Two ways to approach sustainability

from Ken Zimmerman

Ecosocialists aren’t even a political party, much less a political force in most of the western world. And certainly not in the top polluting nations in the world – China, Russia, India, and the USA. These four nations along with the EU hold the future of humans safely living on planet earth, of perhaps not living at all on that planet.

There are two ways to approach changing this situation – from people’s direct-action groups to local and then national governments. This is going on in the EU right now. Secondly, by seizing national governments and moving eco-ethical-justice policies outward from the national government. There is an effort to do this in the US during the 2020 elections. This approach involves an intermediate education process to bring churches, educational institutions, local governments, business, manufacturing, and finance into the work of redesigning all these areas in terms of eco-ethics-justice. I can’t see an advantage of one over the other. The path chosen would reflect the existing cultural situation in each nation and region. Mass changes in laws will be required, as will the assurance of effective and consistent enforcement procedures and personnel. Whichever route is chosen, a means must be worked out early in the process to make these changes cross- and multi-cultural, so they are implemented smoothly and consistently across the entire world.

What to do with dissenters is also a question that must be answered early on. Some dissenters will put up little struggle once large-scale cultural changes begin to happen. This is simply self-preservation. Other dissenters can, as suggested be brought along through money. How much money will be needed is uncertain, but it’s virtually a given there will be disputes, some violent about how and how much to value oil and natural gas and uranium reserves and physical facilities to extract each and deliver to usage sites. Finally, there are some dissenters who will never relent. They will sabotage the process, if possible and create uncertainty and disorder to delay the changes. Policies to deal with this last group of dissenters must be clear and must allow members of this group no opportunity to carry out their plans.

Finally, the answer to one question must be clear to all from the outset. How democratic will making these changes be? Many parts of the world would find non-democratic processes less objectionable. But considering tendencies in the world today supporting greater authoritarianism in government and daily life, drawing a clear line on how far democracy will be sacrificed in making these changes is essential. It would be tragic to end up fomenting “pro-democratic” revolutions opposing changes toward eco-ethical-justice policies. Finally, these are massive cultural changes. Making them successfully is a multi-decade, perhaps a multi-century process. Is there a century left for humans to make these changes? The technical changes (e.g., shifting to renewable energy, driving electric vehicles) are the easiest and fastest to make. The changes in everyday culture will be slow and difficult. Changing what and how we eat, how often we travel, reducing the use of personal vehicles, learning to use passive technologies, redesigning health care, redesigning education, etc. will require decades of socialization. Or, the strongest dictator the world has ever experienced.

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/the-ecosocialist-path-to-1-5c-sustainability/#comments