Let’s Get
the Big Things Right:
The Case
for a Worldwide Environmental Framework,
With a Prototype
Framework Outline
Francis M
Vanek
Director,
Sustainable Technology and Energy Institute
414 Triphammer
Rd
Ithaca, NY
14850 USA
email francisvanek@yahoo.com
December 14,
2001
Character
Count: 61,290
Abstract
The
threat to both human and non-human life on earth from the long-term degradation
of the environment poses a problem of great complexity and intractability.In
this paper, I argue that a clear environmental framework, widely adopted,
can move the world toward sustainability in a way not possible without
such a universal understanding.The
first part of the paper makes the case for such a framework in some detail.Thereafter,
a prototype framework is presented with seven points, covering three main
levels of action: ecological, technological, and societal.The
discussion at the end of the paper considers obstacles facing the advancement
of such a framework, including the need to confront, engage, and/or educate
those with political and economic power in the current system, and the
relative merits of prioritizing either physical ecology or social justice
in the near to medium term.
It
can be claimed that the emphasis in the new slogan was on changing the
focal point of the action, rather than that of the thinking.In
other words, the thinking remained “global” in that similar environmental
problems were faced in many different locations; the key change was in
the level at which action would be carried out.Rather
than waiting for action to be taken at the national or international level
by various governing bodies, direct action could alternatively be taken
at the local level, in many cases with superior results.The
multitude of local actions would then contribute to the advancement of
the global goals.
Despite
the generally positive results from the emergence of decentralized environmental
initiatives, and numerous victories where the protection of the environment
prevailed, the state of the world’s environmental health has in general
declined since the beginning of the movement.1In
this paper I therefore revisit the issue of “global thinking for global
action”, first making an argument in favor of expanded use of a global
framework, and then presenting a possible framework for examination.Such
a presentation by itself does not address a number of key issues, such
as the question of who holds power in the implementation of such a program,
and who is affected by it, so these and other questions are addressed in
the discussion at the end.For reasons
of brevity, this paper does not contain quantitative presentation of the
various environmental issues, and will instead be limited to discussing
the various topics in qualitative terms, with the assumption that the reader
is familiar with the relevant quantitative data, or can refer to other
sources to find it.
Assessing
our current situation on the planet, it is clear that not only has humanity
not secured its survival in the future, or that of other species, but it
has not yet set in motion steps which will achieve the overarching goals.We
are in fact moving in the wrong direction, by and large: it is not a question
of merely standing in the wrong place and needing to stand in a different
place, but rather of having set in motion an elaborate machine which is
now grinding forward on a destructive path. Some regions and countries
are responding more successfully than other to the environmental challenge
at present, so that the degree of ecological overload varies from regions
to region.However, pervasive unsustainability
at the global level will eventually overcome even the best-performing regions
and localities.
Against
this backdrop of looming problems and threats, a more clearly defined global
plan for the environment can serve a number of useful purposes.First,
on a practical level, it can achieve quantitative improvements in some
environmental measures, for example reductions in total carbon and other
greenhouse gas emissions, which might not otherwise be achieved by each
region taking local actions in isolation.Secondly,
on a more inspirational level, it can bolster the work of local activists
by helping them to feel a greater sense of connection to the global environmental
arena.Thirdly, for ordinary citizens
as well as environmental activists of both industrialized and industrializing
countries, many if not most of whom by now have at least a basic sense
of the global environmental crisis, it can help to create a sense of direction
in the effort to protect the environment.That
is, it can convince the public that, while the task of creating a sustainable
world system is an enormous challenge, it can at least be defined in a
limited number of basic terms on which most people can agree.This
effect can counteract the danger of public paralysis, as the ever-growing
litany of environmental problems can, taken one after another in isolation,
lead one to a despairing sense that there are so many problems we cannot
possibly succeed.
The
convergence toward a more generally accepted plan for the global environment
can also help us to evolve our ethic from one of “think globally, act locally”
to one of “think globally, act locally and globally.”Better
coordination can be established between efforts of large organizations
such as national governments and the UN, and independent actions carried
out at the local level, for example by NGOs.Already
UN and UN-sponsored conferences, such as the Rio earth summit, the Kyoto
convention on climate change, and the Rio Plus Ten conference in Johannesburg,
are attempting to mobilize action regarding the environment.However,
these events could be more clearly associated with specific outcomes, in
the way that we associate the Marshall Plan with post World War II reconstruction,
and Bretton Woods with the creation of an international financial framework.
At
the same time, a return to the exclusive use of top-down, international
decision making of the late 1940s would not be desirable either.We
have seen the success of NGOs and environmental activist organizations
in calling attention to deficiencies in the governmental and business structure,
while at the same time developing flexible, low-cost solutions to local
problems.Thus the development of
a global framework must support and not displace our existing network of
non-governmental, non-profit agents.
