What Can We Do In These Powerful Times?
What Can We Do In These Powerful Times?
Sandrine Dixson-Declève
Sandrine Dixson-Declève is Co-President of The Club of Rome (LinkedIn, Twitter, Wikipedia). She divides her time between leading The Club of Rome, advising, lecturing, and facilitating difficult conversations. She currently Chairs the European Commission, Expert Group on Economic and Societal Impact of Research & Innovation (ESIR) and sits on the European Commissions Mission on Climate Change & Adaptation.
We speak a lot about the latest findings of systems dynamics modelling as expressed in the book Sandrine co-authored, Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity.
The major finding is the need to address inequality and poverty, in order to avoid a graver social backlash and to make action on environmental challenges easier politically.
This is a reversal of many environmentalists over the last decades, who have said: yes, inequality is important, but if we don't address climate change first then any improverments in poverty will be wiped out anyway.
Sandrine turning that logic around: the only way to have an environmental transition is to have a just transition.
The other finding in Earth for All is that all this can and must be done through economic growth, just a growth decoupled from impact. Sandrine explains how from 22:29.
Links
Club of Rome
More on Jay Wright Forrester, pioneering systems scientist at MIT, here and builder of the first World Dynamics modelling which fed into the Limits to Growth report.
Earth4All is a vibrant collective of, co-convened by The Club of Rome, and builds on the legacies of The Limits to Growth and the Planetary Boundaries frameworks. In effect the website, background papers and book are the 50 year update to the Limits to Growth report.
Amitav Ghosh's The Nutmeg's Curse
More on Inflation Reduction Act, or 'IRA', here.
More on Amartya Sen's claim on democracy and famines here.
The red dotted-line of GDP still grows in the Giant Leap scenario:
This diagram: Callegari B., Stoknes P.E., People and Planet: 21st- century sustainable population scenarios and possible living standards within planetary boundaries. Earth4All, March 2023, version 1.0.
EU Expert group on the economic and societal impact of research and innovation (ESIR) here.
I have now put the chapter from the unpublished book on my website here. It explores 'security through protection' vs 'security through renewal'.
More links here
Twitter: Powerful_Times
Website hub: here.
Please do like and subscribe, to help others find the podcast.
Thank you for listening! -- David
Hello, welcome to What can we do in these powerful times? I'm your host, David Bennett. I've been working in the field of sustainability and climate change for some 20 years. It feels like the need for change is growing faster the impact we're delivering. So I'm wondering, What can I do next that's useful. Speaking with others, they have that same challenge, which is why I'm doing this interview series in 30 minute bites, I ask some brilliant people what they're doing now and why, or to inspire and enable the audience, which may just turn out to be me through stories grounded in experience. And today, I'm delighted to say we're joined by Santoprene Dix on the clef, who is the CO president of the Club of Rome, advisors to governments, European institutions, and various company and university boards. Hello, Sandrine. Hello, David. Hello. So what are you doing now? And how did you get here?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:So what am I doing now, right now?
David Bent-Hazelwood:Just in general, around this time,
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:both of those? Sure. So was as CO president of the Club of Rome very much, trying to work on ensuring that we unpack wicked problems and the continuous human problem I tick through what I would call short levers, short term levers for change, but also ensuring that those short term levers have a systemic approach. And I must say is we're facing the poly crisis, the thinking of the Club of Rome is incredibly useful in understanding the interrelationships between different crises, points, and how we can put forward the right solutions. So I guess I work through the club is is incredibly interesting, empowering, but also very complex, and at times, difficult, very difficult. But I'm enjoying it. And I'm also enjoying working with different companies, and also governments and trying to face these challenging times with some optimism.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Cool. So firstly, let's, let's just unpack what is the Club of Rome. So if people have heard about it at all, they may have heard about it from the limits to growth report, which is just over 50 years ago. But what is the Club of Rome? What does it mean to be the CO president of the Club of Rome?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:I don't know what it really means to be my guest. But, you know, sometimes I forget, actually, that I'm supposed to be presidential. But at the end of the day, what it does mean is working with some absolutely incredible decision makers and thought leaders from across the globe, who are multidisciplinary in scope, and who have either published worked in academia or worked in governments in decision making situations and who really believe that we have to collectively think through the challenges before us. And think through the types of approaches for the 21st century. And I would say the members of the club today are very concerned that first we haven't understood the importance of the limits to growth, that seminal report, that very clearly indicated that in the 2020s, we would probably be hitting some very grave tipping points. And part of that is because we've gone far beyond our planetary boundaries as a human species. And we haven't addressed the key elephant in the room, which is consumption, and thinking through how do we change our economic and financial systems in order to reduce our impact on the environment?
