|
RAZLIKOVATI
OKOLIŠNO, EKOLOŠKO I KLIMATSKO |
|
MAKE
DIFERENCE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL AND CLIMATIC |
Eldar
Bičo (ebico@ceteor.ba)
|
0. Predgovor Ovaj tekst predstavlja
pokušaj konceptualnog razgraničavanja između termina koji se često koriste
naizmjenično, a imaju različita značenja i implikacije: ekološki, okolišni
(okolinski) i klimatski. Takođe, analiziraju se društveni, ekonomski i
politički aspekti savremenog pristupa održivom razvoju. Autor nudi kritički
osvrt na terminološku zbrku i ističu važnost preciznog jezika kao temelja
odgovorne politike zaštite okoliša i klimatskog djelovanja. 1.
TERMINOLOŠKE OSNOVE I POJMOVNA RAZGRANIČENJA 1.1. Razlika između
ekološkog, okolišnog I klimatskog Termini okolišno
(okolinsko), klimatsko i ekološko često se brkaju. Termin okoliš (okolina)
vezan je za izuzimanje sirovina iz prirode, emitovanja zagađujućih materija u
zrak i vode i odlaganje otpada, pri čemu se uticaj industrijskog postrojenja
širi od mjesta aktivnosti u okoliš (okolinu). Taj okoliš je obično u radiusu
od nekoliko kilometara ili desetina kilometara, dok se zagađujuće materije
hemijski ne razgrade. S druge strane troatomni i višeatomni gasovi borave u
atmosferi godinama ili decenijama i nevažno je sa kog dijela planete su
emitovane i prouzrokuju klimatske promjene. Tako sumpordiokid iz jedne
termoelektrane djeluje okolišno (okolinski) u krugu od nekoliko kilometara
ili desetina kilometara, a ugljendioksid iz te iste termoelektrane djeluje na
promjenu klime na cijeloj planeti. 1.2. Specizam i odnos
priroda-društvo Na geosferi (tlo, voda,
zrak) razvio se život na čijim osnovama je nastalo društvo. U vezi odnosa
priroda – društvo karakteristično je da se biljke, životinje i mikroorganizam
prilagođavaju prirodi, dok čovjek (društvo) nastoji prirodu prilagoditi sebi. Ovaj antropocentrični
pristup temelji se na ideologiji specizma, odnosno vjerovanja da je ljudska
vrsta superiorna u odnosu na ostale oblike života, te da ima pravo da
iskorištava prirodu za vlastite ciljeve. Specizam, kao oblik diskriminacije,
postavlja vrijednosnu hijerarhiju među vrstama i negira vrijednost neljudskih
bića. U praktičnom smislu,
specizam je prisutan u načinima na koje društva upravljaju prirodnim
resursima, tretiraju životinje u industrijskoj proizvodnji, ali i u načinu na
koji se planiraju i realizuju okolišne politike. Priroda se percipira
prvenstveno kao resurs, a ne kao kompleksan sistem međuzavisnosti kojem i
čovjek pripada. Posljedica ovakvog odnosa je degradacija okoliša, gubitak
biodiverziteta i klimatske promjene, koje su upravo rezultat pokušaja da se
prirodni sistemi podrede ekonomskim interesima čovjeka. Preispitivanje
specističke logike ključno je za izgradnju održivijih društava. Umjesto
dominacije nad prirodom, potreban je etički zaokret ka međusobnom uvažavanju,
suživotu i odgovornosti prema svim oblicima život. 2. Ekologija: prirodna nauka ili društvena konstrukcija?
2.1. Ekologija kao nezavisna nauka Djelovanje na okoliš i
izazivanje klimatskih promjena vezano je za društvo, za tehnologije kojim se
to društvo koristi u zadovoljavanju svojih potreba. A ekologija je prirodna
nauka, nije vezana za čovjekovo društvo. Kada bi na Marsu u atmosferi bilo
kisika i ugljendioksida, te vode i postojale dvije vrste bakterija mogla bi
se napisati studija Ekologija Marsa. Ekologija opisuje odnose između živih
bića i uslova za njihov razvoj (tlo, voda, zrak, padavine, temperatura,
sunčevo dozračenje/iradijacija), odnos živih bića međusobno i sa njihovim
staništima. Čovjek ne može napraviti ništa što bi se moglo nazvati ekološki.
Okolišni problemi ne mogu se nazivati ekološkim. Postoji tendencija
da se termin okoliš zamjeni sa terminom životna sredina. To je pogrešno.
