So long treehuggers: hello savers of humanity

“It is no longer a question of nature lovers, but one of human security.”

Talking about the pressing need to address the looming environmental catastrophe, Wolfgang Sachs, leading environmental voice, researcher and lecturer at the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy in Germany.

“People are not yet acknowledging the environmental emergency with their vote.  Other emergencies, such as the financial crisis are instead taking the priority.”

He reacts to the mixed green results of the European Elections, delineating a future for European green parties so that they may take on the role of Europe’s promoters of environmental and as such human survival.

 

Why are people still not voting green en masse, despite widespread acceptance of an environmental emergency?

First of all let me point out that the European Green party, if I am not mistaken, is the only party which has gained seats in the European Parliament.  They have not gained much, that is true, but they have at least gained something.

Now to answer the broader question.  There is an expectation that when a particular issue moves into the centre of attention, this should help the party which has always promoted that issue.  In the case of environmental issues and green parties this has not happened.

Instead, two things are happening.

The first is that mainstream parties are greening themselves.  Perhaps the most conspicuous example for this are the British Tories.  But it’s even true for the French dominating right wing party.  They all adopt that particular brand of dealing with the ecological challenge. 

The second thing, is that even if people are becoming increasingly aware of ecological problems, they will still vote for who is considered the better leadership, and can solve their own direct problems, today mainly tied to the financial crisis. 

 

Taking the two examples of Italy and Germany, would you therefore encourage a “greening” of the mainstream parties, or rather a mainstreaming of the Green parties?

Ideally, I would encourage the latter. 

In Germany, the green party is relatively stronger than in most other European countries.  It is particularly strong in core cities such as Berlin, Stuttgart and Hamburg, where the greens are the second biggest parties.  These results are crucial as major cities are of particular importance for the culture of the country.  So in countries such as Germany, where you already have a relatively strong green party, I would say it is wise to go for a further strengthening of the green parties. 

In Italy, where you have a vanished and imploded green party, it is hopeless to put your eggs into that basket and to try and revive and strengthen the green party.  Here it would be better to bet on strengthening the environmentally concerned groups within other parties.

 

How could you explain this difference in evolution between successful green parties in some countries, such as Germany, and failing ones in others, such as Italy?

I think this problem has deep roots. 

What first comes to mind is that Germany is to a great extent a protestant country – a characteristic which it shares with other countries such as Holland, the Scandinavian countries, and in part with the US.  Protestant countries have a different approach to the common good than catholic countries, where very basically, people can always go to confession and everything will be corrected.  If you look empirically, where green movements have grown, you see this argument is proven.

The second explanation which comes to mind is that, unlike Italy, Germany did not have a left orthodox political party or a left orthodox school of thought.  This was mainly due to the division of the country in the after war period.  The green movement  was therefore not captured or suppressed by an orthodox left organisation, as in France and particularly Italy. 

For that reason what you have in Germany is an environmentalist opposition which to an extent, straddles the red left spectrum.  It is more broadly positioned than in other countries.

 

Up until recently green activist have often been perceived as tree huggers, or verging on crazy, which has helped keep them marginal.  Would you say that green credibility has evolved?

In Germany environmentalists have never been considered mad, or tree huggers like in England.  After all between 1998 and 2004, they were part of the ruling coalition so they had to become quite serious.  The shedding of the bad reputation has long been overcome. 

I think that it is now accepted that environmental politics is not only an important field, but that climate politics is horizontally crucial.  Even economic policy needs to be conducted with climate policy in mind.  I don’t think anybody in their right mind can still contest this.

It is no longer a question of nature lovers, but a question of human security.

It is also worth saying that the European Union has been very important in pushing the idea of the integral role of the environment. 

 

How catastrophic would you paint the environmental picture as actually being?

So far as I can see, climatologists tell us that even the results of the 2007 IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report are already out of date.  The environmental changes are happening much faster than expected.  Basically that by the end of the next decade the global peak in emissions needs to have been reached, and a very serious decline should have started.  If this is not achieved, I see no hope.

And yes, there is a part of me that hopes that this is not true, but the rational mind tells me that there is no reason to believe that the specialists are wrong, even if I would prefer they were.

 

What are the priorities in reacting against this?

I think more influence needs to be given to the transformative perspective, which is notably alive in green party politics.

By now very reasonable voices are telling us to take this seriously.  I repeat, it is no longer a question of nature lovers, but a question of human security, and of viability in the future. 

What is called “green policy” is the only reasonable kind of perspective.  This means firstly engaging in large scales of energy efficiency in houses, machinery and technology.  Then we must change our energy structure from fossil to solar.  Finally, we must transform agriculture to make it less oil based.  Right now it is too vulnerable to oil prices, we need to be precautious, and slowly move towards a less destructive, organic agriculture.  The energy we have needs to be used in an intelligent way.  It is up to all of us, everywhere, in all sectors, to make a difference, so that we stop this looming catastrophe.