David Bent-Hazelwood:And from my limited experience, one of the things which differentiates the Club of Rome is the focus on systems thinking, and that's part of the heart of where is Genesis? I think that
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:absolutely, absolutely. If you look at the original system, dynamic model that was used during the thinking for the limits to growth by the very incredible and I would say quite quite unique group of researchers that came together at MIT under the leadership of Donella Meadows and Dennis meadows, that that system unpacking which was obviously also produced by Forrester and and figuring out how the interrelationship between population growth between the economy and the focus on GDP, thinking through natural resources, but also then the social impacts all those interrelationships through system dynamic modelling could make us realise that first of all, linear thinking doesn't enable us to truly unpack complexity. And secondly, that if we want to address solutions, we have to think through those solutions in a systemic way with She looks at the interrelationships that the feedback loops, whether they be natural feedback loops or whether they be human feedback loops in the way in which we interrelate with our society. So very important way of addressing complexity, and also addressing the wicked problems that we have before us.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Great. I'm sure we'll come back to all of that. But I'm still interested in how you came to be the CO president of the Club of Rome. So what can you give us a little tour of your path up to that point?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:Sure. I mean, I think I there it's a very structured kind of protocol way of becoming the president, which is you have to be elected on the executive committee, and you have to be a member of the club. But I guess the reason why those who decided to elect me elected me, is because my path to today has been very much driven by working with policymakers working with business, and, and working with civil society to truly unlock difficult discussions. And to both build partnerships, but really head on head our, our thinking in terms of how do we unpack the key challenges that we have before us, I've had the absolute pleasure of working with the European institutions, but also the UN, and policymakers and trying to write innovative new policies to really act as enablers for change and transformation, but also have been working with business for many, many years, all the way from my background as an environmental engineer. So really, on site, putting in place environmental management systems, working directly with different companies in terms of some of their environmental impacts from the very beginning, whether it be chemicals, whether it be oil and gas, all of the the big and bad and intense polluters, yes, and learning an immense amount about how you work with people who don't really understand the necessity to change, but also how you build the right policy frameworks to enable change. And then most importantly, how do you bring more people on this very difficult journey? How do you unpack some of that complexity and that fear within the human spirit that keeps us from really doing what we should be doing? That is the right thing?
David Bent-Hazelwood:Right, a very important final question there. And so then, into my second question, what's the future you're trying to create? And why?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:What, what, what, at least, the future that I'm trying to create? I mean, I think that if we continue down the path of what most people are trying to create, which is this obsession, with power, profit, and also unfortunately, a patriarchy system or a patriarchal system that is not reflecting real values and the needs that most people have. What I'm trying to create is an economy and a financial system that truly services people planet and prosperity at the same time. And in particular, through this polycrisis, to work with leaders to address the elephant in the room, as I said, which is really that that consumption, the demand side, rather than always focus on supply always focus on technology as being the panacea, and unpacking some of our governance systems that are not functioning, making sure that we have true leadership, and bringing in the systems thinking, shifting away from our neoliberal economy to an economy of well being. Those are some of my hopes of how we build a future that will get us out of this mess that we're currently in.
David Bent-Hazelwood:And in many ways, that is our best art. It always is articulated in the 50 year update to Limits to Growth, which is the book Earth fall. And the I think the penultimate chapter in those is, I think, the title of that summarises for me, a lot of what you just said there, which is from a winner takes all capitalism to Earth for all economies. That's the shift that you're trying to generate. Is that a fair way of describing it?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:It is David and and that's why I also think that although we all fluctuate between despair and hope when we wake up in the morning, and we hear the news, and we see around us this kind of polycrisis and the influence of what I call the three C's, the COVID climate and the conflict impacts. I think that what we're really trying to do now is is think through, how can we transform in crisis? What does that look like? And how can we build a well an economy that truly services of people, and isn't continuously ingrained in this production at all costs, profit for the few and not the many and power within the hands of a leadership that has completely forgotten its responsibility to serve, and to serve people. Now, those are some pretty deep shifts within our current system. And we recognise that in Earth for All. The beauty however, of Earth for all a survival guide for humanity, what we've tried to do together as different organisations and the co authors is to think through okay, unfortunately, we have a too little too late scenario, which is kind of where we are today, rollout of legislation, which is not ambitious enough, in a variety of areas, very little questioning of the current neoliberal economy that's gotten us into the Iran and into a giant leap scenario, which really demonstrates what can be done these are these are not pie in the sky requests, your x these are actually building in many cases across the five turnarounds, where we focus on poverty, inequality, empowerment, food and energy. For each we unpack what does it look like to actually reach that giant leap? Now, I think one thing that is very new in this book, and in the thinking and our theory of change, is that if we don't address inequality and poverty, first, we will see a graver social backlash. And probably the greatest tipping points will be social tipping points or even greater than environmental tipping points. So it's dealing with those situations of inequality that are fundamental, and has come out very much in terms of the results of our well being index and our social tension index. And the reason I say that is, if you look around us today, where are we seeing the greatest conflicts, we're seeing it in countries that have not taken into consideration, true inequality. We're seeing it in the in the Great Britain for the moment in terms of all of the strikes that we're seeing, by the NHS, the National Health Service, but also by many people who are the teachers who are starting to be fed up with the way in which we have placed a value only on capital markets, rather than on human services. And maybe my last point there is often more told, but it's too difficult. It's too difficult to transform, especially in a crisis. But look at what we did during COVID. mean, as much as it was difficult for governments to take the decisions that they had to take, and for the masses to follow those decisions, either wearing a mask or getting vaccinated. At the end of the day, states had to take more leadership for the benefit of the many, not just few. That's the first big shift in thinking. The second key shift in thinking was that actually, we could transform our economies for the wrong reasons. But we could very quickly Yeah, in order to reflect the crisis. And the third was the incredible way in which most people did listen. And most people did get into what was most essential not only for them, but for the broader community and people around them coming back to not necessarily how many things they could purchase, although there were some that definitely went online and went for mass purchasing. But many came back to what was most essential, the lot the lives and livelihoods of themselves and those around them, and ensuring actually that they could thrive not just survive.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Yes, I think just quite a lot of different things to unpack there. One is that we're speaking on in the UK today is the second day of a nurse's strike. This nurses strike is unprecedented. I think it's the first time in 40 years and that's a sign as you say, of the struggles of the UK after having a very rentier based economy basically, right away. There's a lot more that can be said about that. And then your point about the systemic inequality. Amitabh Ghosh in the Nutmeg's Curse makes the point that the countries that struggled the most with COVID were not the ones that are porous, but the ones which had the deepest systemic inequality. So it wasn't really about resources available. It was the adaptive capacity of society because have a sense of solidarity or being in it together, which is destroyed by deep systemic inequalities. And I think that I wanted to go back to those conditions and the way in which we responded in COVID. I mean, the thing about that was it was a crisis, and it was an obvious emergency. And one of the challenges presented by this wider policy crisis is that it doesn't feel like a crisis in the same kind of immediacy. We're not, although we've declared a climate emergency, it's very easy to go day to day without realising we're in a climate emergency. So do you think it's possible to generate that same kind of hole of society and whole of government response? When the actual experience of the crisis is not as acute and not as widespread? As it was with COVID?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:I think it is difficult, definitely. And in fact, tomorrow I'll be or the day after tomorrow, I'll be participating in a debate around whether democracies can save climate change. And, and I think there is a real question around the responsibility of countries and the responsibility of governments, you know, when is a when does a government finally realise that actually, this is truly a crisis, that climate change, even if it's not just impacting that country, will actually in the same way that the pandemic did, starting in China will at some stage have a deep impact on the country's economy, on its stability, and on insecurity? And I think that part of that comes from a reflection of solidarity. So clearly, we know that it's a very small part, we know 1% of citizens, actually, in particularly the most vulnerable countries actually truly have an impact on emissions. I mean, it's tiny minutiae of those that are most vulnerable, that truly have an impact on the climate crisis, it is the most high income countries that have that impact. Now, there are two things that are happening. One is that some of those countries are clearly starting to feel the impact. I mean, you can look at the states, and the way in which Biden now has rolled out the IRA, I think the IRA is a response both to climate change, and obviously, to building up a domestic economy that will actually be able to compete against China and the rest of the world. But at the end of the day, it is a signal to companies and to citizens, that actually this pathway of ensuring that climate change does not continue, is is really important. And actually, it's being translated into mostly technology investments, which is a bit of a shame, because it also should be translated into governance shifts, and other types of innovations. But still, it's moving in the right direction. So So I do, I do feel that we're starting to get, you know, just here in Belgium, by the way, we had some of the worst floods we've ever had a year and a half ago. And there you could see, at least in Wallonia, where the floods happened, that, for example, they were the country that supported the first to even put money up for a damage and loss fund, at at the COP. So at the climate negotiations, tiny little region, by the way, but who immediately understood the significance of helping others because they themselves for the first time had been hit by the floods. It needs to be much broader than that, of course. And I am hopeful that we will start to see more ambition. But I am a little bit fearful that that ambition can no longer just be reflected through the traditional climate negotiations, because the last negotiations as you know very well in Egypt did not come up with the goods. And and the next negotiations. We do wonder in Qatar, is having the chair of the presidency is being obviously a CEO of an oil and gas company, can really lead us into a situation where we're going to phase out the greatest karma in bid carbon emissions from fossil energy and really make a difference.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Yes, I mean, I think one could say stronger than question, but perhaps there's more than you're able to say at this time. And just for British listeners, as well. The IRA is the inflation Reduction Act IRA can mean something quite different in the UK.
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:Sorry, yes. Of course, of course, there's another IRA, business, no Irish significance or significance whatsoever Ireland in the US.
David Bent-Hazelwood:And and I think on this thing about responding to crisis versus chronic conditions, it does make me think about the Amartya Sen insight that democracies don't have famines, but they do have malnutrition. And so how we promote the democracies can cope with things which are judged to be normal and don't break through people's understanding and don't create immediate risk. COVID broke through. And it created a sense of crisis, particularly because rich countries were running out of intensive care space. And that was meant that anybody new person who got very ill was going to die. So that was a great sense of crisis. And I wonder if we're able to generate that consistently for climate change for the end the rest of the poly crisis for long enough to get the depth of changes that we need? Even so I don't know if you know, the work of Roman and I'm gonna mispronounce his surname Krennic K Rs, good ancestor, good ancestor, where he developed an index with another researcher on democracies versus dictatorships in dealing with long term. And his answer is that democracies for all their imperfections do tend to work act for the long term better than dictatorships. So that's something to take into your talk tomorrow. I wanted to pick up one part
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:of its setting sitting on the bar,
David Bent-Hazelwood:rather than be able to tell you himself. It'll be in London, actually. Well, maybe well, I wanted to come back to because of course, we started off with Club of Rome being a sort of breakthrough moment being 50 years ago with the limits to growth and then earthwool book, I highly recommend to everybody. With those two scenarios, too little too late and great leap. And one of the features of the Great Leap scenario, which I think took a number of people by surprise was, it does have the decoupling of environmental impact the absolute decoupling of environmental impact from economic growth. So the the graphs on page 50, ones on they show that it's possible to have a form of economic growth, which has reducing environmental damage. When the model came up with that, were you surprised? Were you delighted? How, what was your response to that happening?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:Well, we've actually seen some decoupling at the European level, we have seen a reduction of our emissions. And yet before COVID, it continued to see level of growth, there is the possibility, at least in the short term, of being able to continue to to have some level of growth. I think the key question, first of all, is what what type of growth are we talking about? And I think that has to be really unpacked. We would, we would say, in many cases, that, for example, even in terms of costs to get to the giant leap, it's only two to 4% of GDP. So it is not as if this but per annnum, globall. It's not as if it's an enormous cost. A lot of that decoupling can happen with the elimination of perversities in the market. I mean, our markets are not optimised at all. And we you got in a variety of different ways, I always find it interesting. And again, often in the US, we only hear about new capital, and particular moving towards green projects. And we only hear about new technologies. But first of all, we have most of the technologies that we need, which we could apply right now. We also very much could reduce our demand very clearly, as much as change our supply. And that reduction in demand, for example, in terms of energy could have an immediate impact on the way in which we can continue to have economic development, but just in some ways reduce the way in which we use our energy. Now the question there is, how much of an impact have we actually put and how much do we truly measure? And this is, I think the other question in our economies, other key indicators that are important to demonstrate what growth could look like, right, as Kate Ray were says very clearly as well, I mean, a child can continue to evolve, but it doesn't grow physically, past the age of 18. We can say that we can continue to evolve. So I think our notion of growth, first of all has to very much shift. And coming back specifically to the decoupling element. First of all, if our notion of growth already has evil offed into something that has a variety of different indicators rather than just production. And if we look at the direct impact of the economy, on emissions, we can then see a real shift. And we can definitely see a decoupling possibility. And I think part of that decoupling is very much part of the giant leap scenario in the sense that we're starting to already reevaluate what the notion of growth is. And we're already reevaluating the fact that we're moving towards a well being economy that takes into consideration social and environmental indicators.
David Bent-Hazelwood:My one line version of that will be something like d growth as the old and growth as a new, where the new is not just growing new sectors and new technologies, but also new ways of being a new ways of enjoying ourselves, so that we can be still having fun within environmental limits. I want to move on to
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:build on that, because I fully agree. And I think it's a beautiful way of showing it, we also need to realise that the high income countries will have to grow very differently. In the same way that we have to ensure that there is economic development and continued development opportunities and evolution within other economies, in particular, the lower income economies, and the medium, but mostly lower income economies. So the key here, because obviously often the Club of Rome, and others who are not neoliberal economists, and who have indicated that there are different ways to structure our economies, we are often told, but hold on, all you're saying is D growth means that actually, the rest of the world, most of the world has to stop growing. That's not what we mean, we mean that there are different types of economic models that will enable low income countries to thrive. And part of that also is how we can work in partnership, to think through some of the key constraints within the economy. Debt Cancellation, for example, trade deficit issues, neocolonial relationships, were in the end, the high income countries are starving out, really the low income countries and making it impossible for them to thrive.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Absolutely. So with all of that in mind, the third question is, what are your priorities for the next few years?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:Well, the priorities for the next few years are really rolling out this thinking and but rolling it out. Also, in some of the work that I've been doing with the European Commission, I chair, this wonderful group of experts called the economic and societal impacts of research and information innovation expert group. And what we're trying to do there is think about transformation in crisis. What does that look like? Because my big worry is that we've been able, actually to now get the Green Deal, for example, in Europe to get the inflation Reduction Act in the United States. And we now have the equivalent green industrial deal also being proposed at the European level. But have we really thought through what are the key drivers right now, that will not lock us in to either a fossil economy or to the wrong subsidy structure that do not enable for what we would call industry 5.0, or a new type of economy that really does move towards well being these knee jerk reactions that most governments have to crisis is a real problem. And so ensuring that every step of the way, and we've produced for example, so with others here in the European Union as systems compass, where we show very clearly the 10 key principles that are necessary in order to implement the European Green Deal. And within that context, what we've tried to do is give very clear steer in the same way as Earth for all to governments, and to the European institutions, of how we can actually transform in crisis. What does that look like specifically? And I think the earth for all is the same what what I want to make sure that we all do, those of us that are very much shifting the bar and pushing policymakers and citizens and business leaders into a real transformative just transition is to bring forward the key solutions, not just technology solutions, but also proposals in terms of new governance frameworks of proposals in terms of research and innovation. And so we have to become much more specific as to what transformation means. So what does that mean in crisis? What kind of short term levers are we talking about? I extend on the taxonomy group, for example, again, at the European level, you know, on on sustainability criteria for investment. And you know, that that, in the end, nuclear and gas were included in the final decision making, even though we had clearly indicated that neither one of them were agreeing, we need to get very specific about the types of criteria of what actually is a green and social project. What does that look like? What are green and social investments? What types of policies are truly enabling these investments? That is what my goal is for the next few years to make sure that we don't backtrack, because we are very close to backtracking on some of our pledges.