You remember the iconic the picture of Olaf on the tram in Oslo on the way to the Holmenkollen ski jump, during the oil crisis? He took the tram. He chose not to exercise their ledelsessignaler through to ask the Castle buy into a more bensingjerrig limousine. Rather not buy CO₂-allowance … He took the tram.

today we read that the 1500 private planes are expected to land in Davos, for the world’s leaders bl.a. to be able to gather to discuss climate change. They had a meeting. They not only took the fly as such, the liner. They took private planes. We notice, however, also – with interest – that the number of managers in the year did not materialize, apparently because their presence neither would serve the good cause, or good re-election at home?

Can a message be considered and understood regardless of who is sender, who is receiver and what is the situation in the environment? I will say no. Neither when it comes to scholarly presentation or clean symbolhandlinger one can isolate the message from – especially – the sender.

Therefore, it is unfortunately so that when Gunhild Stordalen fronts is a message that is perceived as asceticism, almost pietistisk austerity and extreme change in diet, then destroyed completely it actually is a pretty big scientific weight in an important report, of godtfolks pictures of bryllupsfeirings-eksesser, 17. may-parties and frequent luxury cruise vacations.

For the environment – and klimasaken this is very serious. It is caused by that environment – and klimasaken already grapple with a structurally klasseproblem related to the solutions that are most often recommended to save the planet. It is short and well if a little too thoughtlessly overuse of the effective markedsstyrings-means, which often means to “put a price on pollution”, and then “pay for itself”.

There is (if we look away from the road finansieringsfaktoren) precisely what we do when we pay tolls, that is what we do when we pay (volunteers) CO₂ quotas for the flights, that is what we do when we pay gasoline with high bensinavgifter and that is what we do when we don’t have forward elbilene in a separate VIP-file on the motorways. We takes a “pay-for-your-pollution”approach.

Use of markedsmekanismene in this way is theoretically completely correct. Set a “price” on pollution will only the most important, crucial and most profitable pollution be back. The where we did not find the options. The rest will be gone. Theoretically completely correct. But it is then one must not forget that we live in a democracy. If the man in the street sees that what he perceives as the elite simply cannot change one iota of his pattern of behavior, just scroll up the wallet and “pay for themselves”, so we destroy sammenbindingskreftene in the important samfunnslimet, what keeps us together as a people.

And that’s when we have to return to king Olav and the then oil crisis. Of course, there was a symbolhandling. Of course, knew all, including king Olaf himself, that it “only” was a symbolhandling. It is important, however, was that it was the right kind symbolhandling, a slide show of the fact that the crisis did also the king changed his behaviour – not only paid for itself, not only – in our 2019-language – “bought a CO₂-allowance”. (Something completely different is that he tried to pay for them – also. Trikkebilletten. But where he failed apparently.)

I am among them who believes it actually is can be a complete proven that we only have a short time on us to save the planet. I also think on the main conclusions of the EAT report, even though I currently believe the exaggerating and feilvurderer something in the tool-recommendations. But major changes need to. Will we be able to get people with these big changes, I must however request that some members of the highly-privileged classes, be it bistandspolitikkens jetsettere or storkapitalens tender souls, knows his when to strike, reads his time and discreetly remove themselves from the public eye. Quickly. (Help like outside of the spotlight!)

It’s been a few decades since the eminent German intellectuals of Norway-the connoisseur and the Norwegian-His friend Magnus Enzensberger admiring wrote this as one of their unforgettable impressions from Norway – some of what he is most of all noted about the customs in our country:

“No, private consumption is in the Uk rather seen as a necessary evil, and only a delicate border separates it from the lastefull utskeielse. Where it tillatelige ends and the sinful begins, is a question which it requires much moral finfølelse to answer. A her Norwegian citizen moored rather its to 200,000 kroners (for young readers; this-is-an-old-book, it was the time when a lot of money) yacht in a secluded cove, than run the risk of disturbing a neighbour with a provocative bright from a champagnekork.” (“Alas, Europe – impressions from seven countries”, page 178, Polity, 1987.)

Eia we were there. “But it is long, long, long time ago there….” In the meantime, have champagnekork-ødselhet in the most documented public become the norm in many of the bedrestilte. Almost alone among them Enzensberger admiring described stavrer a red, worn topplue soon out of time and will then meet a king who took the tram. Back in solitude we stand – army us – and in the red, worn toppluens and trikkekongens absence, we are left to be guided by a queen who asks about why we can’t eat cake, as the report says we don’t have the well of the bread. the

This text was originally a status on Holes Facebook page and has also been published on the energiogklima.no

do Not listen to those who try to confuse you. This is not an attack on the Norwegian meat Comment