The middle class also has to reduce
Ilona M. Otto, Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, University of Graz, talking with Thomas Wolkinger, FH Joanneum Graz

Interview for the exhibition „Fuck the Solar System/Burning Down the House“, QL-Gallery, steirischer herbst 23

Sociologist and economist Ilona M. Otto talks about fair paths to a climate-positive future, the responsibility of the super-rich and how less can really be more.

———————————————————————

Ilona M. Otto completed her habilitation at the Humboldt University after studying sociology and economics in Poznań and Berlin, among others. She researched and worked at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research from 2010 to 2019 and has been Professor of Social Impacts of Climate Change since July 2020 at the Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change at the University of Graz. Her research interests include climate risks, climate justice, the connection between climate change and health, and “social tipping points”, i.e. the question of which interventions in the global socio-economic system could have the potential to trigger disruptive change processes in order to achieve the Paris climate goals create.

Reading recommendation: Otto, I. M. et al. (2020). Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(5), 2354–2365.

———————————————————————

You research the interactions between society and the ecosystem of our planet. Who is currently holding the upper hand? Are we steering the planet in the right direction or, as the political scientist Reinhard Steurer put it, is physics blowing up in our faces right now?

Ilona M. Otto: Planet Earth will continue to exist. Even if CO2 emissions are rising and biodiversity is on the decline. But after all, it’s about us humans: It is a tragedy that we are destroying the foundations of our life. These natural systems from which we get our food, all our resources. It’s getting more and more difficult to survive. Everything is getting more expensive, and we can already see what that means. Many people are discontent. Those who starve or experience stress do not sit idle and wait until they die. Those who are discontent protest or go elsewhere. This results in many conflicts and tensions. And it means the end of the system as we know it. It is likely that some people will survive. But life won’t be pleasant. And this is why we have to do everything we can to avoid the worst consequences.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a widespread feeling in society that humans are at the steering wheel and—given the right technologies—can pilot the planet into a better future like a spaceship. Where does this illusion come from?

There are these technology narratives. The idea that some technological solution is going to come along and save us. However, we already have these miraculous technologies, it is more a question of implementation and a better allocation of resources and energy. Right now, the problem is that a very small group of people in a privileged position are consuming much more energy and resources than the vast majority. These people also have a decisive influence on what will happen. Agency is the problem, effectiveness. Decision-makers in politics or business have more agency than, for example, a farmer in Pakistan. After all, we’re not all sitting behind the wheel. There are only a few who are, and they are in a very privileged position. They benefit from the system and perhaps do not yet understand what is at stake. Or they think that money can buy them solutions. I have heard that some super-rich people are already building bunkers, shelters on some island.

Or on Mars.

They are all welcome to fly to Mars! Maybe this would be a solution. But do they really want that, to live in hermetically closed spaces forever when disaster strikes? It will be very hard to hide there. All those who have agency should realise this and do everything to prevent a disaster.

Before we return to the responsibility of the super-rich, I would like to talk about “social tipping points”, a concept you have elaborated in a well-received publication¹ in 2020. For this purpose, you asked experts which measures they consider to be particularly effective or ”contagious” with regard to climate positive development. CO2 labels for products, CO2-neutral cities, a decentralisation of the energy system, a divestment from fossil companies and—in the longer term—changes to the education system or even our system of standards were mentioned. However, you have just addressed negative tipping dynamics: social unrest or mass migration if the disaster cannot be contained.

These negative tipping dynamics can also be linked to positive ones. In the COVID-19 pandemic, suddenly anything became possible because everyone was so scared that politicians were able to decide on far-reaching measures. Everyone joined in to fight the pandemic. You can also imagine that after major environmental disasters, the shock is so great that positive changes can be implemented faster.

———————————————————–
I. M. Otto et al., “Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(5) (2020): 2354–2365.
————————————————————

But of course, you wouldn’t wish for such a radical change.

It doesn’t have to happen that way. It would be better if those who have little agency now build up pressure on the streets. The protests and actions of the Last Generation and Fridays for Future are also trying to put pressure on decision-makers to finally get something done. We now have a climate council in Graz. There, too, we discuss things with local decision-makers: What can be done? Things are changing on many levels, but others don’t want to hear about it yet; they are trying to stop or slow down the transformation. There are certain interests behind this. And there are also many types of greenwashing.

You already conducted the interviews for the tipping points paper in 2017. Would the experts answer substantially differently today?

That may be so. The health system could be another tipping point. In Germany, there is now the Deutsche Allianz Klimawandel und Gesellschaft (KLUG – German Climate Change and Society Alliance), i.e., an organisation for doctors who are interested in climate change and who are trying to make people more aware that our health is very closely linked to the climate—in the sense of “planetary health”. Another development that was not really foreseeable at the time is the reduction in the consumption of meat. Fewer and fewer people eat meat or animal products. This is perhaps also a bit “contagious”—among friends or at the workplace.

