Fernando Valladares, one of the most authoritative voices in Spain speaking about the impending collapse of the planet (and the solutions to prevent it), has published a book that summarizes all the problems that threaten us: ‘Civilization Again’ (Destino Editions). Throughout its pages, it explains how we came to this situation, what processes destroyed the current civilization, and what must happen to reverse this trend.
-When you talk about food production in the book, you remember that this is one of the activities that harms the planet the most because, as you said, the priority of this activity is not food production, but the profits of companies. in the industry…
-Yes, this is one of the three or four issues that, along with the energy system or the healthcare system, causes serious environmental problems (climate change, pollution, etc.), but also causes social problems because it creates great inequalities. In the book, I always make connections by associating these environmental problems/social problems. Let’s imagine that the global food system leads to hunger. And this hunger causes millions of preventable deaths. And we are starving precisely because we produce so much food. In the system, the priority is not to meet the need for food where it is needed, at the required price and quality, but first of all to make money and then deliver it to the population. This situation, which emerged after the Second World War, has permeated the global food system and leads to very strong environmental impacts: among many other things, it is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and causes pollution from excess fertilizers. Paradoxically, this production of cheap food means that a third of it is thrown away and 20% is used to fuel overweight in the global north. This work must be subject to a service that is key to humanity.
-When it comes to energy, is this the sector in which we can have the most hope due to the rapid expansion of renewable energy? Or is there actually a panorama of lights and shadows?
-Yes, I think it will be more of a panorama consisting of light and shadows. Considering the situation we are facing, let’s consider that there is no single solution or magic solution such as switching from fossil energies to renewable energies. In fact, I called the book ‘Re-Civilization’ because this is something that goes beyond the socioeconomic model or the energy dimensions. A similar situation applies to energy in the food system. We produce a lot, we consume a lot. In the case of Spain, we consume twice the energy required. For what it’s necessary? To be healthy and happy. There are studies that show how quality of life, health and happiness improve through eight or nine indicators as we gain greater access to energy consumption. But there comes a point when you are no longer happier or healthier, your well-being is not improving, and instead you continue to expend more energy. This is where we need to stop. This point would be half the current consumption in Spain.
“In Spain we consume twice the energy we need to be happy and healthy”
So what are the plans for renewable energy? Let’s produce four or five times the amount of energy we produce today, which is twice what is needed. However, if renewable energies (even though they seem to be clean and have less impact on the climate in the ‘light’ part) continue with the business logic and leave the reins to the energy companies, we will consume better and more because it will be easy to spend… After all, the model We will not change it. To completely overturn the current model of civilization, we must take advantage of the current situation and define whether it is human rights or business, economy or people first…
-In fact, the basis of this entire debate, as you stated, lies in the need to change the current economic model, which is based on an extractive and resource-consuming vision. Faced with all this, the book recommends economic contraction. “Reduce to live better,” he confirms. But how can this be achieved without a major social backlash?
-Just wanting is enough. We don’t want to change, but we have solutions there. Degrowth is something that sounds a little scary, but as a scientist I like things to be clear. The EU, although a very liberal and pro-productivity economy, has been considering degrowth for several years. Last year, he created and funded a research project with experts working on it; but this year it organized a three-day congress where it brought together all kinds of social actors (private sector, politicians, NGOs) to see how this could be implemented. zero growth. How do we do this? How will it happen and it is very difficult. It should be taken into account that the decline will occur; This is something inevitable. We see this with recessions, which is growth that you planned for us, you didn’t foresee, and you don’t know where it came from. And then everyone will fend for themselves. A decline where you can fix the sectors that will be most affected by the way of production or consumption in advance is the same but planned. We must anticipate a decline, a recession, a crash, or whatever we want to call it. Once you reach the limit, the impact you can take is huge. We are in a historic opportunity to change civilization.
-Faced with these great challenges facing the planet, which sometimes seem to overwhelm us, what can the ordinary citizen, the individual, do to stop these processes of destruction?
-Too much. We often feel stuck as individuals in the face of a global challenge. We ask ourselves: What am I doing cycling to work when China is emitting millions of tons of CO2? Something like that. The individual has a minor, more than symbolic, role. For example, it is estimated that if we individually do everything as we should regarding emissions, we can achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of perhaps 20 percent, at most 30 percent. The remaining 70% remains in the hands of politicians and big companies. However, this rate of 20 or 30 percent is not small at all. But who we vote for, where we shop, what we invest in, etc. We can get into the other 70% with things. and that’s where we get into that big percentage. However, the spark we need to light is this: Instead of being crushed under a situation that overwhelms us, it is good to do something that will reduce the impact of this situation, bring balance and stability to most people, and set an example for the third. parties.people. Especially in small communities where energy or consumption or local production communities are established, these are things that will not change the world, but they excite those who participate and are a great motivation for those who see them. These things are from outside.
-You are a scientist and therefore have an amount of data and knowledge that ordinary mortals do not have. From this perspective, has the situation on the planet improved? Have we arrived in time to avoid collapse?
-The book ends with the question of whether we can fix the situation. There are more pessimists who think that what they are doing is simply projecting into the future what humanity has done so far. And they say that humanity will hit the wall, seeing the collapse of previous civilizations. But this is one of the scenarios. My hope is that history does not repeat itself over and over again.
“Let’s create a 2.0 civilization that we can be truly proud of, not the current one.”
For the first time in history, the entire planet is so interconnected that we can make purposeful global decisions, without the need for a chief or world president. I think there is a solution to this. Although there is increasingly less time and less margin, we still have time to prevent warming from exceeding 1.5°C. But this is a matter of political and social will. Let’s make a civilization 2.0 that we can truly be proud of, not a civilization 2.0 that destroys and destroys the planetary conditions necessary for healthy and happy living, as we have now.
………….
Contact address of the environmental department:[email protected]