CLIMATE. “The opportunity with the Stockholm + 50 conference is to get us back to focusing on fundamental global risks. At the same time as the ongoing war takes up a lot of attention”, writes Waldemar Ingdahl of the Global Challenges Foundation.

Sweden is hosting, together with Kenya, the UN’s climate conference Stockholm 50+. Fifty years after the UN’s first environmental and climate conference took place, the Stockholm Conference in 1972. It led to the “do no harm” principle, namely that states are obliged to prevent, reduce and control the risks of environmental damage to other states. It also led to the creation of the UN Environment Programme UNEP and the establishment of World Environment Day, held on 5 June each year.

 The ambition of Stockholm+50 is to draw attention to the 50th anniversary of the world’s first environment and climate conference and to make courageous science-based decisions to act against contemporary crises in climate and biodiversity, prosperity, and the economy.

 The intention is for multilateralism to be discussed as the basis for achieving current goals and future prosperity and well-being and to act as a springboard for reform work. Stockholm+50 is designed as a collaborative and multi-party meeting, open to various participants who are invited to share experiences and initiatives to protect the planet and contribute to sustainable and inclusive development.

 As Stockholm+50 is not part of the UN’s climate convention UNFCCC or the convention on biological diversity CBD, the meeting is outside the processes by which the world community makes decisions. Criticism has been leveled at the conference for not appearing to lead to a sharp resolution, which in turn would mean that the conference’s objectives are unclear. 

Climate change has been a hot topic and a political priority for a long time, and we are already doing much, at a significant cost. 

Greta Thunberg’s famous “blah, blah, blah” speech could perhaps be repeated this year. The situation looks depressingly familiar for an observer who participated during Stockholm + 50 this year and still has last year’s COP26 in fresh memory. Then as now, young environmental activists see the conference as a slow and insufficient way of dealing with acute problems.

 Much of the focus of the COP 26 conference ended on the global divide between north and south. The Western world’s efforts to deal with environmental degradation and overpopulation were opposed to the desire of developing countries for industrialization and prosperity. Knowledge of an ongoing environmental crisis is circulating globally, but it was perceived and handled differently by the conference’s different power blocs and countries.

Climate change has been a hot topic and a political priority for a long time, and we are already doing much, at a significant cost. 

However, the idea, expressed in Greta Thunberg’s “blah blah blah” speech, that we are not currently doing anything about the problems is unreasonable. It is difficult to think of any other issue where there is such a broad consensus despite a divided world, which includes all major political parties, trade unions, employers’ unions, the research community, and civil society. The consciousness about the issue is clearly present.

It is good to discuss and know where you are going, not least about climate change and biodiversity loss, whose conventions and meetings are so technical. They are closely related but have rarely been discussed. But it is important to see where the problems lie and how risks are affected. This is to prepare for future agreements and upcoming conferences.

There are now so many climate-related instruments that climate and development policy is often messy and inconsistent. The challenge is not to “do more”, but to sort out, rationalize, and streamline the policies to strive for environmental goals more rationally and cost-effectively. Where can the easiest efforts be made, not least in a world strained by war with nuclear threats, pandemics, and what seems to be a severe recession?

 To get a kind of overview and try to understand what needs to be done is global “tipping points”.

 A tipping point is a critical turning point, where a minor system disturbance initiates a self-reinforcing process that irrevocably drives the system further and further away from its initial state of equilibrium. Ecologists have long been aware of tipping points in local and regional ecosystems. Now they are used to explain and understand shifts in biophysical systems, while the concept was previously used in changes in markets or major crimes in societal patterns and norms.

 There are long-term costs of not making well-planned decisions and examining which reforms or new global institutions may be right. Therefore, a scientific understanding and dissemination of knowledge about global decision-making systems is good to discuss. Tipping points are also useful for understanding when the action really has an impact so that we do not stop too soon or stick to it even if its benefit is low.

The Stockholm + 50 conference opportunity is to get us back to focusing on fundamental global risks. This at the same time as the ongoing war takes up a lot of attention. Therefore, it is important to achieve peace on earth and peace with the earth.

