The concept of “ecological debt” has been gaining attention in the government, promoted by a polite prime minister who is also a former environment minister. This has led some to wonder if this signals a serious commitment to environmental issues. However, it is clear that the concept of “ecological debt” is flawed and accompanied by serious setbacks in the fight against ecological crises. It is not the same as the global debate about the debt accumulated towards countries in the Global South due to exploitation of their natural resources and the impact of climate change on these populations. The prime minister’s focus is on the debt we are leaving to future generations by exceeding planetary boundaries with our consumption and destruction of natural resources.
The prime minister has compared two debts: the financial debt of the state and the ecological debt towards our children. This comparison is seen as unreasonable given the different risks they entail. While the financial debt is important, the “ecological debt” is about the habitability of the planet and the quality of life for humanity and all living beings. Applying a creditor/debtor logic to nature is also flawed, as the impacts of climate change, species extinction, and pollution are often irreversible. This attempt to frame the situation in financial terms masks the true reality of the environmental crisis.
The prime minister’s approach to the concept of “ecological debt” is also criticized for its lack of concrete actions to address the environmental challenges we face. While he talks about the debt we are leaving to future generations, his government’s actions do not reflect a strong commitment to tackling these issues. The focus on symbolic gestures and rhetoric without real policy changes is seen as inadequate in the face of urgent environmental threats.
There is a concern that the government’s use of the concept of “ecological debt” is a distraction from the urgent need for coherent and effective environmental policies. By framing the issue in terms of owing something to future generations, it may divert attention from the immediate actions needed to address the pressing ecological crisis. Symbolic gestures and rhetoric without real policy changes are not enough to address the complex challenges facing the planet.
Overall, the concept of “ecological debt” as promoted by the government is seen as inadequate and potentially misleading in addressing the current environmental challenges. The need for concrete actions and policies to combat climate change, species extinction, and pollution is more pressing than ever. It is essential for the government to move beyond rhetoric and symbolic gestures to implement tangible solutions to protect the environment for present and future generations.