Okoliš je društvena kategorija, a životna sredina je ekološka kategorija. 2.1.1. Štetno ili
nepovoljnodjelovanje Da li čovjek svojom
aktivnošću izaziva štete po određen ekosistem. Ne, temin šteta je vezan za
društvene procese i društvene nauke. Da li zagađen zrak djeluje štetno na
ljude. Ne, termin štetan ne postoji ni u medicinskim naukama. Zagađujuće
materije djeluju nepovoljno na čovjekov organizam. Da li šumski požar izazvan
prirodnim uzrokom izaziva ekološku štetu. Ne, nastala šteta može biti samo
ekonomska. Jedan šumski požar u sto godina, izazvan prirodnim okolnostima, je
ekološki povoljan jer se time hranjive materije iz dubine transportuju na
površinu tla. Naravno, svaki požar izaziva ekološke posljedice, ali ne i
ekološku štetu. Znači, termin štetan ne postoji u prirodnim i medicinskim
naukama. Termin štetan vezan je za društvene nauke, u prvom redu za
ekonomiju. Ekologija ne zna za štete, a u ekonomiji je to jedan od najvažnijh
termina. Korist i šteta. Meni i drugom. I trećem. 3. ŽIVOTNI CIKLUS PROIZVODA I GLOBALNE NEPRAVDE Jedan proizvod prolazi
kroz više faza prerade koje se obavljaju na različtim lokacijama, čak u
različitim državama. Znači, neka ljudska potreba se zadovoljava proizvodom iz
jedne privredne grane, proizvod je krajnji proizvod u lancu više privrednih
grana. Isto zato okolišni uticaj može biti u jednoj državi, a ekonomska dobit
i društveni benefit u drugim državama. Stoga je danas aktuelno praćenje
životnog ciklusa proizvoda i usluge u cijelom životnom ciklusu – od kolijevke
do groba proizvoda ili usluge. Tako na primjer, Eurostat
(sistem statistike Evropske unije) pokazuje da u Evropskoj uniji opada
proizvodnja otpada, dok analize životnog ciklusa kažu da raste. To je stoga
što Evropska unija kupuje poluproizvode iz zemalja u razvoju, gdje dolazi do
nastanka otpada. Završna obrada je u samoj Evropskoj uniji sa malo otpada ili
uz mjere reciklaže. Znači, današnja svjetska trgovina je nekorektna. Uticaji
na okolinu ostaju u zemljama u razvoju, a krajnju ekonomsku korist imaju
stanovnici razvijenih država. 4.
PROŠIRENI KONCEPTI EKOLOGIJE U skladu s proširenim
razumijevanjem ekologije koje uključuje ljudske aktivnosti, razvijeni su
koncepti koji povezuju prirodne nauke s društvenim i ekonomskim strukturama.
Neki od ključnih podsegmenata su: 4.1. Socijalna ekologija
(sociekološka kultura) Socijalna ekologija (od
latinskog "socialis" – društveni i grčkog "oikos"
– dom, kuća, okoliš) proučava odnose između ljudskih društava i okoliša,
ističući kako društvene strukture i ekonomski sistemi utiču na prirodu, ali i
kako okolinski problemi, poput zagađenosti i klimatskih promjena, oblikuju
socijalne nejednakosti. Dok ekologija istražuje odnose među vrstama i
njihovim okruženjem, socijalna ekologija se fokusira na ljudsku odgovornost i
društvene procese koji dovode do okolinske destrukcije. Socijalna ekologija tvrdi
da se okolinski problemi ne mogu riješiti bez rješavanja problema društvenih
nejednakosti. Na primjer, zagađenost najviše pogađa siromašnije zajednice,
dok bogatiji slojevi društva imaju sredstva da se prilagode na promjene u
okolišu, dok istovremeno uživaju u ekonomskim koristima od prirodnih resursa.
Iz tog razloga pitanje zaštite okoliša u socijalnoj ekologiji nije samo
pitanje ekoloških tehnika i strategija, već i pitanje društvene pravde.