A
final issue is the effect of power relationships in our world on our ability
to bring out the changes envisioned in such a plan.Part
of the problem is that vested interests oppose changes that are detrimental
to themselves, even if they help the environment on the whole.In
this paper it is taken as a fundamental premise that the need to break
the power of special interests is essential for making real progress toward
a sustainable society, and furthermore, that because it is essential, it
will eventually occur.It is therefore
deemed useful to promote the discussion of the action points in the framework,
even if the distorting effect of maldistribution of power remains unresolved
for the time being, for two reasons: first, the promotion of a framework
will motivate stakeholders to achieve this breakthrough, and second, the
world community must prepare now for the opportunities that come with such
a redistribution of power.
To
summarize, the goal of the framework is to act as a catalyst for protecting
the environment, both by generating new efforts and by fostering a more
positive, optimistic attitude.The
following section presents a prototype framework as an example for exploring
the implications of such an approach.The
framework shares common elements with that of the WCED, but it attempts
to achieve greater depth: the WCED’s concept of “development that is sustainable”
is in itself quite broad and capable of profound impact, but does not cover
the entire scope for action on the environment, and can thus benefit from
linkage with other issues and concepts.At
first it may appear that the presentation of such a sweeping plan is too
large-scale a project to be presented in the format of a short paper.This
attempt to present a broad outline briefly is deliberate: condensing the
plan into a short space that can be comprehended in a single sitting can
help us to “get our heads around” the environmental issue.
The
three components interact in the way shown in Table 1.Reliance
on a technological component delivers utility in the form of a quality
of life that is built on advanced technologies, which in turn is seen to
enhance society; continued use of technology requires the availability
of both living and nonliving resources (i.e. for items such as food or
machinery, respectively) and the use of the natural world as a facility
for absorbing byproducts.At the
same time, the technological component must function in a way that maintains
the quality of the natural environment, which requires the conscious involvement
of society.Thus, in the technological
society, nature serves as the source of utility, but requires protection
of its health in return.
Table
1. Interaction between natural, technological, and societal components
|
|
|
|
|
Natural
component
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technological
component
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Societal
component
|
|
|
The
physical interaction between the natural and technological components can
be refined by introducing and considering the production-distribution-consumption
system that controls most of the transformation of raw materials into physical
products for human purposes, as follows:
nProduction:
the extraction of natural resources and their physical transformation,
for example in manufacturing facilities
nDistribution:
the movement of both physical products toward consumption in end use, and
the movement of people to their roles as (manufacturing, retailing, clerical,
etc) workers in the system or as consumers in retail locations
nConsumption:
the acquisition of physical products in public retail spaces, and the consumption
of nondurable products (in a public or domestic setting) and end use of
durable products (requiring inputs such as electricity or fossil fuels)
In
this system, consumers may act as private individuals, but they may also
act on behalf of institutional consumers, including service sector institutions
as well as manufacturers.
Lest
the presentation of this system inadvertently imply that the sole function
of the individual is consumption, it should be noted that not all human
activities are contained within this activity system.For
example, eating, drinking, shopping, or using an electric appliance involve
consumption (and by extension production and distribution), but there are
many other work and leisure activities with zero or negligible associated
consumption.Conversely, however,
the system does account for virtually all types of anthropogenic ecological
impact, more or less directly: disposal of unwanted products, construction
of shopping malls, air pollution caused by urban rush hour traffic, clearing
of rain forests, etc., are all connected to the function of this system.
It
is now possible to present the seven main points of the framework, bearing
in mind the connection to the natural, technological, and societal components,
and the role of the production-distribution-consumption system, as follows:
1.Population
and nutrition: the combination of population and nutritional need per capita
must be stabilized at a sustainable level.
2.Wilderness
and biodiversity: in tandem with stabilizing the land requirement for feeding
the population, land and marine areas can be set aside for the preservation
of biodiversity.
3.Material
throughput: throughput for the production of both edible and non-edible
commodities should be minimized to prevent damage from extraction of natural
resources and disposal of natural wastes.
4.Function
of the economy: complementary to minimizing material throughput are reforms
to the economic system, where environmental sustainability and not maximal
growth must be made the fundamental goal.
5.Social
cohesion: success in implementing the preceding programs requires a society
with healthy human connections and interactions, and a removal of the barriers
of alienation.
6.Security:
a reasonable level of security must be achieved, to which end the system
of justice should be strengthened and the military should be transformed
from an institution trained to fight standing armies to one aimed at preventing
and recovering from social instability.
7.Education
and government: the educational system must achieve some level of environmental
literacy among the people of the world, and the people must in turn be
empowered to turn knowledge into action through participation in democratic
forms of government.
The
seven points thus correspond to the natural component (1 and 2), technological
component (3 and 4), and societal component (5, 6, and 7), respectively.The
framework adopts a “systems” approach, in that the interaction between
major elements in the system is emphasized.
