Tradeoffs and Just Transitions
Our time in Hamburg has me reflecting on tradeoffs. As I rode the ferry, passing the Port of Hamburg, I thought about the sustainability of the Port’s industries. On the one hand, the high volume of boat traffic must have negative environmental impacts, but on the other hand, provide economic prosperity to the city. According to a study published in 2021, “In 2019, Germany-wide roughly 606,700 jobs were in some way linked to the Port of Hamburg…114,400 jobs were directly or indirectly dependent on the Port of Hamburg; they could not be maintained without the Port [and] the port-dependent jobs generated added value of roughly 9.8 billion euros and tax revenues of roughly 2.57 billion euros.” The city, and Germany as a whole thus display reliance on port activity in the economy, which makes it hard to write it off as an industry to ban in the name of sustainability. However, the environmental consequences are tangible–we were advised not to swim in this water because the Elbe River is one of Europe’s most heavily polluted rivers. The Port of Hamburg is crucial for trade, and as such garners heavy traffic, because it connects Germany and other European regions to the Baltics and Scandinavia. Beyond the import and exports of the shipping industry, the port is also home to a key shipyard for cruise ship and other large boat maintenance and construction, such as mega-yachts. The shipbuilding expertise found in the Port of Hamburg is an example of how specialization in German industries has led to economic growth and the persistence of an old industry. This situation shows what is at the crux of the just transition debate. While we can’t continue to allow polluting industries to destroy our planet, we also can’t leave behind hundreds of thousands of workers. I think it is the biggest problem of the climate crisis–how can we keep people employed while cleaning up our industries? The lack of political will to act on the climate crisis can be rooted in the fear of unemployment and the gap in the economy from the loss of polluting industries. This has led some to the “how can we out-innovate climate change” route, which is not the answer. Yes, greener technologies can and should replace the world’s reliance on fossil fuels, however, the problem has more to do with the extreme levels of human consumption of it. The renewable energy industry has offered the world wind and solar, but as we have learned on our trip, even renewables are not net zero. The supply chain to produce wind turbines and PV is not only blurry, but can also involve production processes that use fossil fuels. The lifetime of renewable energy sources is currently not what I would call “sustainable,” especially when taking into account the non-recyclability of many components of wind and solar. We can always hope for the improvement of technology, but the best option, and more difficult option, is to change the way we consume. Visiting Germany has been eye-opening to the difference in energy consumption, for example. Air conditioning is not ubiquitous as it is in the US. Lighting is often motion-sensored or has some other energy-efficient technology. The Pfand system and Re-Cup initiative also display the reuse culture that is prevalent in Germany. In just these small, everyday actions, people are given the opportunity to consume in a more sustainable way. As we think of the tradeoffs in creating a more sustainable world, perhaps it boils down to comfortability versus longevity…a choice between doing what is right and what is easy in our daily lives.