The post New solutions for global risks? first appeared on Opulens.

COMPLEXITY. Wars, diseases and major ecological collapses have existed as long as there has been human life on Earth. Humans have been heavily afflicted by such problems, but we have always risen from ashes. But imagine if, despite that the risks are low, a global catastrophe takes place without humanity being able to recover? In order to avoid global disasters, the world community has to find new methods for cooperation. Could a multistakeholder model be one of the solutions? 

Jens Orback is the Executive of the Global Challenges Foundation

Traditional risk analysis is based on the following equation: the size of a risk is the potential future damage multiplied by the probability that the damage would occur. The equation clearly shows that when the potential damage of risk is large, we cannot ignore it because of insecurity or because the probability för the damage taking place seems low.

Global catastrophes have occurred before in history, as some previous pandemics have killed more than 10% of the world’s population. During the 20th century, a nuclear war was close on several occasions, a risk that has not changed despite it is more seldomly being discussed in public debate. The most dramatic change is that humanity, for the first time in history, is capable of seriously damaging the global ecosystem that we are all depending on. ser

Covid-19, greenhouse gas emissions, and weapons of mass destruction have one thing in common – they are not limited to national borders. It is becoming obvious that threats against humanity are border-crossing. Regardless if it is about global health, climate, environmental damages or connected migration flows. 

Since earlier, humanity has tried to create institutions at different levels to handle those crises and conflicts of interests that affect us. However, the capacity to address serious border-crossing threats through common decision-making and regulations is defective at the moment. 

Humanity stands in front of great opportunities and challenges in reforms, economic development, and technological innovation to handle global catastrophic risks like climate change, weapons of mass destruction, or pandemics. Everyone can benefit from a common policy, but all stakeholders do not equally interpret the benefits to themselves as being large or are unwilling to finance the costs. In such situations, everyone is affected by the problem. 

The term “global governance” includes a lot of the “soft power” that the world community needs, by the power of attraction resulting in more stakeholders committing themselves to a norm rather than by imposing coercion, cowing to brute force or economic compensation. True supranationalism between governments and international organisations is still rare. Most of today’s multilateral institutions were built up after the Second World War, but they were not designed for the purpose of dealing with the threats we face today.

This is why we now see organisations like the World Health Organisation (WHO) lacking the power to sanction countries that do not follow the encouragement to analyse and report their health capacities to handle diseases spreading. World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations are at a standstill. Member countries are instead working on bilateral or regional multilateral agreements. United Nations (UN) organs are dependent for their functions on the member-states earmarked contributions, leading to distortions in their activities.

The European Union (EU), the world’s most advanced project for political integration, is a regional organisation and member-state governments decide the union’s direction. Global problems demand global solutions, but we must understand which solutions are efficient and workable. Reforms of the UN have been discussed, but have so far not gone forward because great powers are tending to their short-term national interests, and thereby it is hard to conduct reforms from above. 

Multi-party stakeholder models approach global challenges by gathering representatives for different governmental and non-governmental organisations that affect or are affected by a common issue or problem. Global interest initiatives gather together companies, civil society organisations, politics, public institutions and projects. Also, such processes can also include academic institutions, foundations, intergovernmental organisations as well as technical expertise. 

Some multi-party stakeholders include only the non-governmental sector, in contrast to multilateralism, where the governments are meeting for negotiations. Some researchers that have analysed the topic of multi-stakeholder conversations argue that this model provides a stronger engagement and mobilises more resources from participants than traditional multilateral institutions. Also, stakeholders represent their functions, rather than their nations, which provide a more pragmatic attitude in the negotiations. 

Such developments were in general seen as unthinkable 20-30 years ago, so can a shift to multistakeholderism be legitimate and efficient? To whom are such stakeholders responsible and how? Is there a risk that they are being dominated by special interests and can increase inequality in the world? 

We do not know the answers to these questions yet and we need to examine them further in order to find a road map. Not only in order to recover our world to the conditions before Covid-19 but also in order to imagine a less fragile future. 

The post Global challenges demand global multistakeholder solutions first appeared on Opulens.

