Alicia: So the responsibility basically lies with the people preparing the regulations, not with the designers?
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: I would like designers to look more broadly, not just at a particular building or plot of land. That they would see how what they are doing simultaneously affects architectural, economic, natural and social spaces - and that it is also the result of their interaction. Above all, however, we should have decent standards, such as zoning. The participation of designers, practitioners and specialists in the development of these norms is very important. The principle of Tom's freedom in his own house should be limited to four walls, private space. The outdoor space, on the other hand, is a public space that is meant to serve everyone. We have a very large room for action to improve this. We happen, unfortunately, to conduct regulatory business foolishly. In Poland, it's mainly various pressure groups that lobby for one thing or another. It is very good that these groups are there, and that they express their opinions, but they represent the interests of narrow groups, and sometimes outright individuals. The law, to the extent possible, of course, can accommodate their demands, but much more important is the broader public good.
Alicia: This is a rather difficult concept to define. Who would ultimately decide whether a solution works for the public?
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: From the point of view of climate and biodiversity, there are two basic principles. First, if a change leads to a decrease in emissions - it is good. Second, if any change leads to an increase in biodiversity - it is good. At least in this regard, we are guided by such simple rules. If a solution goes in the right direction, it is to some extent worthy of support. To some extent - because I'm not saying that optimal solutions can be achieved everywhere. But, as you can see, a basic framework or guidelines can be formulated.
A good law may require evaluation of activities, products or planning in terms of production costs, carbon footprint. I realize that very detailed regulations are difficult to implement, but it is worth starting at least by introducing simple assessments of this impact.
Alicia: A system similar to energy rating stickers on appliances?
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: Yes, it could be the same with garbage sorting or waste management. It is a profound misunderstanding to dump this task on the citizen, who carefully looks at each package or waste and wonders where to put it. The law should mandate simple labeling on things that can become trash. For example, a red dot for red containers, a green dot for green containers. It should be the job of the manufacturer and the approval authority to think about how to design a product so that it can be properly labeled and then recycled.
Alicia: Architecture is also among the mentioned things that can become garbage. Is it worth pushing for regulations to support its repair and reuse?
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: Of course! And this doesn't only apply to architecture. I've lived through three science reforms. Each of them was to start all over again. There was no effort to improve what was working badly, or to identify what could be done better. And yet we get used to certain things and changing them can make us suffer. Who knows, maybe it would be better if the sea in Poland was in the south and the mountains in the north? I'm not sure, but I don't think I'm the only one who has thought of such a thing. The same goes for smaller scale facilities, and this is followed by "fantastic" ideas: let's build something new from scratch! Let's leave or plow the rest. But, after all, only in a few cases such action is justified. Rather, we should take care of what we have and what we have done.
What kind of future will we choose? - Decisions on climate and energy made in this decade will affect, among other things, how high the water level will be in the next centuries. Downtown Gdynia - visualization of projected sea levels as a result of a 1.5°C (left) and 3°C (right) rise in global temperature, prepared by Climate Central, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org
© Climate Central
Alice: Especially in cities, which until a certain point shaped centuries-old processes. Except that now the rate of transformation is accelerating. The temperature is also rising faster. Can the changes currently underway still be successful at all?
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: If we look at the Old Town in Gdansk, for example, it is lost. This is a perspective of maybe fifty years, maybe a hundred and fifty, maybe three hundred. But it is very unlikely that we will reverse either sea level rise or climate change on this time scale. It is also unlikely that we will cut off the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and much of Europe's coastline from the ocean. So it is as you say: the things we have grown accustomed to as permanent are no longer permanent. Now it is all the more our responsibility to slow down the process. To give ourselves a chance to change. Because maybe in a time horizon of three hundred years we will figure something out. But in a time horizon of fifty we certainly won't.
That's why I stress that it's very important to design, build and invest with the idea that every move we make has an impact on emissions and biodiversity. If we make such a move wrong, it adds to the process of large-scale destruction. It is possible that we build ourselves something fantastic locally, but the effects of this, added up with other processes, can be very bad. At the same time, there are plenty of great solutions we can come up with. I'm not an expert, but I've already seen a proposal for the development of so-called green-blue infrastructure for Copenhagen. This document already assumes a sea level rise of 1.3 meters. That is, planning with a view to a hundred years, not what we have at the moment.
