Archive

Dear Brussels,

Let’s be clear. We can’t ignore it anymore. Scientists have confirmed. Our planet is warming up. Humans are responsible for it. And the consequences are serious.

For those who are still sceptical: the proof is in the numbers, and more specifically the ones from the reports from the IPCC.

• The planet has warmed up 1° since 1880.
• 95% of the climate warming is caused by human activity.
• We can burn 1 trillion tons of carbon before we run the risk of causing dangerous climate change.

Eh wait, climate what? So this doesn’t have to do with recycling my trash? This movie refreshens what it’s all about…

And what about Belgium?

On the Belgian climate website (FR/NL) we learn that the yearly average temperature in Ukkel is 2,3° higher than in the pre-industrial period.

The 20 warmest years since 1833 are in the period between 1989–2017.

The frequency of heat waves increased since 1970 from 1 every 3 year to 1 every year.

The amount of days with heavy rainfall has increasedsince 1950 from 3 to 6 days a year.

The amount of rainfall in the winter increases.

So,… change is needed. And we need to act now.

But wait, Belgium already agreed to become more ambitious, since they have signed the Paris Agreement, right?

The goals of this agreement are challenging but necessary to fulfill: keep the climate warming below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °.

But how?

Well, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is technologically feasible and economically attractive. Many concrete solutions exist and are communicated.

Those solutions require a plan for transition, but again, many tools are made to help governments put priorities and take the right decisions.

Belgian politicians struggle to translate these ambitions into policy plans though.

And citizens protest. Youngsters do school strike. Companies gather forces. Artists speak up. Activists of all kind come on the streets.

One group of protesters seems different than the others though. The Gilets Jaunes have socio-economic motivations for protesting and claim rising fuel prices, high cost of living, and unfair tax systems.

They protest in a different way. Definitely. But their demands are interlinked with the ones of the other activists.

Climate change affects us all, but…

Climate change is unfair. The people who have benefited the least from our fossil fuel dependencies, and who are contributing the least greenhouse gas emissions, are suffering the most from the consequences.

Responses to climate change are also unfair. People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically or otherwise excluded or marginalized typically profit the least from environmental subsidies, low carbon transportation options, resilience measures and energy efficiency savings.

Tackling climate change and growing inequalities simultaneously needs everyone. And it is impossible to tackle climate change without also tackling inequality, and vice-versa.

This has lead us to a very important question:

How will everyone thrive in a climate-proof Brussels in 2030?

Everyone. We talk about Brussels. The most cosmopolitan city of Europe, with a highly diverse population living together on little space, and with many social challenges. 30% of the population lives under the poverty line, the climate isn’t really their first worry. Most families rent, so climate subsidies for renovation aren’t beneficial for them. And a big part of the emissions is caused by commuters, while the people that have to work in the bad quality air, are vulnerable groups.

It makes sense to look at solutions on a city level. The problems in cities are similar and there is a lot of knowledge to exchange.

Besides, cities are the drivers of change. Cities are 3 times more likely to take action if a goal or target has been established. And cities are close to their population. They know their vulnerable population and what the social and cultural challenges are.

So far the challenges, what about the opportunities?

Climate actions bring wider social, economic and environmental co-benefits, such as air quality improvement, low cost renewable energy andemployment opportunities.

Following a low-carbon and climate resilient development path can create a more inclusive urban society.

Inclusivity in climate action planning means:

• engagement of a wide range of communities and stakeholders(inclusivity of the process)
• fairness and accessibility in design and delivery (inclusivity of the policy)
• wider benefits of action as equitably distributed as possible (inclusivity of the impact)

We can learn how to jointly tackle climate change and inequality from existing cases, from e.g. the Inclusive Climate Action report from the C40.

Just a few ideas:

• Build plans that support everyone, and focus on the most vulnerable to climate change
• Implement projects that address multiple needs and provide countless benefits
• Build a diverse and inclusive steering group to ensure successful implementation
• Create access and pricing structures that allow low-income communities to participate
• Hire from local communities to create multiple benefits for residents and increase outreach Adapt your engagement methods based on the target audience
• Use engagement to leverage buy-in from other levels of government
• Create a central public engagement unit to pool resources
• Reach out to the private sector to prompt action
• …

The knowledge is out there. Let’s find a way to make the transition to Brussels 2030 not only green but also just!

It is urgent for cities to transition to ‘green’. Yet climate-friendly initiatives are also at risk of increasing inequalities. The yellow vests movement sparked from exactly this tension: endeavours towards ecological transition, that do not take into account their negative impact on ordinary citizens.

Do ecological measures have to be detrimental to less wealthy citizens — or can the transition towards a green city be an opportunity for all?

Smoothie recipes for ecological transition: “Green Detox” or “Green Disaster”?

Imagine Brussels in 2030. A green, eco and climate-friendly city. People have electric cars and houses are passive with solar panels and energy-saving windows. Most people eat healthy, locally-sourced foods. Connected citizens use apps to participate in politics and influence decision-makers directly.

Futuristic eco-cities are often painted as a green paradise.

But what if half of that paradise was a mirage?

What if, as fossil fuel cars are forbidden, poorer citizens have to abandon their vehicle despite living in zones that are not well-connected with public transport. What if strict passive housing requirements prevent the less wealthy from renovating, worsening unsanitary living conditions.

What if organic foods remain a privilege for those with a comfortable wallet. What if, while wealthy people still use over ten times more carbon than poorer people, they also still pay 4 times less taxes. And what if children in less privileged neighbourhoods have no knowledge of the apps that their privileged counterparts use to participate in society, influence politics and educate themselves.

As a result, frustration remains on the rise. A ruling elite is increasingly out of touch with a big segment of the population that feels left out of a privileged, tech-savvy, green smoothie revolution. The eco-revolution has not reached their neighbourhood. Only their wallet.

Instead of turning green, the yellow vests may turn red with anger…

Why making a green detox smoothie is not enough

Far from being a theoretic, these questions call for real answers if we want to ensure an ecological transition that doesn’t worsen already existing inequalities. In Brussels, more than 40% of the youth from 0 to 15 years old live in risk of poverty. If our youth marches for the climate, we must ensure the measures responding to it do not prejudice them!

Inequality is one of the factors that complicate action against climate change. Citizens with purchasing power have a much easier access to solutions such as electric cars or solar panels. Less wealthy citizens are often penalised in this game.

For example, a law that forbids old cars from entering the city may seem harmless. Yet most people owning old cars are low-income citizens. How can those that are not able to buy new cars or that do not live next to well-connected public transport continue playing on the same level playing field? Similarly, while the government might subsidise green energy investments, this excludes those who do not own a house or do not have enough savings to do renovations in the first place.

If unaddressed, the structural inequalities in terms of means and power that certain measures engender will inevitably lead to tensions and political unrest.

Beyond the hipster cafés: a green smoothie accessible to all

If inequality and climate change are interconnected, can we turn this into an opportunity instead of a problem? Rather than reinforcing inequalities, climate-friendly measures that follow simple principles, such as sharing, could benefit all and foster a city that is not only more ecological, but also lead to more integrated, connected and egalitarian society.

For instance, climate change requires that we consume less. Consumption in cities can be radically diminished through mutualisation of infrastructures. The optimisation of living areas require shared heating systems that can make energy affordable for all. Shared car systems can divide the number of cars in a city by seven. Obsolete parking spaces could be used to create more green areas, and ensure equal access to nature for all. But… they could also be used to build luxurious (eco-)buildings for the wealthy.

What kind of future will we choose?

Let’s envision a future together, and prepare the best smoothie Brussels has ever had!