Of
these two points, few would argue with the desirability of making available
better techniques to those not currently using them (this could be termed
“agricultural efficiency”).This
can be done in industrialized countries as well as non-industrialized:
in fact, often some of the most efficient and sustainable techniques are
indigenous approaches developed over decades and centuries in tropical
countries.Eating lower on the food
chain (termed “dietary efficiency”) is likely to face more resistance,
yet it is equally important, both for freeing up the caloric content of
primary foods, especially grains, to be made available to the undernourished
rather than feeding to livestock, and also to lessen the pressure to bring
marginal lands under cultivation.Most
members of populations of industrialized countries can participate in this
shifting down, since at present these populations eat fairly high on the
food chain.The growing middle classes
in the industrializing countries can also participate, as they have tended
to adopt a diet similar to that of the industrialized countries.
Given
the current stress on the global environment, there are environmental advantages
to keeping the population below the threshold population, as determined
by efficiency and eating habits.Instead
of using the improved agricultural and dietary efficiency to increase the
population, society can sustain a constant population with lower pressure
on the environment.Along with reduced
pressure on agriculture, this population will also consume fewer total
resources in the form of non-edible products and mechanical-electrical
energy than a population which continues to grow, helping to ease the material
throughput pressure in Point 3 below.
Stabilizing
the population at a sustainable level also has important symbolic value
as it represents the transition from a growth-oriented to mature society,
much like the transition from adolescence to adulthood experienced by the
individual person.One possible outcome
is that, at the low end of its range, the sustainable population level
may be below the current level, requiring a planned gradual reduction in
total population unprecedented in human history.
Many
arguments are made on the grounds that the remaining areas of wilderness
provide important benefits to humans, such as environmental buffering and
availability of diverse genetic material.In
the long run, there are also reasons to claim an absolute right for the
permanent existence of some amount of minimally impacted wilderness, containing
biologically diverse species of both flora and fauna.These
areas should exist in both flat and mountainous terrain, in tropical and
temperate climates, and in the marine environment as well as on land.Ideally,
they would be areas of zero-impact rather than minimal-impact, but with
global fallout from air pollution observed even at the north and south
poles, and the worldwide buildup of carbon in the atmosphere, it may not
be possible to reduce impact to zero in these zones.
Worldwide
human impact is, however, very different from worldwide human domination.Although
it may be hard to reverse the global impact of humans for the foreseeable
future, we are actually going beyond impact to total human domination of
the entire world ecosystem.This
expansion of domination leads to a long-term weakness of the pragmatic
argument for biodiversity: taken to its logical conclusion, all wilderness
ecosystems are eventually harnessed by humans, either maintained as bioreserves
if they are valuable, or discarded (i.e. converted to agriculture, tree
farming, or the like) if they are not.Even
the bioreserves are vulnerable over the long haul: once their genetic material
has been “harvested” and can be reproduced in a laboratory, they may come
under pressure to be converted to a more conventional agricultural use.In
short, the commitment to preserving biodiversity must be absolute, rather
than contingent on the benefits of maintaining a bioreserve exceeding the
opportunity costs of converting it to some other purposes.
Although
this pragmatic approach has these limitations, it can make a real difference
in preserving biodiversity in the short to medium term.National
governments or investors who may be unlikely to listen to the intrinsic
value argument may support preservation efforts if tangible benefits can
be shown.Over time, as permanent
preservation develops an increasingly large base of support, the need to
prove the value of each wilderness preserve on a case by case or ongoing
basis may decline.
Stabilization
of population and nutritional requirements as discussed in point 1 can
also contribute to the preservation of wilderness and biodiversity.Reducing
total agricultural requirements by reducing total population and/or total
nutritional requirements may prevent the conversion of non-cultivated lands
to cultivation; some of these areas may be rich in species diversity.
Lastly,
the permanent loss of species of flora and fauna at an unprecedented rate
is one of the most powerful symbols of the decline of our environment,
and when this loss is happening on many fronts in many parts of the world,
it may seem futile to intervene at all.The
best response, however, is to continue to make efforts on behalf of those
endangered species which can be saved: while we cannot save all of them,
strong action now can make a real difference for many.
Are
there in fact sufficient opportunities to substantially reduce material
throughput while maintaining a comfortable standard of living?Suppose
that we set out to change the worldwide mix of products to achieve material
throughput reduction goals, and suppose further that the total food production
has already been determined in points 1 and 2.First,
the energy and material content in providing nutrition in industrialized
countries can likely be cut significantly while still allowing for some
consumption of input-intensive foods, such as meat and dairy products,
i.e. the goal would not be to eliminate these 100% but rather reduce their
consumption to a sustainable level.Furthermore,
changing the consumption of non-edible commodities can dramatically reduce
material throughput, since, unlike foodstuffs, most of these commodities
are not directly tied to our survival as biological organisms.
