Category: Development

Combating climate change should be both a personal and public priority

Posted on by Adrian Murat

What will be the big challenges regarding climate-change refugees in Europe in the next 50 years?

Nowadays, climate change is one of the biggest problems the world must face. What was considered as an incremental issue two decades ago, is already starting to show its numerous negative effects both on nature and on society. The question remains if we will be able to stop it in time and what the consequences will be for Europe if we don’t.

Nowadays, climate change is one of the biggest problems the world must face.

 Temperatures around the globe have been rising for decades thanks to our industrialized society and partly thanks to our recklessness when it comes to using our resources. Entire forests have been cut down, seas and oceans polluted and species erased. None of these, however, come even close to the dangerous effects of the polar ice caps melting. Not only will that have a tremendous impact on wildlife and ocean levels, but it will also cause the ocean-levels to rise. This in turn will make huge parts of our planet uninhabitable land. Cities, such as New York, Tokyo or even Amsterdam might become underwater relics in the not-so-distant future. All of this will become fact, should we not stop it while still possible.

Furthermore, should we not succeed in convincing our leaders and people that the world is really in danger and that destruction is inevitable – there will be significant consequences for the world and for Europe specifically. Our continent will be facing serious difficulties thanks to its good geographical position with the other, poorer, continents. Coastal cities disappearing will be only one of the obstacles we will be facing. Citizens of poorer countries, mostly in Africa and Asia, where even now wars are being held over water and inhabitable land, will tend to migrate to Europe in the same manner as political refugees are coming now. The only difference – wars end and their effects are reversible whereas the consequences of climate change are irreversible. Our already crowded land will become even more crowded, which resultantly will make people compete increasingly for jobs. Owing to all those factors, extreme political ideologies will make their ways back into our society and hate, racism, intolerance will become present. In turn this could lead to a rebellion of the oppressed minorities and result in a war.

The solution to all these problems lies within our own hands, change needs to happen and it needs to be soon.

 The solution to all these problems lies within our own hands, change needs to happen and it needs to be soon. Difficult as it may sound, it is fairly simple. First, we need to think for ourselves on the question whether we want big money and financial interests to influence our choice and our thinking or decades worth of scientific research and proof. Second, we need to make sure we elect people who think like us, who are not controlled by personal interests or corporations. Third, we must stand united against the threat of climate change by helping protect the environment, helping people who live in affected areas, protesting corrupt politicians and companies who pollute the environment on purpose for their own personal gain. If we manage to do all these baby steps, and every one of us stands together, we can indeed make Europe, our continent, our country a great place to live for decades to come and live the life we want, without fear of not ever being able to visit a certain city or even an entire country.

 As a conclusion, I think combating climate change should be both a personal and public priority. Even though it needs to start as small steps made by us, it should end up as steps in the right direction by our governments and the EU, to truly protect us from experiencing this horrifying picture and in order to see a better Europe in 50 years than the one we have now.

About the author:

Adrian Murat (17) took part in the My Europe Workshop in Sofia on 28-29 November 2016 and won the second prize of the writing competition.

Rising number of climate-refugees is one of the most important issues nowadays

Posted on by Zhaklin Yanakieva

What will be the big challenges regarding climate-change refugees in Europe in the next 50 years?

The topic about the refugees has always been and will be a burning problem. And, we can say that the rising number of climate-change refugees is one of the most important issues facing our society nowadays. We live in such an age where many people are free to choose a better way of living. Yet, some are forced to make the decision to leave their homes due to political clashes. “No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of shark” (Warsan Shire, 2011) – by ignoring the trend of the fleeing refugees, the world leaders have now allowed one of the largest global humanitarian crisis to unfold. Nevertheless, the situation can be kept under control by taking actions.

