GREEN TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE (TOURISM) DEVELOPMENT, AN INDISPENSABLE PROGRAM OR AN IMPOSSIBLE UTOPIA? A CRITICAL DISCOURSE Harald A. Friedl FH JOANNEUM – University of Applied Sciences, Bad Gleichenberg, Austria; harald.friedl@fh-joanneum.at In: TOURIST Consortium 2020 (Ed.), 3rd TOURIST Conference on Sustainable Tourism: Building Resilience in Uncertain Times (Conference Proceedings, S. 37-58). Kasetsart University, February 3 – 4.2021 in Bangkok, Thailand ABSTRACTS The global tourism system as well as the global human civilization in general is challenged - beyond the current troubles caused by the CoVid19 pandemic - by growing threats such as the climate crisis (Becken & Loehr 2021), the global pest of plastic (Aurézet et al. 2021), the accelerating loss of biodiversity and other highly problematic developments. All these threats have in common to be impacts of the modern industrialized way of life of which tourism, conceptualized as the business with mobile consumption (Friedl, 2012, p. 258), is an essential part. In order to meet these challenges, a growing number of people both in the field of science as well as among NGOs are claiming a fundamental change of this economic and socio-cultural system based on infinite growth by successively exploiting limited natural resources. They advocate a kind of “Green Transition” (Kemp-Benedict, 2018; Scott, Hall & Gössling 2019; Acosta et al. 2020). Much as such a “Green Transition” in the direction of a climate neutral, natural-resource preserving economic and social system would be needed in order to become sustainable, there are some fundamental problems hindering such a fast and floating change. Basing on the Socratic method of maieutic (Henke 2019), fundamental determining elements of our global systems and its ability to be influenced are critically challenged in a kind of “Tour d ’Horizon”. Main social, economic and political drivers of change as well as stability factors are discussed in order to identify further need of research in the field of behavior modification, cultural and political change management and sustainability in tourism. Keywords: Climate Crisis, Transition, System Change, Challenges INTRODUCTION In addition to the current CoVid19 crisis, tourism as well as the entire planet continues to be confronted with problems that are currently still largely unresolved and whose seriousness continues to grow unabated. This applies first and foremost to the global climate crisis, the progress of which has only been marginally slowed down, let alone solved, even under CoVid19 conditions (Smith, Tarui & Yamagata, 2021). The effects of the climate crisis on tourism are manifold (Scott, Hall & Gössling, 2019), but will not be discussed in detail here. By way of illustration, however, the following consequences of climate change should be mentioned: the rapid coral bleaching (Ainsworth & Brown 2021), as a result of which entire branches of tourism are losing important natural attractions (Prideaux & Pabel 2018); the shortening of the winter season and the melting of glaciers (Pröbstl-Haider, Dabrowska & Haider 2016), as a result of which numerous ski resorts are becoming increasingly unprofitable due to rising costs for artificial snow or have already been closed (Steiger & Scott 2020; Steiger, Posch, Tappeiner & Walde 2020); the increasing number of hot days, as a result of which southern destinations are increasingly threatening to lose their attraction during the hot season (Day, Chin, Sydnor & Cherkauer 2013;Pröbstl-Haider, Hödl, Ginner & Borgwardt 2020; Pröbstl-Haider, Wanner, Feilhammer & Damm 2021). 37 Other global environmental problems that remain largely unsolved and have consequences for tourism are the increasing contamination of the oceans by plastic waste (Chaturvedi, Yadav, Siddiqui & Chaturvedi 2020; Chenillat, Huck, Maes, Grima & Blanke 2021), which is also putting the attractiveness of bathing destinations under increasing pressure (Garcés- Ordóñez, Espinosa, Cardoso, Cardozo & dos Anjos 2020; Rodríguez, Ressurreição & Pham 2020); the increasing overfishing of the oceans (Palomares, Froese, Derrick, Meeuwig, Nöel, Tsui, Woroniak, Zeller & Pauly 2020), which is increasingly endangering the long-term supply of marine fish for the population as well as for tourism businesses; and finally, the unabated continuation of the burning and extraction of petrol, the development of new, ecologically highly problematic petrol deposits (Lin & Tjeerdema 2008), which on the one hand continues to increase climate-damaging emissions. On the other hand, this also puts pressure on the global energy supply due to peak oil (Chapman 2014; Bardi 2019; Norouzi, Fani & Ziarani 2020), the global production maximum of cheap and easy-to-extract crude oil. This is not surprising, since oil is a limited resource (Becken & Friedl 2018). These and many other problems must be solved in the medium term, otherwise the systems based on these conditions will collapse. Tourism thrives on attractive, beautiful, clean and intact natural spaces. As an activity defined by mobility, tourism requires energy for the transport of tourists. But both intact natural spaces and energy resources are limited. Although this simple calculation is so obvious, no "serious" measures to solve these problems are concerned obviously, as we still suffer from a dramatic loss of biodiversity which is yet getting worse instead of getting stopped (Morand 2020; Damiens, Backstrom & Gordon 2021), as loss of biodiversity is estimated by some authors as one of the causes for the outbreak of the current pandemic (Platto, Zhou, Wang, Wang & Carafoli 2021). In order to fight those problems, numerous technical solutions are being researched worldwide, such as climate-neutral fuels for aviation (Peeters, Higham, Kutzner, Cohen & Gössling 2016; Gray, McDonagh, O'Shea, Smyth & Murphy 2021), methods for cleaning the oceans of plastic waste (Bishop, David & Lens 2020), carbon dioxide storage (Aminu, Nabavi, Rochelle & Manovic 2017) and much more. However, most of these technological solutions can never compensate for the complex problems. The example of the global amount of plastic waste that ends up in the oceans every year shows that the underlying cause is a systemic problem (Dauvergne 2018; Villarrubia-Gómez, Cornell & Fabres 2018; Stafford & Jones 2019). As long as plastic continues to be produced on a large scale for disposable packaging, used and disposed of as cheaply as possible, as is the case in most regions of the world, plastic will continue to end up in the environment and ultimately in the oceans in ever greater quantities. The analogous problem applies to climate change. The basic, overarching global system that is largely responsible for global warming or even global plastic pollution is based on the principle of maximum growth at minimum cost. The prices of products, however, are calculated for reasons of competition, forgoing the truth of costs. This is because the costs of the far-reaching secondary and above all long-term consequences are "externalised" as far as possible in order to keep prices low. This connection has been intensively discussed in research under the term "tragedy of the commons" (Murase & Baek 2018; Bezin & Ponthière 2019; Isaksen, Brekke & Richter 2019). In this respect, even the apparent prosperity generated by this untrue growth is in many respects a "borrowed" one, because it is financed by costs that are passed on to future generations (Hummels & Argyrou 2021). 38 According to Feola, Lara, Smessaert and Spanier this approach cannot be called "sustainable" (2020) in the sense of the Brundtland definition, according to which a sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 24). If one therefore does not want to consciously "consume" planet Earth, but wants to preserve it as liveable for future generations, a fundamental change, a so-called “Transition”, is required. OBJECTIVE AND LIMITATIONS The more clearly global undesirable developments such as global warming and the "plastic plague" come to light, the louder the call for a "Transition" as the golden path to a "green" future (World Economic Forum 2019; European Commission 2020; ESAS 2021) is also being invoked in research. Different concepts are discussed, be it the “Common Good Economy” (Daly & Cobb 1989), “Circular Economy” (Sarja, Onkila & Mäkelä 2021; Grafström & Aasma 2021); “Sharing Economy” (De las Heras, Relinque-Medina, Zamora- Polo & Luque-Sendra 2021; Gupta & Chauhan 2021), “Post-Growth” (Strunz & Schindler 2018; Mair, Druckman & Jackson 2020; Hardt, Barrett, Taylor & Foxon 2021), De-Growth (Buch-Hansen 2018; Schröder, Bengtsson, Cohen, Dewick, Hofstetter & Sarkis, 2019; Nesterova 2020; Khmara & Kronenberg 2020; Tomaselli, Kozak, Gifford & Sheppard 2021) and finally (“Green”) Transition" (Gasparatos, Doll, Esteban, Ahmed & Olang 2017; Kemp- Benedict 2018; Terzi 2020; Marsiglio & Privilegg 2021), and many more. What all these concepts seem to have more or less in common is the view that the entire system of human society on all its levels can be