As I said in my previous posting, there is a clear divide between those who deny the existence of an ecological crisis, on the one hand, and those who assert that the inhabitants of planet Earth face an ecological crisis of unprecedented proportions. On both sides there are scientists — at least people who claim that they are scientists — something that causes no little confusion on the part of the public, given the way that we have been taught to respect scientific judgement. Which so-called scientists do we trust?
In the final analysis, however, one must make up one’s mind, which is no easy task, by using as many sources of information as possible and exercising independent thinking and judgement. As for myself I have made up my mind to believe and trust those thinkers, writers, scientists and activists who are trying their level best to convince the rest of us that time is running out as far as being able to do anything about the looming ecological disaster is concerned. Quite apart from the question, whether one can be sure that they are right, there is this consideration (reminiscent of Pascal’s famous “wager” concerning God’s existence): what if they are right and we don’t do anything?
One of the most convincing thinkers when it comes to taking seriously the possibility that civilisation as we know it could “collapse” globally, unless we do things “right”, unless we learn from the mistakes of other civilisations that have “collapsed” irreversibly, is Jared Diamond, whose prize-winning Guns, Germs and Steel paved the way for the book I have been alluding to eponymously, namely Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
Focusing on the beautiful state of present-day Montana, in the US, he shows that all the ingredients for a collapse are present in that state — those that would accelerate such a collapse, as well as those that could, if they were pursued and expanded, prevent a collapse. In this way one is put in a position to understand that Montana is a microcosm of planet Earth and that the things that need to be done there are the same things that should be done everywhere on the planet (including, not working against nature when it comes to allowing forests to grow naturally, instead of interfering by thinning out underbrush and smaller vegetation in forests; not allowing toxins to leach into rivers and lakes from mining operations).
Diamond’s painstaking elaboration on the reasons why earlier societies failed — such as that on Easter Island or the Mayan civilisation — brings to light that in every case the people concerned underestimated the long-term effects of their environmental destruction, especially that of life-giving vegetation like forests. In the chapter on Easter Island, where palm trees were systematically cut down to the very last one (for religious reasons, unbelievably — for transporting their gigantic rock-hewn statues to the sites where they were erected, to “placate the gods”), Diamond says that he wonders what went through the mind of the men who cut down the very last tree on the island. One could say the same of people who knowingly release toxic waste of various kinds into life-giving rivers.
Another uncompromising ecological thinker, whose work I respect because of its thoroughness and clarity of vision, is Joel Kovel, whose book, The Enemy of Nature acted as a kind of wake-up call when I read the first edition about five years ago. If one reads Kovel’s book against the backdrop of the insights gained through Diamond’s Collapse, that human depredation of nature has historically led to the implosion of several civilisations, it becomes increasingly clear that such depredation has been occurring, for decades now — but in accelerating fashion, from about 1970 — not merely in isolated areas of the planet, but globally. Moreover, and this is the crux of The Enemy of Nature (subtitled The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?), the current, globally dominant economic system, known as neoliberal capitalism, is largely to blame for the speed with which ecological degradation is occurring, because of its uncompromising commitment to (economic) GROWTH at all costs.
To be sure, the (dirty) industrial activity of communist and socialist countries contributed significantly to the pollution of the Earth, as well as to climate change through carbon emissions, but the differentiating factor between these economic systems and capitalism is precisely the latter’s unrelenting pursuit of “growth”. Just how shortsighted this is, Kovel points out, should be clear to anyone who understands that human economic growth cannot occur indefinitely within a finite biosphere. And yet, most companies treat natural ecologies as if they are a smaller part of human economies!
I have mentioned climate change and carbon emissions. Kovel remarks that when the first edition of his book appeared in 2002 there could still be honest disagreements among scientists about the relation between carbon emissions and potentially catastrophic global warming, but that, when the second edition appeared in 2007, this could hardly still be the case. There is virtual consensus among scientists worldwide that the industrial-economic behaviour of humans is largely responsible for the runaway warming of the Earth’s biosphere. And those denialists who point at the vacillation between periods of hot and cold climatic conditions in the history of the planet, conveniently overlook the fact that those oscillations have, as far back as scientists can determine, always remained between certain extremes, but that more recently — as Al Gore has argued in his book, Earth in the Balance, as well as in the film, An Inconvenient Truth — the upwards swing of the thermometer has gone off the chart, as it were, and is still rising.
Hence, to return to the question, whether there is an ecological crisis facing humanity, it seems to me that the answer is an emphatic yes! There is overwhelming evidence, moreover, that it has been of human making, through the blind pursuit of an economic system that turns everything into resources for the sake of growth and the generation of material wealth. Kovel reminds one of the remarkable fact that, in 1970, growing anxiety about the deteriorating condition of planet Earth resulted in a new ecological awareness and a new politics.