Zaštita okoliša mora biti utemeljena na pravednoj raspodjeli resursa, u kojoj
svi društveni slojevi imaju pristup čistoj vodi, zdravom vazduhu i zdravim
ekosistemima. U tom smislu, socijalna
ekologija se protivi ekonomskim modelima koji favorizuju bogate i osiromašuju
siromašne, a istovremeno uništavaju okoliš. Zaštita okoliša i socijalna
pravda moraju ići ruku pod ruku, jer samo na taj način možemo stvoriti
društva koja će biti u harmoniji s prirodom, a ne u sukobu s njom. Socijalna
ekologija poziva na održive i pravedne sisteme u kojima su ljudi u skladu sa
prirodom, čime se doprinosi i očuvanju okoliša i stvaranju pravednijeg
društva. 4.2. Zdravstvena ekologija Zdravstvena ekologija
proučava kako uslovi u okolišu utiču na zdravlje ljudi, ali ne
kao izolovan medicinski problem, već kao rezultat društvenih i
ekonomskih nejednakosti. Zagađenost zraka, kontaminirana voda, loši stambeni
uslovi i izloženost toksičnim materijama češće pogađaju siromašne i
marginalizovane grupe. Oni nemaju pristup adekvatnoj zdravstvenoj zaštiti,
niti političku moć da se izbore za bolje uslove. U tom kontekstu, zdravstvena
ekologija ukazuje da okolišni problemi ne pogađaju sve jednako – oni
produbljuju postojeće socijalne razlike. Ova grana ekologije
zahtijeva da se pitanje zdravlja promatra sistemski, u povezanosti sa
urbanizmom, industrijskom politikom, transportom i dostupnošću resursa. Na
primjer, gradovi u kojima dominira automobilski saobraćaj i industrija često
imaju viši nivo oboljenja disajnih puteva, ali rješenja se ne mogu svesti
samo na filtere i maske – već na izmjenu samih društvenih i prostornih
struktura koje proizvode te uvjete. Pravo na zdrav okoliš je preduslov za
pravo na zdravlje, a zdravstvena ekologija poziva na pravedne politike koje taj
pristup pretvaraju u realnost. 4.3. Poljoprivredna
ekologija Poljoprivredna ekologija
promatra proizvodnju hrane kroz prizmu ekološke održivosti i društvene
pravednosti. U savremenom svijetu, prehrambeni sistemi su podijeljeni – s
jedne strane imamo industrijsku, hemijski intenzivnu poljoprivredu koja
iscrpljuje tlo i uništava biološku raznolikost, a s druge strane, male
lokalne proizvođače koji, iako okolinski odgovorniji, često nemaju pristup
tržištu, finansiranju ili političkoj podršci. Poljoprivredna ekologija tvrdi
da hrana ne smije biti luksuz, već osnovno ljudsko pravo, dostupno svima pod
jednakim uslovima. U ovom pristupu,
poljoprivreda nije samo tehnička disciplina već i društvena praksa, duboko
povezana s pitanjima zemljišnog vlasništva, radničkih prava, prava na sjeme i
zaštite tradicionalnog znanja. Stoga, održiva poljoprivreda mora uzeti u
obzir kako se proizvodi, ali i ko proizvodi, za koga i pod kojim uslovima.
Pravedni prehrambeni sistemi moraju omogućiti seljacima, radnicima i potrošačima
da zajednički oblikuju okolinske i društveno održive modele proizvodnje
hrane. 4.4. Industrijska
ekologija Industrijska ekologija
predstavlja pokušaj da se industrijski sistemi oblikuju po uzoru na prirodne
ekosisteme, gdje ne postoji otpad, već se nusproizvodi jednog procesa koriste
kao resurs u drugom. U idealnom slučaju, to bi značilo zatvorene tokove materijala
i energije, smanjenje resursne potrošnje i minimizaciju emisija. Međutim,
posmatrano iz ugla socijalne ekologije, industrijska ekologija ne može biti
samo tehnički alat, već mora postati instrument društvene promjene. Industrijska proizvodnja
je društveni fenomen – ljudi odlučuju gdje će se fabrika graditi, ko će
raditi u njoj, ko će snositi posljedice emisija, a ko će ubirati dobit. U
stvarnosti, industrija je često smještena u siromašnim naseljima, perifernim
zajednicama ili državama u razvoju, gdje stanovništvo ima ograničen pristup
informacijama, pravu glasa i institucijama koje ih štite. Okolinski otisak
ostaje lokalno, dok se ekonomski profit prenosi globalno, često prema
centrima moći i kapitala. Industrijska ekologija ne
može biti samo optimizacija mašina i procesa – ona mora biti društveno
odgovorna. Mora postaviti pitanje: ko odlučuje, ko trpi, i u čije ime se vodi
razvoj? Mora uključiti radnike, lokalne zajednice i pogođene grupe u
planiranje i odlučivanje. Na primjer, ako fabrika reciklira otpad, ali
radnici u toj industriji nemaju osnovna radna prava niti zaštitu od toksičnih
isparenja, onda to nije održiv model, već nova forma eksploatacije.
