This text was part of an excercise for a course on International Relations Theory taught by professor Jonathan Holslag at the VUB. The task was to analyse an article¹ on a decision taken by the Belgian federal government to put wind turbines in the North Sea.

The discussion around climate change has become this elusive yet constantly present subject matter. It is always kept in the shadows waiting as a backup option during debates to be used against an unsuspecting opponent. The subject has been haunting most political debates like an apex predator lurking in tall grass around its prey. However, besides a daunting way to create a whataboutism in an argument you are losing, it is a rather critical subject matter.

Readers of the frequent UN climate reports will be the first to tell you that we are headed towards certain doom within the coming two decades. The scientific data is overwhelmingly clear on that fact². One would think that, being faced with such a dire predicament, humanity as a collective would stick together and come up with some ingenious way to handle the situation and keep our green and blue space rock in equilibrium.

So, what are we doing? Let’s have a look at a new proposal by the Belgian government to create more green sources of energy along its beautiful coastline in the form of wind turbines in the North Sea. The motivation behind it seems that Belgium wants to create more options for itself in the wake of its emotionally unstable distant neighbor Russia invading Ukraine and using its domination on gas resources as leverage against the EU and thus Belgium. From a realist standpoint, you could argue that this is a sound strategic move by Belgium. The world of international relations is a cold relay race where only the fittest survive. Therefore, any initiative to increase state power and independence is good.

“So, what’s the problem then?” you may ask. “Well, where to start?” I would reply. The multitude of issues I hold against this case is luckily easy to summarize with one word: short-sightedness. I am reminded of an excellent point made by the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek. He argues that we are so enthralled to our consumerist societies’ ideology that we find any tiny contribution to what we think is “the environment” as an excuse to carry on in our extremely destructive systems and ways of life. Buying a fair-trade chocolate made by Oxfam makes you feel like you are contributing, while simultaneously giving you a way to say: “I did my duty for today” and carry on pleased with the coercive systems that be.

Zizek’s point is made on the individual level. I argue that it can be expanded to the collective or rather governmental level. Of course, wind energy is without a doubt a far eco-friendlier source than say, coal or crude oil. But maybe it might be necessary to start looking at the root cause of all this. Why are we in such big trouble? For starters, we have created an economic system based on infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. To tackle this fundamental issue is our biggest challenge.

I refuse to believe that the Belgian government or the entire EU for that matter is too ignorant to realize this. I do however believe that they are far too comfortable and simultaneously afraid to do anything about it. It has become too easy to be a cowardly politician, in fact it is rewarded to be “pragmatic” and “safe”. I refute this, as anyone holding executive power that is not taking drastic action to combat this issue is in fact a threat to national security and far from “safe”.

I am not advocating for a Bolshevik revolution here. What I am saying is that we need to dare to think more radically. For example, sure we should put up those wind turbines. But we should also think about where the metal and the technology are coming from to build them. Are these resources gathered in a manner that is in line with our holy “European values”?

We also need to consider what we are using all this energy for. It is clear that we are aiming towards a zero-carbon future. However, do we think that we are going to reach it with by all buying a Tesla or the newest hybrid atrocity the Germans have come up with?

We need absolute zero-dependance on car infrastructure, yet this government has been systematically cutting back on an already sub-par public transport system. How will we ever expect to garner the support of a population which is already increasingly skeptical about government legitimacy, when we increase their bus fares but promise to build a limited amount of seagull-swatting wind turbines?

The answer to most of these questions is simple: we don’t want to hurt profits. Politics has become so unified with and thus enslaved to the bourgeois world that any attempt to steer away from it is disregarded immediately. This is incredibly dangerous. It in fact undermines our democracy we are so proud of here in the west. It is time to think very carefully yet also daringly about how we are to go about the next twenty or so years. How dearly do we hold profits? Who is truly responsible for climate change? Should we be completely self-sufficient or still dare to rely on our neighbors? Are we ready for a simpler and more sustainable lifestyle or are we still too stupefied by our consumerist toys?

Marx said that philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways and that the point is to change it. However, I will leave with another Zizek quote: “We have tried to change the world too quickly, the point is to interpret it again.”.

Notes

1. https://www.belganewsagency.eu/belgium-will-strengthen-energy-infrastructure-to-ensure-supply-security
2. Maslin, Mark. Climate change: a very short introduction. OUP Oxford, 2014.