Searching for a clear meaning
1. This expression is in vogue, used to convey the idea that it is to observe the occurrence of a coherent, conscious, immediate, and broad attitude, so that something is avoided to preserve life, the planet, in short.
2. But the noun transition, according to the UNESP Contemporary Portuguese Dictionary, has the meaning passage or change. And, as usual, it is intended to express a temporal period: transition time.
2.1. In other sources such as the Etymological Dictionary of the Portuguese Language, it says, "Transition, from the Latin, Transitione." Transition does not have the meaning of transigir, as in ‘compromise’, or ‘settle’ (intransitive v., to end a controversy with an agreement of the parties).
3. The use being made of the noun, followed by the qualifier, may be questioned. It is about governance of a change in a time of ecological transition, as questioned in the Encyclical “Laudato Si”, above all.
Why?
The best authors limit themselves to explaining that this transition means that, when the daily world supply of oil has reached its peak, “since it is not possible to increase the amount of oil extracted, while the daily world demand will exceed it, the increase of oil will be very heavy, which can be assumed to be a world recession, with serious destabilizing effects” (Leonardo Sawtati, Academia Alfonsiana, Rome).
Leonardo’s excellent article makes scathing comments about the indispensability of good governance for a “transformation that seeks to reach the various spheres of life and the economy” (ibid.).
A gap: I prefer environment to the noun ecology, both of the same species
4. The seriousness of the late Pope Benedict XVI greatly led him in life to dislike the non-diplomatic populism that he extended during his pontificate.
It is good to bring in this brief writing some of his manifestations regarding the environment, which I prefer to ecology.
4.1. And to demonstrate that, without true education, one cannot think of educating the new generations to preserve the environment.
To wit:
4.1.1. From a statement of 2/23/08: “Education is not only the work or work of educators: it is a relationship between people, in which, over the years, the freedom and responsibility of those who are educated come into play” (BENEDETTO XVI. Pensieri di Fede per una Vita Felice: Riflessioni, massime, esortazioni per la meditazione quotidiana. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore S.p.A, 2012).
4.1.2. And, days later (1/3/08), he adds: “Education is one of the main points of the contemporary anthropological question”.
4.1.3. Still in the same year and month (Feb/7/08): “Professional education is not enough without formation of the heart. And the heart cannot be formed without at least the challenge of the presence of God”. Because education is not and can never be considered purely utilitarian. It aims, above all, at forming the human person and preparing him or her to live life to the fullest. In a few words: it aims to educate wisdom (Sep/17/10.
5. Still in the words of Benedict XVI, as he points to true education: “The future of the planet is entrusted to the new generations, where the signs of a development that has not always been able to protect the delicate balances of nature are evident. And before it's too late, it is necessary to adopt courageous choices that can recreate a strong alliance between man and the earth.”.
5.1. Not to exasperate: “The degradation of nature is closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence (8/12/09), because “it is not difficult to verify that environmental degradation is commonly the result of political projects with mistaken views or the persecution of myopic economic interests (ibid.).
To conclude: if you want to cultivate peace, cultivate creation (Dec/8/09)” (ibid.).
6. The research we have dedicated ourselves to in serious and global publications has led us to the essay written by 6 scientists from different institutions and different countries. And the topic was whether there are rights that preserve soil health. And they conclude as follows: “It is essential that what we have here is protected and preserved. Draining carbon-rich soils, harvesting carbon from peat bogs, or destroying soil biodiversity to convert them into more revenue-maximizing crops so they can generate short-term profit, are self-defeating for society. Furthermore, activities aimed at mitigating climate change need to recognize the role of soils in global biogeochemical cycles. Planting trees in natural grasslands and peat bogs, for example, can be an undesirable handicap to biodiversity and the large amounts of carbon in the soil. Real action is urgently needed to prevent vast amounts of fertile soil from disappearing to the bottom of the oceans” (Science, vol. 379, 6627, 06/01/23, p. 34) (Science, vol. 379, 6627, 6/1/23, p. 34).
6.1. Moving on, what about the animals? And their survival? And their extinction? Animals, following what Martha Nussbaum, eminent philosopher and law professor, added to her select bibliography this title: Justice for animals: our collective responsibility (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2023).
As her commentator Dale Jamieson (Science, ibid, p. 35) adds: “The central idea is that an injustice can occur when an animal's 'qualitative effort' is inhibited by [human] 'error' through action or omission. Nussbaum argues for the superiority of her theory over others and goes so far as to discuss the harm of death, tragic conflicts, our responsibility to animals in a variety of ways, conflicts of duty, and the role of the law in achieving justice for animals”.
And what about the Arctic and Antarctic melting, what do we need to prevent it from occurring at the same intensity?
7. Again, we find two research articles in this same issue of Science (p. 29 and 78). Let's continue the contribution that the authors made to such a delicate topic:
a) Two professors who have lived in glacial areas (Iceland and Canada) wrote: “By acting now we will reduce glacial loss – many of the world’s largest glaciers have not yet disappeared, and prompt action can make a difference.”
For this topic, the authors carried out thorough historical research in Iceland from 1890 onwards and concluded that at least two kilometers disappeared.
Emphatically, they affirm that the Paris Agreement has contributed little to this and even more that “if the temperature is stabilized at any level, the glaciers will continue to lose mass”.
Also following forecasts, whether in Iceland or Antarctica, sea levels will rise and there will be an alarming decline in biodiversity.
In short, for the authors, this decade is critical to becoming a real catastrophe if serious attitudes regarding the climate issue are not taken.
b) Glaciers and their changes in this century: also, in Science (ibid., p. 78/83): the contribution of thirteen scientists from six nations produced an impressive demonstration of the changes in glacial regions of the whole world: “Alaska, the periphery of the Arctic and sub-Arctic, North and South Arctic, Iceland, South-East Asia, West, Canada and United States, South-East Asia, Scandinavia, North Asia, Central Europe, New Zealand, the Caucasus, and the Middle East.
What is happening is undeniable and has been scientifically proven, through comparisons with previous projections, including what is not common, such as the importance of maritime glaciers.
The authors summarize and forecast: “Our projections reveal a strong linear relationship between global temperature rise and loss of glacial mass. This relationship demonstrates, at a regional and global level, that for every increase in temperature, there are significant consequences for glacial melting and, therefore, the rise of sea levels, changing hydrology, ecosystems, and natural hazards. Based on the COP26 reports, the global temperature is estimated to increase by 2.7°C per year, which will result in a rapid increase in glacial melting and sea levels.” (ibid., p. 83).
To conclude...
We realize that societies in general are living without legal guarantees. And man forgets that the law is a condition of love for our neighbor, also forgotten, refused, or rejected.
Cynically, several international organizations have been built that do not bring the slightest contribution to humanity.
The purpose of these organizations, if they acted truly and without other ends, would be the art of hope.
I close the curtains with the Encyclical of Benedict XVI: “God is charity: love – charity will always be necessary even in the most just societies”, and “There is no just legal system that can make serving with love superfluous” (no. 28).