With regard to the energy transition, you wrote at the time that a tipping point could be imminent here. How do you see this today?

I think it is fair to say that we have perhaps already reached the tipping point in the energy system when we look at prices of renewable energy sources. In most regions of the world, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil energy. Another example: Anyone building a new house now would certainly not consider installing an oil-fired heating system. The heat pump is arguably the best solution. But everything has to happen even faster, although so incredibly much is going on right now.

On the other hand, the population in the Upper Styrian village of Gaal rejected a wind farm this year for aesthetic reasons.

It’s back and forth. Only in retrospect will we be able to say in a few years’ time: Yes, that was the tipping point, and everything has changed since then. Today it is very difficult to judge because we ourselves are part of the system. This is similar to the political transformation in the nineteen-nineties. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the development was difficult to assess. Will the communist system come back or not? How does it change? Only after years can you say, okay, that was the tipping point.

You have investigated what possibly triggers social tipping dynamics. But in what ways exactly do processes of social transformation proceed, what factors favour “contagion”.

This is a question that psychologists know better how to answer. But we are also concerned with networks and network structures that are important for dissemination. There are studies that show that sometimes social innovations do not emerge in the centre of networks at all, but in peripheral regions.

Damon Centola has explored this using Twitter audiences.

But innovation spreads faster when it also reaches key players, celebrities, influencers, role models. New trends are also created by artists or students. And of course, these processes work differently on financial markets than when it comes to the question of how the social norms and laws of a society change. There you have different stakeholders, different structures, information channels and different time scales.

Centola writes that for longer-term behavioural change, you need to win over 25% of the population.

You need a critical mass. This can also be a “committed minority”, small groups that assert themselves and are very motivated and very active. However, this does not only apply to the climate movement, but also to right-wing populist movements, for example.

The Last Generation refers to research by political scientist Erica Chenoweth, who in turn says that civil protest is more successful than violent protest and that it tends to be successful if it manages to mobilise 3.5% of the population.

These studies show that even fewer people are enough for civil disobedience. But of course, they all must not sit on the couch but have to take to the streets to actively protest. Success also depends on the response of the state, i.e., whether the police or army break up a protest. Many people get scared in such a case and give up, as for example in Belarus after the 2020 election. The protests stopped because there was too much repression and people were risking their lives. Some of them have left the country, some are in prison now. But it may be the case that the situation will change again, that people will then become active again. All is not yet lost, of course.

How do you assess the tipping potential of the actions of the Last Generation, Fridays for Future or Extinction Rebellion today?

The movement is changing, today the Last Generation is particularly visible. I think all these movements have contributed something. Initially, Fridays for Future was very important, but with COVID-19 and the War in Ukraine, our society’s focus shifted elsewhere. The Last Generation has developed new forms that are a bit more radical, that have a greater impact on everyday life. Of course, I understand the frustration of people who are sitting in the car and can’t get ahead. But I have also had conversations with the activists, and they often see no other option. They don’t have a lot of money, are few in total and therefore try to carry out actions that are relatively easy to organise and end up in the media. And it works. We analysed articles in (the Austrian nationwide newspapers) Presse and Standard together with a group of students. In any case, there has been a higher number of reports in the last few months, which initially were often negative, but then again became visibly more positive. The published articles have also visibly covered climate change to a greater extent. This shows that the protest is effective.

What can movements like the Last Generation learn from theories of social transformation?

That normative changes are very important. People need to realise that burning fossil fuels is bad for us, for our health and for our children. When a behaviour or a product is judged to be immoral, then the moral level becomes more important than, for example, the price. Products that are made using child labour may be cheaper, but if you don’t want children to suffer, you will pay more. Another important thing: That you also try to change politics, for example by establishing a political party on your own. We need structural changes, legislative changes. And for that, you have to talk to the legislators or become a legislator. Changes need to be translated into law to make them permanent. Not everything has to happen immediately, of course, but one could start by stipulating that all new heating must be based on renewable energy. Or that no more cars with fossil combustion engines may be sold as of 2035.

Social Tipping Points essentially aim to examine which changes have the greatest potential for contagion with regard to decarbonisation, so that we may yet meet the Paris 1.5-degree goal. How fair is the Paris climate goal actually?

In itself, it is fair because it seeks to protect future generations and people who are severely affected by climate change. Another question is how we get there in ways that are fair. Privileged people produce much higher emissions than others. At the same time, there are people who suffer from starvation or have no access to electricity at all. First of all, it is important that no one starves, especially children. Children who starve suffer from this their whole lives. Of course, it is also important to achieve all other minimum standards, including housing for all. We can only achieve all this if the privileged ones give up something; the middle class also has to make cuts. I have written a paper on this with some of my peers: If we raise the living standard of the poorest, this means—depending on the scenario—an increase in emissions of 2 to 26 %. We cannot afford this.

