Sustainability researcher and author Fred Luks is known for his hopeful view of the future. We invited him for an interview and kicked it off with a short virtual tour. To set the mood for the conversation, we looked at which images are associated with the term #freedom in social media channels.
Whatimpressions did you take away from our tour?
Unsurprisingly, images relating to mobility feature heavily, e.g. motorcycles, motorhomes and cars. The association that you can be wherever you want. I found it funny on Facebook that someone gets their driver's license at the age of 37 and says: "Now freedom begins". The second topic: consumption and wealth as an expression of freedom. You can go on vacation, buy something. This expansiveness is deeply inscribed in the history of the West.
But what is also remarkable: Nature also appears quite often in the pictures. Quasi as a counter-model to consumption, wealth and cars. So nature also has something to do with freedom.
Manypeople feel they are losing freedom and prosperity to sustainability. Is this fear of loss slowing down the transformation?
In the sustainability scene, there is sometimes a slightly condescending attitude towards non-sustainability activists who don't understand why you shouldn't fly to Mallorca by jet or drive around by car. There's a lot of conflict in that. And there needs to be an interest in understanding this side too (see article). Because you can't change what you don't understand.
At the same time, people who assemble combustion engines are right to feel the fear of loss. Regions that are dependent on coal mining or car production naturally face incredible challenges. The central concept that is crystallizing in the debate and at EU level is the design of a just transition ('just transition') is emerging as a central concept. I think it's a better strategy to actively shape something than to say: "Tough luck, the climate dictates what we have to do."
Thefeeling of diffuse loss is also countered by active renunciation. Another "bad word" in the discussion about greater sustainability?
Regarding doing without: I think it's relatively clear that everyone in rich countries needs to reduce their consumption. But we won't convince anyone of sustainability with rhetoric about doing without. It's a question of 'framing' - how do we frame these terms?
Renunciation is also a question of perspective. And of course there is a lower threshold where renunciation becomes brutal. But I think very often, when we talk about renunciation, it's very much a question of interpretation. And of learning.
The sustainability scene has been a little naive with the concept of doing without. And this has also made it easy for people who don't actually want to take part. They have said - not without good reason in some cases - that you are not interested in having fun. Breaking through this negative attitude is a key challenge. It's also about seeing abundance and not just scarcity.
So what adjustments could be made inyour opinion?
Much of the problem of freedom would be solved if we could improve the framework conditions under which we live, consume and work. Then we would have already solved an important part of the problem of freedom. Ernst Ulrich von Weizäcker once said: "Prices must tell the ecological truth". Things that are harmful to the environment then become more expensive. I think that if we were to take this seriously, it would be much less restrictive of freedom than a policy that relies on bans.
But with certain things, you have to think about how to get rid of them. Drugs and weapons are also extremely limited because people have realized that it is socially problematic when people take drugs or walk around with a gun, as is the case in America.
Doesthat meanclearly defining the framework and then getting off the moral pedal?
If I make an ecological tax reform, it is democratically legitimized because it came about democratically. And there is nothing moral about it. It is good for the public discourse to be able to say: This is an economic, political reality. We have the problem. We have the Paris climate protection agreement and the 1.5° target. We have to do this and that to achieve it.
To what extentdoes saving the world through voluntary sacrifice in your private life make sense to you?
In his book 'End of the Illusion', German sustainability researcher Armin Grundwald warns against the 'privatization of sustainability'. The illusion would be that the responsibility for saving the world lies on the shoulders of individuals.
Applying morality to individual actions does not solve the problem. As a society, we need a new model of prosperity. Even if it sounds paradoxical: I don't want to live in a society where people are not allowed to do unreasonable things. I think it's important not to want to drive irrationality out of people. I would like incentives and changes to the framework conditions to produce great examples. And that we manage to initiate a learning process with positive examples, setting an example of new models and talking about them, where a cultural shift towards sustainability takes place. Where people say: "Actually, it's cool anyway."
What doyou mean byrelying heavily on freedom, insight and imitation?
I always become very careful and cautious when it comes to restricting freedom. If you come to a point where you have to choose between freedom and sustainability, I would always tend to be in favor of freedom when in doubt. Knowing that freedom will be worth very little if we don't manage the sustainability transformation. What good are the freedoms we have now if people are living in catastrophic conditions in 100 years' time, where eco-dictators rule the world?
Hans Jonas describes this "ambiguity" of freedom very well. And the sociologist Ingolfur Blühdorn also believes that unsustainability is so incredibly stable because we defend our freedom, our lifestyle and our values. Which is also visible in polarized America: People are defending their lifestyles (refers to newspaper article). To put it bluntly: the rednecks in New Mexico with their guns on their pickup trucks. Of course you can smile about it. But I always say: sustainability is cultural work. Wanting to understand this cultural aspect is really important.
To what extentis this cultural change underway?
I often summarize it like this: Generation Greta is just around the corner. Two years ago, we were all moaning that young people were so apolitical and that they weren't doing anything. And suddenly hundreds of thousands of them are doing something that many adults are not: they are using their political freedom, their freedom of expression, to change the world.
Everyone interested in sustainability must be incredibly grateful to them for what they have set in motion. And my book is also about miracles. For me, it's a political miracle. Young people are setting the agenda. They are using their freedom.
Which also makes the parents' generation realize that things can't go on like this. The feeling has been fueled once again by corona. There is a certain momentum in a direction that could be very good for sustainability. Without restricting freedom. But by bringing in a generation that says: "You want to live like this? That's not possible."
Due to the pandemic, the topics of 'freedom' and 'restrictions' are hotter than ever before. Is this damaging the sustainability debate?
For many people, the pandemic has been economically catastrophic, but of course there has also been a moment of insight. For many, the experience of slowing down during the crisis has made them think and shown them that less is actually possible.
Nevertheless, there is a great risk that people from the climate corner will say: politicians can listen to science and it will work with the restrictions. I think that would be fatal. I think the restrictions - despite being necessary - are terrible.
To conclude from this that such massive restrictions can be made in view of the climate crisis is, in my opinion, a disaster program. The corona crisis will be over in the foreseeable future. The climate crisis is a long-term project. And who wants to make the restrictions we have now permanent? You can't really want that. And I think it's important that the sustainability community is not naive here.
Andwhat happens after Corona? Is a historical rethink just around the corner?
My impression is that this corona catastrophe was an interruption, but not a lasting interruption. The pandemic has further contributed to the feeling that there is something wrong with what Ulrich Brand calls our imperial way of life. We have also seen how fragile our community is. How badly it can suddenly go wrong.
And we are talking about a situation that will later be written in the history books. Whatever people will later call this year: This is a breaking point. This sensitivity, this focus on resilience. A movement has emerged that can be positive for sustainability.
I can clearly see that sustainability has also become more important in the corporate sector, in banks, insurance companies and other sectors this year. Many are trying to make economic use of sustainability. Despite the danger of greenwashing, this is of course good for the cause. It is part of a positive dynamic.
I said the other day that 2021 will be the year of sustainability. There is this glimmer of hope that sustainability and climate protection in particular will be back at the top of the agenda.
About Fred Luks
Fred Luks is a researcher, publicist, speaker and moderator. He has long been involved in research, teaching and management of future issues. His professional experience includes leading a research project, a visiting professorship at the University of Hamburg, working as a sustainability manager and heading the Competence Center for Sustainability at the Vienna University of Economics and Business.
Fred Luks: Hope - On change, knowledge and political miracles, Metropolis Verlag, 2020
