation, her ability to withstand pressure, to be subservient, who gives her voice and the right to make representation. So our work not only seeks to involve individualwomen, we create an aggregation of women's collectives, so that in all things where, you know, that's why you need social movements rather than projects. So we want to make this process such that it fulfils both aspects, that women learn to talk about themselves, they learn to represent themselves, they learn to negotiate. And the most powerful element that women bring through their advocacy is deep persistence.
Philippa: And could you perhaps use the project Roof Over Our Heads to give us some concrete examples of how what you mentioned as the theory is being put into practice?
Sheela: We're at a very early stage. What we are trying to do right now is to build a knowledge base to make an assessment of what is the resilience quotient index of their present homes. You know, it's like tomorrow, if you are living in Europe and your city has never faced real serious heat, then you've got to look at elements in your house that are not producing the ventilation, that are not producing the coolness, because your house was designed to hold in heat, not to give out heat. So you always have to make an assessment. Now, informal institutional arrangements, we have engineering companies and scientists who do that for us, so we just have to tick some boxes and we know what it is. But in the case of poor people, this doesn't exist because they build their own homes. It breaks, they upgrade it, they incrementally improve it. So what we are doing right now is that we are doing 17 settlements in ten cities in India where we are designing these processes with women's collectives, because our goal is that they should be able to identify every element of design, material and construction techniques of their own homes, so that they understand that from the perspective of resilience and its robustness to cope with these extreme weathers,and then work with professionals to change that, to make it resilient. But in the process develop a confidence that this is the right thing to do.And then they become the agents of further dissemination, first in their neighbourhoods and then in their cities. So the whole idea is that you start with making women confident of their own assessments, their abilities to make representation and then to negotiate. And then through this, a group of women and a group of professionals are now going to travel to different countries and different regions and train people like themselves there. The idea being that the most powerful form of learning, in our opinion, is peer learning. And we are very ambitious because we are saying we are going to talk to informal, like waste pickers and recyclers, from whom they get a lot of their material, to big cement, steel, tin roof, plastic, all the materials that are actually produced by big companies and networks of companies. To say, if 45% to 70% of people live informally, how can your commitment to hit net zero also embrace the social justice part of it? It's like we've got a big web of different things happening, but the excitement is that it's extremely decentralised. We produce the methodology, we share it, and then everybody who wants to deal with different elements of it participates and contributes. And our role is to kickstart about 100 labs in Asia, Africa, Mena, Latin America. We don't know so much of the Caribbean and we don't know much of the island cities and states, and we are putting everything into the public domain. We're not worried that somebody will steal the idea. We want everybody to steal the idea because we feel it's the best compliment anybody can take from you. No, it sounds super inspiring and very exciting. I was wondering if you're talking about informal communities, obviously you want these solutions to be permanent to a certain extent, that you're not putting in place something and then the community has to move on, or certain houses are destroyed because the government changes its plans.
Philippa: How do you plan to, or do you plan to work with local or national policymakers around these projects so that these become part of the sort of policymaking and they're not just seen as a system apart from the mainstream policymaking?
Sheela: You ask me my most favourite question.
Philippa: Excellent.
Sheela: The reality is that in Asia, where I have the statistics, I don't have it for Africa, 92% of all people who live informally, which is on an average, about 45% of cities design, construct and finance their own homes illegally. And if you calculate in the last 40 years that we've been doing this, the volume of research, investment, advocacy, subsidies, all these things put together, they haven't even reached 8% of the people who live informally. What we are learning today is that people coming into cities is a result of our global economic order of production and global efficiency models that are making rural livelihoods unviable. And that if families need to feed themselves, feed their children, keep a healthy life, have aspirations, they come into the city. The other crazy thing is that if you look at all our large metropolitan cities, they're becoming metropolitan regions, they're becoming ten times their size in the global south. So Mumbai, which the greater Mumbai is, say 12 million, it now covers in the metropolitan region ten times that size. So it's about 25 million people, and it's only 40% so far, which is urban, the rest is still rural. So what we're saying is that both the climate crisis and all these weather crises, and our economic, global economic order, which is very cash based, which is based on extraction, is going to push more and more people into the cities. So this traditional way of saying, can you give us tenure? Earlier, we could blame the colonists, because the colonists didn't want to give land to everybody, but now you are all democracies, but you are still not giving land for a right to live in the city. Although your constitution says you can move anywhere, earn anything, do anywhere. But planning doesn't give you land. So the only way poor people get access to land is to encroach. And at the moment, it's paradoxical, because they are encroaching on spaces that are very ecologically sensitive. So earlier we used to have fights with the so called environmentalists, as grassroots urban activists, saying, if you don't actually anticipate the people coming into the city and you don't provide them with spaces to stay, then they're going to be informal. They're going to be informal traders and agents and sellers. So most of our global and national advocacy is to say, this is the reality. You can continue with your old fashioned attempts to evict and demolish, but you are destroying the asset base of very, very poor people, and they aren't going anywhere. They are here to stay. So Roof Over Our Heads is not a permanent solution. And we are neither saying it is permanent nor attempting to make it permanent. We are trying to make it possible within the constraints in which people live, to make it more resilient. It's a very practical and simple way to say that you start with the most vulnerable and you walk through the challenges. So already I can tell you that two of the settlements that we were working with in India, in the state of Odisha, they have had to relocate. We did the assessment of their homes and then they have to be relocated and they chose to be relocated, and we're going to work with them in the new places to see how they can use existing and new materials to improve their homes.