Industrijska ekologija koja nije i socijalna, postaje samo sofisticirani
mehanizam za prelivanje ekološkog pritiska sa bogatih na siromašne. U tom smislu, stvarna
transformacija industrije zahtijeva promjenu uloge društva: s pasivnog
korisnika tehnologija u aktivnog oblikovatelja tehnoloških sistema koji ne
degradiraju ni okoliš ni ljudsko dostojanstvo. Potrebna je nova industrijska
logika – gdje proizvodnja ne služi samo tržištu, već i zajednici, gdje se ne
optimizuje samo efikasnost, nego i pravednost. 4.5. Zeleni biznis Zeleni biznis, kako ga
najčešće shvataju savremene korporacije, predstavlja koncept tržišnog
odgovora na ekološke izazove: ponuditi „održive“ proizvode koji ostavljaju
manji okolinski otisak. To mogu biti solarni paneli, reciklirane torbe,
organska hrana, električni automobili ili energetski efikasne zgrade.
Međutim, ovakav pristup često ostaje u okvirima tzv. zelenog
konzumerizma, koji ne propituje temelje potrošačkog društva, već samo
zamjenjuje jednu robu drugom – „prljavu“ za „zelenu“. U tom kontekstu, zelena
tranzicija često postaje luksuz dostupan samo bogatijim slojevima društva, dok
siromašni nastavljaju koristiti stare, neefikasne, „nezelene“ tehnologije,
jer su im jedino one dostupne. Zeleni biznis tada postaje novi oblik
isključivosti – simbol prestiža, a ne alat društvene transformacije.
Korporacije koje promoviraju „zeleno“ poslovanje često nastavljaju
proizvodnju u zemljama u razvoju gdje je radna snaga jeftina, zaštita okoliša
slaba, a ekonomska dobit nesrazmjerno odlazi prema centrima moći. Stvarni zeleni biznis, iz
ugla socijalne ekologije, mora ići daleko dublje. On ne smije biti samo
efikasan, već i pravedan. Mora redefinisati šta znači uspjeh – ne kroz
profit, već kroz doprinos zajednici i očuvanju planeta. To znači promjenu
vlasničkih struktura (lokalna ili radnička kooperativa umjesto
multinacionalne korporacije), uključivanje marginaliziranih grupa u donošenje
odluka, i smanjenje ukupne potrošnje, a ne samo zamjena proizvoda. Pravi
zeleni biznis ne prodaje ekološku savjest kao robu, već je gradi kroz
transparentnost, solidarnost i uvažavanje planetarnih granica. Zelena ekonomija nije
pitanje tržišta, već pitanje vrijednosti. Ako se ne promijene vrijednosti
koje vode društvo – od individualne potrošnje prema kolektivnom odgovoru – ni
najbolja tehnologija neće spasiti okoliš. U tom smislu, zeleni biznis mora
biti sredstvo za radikalnu društvenu promjenu, a ne izgovor za nastavak
postojećih nejednakosti pod „zelenom“ zastavom. 5.
ZAŠTITA OKOLIŠA ILI ODGOVARAJUĆE UPRAVLJANJE RAZVOJEM Sadašnji model razvoja
svijeta zasniva se na društveno-ekonomskom razvoju koji se opet zasniva na
korištenju usluga prirode društvu. Društvo: (i) koristi sirovine koje
preuzima iz prirode, (ii) priroda daje prostor za rad, (iii) čovjek koristi
prirodne procese (sija sunce, pada kiša) i (iv) priroda je prijemac otpada.
Usmjerenja i ograničenja u pogledu korištenja usluga prirode naziva se
zaštita okoline. Pri tome treba da je jasno da čovjek / društvo ništa ne radi
ekološki. Ne postoji ni ekološka poljoprivreda, mada takav naziv nosi
jedannačin poljoprivredneproizvodnje. Na mjestu gdje bi se zasadila mrkva i
uzgajala na ekološkim principima, priroda bi posadila koprivu i pustila da se
sama razvija u svom okuženju. Kako bi bogati više
zaradili, a siromašni više osiromašili postoje okolinski ekonomski
instrumenti. Njima se podstiče da koriste naprednije tehnologije koje imaju
manji uticaj na okolinu i veći uticaj na zarade bogatih. Ovdje je posebno
značajno da to ne razumiju političari u zemljama u razvoju i da
svoju karijeru grade tako da doprinose obogaćivanju bogatih. 6.
