At the beginning of the autumn of 2022, news follows that would have been unthinkable only nine months before: there is a risk of escalation in Europe, the use of atomic weapons has been threatened and nuclear power plants have been put at risk, bordering on catastrophe; Goldman Sachs thinks that surely Europe can get through the winter without resorting to gas supply cuts; Germany announces that it has sufficient reserves if all goes well and the winter is not too cold (before someone attacks the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline); The systemic role of large companies is studied, and the cascade of industrial strikes in Western Europe if their production were to stop due to lack of gas.
In this context, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has recently announced “the end of the age of abundance”. On first reading, this statement seems to treat French society as rational adults and anticipates the difficulties that we are going to experience across Europe from the economic consequences of the pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine and extreme weather events. It is, therefore, a success. However, the reality is that this statement makes at least two serious errors, given the magnitude of the challenge we face.
In the first place, the message is conveyed that we must adapt to scarcity, be austere and cut back on our lifestyle. Unfortunately, despite the rationality of this approach, logical in a technocrat like Macron, it is difficult for him to obtain the proposed result. Since the 1970s, after the work of Kahneman and Tversky in which they develop the theory of perspective, we have known that depending on how the story is articulated, it affects the decision-making process in risky situations, conditioning the choice. If the problem is posed as different ways of losing (for example, a first option of “safely cutting our lifestyle” and a second of “let’s hope that something extremely unlikely will happen that will allow us to continue consuming as we are now and not destroy the planet , assuming the risk that it will probably not happen and we will cause irreversible and very harmful changes for us and the rest of the living species”), the usual reaction, at least among citizens of advanced economies, is irrational and moves away from “risk aversion ” usual in other circumstances or stories. Facing a loss scenario, we prefer to take excessive risk. We hate losing, and we are willing to risk anything in order to have a minimum probability of not losing. It is the reaction of the gambler, who to avoid losing the car multiplies the bet by also playing the house. it is irrational and moves away from the usual “risk aversion” in other circumstances or stories. Facing a loss scenario, we prefer to take excessive risk. We hate losing, and we are willing to risk anything in order to have a minimum probability of not losing. It is the reaction of the gambler, who to avoid losing the car multiplies the bet by also playing the house. it is irrational and moves away from the usual “risk aversion” in other circumstances or stories. Facing a loss scenario, we prefer to take excessive risk. We hate losing, and we are willing to risk anything in order to have a minimum probability of not losing. It is the reaction of the gambler, who to avoid losing the car multiplies the bet by also playing the house.
Second, to say that we have enjoyed an abundance that has ended is, to say the least, a self-congratulatory and highly uncritical analysis, perhaps even obscene at a time when millions of Europeans may be cold this winter. As Jean-Luc Mélenchon asked himself on behalf of millions of poor French: “What abundance?”; he asks that billions of people from the global south could also be made. Probably closer to reality is the statement that some of us (mainly the middle and upper classes in advanced economies) have squandered, or lived in an illusion for too long. The tensions generated by the consumer society have eased thanks to two decades of moderate inflation (in some periods, ultra-low) in developed countries. Nevertheless, This moderation of prices has been linked to production outsourced to countries that have disregarded labor, security, environmental rights…, while the life projects of broad layers of our own societies deteriorated. We have consumed cheap products that we do not need, closing our eyes to the real cost they have (suffering, pollution, depletion of resources, loss of local jobs…) and to the geopolitical and environmental risks of depending on resources that mainly provide us with bloody dictatorships and authoritarian regimes .
Therefore, to succeed in turning the tide, the discourse (and the policies) should be more realistic than Macron’s slogan. Thus, he should combine four key ideas: it is complex, there is little time left, there are solutions to protect life and together we can.
On the one hand, we live in a complex and interconnected (ecological and socio-economic) system in which science is key to understanding the relationships, although sometimes it cannot foresee results or has not yet discovered some connections. The multiple crises that have hit us in recent years (financial, economic, demographic, migratory, pandemic, supply chain, climate, environmental, political, war) have common points, and feed off each other, existing “points of no return” that destabilize the system. It is foreseeable that the challenges will be greater each time: the crises, amplified by the climate and environmental emergency, will hit our already weakened societies, generating understandable anxiety among citizens and deteriorating the foundations of our democracy.
On the other hand, unfortunately, we have exhausted our scope for action. There are barely 2,600 days left until 2030 (we are halfway through the term of the Sustainable Development Goals agreed in 2015), and far from reducing emissions, last year we added 36 gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere (along with 2019, the historical maximum ). The seriousness of this fact becomes evident when considering that, to contain the warming of our planet to 1.5 degrees above the average temperature of the pre-industrial era, our accumulated emissions since 1750 cannot exceed 2,900 gigatons; well, we have already emitted 2,400 into the atmosphere. With each passing day, the possibilities of controlling and limiting warming (and with it its serious consequences) are reduced. Continuing to postpone decisions leads us either to a drastic and unplanned reduction in energy consumption in a few years, or possibly to collective suicide. Therefore, President Macron is right to speak of urgency. But talking is not enough.
An element that distinguishes us as a species and that has played a relevant role in our success colonizing the planet is our ability to collaborate, and to experience empathy. Our problems are global, and the solutions, in many cases already exposed for decades, must also be. Focusing our challenge to win (a habitable planet, a peaceful environment, more free time, more people with an adequate quality of life…) in a collaborative project can be a more convincing and motivating story to achieve changes in behavior than that of competing for see who can “lose less” consumption capacity.
Perhaps today is the historical moment to assume fewer risks and more the consequences of our actions and decisions, banishing waste and short-termism. Setting the objective that the transition be fair is the way to minimize the tensions that it will cause, and to have a prosperous future in peace. A major challenge, which we will have to face while the crises follow each other vertiginously and whose success will depend on putting collective well-being before individual interest. We will need lucidity and a lot of work to be successful.