Archive for the ‘Herman Daly’ Category
Do we lack solutions to our environmental problems or merely the will to implement them?
As I hope this blog has made clear over the last 12 months, our environmental problems are not the product of an over-active imagination; the result of a predisposition to being a doomsayer; or the fictional preamble to an insidious plan for worldwide authoritarian government – they are real.
They are also all inevitable consequences of the number of humans on the planet and the rate at which we are consuming, polluting, and/or destroying the Earth’s finite resources. In short, all our environmental problems are long-predicted Limits to Growth phenomena.
Even with only a rudimentary understanding of the basic Laws of Physics, this ought to be self-evident and incontestable. However, there are many people – either very wealthy or obsessed with becoming wealthy – who do not want to accept this reality. This led former World Bank economist Herman E Daly to conclude:
“Anyone who asserts the existence of limits is soon presented with a whole litany of things that someone once said could never be done but subsequently were done… but [c]ontinuing to study economies only in terms of the [exchange value of money] is like studying organisms only in terms of the circulatory system, without ever mentioning the digestive tract.”
Bearing all this in mind, I think a very important thing happened last week, which I hope will be a turning point in the long battle to rouse the bulk of humanity from its catatonic state of reality denial – in that one of the UK Government’s most senior scientific advisors has said that it is no longer realistic to think we can limit the rise in global average temperatures being caused by human activity to less than 2 Celsius: Professor Watson is a highly respected and world renown scientist on climate change policy and is currently Chief Scientist at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and a former Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I really hope that this will be a game-changer; it certainly deserves to be: For the first time ever (that I can recall), the BBC publicised what he said as genuine news; with no attempt to provide a false balance with the opinions of those who claim nothing unusual is happening.
David Roberts has recently drawn attention to the probability that the prevailing view that unconventional hydrocarbons (oil shale gas in particular) represent the solution to our energy problems is a form of collective hypnosis. However, having recently finished reading parts 6 to 9 of Schalk Cloete’s 9-part series on the probability of an impending economic collapse, I think Professor Watson is right to say that our leaders lack the political will to change course. This is because, as Schalk shows – with typical crystal clarity – we are all (whether we like it or not) so deeply enmeshed in the Ponzi Scheme of Globalised Capitalism that it will be impossible to deconstruct it as fast as is now required.
In saying this, I would not want anyone to think of me as an anarchist – or even an anti-Capitalist – I consider myself to be merely a pragmatist and a realist. Indeed, as Schalk eventually demonstrates (in posts 8 and 9 of the series), there are simple solutions but no easy way to see how our political leaders will allow them to be implemented (because turkeys will never vote for Christmas). Despite this, we really must all stop being so compartmentalised in our thinking. Our economic and environmental problems are so intertwined it is not possible to solve any of them in isolation. A holistic problem requires a holistic solution. Arthur Mol, an early proponent of the concept of Ecological Modernisation, circumscribed the problem perfectly when he suggested that “a structural design fault of modernity” is causing “the institutionalised destruction of nature.” (For more on this subject, please see my Can modernisation ever be ecological? – Part 1 (24 September 2011)).
As Professor Watson notes, our leaders appear to lack the political will to change the system; and (as I have suggested) the analogy of turkeys not voting for Christmas may explain why this is the case. However, what are the solutions and why will they be so hard to implement? Well, even though Schalk’s discussion is focussed on the impending collapse of globalised economics, the solutions he proposes apply equally well to the environmental collapse that we have also brought upon ourselves:
Solutions to our problems
In his Healing the System post (part 8 of 9 in the Collapse series), Schalk posits four necessary changes required to the way the World currently operates:
— Minimise our use of products and services that consume non-renewable resources.
— Eliminate the massive inefficiencies of the globalised economics that drive this over-consumption.
— Pay off our all our ludicrous debts and re-establish individual financial resilience.
— Reduce over consumption in developed countries and excessive population growth in developing countries.
