 |
The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say! Week One - “Global Challenges to Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century”
I am an average citizen of my country (by which I acknowledge that I am in many ways luckier than many citizens of the world). I’m educated and I have ample opportunities to keep myself well-informed, and I do take a particular interest in environmental and social concerns. So I was excited to hear about the IUCN’s web forum and looked forward to grappling with some new ideas and suggestions to save the world. I now have a nagging worry, after having read the genuinely well-considered, erudite and thoughtful contributions of those involved (though, as an aside, I shudder at the insidious pervasiveness of the language of business and defence, with these contributions littered with weasel words like ‘challenge’, ‘empower’, ‘engage’ and ‘collateral damage’, which only act, deliberately or otherwise, to obscure their meaning). And that worry is, that it’s all been said before. Many times. Perhaps never so simply and clearly as by Aldo Leopold in 1949 in a Sand County Almanac: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” While I welcome this forum as a great new way for discussions to take place, I’m troubled that it may just be a different venue for more talking (and the irony is not lost on me; I know I’m having my say). But haven’t we all heard about the ‘depressing litany of woes’ over and over again? (And by ‘we’ I mean anyone who has access to this forum and in that I am assuming that that probably doesn’t include a very large proportion of the world’s population). And don’t we know enough already that we don’t need to ask again what the ‘challenges’ are? And I reckon that we also know a lot of the solutions, too. Bryan Furnass sums them up nicely with his three Es of ecology, education and ethics. If we procrastinate and wait until we have nutted out all the possible solutions and their potential consequences, well, the deck-chairs will still be at the bottom of the ocean along with the good old Titanic. Perhaps I can draw on an analogy between environmental problems (and they are problems, not challenges or issues or even opportunities) and weight problems. The problems of being over-weight are well understood, the causes of being over-weight are well understood, and the solution to being over-weight is well understood. Does it need to be spelled out? If you’re over-weight, you’ll have health problems. If you’re over-weight, it’s because you eat too much and use too little energy. If you want to lose weight, you need to eat less and exercise more. Energy in, energy out. It’s so clear and simple and yet it seems that every day there is a new study into obesity, or a new fad diet on the market. And in the most hideous mockery, the problem in wealthy countries continues to grow at the same time as starvation plagues other areas of the world. So I don’t think that looking to conservation biology and environmental science for breakthroughs is the answer. We just need to act on what we already know and change our behaviour. We can think of it as adaptive experimental management and make adjustments as we go. As for ‘formulating more positive messages’, what’s wrong with describing problems in negative terms? And in addressing those problems in forceful and confronting ways that don’t shy away from setting limits and demanding change? The most effective anti-smoking campaigns in my country use awful images to shock people out of their complacency. It’s no good pretending that the reality is not awful and hoping that the worst won’t happen. I heard a liberal and progressive newspaper opinion columnist say that when he’s writing, he tries to keep the following aim in mind: ‘To comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.’ So, if there is to be talk of hope and optimism and opportunity, make sure it’s aimed at the poor, afflicted buggers of the world and give the comfortable apathetic bastards who are using their unfair share a good kick up the backside. There’s the rant; what about some ideas for action? If globalisation of trade is a given, what about a global government to go with it? With representatives from all countries having an equal say? We could establish selection criteria that required potential representatives to have knowledge and experience in their portfolios, and not just fling more lawyers and economists and accountants and generals and businessmen into the arena (nothing too much against them - they’re just currently over-represented compared with teachers or scientists or musicians). Reflecting the balance of the sexes on the planet, half of our representatives would be women (in fact, it would be compulsory that the equivalent of the Minister of Defence would be female – Arundhati Roy, maybe, or Aung San Suu Kyi – which may be incredibly sexist of me, but reflects what I see in every armed conflict around the world). We could have Peter Singer (How are we to live?) as the Minister for Ethics and Equity. And perhaps Colin Tudge (So shall we reap) as the Minister for Agriculture – he has great ideas about changing agricultural practices to emphasise smaller, more diverse and more labour intensive farming. The role of Minister for Education would be absolutely critical, as would the Minister for Environment. It would be a secular world government, of course – ‘there are no problems in the world that religion can’t make worse’. I don’t understand how the WTO or the IMF or the World Bank or Free Trade Agreements operate, but it seems to me that the already powerful and wealthy countries benefit merrily from their activities and that already poor countries are assisted down an endless spiral of debt and dependence. I’m sure the powerful and influential in the world would think me completely naïve – well, I think they are completely deluded and removed from reality; clean water, food, shelter, family and friends, thanks, and you can keep your wide-screen plasma telly and newspaper monopoly. And what about the current dominance of economics in the way the human world works? If that is to prevail (and I’d advocate a change), at least it should consider all the costs and benefits of our current paradigm. And remain tethered to the realities of ecology. In a world with ecological limits, can it possibly be true (as Professor Adams seems to suggest) that economic growth is absolutely needed to alleviate poverty? Doesn’t inequality of distribution have anything to do with it? The global market has led us to live far beyond our immediate ecosystems; if this market is to be used to change our behaviour then limits need to be set and enforced through a system of regulations, taxes and incentives. A luxury tax on the Rolls perhaps. A pollution or carbon tax on industries. Funding from the haves to the have-nots to ensure basics such as clean water. Incentives for use of renewable energy. What about a barter system, to leave money completely out of some exchanges? And while we’re at it, we should put a stop to the damaging practice of trading in money and currencies itself, which surely only helps the rich get richer with absolutely nothing productive to show for it. Maybe we could establish a buddy or mentoring system across the globe, with the world’s richest nations partnered with the world’s poorest. Could that be done without being colonialistic? Paternalistic? If trade can be globalised, why not people and their welfare? Nationalism, after all, can be quite devastating. Can we choose these changes or do they need to be imposed? Would it all have to be too authoritarian? Perhaps not if citizens were imbued with a sense of responsibility to go with their rights. I remember in the lead up to Australia’s referendum on becoming a republic, the nay-sayers had a slogan to appeal to the apathetic: ‘If you don’t know, then vote NO’. A feisty newspaper columnist retorted, ‘If you don’t know, then bloody well find out!’ Of course, expecting citizens to be well- informed requires a free and independent media. And, as is being demonstrated, there’s always the web. I try to remain optimistic; I hope this forum will lead to action and change. Humans can be so stunningly fabulous, yet at other times quite despicable. The world is resilient and sometimes I don’t really care if Gaia ‘decides’ to take revenge and rid itself of its Homo sapiens fleas. Unfortunately, we’d be taking a lot of others with us, but one thing I don’t doubt is that life would go on.
All that, and I didn’t mention sustainability once. Oops. |