Opportunities
to reduce consumption can be further examined by sector.In
the production and commercial/residential sectors, such a change requires
the creation of much more durable products, finding ways to incorporate
energy efficiency improvements in products already in use without completely
discarding the existing product, or satisfying the primary needs of the
consumer through means other than transacting a physical product (for example,
selling access to information over the internet rather than selling a volume
of information printed on paper).Both
sectors are involved, as the production sector determines what goes into
a product, while the commercial/residential sector handles the relationship
with the consumer.None of these
tools are trivial to implement: above all, the current system of high throughput
is very convenient for both producer and consumer, and therefore has considerable
momentum.Nevertheless, it is vital
that this process be transformed to sustainability, because its impact
is so significant.
The
transportation sector can also make an important contribution.Even
taking the total mix of products manufactured and consumed worldwide as
fixed, the difference between a transportation pattern in which people
and goods move using efficient technology in geographically concentrated
areas, and a pattern in which these movements are highly disbursed, subject
to congestion or other inefficiencies, or use obsolete technology, can
be profound.Success on the transportation
front may be seen primarily as an energy and greenhouse gas issue, but
it will also aid other types of material throughput reduction by reducing
infrastructure wear-and-tear and improving the longevity of the vehicle
fleet.
Lastly,
in order to reduce material throughput, we learn to live not only ecoefficiently,
i.e. minimizing the total impact per unit of output or activity, but ecosufficiently,
i.e. achieving some ecologically acceptable level of total impact.Up
to the present we have focused on ecoefficiency; the assumption is that
as long as technology improves at a sufficient rate, total environmental
impact will decline, even if total number of units of some product or service
consumed increases.In general, this
approach has not succeeded.In many
cases, growing demand has eaten up most or all potential gains from improving
efficiency, so that we have not been able to make progress toward reduced
overall environmental impact.Therefore,
we should change our focus to ecosufficiency, by monitoring total throughput
of energy and other materials and where necessary decreasing their total
volumes, by limiting the total quantity of product consumed, and not just
reducing the total inputs required per unit of product output.
In
an ideal state, the focus of the economic system is on the direct beneficiaries:
a system which seeks to provide adequately for humans as workers, consumers,
and investors by sending price signals that fairly and accurately reflect
the true value of goods and activities.Assuming
the system is working correctly, the economy should work to meet various
human needs, including the need for a clean environment
Given
the complexity of creating an economic system that is truly objective and
responsive in this way, and also the complexity of the many dimensions
of the environmental crisis, it is not surprising that some of the environmental
problems stem from the current inadequacies of the economic system.The
following three shortcomings are indicative of the problem:
·Externality
costs: costs seen by the purchaser of a good or service are typically only
those imposed by the seller; additional costs imposed on the environment
are not recouped, thus the purchaser will tend to overconsume, and no funds
are made available to remediate the damage to the environment.
·Ecoefficiency
versus ecosufficiency: the current economy is somewhat able to encourage
ecoefficiency, as introduced in the previous section, in cases where producers
are rewarded with lower costs in return for more efficient use of resources.However,
the current system gives no signal toward achieving ecosufficiency, thus
total throughput of materials continues to grow indefinitely.
·The
environment as dumping ground for the economic conflict between capital
and labor:Daly3 has pointed
out that the environment is an overlooked third player in what is usually
viewed as a two-player system, namely the relationship between capital
and labor.In general capital is
seen as dominating labor. However, by exploiting the environment, both
by taking increasing volumes of materials and by dumping increased amounts
of waste without paying their true costs, capital and labor are both able
to improve their position, as both increase in wealth.Thus
it is the environment and not labor which is the player in the weakest
position.
The
economic policies that have brought us to the present have succeeded in
fostering, for those who are able to participate, rising incomes, advancing
technology, and greater material abundance.However,
the success of growth-oriented economics in the past is no guarantee that
this same approach will be appropriate for an environmentally focused world
in the future.Although it is conceivable
that our current high-throughput, growth-focused system could be cleaned
up by conversion to renewable energy and recycling of all wastes into new
products, this path appears fraught with risk: in a prosperous world with
10 billion people, even slight malfunctions in the system will lead to
significant damage.Therefore, an
alternative paradigm is presented in this section.
The
first fundamental reprioritization of the new paradigm is the relative
importance of measuring growth and measuring environmental impact.In
the current growth phase, the measure of economic growth, and especially
of gross domestic product, is fundamental: the belief is that as long as
the economy of a country grows at an adequate rate, all other good economic
consequences will flow.In the new
paradigm, the level of environmental impact becomes the central measure,
and building of infrastructure, total level of employment, and return on
investment all revolve around this center.Improvements
in environmental impact are, however, subject to some guarantee of equitable
distribution, i.e. they should not come at the expense of one group of
people over another.