DECENTRALISATION. Cryptocurrencies are often criticised for having a negative impact on the environment and climate. This is particularly the case with Bitcoin in relation to carbon emissions and ecological footprint. Despite such problems, in the future different cryptocurrencies will be able to contribute to climate transformation and greener economic interactions.

One of the latest examples of a larger purchase of Bitcoin is the case of  Tesla, owned by Elon Musk, buying Bitcoin worth of 1,5 billion American dollars. Criticism towards Tesla is that a company promoting climate sustainability and fossil-free energy is investing in a cryptocurrency that is increasing  Tesla’s carbon footprint. While Musk is positive towards Bitcoin, another famous worldwide businessman Bill Gates has proclaimed himself a “Bitcoin sceptic” and criticised Bitcoin’s impact on climate. 

Concerning this development,  questions have been raised within academic institutions and crypto-currency communities. Should cryptocurrencies be banned or taxed? Or if there are better and more climate-friendly alternatives? Regardless of one’s opinions, here are some of the following facts and figures to be considered when it comes to criticism against cryptocurrencies concerning the environment and climate. 

For a start, banning cryptocurrencies is hard and more or less impossible in practice. Facebook is banned in China but still being used among millions of Chinese via an alternative, and thereby illegal, methods. Bitcoin mining is already prohibited in Venezuela, and the government opposes Bitcoin itself. But governments who have made such decisions and policies are very inefficient in implementing them. 

Another idea is to tax cryptocurrencies with a special carbon tax. The idea of a carbon tax for crypto may sound suitable and progressive, but the similar principle could then be applied to paper money and e-mails, or even on Instagram stories and Zoom calls. After all, much of the Internet traffic is used for emails, and trees have to be cut down for printing paper money. 

The main criticism regarding Bitcoin is that its blockchain system for computing, verifications and transactions consumes enormous amounts of electricity. This process is more famous as  “mining” where many computers verify every transaction through interactions and mathematical methods. For example, according to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance,  Bitcoin currently uses more electricity than the entire countries of Austria and Greece combined. 

A perceived problem is that when the price of Bitcoin rises, miners can use their higher revenues to reinvest in more mining machines and computers, increasing both their profits but also their overall carbon emissions. It has been estimated that one Bitcoin transaction generates around the CO2 equivalent to around 700 000 – 750 000 swipes with a Visa credit card. 

Most Bitcoin is mined in China, where despite claims of renewable energy,  the mining process often is supplied by coal power. Some US states as Washington, known for low electricity costs in the country, have created a higher cost electricity tier for some miners living and working there after their mining process led to overwhelming local energy grids. Others as the Candian province Quebec, has issued a decision to prevent new mining within the province.  

Crypto indeed has problems, so what is the solution? For a start, an important insight is that not all cryptocurrencies are the same. For example, Seeds is designed as a “cryptocurrency for the climate” and to facilitate a “regenerative civilisation”.  The SEEDS community is using Seeds to enable and reward projects regarding food security and social wellbeing. 

Another solution is the “proof of stake” system which is different to Bitcoin’s “proof of work” (mining) system. A Proof of Stake cryptocurrency networks and communities as Seeds and  Tezos do not depend on electricity costs. Instead, they depend on direct economic incentives where the stakeholders can be rewarded and punished for their performances as validators. Thereby, cryptocurrencies as Tezos are using a computing and verification system that is less damaging when it comes to climate change. 

In Bitcoin’s defence, it should be said that not all studies about Bitcoin’s impact on climate change have been reliable in the end. For example, one study from  2017 “predicted” that Bitcoin energy usage would lead to a global energy shortage in 2020! However, the promise of Bitcoin becoming “greener” has also not been realised. Instead, Bitcoin is less green and climate-friendly today concerning overall numbers of transactions, energy consumption and sources of energy. 



If Bitcoin is going to be a part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, the alternative is to become greener when it comes to energy usage, something that Bitcoin users and miners have the responsibility for. This could be achieved via decentralised democratic community-based decision-making where different ideas and proposals should be discussed and decided. For example, if the proof of stake system should be used. 

