A new worldview on global challenges

Prof. Paolo Vineis,

Chair of Environmental Epidemiology at Imperial College, London

Policy Labs recently asked Prof. Paolo Vineis, Chair of Environmental Epidemiology at Imperial College, London, to share his insights on the G7 shared agenda, specifically on the topics of health and climate change.

Emphasizing that the goals presented in the Paris Agreement, COP25, Fit for 55, and the upcoming COP26 are extremely ambitious and require urgent action, Vineis expressed the view that mitigating climate change will require a balance between two broad strategies. The first strategy, a big focus of recent agendas, is essentially technological, based on implementing technologies like green hydrogen or nuclear power and, in general, quick shifts towards renewable energy. The second strategy is partially non-technological, harnessing the health-related ‘co-benefits’ of certain societal approaches to climate change mitigation

Commentary

A new worldview on global challenges
Paolo Vineis
August 6th, 2021

Policy Labs recently asked Prof. Paolo Vineis, Chair of Environmental Epidemiology at Imperial College, London, to share his insights on the G7 shared agenda, specifically on the topics of health and climate change.

Emphasizing that the goals presented in the Paris Agreement, COP25, Fit for 55, and the upcoming COP26 are extremely ambitious and require urgent action, Vineis expressed the view that mitigating climate change will require a balance between two broad strategies. The first strategy, a big focus of recent agendas, is essentially technological, based on implementing technologies like green hydrogen or nuclear power and, in general, quick shifts towards renewable energy. The second strategy is partially non-technological, harnessing the health-related ‘co-benefits’ of certain societal approaches to climate change mitigation. For example, dietary changes that limit meat consumption could decrease non-communicable diseases caused by excessive meat intake and the zoonoses/new pandemics associated with animal farming and deforestation, but also contribute to the mitigation of climate change by reducing methane emissions from animal farming. Changes in transportation, such as promotion of walking and cycling, could have similar co-benefits. These easily visible, health-related co-benefits could assist the implementation of behavioral changes that ultimately benefit our climate. While technological and non-technological approaches are not mutually exclusive, Vineis believes that “we need to make very detailed cost-benefit calculations and understand which of the two agendas would be better…it is a matter of emphasis”.

There are other ways that a shift in emphasis or ethical perspective could help the world to address not just climate change but other serious challenges, such as future pandemics. According to Vineis, “Through the (Covid-19) pandemic, we have realized that ethics goes beyond the concept of decisional autonomy of the individual; there is a big issue of responsibility toward the planet and this responsibility is global, it is not related to single individuals and their rights and duties, but it is in the hands of the whole of humankind”. The same is true with respect to climate change. Vineis distinguished between two types of ethical lenses through which global crises can be viewed, defined by the sociologist Max Weber: the ‘ethics of conviction’ and the ‘ethics of responsibility’. If we view the climate crisis through the ethics of conviction, founded in principles and beliefs, we must act immediately to address this crisis and avoid serious consequences in the long-term. This engenders a new sense of responsibility. But today’s politicians, frequently concerned with their own popularity, often weigh the short-term consequences of their actions and decisions more heavily, preferring the consequentialist lens of the short-term ethics of responsibility. According to Vineis, basing politics on this short-term ethics is unacceptable for addressing the climate crisis. “We cannot use the usual approach of politicians, which is based on compromise, trade-offs, and negotiations, because that’s too risky and too slow.” Instead, when addressing worldwide crises, politicians must make difficult choices based on the ethics of conviction (saving the planet first), even at the risk of becoming unpopular.  

Overuse of the planet’s resources is another looming crisis that could benefit from a shift in our ethical viewpoint, according to Vineis. While frequently overlooked, the overuse of resources could result in shortages of important rare-earth elements like lithium, or common goods like drinkable water. Such shortages could limit technological development, promote tensions between nations, and possibly result in wars. The Western worldview contributes to overuse of resources because it is based on a dichotomy between nature and culture, in which the provision of resources for human use is seen as nature’s main function. But, according to Vineis, “other cultures have a different perception of the planet, and that might help us to overcome the Western philosophy, which is very much based on resource extraction.” In those societies, including the Desana studied by anthropologist Philippe Descola, culture is strongly intertwined with nature; humankind, animals, and the planet are perceived as an interconnected system. Vineis believes that Western societies should try to incorporate similar values into the actions we take to address our current challenges. “Perhaps we have to go back to this vision because of the urgency of the planetary degradation,” said Vineis.

A complementary shift in perspective, brought into focus by the Covid-19 pandemic, involves moving from the default Western emphasis on individual responsibility toward one of global responsibility. The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk used the analogy of the immune response to describe this shift. Instead of viewing immunity as the defense of a limited group of people against ‘others’, we must develop ‘co-immunity’ – a defense of all humans against global threats. According to Vineis, such a shift in viewpoint requires overcoming both the Western dichotomy between nature and culture mentioned above and the significant obstructions posed by nationalism and populism.

The cultural and ethical shifts required to address the climate crisis and similar urgent threats necessitate ongoing dialogue between natural scientists, human scientists, and politicians. These typically separate groups must work together to address global challenges through well-coordinated, world-wide efforts. Further, Vineis believes that science should build upon the respect it has gained from the Covid-19 crisis, to attract the public’s attention toward other big challenges. To successfully handle future crises, said Vineis, “it is essential that scientists make an alliance with politicians, and that they go in the same direction as quickly as possible.”