described as a growth-oriented consumer culture that covers its energy needs with fossil fuels and which produces critical effects such as destruction of natural resources and unjust distribution of wealth. Because this could not be judged as sustainable, this system should evolve towards an energy-autonomous, efficient, sufficiency- oriented and just or fair culture. The aim of this paper is to point out fundamental problems and obstacles in connection with the intended change of complex social systems and thus to critically question the feasibility of the demand for a global and directed system change within a relatively short time. This paper does not aim to discuss the individual theories of social change in detail or to compare them with each other. It is also not intended to develop solutions to the contradictions that have been pointed out, but to point out the need for further research through the discussion. LITERATURE REVIEW This section briefly introduces the different theoretical concepts of system change mentioned above. In order to be able to compare these concepts in their main features, the following three main aspects will be considered: What is the role of economic growth? What should be the energetic basis of this economic concept? What methods should be used to bring about this change? According to the International Federation for the Economy for the Common Good, the "common good economy" is an economic model that prioritises the common good in the sense of a good life for all. (ECG, 2021), the "common good economy" is an economic model that prioritises the common good in the sense of a good life for all on a healthy planet instead of the simple increase of monetary capital. At the heart of this concept is the idea that companies should base their actions on the values of human dignity, solidarity and social 39 justice, ecological sustainability, transparency and co-determination, and seek to generate a competitive advantage within this framework. In this sense, the common good economy sees itself as a bridge to an ethical market economy. This economic model was first publicly discussed by Daly and Cobb (1989). Measured against the three standards defined at the beginning, growth is not fundamentally questioned as an economic dynamic, but it must be controlled according to ethical standards and thus put at the service of the common good and the preservation of the natural basis of life. Thus, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals explicitly serve as a normative framework for Aust, Matthews & Muller-Camen (2020). Securing the future energy supply is not explicitly addressed. The main method to cope with the recommended system change should be, according to Jean Tirole, Nobel Prize winner for economics in the year 2014, cooperation between politics, business and the public (2017). The concept of the Circular Economy aims to make better use of resources based on innovative technology with the goal of generating economic gains while reducing pressure on the environment. Many of the principles of the Circular Economy are rooted in similar principles to those of Sustainable Development (Velenturf & Purnell 2021), in particular resource conservation and ecology of systems (Reike, Vermeulen & Witjes 2018). However, in contrast to Sustainable Development, the Circular Economy sees itself more as a practice- oriented approach that has so far lacked sufficient theoretical foundations (Korhonen, Honkasalo & Seppälä 2018). With regard to the value basis, the Circular Economy is oriented towards the majority of the 17 SDGs. In this respect, economic growth is represented here in the classical sense (Velenturf & Purnell 2021), which is why Bimpizas-Pinis et al. assign this concept as more akin to traditional capitalism, whose essential merit is at least the integration of ecological and social criteria for evaluating market performance (2021). However, individual authors go further by calling for a stronger ecological cycle oriented towards the limitations of natural resources, analogous to strong sustainability (Johansson & Henriksson 2020), or also the consideration of criteria such as social justice or even planetary responsibility (Bimpizas-Pinis et al. 2021). Such an approach requires a fundamental change in the prevailing consumption patterns. Energy only plays a central role as a resource to be saved, but no noticeable attention has been paid to intra- and intergenerational justice, especially with regard to the follow-up costs of the production of energy sources (Kirchher, Reike & Hekkert, 2017). In this respect, the systemic approaches of the Circular Economy are still immature. In any case, it is evident that the implementation of the Circular Economy is a complex undertaking that requires a coordinated change of numerous stakeholders - and thus, analogous to the "Common Good Economy", a corresponding coordination - which raises numerous barriers. In this respect, Grafström and Aasma also have serious doubts that a Circular Economy can ultimately follow different rules than a traditional "linear" economy (2021). The Sharing Economy can be understood analogously to the circular economy as a concept for better use of resources by recycling products through platform-based, coordinated sharing (Räisänen, Ojala & Tuovinen 2021). In this way, a lifestyle of moderate consumption is emerging, reducing pressure on the exploitation of natural resources and the production of greenhouse gases (Demailly & Novel 2014). At the same time, these new distribution structures are also creating new businesses (De las Heras, Relinque-Medina, Zamora-Polo & Luque-Sendra 2021). Measured against the three criteria, classic economic growth in the Sharing Economy remains fundamentally unquestioned, just like the energetic foundations. Unlike the previously discussed models, the Sharing Economy uses automated processes in the form of platforms instead of coordinated, value-oriented control. However, it is possibly because of this automated approach that previous studies of the effects of collaborative 40 consumption have not been able to provide conclusive evidence of tangible ecological relief through the Sharing Economy (Gupta & Chauhan 2021). While Zhu and Liu (2021) claim significant greenhouse gas savings through AirbnB without providing evidence, Friedl was only able to demonstrate redistribution effects (2018b). In contrast to the concepts discussed so far, the Post-Growth Economy is based on the explicit overcoming of the classical growth paradigm oriented only to GDP as a way to avoid a global environmental catastrophe. According to this, gains in prosperity should be measured in terms of reduced environmental impact and improved quality of life, which requires a far- reaching structural change in the economy, especially in the relationship between labour productivity on the one hand and the relationship between energy and labour on the other (Hardt, Barrett, Taylor & Foxon 2021). Mair, Druckman and Jackson, for example, assume lower productivity and thus the need for more labour (2020). By turning away from the principle of unlimited growth, Niko Peach explicitly advocates the principle of decarbonising the economy (2012). The path to this new economy should succeed through individual frugality (sufficiency), partial subsistence, regionalisation and a circular economy (Paech 2017). However, such a strategy is associated with conflicts of interest, since growth is a recognised instrument for combating unemployment, measuring economic prosperity and financing pension systems under conditions of demographic change. That is why Strunz and Schindler see the compensation of important stakeholders as indispensable for a transition to a post-growth economy (2018). While the number of sources on the concept of a Post-Growth Economy is rather limited, there are significantly more publications on the term "Degrowth Economy". This term stands for a transitional discourse, an international social movement as well as a research framework within which alternative economic concepts to the current profit maximisation imperative (Nesterova 2020) are sought, which is considered to be the cause of harmful social and ecological impacts and incapable of coping with climate change and other ecological catastrophes. Analogous to the Post-Growth concept, the focus should be on the provision of means to satisfy the needs of people's well-being instead of the production of material goods. An essential instrument for this is the redistribution of income and wealth within and between countries (Medak, Domazet & Rilović 2020) and also a democratic determination of precisely those limits to growth (Kallis 2021), combined with voluntary restrictions on private consumption (Heikkinen 2020). While Cosme, Santos and O'Neill still identify predominantly national top-down approaches to implementing represented de-growth measures (2017), Benjaminsen sees a bottom-up approach as indispensable because the same political and economic elites that primarily benefit from classical capitalist growth and the use of resource-intensive