Despite negative and valid criticism regarding climate and environmental aspects, cryptocurrencies are here to stay as part of the overall decentralisation process. Even on a more sustainable and regenerative planet, people will still need to trade and interact with each other. Therefore, our planetary future depends on that more cryptocurrencies can operate on an eco-friendly basis. 

The post Are cryptocurrencies good for the planet? first appeared on Opulens.

CONFLICT. The only uninhabited continent could play a role in the political scene in the coming years. Due to the growing influence and role of environmental activists – Antarctica is becoming increasingly important, writes Filip Đukić. 

In the 1950s, Antarctica was perceived as a sterile, cold continent that was inhospitable for living. With constant reference to climate change and the Coronavirus pandemic, the status of Antarctica has changed.

As the political situation is geopolitical in most cases – in this case, is in full form – it is so predictable that national interests will strengthen. We can notice the strongest national interest in it – the Chinese one. And while other countries have begun to delay and cut funding for Antarctic exploration, the Chinese have decided to embark on building the largest Antarctic – krill-fishing boat – in the world that will be completed by 2023.

The economic potential of Antarctica is also increasingly coming to light. Minerals, commercial fishing, tourism are just some of the reasons that are increasingly attracting countries around the world to take an even stronger position in the race for Antarctica.

Antarctica is known for its extreme preservation, as ironic as it may sound due to increasing climate change. We can say that geopolitics is only partly going in the direction that the Nazis once had; the doctrine of Karl Haushofer, geopolitics for militaristic goals.

Antarctica may still not be a hospitable place to live, but a country that has any domination over it – will have a variety of options. With that control, you have a monopoly over the world in various aspects. 

Today’s geopolitics – as in this case linked to Antarctica – is an opportunity for manipulation. In other words – whoever has primacy over Antarctica will be able to dictate real and imaginary problems as far as global warming is concerned. That is not fictitious, and utopian thinking as climate change creates the emergence of various treaties and agreements between states on the issue of greenhouse gases.

Yes, national interests can go so far that non-national Antarctica can be nationalized. If scientists of specific states are in the field (and state and politics have their fingers in science as well, which is not something new), the same country can dictate pieces of information related to global warming. Yes, WikiLeaks shows that. 

The result would be a change in agreements such as the Paris Agreement. Although there are seven states; New Zealand, Australia, France, Norway, the United Kingdom, Chile, and Argentina in Antarctica as part of a research team – I expect China to take a step forward and claim the right to the territory.

The Antarctic Treaty and Article IV – which prevent the claim to national sovereignty of any state in the Antarctic continent – are still in force for the time being. China, the biggest polluter on the planet, will surely build even more of its research stations. The Chinese also have the most isolated station called Kunlun and are even more elusive from international control.

Although some experts, such as Professor Brady claims that the Chinese have a militaristic intention towards Antarctica – my opinion is that they are more interested in the research part. With that, they can more easily come up with the idea of national sovereignty in Antarctica. 

Antarctica may still not be a hospitable place to live, but a country that has any domination over it – will have a variety of options. With that control, you have a monopoly over the world in various aspects. 

The post Antarctica can give a monopoly first appeared on Opulens.

CLIMATE. According to a new UN-report, we are heading for an increase in the earth’s average temperature by 3.7 degrees. This is far from the targets set in the Paris Agreement: to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. According to the report, global emissions need to decline rapidly in the next decade to reach the targets.

To reach the 1.5-degree target emissions need to decrease by 7.6% annually. To reach the 2-degree target emissions need to decrease by 2.7% a year. To put these figures into perspective, global emissions have increased by an average of 1.5% per year over the past decade, according to the report. Since the beginning of the 1990s, when climate change first began to be discussed in the UN context, global emissions have increased by 70%. Given the severity of the climate crisis, now and in the future, those figures are truly terrifying.

The key takeaway from the report is that current policies are highly insufficient to reach the Paris Agreement and to halt global warming. The intended contributions by different countries towards the Paris Agreement are also insufficient. According to the report, the intended contributions need to be increased by 3 to 5 times. Countries large and small talk big about climate change but talk is cheap. Making an ambitious commitment and announcing it on the world stage is one thing, but living up to that commitment is a different thing altogether.

