On YouTube, there is a news clip from 1967. Here, British pub guests rave about the introduction of new alcohol limits for driving. Drunk driving, we are told, is a private matter. Fast forward to the 1970s in Trondheim. The city had a traffic problem, and the solution adopted was a four-lane motorway through the district of Bakklandet. Fortunately, nothing came of it. Now take a look at the TV program “Casino” from around 1990. Hallvard Flatland was the boss, while silent Birgitte was a human backdrop that should not be heard. In 1977, seven out of ten Norwegians were opposed to cohabitation outside of marriage, and until 1972 physical punishment of children was a statutory right for parents. The examples show how culture, norms and attitudes are expressed in society. At the same time, they show how they are gradually changing, so that the majority today see the commonplaces of our recent past as absurd. Today, for the sake of our own planet, we must cut greenhouse gas emissions. The political strategies for this are largely technological. Renewable energy such as wind and solar power is being built. Efforts are being made to capture and store carbon. Land and water-based transport is electrified or uses hydrogen and ammonia. Digitization and artificial intelligence help industry to reduce power consumption. Our buildings are becoming increasingly smarter, more efficient and produce their own electricity. Everything is needed, but it is not enough. The scenarios where we succeed in reducing global warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees are based on us massively and quickly adopting immature technology. This is technology with unmanageable costs, great potential for conflict and without functioning markets and value chains. Today’s political strategies also highlight an interesting paradox. Many studies point to great potential for emission cuts by making changes in how we live and consume. We know that society’s norms, culture and practices in many areas have changed enormously in recent decades. Nevertheless, today’s policy has few ambitions in this direction. While faith in new technology is almost limitless, many politicians have a fear of touch and think it is impossible to influence our collective choices. This becomes particularly clear in discussions about consumption or demand for goods and services. Many see this as a constant, almost naturally occurring quantity that is immune to change. Of course it isn’t. The best evidence that it is possible to change consumption can be found in the massive work being done from a commercial point of view to increase our consumption. The advertising industry has a turnover of around NOK 20 billion a year, based on an assumption that this drives up consumption. When your iPhone can no longer be updated or repaired, increased consumption is built into the technology design. To understand why our meat consumption eclipses that of our grandparents, we need to understand the industry structure and its information and lobbying apparatus. Over ten years, there has been active work to normalize consumption at a sky-high level. The result is a brutal imbalance. On the one hand, huge devices and huge resources that work against changing habits and work for increased consumption. On the other hand, the consumer’s choice and any conscience. Consumption is not just an individual matter, but an integral part of various systems, value chains and culture that have built up over time. These also have a weight and a direction that makes them difficult to change, for more reasons than you and I not wanting to adjust our own course. This means that policy for consumption change should have greater and more structural ambitions than persuading Kari and Ola to make better everyday choices. The Norwegian electric car policy is an example of this: it has been aimed at consumers, but also at industrial development, infrastructure, housing associations, the power system and car dealers. The result of many years of targeted policy at various levels has resulted in strong growth in the sale of rechargeable cars, but also a clear cultural change. Today, car owners with diesel in the tank are demanded an explanation for their exotic choice, rather than those who drive electric. When around 3,000 electric cars drove on Norwegian roads 13 years ago, today’s situation appeared utopian. Technological development will be important for the kind of planet we live on at the beginning of the 21st century. At the same time, the bottomless faith in new technology can act as a conservative sleeping pillow. Going forward, wise minds in business, the public sector and research must work as hard to identify and challenge the absurdities of the future as they do today with technology development. The first step is to see that such change is possible: We humans have always done this. Politics should wholeheartedly support this, as it currently supports new technology. In this way, it can ensure that we citizens do not stand alone with our own morality in the face of the enormous forces that would rather see us continue as before.
ttn-69
Climate absurdities of the future – Speech
