Dilemmas of a renegade economist

This is a title that Kate Raworth has been called and one that I would be more than proud to one day earn: renegade economist. My sister said that I already am one. Maybe I'm becoming one. 

By a renegade economist, I mean someone who is fighting for a more ecologically and socially sustainable, fairer and kinder economic system. This year has been a big year of realizations for me. One of them is what Anni Marttinen writes in her book Hattaratalous: "You, who are studying economics right now and feel that you're different, because you also care about environmental and human rights-issues - you can be an economist all the same." 

I see change, system-level, fundamental change as a necessity for our survival. This is what fuels my activism and passion for demanding it. I can't unsee it anymore, I can't look away. 

And yet. I am a person who values peace, tranquility, calmness, and kindness so much. I am a sensitive soul and I want to spend my time being happy. This brings me to a dilemma: is sustainability work in conflict with this by nature? 

Not only do I love peace, tranquility and kindness, I also have a hard time making someone upset or angry. I would love to have everyone like me, or at least avoid having anyone be angry at me... And maybe this is something I have to learn how to tolerate, if I am to continue working in sustainability. 

Sustainability work, at its core, centers around challenging the status quo. It's about trying to change things, and as we all know, nothing changes without resistance. Let alone the economic system or economics. 

It was really moving to me to see a danish feminist author and human rights activist Emma Holten speak in Copenhagen a few weeks ago. She published a book on feminist economics last year that criticizes the fundamental assumptions about value that mainstream economics has. Assumptions such as, everything can be assigned a monetary value, or else it won't be taken into account. Emma Holten talks about this in the context of care work, nature, everthing that makes us human. In Copenhagen, she was a guest speaker at a Doughnut economics summer school that I attended, and shared that she'd received a violent pushback from established economists for her book (which by now has sold over 50,000 copies and has been translated into 12 languages). She was ridiculed, belittled, her right to talk about this topic was questioned. And she talked about how heavy it had been on her (I absolutely believe her on that, and all of us in the completely full lecture hall wanted to hug her). 

Still, she was there. And she spoke with such a firm passion, determination, and hope that it actually gave me chills and moved me (to tears). I have never seen a speech like that. It was amazing. All 250 of us listening gave her a standing applause at the end of it which she so, so deserved. 

Emma Holten is also what I would call a renegade. I would love to talk to her about this dilemma... How do you balance wanting to live in peace with fighting for something that's important to you? 

Edit: my friend worded this really well: It is also true that you can't truly live in peace without fighting for what’s important to you. One of the things that tames my climate anxiety is that I am active in these things. Stepping away from everything would also start feeling like I'm not myself. A while ago, talking to my friends about this, I said that my ideal 'me' is not someone who kept everyone happy, but someone who spoke her truth and stayed true to herself. 

Another important thing I read this year, is Moral Ambition by Rutger Bregman. As one of the first examples of people who changed the world, he introduces Thomas Clarkson, an English abolitionist in 1700s-1800s England, who was a leading activist for ending slavery in England (which was achieved in his lifetime). Thomas Clarkson experienced a collapse of his health and utter exhaustion at the age of 34, and stayed away from work for 11 years.  Bregman gives many other examples of similar stories in the book and emphasizes: even if we want to change the world, we have to take care of ourselves first. Not because "that way you can do the most good", but because you are valuable as you are.  

Even though I have never admired overachieving and believe nothing is worth burning yourself out, still, burnout is a looming threat to me too. This work can easily take too tight a grip of me, but I don't want to lose my joy. I don't want to stop living in the moment, stop being playful, and pointing out beautiful things around me. There is so much good in the world and after all that is also the reason why I do sustainability things. To protect the good. I shall - we all shall! - also remember to protect it in me - in us. 

These are the dilemmas I have thought about lately. I would love to hear if you can relate, reader. <3 

Radikaalista toivosta

Nomad Centuryn ensimmäisten kahden luvun lukeminen sai mut kyllä aivan tiloihin! Lukiessani sitä kirjaa ja sen lisäksi uutisia USA:sta, Gazasta, Ukrainasta ja muualta maailmasta musta tuntuu ihan siltä, että tilanne ilmastonmuutosta vastaan taistelun suhteen on toivoton. Että maailman hallitukset ei ota ilmaston tilaa vakavasti, oikea tahtotila tehdä ilmastotoimia puuttuu, että käytetään energiaa ihan muista, triviaaleista asioista väittelemiseen.

Miten tässä pitäisi pysyä toiveikkaana, olisi helppo kysyä, ja sitä oon viime päivinä miettinytkin. Mitä on toivo? Tarvitseeko siihen olla perusteita? Vai onko niin, että toivominen on tietoinen teko joka täytyy tehdä, jos aikoo jotain saavuttaa? Kun oon antanut itseni ajatella oikeasti maapallon vakavaa tilaa, optimismi ja toiveikkuuden säilyttäminen on alkanut tuntua radikaalilta tässä maailmantilanteessa. Mutta mikä sen vaihtoehto olisi? En voi myöskään voi luovuttaa, lakata välittämästä tai vaipua pysyvästi synkkyyteen.

Näin joskus jossain tämmöisen lainauksen: "When things seem dark, look around you. You might be the light." Seuraava lainaus puolestaan on lukenut post it-lapulla mun peilissä ja mun huoneen seinällä jo melkein vuoden, ja katson sitä joka päivä: "Hope is being able to see that there is light. Despite all the darkness." -Desmond Tutu

Ehkä juuri silloin, kun tuntuu että tilanne on niin hirveä että sen ajattelu ahdistaa, ehkä juuri silloin toivolla on suurin merkitys. Vaikka se tuntuisi kuinka radikaalilta ja joukkoonkuulumattomalta tunteelta, niin ehkä juuri silloin pitää uskaltaa toivoa. Mä nimittäin uskon, että toivollakin on dominoefekti. Vaikkei sitä heti näkisi.

Mun omassa elämässä oon viime vuosina käynyt läpi yhden henkilökohtaisen taistelun, jossa toivo meinasi mennä monta kertaa. Kamppailin kaksi vuotta kroonisen kivun kanssa, ja se teki mun elämästä kohtalaisen helvettiä. Mä menetin ilon ja helppouden lähes kaikesta mistä mun arki koostui: opiskelusta, vapaaehtoishommista, liikunnasta, pienet kotiaskareista, kirjoittamisesta ja lukemisestakin. Jossain vaiheessa mun työstäkin. Pelkäsin, että menetän myös mun sisällä olevan core-minän, sen joka palavasti haluaa tehdä kaikkia noita asioita ja saada hyviä juttuja aikaan. Möyrin yksinäisessä pimeydessä ja mietin, että mitä jos tästä ei nousta. Palasin kuitenkin aina ajatukseen, että kyllä mä uskallan vielä toivoa, että paranen tästä. Se oli usein ainoa asia mikä sai mut rauhoittumaan ja piti mua pinnalla. Tunsin olevani häkissä ja olin siitä vihainen koko ajan, ja ainoa asia mikä sai mut tuntemaan itseni omaksi itsekseni, oli toivo siitä, että tulevaisuudessa mä olen vapaa ja saan mun elämän takaisin.

Ja lopulta niin kävi, että mä paranin. Monen mutkan jälkeen sain vihdoin sellaista apua joka oikeesti toimi. Sen avun avulla aloin vihdoin ymmärtää, mistä mun krooninen kipu tulee ja kuinka mun pitäisi käsitellä sitä, ja sitten se alkoi laantua. Ihme, johon mä välillä jaksoin uskoa ja välillä en, joka koko ajan tuntui niin kaukaiselta että sitä hädin tuskin näki, tapahtui.

Tää kokemus on vähintäänkin opettanut mulle siitä, kuinka tärkeää toivo on. Välillä se on ainoa asia, jonka takia jaksaa, ja se on paljon enemmän kuin ei mitään. Paljon paljon enemmän kuin ettei olisi mitään.

Musta tuntuu, että myös ihmiskunnan tulevaisuutta värittävissä globaaleissa haasteissa ainoa vaihtoehto on valita radikaali toivo. Ehkä se on mun paras mahdollinen vastaus kysymykseen, että mitä tässä pitäisi tehdä. Pysyä pehmeänä, uskoa hyvään, siihen ihan pieneenkin määrään hyvää. Huomata kaikki ympärillä oleva hyvä. Siellä se kuitenkin on. Kaiken sen pahan ohella. Ja se on paljon enemmän kuin ei mitään.

Thoughts on Nomad Century by Gaia Vince

I've been reading Nomad Century by Gaia Vince lately, and picking up that book inspired me to start writing my thoughts around sustainability topics here in this blog. The book is actually terrifying, because what it's saying is true:

The world is headed into a disaster, and we constantly forget about it. I forget about it, even though I’m in a very aware and educated bubble: I study economics and sustainability and think about the ongoing triple crisis of the world daily. Almost everyone around me at uni also deeply cares about the planet and is studying sustainability. I read the news on a regular basis. And still, I forget how urgently climate action is needed: We're currently on track for a heating between 3°C and 4°C, which would be a nightmare world.

Vince describes in the book how a 4 °C warming would transform the planet to unrecognizable from anything humans have seen before: the Sahara desert will expand to the Mediterranean area, South and Central Europe, while most of the incredibly humid tropical Africa, Asia and South America will become uninhabitable for most of the year because of intolerable heat. The Amazonian rainforest will be dried because of weakening trade winds along the equitor, increasing fires, turning the rainforest into grassland. 

What has really struck me about the book so far is that a 4°C warming is more likely than people realize. According to the IPCC, a 4°C could be reached by the year 2100 if we follow an 'intermediate economic pathway' in which our emissions will peak by 2040 and then start gradually dropping. By 2040. Looking at the current level of political commitment to climate action and emissions reduction, peaking our emissions by 2040 seems ambitious to me. And that would lead to vast areas of the globe, home to billions of people, becoming uninhabitable.

No one, (NO ONE!!!) seems to take this as seriously as it should be taken. It is so bizarre, so absurd, so maddening and simply just so unbelievable to me: why isn't this a top priority for all governments? Instead, the US is fighting over misinformation, hate and lies are spreading and people are living strictly in their own imaginary worlds. This combination is almost too much to think about, seriously. But it is the truth about the world right now, so I don't think we can ignore it either. 

I've been thinking, and talking with my friends lately about what to do. How to continue. What kind of action would have the biggest impact? What is the right way forward? 

Is it to read, read and read - articles and scientific papers, the news, books like Nomad Century or Less is More or Doughnut Economics - become more and more educated, aware of the facts of what is happening, and then starting discussions? Discussing with peers, family and friends, organizing events for the university community that brings even more students and field experts together to discuss? Education, reading, discussing? I've been doing this this spring. I organized a panel discussion at Aalto with the topic "Green growth or Degrowth - What saves our planet?" and invited four experts from different backgrounds to have a conversation about the feasibility of green economic growth and the alternative pathway, degrowth, on stage. It was a very interesting discussion and it drew a lot of attention, we had an audience of about 120 people who asked very good questions and also continued talking about the topic with me on campus in the weeks after the event. 

But how impactful is all this reading, talking and thinking? 

The state of the climate emergency is so alarming that I can't help but feel that maybe the university way of doing things is too slow. So is the right way forward then something more grassroots? 

Is it to start your own project and inspire others to do the same - like starting a community garden to grow your own food? Or inventing a solution for some part of the climate crisis - like a sustainable, circular solar panel - and making it a successful startup? Focusing on one thing that is improving some small part of the society in a meaningful way, and being happy with that. 

In other words, I keep thinking: is it better to hold on to thinking about the whole system, staying at this high level of thinking, questioning deep assumptions and values integrated in our society and system? Or is it better to pick one battle, focus your energy on doing one good grassroots thing well, and save the energy from all the reading. 

Or, does the right way forward include becoming an activist, taking this frustration and rage out on the streets, trying to wake up the decision makers who just don't seem to care?

I believe there are so many ways to try to improve the planet, and all of them are needed. But what is the best, the most impactful way, is the question I have had in my mind lately. I guess it also depends on the person, different ways work for different people. I love reading - and thinking about the whole system - but sometimes I feel like a hypocrite or someone who keeps thinking but doesn't actually do anything. 

But I am working on that too.
If you want to share your thoughts, I'd be more than happy to hear <3 (my Instagram is @annahakola :3)