In memory from childhood I stand at the kitchen bench and cut agurkskiver. The mother and my father sitting at the breakfast table, and put the faces in the serious folds. They accuse me of waste because I threw the first agurkskiva. You know, the one that is wrinkled on the one side, after the stay in the fridge.
I, then also a quite stillfaren type, explodes. This is kroneksempelet on their almost pathological aversion to throwing food, and now, it is enough. We can throw a small, nasty slice with cucumber! It is SO thin! It is an INCREDIBLY small part of the cucumber. We do not live during the war!Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError - fight for survival HAS BEEN DONE: Although she has been to increase awareness and create a klimabevegelse, " says Greta Thunberg that nothing really has happened. Video: AP View more
In the past , I have thought that my generation perhaps is an exception in the story when it comes to the sight of food - and a lot of other consumption. Where generations before us have utilized each trevl, taken care of the leftovers and warmed it up until it more or less recognizable, we have thrown. In the last thirty years it has developed a forbrukskultur that I've been a happy part of. A seemingly natural development where we have thrown the chains that have bound us to the old remnants from the dinner and another yoke.
met motkulturell resistance all the way, but now begins the criticism to take hold in a new way. In line with the klimasakens felt in society and politics, has also problematisering of our ecological footprint gained real political weight. It is no longer possible to dismiss criticism of the use of resources when the united nations warn that our ever-growing disruptions to the landscape are as great a threat to the planet as greenhouse gas emissions. And that we must "steer away from the current limited paradigm of economic growth".
ever since the united nations naturpanel came with this powerful warning in may of last year, the debate has still been a bit in the pitch. Perhaps it is because the facts are so shocking and difficult to accept? How shall we get to the development of society and feed a still growing population at the same time we processes the economic principle that has ensured growth and prosperity? It seems so to the degree difficult.
Perhaps it is still because most of the debate has had a tendency to be too revolutionary. Approximately as follows: First, we need to throw the economic system! So we can sit down and figure out the way forward.
It's a reverse approach, and it is sin. For the debate is important. The world must cut the use of resources and disruptions to the landscape and thereby breaking with a good deal of traditional approaches to growth, but we need to find out how. We need to find a plan for the way forward before we can dispose of all old practices. How to get you convinced people over and under stemmerettsalder, organizations, and businesses that the road ahead is safe and passable.
Economist, psychologist and deputy to the Parliament for the MDGS, Per Espen Stoknes, have engaged strongly in the debate about green growth. He has several times called forth a principle that can unite the moderate economic growth and the concern for climate and nature. A long series of studies and calculations show that if businesses, cities and countries can deliver more than 5 percent improvement in ressursproduktiviteten per year, so it will be able to solve both the climate and økokrisene within 30 years, " he says. Ressursproduktivitet is a way to calculate the extent to which we use resources better and smarter.
Picture this is about to get big attention. The whole of the European union's Green Deal - the green given - which was launched by the european Commission in December last year, is designed to cut all emissions, and connect the growth from the withdrawals of natural resources. A giant political machinery is set in motion to find practical political solutions.
the Example shows that those who believe growth is not the only saliggjørende, already well on the way to have won the debate.
The green given is now to the treatment in the member states, and will certainly be diluted on the way up to the final decision and implementation. It stresses the need for continued basic, radical criticism. The political changes that the climate crisis and naturkrisen requires, is so large that the thrust must be massive. The best is still if the thrust is both ambitious and, at the same time as it has a practical approach.
It is easy to think that such a miljødebatt becomes too dry and technical - difficult to capture the totality of. Where is I disagree. The superstructure is quite simple. It is a new nøysomhetskultur, for both the individual and society.
the Development is already started, it's only about to push it further. The cultural changes we see the impact of that gjenbrukstrender and more attention around our own greenhouse gas emissions. Personal responsibility must, in even a greater degree is supported by regulations from the authorities.We must learn from the crisis Comment
Businesses can still produce goods and services motivated by profit. The pricing of emissions and resource use must just make sure that it happens in a way that gives far less strain on the environment – in many cases through to establish a circular economy (re-use of input factors).
such austerity will be require a major restructuring, but will ensure the continued development, growth and quality of life – in a future that not only seems scary and threatening, but perhaps with the tempting and alluring.
The sad thing is that the it takes a long time. It is encouraging that this is a development that is about to get wide adoption in the policy.
And the funny thing is that my parents finally got the little bit right about the agurkskivene.Fredshåp in sight in vindkraftdebatten Comment You can submit your article and opinion piece in Dagbladet here
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!