KLIMATSKE PROMJENE I RAZVOJ Klimatske promjena su
ozbiljna prijetnja razvoja čovječanstva i samog prirodnog okruženja. Bez
ideje pravog rješenja. Osnovni zadatak svake države je praćenje promjena
klime i rad na radaptaciji svih oblika života i svih privrednih grana u
državi. Klimatske promjene se ne mogu suzbiti, moguće je samoiznalaziti
načineprilagođavanja. Sasvim malo ublažavanje tog problema je obaveza 10 %
najrazvijenijih država, obaveza da snižavaju svoje emisije stakleničkih
gasova. To su države koje su po glavi stavnika imali najveće emisije
stakleničkih gasova u cijelom 20. vijeku. One to čine nedovoljno, a jedna od
njih nikako. Razvijene države na sve moguće načine tu obavezu prenose na
zemlje u razvoju i dopunski zarađuju. Mada se ovdje podržava rad
nevladinih organizacija, ipak se mora priznati da one ponekad sasvim
nekritično prihvataju finansiranje projekata od interesa samo za razvijene
države svijeta, kao na primjer izbacivanje uglja iz upotrebe na podučju
proizvodnje električne energije u zemljama u razvoju, što nije zahtjev
Konvencije o klimatskim promjenama. Pristup načinu razvoja
koji bi se mogao nazvati održivim uveden je krajem 20. vijeka. Puni naziv bio
bi: okolinsko-klimatsko-ekološki održiv društveno-ekonomski
razvoj. Naravno takav naziv u punom smislu riječi ne postoji. Pristup
održivog razvoja odgađa kijametski dan (bosanski), sudnji dan (hrvatski),
smak svijeta (srpski). Civilizacija će jednog dana upropastiti okolinusvake
grupe ljudi i/iliučiniti klimu nemogućom za život, te nepopravljivo narušiti
ekosisteme. Ovim samoubistvom civilizacije nastaje proces za novi razvoj
prirode i novog društva i tako pet do šest puta koliko sunce sija. 7.
ZELENA ENERGIJA: MIT I REALNOST Korištenje zelene energije
(prema definiciji ona predstavlja energiju proizvedene iz obnovljivih izvora
poput sunca, vjetra, vode i biomase) predstavlja aspekt zelenog konzumerizma
- svjesnog izbora potrošača da podrže proizvode označene kao „povoljne po
okoliš“. Prirodni ekosistemi
funkcionišu u zatvorenim krugovima gdje otpad ne postoji, pri čemu svaki
nusproizvod jednog procesa postaje resurs za drugi. Nasuprot tome, ljudske
aktivnosti često stvaraju otpad koji priroda ne može lako asimilirati, što
dovodi do akumulacije otpada i degradacije okoliša. U tom kontekstu, svaka
ljudska intervencija u prirodi, čak i ona označena kao "zelena",
ima negativne posljedice. Prava “zelena energija” ne
predstavlja samo prelazak na obnovljive izvore energije, kao što sama
definicija predstavlja, već i temeljno preispitivanje ljudskih potrošačkih
navika i odnosa prema prirodi. To treba da podrazumijeva smanjenje ukupne
potrošnje, ponovnu upotrebu resursa i dizajniranje sistema koji oponašaju
prirodne cikluse, gdje "otpad" jednog procesa postaje resurs za
drugi. Samo kroz takav holistički pristup može se postići harmonijau s
prirodom i istinska okolinska održivost. Kako
i šta raditi? Kako i šta radti?
(i) širiti znanje i svijest, (ii) definisati ciljeve razvoja. I
stvarno, (i) širiti znanje i svijest, (ii) definisati ciljeve razvoja. Pri
tome (iii) uravnotežiti odnose među slojevima društva i državama. I
stvarno, (iii) uravnotežiti odnose među slojevima društva i
državama. |
|
0. Preface This text is an attempt to
conceptually distinguish between terms that are often used interchangeably,
but have different meanings and implications: ecological, environmental
(environmental) and climatic. It also analyzes the social, economic and
political aspects of the modern approach to sustainable development. The
author offers a critical review of the terminological confusion and
emphasizes the importance of precise language as the foundation of
responsible environmental protection and climate action policies. 1. TERMINOLOGICAL BASICS
AND CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTIONS 1.1. The difference
between ecological, environmental and climatic The terms environmental
(environmental), climatic and ecological are often confused. The term
environment (environment) is related to the extraction of raw materials from
nature, the emission of pollutants into the air and water and the disposal of
waste, whereby the impact of an industrial facility spreads from the place of
activity into the environment (surroundings). This environment is usually
within a radius of several kilometers or tens of kilometers, until the
pollutants are chemically decomposed. On the other hand, triatomic and
polyatomic gases remain in the atmosphere for years or decades, regardless of
which part of the planet they are emitted from and cause climate change.
