End the colonization of the future - Interview with Prof. Christoph Görg | S4F AT

university professor dr. Christoph Görg works at the Institute for Social Ecology at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna. He is one of the editors and lead authors of the APCC Special Report Structures for a climate-friendly life, and is the author of the book: social relations to nature. Martin Auer from °CELSIUS speaks to him.

One of the core statements of the chapter "Social and Political Ecology", for which Professor Görg is the lead author, states that "previous innovation requirements (such as green growth, e-mobility, circular economy, energetic use of biomass)" are not sufficient to lead a climate-friendly life make possible. “Global capitalism is based on industrial metabolism, which is dependent on fossil and therefore finite resources and therefore does not represent a sustainable way of production and living. Societal self-limitation of resource use is necessary.”

The interview can be heard on Alpine GLOW.

What is "social ecology"?

Martin Auer: We want to talk about today social and political ecology converse. “Ecology” is such a word that is used so often that you hardly know what it means anymore. There are ecological detergents, green electricity, eco-villages... Can you briefly explain what kind of science ecology actually is?

Christoph Goerg: Ecology is basically a natural science, coming from biology, which deals with the coexistence of organisms. For example, with the food chains, who has which predators, who has which food. She uses scientific methods to analyze interactions and connections in nature.

Something special happened in social ecology. Two things are combined here that actually belong to two completely different scientific disciplines, namely the social, sociology, and ecology as a natural science. Social ecology is an interdisciplinary science. Not only does a sociologist work with ecologists at some point, but an attempt is made to deal with issues in a really integrated way, issues that really require interaction, a common understanding of the disciplines for each other.

I'm a sociologist by training, I've also worked a lot with political science, but now here at the institute I work a lot with scientific colleagues. That means we teach together, we train our students in an interdisciplinary way. Well, it's not one doing natural sciences and then they have to learn a bit of sociology for a semester, but we do it together, in co-teaching, with a natural scientist and a social scientist.

Nature and society interact

Martin Auer: And you don't see nature and society as two separate realms either, but as realms that constantly interact with each other.

Christoph Goerg: Exactly. We deal with the interactions, with the interactions between the two areas. The basic thesis is that you cannot understand one without the other. We cannot understand nature without society, because today nature is completely influenced by humans. She hasn't disappeared, but she has been transformed, changed. All of our ecosystems are cultural landscapes that have been revised through use. We have changed the global climate and we have thereby influenced the development of the planet. There is no longer any untouched nature. And there is no society without nature. This is often forgotten in the social sciences. We are dependent on taking in substances from nature - energy, food, protection from inclement weather, from cold and heat and so on, so we are dependent on interaction with nature in many ways.

social metabolism

Martin Auer: Here's a keyword: "social metabolism".

Christoph Goerg: Exactly what I mentioned is the "social metabolism".

Martin Auer: So like with an animal or a plant: what comes in, what is eaten, how is it converted into energy and tissue and what comes out again at the end – and this is now transferred to society.

Christoph Goerg: Yes, we also examine that quantitatively, what is eaten and how and what comes out at the end, i.e. what waste is left over. We examine cloth throughput, but the difference is that society has changed its cloth base significantly throughout history. We are currently in an industrial metabolism that is essentially fossil fuel based. Fossil fuels have an energy base that other substances do not have, so for example biomass does not have the same entropy. We've taken advantage of an opportunity in the industrial metabolism -- with the exploitation of coal, oil, gas and so on -- that other societies didn't have before, and we've created incredible wealth. It's important to see that. We have created incredible material wealth. If we go back a generation, it's very easy to understand. But we have created a huge problem with it - precisely with the advantage that we have gained from the use of nature - namely the climate crisis and the crisis of biodiversity and other crises. And you have to see this in context, in the interactions. So this is a product of this use of resources, and we have to take the dependence of human societies on these resources seriously. That's the big problem we face today: How can we change the industrial metabolism. That is the key for us.

Previous innovation offers are not enough

Martin Auer: Now the introduction says - quite categorically - that previous innovative offers such as green growth, e-mobility, circular economy and the use of biomass for energy generation are not sufficient to create climate-friendly structures. How can you justify that?

