By Soledad Nión Celio *

We do not perceive the climate and environmental crisis in one way. For each person, reality is what is close and familiar, something that is collectively constructed from beliefs, everyday knowledge, social norms and established routines located in a particular place. This means that the actions and strategies to face the challenges proposed by climate and environmental changes do not have a single socially defined definition, so the responses to their challenges are also different.

Far from being true that the heterogeneity of perceptions in relation to environmental risks is due to lack of availability or ability to understand information, social sciences have shown that these differences are mainly due to issues related to material and inequalities. structurally rooted sociocultural Evidence tells us that the amount of information about environmental health risks is unrelated to how we act on identified problems.

UN: Reduce emissions

Since the 1980s, there has been an interest in understanding how risk perceptions are constructed in different audiences (academics, technicians, policy makers, general public) related to environmental hazards created by technological and industrial development and cultural consumption patterns. Various authors have shown that the perception of environmental and health risks is largely constructed on the basis of risk definitions that are imposed sociopolitically, that is, by those who have the power to define problems in the areas of political decisions and technicians.

The “multiverses” that coexist around the definition of the climate and environmental crisis appear in different fields. Scientists and political decision-makers perpetuate differences in ways of defining problems and proposing possible solutions. As the Argentinian political scientist and environmental activist Flavia Broffoni mentions, “whoever defines the concept controls the debate”.

For example, in Uruguay, in mid-2023, the government designated a water crisis defined by social movements, academia, and various self-organized demonstrations as a consequence of the “robbing” of hegemonic models of water production. This “water crisis” has come to light due to the lack of potable water, especially for small producers in the urban area, as has never happened before in the country. However, this problem has been reported for years.

Heterogeneity of definitions of environmental risks

Reality is full of meanings based on socially validated knowledge and is constructed under power structures. The definition of environmental and climate risks is a field of disputes where technical and popular knowledge intersect with interests, power relations and the legitimation of knowledge by the societies themselves. It all depends on how we define progress, development, technology, well-being, nature and participation, among other issues.

After new questions

The problematization of the climate and ecological crisis implies a social definition of the risks associated with them in competition with the risks related to economic growth and scientific and technical progress. As it is decided to deal with the consequences of increasingly extreme climate events, the lack of access to quality environmental services for life (water, air) or the availability of space for growing food, are part of the risk selection process defined by science or politics. It is not only what we know that matters, but also what we can do with what we know, individually and collectively.

The answers to the question of what these risks and problems are and how they should be dealt with are different and often mutually contradictory. There are debates about what should be the criteria for environmental risk assessment, depending on the groups or social references being analyzed. Narrative imposition in relation to these definitions of risk and their consequences has significant economic, social and environmental effects. These impositions occur both within countries between socioeconomically hegemonic groups, and between “more developed” countries or regions in relation to others, which gain the weight of the development model and in its consequences.

The causes and consequences of global threats, such as the spread of disease and climate events, are unevenly distributed across the planet, as are the resources to deal with them.

Inequality and alternatives

There is little mention of the debt in the technical and political fields related to the responsibilities and causes associated with the multiple inequalities that are generated and deepened in this context of the climate crisis. Despite the seriousness of the socio-ecological situation the planet is going through, many countries have not yet ratified the Escazú Agreement (which establishes broad social participation, justice and access to information on environmental issues as an international standard), and few have considered socioecological debt. On the contrary, the climate of violence against activists and environmental movements has worsened in the region in recent years, and the conditions of the most socioeconomically vulnerable populations continue to deteriorate.

Some academic fields have abandoned the scheme of pure generation of scientific knowledge to propose and seek concrete transformations that address multiple inequalities. Those who advocate the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South, for example, argue that the energy, social and digital transition should be designed from the areas that make material, cultural and ecological sacrifices to save the planet.

In a context where definitions of ecological crisis are not unique, where excess information does not solve problems and where there are different geopolitical responsibilities in relation to planetary risks, it is necessary to discuss the mechanisms that could reverse the social inequalities that are reproduced. .. and go deeper into the planet. The above implies the acceptance of multiple realities that coexist around the topic, taking academic and political narratives as constructions full of meaning, making visible the structures that perpetuate mechanisms of inequality and giving space to alternative solutions with social permission. (OR)

* Soledad Nión Celio is a doctor of social sciences (Faculty of Social Sciences, Udelar). Teacher and researcher at the Department of Sociology FCS, Udelar and consultant in various organizations. He deals with the sociology of risk, health, production models, working conditions and skills.