It seems to me that the debate on fairness, with all its consequences, has not yet taken off, has it?

In science it has; there are more and more publications on this issue. And many people feel that our society is unfair. And that inequality is linked to transformation and climate change. Perhaps both problems can be addressed by trying to distribute resources fairly and thereby also reducing the impact on natural systems.

Economist Thomas Piketty also says that social justice must be the first priority, only then will the climate issue be solved. And the super-rich contribute disproportionately to global emissions through their lifestyles—currently this share is even increasing. Why is distributive justice so difficult to achieve?

It is all about status symbols. We want to distinguish ourselves from others. This can basically be achieved by various means. In our society, it is unfortunately the case that these status symbols are very much linked to energy and resource consumption: A private aircraft, flying in general, big cars, big houses. And if one person has these things, the others think it’s cool and want them too. I know that we cannot all be equal. But maybe we can at least find other means to distinguish ourselves. So that it would be associated with status if you have written a book or done community work. There are many examples from the past where status was defined differently.

No one is outraged at the super-rich because everyone wants to become super-rich themselves?

Exactly.

What are the conceivable tipping points in this respect?

Well, maybe also social norms regarding symbols of success.

SUV shaming?

A little bit of shaming. It’s up to us. For example: If you post about a holiday in Thailand on social media, you get likes. Maybe we should think more carefully about who we follow and what we like? We all do this. Of course, there are also good influencers who share knowledge or politics. But much of the content is simply harmful. For example, there are videos according to the following pattern: “This is what happens when you drive a car over the latest iPhone. Huh, crash, look, it’s broken now.” And children think this is normal. Or that it is normal to live in villas, have a swimming pool and drive a Porsche. That should also be banned, it is socially harmful, maybe we need some strong regulation of social media.

A luxury ban in the media? Isn’t that difficult to enforce?

A ban on advertising would be conceivable—for products that require fossil fuels.

Last year, the Austrian Bioethics Commission also called for advertising restrictions on products that are harmful to the climate.

After all, advertising for alcohol or cigarettes is also regulated.

But isn’t there fossil lifestyle in every product?

A ban on advertising would be a first step. The algorithms of social media could also be regulated. Right now, you will only get suggestions based on similarities. Once you’ve seen a film with an influencer and such a lifestyle, you’ll be offered more films like this one. Perhaps this could be changed by requiring algorithms to make more random suggestions.

In the context of unfair distribution of wealth and emissions, what do you think of highly progressive wealth and inheritance taxes or a basic income?

I think it’s good to tax wealth. Moreover, we would then also have to stop tax havens. But for this we need international agreements. And probably the people who decide on this use such tax havens themselves and do not want to change that. In this respect, too, we need to exert social pressure. And then we could use the money for more fairness or a basic income.

The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change published its advice on achieving the climate goals in June 2023. There is a sentence in it that says the EU has, in a sense, already exhausted its “fair share of the global emissions budget” in the past. An immediate freeze on emissions would then be a fair climate goal for the EU. Historically unfair emissions seem to be even more difficult to address than socially unfair ones.

It is true that, especially in Europe and the Global North, we have built our wealth on resources, pollution and fossil fuels. Therefore, we must now take on more responsibility, for example through technology transfer to the Global South or through training programmes. We cannot reduce our emissions to zero from one day to the next. This is impossible. But that should motivate us to do even more and expand our low-carbon infrastructure. We all have to think for ourselves what we can do and contribute. Maybe cycling once a week, or walking more, or flying less, and so on. You can do incredibly much, on different levels: in communities, neighbourhood groups, at the workplace. You can sit together and consider things together. There are no miraculous solutions, no silver bullet solutions.

How could the 1.5-degree goal be formulated more fairly?

We can look at the distribution, at which groups emit more. And we could look at how much of the budget is left and how we could best distribute it. And the rich and the middle and upper middle classes have to contribute more. This is not always about sacrifice. Those who have a house and a plot of land can install solar panels on the roof, and those who have a lot of land can even install wind turbines. And if you cycle or walk a bit more, it’s good for your health. Maybe you’ll meet friends on the road—instead of sitting isolated in your car. What is missing—and perhaps art could contribute to this—are visions of net zero lifestyles and a net zero future. How do we want to live in 2050, how will we move, what social relationships will we have? People do not have these visions; they fuel dreadful images of sacrifice instead. That they will have to live in the forest, in caves. Perhaps more people could be won over with positive visions. So that they “get infected”, join in, open up—or at least don’t protest against the transformation. These social relations are also important because right-wing populist groups capitalise on this fear of change. If we could show that you don’t need so much money to live sustainably and that you have more control over your life again, more time for yourself, for your family, then maybe we can win over more people.

Graz, 1 July, 2023 / Interview: Thomas Wolkinger

Translation: Otmar Lichtenwörther, textkultur.at