Christoph Goerg: With the use of fossil energies, we have created a development opportunity for society that we cannot continue on the same level. Not even through the use of biomass and other technologies. So far, however, there is no proof that we can do this. We need to stretch for the ceiling because we realize that if we continue to use fossil fuels, we will create a climate crisis. And if we don't want to use it, we as societies have to consider how much prosperity can we still afford in the future? What we're doing right now: We're colonizing the future. Today we use the greatest possible prosperity at the expense of future generations. I call that colonization. In other words, their opportunities are severely curtailed because today we live beyond our means. And we have to go down there. This is actually the central problem addressed by the thesis of the Anthropocene. It's not pronounced that way. The Anthropocene says yes, we have the age of man today, a geological age that has been shaped by humans. Yes, that means that in the coming centuries, millennia, we will suffer from the burdens of eternity that we are producing today. So not us, but future generations. We limit their options considerably. And that's why we have to reverse our colonization of time, our colonization of the future. This is the central challenge of the current climate crisis. This now goes beyond our Special Report – I would like to emphasize this – this is my view as a professor of social ecology. You won't find that in the report, it's not a coordinated opinion, it's the conclusion I, as a scientist, draw from the report.

Martin Auer: With the report, we don't have a recipe book for how we have to design the structures, it's a summary of different perspectives.

We cannot live sustainably as individuals

Christoph Goerg: This is a very important point: We explicitly decided to leave different perspectives as they are. We have four perspectives: the market perspective, the innovation perspective, the deployment perspective and the society perspective. In the discussion about climate change, only the market perspective is often taken, that is, how can we change consumer decisions through price signals. And that's where our report says very clearly: With this perspective, the individuals are overwhelmed. We can no longer live sustainably as individuals, or only with great effort, with great sacrifice. And our goal is actually that we have to get at the consumer decisions of the individual from this perspective. We have to look at the structures. That's why we added other perspectives, such as the innovation perspective. There are more often. It's about the development of new technologies, but they also have to be supported by framework conditions, that doesn't happen by itself, as is sometimes done. Innovations must also be designed. But you also have to look beyond individual technologies, you have to include the application context of technologies. It is often said that if you don't want to talk about technology, you should keep your mouth shut. No, we need to talk about technology, but also about the application of technology and the side effects of technology. If we believe that the electric motor will solve the problem in the transport sector, then we are on the wrong track. The traffic problem is much bigger, there is urban sprawl, there is the whole production of electric motors and other components and of course the electricity consumption. You have to see that in context. And that is overlooked in individual aspects of innovation. That's why we decided to complement the market perspective and the innovation perspective with a delivery perspective, for example the delivery of public transport, or the delivery of buildings that really enable climate-friendly living. If this is not provided, then we cannot live climate-friendly either. And finally the social perspective, these are these overarching interactions between society and nature.

Can capitalism be sustainable?

Martin Auer: Now, however, this chapter says – again quite clearly – that global capitalism does not represent a sustainable mode of production and living because it is dependent on fossil, i.e. finite, resources. Is a capitalism based on renewable energies and a circular economy inconceivable at all? What do we actually mean by capitalism, what characterizes it? Commodity production, market economy, competition, accumulation of capital, labor power as a commodity?

Christoph Goerg: Above all, the generation of more capital through the utilization of capital. That means making a profit. And reinvest profit, utilize it, and the resulting growth.

Martin Auer: So you don't produce primarily to satisfy certain needs, but to sell and turn the profit back into capital.

Christoph Goerg: Exactly. The ultimate purpose is to sell to make profit and reinvest it, making more capital. That's the purpose, not the benefit. And that would be a big question: We have to come to the perspective of sufficiency, and sufficiency means quite fundamentally: What do we actually need? And what can we still afford in the future in view of the climate crisis and in view of future generations? That is the central question. And whether that is possible under capitalism is a second question. You have to see that. But in any case, we have to – we have to get out of this dominance of making profit for the sake of profit. And that's why we have to get out of the growth perspective. There are colleagues who believe that this climate crisis can also be eliminated with growth. Colleagues of mine have investigated this and have looked for all the papers that are available on the subject and have looked to see whether there is any evidence that we can decouple our material prosperity from resource consumption and climate impacts. And there is no scientific evidence for that. And for real decoupling. There were phases, but they were phases of the economic downturn, i.e. the economic crisis. And there was relative decoupling in between, so we had a bit more material wealth than side effects. But we have to approach the belief in growth and the compulsion to grow. We have to move towards an economy that no longer believes in endless growth.