Let us take a look at the extreme weather events such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes that are quite common and recurring. Climate change worsens the consequences of those events and it should not be a surprise that people strive to inhabit areas with a pleasant and temperate climate. People are suffering and have no other choice, but to leave their homes. The economies of the countries destroyed are extremely unstable and the population is more prone to fleeing. Every year around the globe millions of people are forced to move due to this major reason.  Furthermore, large segments of the population deciding to migrate are the ones with higher standard of living. Fleeing is inevitable; however the world leaders should find ways to solve the world refugee crisis. For instance, they should aim to provide the basic essentials for the suffering – for example a standard apartment meeting the basic human needs such as hot water and food.

According to the UNHCR, the people, who are forced to move, need some form of international protection since their own governments fail to keep them safe.

The refugee issue is painful to society these days – many people around the globe think that they are a “nuisance”. Not many people realize that all these refugees are actually one of us and that they are forced to leave their countries.  According to recent forecasts, the number of those likely to relocate because of the climate changes is 350 million by 2050, compared to 65.3 million in 2016. This may lead to building walls instead of opening the market between the nations. Unfortunately, most people do not approve of migration. Yet, helping the refugees requires a clear definition of the matter before taking any steps since many people do not indeed know what a climate-change refugee is facing. On the one hand, refugees are people left homeless, who are looking for a better way of living. On the other hand, in modern society’s eyes they are a nuisance, which may destroy their established world. Yet, not everyone is humane enough to face the reality and do something about the refugee issue instead of isolating them and treating them as criminals. There are many ways to integrate them into our local communities. For instance, a solution could be finding job places for them, incorporating them into local activities and dividing them out per capita in every city in the country. The result would be that no one would feel different, rejected and intimidated.

According to recent forecasts, the number of those likely to relocate because of the climate changes is 350 million by 2050, compared to 65.3 million in 2016.

We live in the 21st century and the standard of living is supposed to get better and better. With the increasing number of extreme weather and political events, a concern of the international community about the consequences of migration is also growing. Around 1,700 refugees died trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea in the period between January and April 2015. According to the UNHCR, the people, who are forced to move, need some form of international protection since their own governments fail to keep them safe. Hence, the attention is rising to the pledges such as countries like Norway or Switzerland are trying to find a better way of protection for climate change affected people. For example, Norway joined a special recognition procedure in 2005, which includes approval of eligibility of foreign qualifications provided with applications for jobs or studies. It is an attempt to integrate the refugees in the day-to-day life.

To sum up, refugees are people with a decent opportunity for a better life. The foreign governments play an important role in helping them. Unfortunately, the way all of them are treated is not the one they deserve to be. People can find many ways to make their stay more pleasant. Each of them is trying to remain alive and they are looking for a safer place where they will not be mistreated. A couple of countries have already thought of solutions to the refugees’ crisis and so can the others. And the more humane people are, the happier their lives will be.

About the author:

Zhaklin Dimitrova Yanakieva (17) took part in the My Europe Workshop in Sofia on 28-29 November 2016 and won the first prize of the writing competition.

 

Viviendo con Donald

Posted on by Nicolás Hernando de Larramendi Enjuto

 

trump-1822121_1920

La victoria de Donald Trump ha generado muchas reacciones en las capitales europeas, desde la sorpresa, pasando por la alegría de algunos, hasta el estupor. Muchos han sido también los análisis y las explicaciones que han intentado que comprendamos mejor un resultado que no era el esperado, y sobre el que las encuestas han fallado estrepitosamente. Para los europeos es difícil entender los movimientos y los cambios que se están produciendo en la sociedad estadounidense. Se ha hablado de raza, de sexo, de edad, de clase social y de distribución geográfica para intentar explicar esta victoria. De todas ellas, el análisis más interesante es el relacionado con la globalización.

Los estadounidenses blancos de clase media y trabajadora han sido muy golpeados por la Gran Recesión. La deslocalización de las grandes industrias, que se han asentado en mercados donde los precios son más competitivos, ha dejado a una masa de trabajadores en paro y sin expectativas de futuro.