This
shift from growth-centered to environment-centered activity has implications
for the role of improving productivity in economic endeavors, which in
turn affects infrastructure and employment.In
the current growth paradigm, productivity is used to keep total hours of
activity constant and increase output, for with increased output will come
ever greater return on investment.If
environmental concerns are paramount, however, maximizing output is perceived
primarily as a threat to the environment, so increasing productivity is
used to keep output constant, and instead reduce activity (i.e. deliver
the same goods and services with fewer hours worked).The
reduction leads in turn to civic rewards, since if the total number of
hours worked by the population decreases, then on average, a worker will
have more time to spend on family or community activities.
In
the new paradigm, growth in infrastructure (buildings, roads, etc) slows
down as well, in order to meet higher environmental standards, including
the question of whether expanding infrastructure is justifiable at all.Also,
the accompanying slowdown in physical throughput may dampen the need for
new infrastructure. One exception in this trend toward a less intense economy
is the case of the poorest countries, where rising incomes and improved
infrastructure will probably help rather than hurt the environment.Investment
and its rewards will still have a role to play, but here too the goals
are different.Rather than having
an economy based on the “anything-that-makes-money-goes” proposition, spending
on the environment should be favored.One
solution may be to channel investment in the direction of solving environmental
problems; entrepreneurs with the best solutions to environmental problems,
and their financial backers, will be rewarded with profits.
One
issue with this environmental focus is that the total pace of investment
and generation of profit might slow down compared to our current economic
system.On the one hand, there is
no upper limit to how many of these environmental investment opportunities
can be exploited; certainly, there are numerous environmental problems
waiting to be tackled with both new products and services.On
the other hand, a slowing in investment, growth, and construction of infrastructure
could lead to problems such as the loss of disposable income to the individual
and the lack of sufficient hours of productive work in order to maintain
employment at current levels. While these points do not necessarily obviate
the need for reform of the economy in order to achieve sustainability,
any successful solution must address them.Ideally,
a new equilibrium will be reached: people will work less, cause less pollution,
and have more time for their community, yet not suffer from lack of wherewithal
for those goods and services that must be purchased in a monetary economy.
The
main contribution to sustainability of the cohesive society, i.e. one that
supports true growth and self-expression of the individual, is to help
the individual to genuinely care about the fate of the environment.In
the face of today’s stressful, violent world, and often detached, alienated
individuals, the goal of creating a cohesive society is both extremely
broad and extremely challenging, and yet without achieving some greater
level of cohesion and involvement, any progress made on lowering our collective
environmental impact is temporary at best.
Alienation
of the individual happens on at least two levels.First,
within the household within which one lives, the individual may be subject
to abuse or other negative impact, especially when in a situation of dependence
on others, i.e. during childhood or old age.Secondly,
alienation may result from the individual’s experience in the world outside
the household, i.e. in school, the workplace, or other settings.Psychological
and spiritual wounds left by such an experience are difficult to cure because
they often run very deep.If we are
interested in creating a more cohesive society that is better able to respond
to the threat to the environment, then our communities must bridge differences
in economic status, race, ethnic background, gender, and sexual orientation,
which are all sources of tension and discrimination.
To
contribute to this goal, environmental and social movements can support
one another in their respective objectives.We
can all recognize the importance of social activism.Any
activist working to improve the situation of households and especially
children, or working for peace or social justice, becomes an “environmental
activist” simply by doing what they are doing, for their work breaks down
the alienation that hinders progress toward sustainability.At
the same time, social activists can recognize the importance of environmentalism
and of a healthy environment in reducing the stress on society, for example
by incorporating good environmental practices into their work.
Leaders
of the environmental community should also build bridges to leaders in
government and business, as we all have a common human interest in saving
the environment in the long term.In
the short run, bold action and acts of defiance, without the support and
understanding of the general public, and in confrontation with authorities
from government and industry, may be necessary to stave off misguided use
of natural resources.However, the
long-term hope of the movement lies in building a broad coalition across
the strata of society, in particular to transform the physical and economic
infrastructure addressed in Points 3 and 4 above.In
particular, virtually the entire population (including the environmentalists)
in the industrialized countries is dependent to some degree on the products
of industry for their work and everyday living.Therefore,
we all have a responsibility to help develop a sustainable production system,
rather than taking advantage of mistrust between government, business,
and environmentalists for the narrow interests of one’s own group.
In
the past, the police and the military were equally important in protecting
citizens of a country from aggression, the former from individual criminals,
and the latter from attacks by foreign armed forces.In
today’s world, with increasing global interaction and connection between
countries and individuals, this is no longer true.On
the one hand, human nature is unfortunately imperfect, and we cannot realistically
expect the temptation for individuals to take advantage of their peers
or commit infractions against the public good to disappear, so the role
of the police and the judicial system will likely remain a central one.On
the other hand, in an age where both individuals and nations are gradually
overcoming ignorance and xenophobia toward other countries, and establishing
an ever-stronger network of global connections, the role of the traditional
military force, with standing armies of one country trained and ready to
fight one another, is increasingly dubious.This
is not to suggest that the military presence could be eliminated overnight,
for the world remains plagued by an abundance of weapons and numerous armed
conflicts, many of which involve paramilitaries, guerilla warfare, and
civil wars.Rather, the underlying
reason for having militaries no longer exists, so that we are in a position
to commit to phasing out armed forces as they are conventionally defined.
