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.

LIFE. Why do people start truly valuing what they love when things deteriorate or worse yet when they lose them entirely? People are more motivated to move away from something they dislike and not towards something better. Consequently, it makes them have a scarcity mindset and focus on the negative. This can be explained by years of evolution because we needed to look out for danger and adverse outcomes to survive for centuries.

However, things have changed; our limbic brain doesn’t have to rule any longer, and yet we let it control us in many ways. What people don’t fully realize is that it’s much simpler, more enjoyable, and productive to have an abundant mindset and create, not force, and take. With creativity and flow, more energy frees up for enhancement.

If we act out of fear, control, and desire to overpower, the energy it unleashes will eventually turn into a destructive force, which will inevitably lead to resistance and deterioration. Unfortunately, that’s what’s happening to our planet now. If we, as human beings, learned to perceive and act out of constructive, creative, and preservative energy, our existence would be fruitful, not destructive.

In other words, if we thought about the consequences of our actions and moved toward abundance, it would be beneficial for all. Unfortunately, we prefer comfort to common sense, selfishness to sharing, and to appreciate things once they are about to be lost.

When we value life, we start to appreciate all living things because they all begin to matter. Then we notice how our actions influence the world, and if we carefully thought about and attempted to feel through what the world is experiencing, we would not complete mindless activities.

And that’s how we develop in general. We grow and improve out of pain and trauma and not out love and contentment. We look for help when things are bad, not when they are good. Why are we driven by suffering so much? Drama attracts and entices people more than reality. Do you often hear people saying, “my life is so great that I’m thinking of ways to make it even better?”

I believe that things will start to change and shift when all of us look at how we live our own lives. Can we be content with what we have and learn to cherish it? The secret is to live out each moment consciously, to learn to find pleasure in small, everyday routine, and be content with yourself while completing tasks. It’s being not doing that makes us happy, being there for yourself and others, experiencing what it is to be human, and learning to appreciate life.

When we value life, we start to appreciate all living things because they all begin to matter. Then we notice how our actions influence the world, and if we carefully thought about and attempted to feel through what the world is experiencing, we would not complete mindless activities.

People need to start viewing mistakes as lessons so that humankind has a chance to take history seriously enough not to repeat it. And what history taught us is that jealousy, hate, anger, and forceful aggression only bring more resistance and destruction in the end.

We all need to ask ourselves, “Is what I am doing right now benefiting me and my environment?” Whether we want it or not, everything is interdependent and connected, and you can’t view yourself separately from the environment. Start with your way of life, what purpose do you serve in this world, and then decide whether your actions align with who you want to be.

The post What drives change? 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.