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?
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?
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.”
