We need to radically rethink our approach to environmental action: to motivate people, it’s not enough to preach selflessness—there must be a personal benefit. This is the view of environmental sociologist Peter Preisendörfer. How can this contribute to greater environmental justice? And what role do time and money play in this? An interview with the expert.
At its core, the issue is the unequal distribution of environmental burdens. People who live near landfills, airports, or noisy roads have a lower quality of life and are exposed to greater health risks. Not all segments of the population are affected equally by this.
You only have to think about who lives under flight paths or next to four-lane highways. Wealthier people move away from these areas, while poorer people settle there. Economic and political mechanisms are responsible for this. On the one hand, low housing prices push lower-income groups into these problematic areas. On the other hand, political decisions always follow the path of least resistance. A waste-to-energy plant is located near people who cannot effectively defend themselves. Most often, these are people with lower levels of education or an immigrant background.
“Appealing to selfless idealists is a fundamental misunderstanding. The framework for environmental action must be designed in such a way that it is also worthwhile for self-interested actors.” Peter Preisendörfer, environmental sociologist
In fact, there are some notable exceptions in large cities. Take Paris, for example: the city center has extremely high levels of particulate matter, yet that is where the wealthy live. This is primarily due to historical reasons. The difference is that wealthier segments of the population are better able to protect themselves—for example, with soundproof windows or a second home in a green area.
For example, through mitigation measures and fairer distribution. In the aviation sector, for instance, efforts are being made to manage environmental impacts more equitably by adjusting flight routes. Road noise, on the other hand, can be addressed relatively easily by funding noise barriers. Providing better recreational opportunities also helps alleviate the burden on those affected. However, the most important approach is and remains the prevention of environmental pollution.
Environmental action has nothing to do with altruism. The framework must be designed in such a way that self-interested actors behave in an environmentally friendly manner. When it comes to mobility, for example, two things are important: time and money. You can forget about everything else. As long as flying is faster and cheaper than taking the train, nothing will change. This problem also exists with food. Conventionally produced products are so cheap because they are subsidized. Greater support for organic farming can counteract this.
“Environmental justice” is a grassroots movement. For lower-income communities, the goal was to improve their living conditions near highways, power plants, or landfills. The approach involves, for example, bringing all stakeholders together in the early stages of a major construction project. This allows for better conditions to be negotiated. This concept also exists in Europe, but it is driven more by academia. In Germany, for example, we conduct a lot of empirical research around Frankfurt Airport. In doing so, we also collaborate with the city administration and citizens’ initiatives.
“The concept of environmental justice has not yet taken hold in many cities. In urban development, transportation policy must be the central focus.” Peter Preisendörfer, environmental sociologist
The poorer regions of the Global South generally contribute less to climate change but are more severely affected by its consequences. Even China, the “world’s factory,” has relatively lower emissions—at eight tons of CO2 per capita—than Austria or Germany. The Sustainable Development Goals make sense in every respect. They align with the guiding principle of a “One World” perspective: Blaming one another gets us nowhere; we can only preserve the world as a livable place by working together.
To design resilient socio-ecological systems, we must not work against the people—we must bring the public on board and ensure fairness. Today, people often lament a lack of vision. The path to sustainability is the one that makes the most sense, both ecologically and economically. I believe this presents us with a very concrete challenge that we must tackle together.
Thank you very much for the interview!
[av_promobox button='no' label='Click me' link='manually,http://' link_target="" color='theme-color' custom_bg='#444444' custom_font='#ffffff’ size=’large’ icon_select=’no’ icon=’ue800’ font=’entypo-fontello’ box_color=“ box_custom_font=’#ffffff’ box_custom_bg=’#444444’ box_custom_border=’#333333’ admin_preview_bg=“]
About Peter Preisendörfer
Environmental sociologist Prof. Dr. Peter Preisendörfer (born in 1953 in Obersinn, Bavaria, Germany) teaches at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz. He studied in Nuremberg, Vienna, and Chicago. The research interests of this self-proclaimed global citizen include, above all, environmental research and entrepreneurship.
[/av_promobox]
[av_notification title=" color='silver' border=" custom_bg='#444444' custom_font='#ffffff' size='normal' icon_select='yes' icon='ue80b' font='entypo-fontello' admin_preview_bg="]
Source: This text is an abridged version of an interview with Peter Preisendörfer on March 13, 2018.
[/av_notification]
[av_notification title=" color='green' border=" custom_bg='#444444' custom_font='#ffffff' size='normal' icon_select='yes' icon='ue837' font='entypo-fontello' admin_preview_bg="]
Editorial article
[/av_notification]