On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was proclaimed, and has been commemorated on that date every year since then, to affirm human dedication to the preservation of the non-human environment. Shortly afterwards, in 1972, one witnessed the extraordinary event of some of the world’s power-elites (the so-called Club of Rome) issuing a “manifesto” pertinently and clairvoyantly called The Limits to Growth. Sadly, Kovel observes, since that time growth has, instead of slowing down, only accelerated. He provides the following list regarding the impact of human economic activity on the planet between 1970 and 2000 (imagine what it is today!) whatever kind of impact it might be:
– The human population had increased from 3.7 billion to 6 billion (62%).
– Oil consumption had increased from 46 million barrels a day to 73 million.
– Natural gas extraction had increased from 34 trillion cubic feet per year to 95 trillion.
– Coal extraction had gone from 2.2 billion metric tonnes to 3.8 billion.
– The global motor vehicle population had almost tripled, from 246 million to 730 million.
– Air traffic had increased by a factor of six.
– The rate at which trees are consumed to make paper had doubled to 200 million metric tons per year.
– Human carbon emissions had increased from 3.9 million metric tons annually to an estimated 6.4 million — this despite the additional impetus to cut back caused by an awareness of global warming, which was not perceived to be a factor in 1970.
– As for this warming, average temperatures increased by 1 degree F — a disarmingly small number that, being unevenly distributed, translates into chaotic weather events (seven of the ten most destructive storms in recorded history having occurred in the last decade) and an unpredictable and uncontrollable cascade of ecological trauma — including now the melting of the North Pole during the summer of 2000, for the first time in 50 million years, and signs of the disappearance of the “snows of Kilimanjaro” the year following; since then this melting has become a fixture.
– Species were vanishing at a rate that has not occurred in 65 million years.
– Fish were being taken at twice the rate as in 1970.
– Forty percent of agricultural soils had been degraded.
– Half of the forests had disappeared.
– Half of the wetlands had been filled or drained.
– One-half of US coastal waters were unfit for fishing or swimming.
– Despite concerted effort to bring to bay the emissions of ozone-depleting substances the Antarctic ozone hole was the largest ever in 2000, some three times the size of the continental United States; meanwhile, 2 000 tons of such substances continue to be emitted every day.
– 7.3 billion tons of pollutants were released in the United States during 1999.
These figures speak alarmingly for themselves, but it took Kovel a book of more than 300 pages to place them in the interpretive framework that indicates what their effect has been so far, what their likely long-term effect will be, and what there is that humanity can do to lessen the impact of climate change on the Earth (including human society). That will be the topic of another post. Suffice it to conclude this one by pointing out that even a mainstream journal such as National Geographic issued a special edition on climate change in 2004 titled “Global Warning: Bulletins from a Warmer World”, where human industrial activity was implicated in no uncertain terms. (To be continued.)
Franco – What it says about our species is that we are, despite our cleverness, very short-sighted, bellicose, selfish and greedy. No sooner had we evolved beyond the stage where we had to fight predators for our survival, and become sufficiently self-conscious to be able to accept that we are, as a species, the ‘guardian’ of other, less technologically powerful species, than we (most of our species, anyway) became obsessed with the accumulation of material wealth. Ray Kurzweil is, in my view, dreaming if he thinks we are on our way to becoming spiritual machines. That rests on the faulty model of humans as computers, with a hardware/software combination. We are simply not like that – we are embodied beings through and through – read Merleau-Ponty and Lyotard on this question. As for the rest of the debate going on here – which is very healthy, I believe – I think those who are still denying the seriousness of climate change are deluded – the majority of scientists in the world accept that it is a reality, and that it can cause unpredictable, chaotic climatic conditions in a very short time. Sure, the other ways in which we are messing up the planet are equally serious, such as polluting the oceans and rivers, and the like. Unless there is a collective mind-shift towards a completely different way of living, we are in for a rough ride, although we cannot predict what it will be. Read my ‘The mathematics of chaos’ on TL.
Electric cars will go along way to fixing the problem. They will be charged by renewable energy.
The Germans have designed a system whereby they have linked a country-wide network of solar, wind, hydro and biomass plants, that consistently deliver the same amount of power as a conventional power station. You might not have noticed but Andy posted this link earlier, also written by a group of scintists, and this is actually being implemented by the Germans:
“Germany to go 100% renewable energy by 2050 (and you can’t fool them Germans)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/germanyRenewable2050.php
No coal, no nuclear energy only renewables!!”
New Zealand has committed itself to 95% renewable energy within 20 years.
Lucky you are not pushing your climate change views in Australia, they are pretty tetchy right now after an horrendous 12 year drought climate scientists ascribe to anthropogenic causes, (too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases).
@David Hurst (part 2)
My previous comment was addressed to you as well.
Overfishing is a problem, the domestic pig and chicken grown in factory farms and fed fish are decimation our oceans. Humanity need to drastically down or eliminate their meat intake.
In addition, cut down on your meat intake and you will cut down methane emissions.
Groundwater is going to become even scarcer if you stubbornly believe climate change is only a natural phenomenon, however industry, agriculture and forestry can all make a contribution to overcoming a shortage of groundwater.