The
typical counter-argument in favor of maintaining armies in a community
of nations is that they are an insurance policy against aggression, and
as such are a good investment.However,
as a fraction of national spending and especially of government spending,
military spending is very high, and much smaller sums spent on international
cooperation and exchange may be just as effective.Thus
moving toward nonmilitary solutions and a world without traditional armed
forces can reduce the financial burden on national governments.Demilitarizing
offers other benefits, such as reducing the risk of belligerence and having
weapons accidentally fall into the wrong hands, avoiding pollution from
weapons production and use in training, and freeing up finances and human
talent for other uses.
The
key to success of such a policy is to provide some future role for the
personnel of the armed forces we now maintain.We
should not disband the military and throw all its members out of work,
but rather transform the military into an institution that concerns itself
with a new, broadened definition of international security.This
broadened definition includes both conflict and the root causes of armed
conflict, such as social unrest or environmental degradation; the institution
might be renamed the “peace force”, as once proposed by Mahatma Gandhi.The
peace force could assist both in preventing situations from deteriorating
into war and helping to bring about a cessation of hostilities.These
roles could benefit the environment, in that the peace force might be able
to prevent degradation such as erosion or the spread of pestilence and
also to help citizens recover from environmental damage and also natural
disasters.
Although
they may not have formally embraced the idea, the military forces of the
world are de facto moving slowly in the direction of becoming peace forces.They
are often involved in moving supplies to areas hit by natural disasters,
or to civilian victims of armed conflicts; after a cease-fire, they may
be involved in monitoring elections or rebuilding infrastructure.These
activities are often carried out under force of arms, given the abundance
of armed belligerents in the war zones of the world.Yet
even in the face of armed resistance to peacekeeping efforts, the use of
weapons may become increasingly untenable, for with intermixing of combatants
and civilians, loss of life in the countries that are the target of our
assistance becomes unacceptable.Instead,
the only way to make progress is through nonviolent means, such as helping
to restart the food production system, or carrying out dispute resolution
dialogues.
Although
the judicial and law enforcement systems do not need to be transformed
to the same extent, some changes are necessary to better support the pursuit
of sustainability.The law enforcement
system should place greater emphasis on environmental law and environmental
enforcement and protection, and especially on collaborative approaches
to solving problems, rather than punishing offenders.The
system should also be overhauled to better serve the interests of all citizens,
rather than supporting mainly the interests of the more privileged classes.It
should avoid knee-jerk policies that are implemented for political show,
but prove ineffective over time.Not
only can these changes directly help the environment by reversing degradation,
but they can also inspire greater confidence in the fairness of the system
in all parts of society.
Compared
to this ideal, there are many ways in which the current system falls well
short.In many industrialized countries,
a small group of experts control the process of responding to the environment:
grassroots organizations have some input, but after a point the final decisions
are made at the top.This approach
expresses some level of arrogance toward the ordinary citizen, positing
that since they cannot understand these complex issues, the expert must
understand and resolve the issues for them, and at times introduce financial
carrots-and-sticks to force them to behave in a certain way.True
participation is especially elusive at the national or international level,
given the concentration of power and inaccessibility of representatives,
but is also vital here, since many issues such as climate change or the
loss of habitat for migratory species are global or interregional in nature.Throughout
the system, the businesses that are central to the reform of material throughput
and production (as discussed under Points 3 and 4 above) use their financial
resources to steer legislation in directions that are detrimental to the
environment.
These
problems culminate in an interlocking system of education and government
that prevents rather than facilitates the transition to sustainability.Take
the recent example of the United States response to the Kyoto Protocol
on climate change.During the Clinton
administration, the government claimed that it could not join the protocol
for lack of public support, which could only be gained through a major
educational effort.However, in the
contemporary national political climate, special interests would oppose
any such effort, and in the short run are likely to be able to block its
implementation.Thus the key step
needed to achieve effective government is blocked precisely by the flaw
it is intended to correct.
The
way out of this situation is to recognize that, ultimately, a permanently
degraded environment is in no one’s best interests, even those of the businesses
that currently benefit from the use of harmful technologies and raw material
sources.Instead, people need to
be able to participate meaningfully in the decisions about creating a sustainable
society, without the distorting effect of special interests.Much
effort should therefore be made to educate the special interests on the
need for a changed attitude.