I know this is in danger of sounding like a Utopian dream to eliminate poverty and suffering; and establish World peace… but – as Learning from Dogs has recently reminded all those that will listen – David Roberts has a point; either we do something about all of this or we’re screwed.
Obstacles to implementation
In his Practical Challenges post (the final part in the Collapse series), Schalk highlights the following difficulties:
— Reducing consumption of non-renewable resources will require an entire culture shift to convince 100s of millions of people that consuming things does not make us happy.
— Restoring system efficiency will require the money to be spent on things that benefit society as a whole rather than an elite who are already very wealthy (turkeys and Christmas problem again).
— Reducing overall indebtedness will also require the dismantling of systems of power and control; power that has corrupted people, companies and entire governments (ditto).
— Reducing over-consumption (i.e. implementing austerity) is not easy at a time when people are obsessed with consumption and in the Age of Entitlement. In the meantime, although reducing population growth in developing countries through the education and emancipation of women is genuine work in progress, it is taking a long time; and time is a luxury we do not have.
Change the World begins at home
Echoing another recent post on Learning from Dogs, if we want to change the World; we must start by changing our own behaviour. This is the conclusion Schalk reaches too:
Honestly, the only practical solution I can see is a peaceful grassroots revolution of concerned individuals changing their lifestyles and talking to their friends… People simply need to wake up to this blindingly obvious fact and start incorporating it in their day-to-day consumption patterns… The One in a Billion project has been especially designed to make such individual action as easy and rewarding as at all possible. I am fully convinced that gradually implementing these sustainable lifestyle choices is the single most important thing that any one of the richest billion individuals on planet Earth can be doing right now.
I may have linked and/or dipped into it repeatedly above but, as it is so beautifully constructed, scripted and presented, I really would recommend reading Schalk’s entire series of posts from their beginning. So, if you have not already done so, start here.
It was reported on the BBC News today that China’s growth has slowed from 8.1% to 7.6% over the last three months. Big deal. What does this matter? Either way, it is completely unsustainable!.
I am afraid this prompted another rant from me (albeit subject to a 400-character limit):
“Even at 7% p.a. this would result in a doubling of China’s economy in 10 years. That means a probable doubling of its consumption of the Earth’s resources. In what sense can this ever be considered sustainable? Quantitative growth is not – nor can it ever be – the answer. What the Earth needs is Qualitative development. Economists and politicians need to stop lying to themselves and us.”
The former World Bank economist, Herman E Daly (yes him again), once lamented that: “Anyone who asserts the existence of limits is soon presented with a whole litany of things that someone once said could never be done but subsequently were done”; but insisted that “Continuing to study economies only in terms of the [exchange value of money] is like studying organisms only in terms of the circulatory system, without ever mentioning the digestive tract.”
I am sorry but, apart from saying that it is time the World woke up to reality, I cannot be bothered to say anything else; but I am going to repeat this video:
I have something important I want, on behalf of Bill McKibbin’s 350.org, to ask you to do today: The idea is that for a 24 hour period—starting at 8AM UTC/GMT today, folks around the world create a Twitterstorm by sending thousands upon thousands of tweets all with the same hashtag: #EndFossilFuelSubsidies.
But first, to get you in the mood, I hope you will read this:
If you ever find yourself in a business meeting playing a game of bull***t bingo, and don’t have the phrase “going forward” on your card, prepare to lose. However, last week, whilst pondering the notion of “sustainable development” (or rather its absence), my attention was caught by someone on TV combining the two into a wonderful sound byte: Apparently, the maintenance of 3 Accident and Emergency hospitals in one County is “not sustainable going forward…” It was then that it hit me! People use this excuse all the time: Whenever, a company wants to make lots of people redundant, end a manufacturing process, close a factory, or liquidate a business… they always cite the fact that any other course of action would be unsustainable. In other words, it would make a loss; it would be uneconomic; because the costs of doing so would be greater than any potential benefit. In short, it would be illogical; it might even be insane!
