Science is very concerned,
perhaps we should be too.
By Peter Schwartzman
AuthorÕs note: The
following essay represents my fiftieth contribution to this column in The
Zephyr. Collectively, these essays represent the largest and most diverse
intellectual project that I have attempted in my life. I thank all the readers,
especially those that have responded or reacted to my articles. And most all I
want to thank Norm (for the opportunity) and my wife (for her tremendous patience
and editorial feedback). Without everyoneÕs support, the energy required to
research and write would have dissipated a long time ago.
Scientific American, one of the most prestigious science magazines in the
United States, dedicated its September 2005, entitled, ÒCrossroads for
Planet Earth,Ó to environmental
issues. In this special issue, leading minds on a broad array of environmental topics
contribute articles that introduce recent findings in the context of historical
paths and anticipated changes.
George Musser opens
up with an introductory essay, ÒThe Climax of Humanity,Ó which notes that three
concurrent transitions are underway in the areas of demography, economics, and
the environment. Moreover, such changes (and how we respond to them) will set
the conditions of the Earth that our children (and their children) face. And
given that humans are currently consuming 15 of the 24 major services provided
by nature (such as pollination and water filtration) faster than they are
replenished, future generations will certainly (and rightly) look unfavorably
on us for our rapacious behavior. Alternatively, society has the ability to
make choices that will dictate that sufficient resources will be available for
generations to come. The question is, ÒWill we?Ó The eight articles that follow
MusserÕs opening, which will now be summarized, provide ideas on ways to live
healthily and sustainably into the future.
In
Joel CohenÕs ÒHuman Population Grows Up,Ó we confront one of the key
contributors to global change. Cohen reminds us that though human population is
now the largest it has been in history, amazingly more than six-fold larger
than in 1800, rates of growth have slowed considerably. Remarkably, the
profound change in population growth rates, which have dropped from 2.1% to
1.2% since the late 1960s, were driven largely by voluntary choices! Yes, that
is right. People have chosen to have fewer children. The reasons why vary
widely and include, most notably, increased access to birth control for women
and improved educational and economic opportunities for women. However,
according to Cohen, never before have global population growth rates declined
voluntarily.
Other developments in
population are worthy of our attention and include: (1) For the first time in
history (starting in 2000), there are more old people than young people (though
it isnÕt made clear exactly where old and young diverge); and, (2) By 2007,
there will be more people living in urban areas than in rural ones. These profound
developments set us up in ways that demand thoughtful response. With more ÒoldÓ
people worldwide, better opportunities must be provided to ensure that they can
sustain a living. More urban people likely guarantees less disease (to
water-borne illnesses) but also requires immense growth in infrastructure
(hospitals, schools, public transportation, etc.) to succeed. In devising a
response it is important that we donÕt forget to learn from our previous
mistakes in the areas of sprawl, transportation juggernauts, and conspicuous
consumption.
Jeffrey SachsÕ ÒCan
Extreme Poverty be Eliminated?Ó outlines the steps needed to continue to reduce
the number of people that live in poverty, one of the key missions advanced by
the U.N. Millennium Goals (promised by the nations of the world in 2000). One
of the great achievements of the late-20th century was to reduce the
number of people living in extreme poverty by more than 400 million people,
despite significant population growth during this period. Yet, according to
Sachs, the more than 1 billion people still living so miserably (on less than
$1 per day) must be provided for in order for there to be sustained peace and
prosperity on the planet.
How can eliminating
extreme poverty be accomplished? Well, according to Sachs, it can be done very
simply. First, and foremost, it requires that developed nations give more
financial support to the poor nations of the world. Shockingly, if the worldÕs
affluent nations gave only 1% of their collective yearly production to poor
nations, this would more than take care of need. This giving (which amounts to
a little more than twice what is currently given, which further demonstrates
its plausibility) wouldnÕt be provided as a handout but rather a Òhand up.Ó
Currently billions live day to day and have nothing to save or invest in their
futures. Assistance should be provided to build and strengthen local food
production, promote gender equality in education, and tackle illness (via
distributing vaccines and mosquito nets). So a mere pittance of our collective
wealth, if provided aggressively (not passively), could eradicate extreme
poverty and bring the world into much great harmony.
To this end, Sachs
points out, many Americans mistakenly think that they give the most and
therefore it is up to other countries to give their share. As it turns out, even
when you account for private giving, U.S international aid is only 0.21% of its
GNP, Òamong the lowest ratios of all donor nations.Ó In Sachs view, the false
conclusion that aid hasnÕt worked stems from a complete exaggeration of the
effort to provide aid. If nations step up and provide financial support, as
many have promised to do by 2015, not only will many fewer people suffer from
abject poverty worldwide, some of the sources of ill-will towards richer
nations (that breeds terrorist organizational growth and activities) will be
greatly assuaged as well.
