Filed under: Encounters, Environment, Excursions, Science and Technology Studies | Tags: Encounters, Environment, Science & Technology Studies
I took a trip to a big recycling station in Oslo to see what people throw away, and hopefully talk to them about why. There was quite a long line of cars going into the station, and it took me about 20 minutes to get in. When I drove into the area I pretended to be there for the same reason as everybody else, to throw something away. I wanted to observe before I revealed myself. I brought my camera, which might not have been such a good idea because it made people nervous. I took a few photos down in the containers, not of people as they threw things into them, but only of what was already down there. I heard someone whisper behind me, “hm, why is she taking pictures?”. The situation was a bit uncomfortable. I felt like I was there to expose someone, and that people felt exposed, caught in the act so to say. I could not get my self to ask someone for an interview because I was experiencing such strong discomfort by the situation, and was struggling with the feeling of getting too close to people, like I was disturbing them in a private matter. In addition, I found no opening remark that could be disarming. No matter how I rephrased my opening line, I felt like I was standing there raising my finger at people, accusing them of something and moralizing. There was a stressful atmosphere at the site, people were running to and from their vehicles with “rubbish” to do away with. It seemed to me that they just wanted to be very quickly done with this uncomfortable, boring but necessary task. I can imagine the relief they felt when they were driving out the gate – finally rid of that old junk! I tried to chat with some of the older guys that worked there. They were nice and confirmed that people throw a lot of useful stuff. Although there is a container for reusable things for Fretex to pick up and sell in their stores, much is still thrown in with other materials in the waste containers. Probably because people either do not know that there is a Fretex container, they can not be bothered to be doing that much sorting and therefore throw everything in the same container, or they simply define some of the usable stuff not to be usable. After a while one of the guys in the staff approached me and told me that there were some people wondering what I was doing, since I was taking pictures, it was not allowed to take pictures on the premises. I replied that I was only looking at what people were throwing away, since I was writing my thesis on waste, and I did not think it would be a big deal looking around since the station is a public place. Well, the guy did not agree that it was a public place and told me to clear the matter with a woman at the office. If not, I could risk being “thrown on my head into one of the containers”. Oh dear, I said, and began to walk towards the office. On the way there, I was very unsure about the whole thing and decided that I had to figure out a new strategy before talking to the office people. I sneaked back to my car and drove off.
The discomfort I felt, and the discomfort I interpreted into the people who were there actually says something about how I and probably many others feel about disposing of things. There are in many cases negative emotions tied to the act of disposal. This immoral contribution to our materialistic culture. That is probably why we often postpone the act itself for quite a long time. People store things in attics, basements, cabins, try to sell it or give it away. It is only when none of these options work, that most people drive it to a recycling station or a landfill. I think that this is the last resort for many people. For others it may certainly be the easiest way out, the most effective one if they want to get rid of something as quickly as possible. These people ignore the negative emotions the might have regarding wastefulness, if they have any, and just do what they have to. Whilst driving out the gate relief comes to most people. The stuff can be forgotten about. Out of sight out of mind, isn´t that how it is?
(Above: The Fretex container)
So, I have been processing this experience in my mind since last friday, and decided to try again. This time I am going to clear it with the right people at the office. I have already sent an email making a request for the permission to interview people while they are waiting in their cars to get in to the station. Hopefully they will be more open for an interview in this situation. The reply came quickly from the office, but the email was passed on to the right person and I am still awaiting the response.
——
To be continued…
Filed under: Environment, Politics, Science and Technology Studies | Tags: Environment, Politics, Science & Technology Studies
In our time the concept of waste has developed into a significant issue which concerns all of society; governments, industry, community, nature, science and technology. One could say, in the way that Bruno Latour claims there to be no Nature with a capital N, there is also no Waste with a capital W. Waste is a term constructed by humans. To define what is waste or not there has to be some social order to define it. A quick reading through some of the official documents released on the issues of waste in Norway reveals an array of definitions to different categories of waste and what goes into them. Industrial waste, municipal waste, demolition and construction waste, hazardous waste and so on.