Leaving aside for a moment that companies seem perfectly capable of sustaining massive losses and yet remain in business (it’s called “being too big to fail” and “getting bailed-out by the taxpayer”), it is important to note that cost-benefit analysis is everywhere; we do it all the time; it is part of everyday life. That being the case, why do we not apply it to life itself?
A multi-disciplinary team of scientists based at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) have been trying to do just that; and they recently published the findings of their research in the journal Nature. Only an abstract may be viewed online without a subscription (i.e. free of charge). However, thanks to Christine over on 350orbust.com, I have been able to read a substantial summary of their work on the UCB website. The opening paragraph reads like this:
A prestigious group of scientists from around the world is warning that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems, and climate change may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere
The publication of their research findings may well have been deliberately timed to coincide with the G20 and Rio+20 Summits this week; and – if not deliberate – it is very fortuitous. However, one thing it is not is new. This message is at least 200 years old. The Rev Thomas Malthus was the first to point out that, unless food production can keep up with demand, perpetual population growth must ultimately lead to increasing numbers of impoverished and/or starving people. Needless to say, even 200 years ago, this message was not well received by those who had a financial interest in maintaining a happy productive workforce (and saw Malthus as being a dangerous and subversive distraction).
Over the last 50 years, numerous scientists (mostly biologists) have published articles, research findings, and books on the subject – including Garrett Hardin, Paul and Anna Ehrlich, William Ophuls – but the most well known is probably the team of researchers based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), originally led by Dennis Meadows, that produced the first Limits to Growth report in 1972. Unfortunately, like everyone that has gone before – and everyone who has come along since then – they were immediately lambasted on the basis that Malthus had been proved wrong; they were accused of ‘crying “wolf”‘; and/or denounced as doomsayers, anti-progress, anti-Western, Communists, even misanthropic. Not only is it important to remember that the moral of the story of the boy who repeatedly raised the alarm is that the wolf eventually turned up (thanks Christine); it is also important to ask yourself why so many people (who are mainly economists not biologists) seek to dismiss this message?
The former World Bank economist, Herman E Daly (yes him again), once lamented that:
“Anyone who asserts the existence of limits is soon presented with a whole litany of things that someone once said could never be done but subsequently were done”; but insisted that
“Continuing to study economies only in terms of the [exchange value of money] is like studying organisms only in terms of the circulatory system, without ever mentioning the digestive tract.”
I am therefore inclined to think that the reason economists attack biologists who insist that limits to growth are a real threat is this: Attack is the best form of defence. However, denying the reality of limits to growth does not mean that they cease to exist. As it says on my About page:
“The driver of an accelerating car about to hit a brick wall might well say ‘so far so good’ – but that does not mean that the wall is not there!” (John Dryzek, 2005)
Denial is not a river in Egypt; it is an ideologically-prejudiced refusal to accept scientific facts that challenge the entire business model of this Carbon Age (which cannot last forever).
Like I have said before, the burning of fossil fuels has only become a problem because of the rate at which it is being done. When there were only 1 billion people on Earth chopping down trees and burning them to farm the land and keep warm, anthropogenic CO2 emissions were not a problem; but now that we are digging up fossilised carbon and putting it into the atmosphere 1000 times faster than it can be geologically recycled it is a very big problem indeed. Thus the unnatural climate change we are now causing is a limits to growth phenomenon; and the money that we must now spend to mitigate it and/or adapt (or else be annihilated) is just one of many costs incurred as a result of denying, for the last 40 years, that limits to growth exist.
I therefore make no apologies for again referring to The Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update (2005), wherein the authors repeated their warning that if we put off dealing with limits to growth we are more likely to come up against several of them simultaneously. With regard to the revised computer modelling undertaken, they observed that in most cases the simulations ran out of the “ability to cope” when too much industrial output has to be diverted to solving problems; and concluded: “Growth, and especially exponential growth, is so insidious because it shortens the time for effective action. It loads stress on a system faster and faster, until coping mechanisms that have been adequate with slower rates of change finally begin to fail.” (Meadows et al 2005: 223).
