Adrian Parr (Sydney, Australia, 1967) is currently dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Arlington (Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex, USA), and she holds the UNESCO Chair on Water Access and Sustainability.

On 2 May, the internationally renowned environmental and cultural thinker and activist visited the Institute of Culture (IUC) at UPF to give the lecture “Climate Justice and Planetary Wellbeing”, invited by Santiago Zabala, ICREA-UPF research professor of the Department of Humanities. The activity is part of the strategic UPF project in relation to Planetary Wellbeing.

—You say that climate degradation is a crime against humanity. Who is responsible for this crime?

Determining who is particularly responsible for environmental degradation is difficult because we are faced with a cumulative problem, which has occurred historically, throughout time. But we can see if a particular state or nation is responsible for this crime. The United States would be one of those countries because historically they have been responsible for the emission of much of the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Considering the percentage of greenhouse gas currently emitted between China and the US, together they account for 40% of the total. So, in terms of historical and present responsibility, we have a country that is consistently one of the main culprits. But there are other countries that are joining the group while still developing.

When I talk about this idea of crime against humanity, I am also touching on the deepest philosophical, existential level, which is framed in the memory of the language of human rights. But at the same time it is a crime against all, against the inner essence of what it means to be human: to have empathy, to care for people in other countries, to care for future generations, children who are not yet political actors, other human species, or animals that are now becoming extinct as a result of environmental degradation. So, when I speak of a crime against humanity, I do so in all these respects.

 ”Imagination is essential to have an ethical relationship with other human beings and other entities in the world”.

—What makes humanity go against itself? 

Basically it is a failure of imagination, and imagination is inherently in politics. Hanna Areendt spoke of the importance of imagination in political change, the idea that to change, in relation to where we are here now, we must be able to imagine beyond the present circumstances. Imagination is essential to have an ethical relationship with other human beings and other entities in the world. We must be capable of going beyond our own reality and to project ourselves to another kind of reality, and that requires exercising the imagination.

—Do you think justice is ready to solve this problem?

In reality, we are not prepared to solve it, for the simple reason that if we consider the agreements reached on climate, they are all voluntary. So, for the time being, there is no way of enforcing the goals that the nations individually say they will try to achieve. Until we have something that is a truly binding agreement, that can be applied somehow, it will inevitably continue to be below the required level.

—Is there a causal relationship between social conflict and environmental degradation?

I think so, many social tensions occur as a result of environmental degradation. My experience in Kenya and Tanzania would reinforce this idea. If we look at the growth of urban slums around the world, largely speaking they are the result of the fact that people have been forced to leave their land because they cannot feed their families or provide them with drinking water.

Most subsistence farmers, for example, are more vulnerable to luck in all this process. But there have also been connections between tensions and environmental resources that have been established in major conflicts. This is the case of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the fight for water resources.

—How should humanity act to promote solutions?

I have always proposed that we need what I call “bastard solidarities” between the different ways there are of producing political movements. We cannot fall into the trap of choosing between a reformist position, largely organized vertically within systems of government and political institutions, and a radical, revolutionary, horizontal position. We must go beyond this polarized political discourse, that separates between left and right, reform and revolution, that fractures our ability to form any kind of solidarity. We must recognize that there is a shared humanity and shared value systems that we must take advantage of.

“We must recognize that there is a shared humanity and shared value systems that we must take advantage of”.

Capitalism is a process that appropriates the limits it is presented with and returns them to place them at the service of capital generation. Political movements should be aware that any gesture they make will be inevitably absorbed by capitalism, so we cannot feel corseted in a particular organizational method. We must be able to move between different kinds of political strategies and agendas to make them effective, until we put an end to this appropriation.

—What is your opinion of radical activism?

It is necessary, in the sense of complementarity between the radical position and the reformist position. We need this type of action, but we also need major international agreements, by countries like the United States. For example, the fact that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has reached the new Green Deal is very hope-inspiring and is heading in the right direction and I think that is represents a reformist position in the context of the institutionalizing areas of politics. But we certainly need radical activism simply to continue to develop the policy.

—What is the best way to improve the current situation?

—Do we need to change the social model to create a new planet?

The new model requires being more socially responsible. We must participate more socially in distribution, we need a model capable of distributing wealth in different ways. The wealth of the world is not just a question of financial wealth: natural resources, drinking water or clean air are other kinds of wealth, so we have to reorganize our way of thinking about the value of things and social value. Once we start to work fairly, we can choose the right direction and recognize that poor communities are far more vulnerable to environmental threats.

There are examples around the world, especially in high-income countries like the United States, where there are poor communities living in areas where the environment is degraded. Some of the poorest communities are those that live in unhealthy areas, where poor air quality causes high levels of asthma, or that live in “food deserts” (areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food). So, these two areas operate simultaneously.

—What is the role of love in this new model?

It’s essential. I consider love as a way to being moved, of opening up to another experience, being more sensitive, going beyond the paradigm that is most familiar to us and our tradition. We must be more generous, more giving, we must expose ourselves, be more inclined to try new ways of being among ourselves, and look after each other. I believe that love is absolutely central in education, and there are many philosophies that have contributed to this topic.

—What can be done by the university to fight against climate change?

—What do think of the “Fridays for future” movement, led by Greta Thunberg?

It’s fantastic. And I mean not just this movement specifically, but those driven by young people in general, who are still not political activists, so they cannot vote. And they somehow seem like our unconsciousness, this stimulating shadow, which looks at us in the face and challenges us, and is threatening our well-being. We really need this awareness more than ever, it is absolutely crucial.

But what is interesting about this issue is not just that it is a radical gesture of strike. Thunberg, with her ability to sit down with world leaders and influence their agendas, acts as a link between the reformist and the radical positions. Recently, Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Labour party leader Jeremy Corbin have echoed her words, the latter demanding an emergency climate debate, such was Thunberg’s effect on him. So, I think Thunberg is an interesting example of bastard solidarity, because she is both a revolutionary and a reformist at the same time.