Episode 4: Interview

(In the transcript we have tried to stay as close to what is said as possible but some alterations have been made in order to aid clarity.)

Max: Hi, I'm Max ...

Tula: ... and I'm Tula

Max: ... and in this podcast, we're lucky enough to talk to a man from Framtiden i våre hender (The future in our hands), Christoffer Ringnes Klyve. He is here to help us find some answers and perhaps even conclusions to our previous discussions in the earlier episodes. And we will be talking about the topics: climate change, poverty, and gender equality and general equality, as we talked about previously.

Tula: I have a question for you, Christoffer. What do you think Norway can do to help developing countries fight poverty?

Christoffer: Well, Norway is already doing some really good things that it should continue doing, such as providing generous development assistance to the poorest countries – something we do quite well, actually. But on the other hand, there are things that Norway should stop doing, as it does impact poverty currently. We are a major contributor to climate change, and in the present and future, scientists expect that global warming will be one of the greatest obstacles to alleviating poverty in the world. So simply by stopping emissions, Norway will also contribute to reducing poverty.

Tula: But as a nation, or do we do more as individuals that is negative for the climate?

Christoffer: Well, both. Norway is a democratic country, so what we do as individuals and as a nation ¬¬– these are very closely linked. Obviously, there are some things that is the responsibility of the national government, or the local government, where we as citizens have an influence as voters or as active participants in the democracy. But it also matters what each individual does through our consumption and the choices that we make in our everyday lives.

Max: That's interesting. You know, in one of our previous episodes, we were talking about the concept of quotas on air travel. So, as you were talking about with the political change, that perhaps the government would be able to restrict us to only certain amounts of flight per year – what do you think of this concept?

Christoffer: I think it's a very interesting idea. It could actually work quite well in practice, because currently the emissions from aviation come from a very small proportion of the population globally. I think maybe one percent of the population contributes more than half of the emissions. That is because some people fly very often, and most people in the world never fly. So, restricting the absolute number of flights that people can take is a way to reduce that problem.

Tula: But do you think these flying quotas can contribute to a greater class divide in the society?

Christoffer: Well, actually, I think it's the opposite. I think quotas are a more fair and equal way of allocating flight options for people, because the alternative is to use taxes. You could have very high taxes on flights, but that would mean that the richest people would still be able to fly, because they have enough money to pay the taxes. Poorer people will have much less opportunities to pay for expensive air tickets.

Max: Do you feel the philosophy would be a negative restriction of our freedom, perhaps in the future, if we wouldn’t be able to travel and, let’s say, enjoy life to the same extent as we might have been doing?

Christoffer: Yes, absolutely. It would be a negative restriction. But that’s the sort of the basic problem of liberty, in a sense. If my freedoms and me exercising my freedoms mean that other people will have limits on their freedoms, that's where my freedoms should stop. So, there is no absolute freedom to generate pollution, because that generates negative effects for other people and for other parts of the ecosystem. So, it's not really a problem, necessarily, to restrict someone's freedoms if it's done for the right reasons.

Tula: So, it's good in the long run, you’d say?

Christoffer: Yes, and that's what democracy is all about.

Tula: Do you have any alternative transportations or tips for people who want to travel and avoid travelling with airplanes?

Christoffer: Well, yes, there are several. People really do want to go on holiday and to explore. But I think the first question to ask is: Where do you really need to go? Do you really need to travel 10,000 kilometres to experience something new and exotic? Or could you explore other Nordic countries, or Germany, or France, or some of the great Eastern European countries that are much closer and much more accessible and possible to reach without flying?

Tula: And the alternative is to travel by train?

Christoffer: Yes, and there are train connections to all our neighbouring countries and all across Europe. As long as you find your way to the continent, the trains are generally much better and faster than what we are used to in Norway as well. And it's a great way to travel, because you see so much more than these airports that look the same all over the place anyway. I’ll recommend train travel if you want to go on holiday in Norway as well. It's really a good option now to go buy an electric car, and it’s emissions free. The cars are becoming good enough to reach all around the country, and they're changing infrastructure. It's really a good way to see your own country and the neighbouring countries.

Tula: We were actually discussing the production of electric cars and how the battery is made of a material called cobalt. Do you know about that, and what are your thoughts on this?

Christoffer: Yes, and there are other minerals as well. It's a big problem that those minerals are being mined in countries like the Congo, where there is child labour and generally very poor supervision of labour conditions, and local environmental problems connected with the mining. But this is a problem for all sorts of consumer goods, including traditional cars. It's not a problem exclusive to electric vehicles. There are some studies that suggest that some of these stories about these child miners in Congo are being promoted by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the adoption of electric cars. So, one needs to be very critical of some of those stories as well. But it is a real problem, and it should be dealt with. The good thing is that there are other ways of producing the batteries for electric vehicles, and there is really rapid technological development in that area. The car company Tesla recently announced that they will start producing batteries without cobalt in the near future. So, in the coming years, I expect that this problem will also be reduced.

