Continuing on with my observations of Scandinavia and weaving my thoughts of worldviews together today. Much as I wanted to find the Scandinavian countries as models of a possible sustainable future, the biggest factor to their credit (Electrical energy) is only because they have so much current alternate energy technology (Hydro, Wind, Geothermal, and Wave/Tidal). Sweden has a large Nuclear power addition, and relatively small populations making for a high electrical generation (non-fossil fuel) per capita. Plus the Scandinavians countries made a commitment to do more Alternative Electrical energy from resources that are reliable, cost effective and non-polluting.
As the developed world goes through a Gadarene rush to mandate only Electric Vehicles (EVs) for their countries, the question I have asked for years and continue to do so, is, “And where will the electricity come from to keep them all charged? For Iceland and Norway, the alternate electrical options will work because they have plenty of natural ways to generate electricity and a large natural resource base with which to work (sizable countries with small populations). I observed a high number of electric vehicles (EVs), and municipally managed (i.e., rental charge only) electric bikes and various scooters (not Iceland probably because of the smaller population and long hard winters). But a model only works if it can be transferred. Since most countries do not have massive alternate electrical resources per capita, this means a different model must be used.
Since Nordik countries tout themselves as sustainably minded, I was also keen to see how this was managed locally. One thing I look at a lot when gauging the worldview inherent in a place are the Trash/Waste bins. All Scandinavian countries have excellent disposable drink container recycling (using recycling fees or similar). They also claim to have excellent municipal recycling systems many with excellent capture systems. The locals industriously sort their recyclables and have great sounding municipal collection systems. As a tourist, obviously, what I saw was something different. Bear in mind I only saw Iceland, Denmark and Norway, so I only assume that Sweden and Finland are similar. When I did find waste/trash bins they always had excellent recycle bins adjacent to them.
One good thing I did not see was trash lying around or blowing in the wind. That is as much the ethic of tourists not throwing trash out of their vehicular windows and not the bins placed for tourists to dispose of trash. I say this because the numbers of pull-offs, that allow visitors to admire the views, did not match the paucity of trash bins at these pull-offs. I’m not sure if the local authorities charged with collecting trash relied on visitors not tossing any trash (except at proper places), or that it was too expensive to place trash containers and have someone empty them. This seemed true in Denmark and Norway.
Now new readers may ask why I have this strange interest in trash bins. Maybe I was a pauper in a past life sitting in trash heaps begging with, “Alms for the socially unacceptable.” Or it could be that the types and amount of trash are excellent indicators of conspicuous-consumerism and a good proxy for inherent worldviews? I talked about this in a recent blog (Miscellaneous Musings – Part 11) about Amsterdam during a trash collectors strike. In Iceland, trash bins tended to be in towns or at national parks as a rule, although some of the larger tourist sites had at least some trash collection. I was more impressed with tourists from all over the world not wantonly tossing trash away – that says something about the emerging global environmental worldview, that they would hold onto their trash until they found a bin. However, having said that, the trash bins were packed with all manner of wrapping and packing materials for food and non-recycle drink containers. The recycle bins had a good amount of recyclable materials plus a lot of materials left for the waste transfer sorters to figure out (i.e., If it had a recycle triangle on it, the recycle bin got it).
Now if the Nordics are so gung-ho about sustainability, why are there such large amounts of trash per capita from locals and tourists? It’s easier to see why tourists generate more trash because they tend to be on the move by vehicle or when roaming the tourist sites, and everything is wrapped up, food especially. but as for the locals? As a tourist I found a high standard of living and a very high cost of living. High salaries/wages and high taxes allow for governmental programs that give a wide range of welfare nets for nearly everyone, remembering that I did see a high number of people ‘begging’ near the metro entrances in Copenhagen. The delights of Freetown Christiania (a peoples republic district in Copenhagen) were interesting and notably different form the rest of the city in their ‘simpler living. It has its roots from 1971 as a squatter commune on an old military base. But on the whole conscious-consumerism was more the norm and visibly notable in the trash cans.
I gauge a human system sustainable if it is replicable elsewhere and follows my ‘principles of sustainability’ as set down in my textbook of that title. In my recent Miscellaneous Musings part 15, I commented on how Nordik countries seemed more peaceful and socially coherent. The problem with idealizing the Nordik countries is their low populations compared to land area and resource availability, especially renewable energy options. Compare the following list of populations and country land area: Iceland 375,000/104,000 Km2; Denmark 5.9 Million/43,000 Km2; Norway 5.5 Million/385,000 Km2; Sweden 10.6 Million/448,000 Km2; and, Finand 5.5 Million/339,000 Km2. Across the North Sea, small Britain has 67 Million people and 210,000 Km2, and many major cities in the world have dense population in a fraction of the land area; Cities such as New York City 8.5 Million; London 14 Million; Paris 12 Million; Mumbai 13 Million; Shanghai 26 Million; and small Melbourne with its Nordic comparable population of 5.2 Million people has an urban area of only 2,700 Km2. Using Scandinavia as a sustainable technology model is therefore not realistic.
What the Nordic countries do offer is a look at how their worldviews are different. As journalist Michael Booth said in a 2014 Guardian article about Scandinavia, “The myriad successes of the Nordic countries are no miracle, they were born of a combination of Lutheran modesty, peasant parsimony, geographical determinism and ruthless pragmatism …”elite” is a dirty word; displays of success, ambition or wealth are frowned upon.” Coupled with a much more comparably peaceful way of thinking compared to the rest of the developed world, we can begin to understand their worldview as a part of a solution. This is because they are socially transparent and treat each other with respect. They won’t talk your ear off, but they do not seem to like controversial discussions, instead trying hard to seek agreement and balanced compromise – everyone gets a say. While they enjoy a high quality conspicuous-consumer lifestyle that contradicts a sustainable lifestyle, they do have a lifestyle philosophy (Hygge) that emphasizes finding happiness in everyday things, enjoying the moment, doing something good for yourself and others, and making life as beautiful and pleasant as possible. That all sounds like a good place to begin analyzing our own worldviews wherever we live.
Another aspect of thinking that would occur in a true sustainable society would be to look how far eastern countries have a deep respect for older people. Remember, this was a major factor in the ‘Roseto effect’ I talked about recently (Misc Musings part 13). Societies that revere the elderly (as seen in most Asian cultures, for now) pay attention, listen carefully and politely to the elderly when they are offering life experiences, even going as far (like Roseto) of placing them on a pedestal of wisdom and respect. This respect is seen in manners such as not interrupting an elder when she or he is speaking, waiting for the elder to sit or eat first. In short the elderly are seen as family and social treasures of wisdom. Now if we could expand that respect and reverence to each other regardless of age, that would help us forward to a sustainable society.
0 Comments