This is exactly the message of the UCB team of researchers. We have reached the point predicted by Meadows et al. Moreover, nowadays it is not just biologists that are admitting that we have reached the point where further delay will not be cost-effective; in fact it could well be deadly.
Above all else, we need a level playing field. That is why we must end the subsidies paid to fossil fuel companies that enable them to keep exploring for hydrocarbons that are becoming ever more costly to extract (whatever happened to cost-benefit analysis?). Therefore, I implore you to join the 350.org 24-hour Twitterstorm campaign, starting at 0800hrs UTC/GMT today (Monday 18 June 2012).
Find out more and sign-up at http://endfossilfuelsubsidies.org/twitterstorm/.
Australia likes to call itself “The Lucky Country” but, today, in the fight to see which so-called Developed Country can turn itself into a Third World Nation the fastest, Australia is facing some stiff competition from Canada.
Whilst the rest of the developed world may be tempted to shake their heads and say, “you short-sighted fools”, can anyone actually point to a country on the planet that is not treating the Earth like a business in liquidation?
I think the luckiest countries in the world are probably Iceland and New Zealand; although people affected by the financial meltdown in Reykjavik or the earthquake in Christchurch may wish to disagree with me. Seriously though, it is countries like these, with a wealth of geothermal energy, that may well stand the best chance of achieving carbon-free energy generation in the near to medium term. However, the rest of us will have to find a way to achieve this goal within the next 20 years, or the Earth may end up losing its Goldilocks Planet status. Sadly this will not just be unlucky. In fact luck will not be part of it at all because it will be a travesty; a lasting testament to human folly. A bit embarrassing really; except there will probably not be anybody here to laugh at (or cry about) our crass stupidity, arrogance, and stubbornness (in the face of numerous warnings).
The truth of the matter is this: We live on a finite planet with finite resources but, despite this fact, every country on Earth is fully committed to Growthmania. No-one is willing or able to conceive of an alternative paradigm. Meanwhile, however, reality continues to make its presence felt – Things that were once not a problem (like disposing of waste into rivers, taking fish from the sea, and polluting the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels) are becoming ever more pressing problems solely as a consequence of the scale at which they are being done.
Continual growth in the GDP of the global economy is not sustainable in perpetuity. Growth cannot be the answer to our global debt crisis; and austerity does not seem to be working either. Why is it that economists are so willing to deny the reality of The Second Law of Thermodynamics and/or the concept of Entropy?
Is it really that surprising that the most intractable arguments put forward by climate change deniers are economic ones? Apart from those that want to dispute the reality of ongoing anthropogenic climate disruption, it is economists that are most clearly habituated to denying reality. However, as climate scientists have been saying since at least the late 1950s, we are conducting an enormous geophysical experiment on the Earth’s atmosphere (despite the fact that we have known for over 150 years what the result would be) and, every time we have checked our maths, the predicted result has not changed that much: Ignoring all the positive feedback mechanisms that could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, the best estimate for equilibrium temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 from pre-Industrial levels (i.e. up to 560ppm) is still somewhere in excess of 2 Celsius.
However, all the evidence suggest that, given that they are already becoming self-evident, positive feedback mechanisms cannot be ignored; making a rise in global average temperature of between 4 and 6 Celsius much more likely. And, as if to add insult to injury, the greater the rise in temperature caused, the more likely that the runaway greenhouse effect that has crippled Venus will be triggered here too.
Clever answers on a postcard please to James Hansen, University of Columbia, New York, NY.
Apart from a hat-tip in the direction of one of the most epic films ever made (i.e. The Greatest Story Ever Told ), and my wishing all readers a Happy Easter (or to be entirely politically-correct, a ‘joyous Spring Equinox festival of renewal’), this post has very little to do with Christianity…
In centuries long past, if you upset someone in China they might well have cursed you by saying, “May you live in interesting times” and to be sure, today, we do indeed live in interesting times. These are Strange Days on Planet Earth (National Geographic).
600 years ago it was the Church of Rome that was doing all the lying and obfuscation and, if books had then been invented, they would have been burning them. Then along came the Enlightenment, seeking to rid humanity of mysticism and supposedly-irrational explanations for anything; and instead to explain everything in scientific terms. Of course the great irony of this was that, building on the wisdom of ancient Greek and Chinese thinkers – and the amazing early maths of medieval Muslim scholars – the success of this anti-irrational crusade was facilitated by the Christian belief in a rational God and, therefore, a rational Universe.
Thus, although we have much for which we should be grateful to the Enlightenment, this does not include the fact that it bequeathed to posterity the belief that human beings are superior to nature (rather than being part of it). Was this the greatest lie ever told? I think not; and for two reasons: It was not a lie; and it was never told. It was an erroneous consequence of an intellectual assumption about the way the World is: It was an error in reasoning; a fallacy.
History is full of fallacies. Take the various fallacies built upon the work of Charles Darwin: Darwin is one of the most influential scientists that ever lived; and his life’s work – to explain the consequences of his thinking about his observations of nature for our understanding of our place in it – has been misrepresented in many different ways: As well as being vilified by those that felt threatened by him, Darwin’s ideas have been abused and misused to justify all sorts of bad ideas from Marxism to Fascism; and from the Meritocracy of modern-day USA to global laissez-faire Capitalism. But, are any of these things the greatest lie ever told? No, I don’t think so…
In the second half of the 20th Century, humans seemed to finally realise that killing people in large numbers (as part of military conflict) was probably best avoided; and so was founded the United Nations and what would later become the European Union. By virtuous pursuit of international co-operation, may be now global peace and security could be realised? Unfortunately, global laissez-faire Capitalism, which John Gray has suggested was “[a]lways a utopian project” (i.e. in False Dawn: The delusions of global capitalism, [2009: xiv]), was doomed to failure because of the fallacious thinking it inherited from the Enlightenment: This allowed money fetishism to take hold and, with profit elevated from a means-to-an-end up to an-end-in-itself, human beings were bound to exploit nature without mercy (i.e. “mistake nature’s capital for a source of income” [E. F. Schumacher]; and/or “treat the Earth as a business in liquidation” [Herman E. Daly]); and to refuse to listen to anyone that said it has inherent or intrinsic value – let alone anyone that says nature has a right to exist… Were the fallacies identified by Schumacher or Daly the greatest lie ever told? No, I don’t think so…
However, the greatest lie ever told has a strong pedigree; a bit like the British Empire: Here in the UK, the BBC recently screened a 5-part series on the latter presented by Jeremy Paxman. As he tends to do when interviewing people, Paxman pulled no punches with our Imperialist past either; privateering (i.e. government-sanctioned piracy and theft); the slave trade, the opium wars, the suppression of any and all opposition to British rule – it was all recounted in excruciating detail… The British Empire undoubtedly did a lot of good to an awful lot of people; but it also abused its position and ultimately outlived its usefulness: Thus, we had to be forced to relinquish it, piece-by-piece, bit-by-bit. So, was “Britannia Rules the Waves” the greatest lie ever told? No, I don’t think so.
However, driven by greed – and the idolisation of the notion of free trade – the British Empire became the greatest exponent of corporate lies, hypocrisy, and double-standards the World had seen and – as such – I would argue has been the inspiration for all multi-national businesses that have since copied its modus operandi. As a result, in the service of their god of profit, we have been lied to by these business people repeatedly for over 100 years and been variously told that:
Heroin addiction is socially acceptable.
Smoking cigarettes is sophisticated.
The Titanic is unsinkable.
The War will be over by Christmas.
Things can only get better.
Hitler is not dangerous.
Smoking is not harmful.
Organic pesticides are more effective than natural predators.
You’ve never had it so good.
Organic pesticides are safe.
Population growth is not a problem.
Famine and starvation are a thing of the past.
Limits to growth do not exist.
Mutually assured destruction is a sensible military strategy.
Smoking does not cause cancer.
The hole in the ozone layer is not there.
CFCs aren’t causing the hole in the ozone layer.
Acid rain does not exist.
We are not causing acid rain.
We can’t afford to prevent acid rain.
Passive smoking is not dangerous.
But are any of these the greatest lie ever told? No, I don’t think so.
However, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of Communism across Eastern Europe, and the disintegration of the former USSR, it was then that the lie was forced upon the public consciousness with single-minded determination. Although conceived as a reaction to supposedly “liberal-minded nonsense” spouted in the late sixties and early seventies by supposedly subversive academics (even those whose work was funded by plutocrats like The Club of Rome), it suddenly became possible to convince people, in the absence of any other enemy, that those who espouse concern for the environment are Communists in disguise (or “Watermelons” as James Delingpole likes to call them) – this is the greatest lie ever told.
However, this lie is rarely explicitly stated: Far more often it is dressed-up and/or made to seem more reasonable by claims that humanity is too insignificant to affect our climate; the climate will not change faster than we can adapt to it; we are not causing the climate to change; we cannot afford to prevent climate change; and/or climate change has stopped.
In effect, all such claims can be replaced with one: Environmental “alarmists” are just “crying wolf”. In the face of complex science and supposedly-conflicting truth claims, this is a very seductive reason for doing nothing: It is a very convenient and facile argument used by those whose sole aim is to prevent effective action being taken to regulate their business activities – those who prioritise their freedom to make a short-term profit over the long-term interests of the Environment; and what is in the interests of the long-term habitability of planet Earth. However, with my thanks to Jules B. for pointing this out to me, to accept this one must forget that, in the fairy-tale, the wolf eventually turns up!
Having been lucky enough to have lived and worked in Australia between 1986 and 1989, I got to know and like some Australian bands many of my British friends and family have still never heard of. One of my favourites was – and still is – Paul Kelly and the Messengers. In 1989, they produced a CD album entitled So Much Water So Close To Home from which this self-explanatory song is taken (if you can’t catch all the words and/or want to ponder them awhile – they are reproduced below the embedded video).
All I will say, by way of introduction is this: The accumulation of personal wealth has become the sole objective of many people in modern society; and perpetual growth is posited as a means whereby even the poorest might achieve it. The former World Bank economist Herman Daly called this “growthmania”. Paul Kelly’s words cut through this madness…
You might have a happy family, nice house, fine car
You might be successful in real estate
You could even be a football star
You might have a prime time T.V. show seen in every home and bar
But you can’t take it with you
You might own a great big factory, oil wells on sacred land
You might be in line for promotion, with a foolproof retirement plan
You might have your money in copper, textiles or imports from Japan
But you can’t take it with you
You can’t take it with you though you might pile it up high
It’s so much easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye
You might have a body of fine proportion and a hungry mind
A handsome face and a flashing wit, lips that kiss and eyes that shine
There might be a queue all around the block
Long before your starting time
But you can’t take it with you
You might have a great reputation so carefully made
And a set of high ideals, polished up and so well displayed
You might have a burning love inside, so refined, such a special grade
But you can’t take it with you
Green politics is not seeking worldwide Socialist government. Sure, social justice is common to both (hence people like James Delingpole can write stupid books like Watermelons) but, Green politics is also about promoting grassroots democracy and the empowerment of the people; not a top-heavy autocratic government. The four pillars of Green politics (as per the German Green Party in the 1980s) are as follows:
