11
votes
Indigenous reindeer herders fear the drive towards a more sustainable economy is destroying their traditional way of life and identity in Sweden
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- 'We borrow our lands from our children': Sami say they are paying for Sweden going green
- Authors
- Karen McVeigh
- Published
- Aug 10 2022
- Word count
- 1582 words
This article exemplifies quite well how trying to go green via technological progress can be (and often is) at-odds with actually going green. The primary answer I see, is that rapidly reducing consumption is required. Not just from the bottom up (consumers choosing to consume less), but top-down via planning and rationing. Because in a world with severe wealth inequality, rationing is the only fair way to force reduction of resource consumption....particularly if the bottom already is using far less than the top (looking inward, USA).
It's going to take opening a tremendous amount of mines to replace fossil fuel energy sources with green ones. That's going to wreak even more havoc on an environment being ravaged by the consequences of industrialization thus far. Even just substitution of gas cars in the USA alone to hybrids or electrics in the next 20 years is a bit of a pipe dream without a massive expansion of mining. Not even thinking about the electrical generation needs.
Human (animal?) powered, and public transport needs to be brought to the forefront of the discussion. A bus carrying 40 people, for 40 miles, at 5mpg; uses 8 gallons of gas. 23 cars (Average of 1.67 people per car), moving 40 miles, getting 80 mpg; uses 11.5 gallons. Eliminating car culture (and de-stigmatizing public transport) is the only way I think we'll be able to reasonably reduce fuel usage fast enough.
In that same vein, we're not going to be able to replace all our power needs with equivalent green sources in a reasonable time-frame without strip-mining half the planet. /slight-hyperbole
Edit: Thinking more about the animal powered...horses and oxen serve those niches which do not work well for walking or biking...like needing to haul 300+ lbs and/or going 10+ miles. Not saying those would be ideal for dense cities...but the rural and semi-rural areas would be served relatively well by reverting to the horse/buggy given the longer distances involved.
Here’s the rub: politically, suggesting reverting back to horse and buggy would get you thrown out of office (possibly physically). It’s hard enough getting people in urban and suburban areas onto bikes, I can’t imagine trying to get rural folks to go back to horses will do any better.
The main options I see being politically feasible are:
I've been thinking (and despairing) aboutthis problem. I think it's not necessarily rich vs. poor problem, but a problem that humans will expand to meet their carrying capacity (—and beyond on environmental debt, often paid by poorer people elsewhere someplace less desirable and out of sight out of mind).
We could have dense, compact cities where everyone lives in compact homes, rides bicycles, and consumes modestly. I advocate this vision. I lived this life in Amsterdam, and it was great.
But in most places, people are going to sprawl out and exploit the land, and choose the cheapest, not necessarily the best, decision paths.
I often get the feeling that there is no real political solution, only little bandaids. Because a real solution would involve tremendous sacrifice by everyone and a total paradigm shift in how we live, not just billionaires and corporations. People don't want to give up cars, big houses, cheap consumer goods, meat, etc. Corporations can't give up profits and endless growth.
The current 'palatable' solution paradigm being floated around involves taking the old paradigm and slapping solar panels and batteries on it. In my observation, civilizational paradigm shifts come about not through politics—human politics have been fundamentally reactive—but through some forcing mechanism that renders the previous paradigm obsolete.
Perhaps we just have to hit the planetary carrying capacity so hard such that the consequences are felt by everyone—(global) rich and poor alike—so badly that no one can ignore it and that our species will remember its lessons as sacred mythos for millennia. But that would be a tremendous tragedy.
Welcome to the future that I think is most likely. Hundreds of millions dead. Everyone else in varying degrees of uncomfortable. At least we are even applying the bandaid solutions.
Meant to reply earlier.
Politics does not cause paradigm shifts, but it certainly influences them. It can mean the difference between a swift response and a dragged out response.
Regarding bikes, density, and modest consumption, there’s a framing issue. Nobody wants it to be framed as a sacrifice. But you might make headway if you frame it as liberating or a benefit. “Never have to pay for a car again!” “Walk to shops and restaurants!”
Hauling 300+ pounds is absolutely doable on a bicycle with a properly built trailer. My 5' wife was able to haul 4 sacks of cement mix at once, and that was just shy of 400 pounds. It required low gearing and a sturdy trailer, but was completely feasible. On the bulky end, she was also able to haul a full floor loom, roughly 4' x 4' x 6'. That required tie downs to keep it stable, but probably would have for a pickup truck too. Human powered vehicles are capable of more than you think.
This is true, 300 is a pretty small number...2 adult humans more often than not. An Ox can handle upwards of 2,000 or so.
I think you're pretty much bang-on here, but I don't think we will see top-down rationing anytime soon. Major world governments are welded to industrial capital, and I would be extremely surprised if any politician could get away with seriously entertaining degrowth in the next two decades (at least).
I believe it's on us to do this ourselves. We have to change our consumption patterns and ways of life, because the government and (especially) the corporations are not going to do it for us.
Tangentially, the sort of degrowth you point towards necessarily involves a similar overhaul of our agricultural system. One of its biggest inputs right now is oil. Oil powers tractors, runs processing equipment, and (crucially) is essential to the production of artificial fertilizers (as ingredient and as factory power). With regards to making changes ourselves, this involves beginning to produce some (or most) of our own food and supporting small-scale farmers who use less energy- and oil-intensive methods.