Waste brings with it many problems. There are toxic chemicals, depletion of natural resources, emissions, various social problems of exploitation, health, poverty and loss of habitat to mention some. The problems are grounded in how society is constructed. The goal of the market economy is infinite growth through the steady flow of capital and goods. This flow of goods has turned into a flow of waste, because the timeframe in which the goods are perceived to usable is getting smaller and smaller. Low quality non repairable products, low prices (externalized costs), fashion and marketing are accelerating the turnover of material goods.
Governments are dealing with the issue of waste through laws and regulations. An increasing effort in waste management through government is certainly improving conditions caused by the effects of the problem, but at the same time some of the effort is being annulled by the vast increase in the amount of waste. In Norway the growth in waste has now passed the growth of the economy measured in GDP (Klima- og forurensningsdirektoratet, 2010).
As Annie Leonard writes in the book “The Story of Stuff” (2010), waste is not defined by what it is but by where it is. The definition of waste is interesting because it determines action taken on it. For my master thesis I have decided to look into definitions made of waste by the Norwegian government and how these definitions are co-produced with policy and technology development in the sector. How is the notion of waste conceptualized? How are new categories of waste formed? Who are the experts in demarcating the categories of waste? My assumption is that there is a need for a redifinition of the concept of waste which has emerged through time because it is now unable to deal with the problems caused by the out dated definitions
Bruno Latour´s bold statement “there is no Nature with a capital N” is refreshing (How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy, 2004). Maybe the same would be true for the concept of Waste? As I have established through his thoughts; how waste is defined is a product of processes and relationships within the networks of sciences, natures and politics. To create new thought on the concept of Waste one must look at wastes (in the plural) intertwined in different networks. Again to compare with Latour´s concept of natures; issues concerning natures always have to do with specific natures; that river, that endangered species and so on. The same thing could be said about Waste. There is no such thing as Waste with a capital W. There is only glass, plastic, packaging, paper and so on. Therefore one must also talk about wastes in the plural. Latour claims the political power of the term Nature to be lying in its unity, in its singular use; “nature in general”. It is impossible for natures to play the same political role. For instance; how does industry protect natures? What force can the science of natures enact? The singular form of Nature has been created to be able to rival the singular form of Politics. It is a convenient ordering. I ask myself, is the same true for the unity of Waste? Does the unity of Waste give power?
Norway:
The growth in waste has now passed the growth of the economy measured in GDP
Filed under: Environment, Innovation, Politics | Tags: Environment, Innovation, Politics
The recent work of Prof. Keith Smith at the Australian Innovation Research Centre, University of Tasmania, points to the need for global coordination of innovation systems to achieve radical innovation and create a new regime not dependent on hydrocarbons. Why is this a task for national and global government?
The obstacles to business:
- High risk and uncertainty
- Long time horizon and prolonged financial commitment
- The need to search along multiple overlapping paths with unforseen capital losses along the way
- Coordination
How is Norway approaching this?
The COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference 7-18 December 2009 is one of the most debated events of our time. The need for nations to reach an agreement on measures to prevent drastic climate change is urgent, and characterized as “the last chance” to commit to joint action. The first conference of its kind was the COP1 in Berlin, 1995. An important and often mentioned conference is also the COP3 in Kyoto, 1997, which resulted in the Kyoto protocol after intense negotiations. It was the first time a protocol introduced binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions in 37 industrialized countries from 2008 – 2012. The protocol came into force in 2005. Norway has increased its emissions every year since 2005, but the government has now decided to supersede the Kyoto target by 10 per cent. This goal can not be reached without buying CO2 permits which are regulated by the concepts of Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
ETS (also known as Cap & Trade) is a market based system where permits for a given amount of pollution get distributed by government to industry to create a financial incentive to reduce pollution. These permits can be traded amongst different actors. CDM is aimed to enable global emission reduction in the overall most cost-effective way. Critics argue that ETS and CDM allows “Business as usual” to the largest polluters , and that the mechanisms prevent rather than promote effective measures against global warming. It is alleged that the systems are simply not cost-effective, and that the same measures could be implemented to a much lower cost through already established programs. ETS has in recent time also been criticized for being a distraction, creating a false sense of progress, leaving it to the market to fix the problem and being a tool for big industry to maintain business as usual. Critics are asking if ETS could be working against its purpose, and be stalling the energy revolution? Which are the forces who are pushing this solution onto the world and what is their agenda? Is there being put too much effort into an insufficient system rather than into developing the “real” technical solutions to the energy/emissions problem?