Philippa: I was just going to say, in terms of that you've mentioned the challenge of relocation, but also in terms of the timelines, you said, for example, men are good at the 100 metre sprint, but women are better potentially over longer timeframes. Obviously, in terms of climate change, there's the long term change in terms of warming and the impacts, but there's also some very immediate challenges when there is a sudden storm or flash floods. And so how do you work with those kinds of different timeframes?
Sheela: I mean, are there sort of solutions you're looking at as very immediate solutions in terms of resilience, and then this longer term kind of change of logic as to how you approach these communities. The only choice we make is to work with the most vulnerable communities, and we do that because we believe that development never trickles down. So it's the exact opposite of this low hanging fruit business that a lot of us do in development, where you say that if you get early gains, then you'll get more money. But those solutions never work for the most poor. But the solutions that you develop for the poorest are more easily applicable and adaptable to better off, even within the range of the people living informally. So that is the only serious choice that we make. And we are going to follow all the lives of those people who have to relocate or who have to move and to understand how to make that transition as just as possible. Not pretending that we are God and we can just sort of take a wand and change everything, but that we, that they have a support structure that will walk them through their choices and their possibilities, but will also bring them to the attention globally. So right now we, we have a very committed network of women's collectives in Kenya, in Nairobi, who face these horrible floods that are going on right now. And because they lived by the rivers whose overflow they had, they got some money as compensation for the destruction, but the government is going to evict them from there. Now look at the irony of this process. So we are taking this globally. We are talking to mayors' organisations, we're talking to the climate change people working in disasters and saying we need to have a conversation that makes mayors aware that this is not a just action and we are supporting them in whatever they want to do. Our goal is to follow and not to, and never to pretend that we will have some beautiful, fabulous solution that you can take photographs of. It's not going to be like that. It's very humble, it's very simple. And it starts really where people are.
Philippa: A very different approach than we see in lots of the big sort of climate change international conferences. I wanted to bring us on to that. We obviously had COP 28 last year, where loss and damage was a big, important piece of a decision that needed to be made, how that was going to work, how the money was going to be distributed, where were the money was going to come from. You mentioned loss and damage before. We've got COP 29 coming up, which is supposedly going to be a climate conference around climate finance. Do you see a space within these big COPs for more of a humble approach, more of a community based approach like you've outlined, that can potentially make the most of, for example, loss and damage or climate finance initiatives? Or do you see your approach as being very separate to these big international meetings and sort of perhaps it can achieve more by not being in a way, perhaps contaminated by these big overriding messages.
Sheela: We don't look at anybody as adversarial. So we have a bunch of organisations that have a global presence, who see people like me and the work we do as local evidence to what they're doing globally, and we use them to bring out this, our messages and our ideas. And so in all the discussions where we could be with Sandrine, for instance, in the food security thing or in the other aspects of whatever, we had a contribution or an insight to make, we were there. We were there as much to see who else was there. What were they saying? How can we learn to relate to more communities and networks, as well as to support that process? Because we truly believe that the solution has to emerge that acknowledges that we are all living on this very vulnerable planet together. And all these wars and all this local and global adversarial behaviour is quite dysfunctional when you are facing this sort of planetary challenge. So that's the way we look at it. We don't look at it as, and we also learn to articulate our representation in the context of where these issues are very obviously absent. And that, for me, is very, very important, because many of the people who come to do research, they don't come with bad intentions. People who give money through philanthropy or through bilateral or multilateral assistance, it's not that they are bad, but they are stuck in a very old fashioned framework. You know, I call it the 19th century framework, very colonial, very northern driven. And all those, if you talk to people privately, they tell you that it's not worked, money has gone wasted, it's gone to the wrong places, it's not reached the right groups. Sometimes it doesn't even get disbursed because the rules are so ridiculous. Nobody wants to take any risks. Nobody wants to say they made mistakes. So these are all the things that we are learning how to reformulate, to say, if you don't take risks, you're not going to learn anything.
