-
My regular text reviewer wrote with Track Changes the following in the draft version of Blog 16:
“It is good that there are promises linked to the objective, these Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), but are they being fulfilled? Has there been real progress made or is this all just boasting and a ‘smoke show’?
The answer to this fair remark should of course be included in a blog that handles how it is planned to meet the objective of the Paris Climate Agreement. As a reminder, this one entails: limit global warming to maximally 2 °C by the end of the century compared to the global average temperature of before the industrial revolution. The paragraph containing the requested progress report was ready to be posted as a part of Blog 16. I however decided against it at the very last minute. Because even though the basis can be written in a couple of sentences, the context deserves extra consideration.What had to cover it:
Considering we are only in the first five year cycle of the plan’s execution, there are almost no results available yet. We can thus not verify whether the chosen method, as it is written into the Paris Agreement, will actually lead to the desired result. Furthermore we will have to be patient because the effects of our efforts will be observed with delay. This transition takes time. The most important thing is that all parties remain focused on the execution of their predetermined contributions (NDCs) and that these are more ambitiously formulated every five years.
I stand by this.
However, what should be mentioned alongside it:
The results that will be perceived with delay while we are on track to meet the objective, will be mostly things we do not see. The winnings will be hidden in what remains unaltered: the natural disaster that does not hit the city, the species that does not go extinct, the island that does not disappear under water, the not melting area of the glacier, the summer that passes without a heat wave, the coral reef that does not bleach,… It is all about ‘near misses’ and to value these non-happenings correctly forms a difficult thought experiment for humankind. How do you celebrate that the cyclist did not get hit by a car at the intersection that was made more traffic safe?
What makes this even more complex is that we will not be able to escape all consequences. Global warming is a fact and the average temperature increase that we are now already experiencing will further incline. The status-quo is transitioning. Prevention is no longer part of the dropdown menu.
The fact that consequently a lot of disasters ‘hit’, comes with suffering, tragedy, disappointment and sorrow. To, while clearing rubble, keep in mind that thanks to our efforts to limit global warming the situation is not even worse, is a lot to ask. Because how do you celebrate that the cyclist did not get hit by a car at the intersection that was made more traffic safe when two intersections further down the road a lethal accident occurs?
In these circumstances it is extremely difficult not to lose courage. We let statements slip such as ‘this does not work anyway’ or ‘it is a lost cause’. This may lead to discontinuation of participation and just that we are absolutely required to prevent from happening. Because we have a job to do: limit the size of the eventual consequence and make adaptations so we can, considering a new status-quo, experience a dignified existence on our home planet.
This is within our possibilities.
And it matters.So there you go, my dearest reviewer, now this is covered.
Column 2 - Near miss
My regular text reviewer wrote with Track Changes the following in the draft version of Blog 16:
“It is good that there are promises linked to the objective, these Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), but are they being fulfilled? Has there been real progress made or is this all just boasting and a ‘smoke show’?
The answer to this fair remark should of course be included in a blog that handles how it is planned to meet the objective of the Paris Climate Agreement. As a reminder, this one entails: limit global warming to maximally 2 °C by the end of the century compared to the global average temperature of before the industrial revolution. The paragraph containing the requested progress report was ready to be posted as a part of Blog 16. I however decided against it at the very last minute. Because even though the basis can be written in a couple of sentences, the context deserves extra consideration.
What had to cover it:
Considering we are only in the first five year cycle of the plan’s execution, there are almost no results available yet. We can thus not verify whether the chosen method, as it is written into the Paris Agreement, will actually lead to the desired result. Furthermore we will have to be patient because the effects of our efforts will be observed with delay. This transition takes time. The most important thing is that all parties remain focused on the execution of their predetermined contributions (NDCs) and that these are more ambitiously formulated every five years.
I stand by this.
However, what should be mentioned alongside it:
The results that will be perceived with delay while we are on track to meet the objective, will be mostly things we do not see. The winnings will be hidden in what remains unaltered: the natural disaster that does not hit the city, the species that does not go extinct, the island that does not disappear under water, the not melting area of the glacier, the summer that passes without a heat wave, the coral reef that does not bleach,… It is all about ‘near misses’ and to value these non-happenings correctly forms a difficult thought experiment for humankind. How do you celebrate that the cyclist did not get hit by a car at the intersection that was made more traffic safe?
What makes this even more complex is that we will not be able to escape all consequences. Global warming is a fact and the average temperature increase that we are now already experiencing will further incline. The status-quo is transitioning. Prevention is no longer part of the dropdown menu.
The fact that consequently a lot of disasters ‘hit’, comes with suffering, tragedy, disappointment and sorrow. To, while clearing rubble, keep in mind that thanks to our efforts to limit global warming the situation is not even worse, is a lot to ask. Because how do you celebrate that the cyclist did not get hit by a car at the intersection that was made more traffic safe when two intersections further down the road a lethal accident occurs?
In these circumstances it is extremely difficult not to lose courage. We let statements slip such as ‘this does not work anyway’ or ‘it is a lost cause’. This may lead to discontinuation of participation and just that we are absolutely required to prevent from happening. Because we have a job to do: limit the size of the eventual consequence and make adaptations so we can, considering a new status-quo, experience a dignified existence on our home planet.
This is within our possibilities.
And it matters.
So there you go, my dearest reviewer, now this is covered.
-
I am at the edge of my seat, all tense, ready to smoothly turn 180° on my bar stool and face them. My heart is beating fast and I press my lips together. The dialogues are forming and floating in speech balloons in my head. Simultaneously I wonder how this all escalated so quickly.