In Stuart Pimm and
Clinton JenkinsÕ ÒSustaining the Variety of Life,Ó these conservation
ecologists from Duke University implore our generation to protect biodiversity
before it is too late. They remind us that extinctions cannot be undone and
that rates of extinctions today are hundreds (or even thousands) of times
faster than background (i.e., natural) rates. The main cause of these
astronomical rate increases is human damage done to particularly vulnerable
habitats, almost all located in tropical regions.
Yet despite the
seemingly apocalyptic state of the planetÕs biodiversity, the authors see
reasons for not becoming paralyzed into inaction. In many remote areas where
unsustainable logging is taking place, investments of only $5 billion dollars
would protect ~5,000,000 square kilometers of forested wilderness; for
comparison sake, this amount of land is equivalent to 67% of the land area of
the contiguous United States. If this seems like a lot of money, consider that
our country has already agreed to spend twice this amount (~$10 billion) to
restore the Everglades in Florida. Thus, protecting global environments is obviously
just a question of priorities. Additionally, there is still a lot to be saved (and
spared annihilation). Nearly, 50% of all tropical forests are still relatively
healthy (although massive destruction continues largely unabated), and more
than half of the worldÕs species still have biologically-viable populations.
And lastly, Pimm and Jenkins derive hope from the fact that potential
alternatives to reckless resource extraction in these key areas will also sustain
local populations economically and materially through burgeoning ecotourism,
greenhouse gas emissions agreements that monetarily account for the
irreplaceable plant breathing taking place within rainforests, and sustainable
agriculture. In the end, the authors state that it will be choices that we make
during this generation that will decide the fate of the bulk of the planetÕs
species. This clarion call for immediate response should motivate all of us to
struggle for habitat protection and eliminate dangerous consumption of tropic
products (including beef, coffee, sugar, etc.)
In Amory LovinsÕ
ÒMore Profit with Less Carbon,Ó we find out that both environmentalists and top
U.S. government officials are completely wrong when they assert that Òclimate
protectionÓ (via reduced greenhouse gas emissions) will have a negative impact
on our economy. Mr. Lovins, a physicist and co-founder of the Rocky Mountain
Institute, defends this bold claim with figures and insights that make even the
most skeptical reader give pause. Could he be right? Well, considering the
following, it seems that he may be; and if he is, wow, we should all toast his
wisdom and forethought. (I will try to summarize his ten-page article as
succinctly as possible, but a full reading is required to get the full gist of
his argument.)
The basis of LovinsÕ
case rests on the following blatantly obvious premise: Wasting energy isnÕt
economically rewarding. However, in our current world, where huge subsidies
exist for non-renewable energies (that are heavily polluting, directly related
to future climate change, and implicated in global conflict), consumers are
largely unaware that better alternatives exist and/or lack access to obtain
them. Also, since few incentives exist for entrepreneurs as well as consumers
to make a switch towards efficiency, wasting energy has become ubiquitous and
profitable (to a select few and powerful). Consider that 5% of household
electricity in the U.S. Òis lost to energizing computers, televisions, and
other appliances that are turned offÓ and that only 1% of burnt gasoline in a car
actually goes to move a passenger from place to place. Lovins suggests that
improvements in energy efficiency, using existing technologies and materials,
could easily eliminate all need for foreign oil, produce hordes of good paying
jobs here in the U.S., and spare lives (from dangerously heavy—and not
nearly as protective—steel framed trucks and SUVs, and reductions in air
pollution). WouldnÕt all three of these changes be a benefit to our economy and
well-being, not an additional draw on it?
According to Lovins,
many big named companies have come to realize that using energy efficiently and
productively can be a big boon to their profits as well as their long-term
viability. Dupont Òboosted production nearly 30% but cut energy use 7% and
greenhouse gas emission 72%Ó and saved $2 billion in the process. IBM, British
Telecom and others have made similar gains by adopting energy conservation
policies and practices. IsnÕt it time that all institutions, including the U.S.
government and colleges and universities of higher learning, make similar
strides?
Yet, perhaps most
profound of all of LovinsÕ insights is his assertion that new large-scale, and
extremely costly, power plants are absolutely the wrong way to turn to solve
energy needs in the future. And with all the recent talk about rekindling a new
wave of nuclear power plants (or worse yet, coal plants) in the coming years
(as has been offered in the new energy bill recently pushed through Congress by
the current Administration), this is one idea that warrants our immediate
attention. Why does Lovins think these expansions are misguided? Simple, he
thinks they are economically dumb. He writes, Òmanufacturing efficient lamps
and windows takes 1,000 times less capital than building power plants and grids
to do the same tasks, and the investment is recovered 10 times faster.Ó If this
factoid is hard to swallow, consider Òthe RevolutionÓ—a five-seat midsize
SUV designed in 2000—that can travel over 300 miles on only 7 pounds of
hydrogen fuel (an equivalent trip in the heavily marketed SUVs today require a
~120 pounds of petroleum). Better models are available today and better ones
yet will be available tomorrow. Ready for a test drive? Give Lovins a look. You
might be shocked what you find yourself driving in the very near future.
