I have no science qualifications. My studies focused on history, international affairs, economics and law. Still there's a mountain of research available that is written for the general public. Start devouring that and you get a working grasp of the science. My views, however, were just one individual's opinion.
Earlier this month, William Rees, UBC professor emeritus of human ecology and ecological economics, presented a list of 11 steps to survival that do seem aligned with what I've been pitching.
Here, then, is what an effective “Green New Deal” might look like:
1. Formal recognition of the end of material growth and the need to reduce the human ecological footprint;
2. Acknowledgement that, as long as we remain in overshoot — exploiting essential ecosystems faster than they can regenerate — sustainable production/consumption means less production/consumption;
3. Recognition of the theoretical and practical difficulties/impossibility of an all-green quantitatively equivalent energy transition;
4. Assistance to communities, families and individuals to facilitate the adoption of sustainable lifestyles (even North Americans lived happily on half the energy per capita in the 1960s that we use today);
5. Identification and implementation of strategies (e.g., taxes, fines) to encourage/force individuals and corporations to eliminate unnecessary fossil fuel use and reduce energy waste (half or more of energy “consumed” is wasted through inefficiencies and carelessness);
6. Programs to retrain the workforce for constructive employment in the new survival economy;
7. Policies to restructure the global and national economies to remain within the remaining “allowable” carbon budget while developing/improving sustainable energy alternatives;
8. Processes to allocate the remaining carbon budget (through rationing, quotas, etc.) fairly to essential uses only, such as food production, space/water heating, inter-urban transportation;
9. Plans to reduce the need for interregional transportation and increase regional resilience by re-localizing essential economic activity (de-globalization);
10. Recognition that equitable sustainability requires fiscal mechanisms for income/wealth redistribution;
11. A global population strategy to enable a smooth descent to the two to three billion that could live comfortably indefinitely within the biophysical means of nature.
“What? A deliberate contraction? That’s not going to happen!” I hear you say. And you are probably correct. It should by now be clear that H. sapiens is not primarily a rational species.
But in being correct you only prove me correct. Disastrous climate change and energy shortages are near certainties in this century and global societal collapse a growing possibility that puts billions at risk.Dr. Rees is right. We have to grow smaller. As James Lovelock pointed out years ago there is no longer any room for "sustainable growth." We must enter a new paradigm, one of sustainable retreat.
Is this dubious standard of living we're so attached to really worth the the murderous cost it will inflict on the planet both in our lifetimes but especially for future generations? Must we really go over this cliff?
The important lesson here is that we do have a choice. We can keep going down the path that every politician in Canada has us on or we can live. You can't have both - which goes a long way to explain the near pathological cognitive dissonance of our political caste.
If we do come to our senses, if we do accept that the relentless pursuit of perpetual exponential growth is, to borrow the words of Springsteen, a "suicide trap," then we have to make up for a lot of years squandered. As professor Rees puts it:
A rational world with a good grasp of reality would have begun articulating a long-term energy and consumption wind-down strategy 20 or 30 years ago.
12 comments:
.. will have some further thoughts on this.. (as if I don't always think about this seeming conundrum) but I will say that even if Canada becomes one of the leaders and exemplars on the planet.. ie discards the pretentious political boasting horseshit and embarks on a powerful nation wide journey to become sensible, responsible, proactive.. we will face a staggering issue simply by succeeding in become possibly an enclave, a 'last redoubt' .. We will be the target of climate immigrants, political refugees etc etc. We (for now anyway) have clean water, arable lands, and space. We also have some fisheries, though we have governments set on killing them off ASAP for Bitumen and natural gas extraction and export. Leadership ? What leadership ? Immigrants are going to have to accept 1 child only, or adopt.. our citizens the same. Front and backyard gardens, urban greenhouses. Millions upon millions of trees to plant. Pollution and Desertification must be stopped. And so on..
Sal, you've captured the essence of a successful future - measures akin to what we've experienced during wartime. Dinner for four now having to feed six, seven or more.
The Blacks and Morneaus compelled to divest for the sake of greater equality. That is, after all, the nature of common sacrifice. Everyone in the lifeboat, steerage or first class, gets one share and no more.