All the problems you mention can be solved by stopping overconsumption including wastful living and industrial production methods.
It looks to me as if you are more interested in diverting peoples attention away from anthopogenic climate change than offering solutions to the problems you raise.
@The Blobster
There is insufficient money to uplift the developing world with education and infrastructure so they will automatically reduce their birth rates.
However there is an abundance of money for overconsumption that causes the anthopogenic stress to biodiveristy.
Andy, you are stating an obvious but important point when you say that technology can be both a solution as well as the problem. There are not enough words available to include everything into an argument. Its just so amazing to me how confident everyone is about 9 billion to 11 billion people living “sustainably” on the planet with this clean technology. What is sustainable? Sustainable development is something of an oxymoron. The problem with finding alternative energy sources and technologies is that it gives us the means to degrade the land even more. A solar powered tractor (is there such a thing?) destroys habitat and soil just as well as a diesel powered one. Greed is just an over manifestation of what is natural in all of us. We are temporarily on parole from the prison of the sun (so much energy from the sun to go around, but we are cashing in on the fossil fuels) and to make our lives a bit easier in the future, we need laws to replace the laws of the prison of the sun that have been temporarily made more lenient through technology. “Clean technology” can do just as much harm as dirty technology if we don’t get it through our thick clever skulls that we have to find tricks to help us deal with the brain and thought patterns that evolution has provided us with. Smarty pants psychologists would have us deny that evolutionary psychology is of any value
I find it interesting that no one mentions the Precautionary Principle. It has been one of the key elements for policy decisions concerning environmental protection and management for more than decade. It is applied in the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for concern that an activity is, or could, cause harm but where there is uncertainty about the probability of the risk and the degree of harm.
The Precautionary Principle has been endorsed internationally on many occasions. At the Earth Summit meeting at Rio in 1992, World leaders agreed on Agenda 21, which advocated the widespread application of the PP in the following terms:
‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’ (Principle 15)
It has NOTHING to do with having to PROVE the demise of our planet. We can carry on business as usual and watch it go OR we can change the way we live (ALL of us). Nature WILL take its course (as Paul stated above).
And no one has really mentioned here that the lack of WATER (never mind clean water) is really what is going to destroy the human race. Google Blue Gold – Maud Barlow’s Special Report issued by the International Forum on Globalisation in 2001!!
No water, no life. Full stop.
@Dave Joubert
You should not throw figures around willy nilly. A recent UN study concluded the world population will peak in 2050 at 9.2 billion. After a period of stabilility world population will start to decrease.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation is soon to have an electronic conference on how to feed 9 billion. Maybe you can join and ask them to answer your questions about sustainably supporting 9 billion.
Only an idiot would choose to use ‘clean technology’ that does as much harm as ‘dirty technology’, would you not agree?
If you can have an electric car you can have an electric tractor, charge it with solar, wind, wave or tidally generated elecricity, not coal or nuclear generated electricity.
What about biogas tractors? Run off biogas generated from animal manure or human sewerage?
Really not such a shitty idea?
What about using green algae to power tractors with biodiesel?
Good reading matter on this subject:
1) Biogas China
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiogasChina.php
2) Green Algae for Carbon Capture and Biodiesel
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GAFCCAB.php
3) How to be Fuel and Food Rich Under Climate Change
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HTBFAFRUCC.php?printing=yes
Hi Andy
Have to tell you missed my point. Firstly, the only figures I quoted were the ones you and someone else quoted (9 and 11 billion), I was disagreeing with them as being truly sustainable population sizes. Its not only rich people that have degraded the planet, it is also poor people (usually in a different form). These same people are not living sustainably and in their case its to do with numbers, not consumption patterns.
I have NO PROBLEM with clean technology, what I was saying is that to place so much faith in clean technology as a solution to all our problems is wrong, because, clean technology can do just as much harm to the land and the waters as dirty technology. I am definitely in favour of clean technology.
So clean technologies are part of the solution, convincing people, and putting effective policies in place is another, and UNDERSTANDING our evolutionary mindset is another. Oh yes, and agreeing that PEOPLE overpopulation is ALSO part of the problem. Thanks for the websites. I will definitely make an effort, once the work pressure eases up a bit. By the way, I am going to do my bit for global climate change on Thursday, I’m going to burn some veld and add some carbon to the atmosphere!
@Dave Joubert
As long as we understand that the best way to bring about negative population growth is by increasing education and economic security for those populations with high birth rates.
Some skills training and a fairer global economic system, access to land, water, markets and resources would go a long way to poor people living sustainably.
I repeat what I said in a post further up “negative population growth is desirable – an interesting link, ’sub-replacement fertility’, already a reality in several countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
The overpopulation argument is too often used to shift the blame from overconsumers onto indefensible people that only need some education and an opportunity in life for them not to abuse the environment.
They overgraze, cause erosion and water pollution because they have no option. Its not easy to survive on less than two dollars a day.
Burning as part of good veld management can hardly be cause for concern. Preserving our grasslands and prairies is a noble task in the battle to combat climate change.