Wisloujście Fortress in Gdansk - visualization of the effects of a 1.5 meter sea level rise prepared by Climate Central,
www.sealevel.climatecentral.org
© Climate Central
Alicia: In Warsaw we have some changes modeled after Copenhagen.
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: On the occasion of the pandemic, I switched to a bicycle, one with electric assistance, because I did it with commuting in mind. The travel time is similar to commuting by car, I have a minimum of traffic, and there are still a few alternative routes: I can take most of the route on bike paths without participating in heavy traffic. This is a serious change in quality. Unfortunately, Warsaw is separated from Copenhagen by a gulf when it comes to the alignment of bicycle traffic with everyone else. In our country, intersections, crossings or the issue of traffic separation is solved in a way that is simply unsafe. That's why some people are afraid to ride a bicycle. And similarly in other areas: transfers, public transportation, rail in the city - it doesn't work. It's not because of a lack of infrastructure, it's because a lot of little things don't work well.
And in design, as in getting around the city, it's worth thinking in terms of function: how to get around, how to shop, not with what. What to do so that the environmental cost is as low as possible, and those functions for humans are as good as possible, for example, for health. And sometimes we get in the way of our bad habits, such as the habit of driving a car. It's a bit like diet. Of course, you can't forcibly impose certain solutions on people in such topics, but if we design something that offers an alternative, and work to convince people of it, it can work. Meanwhile, in Warsaw, the alternative is superficial, at the cheapest cost, underdeveloped. The devil is in the details, and we are comfortable. If the details are bad, we sit in what we consider our own place, which is the car, and that's it.
Alicia: I guess that's why in the context of climate change, the inevitable need to give up comfort is often mentioned.
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: But what does comfort mean? As I mentioned, this is an ill-defined issue. Do we, for comfort, have to seize as much space as possible? No, comfort is our well-being in the sense that we feel good in a space that is available and possible for us to organize and embrace. And the practice is that, for example, in spaces that are too large, we don't feel so good at all. It's more about ego gratification than comfort. Comfort is about making a space healthy, friendly, conducive to social, sports activities - in a word: life activities. If we define this comfort in such a way that everyone is supposed to have a huge mansion outside the city with a tract of forest and a hundred gardeners, foresters and other specialists to maintain it, this is no longer comfort. Because those people who maintain it are an inferior caste.
Alicia: I meant comfort understood as maintaining a certain level of civilization - our luxury - widely at the expense of the global South.
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: OK, this is another issue. I keep repeating such an anecdote: a colleague of mine from the United States once said that the worst thing America did for the climate was the TV series "Dynasty." Do so-called developing countries have to repeat all the worst elements of our development path? And do we on that path have to keep going? Can't we look at it from the point of view of human beings and what they actually need for a satisfying life, to be healthy, clean, to have water, food, basic sanitation, and to be properly positioned in the social space?
Alicia: Instead, we generate pressure to repeat the worst patterns.
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: Agreed, we generate it ourselves. If we stop, it will decrease. If we show an alternative.
Alicia: Do you think this is possible? Shifting from chasing profit to meritocracy?
Prof. Szymon Malinowski: It is possible, and there are substantive works on the subject. It is not at all necessary to give up the pursuit of profit, but first of all to bring about the absence of externalization of costs. Because we can get profit in two ways: either we generate added value, or we externalize costs. At the moment, a very large part of profit is obtained by people not paying for the use and exploitation of the environment. And this is the problem. It's not a matter of redefining the way people operate, it's just a matter of properly - imposed by law - counting profits and losses and environmental fees and factoring environmental costs into planning, into design and then into operations.
For example, there is a report by Cambridge economists, "The Dasgupta Review" - prepared last year at the request of the British government, who show precisely those elements in which our system works badly. Yes, in this respect a meritocracy is advisable instead of the complete autarchy we see. Unfortunately, so far there is complete autarchy.
Alicia: Thank you for the interview.
interviewed: Alicja GZOWSKA
Szymon Malinowski - professor, atmospheric physicist and director of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Warsaw. He serves as chairman of the Climate Crisis Team to the President of the Polish Academy of Sciences. His commitment to popularizing knowledge is shown in the film "You can panic" (2020).