In Paul PolakÕs ÒThe
Big Potential of Small Farms,Ó we are reminded that although there have been
great strides made in the past forty years to increase food supply, still
hundreds of millions of humans go hungry and malnourished. In order to remedy
this situation, Polak argues that we need to provide poor, rural people a means
to secure their own food. One of the most critical limiting resources to this
end is reliable supplies of water. As it turns out, a simple and inexpensive
human-powered machine, known as the treadle pump, now enables many small
farmers to access much needed water that resides just below the ground. Use of
these pumps has greatly increased production without the need for the genetic
engineering and massive chemical inputs that are being pushed as solutions by
the multinational agrobusiness sector. Thus, not only are the poor able to feed
their families but they do so without compromising natureÕs genetic diversity
nor endangering their lives or the ecosystem with untested and often pernicious
synthetic chemicals. Additionally, the installation of simple hoses (with small
holes) have made rural farmers much more water efficient (much more so that
many industrialized farms), something that is a must where water resources are
limited, often inaccessible, and/or heavily fought over. Providing access to necessary water
(especially during the dry seasons) seems to be enough in some areas to allow
rural people to live self-sufficiently. And given that the vast majority of the
worldÕs hungry are smallholder farmers, distribution of simple and cheap
technologies may be the most beneficial and least invasive way to help the
have-nots lead productive and meaningful lives. Decentralized control of the
worldÕs resources may not be what the big corporations and governments want,
but evidence is mounting that it is the way to serve the needs of the masses.
Barry BloomÕs ÒPublic
Health in TransitionÓ makes transparently clear that chronic disorders are the
Ògreatest contributor to the global burden of disease.Ó This should come as a
surprise to many considering how much attention the press gives to infectious
diseases like (AIDS, tuberculosis, etc.). And while infectious diseases
certainly deserve our commitments, chronic diseases (such as heart disease,
depression, and diabetes) will require the bulk of the globeÕs attention in the
very near future.
One way to quantify
the negative effects of disease is to use a metric called Òdisability adjusted
life yearsÓ (DALYs). DALYs are numeric values representing the Ònumber of
healthy years lost to injury, illness, and premature death.Ó Whereas life
expectancy serves as a measure of the relative health of a population (by
assuming that long lives are connected with good health), DALYs look directly
at the health characteristics of a population. In the DALYs scheme, an added
year of life that is spent in a hospital (or home) suffering from a major
physical or mental disorder, probably shouldnÕt be considered a good thing. A
look at the top contributors of DALYs establishes the current importance acute
infections associated to respiratory disorders, diarrheal disease, and ailments
affecting child-bearing mothers and newborns. However, by 2020, it is projected
that the top 3 contributors to DALYs will be heart disease, depression, and
vehicular accidents, all conditions more driven by behavioral choices. Thus, if
public health is to be provided in the near future, we need to put a lot more
stock in nutritional considerations, psychological well-being, and road safety.
Among the Òeight
critical stepsÓ to improving global health, Bloom includes: (1) controlling
tobacco advertising, sales and addiction; (2) reducing threats posed by
environmental sources; and; (3) developing a global health architecture. The
first suggestion follows from the humongous numbers of people that die each
year because they are smokers (~5 million now). (I think national governments
should force cigarette companies to remove nicotine from all its
products.) Interestingly, if
people avoid starting smoking until age 24, 95% of them will never smoke. The
second suggestion stems from the awareness that air, water, and food pollution
greatly reduces our health and too often gets overlooked in comparison to other
threats. And the third suggestion draws from the recognition that public health
is a global problem and requires global solutions. Nowhere is this more evident
than in the anticipated flu pandemic that is predicted to occur sometime soon.
When potentially infected chickens or ducks somewhere in Indonesia carry a
virus that might wipe out 20-40% of humanity in one fell swoop (pardon the
pun), it is clearly time to develop global partnerships, standards, and
objectives for human health.
In Herman DalyÕs
ÒEconomics in a Full World,Ó the vivid contrast between ÒmainstreamÓ economics and
its alternatives strongly suggests that the Òstatus-quoÓ will not suffice.
ÒEconomic growth will solve all problems,Ó is a principle governing how many
powerful players in global economies operate. Unfortunately, on a finite
planet, growth (of anything) must eventually come to an end. And with ample
evidence that many resources (such as ocean fisheries and petroleum) have
reached (or will soon reach) their limits of supply and with the assimilative
capacity of reservoirs (such as rivers, soils, and atmospheres) to absorb
pollutants and biodegrade waste showing signs of overburden, other ways of
accounting for societal goods seem justified.
The GDP (gross
domestic product) often serves as the basis for evaluating the well-being of a
national economy on the grounds that the cumulative production of goods serves
as a good indicator of economic health. However, it is a very flawed indicator.
First, since it considers activities surrounding negative events as positive
economic growth (including, the clean up after oil spills, the rebuilding that
takes place after devastating storms, and the increased use of locks following
increases in crime). So, in this way, paradoxically, GDP improves when we have
more oil spills, more category 4 & 5 hurricanes, and more home break-ins.
Fortunately, other economic measures exist that do a much more fair and
informative job of indicating true well-being. For example, the index of
sustainable welfare (ISEW) subtracts negatives (such as environmental damage,
increased concentration of wealth, pollution, and, international debt) from
economic positives. Interestingly, when one looks at trends in GDP and ISEW
over the past 50 years, something profound is observed. GDP (per capita) more
than doubles over this period (and shows signs of continued, unidirectional
growth). However, ISEW (per capita) exhibits reductions since the 1970s.
Apparently, negative factors are growing faster than positive ones. Other
economic measures (including the genuine progress indicator (GPI)) show similar
trends. If the media were to report these trends rather than blindly focusing
only on GNP, the public would be better informed and might begin to think more
about whether growth in material goods is unquestionably good. Governments
might also be compelled to spend more time reducing pollution and acting
proactively in anticipation of storms.
Another step that
would allow us to track progress (or the lack of it) involves focusing on
wealth rather than income. While income provides an assessment of the yearly
creation of capital, it fails to include an extremely important consideration
accounted for by wealth. Wealth includes both the financial capital that a
nationÕs citizens have but also the natural capital (in the form of clean and
navigable rivers, healthy wetlands, etc.) that exists as well. In other words,
while income fails to account for the draw down of natural resources (such as
soil, petroleum, or groundwater), wealth includes it. It is imperative that we
begin to consider the implications of using finite resources. Wealth allows us
to do this much more so than income alone.
In closing, W. Wayt
Gibbs focuses our attention in ÒHow Should We Set Priorities?Ó by recapturing
the essence of many of the previous articles. A close examination of a generic
farm enables Gibbs to reflect on their conclusions. In the present, a typical
industrial farm survives economically only if it produced a harvestable crop in
sufficient quantities. In a future scenario, farms could be seen as suppliers
of many goods—not just one crop. For example, by leaving some of the land
alone and free to wildlife, farms could become zones of habitat protection (and
farmers could be financially compensated for preserving this essential
biological need). Further, farms could be seen as providing for the uptake of
greenhouse gases (through plant photosynthesis), and farmers could be rewarded
by companies (for their excess CO2 production). Expansions and
breakthroughs in wind energy open up an additional window of opportunity for
farms—as suppliers of usable energy. And lastly, farms could engage in
sustainable harvest of timber as well as food, and farmers could be paid for
managing of our precious forests. All in all, this diversity of use of our land
area would not only make the farmer less susceptible to a bad meteorological
conditions (or ÒfreeÓ-trade that virtually makes the small farmer unable to
compete with large corporate farms), but would reduce the transportation costs
of goods (such as timber from the Amazon that gets sold in Wisconsin), and
would allow rapidly depleting ecosystems to go unspoiled—since the
products they provide would be available locally as well. Gibbs believes that a
farm of the future serves as a good demonstration of what can be done if
environmental considerations are included in economic discussions and holistic
foci force us to see the big picture rather than continued focus on incremental,
specialized improvements. In the end, Gibbs suggests that only an alloying of
government functions (to protect the have-nots, resources, and freedoms) and
market forces will enable us to live in peace and prosperity in the future.
No one magazine
issue can be expected to provide all the answers. However, the September 2005
issue of Scientific American goes
a long way to provide its readership with the background necessary to consider
options and policies that will reward our species and the planet. IsnÕt it amazing
that the issues raised by some of the worldÕs top thinkers and scientists
barely get a mention in our media and in our schools? It is almost as if the
two existed on different planets. Unfortunately, if they cannot be brought
together shortly, the bulk of us will continue to be ÒsurprisedÓ by the havoc
that results. We all have a role in seeing that they do.
Peter Schwartzman is associate professor and chair of
the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a climatologist with
publications in the area of climate change and human population growth.
Announcement: Bioneers 2005
is around the corner. This environmental organization puts together an amazing
three day conference every October. There are three locations sponsoring this
conference within driving distance from western Illinois. Please check out the
details at www.bioneers.org . If you attend, you will certainly not be
disappointed as they put together one of the best programs around.