Andreu Escrivá, popularizer: "Sustainability no longer means anything"

The key to responding to the climate crisis is in emissions, in energy, in consumption, in people, but also in words.

In his new book

(Editorial Arpa), the environmental disseminator Andreu Escrivá (39 years old, Valencia) charges against different concepts and denominations today turned into green dogmas that he considers that in reality they distract from what is important or are used by those who most they contaminate simply to wash their image.

Question.

Why do you say we have a sustainability epidemic?

Reply.

We are living through a sustainability epidemic because we find this word everywhere.

It has managed to inoculate itself in all areas of our lives and we have sustainable briks, sustainable t-shirts, sustainable cars, sustainable trips, sustainable lives... It has reached such a point that sustainability no longer means anything.

Q.

Do we have to remove a few words from the environmental dictionary?

R.

Sustainability no longer serves us.

I do not challenge what many people believe sustainability is, nor that really deep perception of doing things well and taking care of the environment, but the problem is that it has become simply an adjective, almost for sale, a kind of label for the

.

It has stopped serving its initial purpose, which is to question the system.

Q.

Why do you think it is wrong that future generations are almost always alluded to in environmental discourses?

R.

It is human, normal and good to worry about future generations, but what needs to be done is here and now.

Anyone living in Spain right now has already spent their entire life under the effects of global warming.

We must not act only for our children, whether we have them or not, we must act for the whole of humanity.

Those future generations worry us from rich countries, but right now we already have present generations, above all, in vulnerable countries, which are suffering the effects of climate change.

In addition, we must be very careful when we say that future generations are going to be the most affected.

Indeed, they are going to be affected by this warming process, but in 2022 we have seen that deaths due to excess heat are mainly older people.

Andreu Escrivá, photographed in Valencia. Mònica Torres

Q.

Another of the common concepts that you also reject today is the “circular economy”.

Why?

R.

The circular economy is a pipe dream.

It is impossible by definition for an economy to be fully circular, because we are always going to need energy, people's work or materials.

Another thing is that we recycle a small part of what we are using.

But the name circular economy makes us think that there is almost a kind of economic nirvana to which if we reach we are saved because everything is recirculated.

That is false.

In any case, we should talk about a spiral economy, that is, trying to recirculate as much as possible, but it will never be a closed cycle.

Q.

You assure that the so-called “climate neutrality” is like knowing that tobacco causes cancer and intending to quit smoking in 20 years.

A.

That's right.

Climate neutrality [an objective that is usually set for the year 2050 and which consists of eliminating all carbon emissions except those that can be absorbed by nature itself] allows future successes to be sold in 2023 to reduce or capture carbon emissions, when what some of these companies are doing today is increasing them.

Q.

You also consider the electric car another distraction.

R.

The electric car is a change of motor in the private vehicle, but it does not mean a change for the current model of mobility.

The transition to electric cars has to be done as quickly as possible, but we cannot replace all combustion cars with electric ones, and even if we could, we should not want to, because our mobility system is deeply unsustainable and is not designed to move people, but for cars to circulate.

Q.

And plastic recycling?

R.

Obviously, I am not against the recycling process, materials must be recycled and recirculated as much as possible, the problem is that plastic recycling makes us look away from plastic production, because we think that later it will be recycled and will have no environmental impact.

To question the omnipresence of plastic, you have to question recycling.

Q.

Don't you think they can accuse you of being against everything?

A.

Yes, I am concerned that the book is perceived as a tantrum or that everything is wrong.

The last thing I want is for people to give up, just what I criticize about catastrophizing.

My aim is for people to ask questions, question and, above all, demand.

I am against sustainability because it is what will allow us to build post-sustainability, which is much more hopeful and much more exciting.

Q.

What do you propose then and what name do you give it?

A.

When the concept of sustainability came to fruition, it meant something very different, therefore, what we have to do is continue working for that deep meaning of the word sustainability, which perhaps now better represents other signifiers such as "prosperity without growth" or "good living".

Q.

How can you act against the use of all these words to

polluting companies and activities?

R.

I think it would be an easy, fast regulatory change and, above all, very well received by the people, because in the end what society does not like is being deceived.

's

days are numbered if we do things right.

You can follow CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT on

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber