Text: Marjolein de Jong | Photo: Jaap Schuurman | February 9, 2022

Many people think, believe, or strive for the idea that something must be done to solve the climate crisis, but you’re putting your money where your mouth is. You put your doctoral research on the philosophical foundations of quality of life under Professor Govert Buijs on hold and cut back on your work as a consultant. When did you think, “I have to do this”?
“We now have eight years left to halt CO2 emissions before we reach a point of no return . That makes my decision urgent. But I’ve been grappling with this issue since my early teens. I had a geography teacher who claimed during class that climate change was a hoax. In protest, I posted scientific articles on the blackboard to demonstrate that the greenhouse effect was very real.

Eighteen years have passed since then, and the problem has escalated dramatically, while little to nothing has been done in terms of policy. Over the past thirty years, we’ve emitted as much CO2 as all of humanity did before that. If we had taken action twenty years ago, we would have prevented an incredible amount of emissions. In any case, I’m dedicating the next eight years of my life to this cause.’

It sounds like a difficult choice.
“That’s right. I found the sense of loyalty toward my colleagues particularly difficult. At the same time, I’ve been walking around for years with a nagging sense of duty. I have the skills, I know a lot about this, and I’m good at giving lectures. Why not dedicate myself to what is the most important issue? It was also a relief to finally follow my heart.’

“Hard work isn’t an economic law. In fact, given the prosperity we already enjoy, we could work much less hard from an economic standpoint.”

You previously co-authored the book *How Do I Act Fairly*with fellow economist Matthias Olthaar , in which you argue that the climate crisis is linked to an unfair distribution of prosperity.
“I don’t see the climate problem as a problem in and of itself. Rather, it’s a problem of justice within our economic order. The way our economy is organized has numerous unfair consequences. We have plenty, while large parts of the world have nothing. Moreover, we import what we need—raw materials, jobs—at low prices. I don’t believe in unchecked globalization.”

Do you see public support for this idea?
“Not directly. After all, it goes against the prevailing notion that growth is necessary. Yet growth can be reduced to a simple psychological need: the need to belong. In the Netherlands, we have a social norm, and to fit in, your life must be organized in a way we’ve implicitly agreed upon: a car, a house of a certain size, or, for example, always giving a new gift at a birthday party rather than a secondhand one.

If you add up that list, you end up with an ecological footprint equivalent to three and a half Earths. To pay for that, we all have to work very hard. Hard work is not an economic law. In fact, given the prosperity we already enjoy, we could work much less hard from an economic standpoint. However, social norms still compel us to do so. So the real question is: what standards do we collectively agree on regarding what a good life looks like?’

"Feelings of powerlessness and guilt stand in the way of solving the climate problem"

Is a sense of belonging the only motivation for this? That sounds a bit simplistic.
'Fear also plays a role: whether, if we didn’t grow, there would still be enough for everyone. Would social services still exist if everyone worked less and national income and tax revenues declined? What about our pensions, or healthcare?

However, stopping growth doesn’t mean everything will shrink. As an economist, I dare say that you can stop economic growth while maintaining quality of life. I myself went from working five days a week as a consultant to three days. So I know that fear. But if you work fewer hours, you’ll have less money to spend, and your ecological footprint will automatically shrink. Plus, you’ll have time left over for what makes life worth living.”

You give a lot of talks about your ideas. What are the reactions?
'Mostly emotional. A number of emotional barriers come to light in the process. Feelings of powerlessness and guilt are the strongest when it comes to actually wanting to change things. Those kinds of feelings can stand in the way of solving the climate problem. When I speak with young people, I often hear: ‘It’s already ruined anyway.’ Adults are more likely to say: ‘I’ve already messed it up so much, I’ll never be able to make it right,’ or ‘The economy is so big, and I’m so small—what can I do?’ We need to come to terms with the emotions we’re feeling so that we can take action.'

Don’t you recognize those emotions?
“Definitely, but to a lesser extent, because I’ve already gone through those emotions. I’ve also been able to take them into account in my choices for a long time now. As a teenager, I decided not to get a driver’s license because I didn’t want to contribute to the problem. That means I also feel less guilty.”

“Within fifty years, the living environment of one and a half billion people in warm countries around the equator will become uninhabitable.”

When does it really hit home for you?
“It makes me sad to think about how this will affect people in countries around the equator. I find that really terrible. And so unfair. They’ve contributed virtually nothing to the climate crisis and will pay by far the heaviest price for it. Within fifty years, the habitat of one and a half billion people in warm countries around the equator will become uninhabitable. I think about them almost every day.'

But still, doesn’t that discourage you?
“No, mainly because it’s not rocket science. The coalition agreement and the newspapers are full of nothing but technical measures. That’s not what the problem is about at all. We have all the technical means at our disposal to put a stop to the climate crisis starting tomorrow, and that is: behavioral change. Changing social norms. It’s absurd that a government is throwing billions at a polluting industry to implement technological solutions, while leaving economic growth and consumer behavior untouched.

Yet there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Behavioral change and social norms are contagious. If a small group starts to challenge that norm, the new norm can spread like wildfire. It seems that once forty percent of people have embraced a new norm, the other sixty percent follow almost immediately. I can’t wait for that social revolution.'