ETS is as a technology constructed by forces in society to closely fit into our existing systems. At the same time the choices and decisions being made and/or not being made, the actions taken and/or not taken as a result of the existence of an Emissions Trading System are shaping society and nature simultaneously. ETS is a technology co-produced with nature and society. The politically- and symbolically sustaining forces in the discourse of climate change seem to be of substantial power and are in effect stalling radical social change and a real energy revolution. The Emissions Trading System is a good example of how the existing arrangements of society limit the adaptability of society. Scientists are producing more and more frightening results predicting catastrophe if the world does not act now. Institutions are facilitating the production of the same results, distributing representations of it to the public and the policy makers to give it political effect. In spite of the existence of an array of renewable energy technologies either ready for implementation or close to it, the main “fix” on the table in Copenhagen was how to agree on a fair world Emissions Trading System, so that the existing market economy which sustains the wealth of the “northern elite”, does not collapse. This project becomes dangerous if it creates a system which serves as a distraction from developing the real solutions to facilitate the energy revolution to break us out of the oil age. We could be destroying our home in the pursuit of infinite growth and material prosperity.
The US environmental activist Annie Leonard concludes in “The Story of Cap & Trade” : “You can´t solve a problem with the thinking that created it”, and in this case I agree.
There is a broad consensus in the world on the necessity for a paradigm shift to a sustainable use of world recourses, consumption and production. The main debate is now on reducing Co2 emissions to prevent global warming. An equally important issue should be to fuel the beginning of a new industrial revolution, where greening of industry with cleaner production, sustainable consumption, social considerations and a new economy not based on infinite growth is the goal. As it was stated at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002: “Fundamental changes in consumption and production patterns are needed. More systematic management of product and material life cycle, i.e. life-cycle management (LCM), can accelerate the shift towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production”.
—
Humans have to a large extent separated themselves from nature, making nature a stranger. This is a crude misconception, because we are all part of nature, and completely dependent on it. In nature there is no waste, everything has its place in the process of the life cycle. This is natures own method of sustainability. It is an example to be followed by the human race, to close the gap that has been created over the last centuries between nature and humans.
—
Life cycle thinking has become a key focus in environmental policy making. Over the last decades there has been raised awareness of these issues and governments have created laws and policies to regulate the use of hazardous toxins and chemicals in industry. In further work of the greening of industry there will be a need for tools to measure the environmental impact of product processes, and highlight the areas that need to be improved. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method is being used for this purpose today, and there has been development of software which makes the process more effective and usable. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodology that has been developed to consider the overall environmental impacts of products systematically through their life cycle, from cradle to grave, or preferably from cradle to cradle.
—
Have a look at The Story of Stuff video, it´s a simplistic entertaining description of the system failure of our time.
Filed under: Environment, Thoughts & Reflections | Tags: Environment, Politics
Concerned Scientists Norway and Folkeaksjonen oljefritt Lofoten og Vesterålen (Peoples Action for an oil free Lofoten and Vesterålen) arranged a debate on the Norwegian Oil and Climate politics at Litteraturhuset (Oslo House of Litterature)on the 25th of August. They wanted to address the questions which have been raised about how big the emission reductions have to be in the world, and how Norway is going to contribute? Is it possible for Norway to be both a Nation of Oil and a Nation of Environment, and if so, how? What consequences do the answers to this impose on the question of searching and extracting oil in the areas offshore Lofoten and Vesterålen?
Politicians from some of the main Norwegian parties where there to give us some answers: Lars Sponheim, Venstre (Liberal Party), Tord Lien, Frp (Right Wing), Nikolai Astrup (Conservative Party), Bård Vegar Solhjell (Left Wing). The representative from Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) did not attend though invited. Considering their hesitation to communicate a clear yes or no to oil searching and extraction in Lofoten and Vesterålen, their absence could be interpreted as cowardice.
Gaute Wahl, head of Folkeaksjonen oljefritt Lofoten og Vesterålen, talked about the foundation of the movement. Professor Dag O. Hessen talked about consequences and scientific research results, Åslaug Haga (Former president of Senter Partiet) talked about the consequences for Norwegian Oil Politics. Beate Sjåfjell from Concerned Scientists of Norway did the introduction and the conclusion of the debate.