In
order for broad popular participation to be meaningful, the educational
system must provide access to environmental information, in the same way
that the educational system currently provides access to information about
how to function in our capitalist economy.As
with household economics, where the head of household need not understand
complex economic theories, but must be able to balance the budget and perform
basic calculations, the environmental literacy need not entail the technical
details of environmental issues, but should include the basic information
regarding the range of issues, and tools for responding to them.These
tools might include knowledge of how the issues can be dealt with on an
individual level (such as personal use of automobiles), and also on a collective
level (such as life cycle environmental impact of products consumed).The
goal of this environmental education is thus to foster independent thinking,
so that citizens will have the flexibility to deal with new situations
as they arise.
Another
dimension of education for sustainability is that it should allow teaching
to occur in both directions.The
recipients of environmental education should have opportunities to take
the material as a starting point and develop their own solutions, which
can then be spread back through the educational system to other communities.
Participation
in government can lead to influence on the decisions of industry, but citizens
can also bypass the government and participate directly in the decisions
made by corporations about production, as members of the workforce and
as consumers.The latter is especially
helpful since in the current climate many corporations are becoming more
concerned about their environmental image among customers.
To
conclude, the “technocratic” response that we have seen up to the present,
in which the educational system educates environmental experts, who then
join governments in order to determine environmental policy, has achieved
some measurable ecological gains.Ultimately,
though, the solution is “will power, and not expertise”: 4 major
environmental problems such as global climate change or the protection
of world biodiversity will require the conscious participation of world
citizenry.Thus the key to success
is a transition from a system that is controlled by a small number of elites
to one based on broad participation by the citizens.These
citizens are currently lacking two key elements, namely sufficient information
to understand what is happening with the environment, and real political
power to bring about change.Those
with political power, the experts or the elite, must be willing to share
this power if they wish to see a real transformation to environmental sustainability.Ordinary
individuals at all levels of society must be willing to take their share
of responsibility as well.
As
a starting point, there is by now agreement for the most part that we are
approaching some sort of limit in terms of ecological load, and that this
situation cannot be ignored.Our
response must be neither too fast nor too slow.The
consequences of acting too slowly are fairly evident, as the festering
problems may become too great and overwhelm us.On
this basis, the transformation to an environmentally sustainable society
cannot happen quickly enough.However,
acting too quickly carries its risks as well, for without a careful plan,
we risk destabilization that will lead to social and political upheaval
that could make progress on an environmental front impossible. One requirement
for implementing an international framework is therefore to steer a middle
course between acting too quickly and too slowly.
It
can further be observed that the connection between our material throughput
and the natural world has been noticed in the industrial world, and that
the response has come primarily in the form of changing technology.This
trend has resulted in significant changes to technology (cars, power stations,
etc) and quantifiable reductions in pollution; however, a large sustainability
gap persists.This is so because
we are using technology in part to avoid fundamental behavioral changes.For
example, faced with air pollution and carbon emissions from cars, we are
committed to solving the problem, but we do not want to alter our auto-dependent
lifestyle, so we change the technology of the automobile to make it more
efficient and cleaner.This goes
some but not all of the way toward solving the problem; if we had committed
ourselves to solving the problem, on both an individual and societal level,
we would have changed the technology, but also promoted other means of
transportation, redirected our land use patterns, and on a personal level
reorganized our lives to require less transportation.Thus
one shift that appears necessary is from the use of technology to avoid
making changes in behavior, to the use of technology and behavior in tandem
to reduce environmental degradation.
One
contributing factor to the inability to address behavior is the influence
of vested interests, which benefit from the status quo (and especially
from sales of products and services that the consumer culture makes possible)
and do not embrace any change of course.Taking
the case of the US, it is well known to American industry that the nation
uses a disproportionate share of the world’s resources for its population
size, yet environmental measures do not address this point directly.Instead,
they focus on the recycling of waste products, the control of airborne
and waterborne pollutants, and the handling of hazardous materials.While
these measures reduce pollution compared to what it otherwise might be,
they do not address in any major way the overuse of resources (except for
recycling, to some extent).Other
industrialized countries have the same problem of disproportionate resource
use, though not to the same extent.As
a result, energy and raw materials consumed across the industrialized world
are not available elsewhere, especially in developing countries where they
could be used for meeting basic nutritional and infrastructure needs, and
so the resources are distributed unequally between rich and poor nations.
There
is the further problem not just with maldistribution of resources and economic
growth, but that the world’s capacity for absorbing environmental impact
is finite.In other words, even if
the resources were redistributed completely equally among all the people
in the world, the resulting situation would still be unsustainable, because
the total rate of throughput would be too high.This
poses a further challenge to the vested interests in power, not only to
redistribute resource consumption, but also to reduce its absolute magnitude.