Muchos de estos trabajadores recelan de las políticas aperturistas y tolerantes de Barack Obama. Se oponen a la inmigración y a la acogida de refugiados por miedo a perder sus trabajos, y se agarran a un sentimiento nacionalista para reafirmar sus convicciones. Sienten además un profundo rencor contra las élites económicas del país, a las que culpan de su situación.

Este análisis también puede relacionarse con la victoria del Brexit en el Reino Unido, un resultado asimismo inesperado. El mensaje es sencillo: “retomemos el control” clamaba Boris Johnson en los debates previos al referéndum. “Construyamos un muro, hagamos a América grande de nuevo” afirmaba Donald Trump sin tapujos. “Votadme, no tenéis nada que perder”. Sin entrar a valorar lo histriónico y polémico de su persona, Trump ha conseguido representar ese resentimiento contra el establishment. Y también ha despertado las esperanzas de estos votantes que, en efecto, pueden llegar a sentir que no tienen nada que perder, que el sistema no tiene nada más que ofrecerles.

Los recelos sobre la globalización son legítimos. Lo hemos visto en Europa en los últimos meses, con la firme posición que ha mostrado la región de Valonia en las negociaciones del tratado de libre comercio con Canadá, o las manifestaciones que se han visto por toda Europa en contra del TTIP. Los efectos que pueden tener estos tratados sobre las condiciones laborales de los trabajadores europeos o sobre sus consecuencias medioambientales son cuestiones que deben estar presentes en el debate. No obstante, el auge de la xenofobia o el cierre de fronteras no van a solucionar estos problemas, sino más bien los agravarán. El cambio climático, por ejemplo, sólo se puede combatir si los Estados cooperan, si comparten objetivos, si tienen una visión global del problema. El aislacionismo y el odio no pueden ser la salida.

El resultado de las elecciones estadounidenses, junto con la futura salida del Reino Unido de la UE y otros ejemplos, como las elecciones presidenciales austriacas, confirman el vaticinio de muchos expertos. Nos estamos adentrando en un nuevo clash cultural, que tiene como protagonista a la globalización y a sus consecuencias. Se ha creado un nuevo conflicto ideológico a ambos lados del Atlántico, el que enfrenta por un lado a los defensores de sociedades abiertas al mundo con aquellos que propugnan sociedades cerradas, proteccionistas y en muchos casos contrarias a la diversidad cultural. Es en este segundo bando donde se encuentra Donald Trump, y su nacionalismo populista.

¿Qué puede hacer la Unión europea ante este nuevo escenario? Para empezar reafirmar su voluntad de integración. Los líderes europeos deben defender propuestas audaces y realistas que profundicen la integración en materias como la defensa, la lucha contra el cambio climático, la política exterior o la creación de oportunidades para los jóvenes. Y deben tener presentes ahora más que nunca los valores fundamentales de la Unión. El proyecto europeo siempre se basó en la tolerancia, la solidaridad y el respeto a las diferencias culturales. La crisis de refugiados ha puesto en cuestión estos valores. Las sociedades europeas deben ser capaces de progresar en su integración, y de aprovechar las ventajas de la globalización, sin que esto suponga un aumento de la intolerancia o el odio, o una desprotección de sus clases trabajadoras.

El reto es enorme, y para superarlo serán necesarias altas dosis de habilidad política y de convicción. El discurso populista y xenófobo debe ser combatido con ideas, propuestas y a través de un debate cargado de contenido ético.

Los populistas se han cobrado ya dos importantísimas victorias, y este año pueden consolidar su triunfo en las elecciones presidenciales francesas. No hemos sido capaces de percibir los peligros de su discurso hasta que no hemos visto a uno de sus principales valedores entrando en la Casa Blanca. Esta va a ser la disyuntiva que marque los próximos años y quizás las próximas décadas de nuestras vidas.