Finally he debate is on, and the politicians are highly concentrated, doing their best to get in as many words as possible in that very limited time of each argument they are allowed to give. Much of what they are saying sounds fairly reasonable, (Except some arguments made by Høyre and Frp ofcourse, who clearly were the least popular amongst the audience) but we have heard it before. We want to hear about the HOWs and the WHENs! The politicians are more concerned with discussing how they will get into position, and what constellations of parties may become reality after the election. The second big issue amongs politicians is who did or did not do whatever whenever, who promised and did not follow through, you said, he said, she said… Enough! Who trained these people not to answer a single question with clarity?! Do we have to live in this grey fog of confusion forever? Where are the grand visions of a sustainable future?
Åslaug Haga acknowledged with humility, that the politicians of her time will be judged harshly in the future, for having possessed the knowledge, and done nothing. I agree with that. The social scientists of the future, both near and far, will produce a mass of studies on how and why people and systems reacted to what for a number of reasons was not percieved as an imminent danger. It seems that no matter how much scientific proof the scientists of today produce, the system is still working in very slow motion. Beate Sjåfjell gives us this explanation: We are in a vicious circle. The people do not entirely believe in the danger, therefor the politicians do not dare to make the necessary changes in fear of becoming unpopular. The people interpret the lack of action from the politicians as a signal that there is not much to worry about, and think: If it was that bad the politicians surely would do something about it?! The question is, are the politicians going to lead or be lead by the ignorance of the people?
Nikolai Astrup ( Høyre) tells us that we have to keep up the production of oil, including what may be offshore Lofoten and Vesterålen, to make profit which can be used to develop new sustainable energy. Could there be a more obvious contradiction? (It makes me think of how it is like when you are eating chocolate, and you know you should stop eating, because it is not healthy eating to much chocolate, and you know it will make you fat, and being fat can give you all kinds of diseases and you could even die if you´re really unlucky, but you still eat and eat, because it gives you so much satisfaction, and just that last piece, and then another, until… you have eaten… the whole thing… and then… you feel bad…) MORE oil and gas? So where do we draw the line then? When is it time to adjust? The answer is obvious: Now. Ingeborg Gjærum leader of the organization Natur og Ungdom, spoke just before the debate. She underlined the importance of stopping the search for new oil and gas projects. The findings that are made today, will take twenty years to develop and build before they are ready for production. That means that if we open for drilling today, the production and the emissions will be reality in 2029. That is a step in a very wrong direction when the goal is a future without burning fossile fuels.
There are a lot of good new sustainable technologies already available, and more in the making. I think a lot of the challenge lies in choosing the best technologies and R&D projects that will make the beginning of a new industrial revolution. A lot is predestined by these decisions. The politicians elected by the people must lead this process tightly in collaboration with scientists, engineers, businesses and other countries. On the frontpage of the web site of the Concerned Scientists Norway they state: (Translated) “The gap between research based knowledge and political decisions seem nearly impossible to close. The Concerned Scientists Norway still believe that a more active and targeted conveying of research can bridge this gap.”
The point that is made repeatedly, but not emphasized enough by my opinion, is that it has to be made profitable to make environmentally friendly decisions, both in peoples every day lives, and in business. The politicians have the responsibility to make the policies to that effect. I agree with Venstre (and actually Høyre and Frp in this matter) that it must be OK for people to get rich because they have managed to establish a profitable business. For most people devoting their lives to such a time demanding task, profit is a big part of the motivation. We are in need of those people to create the businesses of the future! The left wing must accept the fact that progress makes some people rich, and abstain from punishing them with high taxes. The hardest part I think will be the inevitable revolution of the Market Economy as we know it. The race for maximum profit at every cost will not be sustainable in the future. The way we put toxins into almost every product, the linear process of production, the creation of waste, the depleting of limited natural resources is not sustainable either. Actually the whole system of the economy is flawed and unsustainable. We need to develop a system that is cyclical. Nature is the template. There is no waste in nature.
Norway is in the perfect position to make this challenge into a great future of ground breaking innovations and a new story of success!
I recommend to take a look at The Story of Stuff . It will remind you of the absurdity of our world.
“The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It’ll teach you something, it’ll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.”