As
an additional hurdle, the framework requires that these very vested interests
who have posed a barrier to change, will participate in the reforms, since
they currently represent most aspects of national governments and of the
private industries that manufacture the products and provide the services
in the system.Here the requirement
for trust is a daunting problem.Taking
some of the points in the framework, it requires that the resource extraction
companies proactively reinvent the way resources are used, that the energy
companies spearhead the conversion to a non-fossil fuel energy base, or
that the military expand its ability to solve conflicts using non-violent
tactics.For advocates of a cleaner
environment, as well as a more just society, this requirement for trust
poses a very great challenge indeed.
Can
these flaws in the social structure be overcome in order to advance toward
sustainability?Should they be addressed
first, before embarking on major changes in technology, or should we begin
to implement technological changes available to us now even as we begin
to address these societal issues?Merchant5
suggests that two camps have grown up on opposite sides of this issue,
namely that of “scientific environmentalists” and “anti-establishment environmentalists.”To
the former, the emphasis is on resolving the negative impact of technology
on nature, and this takes precedence over the need to resolve social problems,
including the alleviation of shortages faced by the dispossessed.To
the latter, the root of the environmental problem is the injustice of the
dominant socioeconomic system, and this must be resolved first, even if
energy is taken away from attempts to reduce pollution.
Both
arguments have merit.The case for
putting ecology first has merit to some extent because the possible negative
fallout from environmental degradation for the most basic human health
needs could be dire, even in the wealthy countries.These
consequences could come in the form of unpredictable weather, unreliable
food supplies, and new disease threats spread by a changing natural environment.We
may in fact need the scientific environmentalists, anti-establishment environmentalists,
and industrialists, who are currently at odds with one another, to put
aside their differences and join together in a coalition that is dedicated
to overhauling our technology, industrial practices, and land use patterns
in order to make significant progress toward sustainability.The
focus of this campaign would be largely on the physical aspects of creating
a more sustainable system: energy systems that do not generate greenhouse
gases, manufacturing and building techniques that reuse waste materials,
and so on (i.e. the focus of Points 3 and 4 in the framework).
Such
a campaign could be seen as the first part of a two-phase process; the
second part is to address the concerns of the anti-establishment environmentalists,
namely the social injustice that is both the cause and result of so many
environmental problems.A truly
sustainable system does not leave communities in a position of being passive
recipients of technology, whether “dirty” or “clean”; rather, it empowers
each community to understand, control, and modify the technology it uses
to best suit its own needs.As an
international community we may “buy time” by implementing a first wave
of new technologies, but eventually we must address the maldistribution
of power that concentrates excessive control over technology in the hands
of a few, while taking it away from others (This is the underlying intent
of Points 5, 6, and 7 in the framework).
This
decomposition of the problem into technological and social elements provides
one possible strategy for pursuing a stronger global framework.Many
of the problems cited earlier remain as unresolved dilemmas, however.How
do we convince the most resource-intensive countries, with the USA chief
among them, to change this pattern when they are so comfortable with the
status quo?How do we convince those
with political power to truly empower others, rather than simply taking
advantage of the benefits that come from political privilege?This
paper has not proposed any solution to these problems, but their existence
is at least recognized, as is the fact that their solution is necessary
to achieving sustainability.For
encouragement, we might look to the previous instances where movements
were able to make headway on social goals, such as the labor movement in
the US and Europe, which achieved shorter working weeks and safer conditions,
mainly through their own perseverance, rather than any benign gift from
those in political power.
And
so we return to the question of the pace of change.In
the face of such a complex and daunting challenge, it is natural to become
pessimistic and even reach a point of despair, of a feeling that we are
unable to change at an adequate pace.However,
the transition through the environmental crisis is one of the watershed
events in human history.Just as
the neolithic revolution may have occurred over generations, and the industrial
revolution took more than a century to transform all of the industrialized
nations, so to a successful environmental transformation may be very time-consuming,
at its fastest.
The
process of adopting such a framework and putting it into practice is of
course ambitious. There are,
however, only two other paths available to us, in general, and these paths
are by no means easy.The first is
to ignore the global environmental crisis, and allow the global industrial
system to continue on its path, leaving it to future generations to cope
with whatever outcome emerges.The
second path is to use the existing economic framework to solve environmental
problems entirely with technology, leaving out the issues of redistributing
political power or encouraging communities to develop solutions independently
at the local level.Clearly, some
response is better than none at all; and if there is to be a response,
then it should be one that simultaneously addresses social and environmental
issues, and brings empowerment to people at all levels and in all parts
of the globe.
Notes
1.World
Wildlife Fund, 1998 Living Planet Report (Godalming, Surrey: WWF,
1998).
2.WCED,
Our
Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p.49.
3.Herman
Daly, The Steady-State Economy (London: Earthscan, 1992).
4.Mark
Roseland, Eco-city Dimensions: Healthy Community, Healthy Planet
(Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1994).
5.Carolyn
Merchant, Radical Ecology: the Search for a Liveable World (New
York: Parallax Press, 1996), p.230.