Econormalisation (early version 0.2)
Hypernormalisation is a term Alexei Yurchak used to describe the end times of the Soviet Union. Everyone sensed that the system was not working. The social norm was so propagandized that no one could think of an alternative. Workers knew that bosses and leaders were corrupt and bosses and leaders knew that workers knew. The system was unsustainable. A post-truth system.
A similar reality is currently active within the greenwashing movement. Everyone knows that the top 20% of people are producing over two-thirds of the emissions. People in the top twenty percent are running around in circles trying to figure how to reduce twenty gigatonnes of emissions. From the lower 80% that produce a bit over ten. So that the top guys wouldn’t have to change their ways any more than cosmetic changes in diet or buying another car with lower emissions. Talking about your own or your friend’s carbon quota is taboo. Especially in the political green circles. Try to ask about the consensus of an exemplary or reasonable quota and you’ll get stonewalled. Too uncomfortable and painful a question. This is econormalisation.
What is exemplary and what is reasonable in terms of emissions? We are using two optimistically rounded numbers. Once these are within reach, the parameters can be refined or even changed. But for now, the most pressing metric is consumption that generates carbon emissions. It is not the only metric but it is currently the most crucial and easy to comprehend one.
Planet earth absorbs twenty billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. There are around seven billion of us. Sink divided by people is roughly three tonnes. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from growing this is the limit we need to hit. The exemplary footprint for the coming years. A target for any ecologically speaking individual should aim for. A bit more strict version of 2500 kg is well hidden in the depths of the EU 2030 target wording. Let's call this the cool threshold.
The lower 60% of people are emitting only a bit over a ton on average, so that lowers the total nicely. This brings us to the quick fix level. The level where a cap on personal emissions should be placed to get us to neutral. And that level is six tonnes with the same ballpark style rounding up.
If every person on the planet currently emitting more than this would adhere to the six tonnes cap the buildup of carbon dioxide would stop. And with technological advances, it would start diminishing soon. A target anyone considering themselves as a decent human being should aim for.
The data this six tonnes is based on is sketchy at best. We're living in Finland where the average emissions are a bit over ten tonnes thus the median will naturally be somewhat lower. Should the hot threshold be at six tonnes, the median will be at the hot threshold or at minimum within reach. Imagine having one of the richest countries in the world having half of its population living somewhat sustainably? And already or within a few years?
Let’s call this the hot threshold.
To stir the soup a bit we're going to add another divider in the drawing. The division between eco guys and normies.
Eco guys are the ones identifying ecological and sustainable. Talking with “green talk”. Definitely within the cool threshold right? Except that eco guys also include the growing greenwashing crowd who have shown up to reap the hype. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to divide the real green talkers from the greenwashers?
Normies are the ones not talking in green terms. They’re mostly normal people that worry about bread on the table and feel overwhelmed about the complicated and abstract terms being used to talk about the environmental crisis. This doesn’t mean they’re not worried about the future of the planet or their children. They just haven’t had meaningful control over the environment. A very limited number of people are so privileged that they can choose their meals and cars based on environmental facts but still, two-thirds of the world's population knows that the environment is in a crisis.
The N0 & E0 segments are a part of the solution. Two-thirds of the population is within these two. E1 & N1 consists of a good portion of people in the developed countries. The N groups are just a push away from being E, this is where we should pay tribute to the ones being sustainable without even thinking about it. If you’re in the zero group or heading towards the cool threshold already in 2021 you’re a good guy for sure.
N2 group is part of the problem indeed but is it reasonable to expect this group to change before the green talking crowd has reached a consensus to hit, at minimum, the hot threshold? We don’t think so. A good part of these guys are within reach of the hot threshold and after that only a nudge away from being N1. Provided that we can eradicate the greenwash from the E row altogether.
Everyone who talks about sustainability knows that carbon footprint and excessive consumption is the problem. And that the carefree emissions of the wealthy minority are the main cause for the environmental symptoms. And that to create a change it's generally a good idea to lead by example instead of micromanaging. Right?
E2 is a group that is paradoxical as it simply should not exist. Or at minimum a segment that needs to justify their dissonance to the rest of the grid.
What causes E2 to think they’re part of the solution rather than the problem itself? Is it stupidity, ideal naiveness, Bill Gates syndrome where only millionaires can do any good, greed-based greenwashing as there is big money involved these days, groupthink where the most important question is being skipped in favor of confirmation biased thinking?
No one knows but it's time to figure this out. By putting pressure on the E2’s to start talking about this taboo. To help E2 reduce their number below the two and towards the goal that should for sure be their target. To put the walk back into the talk.
The second degree of econormalisation is the point where we’ve added enough pressure to E2’s and have split them to E1 and N2. Or even N1 should they so wish. The first step in this process could be asking these few questions:
By no means is this a conclusive set of questions, but it might give you a good starting point in evaluating someone. Now go out and try this out. Let others know the outcome with #econormalisation or #econormies hashtags.
Once E2 has been split between E1 and N2 there is no need for this division anymore. There’ll be an H group as in humans and the group that does not feel the responsibility to make things right. And the latter group will be small in their numbers and eventually in their power.
The UN global climate poll states that two-thirds of people think that the climate crisis is a global emergency. People are ready for a change. What is needed now is a simple enough framework for everyone to grasp. Not as the only tool but to establish the rough specs of reasonable and exemplary. And to highlight the group that has the key to the solution. And that is exactly what we are going to try.
One part of the change begins with you. Compare every decision you make with the grid.
Another part is the influencers. E2’s. On the first ten times, these words will bounce back from the influencers. Or even a hundred. But once they’ve seen other influencers accepting the specs and enough mentions of the framework, they’ll come around.
This is a rough draft based on results of a previous campaign that took place before Finnish communal elections. The results highlighted the fact that most of the eco talking candidates recoil in horror when asked these three simple questions:
This is a question that should be the bread and butter for anyone who is trying to get into decision making in a wealthy country. But why is this not true?
The EU target for 2030 has the emission cut targets listed on a population level. As in the change is supposed to be only systematic and there's no need for individual behavioural change. Our hypothesis is that the personal part has been left out because the decision makers are scared shitless of themselves having to change.
There’s a heavy correlation between being a decision maker and wealth. Also the decision makers are well networked in the top emission percentage of people. And here is the bubble we’re going to pierce.
What do you think would happen, should the world be united in the personal carbon cap?
Us making sure that no one is using excessive resources on this side of the planet and you over there. Corrupt leaders being limited in their excessive consumption by us. Would this be a building force in eradicating the extreme greed and exploitation of both the people and nature?
kolmentonninarmeija (a) gmail.com
https://t.me/korvdahl
The previous iteration "Three Ton Army" in Finnish can be found at 3TA and translated somewhat okayish with Google translate.
The next iteration and summary can be found from 0.3