One example of this is Sweden. Sweden is regarded as an environmental pioneer and protecting the environment is very much in the self-image of Swedes. For some years now, there has been growing public awareness and mobilisation on climate change. The issue is visible almost everywhere in public life. Policy-wise, seven of the eight political parties in parliament support a broad framework on the long-term orientation of climate policy in Sweden.

The framework included a so-called ‘Climate Law’ and a long-term target that by the year 2045, Sweden is to become ‘net zero’ when it comes to emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In concrete terms, emissions from Sweden should be at least 85% lower in 2045 than in 1990. The Swedish government is positioning the country to become one of the world’s first fossil-free welfare societies.

Government representatives as well as representatives from other political parties, policy elites, companies and others ascribe to the notion that Sweden will be better off making a transition to a ‘net zero’ economy and that this is an opportunity for Sweden to increase its competitiveness on the world stage. This raised the question of how things are going. Is Sweden on track to reach its target of becoming ‘net zero’ by 2045?

The simple answer is: far from it. Emissions from Sweden are not decreasing at the necessary rate. Emissions appear to be increasing slightly. Nonetheless, reaching the 2045 target requires Sweden to decrease emissions by a rate of 5-8% a year and the policies to achieve that are absent, according to an independent analysis.

In Sweden, the Green Party is now part of a Social Democrat-led minority government for a second consecutive term. This term the government leans on active support from the Liberal Party and Center Party and passive support from the Left Party in order to pass its budget in parliament. In return for the active support from the Liberal Party and Center Party, the government is implementing a centre-right agenda.

When it comes to climate policy, the Greens argue that they have been an instrumental force in getting the slow-moving Social Democrats to adopt any climate policy. They also argue that they were the ones that introduced the climate issue to the other parties in parliament and that those parties have since adopted their own set of climate policies due to a gradual shift in public opinion and interest in the issue.

When the Greens presented the budget they had negotiated with the Social Democrats, Center Party and Liberal Party, they framed it as a historical moment, the largest environment and climate budget in Sweden’s history. However, the budget and the policy measures are far from sufficient to achieve the transition the Greens talk about. Of course, there is a limit to how much the Greens can be blamed for the Social Democrats and the other active support parties not living up their rhetoric on this issue, but criticism is legitimate for various reasons, not least Sweden’s posturing on climate internationally.

To mention a few deficiencies, the government is, on the one hand, preparing a tax on plastic bags but the other hand was turning a blind eye to a state authority providing insurance for export deals involving coal extraction worth 347 million SEK. Between 2014 and 2018, during the first term in government for the Greens, the same state authority provided insurance for projects linked to fossil fuels to a value of 5.8 billion SEK. Meanwhile, our state pension funds continue to invest billions in the world’s largest fossil fuel companies, despite new rules to end this practice.

Again Sweden’s green positioning does not hold up to scrutiny. To be completely clear, the political right in Sweden is no better, but the political left also has to step up its game and adopt a more coherent green agenda. Leaving Sweden aside, I find very little encouragement in the global community.

There is a tremendous amount of insight but policymakers, especially from key economies, are not motivated to make the changes necessary to address the issue substantively. There can be no other conclusion in my opinion, and social movements like the school strikers and Extinction Rebellion echo this fact. However, there is some encouragement to be found in the EU.

A week ago, partly as a signal to the current Climate Summit in Madrid, the European Parliament voted to declare a climate emergency. It remains to be seen if climate policies to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees will follow, but the newly appointed head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has, at least in rhetoric, put climate action at the top of her agenda. There are sceptics, but the jury is still out. Also, the long-term budget of the EU puts the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in focus.

The commission has proposed a target of 25% of EU expenditure contributing to climate objectives. Nonetheless, what can be counted as ‘contributing to climate objectives’ is debatable. Still, there is a push from the EU for supporting emerging clean energy technologies, which is necessary. States and local governments in the US are defying the Trump administration and committing to ambitious climate targets. The state of California is fighting tooth and nail with the federal government to be able to set its own more ambitious vehicle emissions standards.