technology are also those that trivialise research on ecological limits. This in turn explains a widespread mistrust of modern, capital-intensive technology among degrowth advocates (2021). The authors largely agree on the principle of decarbonising the economy (Tor 2021). According to Kallis, Paulson, D'Alisa and Demaria, this new economic paradigm could be implemented through a co-evolution of enabling environments between personal desires and habits, networks and changing institutions (2020), whereby the North can learn from the South (Singh 2019). In the process, pluralistic potential pathways for change would emerge (Vandeventer, Cattaneo & Zografos 2019). Overall, Tor judges these approaches to be largely utopian (2021), which will be argued further on. The last alternative economic concept to be presented is the Green Transition, which is essentially understood as the decarbonisation of the economy through a higher penetration of 41 renewable energies and clean technologies in production and consumption processes (Gasparatos, Doll, Esteban, Ahmed & Olang 2017) for the purpose of protecting ecosystems and limiting climate change, without necessarily renouncing the principle of growth (Sandberg, Klockars & Wilén 2019). This Green Transition is to be implemented mainly through top-down financial and regulatory instruments, such as the promotion of private investment in green technology (Kemp-Benedict 2018), as well as through important changes in citizens' lifestyles (Kallis 2021). Achieving the necessary public consent for such measures thus requires a high level of public engagement (Terzi 2020; Lamperti, Dosi, Napoletano, Roventini & Sapio 2020), as well as financial compensation measures to compensate communities and workers who depend on fossil fuel extraction (Bourban 2020). Yang, Nie and Huang, however, are critical of this technological model because increasing energy efficiency leads to increased fossil energy demand via rebound effects. The effectiveness of market-based instruments such as carbon taxes and green subsidies is also limited (2020). Accordingly, fundamental deficits in the protection of natural capital are still identified (Acosta, Maharjan, Peyriere & Mamiit 2020). METHODOLOGY This paper is a conceptual work with the aim of critically questioning prevailing paradigms. For this purpose, the ancient philosophical tradition of the Socratic method of maieutic (Hanke 1990; Shell, Brooks, Trainin, Wilson, Kauffman & Herr 2009; Ivlampie 2014; Firrincieli 2017) proves its worth. The basic approach of this method is based on testing the plausibility of a prevailing assumption, paradigm or custom in such a way that the assumption in question is challenged through critical questions from a meta-level perspective. The aim of this analytical method is to identify the systemic contexts in which the assumption under investigation is embedded. Thus, it is a matter of deconstructing the assumption in question as an expression or as part of a system together with its interactions, constraints, determinants or limitations. An indispensable prerequisite for the success of this method is the adoption of a new perspective that is superordinate to the system under investigation. This follows from the "incompleteness theorem" of the Austrian philosopher and mathematician Kurt Gödl (1992), according to which the preconditions of a system cannot be inferred from within that system. Only from the perspective of the meta-level can the assumed but unproven presuppositions of a paradigm be identified (Kotlarski 2004). This epistemological circumstance follows from the principle according to which the perception of a reality and in particular the attribution of a "meaning" to this reality is always an expression of a prevailing assumption, thus a social construction (Foerster, 2003). It is precisely these culture-specific or paradigmatic perspectives that are also the cause of so-called "blind spots": Certain self-evident facts cannot be "recognised" and especially not "understood" in terms of their questionability, because they are taken for granted and therefore not questioned. But it is precisely this socially anchored refusal to critically reflect on paradigmatic self-evident facts that stands in the way of identifying, recognising and dealing with problems that lead from the practice of such self-evident facts. The essential tool of this method is first of all the search for repetitive patterns in this thematic field that have not been discussed so far in connection with the thesis to be examined. In the present work, these are the following questions vis-à-vis the thesis on the necessity of a global "Green Transition": 42 - How far have previous role models in the public fight against climate change done justice to societal progress towards a "sustainable, climate-neutral" society? - How far is social progress through energy reduction conceivable in principle from a physical point of view? - Is social progress conceivable without deviant, undesirable or "unsustainable" behaviour? - Are the challenges of the path to a "sustainable, climate-neutral" society achievable through a single central solution? - Is rapid, global change compatible with the functioning of the (human) brain? By critically linking such issues, which are uncommon in the mainstream of tourism research, to the call for rapid systemic change examined here, new convincing and previously overlooked arguments against this call can be identified and developed. This can help to abandon flawed assumptions and seek alternative, more feasible approaches that enable the development of new solutions to current problems. At its best, this method of Socratic Maieutics can provide impetus for the development of a new paradigmatic approach. Another tool of this method is usually the critical and precise analysis of terms in the field of the research problem in question. The aim of this approach would be to identify and correct misleading, undifferentiated or even contradictory use of constituent terms. Unfortunately, the unreflective, careless or deliberately incorrect use of terms is the cause of numerous misunderstandings, whether in everyday social life or in research (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 2011); however, in order not to go beyond the scope of this paper, we will refrain from analysing terms in more detail, as this has already been done elsewhere (Friedl 2020). RESULTS 1. How far is the engagement for a societal progress towards a "sustainable, climate-neutral" society climate-neutral? Every human activity consumes energy and produces carbon dioxide as soon as it is carried out with the help of machines. This is especially true when it comes to positively influencing a large number of people. Al Gore, the former vice-president and almost-president of the USA, established himself as a committed campaigner for climate change education. For this he not only travelled to numerous lectures around the world, but also produced the script for the film "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006), for which he was eventually awarded the Oscar as well as the Nobel Peace Prize. For this commitment, Al Gore had produced considerable emissions by travelling in his private plane, thus also contributed himself to the problem he was fighting. This contradiction between theory and practice is easy to explain, but hardly surmountable. On the one hand, influencing complex systems such as large populations also necessarily require large amounts of energy in order to be able to manage the necessary communicative processes. On the other hand, such energy investments are also effective, as in the case of Al Gore, as Jacobsen (2011) argues: Al Gore's awareness campaigns contributed significantly to the introduction and slow spread of voluntary carbon offsets, e.g. for air travel (Choi, Gössling & Ritchie 2018). However, according to Bösehans, Belderdijk and Wang, this seems to have the paradoxical effect that offsetting actually encourages more flying due to the compensation payments made (2020). 43 This leads to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that changing a system initially leads to a higher level of energy consumption. After all, as will be shown in more detail, changes are always energy-intensive. Against this background, the question arises to what extent criticism of activists like Greta Thunberg, when she herself uses a plane to travel to an important conference, should be rejected as unfair populism? On the other hand, it is especially the personal behaviour of influencers that seems to be particularly effective in positively influencing their imitators. Thus, it seems that the engagement against climate change and for sustainability and climate neutrality is not immune to contradictions and dilemmas, that there can thus be no "perfect" way in terms of a "climate-friendly" commitment to climate friendliness. There is only one thing for sure: that is the fact that “Al Gore's truth is still inconvenient“ (Garrett 2017). 