I expect this realization is reflected in our political leadership's reluctance to break from perpetual exponential growth. Only by maintaining the illusion of endless growth can they convince people there's no need to change even though today's indulgence carries an enormous future cost for our young people.
.. all progress begins with small steps.. or understandings. Sure, some progress initiates via sudden lightning bolts of insight or action as well. But even those require a series or progression, a pathway, or a star to steer by.
I really like the 'lifeboat' analogy.. hell, its a common aspect of rescue or survival from a sinking ship, in the case of Captain Bligh, a mutiny. Or escape from a deserted island after shipwreck, wartime sinkings, or in the case of Thor Heyerdahl, the astonishing 8,000 mile journey across the Pacific, the Kon-Timi expedition in the reed boat Ra.
Its possible, even truly appropriate to look again, and far more closely and critically at current governments and political parties in Canada in the context of 'lifeboats' as well as one of my faves.. 'spaceship earth'. I was reminded via your analogy of a novel by Robert Heinlein that astonished me as a youth.. 'Orphans Of The Sky'. a synopsis is easily found via search. But I will introduce the idea, the conundrum that shook me way back when..
A 'generation ship' travelling through space. The crew dead for many many generations now from a mutiny. The inhabitants have a token or ritual 'captain' but long since the mutiny, generations having lived and died aboard, mythology as some sort of quasi religion exists. They no longer understand they are on a spaceship.. they believe 'the ship' is 'all' .. there is nothing but 'the ship'. They don't even know what a ship is. The upper navigation decks are overrun by mutants (who are the good guys !).. the main area of the ship is in compartments (and cultures). Plus the highly automated biosystems, the food production areas, garbage is fed back into the system.. but there is no sense that there could be anything 'outside' the hull.. there is no concept of outside.. it is either 'ship' or non existant.. even heresy.. life goes on and on till a bright young man is captured by the mutants.. and held in the navigation room.. and he dimly confronts.. the stars.. the outside.. and the exterior of the ship
Anyway.. back to the 'lifeboat' .. but cognizant that we are all aboard spaceship earth.. and the planet 'is the lifeboat' .. it is 'ship'. In a catastrophe or aboard a lifeboat, there must be leadership, some level of 'command presence' to initiate a survival plan. Some must collect rainwater, some must divy up rations, some must row, or catch fish, another must navigate, a few may craft a sail or sea anchor, some must care for the weak or children. There must be resolve, discipline, cooperation, sacrifice.. strength... in the journey of 'lifeboat earth' there is no land we are trying to reach for safety.. we are afloat and orbiting the sun. Earth aint going anywhere.. and we are aboard.. all of us.
If a tiny, miniscule segment of Alberta's population think they can take part of OUR lifeboat and blithely sail away.. they need clinical attention for their delusions via healthcare professionals. I will include threats by political parties or regional government with the same suggestion. My interest is Spaceship Earth, my concern is also for Canada, our maritime shores and waters, our lands and forests, our environment and interwoven ecosystems, other neighborhoods, my neighborhood, my family.. that is the 'lifeboat' and the passengers aboard
We'll be back to 2 billion or so by early next century no matter what we do.
The only way to get there without most of the attrition being violent is to enact these suggestions.
All the politicians know this of course, but they regard their own electoral success as more important than our fate as a species. And yes, this means you, Justin.
How's that for a cheerful comment?
Les Smith
US Federal Reserve Chairman says:
"The debt is growing faster than the economy, and by definition that's unsustainable"
Quote from
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/jerome-powell-federal-reserve-congress-budget-deficit-1.5359585
"Under questioning about the budget deficit, (US Federal Reserve Chairman) Powell acknowledged that the federal government still had some room to boost the economy through tax cuts or more spending, should a downturn arrive.
He also said that U.S. national debt was unlikely to create a financial crisis for decades. The United States has advantages, he said, such as a productive, growing economy and the fact that its dollar is the world's reserve currency.
"The day of reckoning could be quite far off," he added. But as long as the debt is growing faster than the U.S. economy, he said, it means that future generations may have to spend more on interest than on productive investments such as infrastructure or education."
