Reykjavík Grapevine - 02.07.2008, Síða 12

12 | REYKJAVÍK GRAPEVINE | ISSUE 08—2008
INTERVIEW By Sveinn Birkir BjÖrnSSon — photo By kormákur mániINTERVIEW
In 1990 you wrote an essay entitled “Ethics
of Nature”, where you argue that looking at
nature from an anthropocentric viewpoint is
unethical, and that man’s rational abilities,
the “ability to conquer the Earth,” places eth-
ical obligations on us to think of the big pic-
ture and make ethical decisions for the good
of the whole when dealing with environmen-
tal issues. Man, you say, is really subordinate
to nature, not the other way around. Is this an
accurate summary of the essay?
Yes, it is. I believe that we have the obligation to
take into account the interests not only of human
beings but of all living beings and of earth itself
as the condition for and the system of all living
organisms. The basic reason for this is that we are
endowed with a capacity to think beyond our own
limited condition and to consider how things may
be seen from perspectives entirely different from
our own. This capacity helps us to understand, to
a certain extent at least, what is in the interest of
other living beings and what makes the land or
the environment a better place to live for different
creatures.
has your thinking on nature and the environ-
ment changed since then?
It has evolved and I have come to think that re-
ligious or even metaphysical questions may be
more important than one might think when we
are dealing with practical environmental issues.
In my little book, Meditation at the Edge of Ask-
ja, I try to remind us of these questions and how
they affect our thinking. Perhaps our spiritual life
consists in establishing a relationship with nature
where we have to respect it both as a terrifying re-
ality and as the fundamental premise of our lives.
“Ethics of Nature” was more concerned with
animal rights then environmental issues, but
a lot of what you had to say could easily be
applied to some of the environmental issues
that are facing Icelandic society today, right?
Absolutely. That paper was originally a contribu-
tion to a conference for veterinarians, but I tried
to present the values and the attitudes which we
need to take into account when we deal with en-
vironmental issues of whatever kind. We have to
realise that economic values require a certain
way of thinking that is quite different from the
way we think when we are preoccupied with a
mental value like knowledge. And to think mor-
ally implies applying moral values like justice,
love and respect which constitute an ethical at-
titude towards living beings and nature itself.
To what extent are the environmental issues
we face today ethical, as opposed to techni-
cal or even economical?
Formerly, it was much easier to regard environ-
mental issues, such as pollution, simply as prob-
lems to be solved by new technology. But now
we have come to realise that what is required is
a change in our life style and that means in our
way of valuing what matters, how we organise
our lives together, and, in short, how we think
and behave towards nature. And this calls for a
type of ethical thinking which is not easy at all.
One of the most obvious ethical dilemmas we
face today from an environmental standpoint
regards sustainable development, finite natu-
ral resources and our duty to leave something
behind for our descendents. In Iceland this is
especially relevant when it comes to energy
resources and fish stocks. how would you
suggest that policy makers approach these is-
sues from an ethical standpoint?
From an ethical standpoint the main task of policy
makers is to engage the general public – with the
help of the media – in a process of reflection and
debate about environmental issues. Policy makers
should also encourage teachers at all levels of the
educational system to help raise awareness and
knowledge among the young about the values at
stake in our relations with nature. They should
avoid as much as possible making decisions on
environmental issues without deliberate consulta-
tion with all those affected by the decisions.
Enviro-ethics
By Sveinn Birkir BjÖrnSSon
INTERVIEW By haukur S. magnúSSon
first off, was your decision influenced by en-
vironmental reasons or health reasons?
I wanted to lose weight and get into shape, but I
was very busy and was looking for an exercise
I could integrate into my daily routine. My first
choice would probably have been to walk to
school but I told myself I didn’t have four hours
a day to spare. That’s unfortunate. So I started cy-
cling every day and I changed my diet. I think the
environmental reasons where there at the back
of my mind also but they were not the triggering
cause like the fitness issue.
Was there an adjustment period?
I have always loved cycling but not always made
time for it in my life. So I do not remember any spe-
cial period of adjustment. But I do remember how
incredibly tired I was after cycling from my home
to school the first time. And I also remember the
time when I had grown so used to cycling that it
felt a little odd to go to work by car. It is strange but
now I associate the car in the city with confine-
ment, lack of freedom. If I go by car to work, which
is very rare, I fear that I might hit a traffic jam, not
make it on time etc. I can smell the anxiety on the
city roads, the traffic, traffic lights, everyone is in
a hurry. Speed makes you anxious.
There are persistent claims that the condi-
tions in Iceland are very unfavourable to cy-
clists. What does your experience tell you?