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Sure, and one piece of information for folks there would be that the taxonomy is a European sustainable finance taxonomy, which was to help investors to badge what their investment, what they're investing in the assets, so they know how green they are or what or, and as you say, there was quite the battle over whether gas and nuclear count is green and battle that was won by the lobbyists rather than by those on the side of the environment, unfortunately, well, and
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:I wouldn't only criticise the lobbyists, I would criticise the French and German governments as well, who at that time, Germany, obviously having made a pledge not to enable more nuclear, but France very much wanting to both promote nuclear and Germany wanting to promote gas. Together, they decided to enable both to be included in this taxonomy. And it demonstrates how close we are to potentially backtracking. And I just want one last qualifier, if I may show the nuclear classification of Green was not because it doesn't have a obvious impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, we were all in agreement that from a climate perspective, nuclear is clearly a climate asset. But it is not an environmental assets due to radioactivity and waste issues.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Absolutely. And I think it's interesting to pull out from those priorities stepping back from the specific or the taxonomy, that sense of the poly crisis is not going away, is going to get tighter and more difficult. And in faced with a crisis, it's much easier for governments and populations to act in quite a protectionist protect your own kind of way. And it sounds like what your priority is about how to make sure the responses to those crises are ones which open up the possibilities for the future, rather than closing them down. And sticking very narrowly to protecting me in mind today.
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:Absolutely, and I think there is, unfortunately, really no room for pure individualism, whether it be at the country level, or whether it be at the citizen level, what we've realised is we are as vulnerable as the most vulnerable link, and with crises in motion, and we will have more of them. This is just the beginning, we have to remember that actually, we are part of a greater whole, whether it be part of the human species, and not just one individual, or whether it be part of the greater animal kingdom, which unfortunately, humanity has forgotten and has made its presence. slightly too large, in terms of the capacity, the carrying capacity of the Earth.
David Bent-Hazelwood:This is reminding me of a chapter I wrote for a book, a book, which was then never published and therefore very frustrating, the the chapter is still stuck on a pee on a shared drive somewhere. That because of all of these crises, that the step, the desire for many people we want of security. And so in this speculative scenario, in 2050, countries have turned into one of two directions. One is security through protection, and the other is security through renewal. And it's the ones that have gone through renewal, which then become the more dominant powerhouses of the future, regardless of where they started from. So that was that. But that speaks all to that notion of people in crisis will seek renewal. So then how do saris security? The question then becomes how do you deliver that security to people in a way which is actually enduring, rather than just a mirage? And if people are inspired by your priorities, they're about how we respond to that crisis in a generous open way and in particular, the policy dimension which is your focus, what should they do next?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:So I think there are a variety of different ways to engage depending on the type of actor that You are, I think, never forget your role in whatever sector you work in, or whatever community you are part of in terms of transformation. And there are so many things that one can do at the level of their own community. I mean, Often I'm asked, you know, I want to get more involved in policy, but it might be someone who's in the fashion industry. And then I often say, Well, why don't you actually use a podcast or use your Instagram in order to influence more people at your level to change. So I think it's very important to use the communities we're in to already become change agents. And to carry that message, I would call on people to read some of the publications of the Club of Rome, but also in particular Earth for all a survival guide for humanity. I must say, David, I've been completely blown away by the reception that that book has received. I think that many of us were a little bruised with the experience of the limits to growth, even though it's sold millions of copies. The club has continuously been accused of being conspiracy theorists, and the doomsday club, etc. Clearly, because that was easier for those that felt under threat, because we were very much questioning