The economy needs to grow, not shrink.
So would shrinking the economy entail a massive debt write-off?
By your timeline, Les, we have just eight decades remaining to shed at least six billion humans. There are just one, perhaps two, peaceful ways that can happen but there's no interest in them. Will the "great die-off" then result from natural or man-made causes or both?
It's funny, Hugh, but the ancient Greeks introduced Seisachtheia when their society and their economy were being destroyed by debt.
The bottom line, Hugh, is that we either live in harmony with our ecology, our biosphere, or we die.
The operative words are "on our own terms." We either reduce our numbers "on our own terms" or nature will do it for us.
We either shrink our economies, slash GDP, "on our own terms" or it will be done to us.
We either learn to live within the resource carrying capacity of Earth or we will falter trying to continue outside of it. When "Overshoot" fails - and that is already upon us - it goes down fast.
Professor Rees outlines eleven essential steps for the continuation of human civilization. He doesn't, not for a minute, believe we will accept them.
It would be wonderful to imagine that we will come to our senses in time but that's not how human nature works. Anthropologist Jared Diamond and others point out that humankind has a rich history of collapsed civilizations. Collapse occurs when a civilization is at its zenith; it comes on very, very fast; and it usually results from decisions knowingly taken to benefit one group regardless of the consequences for those that will follow. Sound familiar, Hugh?
Yep. Humanity is going to shed most of its population one way or another, and with greed and short-sightedness being what they are, it's almost certain to be another. Witness "the economy needs to grow".
It'll be man-made catastrophe, triggered by natural events like drought and extreme heat. Most likely it'll start with migration crises - then overt resource wars, likely over water. In the latter stages, complete civilizational breakdown is what I imagine will ensue, as resources become too scarce even to fight wars.
It's odd that, with the science being so clear, people who should know better are pretending that responses that would have been reasonable tentative first step in 1985 can solve this thing.
Ever optimistically,
Les
those points just about cover it. reducing the number of people on this planet is a good start. When I was young, there were 3 billion people on this earth, now there are 6 billion There are countries which need to reduce their populations and control them. Not popular with a lot of faiths, but their god is not going to save them.
Some argue, the world is big enough to hold a greater population, but a lot of the world is not suitable for people to live on or if they do, it ruins the environment required to keep animals health in other parts of the planet.
Give one of the major requirements will be reduction of production of "goods" that is not going to go over well with the billionaire class. When you consider 6 billionaires own as much as the bottom half of the world's population, does any one think they're going to give that up? Not so much.
Politicians rely on money from corporations. It is doubtful things will change. as climate change becomes worse, those with money will move, but hundreds of millions won't be able to. A mass die off, of humans will ensue.
We are now entering what I've begun to refer to as the environmental disaster festival, or christmas. Our whole retail sector is geared to this.
Just the wrapping paper, yikes, bows, paper mills cranking it out, transporting it from China all over the world. We might try to stop the spending. Not doing much for most families' bottom lines.
As I was driving around Richmond, B.c. and looking at all the 10K to 20K sq. ft. houses, you do wonder. they're enviornmental disasters. while we have homeless every where here in North America there are others living in houses so large they can't see each other. It won't be popular but local governments need to restrict the size of houses and how often they can be torn down and sent to the land fills. there is no need to tear down homes which are 20 years old to build more expensive and large ones. we can't continue at this rate. We also might want to have governments insist that appliances last longer than 3 years. It isn't a lot, but in North America it would lessen the amount of junk in the land fills.
Les, resource wars, i.e. wars of survival, are already a reality. The UN has begun compiling lists of them.
EAF - 6 billion? No, we're closing in on 8-billion (7.7 this month). I was born into a world of 2.5 billion. We've tripled in numbers since then. That's grown on the scale of malignancy.
Professor Rees' prescription for rapid de-growth is well made out but he's under no illusions that it will be acceptable to the public or the officials we elect.
The important point isn't what we must do. It's that we still have the option of doing what must be done on our terms to achieve the best possible outcomes. We're going to get there one way or the other and the default option is the 'hard way.'
Post a Comment