Nature rebels

Extreme conditions

In Catalonia, it is estimated that since 1950, the average air temperature has gone up 0.23°C each decade. However, over the next 10 years, this temperature rise is expected to be 0.8°C, while by the middle of the century it could have gone up to 1.4°C, according to a number of reports from a variety of Catalan public bodies. A large part of this rise will take place during the summer months and will above all affect the counties in the Pyrenees, where the incidence of wildfires could also increase. As for rainfall, the forecasts are not so precise, even though there are indications that the volume of precipitation is likely to drop. It does seem that there will be more natural risks, although it is not clear whether that will be as the direct consequence of climate change or due to socioeconomic factors.

Some examples: the progressive ageing of the population will mean there will be more groups at risk from heat waves, the exaggerated consumption of water to which we are accustomed will make droughts worse and, as has already been seen, allowing the urbanisation of certain areas at risk will increase their vulnerability to flooding, especially in the case of flash floods. Extreme temperatures, large wildfires, and increasing storms need to be added to this scenario of natural catastrophes. Faced with such a complex panorama, one of the objectives of the 2030 Agenda – the UN’s roadmap that aims to achieve sustainable development on a global scale – is to implement measures that not only mitigate climate change, but also tackle its effects. Whatever happens, it will no doubt leave a world that is more difficult to govern.

Governing a world in crisis

One of the most recent theories about how the environmental crisis we are facing will be governed is posited in the book the Climate Leviathan by US experts in political theory, Geoff Mann and Joel Wainwright. They place the possibilities for governing the crisis on a dual axis: the question of sovereignty, and the capitalist model. As for the former, on the one hand there is the option of giving priority to national sovereignty in decision making (some examples would be the isolationist policies under the Donald Trump presidency or the decision of British voters to leave the European Union), and on the other opting for a model of global governance as the only way out of this problem.

As for capitalism, the option is to continue with it or not, which provides us with four possible scenarios in confronting climate change. If national sovereignty is strengthened and the capitalist model maintained, we will find ourselves in an every-man-for-himself situation. “It’s Trump’s slogan of ’Make America great again’. A sort of carpe diem in which we continue to burn through the reserves of fossil fuels for the benefit of a few, who are your own,” says Àngel Castiñeira, professor at Esade business school and chair of Leadership and Democratic Governance. What’s more, this scenario, which would be completely unsustainable, could only go on for so long, according to experts.

A second possibility would be the ecologists’ paradise: global governance based on local movements and that rejects capitalism in favour of models of degrowth, with much more austerity. In this scenario, a type of global governance would be developed in which, to try to mitigate the increase in temperatures and the resulting ecological tsunami, a new circular economy not based on capitalism would manage itself. This model is not considered realistic by the authors of the Climate Leviathan theory either.

Environmental authoritarianism

The third possibility is national and authoritarian governance with an alternative capitalist system. This is known as Climate Mao, even though it is not specifically about China. The reference to the Communist leader is justified because the Asian giant is currently much more sensitised to the climate issue than Trump’s United States. “Since the Olympic Games in 2008 in Beijing, when factories had to be closed to allow the athletes to compete, the Chinese government has begun to change. And the same thing is happening in India,” says Castiñeira. This model foresees a strong state leading a transition to cleaner energy models. It would not be a global solution, but would be implemented in autocratic countries with centralised governments. “Unlike the Soviet collapse, where the authorities were unable to manage the complexity of a new market, climate change could be managed in an authoritarian way thanks to big data. New technology would allow for this. In fact, there’s no doubt that some autocratic states are better prepared for technological globalisation than the democracies,” says Castiñeira.

“It’s tough,” he adds, “but from the point of view of centralisation these models have a capacity for reaction that is quicker than that of democracies, which do not believe in absolute power and are limited and controlled. Democracy is linear thinking, it’s slower because it has to create consensus after a lot of discussion.” However, the authoritarian model can bypass these steps and act more quickly. China and its monumental infrastructure projects is an example: the high-speed train that links Beijing and Shanghai, a distance of over 13,000 kilometres, was thought up in 2004 and finished by 2011. Obviously, Climate Mao means less legitimacy but also more efficiency, and comes closest to matching the exponential speed of change that is coming.

Climate Leviathan

Finally, the model that seems the most applicable, according to the experts, is Climate Leviathan: a type of world authority that, without renouncing capitalism, could decide at each moment who, when and how greenhouse gases are emitted, pushing through incentives or penalties for states that comply or do not comply with its directives. Structures like the United Nations or the European Union could be consolidated along these lines. As the planet is everyone’s common destiny, and without giving up on the idea of growth, this global government would necessarily try to “tame” capitalism.

However, all of the above are just possibilities. According to professor Castiñeira, if we are being realistic, the most likely thing is that we will not find ourselves in any of these four scenarios over the next decade. “Perhaps there will be governance on a regional scale, along the lines of the EU, NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), Mercosur (a South American trade bloc), APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)... regional frameworks that take on a global governmental structure in aspects related to climate change,” he says.

What will no doubt happen, because it has already begun, is the transfer of what climate change implies to many other disciplines, such as justice, ethics, politics, economics, and so on. These changes will affect everything. In this sense, Castiñeira considers the figure of Greta Thunberg to be significant. “For the first time, children are demanding explanations from their parents. We are seeing how the changes brought about on an initial level are being transferred to a secondary level. Faced with climate change, how will we live? How will justice be carried out? What will it mean for us to act correctly?” wonders the professor.

Meanwhile, what is happening in Catalonia? As in the rest of the world, work continues in fits and starts. One such interruption was the imposition of direct rule from Madrid in 2017 following the independence bid, which paralysed the Catalan government’s activities for a year. Nevertheless, the 2030 Agenda was approved in September, and this year the authorities will launch a national plan that is intended to involve all the major actors, from companies and unions to universities and associations. Some work is also being done in cities, which will have a big role to play in the future.

New lifestyles

According to Castiñeira, in Catalonia, as everywhere else, there are the pioneers, the sceptics, and those who are waiting to see what happens next. The professor also believes that most politicians are entirely aware of the scale of the problem, but that they also know that whoever is the first to make drastic changes will face a huge backlash, because the changes needed will profoundly change people’s lifestyles. “Either we all get involved in this, or there will always be those who are happy to try to continue to get by as we are,” he says.

Yet, small though they might be, things are beginning to happen, and Esade is seeing, for example, that an increasing number of companies are starting to look for heads of sustainability. However, the situation is frightening, and so far we have been much quicker in understanding the problem than in reacting to it.