Almost all of what they say is a myth. Take the
weather for example. It’s supposed to be too bad
to cycle in Iceland: too windy, too much rain, too
cold. People forget that for every “bad” day in Ice-
land there are at least eight beautiful days when
it is a pure delight to cycle to work. There have
been many a calm winter day when I have arrived
completely recharged and refreshed to work after
riding in a wonderful weather through wonderful
scenery. And the “bad” days are not bad, really. In
the past two years I have only gotten into minor
problems due to the weather three times, and that
was because of snow. The city workers had not
had the time to clear the bike paths properly. I had
to carry my bike part of the way. But in my experi-
ence they usually do a good job of keeping those
paths clear. People talk about the storms. Last
winter we had a lot of low pressure systems arriv-
ing at our shores with frightful consistency, like
commercial jets coming in for landing. But only
once did they cause problems for me, and again
only minor problems with a certain entertainment
value to them. These problems are nothing com-
pared to the problems motorists in Reykjavík have
to deal with almost every day.
What can be done to improve the situation for
cyclists and make the bicycle a more attrac-
tive mode of transportation in Reykjavík?
Things are tolerably good as they are now. What
needs to be done is to make people realise this:
one can cycle to work on bike paths from most
neighbourhoods in the greater Reykjavík area.
Things have improved since I started cycling from
Garðabær. But I am keenly aware that there is
room for improvement, if, for example, you com-
pare Reykjavik to Copenhagen. I would like to see
more bike paths and less car pollution. It is going
to be difficult to reduce pollution in Reykjavík but
maybe the gasoline prices will help here. I would
like to see companies in Reykjavik do more for
employees who cycle to work. Simple things like
easily accessible showers, closets for clothes and
indoor facilities to keep the bikes would make
cycling more attractive to people, no doubt. A
simple cost-benefit analysis should convince cor-
porate executives to invest in these things for their
employees.
has this affected your family life at all? Does
this make you exempt from all the mundane
stuff around the home that is difficult to per-
form on a bike, like dropping off the kids or
picking up the groceries?
I still have a lot of work undone here. But I have
been trying to turn this into a way of life for the
whole family, with some success. I am for the most
part an obedient husband and do what my wife
tells me to do around the house. But she does
more of the grocery shopping and dropping off
the kids, although only one of the kids still needs
dropping off. She could definitely have made this
hard for me. But she hasn’t.
“See, in 1994 or 5, the city of Reykjavík had 430
cars for every thousand inhabitants. Today, there
are over 700 cars for every thousand inhabitants.
This means that instead of being like most Scan-
dinavian and European cities we like to compare
ourselves to, cities with beautiful and vibrant cen-
tres, we’re becoming more like a US “car-city”. And
this is bound to affect the quality of our life here
in a negative way, it will colour the way we inter-
act as citizens. It’s happened in many American
cities that totally succumb to the automobile as
sole means of transport and organise themselves
around it.”
Reykjavík city councilman Gísli Marteinn Bal-
dursson is answering the Grapevine’s question of
how he would like to see Reykjavík’s transporta-
tion system evolve in the next decade. He is doing
this over the phone, as he is currently on a cycling
tour of France with his family. This is not surpris-
ing, as he is an enthusiastic biker; in fact making
cycling a viable alternative to motorised forms of
transport has been a part of Baldursson’s agenda
as head of the city’s Environmental and Transpor-
tation council.
“We need to ensure that the conditions for al-
ternative modes of transport, such as bicycle paths
or the bus system, are attractive and maintained
enough that car ownership becomes an option
rather than a necessity. We do not want to be a
“mall city” that’s castrated and devoid of character
in every way. We want to make a lively and vibrant
city atmosphere and correctly organising commut-
ing and transportation is a big part of that. Less
space is wasted on freeways and parking, pollu-
tion is minimised and culture is enriched. And I’ve
done the math: this way is cheaper for everyone in
the long run. Fortunately, there is a great unity over
this vision in the city council so it should come to
fruition soon.”
This year, Baldursson says the focus is on mak-
ing cycling a more attractive means to travel. “What
we are working on right now is a path that goes from
the west side of town and all the way east, so that a
person can easily bike to the university area from
Breiðholt. We’re talking about a real transporta-
tion vein that will have lights and will be ploughed
if it’s snowing, just like any highway. Our end goal
is to offer an infrastructure for cycling in Reykjavík
that will make it an attractive choice for year-round
transportation, a series of well maintained biking
paths that will circle and cross the city for maxi-
mum accessibility. Presently, 2% of every journey
made in Reykjavík is on a bike, our long-term aim is
to greatly multiply that number.”
Riding
Reykjavík
Re-envisioning Reykjavík’s
Transit System
A philosopher changes his
ways
Philosopher róbert haraldsson.
Róbert H. Haraldsson is a profes-
sor of philosophy at the University
of Iceland. Two years ago, Har-
aldsson decided to change his hab-
its and use a bicycle as his main
mode of transportation instead of
a car. Every morning, Haraldsson
pedals his way from his home in
suburban Garðabær to the Univer-
sity of Iceland just outside Reyk-
javík centre, 10.5 kilometres each
leg. A Grapevine reporter asked
Haraldsson a few questions to
learn how this change has affected
his life.
in the paSt two yearS i have only
gotten into minor proBlemS due
to the weather three timeS, and
that waS BecauSe of Snow.
Professor of philosophy Páll Skúla-
son, former Dean of the University
of Iceland, answers a few ques-
tions on environmental ethics.