1. Ecology – acknowledging that humanity is part of nature not superior to it.
2. Social Justice – acknowledging the all humans deserve to be treated fairly.
3. Grassroots democracy – acknowledging that globalisation may not be such a good idea.
4. Non-violence – increasingly difficult to sustain because of our failure to adopt the above.
Instead of which, the last 50 years have seen a strengthening of the dominance of free-market economics and global Capitalism, the four pillars of which may well be:
1. Anthropocentrism – we are masters of our Environment and can defile it with impunity.
2. Growthmania – blind faith that economic growth will eventually bring prosperity to all.
3. Unrepresentative democracy – power is vested in business and political elites.
4. Natural violence – economic progress will always trump nature (habitat) preservation.
It was the seventeenth century Enlightenment that convinced us we could be masters of our environment, but this was a dangerous fallacy and a delusion. It was always going to be exposed as such eventually: No civilisation that made this mistake has ever lasted very long (e.g. the inhabitants of Easter Island) and, in the case of modern civilisation, it is very clear now that the clock really started ticking with the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
We have been burning fossil fuels in ever-increasing amounts for over 200 years. Physics told us that the effects will take time to become obvious. However, those effects were all predicted and now, sure enough, they have become obvious. If so, why do people continue to claim we are making a fuss about nothing? Leon Festinger and David Aaronovitch have provided the answer – It makes them feel better. May be it does, but the laws of physics do not cease to apply just because they choose not to like them.
I have been very fortunate to trek to Everest Base Camp from the world’s scariest airport at Lukla (in Nepal). One of the things that struck me most forcefully on that trek was the clear evidence that below an altitude of about 4000 metres, there was no sign that any valleys had ever been glaciated. That is to say that U-shaped valleys are only present above that level; the lower valleys are over-incised V-shape and/or filled with fluvio-glacial deposits. This is a very clear indication that the glaciers in the Himalaya have been fairly static ever since they first developed millions of years ago. However, since first observed and photographed by ‘Westerners’ less than 100 years ago, there have been huge loses in mass (i.e. the depth and length of valley filled); and most of this melting has happened in the last 30 years.
Therefore Green politics is not a socialist conspiracy; it is a logical response to the reality that humanity is treating the environment with contempt. You may choose to take it or leave it but, if we don’t embrace it soon we will be faced with a very unpleasant reality:
— Herman E Daly called it uneconomic growth.
— William Ophuls called it overshoot and collapse (as a result of ecological scarcity).
— Meadows et al called it running “…out of the ability to cope [with pollution] long before we run out of… resources”.
— Stephen Hawking called it the reason why Aliens will not be friendly!
Whatever you want to call it, this unpleasant reality is not going to go away just because we wish it were not so. But first, I guess, you must be convinced that we are the primary cause of climate change we now face… If this is where you are still at, see this excellent new summary (posted on the Skeptical Science website on 20 January 2012):
A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming (emphasis mine).
On the day after it was announced that unemployment has reached a 17-year high in the UK, I hesitate to complain about the fact that Morrisons has promised to open 25 new supermarkets in the UK next year and create 7000 new jobs. However, when, if ever, is someone going to decide that we have got enough? Or is this yet another example of Garrett Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (cunningly disguised – in this instance – as aggressive competition for increased market share)? Will it only be accepted that there are enough when everybody works in a shop; and we all spend all our time buying and selling each other stuff we don’t need?
It is not quite a year ago that the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme entitled ‘What Price Cheap Food‘ containing the startling revelation that, in the two years between 1 November 2008 and 1 November 2010, town planners approved applications for at least 577 new supermarkets across the UK. Can it really be necessary, or sustainable, for 5 new supermarkets to open every week?
According to government statistics, there are approximately 90 thousand grocery stores in the UK. Given a current UK population of say 63 million people living in approximately 27 million households, this equates to 1 store for every 700 people and/or 1 store for every 300 households. So I ask again, when will we have enough?