Pese a lo incierto del resultado, existen motivos para la esperanza. Ni el Brexit ni Donald Trump fueron las opciones mayoritarias entre los votantes jóvenes.

Hillary Clinton dio un discurso de concesión sosegado y solemne. Ha cometido errores en esta campaña. Muchos se han lamentado de que no haya sido capaz de romper ese último techo de cristal para las mujeres. Sin embargo, es de justicia reconocer que Clinton ya ha hecho historia, ya ha roto varios techos de cristal. Es la primera mujer que ha conseguido ser candidata a la Presidencia de Estados Unidos por uno de los dos principales partidos. Y es la primera mujer en la historia que ha ganado el voto popular en unas elecciones presidenciales en ese país. Sus defectos no deben ensombrecer lo que sin duda es una trayectoria cargada de logros.

En sus palabras dando las gracias a los que la apoyaron y reconociendo su derrota, la ex secretaria de Estado hizo a los jóvenes una última petición inspiradora: “esta derrota duele, pero por favor, nunca dejéis de creer que luchar por lo que es justo merece la pena”. Ella ya ha dejado su marca en la historia. Ahora es el momento de estar a la altura, y de empezar a dejar la nuestra.

About the author:

Nicolás - Author at Spotlight Europe

Nicolás (19) is member of the Youth Council of the Future. He participated in the “My Europe” workshop in Madrid in 2013.

Climate change denial is man-made

Posted on by Bogomil Gospodinov

global-102448_1920

About a year ago I had a dinner with a very bright colleague of mine from the investment bank where I served as an intern. Initially our conversation was quite enjoyable and ranged from physics and mathematics to politics and philosophy. However, there was a topic that noticeably struck a chord with both of us and it was the legitimacy and importance of climate change. We had a prolonged and heated discussion where I made simple authoritarian but empirical arguments citing studies conducted by NASA, the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society etc and he’d respond with varying degrees of skepticism to each of those claims. Initially he’d try to challenge the impartialness of the scientific community even though recent peer-reviewed studies show that between 97% (Stuart, 2016) and 99% (Powell, 2016) of over 11,000 scientific articles state that climate change is not only real but most definitely anthropogenic. Even worse than that is the proven corruption of right-wing politicians, especially Republicans in the US, and “think-tanks” from all around the world who receive direct financing from fossil fuel billionaires like the infamous Koch brothers to finance their political campaigns (Dunlap, 2011). As a matter of fact, a lot of climate change denial in public life is a function of a corrupt political system (see Citizen’s United) and grimly reminds me of the days the tobacco industry was buying politicians to do similar claims about the uncertainty of the scientific community about the danger from cigarettes. Corporate interest is far from the only reason, though. Amongst others we have to also count intellectual laziness, failure of the educational system, inflated ego and just typical human denial of responsibility. But that’s an entirely different topic.

Going back to the conversation, my colleague would start to progressively question the accuracy of glacier monitoring techniques (Karpilo Jr, 2009), global surface temperature reconstructions (Cowtan, 2014), sea level rise measurements (Parker, 1991) etc. even though all of those experiments are measured independently on an annual basis and in several different ways and statistical models with high predictive ability have been tested again and again. The fact he will quickly deny established facts without having any expertise or empirical counterarguments was a red flag for me hinting he might be a right-wing libertarian of a kind. At some point he went so far as to discard the entire scientific method and statistics in particular as a viable instrument for acquiring understanding of the surrounding world. The entire conversation then quickly left the realm of facts and summoned both of us into the dream world of epistemolog

y, ontology and metaphysics. The tipping point was reached when he had to resort to mathematical fictionalism and the Entscheidungsproblem, basically implying that we shouldn’t make any change to the status quo because we can’t ever be completely sure of what we know now. “Force your opponent to make a metaphysical argument and then you win”, as Quine (I believe) once said.

