On environment and development
How do we literally deliver power to the people?
Ice breakers are sailing freely through the Arctic Circle. Some cities already face a 1+ºC rise on average temperatures. Coastal cities may disappear sooner than previously thought. At the same time, people starve, deal with mass unemployment, and have no or little access to sanitary services in other regions. What do all of these facts have in common? Basically, everything, but we need to move fast.
As a young economist who graduated in late 2016 in Brazil, I studied basically the usual subjects economists study during graduation, with special attention to development issues. As a developing country, it seems natural that we focus on questions that may explain our own problems. If you look at the surface of these problems — and even if you dig deep-, you will see basically social and economic malfunctions which result in a poorly distributed income. Inequality is often pointed as the main problem of an underdeveloped society like Brazil.
The second discussion we become specialists in is who to blame. Education deficits are usually the source of all evil. And it is true. The solution to the very problem I bring in this text relies on strong educational planning. But as we were taught by Amartya Sen, the problem is far from being unidimensional.
The decade born seven weeks ago is probably the one where environmental questions may take more space in high-level discussions. Of course, countries have extensively debated nature and the use of resources since the 1970s, but there is a catch.
During the extensive discussions since the Stockholm Conference in 1972, then moving to the 1980s, where the concept of sustainable development was coined, then getting to Rio 92 and the COPs on climate change in the 2000s, we have seen states dealing with its ambitions, first split in West/East and then in North/South. Hence the intransigent positions of industrial and developing nations. While the first wanted the equal commitment of every country involved in the discussions, the developing group demanded common but different responsibilities. Their point was that rich countries have already undergone a deep industrial revolution two centuries ago, and it was not fair for them to pose such limits to the development of struggling populations.
As the Cold War met its end, the world seems to have woken up to the reality that political coordination must focus on people, instead of nations. The individual should gain the stage. This has serious implications on weather and the environment.
Not only the UN has allocated extensive resources on the subject, but companies and opinion leaders have entered the discussion. Bill Gates, for instance, has just launched a book on climate change, starting with a mea culpa introduction, then dissecting alternatives to our current production model.
The conversations seem to have switched to other issues, and one of them is (now) obviously the most important. While developed countries worry about climate changes since the 1960s/70s (and, therefore, their big middle classes are also more or less aware of the problem since two decades after the II WW), what to do about the developing nations, which have big challenges and suppressed demands?
This is where I bring back the thought about being an Economist in a developing country. It seems clear to central countries academics that it is already impossible to think economics without thinking of its sustainability — economically, socially, and environmentally speaking. But what about us, the future decision-making agents, who were trained to attack poverty and to provide solutions to centuries aged challenges? My professors barely scratched the surface of environmental issues during my graduation. It was seen as a minor subject, or just something still embryonic. Well, maybe for us, entangled in our own underdevelopment problems.
The underdeveloped world needs to reach decent living standards. There is no scenario in which poverty is still acceptable. And considering that our capitalist model of production will not fade away anytime soon, we need to think about healthy ways to get it running.
So now we face a new challenge: given that we still have an overwhelming percentage of people struggling to make ends meet (to say the very least), how do we engage them in what is known as an acceptable way of life (ie consumption)? And, once we are in 2021, how do we perform that as more people fall back into poverty during and after the pandemic?
The main problem is energy. The amount of energy consumed by a country is strongly tied to its level of income. Therefore, more developed societies tend to use more energy. Being in a world where the most developed countries still rely on fossil fuels and coal, the task seems unachievable.
Other two questions arise:
Does development actually mean that poor people have to consume just like rich societies?
Are we in the position of saying what people who faced severe life-long limitations can or cannot consume?
I truly believe that the levels of consumption of post-war western society are not only unsustainable but also irrational. That being said, it would be interesting to introduce alternatives to people who are on the way out of poverty. That is where education plays a major role. If children and their families become familiar with concepts such as sustainability, responsible consumption, and green economy, they can realize that other ways of thinking consumption are better than the ones developed by rich countries.
As idealist as it may sound, it is mandatory for us, as humans, to teach our children that sustainable development means not to leave the next generations with a mortgage that they will not be able to pay. At the same time, real, practical solutions must be designed immediately.
If people need more energy to develop (or while they develop), we must work on ways to take already known technology to developing regions. Distributed generation of energy, more energy-efficient machinery, and so on are good starting points. It helps to begin the process.
But we also need disruptive technologies working for everybody, everywhere. Of course, innovation gravitates toward intellectually dense regions, but its products need to escape the event horizon of these black holes. Governments and international bodies such as the United Nations should be the vectors to take these new technologies to places where they are needed. As a second goal, they could also be responsible for building up networks of innovation, connecting developing areas to innovative hubs.
We are in 2021 and it is time for us to face reality: we cannot feed, dress, educate and heal all the people that still don't have access to these basic rights if we keep the same consumption and production standards we have today. If we are to engage with international agreements that target people and their development, we need to balance the inequalities that have risen with capitalism itself, as well as we need to take advantage of the progress also promoted by the same capitalism.
It is a matter of matching a conscious demand with an energetically efficient supply. I know, it is a complicated world, but it is still the only one we have.