Thus, sulfur dioxide from a single thermal power plant has an environmental
impact (environmental) within a radius of several kilometers or tens of
kilometers, and carbon dioxide from the same thermal power plant affects
climate change on the entire planet. 1.2. Speciesism and the
nature-society relationship Life developed on the
geosphere (soil, water, air), on the basis of which society was created.
Regarding the relationship between nature and society, it is characteristic
that plants, animals and microorganisms adapt to nature, while man (society)
tries to adapt nature to himself. This anthropocentric
approach is based on the ideology of speciesism, that is, the belief that the
human species is superior to other forms of life, and that it has the right
to exploit nature for its own purposes. Speciesism, as a form of discrimination,
establishes a value hierarchy among species and denies the value of non-human
beings. In a practical sense,
speciesism is present in the ways in which societies manage natural
resources, treat animals in industrial production, but also in the way in which
environmental policies are planned and implemented. Nature is perceived
primarily as a resource, and not as a complex system of interdependence to
which man also belongs. The consequence of this relationship is environmental
degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change, which are precisely the
result of attempts to subordinate natural systems to human economic
interests. Rethinking the speciesist
logic is crucial for building more sustainable societies. Instead of
dominating nature, an ethical shift towards mutual respect, coexistence and
responsibility towards all forms of life is needed. 2. Ecology: a natural
science or a social construct? 2.1. Ecology as an
independent science The impact on the
environment and the cause of climate change are related to society, to the
technologies that society uses to satisfy its needs. And ecology is a natural
science, not related to human society. If there were oxygen and carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere on Mars, and water, and there were two types of
bacteria, a study could be written entitled The Ecology of Mars. Ecology
describes the relationships between living beings and the conditions for
their development (soil, water, air, precipitation, temperature, solar
radiation/irradiation), the relationship of living beings with each other and
with their habitats. Man cannot make anything that can be called ecological.
Environmental problems cannot be called ecological. There is a tendency to
replace the term environment with the term environment. That is wrong. Environment
is a social category, and environment is an ecological category. 2.1.1. Harmful or
adverse effects Does man cause damage to a
certain ecosystem through his activities? No, the term harm is related to
social processes and social sciences. Does polluted air have a harmful effect
on people? No, the term harmful does not exist in medical sciences either.
Pollutants have a negative effect on the human body. Does a forest fire
caused by a natural cause cause ecological damage? No, the damage caused can
only be economic. One forest fire in a hundred years, caused by natural
circumstances, is ecologically favorable because it transports nutrients from
the depths to the surface of the soil. Of course, every fire causes
ecological consequences, but not ecological damage. So, the term harmful does
not exist in natural and medical sciences. The term harmful is related to
social sciences, primarily economics. Ecology does not know about harm, and
in economics it is one of the most important terms. Benefit and harm. To me
and to another. And to the third. 3. PRODUCT
LIFE CYCLE AND GLOBAL INJUSTICE A product goes through
several stages of processing that are carried out in different locations,
even in different countries. This means that a human need is satisfied by a
product from one industry, the product is the final product in a chain of
several industries. This is why the environmental impact can be in one
country, and the economic profit and social benefit in other countries.
Therefore, monitoring the life cycle of a product and service throughout its
entire life cycle is relevant today - from the cradle to the grave of a
product or service. For example, Eurostat (the
statistical system of the European Union) shows that waste production is
decreasing in the European Union, while life cycle analyses say that it is
increasing. This is because the European Union buys semi-finished products
from developing countries, where waste is generated. Final processing takes
place in the European Union itself with little waste or with recycling
measures. Therefore, today's world trade is unfair. Environmental impacts
remain in developing countries, and the ultimate economic benefit goes to the
residents of developed countries. 4. EXPANDED
CONCEPTS OF ECOLOGY In line with the expanded
understanding of ecology that includes human activities, concepts have been
developed that link the natural sciences with social and economic structures.