Is Growth a Matter of Faith?

Martin Auer: But is growth now just a question of ideology, of belief, or is it just built into our economic system?

Christoph Goerg: It's both. It is built into our economic system. However, it could be changed. The economic system is changeable. We can also overcome structural constraints. And that's where belief comes into play. Right now, if you look around in the political arena, you won't find a single party running in an election that isn't focused on economic growth. Everyone believes that economic growth is the solution to all our problems, especially our social and economic problems. And to do that, we have to open up the space so that we can tackle problem solving without the perspective of growth. Our colleagues call this degrowth. We can no longer believe, like it was in the 70's and 80's, that all our problems will be solved by economic growth. We have to find other solutions, a design solution that tries to change structures.

Social self-limitation

Martin Auer: “Societal self-limitation” is the keyword here. But how can this happen? By dictates from above or by democratic processes?

Christoph Goerg: It can only be done democratically. It has to be enforced by a democratic civil society, and then it will be backed by the state. But it must not come as a dictate from above. Who should have the legitimacy to do this, who should say exactly what is still possible and what is no longer possible? That can only be done in a democratic voting process, and that requires a different form of scientific research. Even science must not dictate, nor can it dictate. That is why we have supplemented our Special Report with a stakeholder process involving stakeholders from different areas of society: From this point of view, what could a society that enables a good life and is climate-friendly look like? And we didn't just ask the scientists, but the representatives of various interest groups. That is a democratic task. It can be supported by science, but it needs to be defined in a public space.

Martin Auer: If you can narrow that down now, you can say: These are really crucial needs, these are things that are nice when you have them, and that is a luxury that we cannot afford. Can you objectify that?

Christoph Goerg: We cannot objectify this completely. But of course we can gather evidence. For example, issues of economic inequality have major implications for greenhouse gas emissions. That's the single biggest factor in whether you have a lot of money. A lot of money is associated with luxury consumption. And there really are areas that you could just let be without making sacrifices. Do you really have to fly to Paris for weekend shopping? Do you have to fly so many kilometers a year? For example, I live in Bonn and work in Vienna. I gave up flying anyway. I've noticed that you're faster in Vienna or in Bonn, but you're actually stressed out. If I go by train, it's better for me. I don't actually go without if I don't fly there. I changed my time budget. I work on the train and arrive relaxed in Vienna or at home, I don't have the stress of flying, I don't spend long at the gate and so on. This is basically a gain in quality of life.

Martin Auer: That is, one can identify needs that can be satisfied in different ways, through different goods or services.

Christoph Goerg: Exactly. And we tried to deal with that in the stakeholder process. We introduced ourselves to types like this, rural types or people who live in the city, and asked: How could their lives change, how could that be a good life, but with less climate pollution. And you have to use a bit of imagination. This also depends very much on the structure of the working conditions, and thus also on the structure of the leisure time budget. And also the care work that you have with the children and so on, i.e. how they are structured, what stress you have with it, whether you have to travel back and forth a lot, you have much more relaxed and flexible options for living climate-friendly. If you have stressful work situations, then you use more CO2, to put it very simply. So we really do it with time budgets. It is very exciting to see that the structures of time use play a major role in our CO2 emissions.

Martin Auer: So you can say that a general reduction in working hours would make it easier for people?

Christoph Goerg: In any case! More flexibility would make it easier for them. You don't have to take your kids to school by car, you can also ride your bike next to it because you have more time. Of course, if you use the flexibility to go on vacation more, then it backfires. But we are convinced – and we also see evidence of this – that the CO2 budget could also be reduced with more flexibility.

how much is enough

Martin Auer: How can you make sufficiency, or the need for sufficiency, so plausible that people don't fear it?