their way of being and their way of thriving on the back of others. But reading referal is survival guide for humanity is, I think, a good way to engage. And also to join our movement, we're trying to get more people involved in the earth role, are going to be setting up a series of different citizen assemblies, we are working directly on policy recommendations. And but any books that are in this space, I think are worth reading, because they do give some clear ideas of where where to go next. I also feel that voting differently is incredibly important. And I know that often, we hear that we don't have the right leaders in place. But also it's very difficult to find ones that we could put in office. And I think it is our responsibility, all of us to make sure that we bring forward some real heroes and heroines and change agents into our political structures, who are ready to step into long term thinking, and not just short term political cycles. And really think through how it is to be a good ancestor, as Roman would say, Yeah. and protecting the generations that come after us
David Bent-Hazelwood:who and I think one of the good things about Earth rule is it has these five domains you listed earlier, and there's I think, 15 policy proposals, and somebody can just pick off one of those that they want to contribute to, as well as, as you say, in their existing community, whether that's a fashion or their local area, choose a way in which they're contributing towards Earth for all moving on, if your younger self was starting their career now, what advice would you give them?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:I'm always a little bit flabbergasted is that at the direction that my career took? And I often call it a circular career because what I've realised is that everything that I've done, luckily, has really been able to service me and others in creating now the career that I have. So so it's been very interesting. And I think that part of that has been very hard work. And I do find it slightly disconcerting. I think there is a new generation that unfortunately, because of social media, first of all, don't want to engage in the real economy. They want to develop a different type of economy, most of it and Internet, whether it's digital economy or an internet economy. I do find that quite worrying, because I am not 100% convinced that the future of work is just digitalization and a service economy. So I think that is one advice that I would give is to continue to work hard in the existing economy, but also to ensure that you very much enjoy and follow your passion to enjoy what you do to do it with great integrity. I do think that that has served me in terms of very much enjoying and being passionate about everything that I do, but also trying to maintain a level of integrity that I would also hold up to others because there is a great deal of of backstabbing in All in all careers, yeah, and of not enabling each other, to be our best selves, through our careers and through the jobs that we decide to, to work through. So I think this is very important to one continue to work hard to not just think that creating a new job within the digital economy or a service job is the only path forward and and to really do whatever you do with great passion, compassion and integrity.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Wonderful. Last few questions. So who would you nominate to answer these questions because you admire their work?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:Who would I nominate to answer these questions? One woman that I have always found incredible is Sharon burrows. Right. So she was the President, Secretary General of the International Trade Union Confederation, and has just stepped down, incredible woman who stepped into a man's world. If you look at unions, and very clearly indicated from the beginning of her mandate, after really working through the ranks, mostly through education, by the way, in the unions of the education unions in Australia, but made an immediate link with the importance of climate, and also environment to people and to workers lives. And she, there's a quote that she uses that I that I really very much appreciate, is you know, there are no jobs on a dead planet. Yes. And that for me. So I would definitely recommend Sharon.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Wonderful. And then just finally, is there anything else important you feel you have to say?
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:I am fundamentally convinced in humanity, and in the human spirit. I'm very hopeful that we can go back to what we truly are as humans, and foster a humanity, which will make us proud. I am very worried, however, that if we continue with the neoliberal system that we have today, that continues to foster profit, power, and definitely does not serve as people planet and prosperity, that we are really going straight into a wall. And and that is my, my real deep concern. But I do believe in the goodness of people and think that if we can step up to the plate and optimise our wisdom, together, we can get out of the mess that we have created. No one else has created, the mess that we're facing, we have created it as humanity in this Anthropocene. So let's make the Anthropocene this epic moment. Something that actually we can really be proud of.
David Bent-Hazelwood:Yes. So there's, it's both daunting and enabling to think that we created this situation that gives us agency because we can do something about it, particularly following the mantra of Earth football, if we can turn for a winner takes all economy, to Earth for all economy. And then we are in a position to thrive within the world that we have. So thank you very much to solving for your wonderful inspirational conversation. This is you've been listening to what can we do in these powerful times and the next episode. Thank you very much.
Sandrine Dixcon-Decleve:Thank you, David.