2. How far is social progress through energy reduction conceivable in principle from a physical point of view? It was already indicated in the previous question that change means additional energy input. The concept of "sustainability" means in a narrow physical sense that a system is in relative equilibrium ("homeostasis") with its environment. Accordingly, this system does not take more energy from its environment than it "gives back". According to the first thermodynamic law of "conservation of energy", the sum of energy in a closed system always remains the same (Dincer & Rosen 2021). The lifestyle of traditional nomads, such as the Tuareg in the central Sahara, comes very close to this "ideal". But contrary to the tourist cliché of "great freedom", these people live in extremely poor conditions compared to the conditions of industrialised societies. For it is precisely these living conditions that are an expression of their cultural, economic and energetic adaptation to their environmental conditions, which are characterised by a marked poverty of resources (Friedl 2008a; Friedl 2008b; Friedl 2009). In contrast to nomadism, our modern industrial society is based on the principle of energy- intensive production increase. We "develop" our cultural environment by taking an increasing amount of energy from the natural environment in the form of raw materials and returning it "consumed" in the form of "waste" and other emissions. As a result, we are permanently changing our environment, for example in the form of climate change, and subsequently also our global basis of life. The most important characteristic of this development is the increase in complexity of our global cultural living environment: our society is becoming more complex, more dynamic, and thus also "richer" in challenges and problems (Shahzad, Fareed, Shahzad & Shahzad 2021). But it is precisely these problems that also open up new opportunities for development. Because new problems also create new job opportunities. Without climate change, for example, there would be no climate researchers, environmental engineers or projects for sustainable tourism! From a systemic perspective, systemic dysfunctionality can lead to the development of system-stabilising subsystems. These subsystems themselves exist in dependence on the criticised overall system, and these subsystems themselves also contribute to the maintenance and growth of the overall system. These subsystems themselves exist in dependence on the criticised overall system, and these subsystems themselves also contribute to the maintenance and ultimately the growth of the overall system. Trainer points out that this growth effect is usually seen as an indispensable strategy against structural unemployment and the financing of pension systems in a society characterised by 44 demographic change (2020). Obviously, the functioning of an industrial society is not comparable to that of a nomadic society. The close link between system change and increased significance illustrates the career of the "World Tourism Organization" (UNWTO) from a small, insignificant association to a globally recognised advocate for sustainable tourism. Thus, the declaration of 2017 as the "UN Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development" was also due to the initiative of the UNWTO (2017). What may have appeared on the surface as a thankful commitment to "save the world" can, on critical examination, also be interpreted as an instrument for profiling one's own position. For the core message of the UNWTO at the time suggested cross-border travel as a "salvific" cultural practice. In addition, the effect of cross-border tourism was presented in a rather one-sided way as a motor for the creation of local jobs, regardless of the critical consequences such as greenhouse gas emissions, waste pollution and the globalisation of western consumer culture. However, by presenting the costs of the economic effect of tourism in a one-sided way and ignoring the negative effects, at least the reputation and influence of the UNWTO as an advocate for global jobs grows with increasing tourism volumes (Friedl 2018a; Gascón 2019). How many jobs are destroyed at the same time remains unquestioned. This leads to the equally paradoxical conclusion that research on sustainability and engagement against climate change necessarily contributes to the growth of the overall system. However, when and whether this engagement could actually lead to a change of the overall system towards an ecologically and socially sustainable balance remains to be clarified at present. 3. Is social progress conceivable without deviant, undesirable or "unsustainable" behaviour? Changes in the social environment indicate changes in values and norms. However, the change of norms does not necessarily lead to the adaptation of all members of an affected social system. For, as argued earlier, change usually leads to greater complexity. This creates space for individuality. The more complex our society becomes, the more diverse are the forms of life that develop in adaptation to this complexity. From this, however, follows the compelling necessity that changes that appear absolutely necessary from the point of view of some affected individuals appear downright unacceptable from the point of view of other individuals, because they threaten their very existence. In this sense, the demands for a transition towards a climate-neutral society pose an existential threat to some industries, such as those in the field of coal production and electrification, the oil industry, but also the aviation industry or the meat industry, to name but a few. If a social subsystem perceives its environment as threatening, it reacts by adapting accordingly with the aim of preserving its own substance as much as possible. In this respect, the logic of our economic, social and political system virtually forces stakeholders of such as subsystem e.g. to use methods of "greenwashing" (Arouri, Ghoul & Gomes 2021; Zhu & Wang 2020) as well as "lobbying" in order to positively influence either their consumers or political framework conditions in the direction of protecting the short-term interests of such industries. The path to a post-growth society therefore leads first of all to a growth of new challenges, for example in the field of sustainability communication (Tölkes 2018), lobbying for sustainability (Aidt 2010) as well as research on constructive and convincing campaigns (Hiselius &Rosqvist 2016), but also conflict management for the development of political compromises. A renunciation of such a cooperative approach would in all likelihood lead to 45 intensified conflicts that are ultimately not at all compatible with the principles of sustainability (Kile & Lewoc 2011). 4. Are the challenges of the path to a "sustainable, climate-neutral" society achievable through a single central solution? The search for solutions to major societal challenges is very often accompanied by the hope of a major breakthrough. Time and again, the focus shifts to high technologies that are supposed to serve as the "key to paradise". Just think of the "green revolution" (Bottrell & Schoenly 2012), nuclear power or biogenic fuels (Beal, Cuellar & Wagner 2021). More recently, the electrification of transport, digitalisation or hydrogen (Atilhan, Park, El- Halwagi, Atilhan, Moore & Nielsen 2021) are sometimes presented as "miracle cures". But all these "solutions" are associated with a plethora of technical problems and challenges. Above all, previous "great solutions" have resulted in many undesirable long-term consequences. For example, the final disposal of nuclear waste has still not been solved (Sanders & Sanders 2016). It is clear to prudent advocates of a transition to a sustainable society that a return to the "Stone Age" would not be a solution for a world of soon to be eight billion people. Rather, innovative, highly intelligent solutions are needed at all levels of society in order to do some justice to the increasing complexity of the growing problems. This is precisely why sustainability is now considered a booming field of research. There is hardly a project that is financed by the public sector without the predicate "sustainable". But there is a huge difference between what is labelled "sustainable" and what can solve problems permanently without creating new, even more serious problems. This contradiction is illustrated by the example of the rampant spread of plastic waste! This has long since contaminated every corner of the earth. Cheap disposable packaging such as bags or pet water bottles are particularly popular in less developed regions. There, the waste problem is further aggravated by often poorly developed systems of public waste disposal. For the time being, little is likely to change in the global increase in plastic waste, paradoxically even for reasons of climate protection. This is because the production and transport of such packaging produces relatively fewer greenhouse gases than aluminium (Costa, Battistella, Summa, Castaldelli, Fano & Tamburini 2021), is cheaper to produce and, because of its handling, corresponds perfectly to a comfortable consumer culture. In the short term, it is much easier and cheaper to throw away useless packaging after use than to recycle it. And the huge waste incineration plants built especially for this purpose also want to be used to capacity (Bishop, Styles & Lens 2020). This leads to the unpleasant but important conclusion that complex problems within a complex system cannot do without complex solutions, as Romero, Gramkow, Romero and Gramkow can show on the example of economic complexity and greenhouse gas emissions (2021). At least as far as the implementation of such solutions in different cultural contexts is concerned, they have to be adapted to the respective circumstances. After all, different people have different needs, expectations, habits and abilities. 