Some of the key subsegments are: 4.1. Social ecology
(socio-ecological culture) Social ecology (from the
Latin "socialis" – social and the Greek "oikos" – home,
house, environment) studies the relationships between human societies and the
environment, emphasizing how social structures and economic systems affect
nature, but also how environmental problems, such as pollution and climate
change, shape social inequalities. While ecology explores the relationships
between species and their environment, social ecology focuses on human
responsibility and the social processes that lead to environmental destruction. Social ecology argues that
environmental problems cannot be solved without addressing social
inequalities. For example, pollution affects poorer communities the most,
while wealthier segments of society have the means to adapt to environmental
changes while enjoying the economic benefits of natural resources. For this
reason, the issue of environmental protection in social ecology is not only a
question of ecological techniques and strategies, but also a question of
social justice. Environmental protection must be based on a fair distribution
of resources, in which all social classes have access to clean water, healthy
air and healthy ecosystems. In this sense, social
ecology opposes economic models that favor the rich and impoverish the poor,
while at the same time destroying the environment. Environmental protection
and social justice must go hand in hand, because only in this way can we
create societies that will be in harmony with nature, not in conflict with
it. Social ecology calls for sustainable and just systems in which people are
in harmony with nature, which contributes to both environmental conservation
and the creation of a more just society. 4.2. Health ecology Health ecology studies how
environmental conditions affect human health, but not as an isolated medical
problem, but as a result of social and economic inequalities. Air pollution,
contaminated water, poor housing conditions and exposure to toxic substances
more often affect poor and marginalized groups. They do not have access to
adequate health care, nor the political power to fight for better conditions.
In this context, health ecology suggests that environmental problems do not
affect everyone equally – they deepen existing social inequalities. This branch of ecology
requires that the issue of health be viewed systemically, in connection with
urban planning, industrial policy, transport and resource availability. For
example, cities dominated by car traffic and industry often have higher
levels of respiratory diseases, but the solutions cannot be reduced to
filters and masks alone – but to changing the very social and spatial
structures that produce these conditions. The right to a healthy environment
is a prerequisite for the right to health, and health ecology calls for just
policies that make this approach a reality. 4.3. Agricultural ecology Agricultural ecology views
food production through the prism of ecological sustainability and social
justice. In the modern world, food systems are divided – on the one hand, we
have industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture that depletes the soil and
destroys biodiversity, and on the other, small-scale local producers who,
while more environmentally responsible, often lack access to markets,
financing or political support. Agroecology argues that food should not be a
luxury, but a basic human right, accessible to all under equal conditions. In
this approach, agriculture is not only a technical discipline but also a
social practice, deeply linked to issues of land ownership, workers’ rights,
seed rights and the protection of traditional knowledge. Therefore,
sustainable agriculture must take into account how it is produced, but also
who produces it, for whom and under what conditions. Just food systems must
enable farmers, workers and consumers to jointly shape environmentally and
socially sustainable models of food production. 4.4. Industrial Ecology Industrial ecology is an
attempt to model industrial systems on natural ecosystems, where there is no
waste, but the by-products of one process are used as a resource in another.
Ideally, this would mean closed material and energy flows, reduced resource
consumption and minimisation of emissions. However, viewed from the
perspective of social ecology, industrial ecology cannot be just a technical
tool, but must become an instrument of social change. Industrial production is a
social phenomenon – people decide where a factory will be built, who will
work in it, who will bear the consequences of emissions and who will reap the
benefits. In reality, industry is often located in slums, peripheral
communities or developing countries, where the population has limited access
to information, voting rights and institutions that protect them. The
environmental footprint remains local, while economic profits are transferred
globally, often to centres of power and capital. Industrial ecology cannot
be just about optimising machines and processes – it must be socially
responsible. It must ask: who decides, who suffers, and in whose name is
development conducted? It must involve workers, local communities and
affected groups in planning and decision-making. For example, if a factory
recycles waste, but workers in that industry do not have basic labor rights
or protection from toxic fumes, then this is not a sustainable model, but a
new form of exploitation. Industrial ecology that is not social becomes just
a sophisticated mechanism for shifting environmental pressure from the rich
to the poor. In this sense, the real
transformation of industry requires a change in the role of society: from a
passive user of technology to an active shaper of technological systems that
do not degrade the environment or human dignity. A new industrial logic is
needed - where production serves not only the market, but also the community,
where not only efficiency is optimized, but also fairness. 4.5. Green business Green business, as it is
most often understood by modern corporations, is a concept of a market
response to environmental challenges: to offer “sustainable” products that leave
a smaller environmental footprint. These can be solar panels, recycled bags,
organic food, electric cars or energy-efficient buildings. However, this
approach often remains within the framework of the so-called green
consumerism, which does not question the foundations of consumer society, but