Hope can also be found in the Democratic Party presidential primaries. By now, it is essential for candidates wishing to take on Trump to have a comprehensive climate policy agenda. The Green New Deal, popularised by congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and later adopted by independent candidate Bernie Sanders, is now part of the everyday political conversation in the US.

Finally, we have the British Labour election manifesto, which is widely described as the most radical manifesto presented in a Western country in decades. The manifesto is filled with radical policy proposals to curb climate change and transform the British economy, a sort of British Green New Deal. We are at a point of no return. Due to the severity of the crisis, the days of caution are over. Radical policies are necessary. Let us move ahead. Labour can show the way.

The post The days of caution are over- the climate crisis requires radical policies first appeared on Opulens.

CLIMATE. Large scale protests are taking place around the world, from Hong Kong and Chile to Sudan, Lebanon and Barcelona. We might be experiencing a different global new age of echoing common cause. People, especially young generations, have felt anger and a strong inner urge to revolt against the current status quo, even before knowing what shape a revolution might crystallise in.

Protesters are fuming in accord, against various common denominators. Bearing this in mind, we cannot compare Sudan’s and Hong Kong’s enduring uprisings against oppressive regimes and the actions undertaken by protesters there to achieve desired change to the ones recently expressed by Extinction Rebellion (XR).

XR’s protests have gained remarkable speed and size over the past year, spreading information across digital channels as fast as people could click on the share button, with climate change messaging being adopted as a mainstream language. Week-long occupations of entire streets, bridges and junctions in a city dependent on public transport is well enough when it is coordinated with public authorities, as peaceful protests are an expression of an inherent democratic right.

However, standing on the roof of trains and planes becomes a problem because it is forcefully stopping hard-working commuters from getting home or to work when an alternative route is not the best option. This type of boycott can only lead to loss of support for the cause and bring upon severe opprobrium. XR’s senior leaders have admitted that targeting London’s public transport ”was the wrong thing to do”. This action was followed by many people abandoning the cause.

After being heavily condemned by the public, XR is now having to rethink their strategy while dealing with rogue activists much like the split moments in Life of Brian. The danger of the latest stunts might work against the cause and bring upon its demise, as well as much worse – criminalising these type of protests. XR should be focusing on working closely with public institutions and high-level stakeholders and take a page out of Greta Thunberg’s action book, regarded by many as the de facto leader of the global climate change movement.

XR have been harshly denounced for its fetishisation of mass arrest, and it has been said that many are relying on the precedent of white privilege when it comes to police treatment, with the overwhelming majority of activists being white. This approach is certainly not an option for everyone, as people being disheartened at the threat of jail.

A silver lining is that XR has successfully contributed to adding the climate crisis on the political agenda and turn XR policies into mainstream topics. Nonetheless, having Parliament declaring a ”climate emergency” does not compel the Government to act. Therefore it will have no immediate effect.

In general, people do not contest that according to the latest climate figures, global greenhouse gas emissions are higher than ever before. And as humankind, we will be at the brink of irreparable damage to our planet if we do not take charge, almost 30 years after the UN Climate Change Convention focusing on reducing CO2 emissions. We get it! It is not that we do not care. However, we need to change the way we speak about climate change.

Climate change is a significant problem, and we are not going to solve it if the governments, industry and people don’ take action. However, doomsday trips are not going to motivate most people to act. What we should ask ourselves is: what types of messages could inspire people to modify their behaviour?

Behavioural science should provide some answers. People’s motivation comes from understanding the bigger picture, how it all fits, what are the consequences on the specific environment they live in, starting from their building, street, neighbourhood, area, city etc. It can be influenced via positive take action messages.

Humans need to see the social impact, feel social pressure, and how they can act meaningfully, making simple changes. Clear and straightforward discourse can bring upon more change than shouting apocalyptic scenarios and no specific actions to follow.

The post Extinction Rebellion (XR): Better actions for large scale transformation first appeared on Opulens.