Philippa: Sandrine Dixson-Declève, the Co-president of The Club of Rome, she's been one of the voices who's called for a reform of the COPs. Do you think there needs to be a reform? So voices like yours and like climate resilience networks are heard more in these big international fora?
Sheela: Absolutely. I'm a signatory to the letter she wrote. So, yes, and I think that I don't, I don't see, I see these as very constructive, powerful messages that we are sending to say, we're not going to be old fashioned and walk away. We're going to insist that you change, because if you don't change, you're not fulfilling the obligations that your leadership requires. Could you explain a bit more your reasoning behind joining The Club of Rome and how it helps with the agenda that you're working on? Well, you know, it's strange that The Club of Rome celebrated 50 years. I have also worked for 50 years. It's my 50 years too, of work.
Philippa: Congratulations.
Sheela: So you see an organisation which has made these predictions for me, that's been very interesting, you know, this whole thing of planetary limits. So for me, I was, my, I looked initially as, when I saw people talking about The Club of Rome, I saw this as a very elite northern institution because that's a perception a lot of us feel. And then during COVID when there were web meetings and discussions, and I always made representations saying that it's not working for poor people. Your messages don't reflect what poor people need or that unless they become entrenched in the solution, it's not going to be realistic. I got invited to be a member and I'm a noisy person, so I make a lot of noise and I learned a great deal. I got a lot of support from many of the things that they do. I mean, our interest in food and agriculture, our interest in transport, our interest in disasters. There were things that The Club of Rome were doing that address some of these issues, had, you know, scientists and very well known climate champions that I got to meet, I got to talk. It's a privilege to be able to exchange views, to make representations. For me, the important thing is to produce engagement that brings people who don't generally talk to each other to be able to have conversations with ease, conversations that allow each other to challenge the other without it being adversarial. Because real ideas require these things.
Philippa: I think we're going to have to close it there, Sheela. But thanks very much for speaking to me. It was super interesting and really inspiring, the work you're doing. And good luck with the rest of your projects.
Sheela: Yeah, and if you go to Roof Over Our Heads, you'll see all our materials. You see all the people who are there talking differently about different aspects.
Philippa: Great. Thank you very much and good luck. And thanks for listening to The Club of Rome Podcast. And for more information, please visit clubofrome.org.
-
Almost thirty years after the end of apartheid, Black South Africans still fight for African liberation from colonial narratives. While previous generations struggled to end apartheid, younger generations now face the task of reimagining themselves, their communities, and the world. Mamphela Ramphele, The Club of Rome co-president and Nolita Mvunelo, The Club of Rome program manager discuss the need for intergenerational collaboration to combine the wisdom of older generations with the energy of younger ones. The need for social equity ties into the idea of ecological civilisations as an alternative to our current society. Ramphele and Mvunelo emphasise the need to consider freedom for all life, not just humans and see the Earth Charter as an opportunity to help build a new narrative for ecological civilisations.
First published in Earth Charter International
-
This episode explores the transformative potential of female leadership. Our expert guests, Sharan Burrow, Sylvia Mukasa and Anna Rathmann delve into the nuanced aspects of what female leadership truly means in times of unprecedented global challenges, from tackling environmental crises to addressing social inequalities and the role of businesses.
This podcast is a cooperation between The Club of Rome and BMW Foundation moderated by Philippa Nuttall.
-
In this episode, David Collste,researcher and modeller at the Stockholm Resilience Centre talks about the Earth4All framework's research and strategies. Winner of the Donella Meadows Prize 2023, David's work focuses on the future of human development in the Anthropocene.
This is part of series of interviews profiling The Earth4All: an international initiative convened by The Club of Rome, the PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the BI Norwegian Business School to accelerate the systems-change needed for an equitable future on a finite planet.