only replaces one commodity with another – “dirty” for “green”. In this context, the green
transition often becomes a luxury available only to the wealthier strata of
society, while the poor continue to use old, inefficient, “ungreen”
technologies, because they are the only ones available to them. Green
business then becomes a new form of exclusivity – a symbol of prestige, not a
tool for social transformation. Corporations that promote “green” business
often continue production in developing countries where labor is cheap,
environmental protection is weak, and economic profits disproportionately go
to the centers of power. Real green business, from
the perspective of social ecology, must go much deeper. It must not only be
efficient, but also fair. It must redefine what success means – not through
profit, but through contribution to the community and the preservation of the
planet. This means changing ownership structures (local or worker
cooperatives instead of multinational corporations), including marginalized
groups in decision-making, and reducing overall consumption, not just
replacing products. A true green business does not sell ecological conscience
as a commodity, but builds it through transparency, solidarity and respect
for planetary boundaries. The green economy is not a
question of the market, but of values. If the values that guide society do
not change – from individual consumption to collective response – even the
best technology will not save the environment. In this sense, green business
must be a tool for radical social change, not an excuse for the continuation
of existing inequalities under the “green” banner. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION OR APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT The current model of world
development is based on socio-economic development, which in turn is based on
the use of nature's services to society. Society: (i) uses raw materials it
takes from nature, (ii) nature provides space for work, (iii) man uses
natural processes (the sun shines, it rains) and (iv) nature is the recipient
of waste. Guidelines and restrictions regarding the use of nature's services
is called environmental protection. At the same time, it should be clear that
man / society does nothing ecologically. There is no ecological agriculture
either, although such a name bears one method of agricultural production. In
the place where carrots would be planted and cultivated according to
ecological principles, nature would plant nettles and let them develop by
themselves in their contamination. In order for the rich to
earn more and the poor to become poorer, there are environmental economic
instruments. They are encouraged to use more advanced technologies that have
less impact on the environment and more impact on the earnings of the rich.
It is particularly significant here that politicians in developing countries
do not understand this and that they build their careers by contributing to
the enrichment of the rich. 6. CLIMATE CHANGE AND
DEVELOPMENT Climate change is a
serious threat to the development of humanity and the natural environment
itself. Without an idea of a real solution. The basic task of every country
is to monitor climate change and work on the adaptation of all forms of life
and all economic sectors in the country. Climate change cannot be suppressed,
it is possible to find ways to adapt on our own. A very small mitigation of
this problem is the obligation of the 10% of the most developed countries,
the obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. These are the
countries that had the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the
entire 20th century. They do it insufficiently, and one of them does not at
all. Developed countries transfer this obligation to developing countries in
every possible way and earn additional income. Although the work of
non-governmental organizations is supported here, it must be admitted that
they sometimes quite uncritically accept financing of projects of interest
only to the developed countries of the world, such as the phasing out of coal
in the field of electricity production in developing countries, which is not
a requirement of the Convention on Climate Change. An approach to development
that could be called sustainable was introduced at the end of the 20th
century. The full name would be: environmental-climate-ecologically
sustainable socio-economic development. Of course, such a name does not exist
in the full sense of the word. The approach to sustainable development
postpones the Day of Judgment (Bosnian), the Day of Judgment (Croatian), the
end of the world (Serbian). Civilization will one day ruin the environment of
every group of people and/or make the climate uninhabitable, and irreparably
damage ecosystems. With this suicide of civilization, a process is created
for the new development of nature and a new society, and so on five to six
times as long as the sun shines. 7. GREEN ENERGY: MYTH AND
REALITY The use of green energy
(by definition it represents energy produced from renewable sources such as
sun, wind, water and biomass) is an aspect of green consumerism - the
conscious choice of consumers to support products labeled as "friendly
to the environment". Natural ecosystems
function in closed circles where waste does not exist, where every by-product
of one process becomes a resource for another. In contrast, human activities
often generate waste that nature cannot easily assimilate, leading to waste
accumulation and environmental degradation. In this context, any human
intervention in nature, even those labeled as "green", has negative
consequences. True "green
energy" does not only represent a transition to renewable energy
sources, as the definition itself represents, but also a fundamental
rethinking of human consumption habits and attitudes towards nature. This
should entail reducing overall consumption, reusing resources and designing
systems that mimic natural cycles, where the "waste" of one process
becomes a resource for another. Only through such a holistic approach can
harmony with nature and true environmental sustainability be achieved. How and what to do? How and what to do? (i)
spread knowledge and awareness, (ii) define development goals. And indeed,
(i) spread knowledge and awareness, (ii) define development goals. And (iii)
balance relations between social classes and states. And indeed, (iii)
balance relations between social classes and states.
|