5. Is rapid, global change compatible with the functioning of the (human) brain? As already emphasised several times, the high degree of complexity of human culture is a major reason for most of the contradictions mentioned in the effort to transition towards a 46 sustainable, climate-neutral society. For social systems, whether cultures, political parties or associations, are never monolithic blocks. Rather, they are always multi-layered networks of diverse, dynamic interactions between all the individual lifestyles of people that have formed in adaptation to their respective environments. This is why talk of a "global culture" should be understood more as a helpless expression of an extremely simplistic, technocratic view of the world than as a helpful model (Regev 2019), let alone as a pragmatic guide to shaping the world. From a neurobiological perspective, human behaviour can hardly be regarded as the implementation of a "free will" against the background of recent findings in brain research (Berniūnas, Beinorius, Dranseika, Silius & Rimkevičius 2021). More complex explanations appear to be more helpful, which view behaviour as a complex interaction (Dolfin, Leonida & Outada 2017) between hereditary factors, formative environmental conditions, the evolutionary and individual structures of the brain, and hormones (Cupaioli, Zucca, Caporale, Lesch, Passamonti & Zecca 2021). Here, the decisive instance for concrete action is the limbic system of the cerebellum, where stimulus patterns perceived from the environment are matched with previous experiences. What is identified as "familiar" or "pleasant" by a behaviour leading to the release of neurotransmitters is encoded by the brain as "good", leading to the repetition and eventual consolidation of behavioural patterns (Catani, Dell'Acqua & de Schotten 2013). This pattern is extremely energy-saving and effective. Addictions of all kinds are also based on this very principle (Wiers & Verschure 2021). From this modern model of the connection between human behaviour and the neuronal structure, it can be deduced that retraining as well as learning new behaviours require the reconstruction of neuronal patterns. Behavioural changes are therefore extremely energy- intensive from the brain's point of view and are also usually "painful" because the fear of the unknown leads to the release of stress hormones. Therefore, the brain only evaluates change as "meaningful" if it promises less pain or even more pleasure compared to familiar behaviour (Sabbagh 2020). In summary, it follows that people generally tend to stick to habitual behaviour unless the new alternative behaviour seems extremely promising. In this sense, several studies were able to show that the concept of social change towards "degrowth" would find more support from the population if the definition was framed in terms of achieving positive consequences such as “Environmental Gain” or “Wealth Gain” (promotion) rather than avoiding negative consequences such as “Environmental Loss” or “Wealth Loss” (prevention) (Krpan & Basso 2021; Tomaselli, Kozak, Gifford & Sheppard 2021). These neurobiological determinants of human behaviour are causal for why emotional signals "reach" and "touch" most people much better than rational, well-substantiated factual arguments. Visions "inspire" when they set the limbic system in the brain of the person addressed in motion. In this way, correspondingly emotionally coded messages can trigger hope for an improvement in the current situation, for example, or hope for a better life. The "happiness hormones" released in the brain trigger a drive that can lead people to overcome even the greatest resistance. People like Gandhi or Nelson Mandela endured years of political imprisonment in the belief of a future free from colonial oppression, and this in times when the "civilizational superiority" of Europeans was still considered far less critically questioned. Yet these people never lost faith in the possibility of a "better" world. 47 DISCUSSION What do these undoubtedly sobering findings mean for the plausibility of a successful transition to a sustainable society? It could be made clear that the challenges and resistances outweigh the benefits. In fact, from this perspective, no viable path to a sustainable future seems to be discernible yet. On the other hand, it is also in the nature of future developments and innovations that we cannot (yet) imagine the society of tomorrow: One cannot think the “unthought”! However, "a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels” (A. Einstein). Therefore, it is not enough to simply wait for such a "path to the Green Paradise" to break through the fog, as it were, of its own accord. Rather, we must continue to invest efforts in research, politics and civil movements like "Fridays for Future" to develop viable solutions. Above all, we must not succumb to the belief in the inevitable end of our world. For this could lead us to realise this very dystopia due to our apathy in the face of abandoned hope for "salvation", according to the law of "self-fulfilling prophecy" (Clark & Green 2018). However, this communicative law also works in the other, constructive direction: those who believe in their own success will also achieve it at some point and somehow (Cipriani & Makris 2006). This has nothing to do with a naïve belief in the "power of positive thinking". Rather, the tireless search for new, suitable solutions increases the chance of actually finding viable solutions. Those who despair of fate without taking action will therefore necessarily not change anything about fate. RECOMMENDATIONS The most important prerequisite for constructive change is openness to the new, as is inherent in children and the young at heart. Their liveliness is nourished by their "curiosity", their "greed for the new" in the face of a changing environment. Open-minded people train their ability to cope with new problems throughout their lives, thereby also maintaining their ability to adapt and reducing their fear of the new. On the other hand, those who are afraid of new things cling to familiar behaviour patterns, which are often even the cause of the problems they are fighting against. This may explain why even advocates of the green transition often tend to stick to the outdated pattern of rational, instructive arguments instead of reaching out to insecure people emotionally and inspiring them with the positive message of successful change. After all, even the advocates of the green transition are only human and are subject to the same neural determinants as all humans. People who can be convinced of prospects appear to be much more motivated and happier than people who imagine a difficult future. In this sense, the French philosopher and author of the "Little Prince", Antoine Saint-Exupéry, had already proclaimed as a basic principle for any social change: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up men to [...] divide the work, but teach men to long for the vast, endless sea." Enthusiasm for the transition of the world society towards a global sustainability culture is therefore undoubtedly not a sufficient condition for the success of this change, but it is an indispensable condition. 48 REFERENCES Acosta, L. A., Marhajan, P., Peyrier, H. & Mamiit, J. (2020). Natural capital protection indicators: Measuring performance in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals for green growth transition. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, Volume 8, 100069, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100069 Aidt, T. S. (2010). Green taxes: Refunding rules and lobbying, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp. 31-43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.04.001. Ainsworth, T. D. & Brown, B. E. (2021). Coral bleaching, Current Biology, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp. R5-R6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.10.048. Aminu, M. D, Nabavi, S. A., Rochelle, C. A & Manovic, V. (2017). A review of developments in carbon dioxide storage, Applied Energy, Volume 208, pp. 1389-1419, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.015. Arouri, M., El Ghoul, S. & Gomes, M. (2021). Greenwashing and product market competition, Finance Research Letters, 101927, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.101927. Atilhan, S., Park, S., El-Halwagi, M. M., Atilhan, M., Moore, M. & Nielsen, R. B. (2021). Green hydrogen as an alternative fuel for the shipping industry, Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, Volume 31, 100668, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2020.100668. Aurézet, F., Zaiko, A., Lear, G., Wood, S. A., Tremblay, L A. & Pochon, X. (2021). Biosecurity implications of drifting marine plastic debris: Current knowledge and future research. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 162, 111835, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111835 Aust, I., Matthews, B. & Muller-Camen, M. (2020). Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM?, Human Resource Management Review, Volume 30, Issue 3, 100705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705 Bardi, U. (2019). Peak oil, 20 years later: Failed predictio n or useful insight?, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 48, Pages 257-261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.022. Beal, C. M., Cuellar, A. D. & Wagner, T. J. (2021). Sustainability assessment of alternative jet fuel for the U.S. Department of Defense, Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 144, 105881, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105881. Becken, S. & Friedl, H. A. (2018). Oil in the Middle East: a critical resource for tourism. D. J. Timothy (Ed.), Routledge Handbook on Middle East Tourism (pp. 178-188), New York: Routledge. Becken, S. & Loehr, J. (2021). The Tourism Climate Change Knowledge System. Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 86, 103073, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103073 49 Benjaminsen, T. A. (2021). Virtual Forum introduction: Environmental limits, scarcity and degrowth, Political Geography, 102344, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102344 Berniūnas, R., Beinorius, A., Dranseika, V., Silius, V. & Rimkevičius, P. (2021). The weirdness of belief in free will, Consciousness and Cognition, Volume 87, 103054, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103054. Bezin, E. & Ponthière, G. (2019). The tragedy of the commons and socialization: Theory and policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 98, 102260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.102260. Bimpizas-Pinis, M., Bozhinovska, E., Genovese, A., Lowe, B., Pansera, M., Alberich, J. & Ramezankhani, M. (2021). Is efficiency enough for circular economy?, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 167, 105399, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.10539 Bishop, G., Styles, D. & Lens, P. (2020). Recycling of European plastic is a pathway for plastic debris in the ocean, Environment International, Volume 142, 105893, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105893. Bösehans, G., Bolderdijk, J. W. & Wan, J. (2020). Pay more, fly more? Examining the potential guilt-reducing and flight-encouraging effect of an integrated carbon offset, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 71, 101469, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101469. Bottrell, D. G. & Schoenly, K. G. (2012). Resurrecting the ghost of green revolutions past: The brown planthopper as a recurring threat to high-yielding rice production in tropical Asia, Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp. 122-140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2011.09.004. Bourban, M. (2020). Ethics, Energy Transition, and Ecological Citizenship, Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 819727-1.00030-3 Buch-Hansen, H. (2018). The Prerequisites for a Degrowth Paradigm Shift: Insights from Critical Political Economy, Ecological Economics, Volume 146, pp. 157-163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.021. Catani, M., Dell’Acqua, F. & de Schotten, M. T. (2013). A revised limbic system model for memory, emotion and behaviour, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Volume 37, Issue 8, pp. 1724-1737, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.001. Chapman, I. (2014). The end of Peak Oil? Why this topic is still relevant despite recent denials, Energy Policy, Volume 64, pp. 93-101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.010. Chaturvedi, S., Yadav, B. P., Siddiqui, N. A. & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2020). Mathematical modelling and analysis of plastic waste pollution and its impact on the ocean surface, Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp. 136-163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2019.09.005. 50 Chenillat, F., Huck, T., Maes, C., Grima, N. & Blanke, B. (2021). Fate of floating plastic debris released along the coasts in a global ocean model, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 165, 112116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112116. Choi, A. S., Gössling, S. & Ritchie, B. W. (2018). Flying with climate liability? Economic valuation of voluntary carbon offsets using forced choices, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 62, pp. 225-235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.02.018. Cipriani, G. P. & Makris, M. (2006). A model with self-fulfilling prophecies of longevity, Economics Letters, Volume 91, Issue 1, pp. 122-126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2005.11.008. Clark, J. L. & Green, M. C. (2018). Self-fulfilling prophecies: Perceived reality of online interaction drives expected outcomes of online communication, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 133, pp. 73-76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.031. Cosme, I., Santos, R. & O’Neill, D. (2017). Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 149, pp 321-334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.016 Costa, S., Battistella, L., Summa, D., Castaldelli, G., Fano, E. A. & Tamburini, E. (2021). Plastic (PET) vs bioplastic (PLA) or refillable aluminium bottles – what is the most sustainable choice for drinking water? A life-cycle (LCA) analysis, Environmental Research, 110974, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110974. Cupaioli, F. A., Zucca, F. A., Caporale, C., Lesch, K.-P., Passamonti, L. & Zecca, L. (2021). The neurobiology of human aggressive behavior: Neuroimaging, genetic, and neurochemical aspects, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, Volume 106, 110059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110059 Daly, H. E. & Cobb, J. B. (1989). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future.Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Damiens, F., Backstrom, A. & Gordon, A. (2021). Governing for “no net loss” of biodiversity over the long term: challenges and pathways forward, One Earth, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 60-74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.012. Day, J., Chin, N., Sydnor, S. & Cherkauer, K. (2013). Weather, climate, and tourism performance: A quantitative analysis, Tourism Management Perspectives, Volume 5, pp. 51- 56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.11.001. De las Heras, A., Relinque-Medina, F., Zamora-Polo, F. & Luque-Sendra, A. (2021). Analysis of the evolution of the sharing economy towards sustainability. Trends and transformations of the concept, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 291, 125227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125227. Demailly, D. & Novel, A.S. (2014). The sharing economy: make it sustainable, IDDRI Studies Nr. 3, Volume 14, pp. 14-30, 51 https://www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/import/publications/st0314_dd-asn_sharing- economy.pdf retrieved 12.3.2021 Dincer, I. & Rosen, M. A. (2021). Thermodynamic fundamentals (Chapter 1). In: I. Dincer & M. A. Rosen, (Eds.), Exergy (Third Edition), pp. 1-22, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824372-5.00001-4. Dolfin, M., Leonida, L. & Outada, N. (2017). Modeling human behavior in economics and social science, Physics of Life Reviews, Volumes 22–23, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.06.026. ECG (2021). 10 Cornerstones of the ECG. https://www.ecogood.org/what-is-ecg/ecg-in-a- nutshell/, retrieved 31.3.3021 Firrincieli, A. (2017). Maieutic: A Teaching and Learning Approach. As Applied to Western Music. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Volume 237, pp. 1520-1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.239 Foerster, H.v. (2003) Understanding. Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. New York: Springer. Friedl, H. A. (2008a). Kulturschock Tuareg. Bielefeld: Reise Know-how Verlag. Friedl, H. A. (2008b). Western Money for Southern Sympathy. How Tuareg from Timia are instrumentalising Tourists to Support Their “Exotic” Village. In: Burns, P.; Novelli, M. (Ed.): Tourism Development: Growth, Myths and Inequalities, pp. 39-51. Wallingford, Cambridge: CAB International. Friedl, H. A. (2009). Reisen zu den Wüstenrittern. Ethno-Tourismus bei den Tuareg aus Sicht der angewandten Tourismus-Ethik. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz Verlag. Friedl, H. A. (2012). Globale Tourismusethik: Königsweg oder Utopie? Eine Abenteuerreise vom Wesen des Reisens zum nachhaltigen Tourismus. In: U. Bechmann & C. Friedl (Eds.). Mobilitäten. Beiträge von Vortragenden der Montagsakademie 2011/12, pp. 229-304, Grazer Universitätsverlag Leykam, Graz. Friedl, H. A. (2018a). Nachhaltigkeit als Beschwörungsformel? Warum „more of the same“ nachhaltig wirkt… In: Club Tourismus (Ed.). Nachhaltigkeit in der Kritik? Was bleibt vom Internationalen Jahr des nachhaltigen Tourismus für Entwicklung? (pp. 59-71). Norderstedt: BoD. Friedl, H. A. (2018b). Wunderwaffe Digitalisierung? Eine systemkritische Analyse am Beispiel von Airbnb. Tourismus Wissen – quarterly, Volume. 12 (April), pp. 138-143. Friedl, H. A. (2020). Pandemics – Threat or even indispensable for sustainable Tourism? A systemic Approach to re-conceptualize the Meaning of the “Corona Virus” for the Resilience of the global Tourism System. In: TOURIST Consortium 2020 (Ed.), Proceeding Sustainable Tourism Shaping a better Future. Conference July 20 – 21.2020 in Bangkok, Thailand (p. 70- 87). Bangkok: Kasetsart University Pub. 52 Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Espinosa, L. , Cardoso, R. , Cardozo, B. & dos Anjos, R. (2020). Plastic litter pollution along sandy beaches in the Caribbean and Pacific coast of Colombia, Environmental Pollution, Volume 267, 115495, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115495. Garrett, L. (2017). Al Gore's truth is still inconvenient, The Lancet, Volume 390, Issue 10094, pp. 545-546, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31999-2. Gascón, J. (2019). Tourism as a right: a “frivolous claim” against degrowth? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp. 1825-1838, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1666858 Gasparatos, A., Doll, C., Esteban, M., Ahmed, A. & Olang, T. (2017). Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 70, pp. 161-184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030. Giorgos Kallis, Susan Paulson, Giacomo D’Alisa and Federico Demaria (2020) The Case For Degrowth, Polity Press, Cambridge, MA. Gödel, K. (1992). On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. Dover: Dover Publications. Grafström, J. & Aasma, S. (2021). Breaking circular economy barriers, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 292, 126002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126002. Gray, N., McDonagh, S., O'Shea, R., Smyth, B. & Murphy, J. D. (2021). Decarbonising ships, planes and trucks: An analysis of suitable low-carbon fuels for the maritime, aviation and haulage sectors, Advances in Applied Energy, Volume 1, 100008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2021.100008. Gross, M. (2013). Plastic waste is all at sea, Current Biology, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. R135- R137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.070. Gupta, P. & Chauhan, S. (2021). Mapping intellectual structure and sustainability claims of sharing economy research – A literature review, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 25, pp. 347-362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.006. Hanke, M. (1990). Socratic pragmatics: Maieutic dialogues. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 459-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90101-I Hardt, L., Barrett, J., Taylor, P. G. & Foxon, T. J. (2021). What structural change is needed for a post-growth economy: A framework of analysis and empirical evidence, Ecological Economics, Volume 179, 106845, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106845. Heikkinen, T. (2020). A study of degrowth paths based on the von Neumann equilibrium model, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 251, 119562, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119562 Henke, M. (1990). Socratic pragmatics: Maieutic dialogues. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 459-465, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90101-I 53 Hiselius, L. W. & Rosqvist, L. S. (2016). Mobility Management campaigns as part of the transition towards changing social norms on sustainable travel behavior, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 123, pp. 34-41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.055. Hummels, H. & Argyrou, A. (2021). Planetary demands: Redefining sustainable development and sustainable entrepreneurship, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 278, 123804, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123804. Isaksen, E. T., Brekke, K. A. & Richter, A. (2019). Positive framing does not solve the tragedy of the commons, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 95, pp. 45-56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.005. Ivlampie, I. (2014). The Pedagogy of Irony? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 137, pp. 122-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.263 Jacobsen, G. D. (2011). The Al Gore effect: An Inconvenient Truth and voluntary carbon offsets, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp. 67- 78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.08.002. Johansson, N. & Henriksson, M. (2020). Circular economy running in circles? A discourse analysis of shifts in ideas of circularity in Swedish environmental policy, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 23, pp. 148-156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.05.005pp. 148-156 Kallis, G. (2021), Limits, ecomodernism and degrowth, Political Geography, 102367, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102367 Kemp-Benedict, E. (2018). Investing in a Green Transition, Ecological Economics, Volume 153, pp. 218-236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.012. Khmara, Y. & Kronenberg, Y. (2020). Degrowth in the context of sustainability transitions: In search of a common ground, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 267, 122072, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122072. Kile, F. & Lewoc, J. B. (2011). The Tragedy of Human Behavior, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp. 3114-3117, https://doi.org/10.3182/20110828-6-IT- 1002.01172. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 127, pp. 221- 232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 pp. 221-232 Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A. & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular Economy: the concept and its limitations, Ecological Economics, Volume 143, pp. 37-46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041 Kotlarski, H. (2004). The incompleteness theorems after 70 years. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Volume 126, Issues 1–3, pp. 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2003.10.012 54 Krpan, D. & Basso, F. (2021). Keep Degrowth or go Rebirth? Regulatory focus theory and the support for a sustainable downscaling of production and consumption, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 74, 101586, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101586 Lamperti, F., Dosi, G., Napoletano, M., Roventini, A. & Sapio, A. (2020). Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 153, 119806, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119806 Lin, C.Y. & Tjeerdema, R.S. (2008). Crude Oil, Oil, Gasoline and Petrol, in: S. E. Jørgensen & B. D. Fath (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ecology, Academic Press, pp. 797-805, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00382-7. Mair, S., Druckman, A. & Jackson, T. (2020). A tale of two utopias: Work in a post-growth world, Ecological Economics, Volume 173, 106653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106653. Marsiglio, S. & Privileggi, F. (2021). Three dimensional fractal attractors in a green transition economic growth model, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, Volume 93, 105509, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2020.105509. Medak, T. Domazet, M. & Rilović, A. (2020). Degrowth, in M. I. Goldstein & D. A. DellaSala (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the World's Biomes (pp. 287-295), Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12081-0 Morand, S. (2020). Emerging diseases, livestock expansion and biodiversity loss are positively related at global scale, Biological Conservation, Volume 248, 108707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108707 Murase, Y. & Baek, S. K. (2018). Seven rules to avoid the tragedy of the commons, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 449, pp. 94-102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.04.027. Nesterova, I. (2020). Degrowth business framework: Implications for sustainable development, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 262, 121382, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121382. Norouzi, N., Fani, M. & Ziarani, Z. K. (2020). The fall of oil Age: A scenario planning approach over the last peak oil of human history by 2040, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Volume 188, 106827, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106827. Paech, N. (2012). Liberation from Excess - The road to a post-growth economy. Munich: oekom. Paech, N. (2017). Post Growth Economics, in: Spash, C. L. (Hrsg): Handbook of Ecological Economics (pp. S. 477–486), Routledge, London. http://www.postwachstumsoekonomie.de/wp-content/uploads/Paech-2017-Handbook-EE.pdf retrieved 12.3.2021. Palomares, M.L.D., Froese, R., Derrick, B, Meeuwig, J.J., Nöel, S.