It had been fairly calm when I entered the coffee bar this morning. I had chosen a seat at one of the high chairs by the window. Fun spot, right behind the bar and looking out over the street. Some school kids with fluorescent vests were searching an anonymous white van under the supervision of three police officers. It looked like an animated school morning and also the officers seemed happy that the assignment of the day was slightly different than normal. I had opened my notebook to start the research on Blog 14 and ordered a cappuccino, with regular milk.
A young woman was hanging at the bar, engaged in cozy conversation with one of the baristas – friends clearly. Just like me the second barista, who had just taken my order, was listening along. They were talking about eating tasty vegetarian food, very casual.
I must have missed the transition but suddenly the eavesdropper advanced the following: ‘I am always very disappointed whenever I find out that the owners of a vegan restaurant are not vegan themselves.’ The two friends kept quiet. I was all ears. ‘I have the feeling they are then taking advantage of that market. The least they can do is become vegan themselves. That’s only a small effort,’ she continued to explain. ‘Because if you are vegan yourself, you are more creative with the recipes,’ the girl hanging at the bar suggested, to better understand. ‘No, not necessarily, I just think it is unethical. They are taking advantage of that market.’ This shared honest opinion was not particularly met with approval, but it was not refuted either.So here am I. I shift a bit back and forth on my chair to get rid of the built up energy. Luckily I know from an own bartending past that when in conversation with a colleague even more annoying than somebody actively listening in, is the unprompted interference by a customer. I thus decide to hold my tongue. You are now absolutely entitled to point out that eavesdropping and consecutively, without possibility of reply, sharing this information on a public forum is even more impolite, but ok, we have already gotten this far by now.
What I would like to say.How so unethical? Always keep the primary goal in mind. Vegans (and a lot of non-vegans) are striving for the following: minimize animal suffering and/or make the world more sustainable by consuming no (or less) animal products. Every meal sold in a vegan restaurant serves this purpose: a person is calorically (and hopefully nutritionally) fed with plant based food. In the ‘taking-advantage-of-the-market’-reasoning we are assuming this case handles a well performing business. So hooray, even better: the unethical owner succeeds to attract a lot of people which increases the positive impact. Vegans moreover often bring their non-vegan friends and family to this crowded establishment which means that people who would have otherwise eaten a non-vegan meal are at this particular moment not consuming animal products. That is a double win.
That the owners, after their working hours, with the earned profits extorted from innocent vegans and their friends, cook up a tasty vegetarian dish at home or pick up a hamburger from McDonald’s, is secondary to the cause. It does not annihilate the gains. And it is also not unethical.Phew, this is a relief.
My imaginary collocutor comes over and kindly asks if I want something else to drink.
Another cappuccino please, with oat milk this time.
Column 1 - Unethical veganism
I am at the edge of my seat, all tense, ready to smoothly turn 180° on my bar stool and face them. My heart is beating fast and I press my lips together. The dialogues are forming and floating in speech balloons in my head. Simultaneously I wonder how this all escalated so quickly.
It had been fairly calm when I entered the coffee bar this morning. I had chosen a seat at one of the high chairs by the window. Fun spot, right behind the bar and looking out over the street. Some school kids with fluorescent vests were searching an anonymous white van under the supervision of three police officers. It looked like an animated school morning and also the officers seemed happy that the assignment of the day was slightly different than normal. I had opened my notebook to start the research on Blog 14 and ordered a cappuccino, with regular milk.
A young woman was hanging at the bar, engaged in cozy conversation with one of the baristas – friends clearly. Just like me the second barista, who had just taken my order, was listening along. They were talking about eating tasty vegetarian food, very casual.
I must have missed the transition but suddenly the eavesdropper advanced the following: ‘I am always very disappointed whenever I find out that the owners of a vegan restaurant are not vegan themselves.’ The two friends kept quiet. I was all ears. ‘I have the feeling they are then taking advantage of that market. The least they can do is become vegan themselves. That’s only a small effort,’ she continued to explain. ‘Because if you are vegan yourself, you are more creative with the recipes,’ the girl hanging at the bar suggested, to better understand. ‘No, not necessarily, I just think it is unethical. They are taking advantage of that market.’ This shared honest opinion was not particularly met with approval, but it was not refuted either.
So here am I. I shift a bit back and forth on my chair to get rid of the built up energy. Luckily I know from an own bartending past that when in conversation with a colleague even more annoying than somebody actively listening in, is the unprompted interference by a customer. I thus decide to hold my tongue. You are now absolutely entitled to point out that eavesdropping and consecutively, without possibility of reply, sharing this information on a public forum is even more impolite, but ok, we have already gotten this far by now.
What I would like to say.
How so unethical? Always keep the primary goal in mind. Vegans (and a lot of non-vegans) are striving for the following: minimize animal suffering and/or make the world more sustainable by consuming no (or less) animal products. Every meal sold in a vegan restaurant serves this purpose: a person is calorically (and hopefully nutritionally) fed with plant based food. In the ‘taking-advantage-of-the-market’-reasoning we are assuming this case handles a well performing business. So hooray, even better: the unethical owner succeeds to attract a lot of people which increases the positive impact. Vegans moreover often bring their non-vegan friends and family to this crowded establishment which means that people who would have otherwise eaten a non-vegan meal are at this particular moment not consuming animal products. That is a double win.
That the owners, after their working hours, with the earned profits extorted from innocent vegans and their friends, cook up a tasty vegetarian dish at home or pick up a hamburger from McDonald’s, is secondary to the cause. It does not annihilate the gains. And it is also not unethical.
Phew, this is a relief.
My imaginary collocutor comes over and kindly asks if I want something else to drink.
Another cappuccino please, with oat milk this time.
Sign up to get notified by e-mail about new blog posts or events.
And make sure to check your spam on the first Tuesday after signing up. I might have ended up there. 😉