First published on The Mona Morrell Podcast
-
In this episode, Hunter Lovins member of The Club of Rome, Earth4All contributor and the founder of Natural Capitalism Solutions, gives a personal insight into the five extraordinary turnarounds for a sustainable future outlined in Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity.
This is part of series of interviews profiling The Earth4All: an international initiative convened by The Club of Rome, the PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research , the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the BI Norwegian Business School to accelerate the systems-change needed for an equitable future on a finite planet.
Published first on The Rhona Morrell Podcast
-
In this episode, Owen Gaffney, lead author of Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity, talks about building a sustainable future through climate action and systems change.
Owen shares valuable insights on the urgency of climate action, the importance of systems change, and the role of collaboration in tackling these complex issues.
First published on Global Partners for Development.
-
In this episode Anders Wijkman, Honorary President of The Club of Rome and Chair of the Governing Board of Climate-KIC talks to The Rhona Morrell Podcast about the urgent need for transformation not incrementalism and for investment in green economies and global equity.
This is part of series of interviews profiling The Earth4All: an international initiative convened by The Club of Rome, the PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research , the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the BI Norwegian Business School to accelerate the systems-change needed for an equitable future on a finite planet.
Published first on The Rhona Morrell Podcast
-
In this episode, Jayati Ghosh, a co-author of ‘Earth for All’, outlines how reducing inequality is the key to a just transition towards a greener economy. The talk is moderated by Roberto Pasqualino from the University of Cambridge.
This was part of the 50th Anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’ Seminar Series, hosted by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG) at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Club of Rome, Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University.
-
In this episode, Roberto Pasqualino, a researcher at the University of Cambridge shares how his work on the Economic Risk Resources and Environment model extends ‘The Limits to Growth’ with new insights relative to the dynamics of resource prices, employment, and general economic downturn. The talk is moderated by Sergey Kolesnikov from the University of Cambridge.
This was part of the 50th Anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’ Seminar Series, hosted by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG) at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Club of Rome, Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University.
-
In this episode, Mamphela Ramphele, Club of Rome co-president and a co-author of ‘Limits and Beyond’, talks about the importance of including relational, cultural, and spiritual factors in addressing planetary emergencies. The talk is moderated by Roberto Pasqualino from the University of Cambridge.
This was part of the 50th Anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’ Seminar Series, hosted by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG) at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Club of Rome, Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University.
-
In this episode, Ugo Bardi, Club of Rome member and the editor of ‘Limits and Beyond’, discusses the role of models as tools to examine the future including the world models of ‘The Limits to Growth’. The talk is moderated by Roberto Pasqualino from the University of Cambridge.
This was part of the 50th Anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’ Seminar Series, hosted by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG) at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Club of Rome, Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University.
-
In this episode, Julia Kim, a co-author to ‘Limits and Beyond’ shares the lessons from Bhutan’s national-level experiment of Gross National Happiness and explores the applications of wellbeing economics across the globe. The talk is moderated by Roberto Pasqualino from the University of Cambridge.
This was part of the 50th Anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’ Seminar Series, hosted by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG) at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Club of Rome, Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University.
-
In this episode, Gaya Herrington, a contributor to ‘Earth for All’ discusses the methods and findings of her empirical data comparison of the scenarios predicted in ‘The Limits to Growth’, and shares her conclusions on what the 50-year-old model teaches us today about a way forward. The talk is moderated by Roberto Pasqualino from the University of Cambridge.
This was part of the 50th Anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’ Seminar Series, hosted by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG) at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Club of Rome, Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University.
-
In this episode, Club of Rome member Jørgen Randers talks about the long global perspective of sustainability since the publication of ‘The Limits to Growth’ through ‘Earth for All’ and beyond. The talk is moderated by Roberto Pasqualino from the University of Cambridge.
This was part of the 50th Anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’ Seminar Series, hosted by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG) at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Club of Rome, Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University.
-
In this episode, Club of Rome member Maja Goepel is in discussion with MEP Philippe Lamberts and MEP Aurore Lalucq on how to shift to a wellbeing economy in times of crises through policy implementation at the EU and member state levels.
-
This episode discusses the growing thinking within EU institutions and across Member States on how to shift to a wellbeing economy in times of crisis through policy implementation at the EU and Member State levels. With Dennis Meadows, Kate Raworth, Ida Kubiszweski, Tim Jackson and Robert Costanza.
- Visa fler
