Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Sustainability to Earth's Rescue
Right away I should qualify that headline. We've all heard people say we should do things for the good of the planet. If we don't we effect our living environment, but it's not really the planet that will suffer. Compared to us the Earth has the better capacity to survive changes.
Replace those'“Save the Planet” bumper stickers ones that say “Save Yourself!” or “Save US.” Use a capital S offers a timely dual meaning.
Not many scientists challenge the idea of Gaia anymore. They accept that the Earth is a living organism that maintains conditions necessary for its survival. The question is how are we affecting us? Are we in trouble? More than a few think so, and not just those whose goal is a pristine environment.
The good—not great—news—is that many also feel there are things we can do. If the “powers that be” make some better and different choices, that is. The bad news?
Sir Crispin Tickell, author of Climatic Change and World Affairs (1977 & 1986), recently wrote that the effects humans are having is being manifest now, not some distant future.
Through increases in population and urbanization, the effects we are having on the land surface, the pollution of fresh water and seawater, the increasing rate of human-caused extinction of other species, and changes in the atmosphere, human activity is changing the biosphere and evolution.
We do not have to go down this path, however. What's missing, he says, is valuing the natural world. An example is economics, where'“fashionable delusions about the supremacy of market forces are deeply entrenched, and the responsibility of government to set the framework for economic activity and protect the public interest is often ignored. At present there is an astonishing failure to recognize the true costs.”
The market may be great at determining prices, but it's incapable of recognizing costs. That requires measuring and recognizing the value of the natural world.
Interesting that a news email just pinged in that led off with a story that told of “Billions for Big Oil” and”“through shrewd lobbying and litigation, oil companies were able to sweeten federal incentives for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Unfortunately, that's what this Administration considers taking care of the environment.
Well, we all like to be profitable. We know how much oil companies have suffered in recent times. Before we jump to conclusions, they are probably doing what Robin Hood would—taking from a wealthy government so they can lower our gas prices.
I'll be the first to say whomever pulls that oil out should be second in line to make a profit—right after those who put the dinosaurs there and aged them all these years. We have the DNA technology now, why don't we just track and reward the ancestors of those brave cave men responsible for storing these dinosaurs—along with the chosen few who get all the benefits now of course.
Another author, Jared Diamond, who wrote Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Penguin Books, 2005) looks at past cultures, but talks about current events not the distant future.
“In short, it is not a question open for debate whether collapses of past societies have modern parallels and offer any lessons to us. That question is settled. Because such collapses have actually been happening recently, and others appear to be imminent. Instead, the real question is how many more countries will undergo them.”
He cites contributing factors similar to Crispin's. Population pressure, for instance, was one of the underlying factors in the Rwandan genocide. While it shares the same island as the Dominican Republic, Haiti is in trouble because it is far poorer and overcrowded.
China's environmental problems are severe and their desire to have a First World lifestyle will bring more problems. Even Montana suffers from serious problems with their forests, soil, toxic wastes from mining, water pollution, and biodiversity loss. “One of our richest states is now our poorest.”
If you want more specifics, Diamond's book addresses the most serious environmental problems and takes on the most ill informed reasons to dismiss environmental problems (such as thinking technology will save us, doom-and-gloom has been wrong before, things are getting better, population will level off, etc.).
Interestingly, like Crispin, Diamond comes back to business practices and big business. The responsibility for business behavior, however, he lays at the feet of the public. They are the ones who choose the products they buy, and choose their government and lifestyle.
Jonathon Porritt, author of Capitalism as if the World Matters (Sterling, 2005), encourages embracing capitalism as “the only overarching system capable of any reconciliation between ecological sustainability and the pursuit of prosperity.” With adjustments.
He see “a new political convergence” emerging that embraces sustainability and wellbeing. The case for sustainable development must be reframed to show new opportunities for responsible wealth creation, he says.
His Five Capitals Framework explains the need is to measure natural capital, human capital, social capital, manufactured capital and financial capital. He points to the UK's Sustainable Development Commission as an example for us. When we don't take all those factors into consideration we end up with problems such as Hurricane Katrina, which he calls “a disaster that was just as much man-made as natural.” We found out.
“With the exception of the current US Administration,” he says, “most governments around the world are now struggling to reconcile legitimate material aspirations with the need to protect the natural environment far more effectively than we have been able to do until now.”
Another recent book, Sustainable Futures: Policies for Global Development by Barry B. Hugues and Peter D. Johnson, examines how Europe is approaching sustainability.
They begin with the recognition that European and American lifestyles cannot be adopted worldwide without destroying the environment. The European Union (EU) has made sustainable development a treaty objective. Their plan is to become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge economy in the world.
Contrary to the US, I think that means they're not cutting student scholarships.
Their goals are sustained growth, more and better jobs, and greater cohesion. Two of their strategies to get there are through investing in human capital and natural capital. A greater investment in human capital means education, health care, and supporting wider electronic networking. Investing in natural capital promotes development and use of eco-friendly technology, sustainable consumption and carbon taxation.
Europe has long considered it the manufacturer's responsibility to make products that do not damage the environment. Here, it is up to the consumer to make buying choices that don't.
Europe better recognizes the economic opportunity of building sustainable societies and the cost of not doing so. Here we consider environmentalists in the way of economic growth. That's not a worldview.
Could you imagine our President heralding a new day of building a knowledge society in the US?
But who knows, he may be way ahead of us. By cutting student loans and not supporting higher education we're be the first in line to be nannies for the chief beneficiaries of Wal-Mart's system of business, the Chinese. Why waste money on education when you're out-sourcing high-tech and engineering jobs whenever possible?
About 50 years ago the British consumed more than they produced. They went in debt to the point that other nations could control their destiny. They had to adjust. Have you ever heard of English nannies being exported? Shift happens.
Under the guise of promoting global business and patriotism we are on a path that puts at risk our national ability to determine our fate. How patriotic is that?
At some point the Chinese will buy the US oil companies and businesses they want or they will stop floating us loans. Shift will happen.
The rest of the world understands that human capital in the form of education and health care, and environmental capital, in the form of a clean and healthy living environment and sound, environmentally responsible business practices, is a sound investment and good measure of a successful society.
Someone in the Administration gets that on some level. They put it into the new Iraqi constitution. It establishes the right to a free education, health care, protection and care of children, and the guarantee of a minimum income required for living, to name a few rights. Recent estimates say that will cost US taxpayers $2 trillion over the next decade.
Wow. When they said they were exporting democracy, did anyone expect that? Compared to our guarantees, that's outsourcing not exporting.
When we focus on issues such as the validity of gay marriages and stem cell research we miss the big picture. There is much to lose. The First world is recognizing that our environmental, social, human and economic wellbeing are all one. Can we wait three more years to get an Administration that has a connection to our planet and environment? Google “impeach Bush” and you'll find many people who don't think we can.
The good news is we don't have to rely solely on the government. We make choices daily that support or hurt our environment and companies do listen and adjust. It seems to fit our grass-roots democratic tradition. See CoopAmerica.org to find businesses that operate using sustainable business standards. We'll offer more information, especially in our sustainable living section, about choices that support us all. Making choices, makes us'“the powers that be.”
Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