Christoph Goerg: You don't want to take anything away from them. You should live a good life. That's why I emphasize that prosperity, the good life, must definitely be an element. But what do I need for a good life? Do I need an e-mobile in the garage in addition to my two petrol engines? Does that benefit me? Do I really gain from this, or do I just have a toy? Or is it prestige for me? A lot of consumption is prestige. I want to show that I can afford a weekend trip to London. This prestige is not easy to give up, but there could be a public discourse about it: What are the things I really want for a good life? And we asked our practice partners this question. Not how should we tighten our belts, but what do we really need for a good life. And for that we need much more social security and flexibility.

Martin Auer: Now it also says that the transformation to climate-friendly structures is associated with serious conflicts of interest and meaning, and it should be the task of political ecology to understand these conflicts and to show ways of overcoming them.

Christoph Goerg: Yes, exactly. There is also a second term, political ecology. It is closely related to social ecology. And there are different schools, but in principle all schools agree that this necessarily involves conflict because we live in a society in which interests are very conflicting. For example, there are jobs that depend on the automotive sector. You have to take that seriously, of course people shouldn't be thrown out onto the streets. You have to develop transformation strategies. How we move from an automobile-centric economy to one that no longer has that constraint. You can transform that. There are also projects where a lot of brain power is put into the question of how to achieve a conversion. And in political ecology such conversion projects can be designed.

If we look at Germany: It is possible, for example, to do without lignite. There were quite a few who worked in lignite, and after 1989 they weren't upset that lignite partially collapsed. It was bad for the environment, it was so polluting that, even though they lost their jobs, they said: life is simply better. You could do something similar somewhere else if you can offer people a suitable future. Of course, you have to offer them perspectives, and they have to develop them together. This is a task that cannot be done by itself.

What is socially useful work?

Martin Auer: I was just looking at a historical example, the Lucas plan. The workers, the employees in the factory hall, developed alternatives together with the designers and, in order to prevent redundancies, demanded the “right to socially useful work”.

Christoph Goerg: This is a very nice example. That was an armaments industry, and the workers asked: should we make weapons? Or should we make socially useful things. And they organized it themselves. This was a plan for a conversion, from an armament factory to a non-armament factory. And many have tried to learn from it. You can take this up today, for example, to convert the automotive industry, i.e. to convert it to another industry. It has to be designed, it shouldn't be shock therapy, the companies shouldn't go bankrupt. You have to do it in a way that takes social fears seriously and deals with them preventively. We have done projects here with unions. How can the trade unions in the automotive supply industry in Austria be brought on board as actors of a transformation? So that they are not opponents but supporters of a transformation if it is carried out in a socially just manner.

Martin Auer: The Lucas people showed that: We are the people who do things. These people actually have the power to say: We don't want to do that. The people in the supermarket would actually have the power to say: We are not putting any products with palm oil on the shelves, we are not doing that. Or: We don't build SUVs, we don't do that.

Christoph Goerg: You are making a revolutionary demand that workers have more say, not only about working hours but also about the products. This is an absolutely topical question, especially in the service sector today - let me mention Corona - that employees in the care economy have more opportunities for co-determination in their area. We learned what the stress of the corona epidemic means for employees. And creating opportunities for them to help shape their work area is the demand of the hour.

Questioning power and dominance

Martin Auer: This brings us to the conclusion of this chapter, which says that social movements that problematize existing power and dominance structures make climate-friendly structures more likely.

Christoph Goerg: Yes, that is really a pointed thesis. But I am convinced that she is absolutely right. I am convinced that the current crises and the problems behind them have something to do with domination. Certain actors, for example those who control fossil fuels, have structural power and thus dominate certain sectors, and this power has to be broken. Especially in the area where the word "climate terrorists" really makes sense, namely in the case of the large fossil energy companies, i.e. Exxon Mobile etc., they really were climate terrorists because, although they knew what they were doing, they kept going and tried to prevent knowledge about the climate crisis and now they are trying to do business with it too. And these power relations have to be broken. You won't be able to get rid of them completely, but you have to achieve that the possibilities for shaping society become more open. They managed to ensure that the word “fossil energies” is not included in any of the agreements on the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The actual cause is simply not mentioned. And that's a matter of power, of domination. And we have to break that. We have to talk about the causes and we have to ask without any bans on thinking, how can we transform it.

Martin Auer: I think we can leave that as a final word now. Thank you very much for this interview!

Cover Photo: Jharia Coal Mine India. Photo: TripodStories via Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0