Finally, after he perhaps felt that there is no practical and convincing way of defending his position, he moved the goal posts and started diminishing the potential impact of a “hypothetical” climate change event. His thesis was that it is not economically sound to constrain the free market and risk capital losses for an event which we could potentially adapt to with just slight discomfort. He claimed that even if the catastrophic projections of scientists actually materialize, it would still pay off more to just stick to our way of life and develop technology which will enable us to continue living in this altered environment or perhaps on another planet altogether. This was the moment when I realized that the entire conversation is not about climate science, statistics or philosophy – it was an argument between people of opposing political and economic convictions where one of the sides refuses to consider authority of any kind – even scientific, even if there is hard data present. The last thing I asked him before I left the table was: If we thought of the planet in the same way in which the managing directors of this bank think of the company and a bunch of experts told them that there is 99% chance that the company is going bankrupt in 40 years how would they react? He said nothing.

It didn’t even make sense to point out that if just the predictions for a higher acidity of the oceans meets expectations, humanity will be in dire straits, because the ocean ecosystems will be altered with unpredictable long-term consequences (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2010) which will propagate everywhere on the planet. You see, if there is really no God (or Atlas shrugging), then there is no one who keeps the delicate and intricate environmental balance which underlies our existence. It is no one’s whim whether we survive or not. And yes, while we are nearly powerless and hopeless in predicting even the immediate future with certainty, these are the best instruments we have and it’s only rational that we apply them accordingly – to the best of our knowledge. If humanity really is a fluke in an absurd world just as if hundreds of monkeys are typing on typewriters endlessly and at some point they get Encyclopedia Britannica, then we don’t want to distract those monkeys. Messing with the balance of nature, as I like to say, is thus like fiddling with the engine of a motorbike while riding it with 200 km/h on the motorway trying to win a race that we invented for its own sake – a race of technology, money and power. While we speak, extreme heat waves, flooding and heavy downpours have already affected the world’s agriculture and infrastructure and those are visible throughout the U.S. and the Middle East. It is thus arrogant not to try to reduce our impact on nature and to instead think evolution will spare us even after we altered its fitness function that spawned us in the first place so profoundly.

In retrospect, it shouldn’t surprise me that the financial world is teeming with right-wing libertarians who proudly deny empiricism and base all of their beliefs on a single arbitrary axiom that doesn’t even make sense. After all, it’s just the world’s economy and thus the world’s fate that depends on them. And yes, I will say they are quasi-religious ideologues who refuse to update their assumptions with factual reality (this is why they are the laughing stock of academic circles). They see society as a function of individuals whereas an individual is clearly only possible as a result of cohesive social structures (see Robinson Crusoe). In my opinion, one has understood what individualism means, only after he has come to the realization how interdependent everything in the universe is. The most important principle of all is that humanity is apples on an apple tree and this apple tree is Earth and this Earth peoples in the same way the apple tree grows apples (see Gaia hypothesis). We have to understand that the bee cannot exist without the flower and thus can be thought of as one and the same thing. In the same way a man cannot exist without society and vice versa. Therefore we should start thinking of our habitat as we think of our streets and houses. We are part of nature and we are animals. Our cities are just complex bee hives. We are not disconnected from our surroundings, and we are not infinitely adaptable and immune to the consequences of o

ur own actions. We are not freaks of nature. We are it and we should start acting like it.

References

Cowtan, K. a. (2014). Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Organized climate change denial. The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, 144-160.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. a. (2010). The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 328, 1523-1528.

Karpilo Jr, R. D. (2009). Glacier monitoring techniques. The Geological Society of America.

Parker, B. B. (1991). Sea Level as an Indicator of Climate and Global Change. Marine Technology Society.

Powell, J. L. (2016). Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958

Stuart, J. C. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4). Retrieved from http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/11/i=4/a=048002

About the author:

Picture Bogomil Todorov GospodinovBogomil Todorov Gospodinov (21) took part in our “My Europe” workshop in Sofia in 2012. He is currently studying Computer Science at the University of Southampton in England.

More…