The key to responding to the climate crisis lies in emissions, in energy, in consumption, in people, but also in words. in his new book against stability (Editorial Arpa), environmental broadcaster Andreu Escriva (39 years old, Valencia) The accusations against the various concepts and sects that have turned into green dogmas today that they believe distract from what is really important or are used by those To wash the image of those who pollute most easily.
Question. Why do you say we have a sustainability epidemic?
answer. We are living through a sustainability epidemic as we find the term everywhere. It has managed to establish itself in all areas of our lives and we have sustainable bricks, sustainable t-shirts, sustainable cars, sustainable travel, sustainable living… it has come to the point that sustainability no longer has any meaning. does not make sense.
P. Should we remove some words from the environmental dictionary?
R. Stability no longer serves us. I don’t challenge what many people believe is sustainability, nor a really deep notion of doing things well and taking care of the environment, but the problem is that it has become just an adjective, almost a sales thing. for, a kind of label sales, It has ceased to serve its initial purpose, which is to question the system.
P. Why do you think it is wrong that future generations are almost always alluded to in environmental discussions?
Information is the first tool against climate change. Subscribe to it.
R. It is human, normal and good to be concerned about future generations, but what needs to be done is here and now. Anyone living in Spain right now has lived their whole life under the influence of global warming. We should not work only for our children, whether we have them or not, we should work for the whole of humanity. Those future generations worry about us in rich countries, but right now we have current generations in already vulnerable countries, suffering the effects of climate change. Also, we should be very careful when we say that future generations are going to be most affected. Actually, they are going to be affected by this warming process, but in 2022 we have seen that the deaths due to excess heat are mainly older people.
P. Another common concept that he still rejects today is the “circular economy”. Why?
R. Circular economy is a pipe dream. It is by definition impossible for an economy to be perfectly circular, because we always need energy, people’s work, or materials. Another thing is that we recycle only a small part of what we are using. But the very name circular economy makes us think that there is some kind of almost economic nirvana that we escape reaching because everything becomes recirculated. He is a liar. In any case, we should talk about a spiral economy, i.e. trying to iterate as much as possible, but it will never be a closed circle.
P. He assures that so-called “climate neutrality” is like knowing that tobacco causes cancer and intending to quit smoking in 20 years.
R. that’s how it is. climate neutrality [objetivo que suele fijarse para el año 2050 y que consiste en eliminar todas las emisiones de carbono salvo las que puedan ser absorbidas por la propia naturaleza] This allows us to sell future breakthroughs in 2023 to reduce or capture carbon emissions, while amplifying what some of these companies are doing today.
P. He also considers the electric car another distraction.
R. The electric car is a change of engine in the personal vehicle, but it does not mean a change to the existing model of mobility. The transition to electric cars should be made as quickly as possible, but we can’t replace all combustion cars with electric cars, and even if we could, we shouldn’t, because our mobility system is highly unstable and needs to be replaced. Not designed to move people, but to move cars.
P. and plastic recycling?
R. Obviously, I am not against the recycling process, materials should be recycled and recirculated as much as possible, the problem is that plastic recycling makes us look away from the production of plastics, because we think that the latter can be recycled. Will and will not have environmental impact. To question the ubiquity of plastics, you have to question recycling.
P. Don’t you think they can accuse you of being against everything?
R. Yes, I worry that the book will be perceived as a tantrum or that everything is wrong. The last thing I want is for people to give up, just criticizing me about the mayhem. My aim is to make people question, question and above all demand. I am against stability because it is what will allow us to build post-stability, which is much more optimistic and much more exciting.
P. What does he propose then and what name does he give it?
R. When the concept of sustainability came to fruition, it meant something very different, therefore, what we have to do is continue to work for the deeper meaning of the word sustainability, which may now be “prosperity without development” or “others like Better represents the indicators “good to live”.
P. How can you take action against the use of all these words to make up Washing (Green washing) of polluting companies and activities?
R. I think it will be an easy, fast regulatory change and above all, it will be very well received by people, because in the end what society doesn’t like is being cheated. Washing Its days are numbered if we do the right thing.
You can follow the climate and environment on Facebook why Twitterpoint here to get our weekly newsletter
Subscribe to continue reading
read without limits