May be too much choice is one of the reasons more and more people are becoming obese? Seriously though, if we are all eating and or consuming roughly the same amount of stuff, what is driving the demand for all these new stores? Is it justified by the rate of population growth? Well, let’s see: Net migration to the UK in 2010 was 252 thousand. Based on the above statistics, this would have justified the opening of 360 stores but only if all existing stores were operating at full capacity. I know no-one likes to wait in line to pay for their shopping but, be reasonable, this does not justify the perpetual opening of new stores does it?
No, I’m sorry to say it but, I think this is just one example of what Herman Daly called growthmania; and the success of Capitalism appears to depend upon it. Capitalism demands perpetual growth to pay dividends to shareholders; and guarantee that we all get a reasonable pension when we retire. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we are all slaves to the machine and the machine (although not working very well at present) is economic growth. Where and when will it all end? Will shareholders and pensioners still be happy when, as people like Tim Worstall would have us believe, quantitative growth has been replaced by qualitative development?
As Daly once said, “The Earth may be developing, but it is not growing!“. Remember that next time you go into a new shop looking for a bargain, won’t you…?
On page 248 of Storms of my Grandchildren, James Hansen describes the actions of our current generation – and the political and business elites who claim to act in the best interests of society in general (when in fact their motives are entirely selfish and self-serving) as “a gross case of intergenerational injustice”…
To summarise all previous posts on this subject, the basis of Hansen’s assertion is as follows:
— All attempts at emissions reductions have failed because even those involved in the UNFCCC process are in denial about the urgency of the need for radical change in the way we meet our global energy demands.
— Nothing will change until politicians free themselves from the influence of big business in general; and oil money in particular.
— Unless we phase out coal-burning by 2030 and choose not to develop all unconventional hydrocarbon sources (coal bed methane, oil shale, tar sands, deep sea oil, etc), we have zero chance of meeting international agreements on emissions reductions.
— If we do not make these rapid reductions in our emissions then, within the lifetime of children born today, we are very likely to induce humanly-irreversible climate change on a scale the Earth has not experienced in tens of millions of years (if ever).
To be sure, when people can no longer deny that change is happening or that we have a problem (to which I am inclined to respond like the archetypal child in the back of a car by saying “are we there yet?”); I suspect they will continue to protest about the cost of taking effective action but, how dare anybody say that the cost of preventing such catastrophic change in the future is too expensive? Since when did it become socially acceptable to leave your house to your children and then defecate in every room before you are wheeled-off to your retirement home?
In 1987, the Brundtland Report gave us the most-commonly cited definition of sustainable development as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. However, in stark contrast to this, what our current political leaders are doing is acquiescing in the face special interests that are “treating the Earth as if it were a business in liquidation” (Herman E. Daly). This is not only unsustainable; it is unbelievably short-sighted and selfish: A global problem needs a global solution, but this will not be possible unless or until people stop invoking the selfish “if we don’t burn it someone else will” argument. To do so, merely proves how prescient in 1968 Garrett Hardin was to write ‘Tragedy of the Commons’: Our current crop of world leaders would do well to read it; and act accordingly.
Is it little wonder, therefore, that all around the world, large numbers of possibly predominantly younger people (who have been educated in an era when the reality of the problem has been difficult to ignore) are resorting to acts of public protest and civil disobedience?
But, just how bad could things get; and how fast? This is the “sting in the tail” I mentioned yesterday: You see, because I have been posting stuff on my blog in real time (i.e. I did not read the book from cover-to-cover and then start blogging about it), I may have given the impression that catastrophic change may not happen for decades and that it may take thousands of years for its effects to be fully realised. However, at the end of his book, Hansen finally comes clean and says what he thinks could really happen, how soon it might happen and, most worrying of all, that, it might actually not stop happening. Therefore, tomorrow might well be the last item I post regarding the book (i.e. because I will have reached the end)!