-L., Tsui, J. et al. (2020). Fishery biomass trends of exploited fish populations in marine ecoregions, climatic zones and 55 ocean basins, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Volume 243, 106896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106896. Peeters, P., Higham, J., Kutzner, D., Cohen, S. & Gössling, S. (2016). Are technology myths stalling aviation climate policy?, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 44, pp. 30-42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.004. Platto, S., Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Wang, H. & Carafoli, E. (2021). Biodiversity loss and COVID-19 pandemic: The role of bats in the origin and the spreading of the disease, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Volume 538, pp. 2-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.10.028 Prideaux, B. & Pabel, A. (Eds.) (2018). Coral Reefs: Tourism, Conservation and Management, Routledge Publishing, Taylor & Francis Group. Pröbstl-Haider, U., Dabrowska, K. & Haider, W. (2016). Risk perception and preferences of mountain tourists in light of glacial retreat and permafrost degradation in the Austrian Alps, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Volume 13, pp. 66-78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.02.002. Pröbstl-Haider, U., Hödl, C., Ginner, K. & Borgwardt, F. (2020). Climate change: Impacts on outdoor activities in the summer and shoulder seasons, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 100344, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100344. Räisänen, J., Ojala, A. & Tuovinen, T. (2021). Building trust in the sharing economy: Current approaches and future considerations, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 279, 123724, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123724 Regev, M. (2019). Postlude: World culture after cultural globalization, Poetics, Volume 75, 101383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2019.101383. Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: new or refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 135, pp. 246-264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027 Rodríguez, Y., Ressurreição, A. Pham, C. K. (2020). Socio-economic impacts of marine litter for remote oceanic islands: The case of the Azores, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 160, 111631, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111631. Romero, J. P. & Gramkow, C. (2021). Economic complexity and greenhouse gas emissions, World Development, Volume 139, 105317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105317. Sabbagh, M. A. (2020). Cognitive Development: Neurobiological Foundations and Contemporary Directions, in J. B. Benson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development (Second Edition), pp. 317-326, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 809324-5.23799-1 Sandberg, M., Klockars, K. & Wilén, K. (2019). Green growth or degrowth? Assessing the normative justifications for environmental sustainability and economic growth through 56 critical social theory, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 206, pp. 133-141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.175 Sanders, M. C. & Sanders, C. E. (2016). A world's dilemma ‘upon which the sun never sets’ – The nuclear waste management strategy (part I): Western European Nation States and the United States of America, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Volume 90, pp. 69-97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.02.012. Sarja, M., Onkila, T. & Mäkelä, M. (2021). A systematic literature review of the transition to the circular economy in business organizations: Obstacles, catalysts and ambivalences, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 286, 125492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125492. Schröder, P., Bengtsson, M., Cohen, M., Dewick, P., Hofstetter, J. & Sarkis, J. (2019). Degrowth within – Aligning circular economy and strong sustainability narratives, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 146, pp. 190-191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.038. Scott, D., Hall, M. C. & Gössling, S. (2019). Global tourism vulnerability to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 77, p. 49-61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.05.007 Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F. & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 279, 123806, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123806. Shell, D.S., Brooks, D.W., Trainin, G., Wilson, K., Kauffman, D.F. & Herr, L.M. (2009) The Unified Learning Model: How Motivational, Cognitive, and Neurobiological Sciences Inform Best Teaching Practices. New York, NY: Springer. Singh, N. M. (2019). Environmental justice, degrowth and post-capitalist futures, Ecological Economics, Volume 163, pp. 138-142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.014 Stafford, R. & Jones, P. J. (2019). Viewpoint – Ocean plastic pollution: A convenient but distracting truth?, Marine Policy, Volume 103, pp. 187-191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.003. Steiger, R. & Scott, D. (2020). Ski tourism in a warmer world: Increased adaptation and regional economic impacts in Austria, Tourism Management, Volume 77, 104032, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104032. Steiger, R. Posch, E. Tappeiner, G. & Walde, J. (2020). The impact of climate change on demand of ski tourism - a simulation study based on stated preferences, Ecological Economics, Volume 170, 106589, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106589. Strunz, S. & Schindler, H. (2018). Identifying Barriers Toward a Post-growth Economy – A Political Economy View, Ecological Economics, Volume 153, pp. 68-77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.017. Terzi, A. (2020). Crafting an effective narrative on the green transition, Energy Policy, Volume 147, 111883, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111883. 57 Tölkes, C. (2018). Sustainability communication in tourism – A literature review, Tourism Management Perspectives, Volume 27, pp. 10-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.04.002. Tomaselli, M. F., Kozak, R., Gifford, R. & Sheppard, S. R. (2021). Degrowth or Not Degrowth: The Importance of Message Frames for Characterizing the New Economy, Ecological Economics, Volume 183, 106952, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106952. Trainer, T. (2020). De-growth: Some suggestions from the Simpler Way perspective, Ecological Economics, Volume 167, 106436, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106436 UNWTO (2017). 2017 is the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. https://www.unwto.org/archive/global/press-release/2017-01-03/2017-international-year- sustainable-tourism-development Vandeventer, J., Cattaneo, C. & Zografos, C. (2019). A Degrowth Transition: Pathways for the Degrowth Niche to Replace the Capitalist-Growth Regime, Ecological Economics, Volume 156, pp. 272-286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.002 Velenturf, A. & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 27, pp. 1437-1457, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018 Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B. & Jackson, D.D. (2011). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: Norton & Co. Wiers, R. W. & Verschure, P. (2021). Curing the broken brain model of addiction: Neurorehabilitation from a systems perspective, Addictive Behaviors, Volume 112, 106602, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106602. World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] (1987). Our Common Future. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. A/42/427, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Yang, Y., Nie, P. & Huang, J. (2020). The optimal strategies for clean technology to advance green transition, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 716, 134439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134439 Zhu, J. & Wang, C. (2020). Biodegradable plastics: Green hope or greenwashing?, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 161, Part B, 111774, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111774. Zhu, X. & Liu, K. (2021). A systematic review and future directions of the sharing economy: business models, operational insights and environment-based utilities, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 290, 125209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125209 58