Max: We were discussing previously that in our roles as consumers and private people, it can sometimes be somewhat challenging to know what are good things to do or sustainable choices to make, such as with electric cars. Usually we've been told that it is good to drive an electric car, while we've seen that there are also negative aspects to it. Do you have any specific things in mind that you think we can do as consumers?

Christoffer: Yes, I could give you a very long list of such things, but I think the key is to not try to swallow too much to begin with. There are some really simple things that are fairly uncontroversial, and that are definitely good for the environment. We talked about transportation. So, anything without emissions is good. Anything that doesn't require you to travel too far is also good. In other areas, like what you eat, anything with lots of plants and not so much meat is generally better than the opposite. And there are basic other things like saving energy, not using too many resources, throwing things away that you still can use – those kinds of things that are fairlystraightforward and not very complicated. But for all of these things, and for any other tips or hints that you get about how to live a sustainable life, there will always be some strange corner of the internet where you will find the opposite view. It can sometimes be sponsored by the fossil fuel industry, or it can be just some old persons in their basement having googled their way into some strange type of information. So, generally, it’s a good idea to look for credible sources and to look for ideas that have been scientifically proven, and not just some dude who saw something on YouTube that he felt matched his predispositions.

Tula: I've actually seen on your website that you recommend eating less meat and going over to a vegetarian diet. What are your key tips for someone who wants to eat less meat?

Christoffer: Well, my key tip is to not make it too complicated to begin with. I mean, the best thing for the climate is to have a completely vegan diet. The next best thing is to have a vegetarian diet, for those who know the difference. But the more accessible option for most people is to simply have a flexible diet, but to eat less meat than they did the week before. So, maybe remove some of the meat from your dish and add some more vegetables. That's probably good for your health as well. And generally, do not try to make an enormous lifestyle change, because experience shows us that most people who try to make very big changes, they end up not really succeeding, and then they go back to their old normal. But making smaller changes is usually easier and less of a sacrifice and also much easier to get used to and to adopt new habits.

Tula: As you probably know, we're in a state of emergency with this COVID-19 virus. Do you think that this pandemic is putting our climate actions on hold?

Christoffer: Well, it's both yes and no, I would say. The good news is that the current crisis is forcing us into new habits that are generally better for the environment. We don't travel as much, and we stay more at home, which, even if we dislike it, it’s actually good for the environment. So, the projections for emissions in 2020 seem to be much lower than the previous years. It will be the first year in a long time where emissions actually go down. So, in isolation, that's good news. But this is not the proper way to solve the climate crisis. It all matters how you respond, and the countries are behaving quite differently in how they respond to the crisis. The European Union has responded quite well and said that they commit to staying on course and continue with their quite ambitious green policies. The United States seem to go in the right direction as well with the election of Joe Biden as president. So, we can expect more positive climate policies from there as well. Norway is more mixed, I would say. One of the first things that the government did after the crisis hit was to give a big tax package to the oil industry, which is not very forward looking, even though it can save some jobs in the short run. I think the Norwegian government needs to do much more and to have a much more ambitious, integrated way of addressing the crisis, though.

Max: These are very good points you’re making. Could you perhaps explain to us how you feel the current gender equality situation is in Norway?

Christoffer: Well, compared to both the past in Norway and most other countries, it's fairly good in Norway. In politics, for instance, it's very well established now that women and men have equal roles, and we are very used to seeing prominent politicians of both genders. There are other areas where we still have some ways to go, such as in the economic sphere. Women still earn less money than men do for the same type of work. And they also own less capital and fewer stocks compared to what men do. There is also still a problem with domestic violence, harming women disproportionately.

Max: What do you feel can be done with this in Norway?

Christoffer: Well, I think we’re doing a lot of right things already. There was a new law introduced, maybe 20 years ago now, that required all companies of a certain type to have gender representation on their boards. And that has made a big difference. It's also been copied by a lot of other countries. Then there are things to do with wages and gender roles that require constant attention. I think public debate is an important thing. Both men and women need to stand up for equality and gender rights whenever they see them being abused.

Tula: Do you think Norway could be a role model for other countries who want to improve their gender equality?

Christoffer: Yes, absolutely. As I just mentioned, there are examples of Norwegian laws that have been copied or have inspired similar types of laws in other countries. That's definitely one way of being a role model. Another is to basically have visible women leaders travel around the world in politics and in business and in sports and in other areas. So, I think there are very many ways that Norway can be a role model. But we also need to be very conscious about not being too high on ourselves and thinking that we are the best in the world, because there are still challenges within Norway, and there are areas in which other countries have things that they can teach us as well.

Tula: Do you think that gender roles could be justified from a cultural or historic perspective and in that sense serve as an explanation for inequality?

Christoffer: No, I don't think they can justify discrimination. I think they can explain them. And there are historic reasons for many discriminatory practices. But that doesn't mean that it's OK. Gender discrimination violates basic human rights. That's never really OK.

Max: Very good point, Christoffer. I think we'll have to conclude now, and I'd like to thank you for joining us and helping us answer these questions.

Christoffer: You're welcome.

Max: During this podcast, we've been discussing poverty, climate change and inequality. And now I definitely have gotten some answers, thanks to you. Thank you!

Christoffer: Thanks for having me.