SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT; DO YOU REALISE WHAT IT WILL TAKE?

 

Ted Trainer.

22.1.07

 

 

There are two basic views people take regarding the environment problem  Almost all people hold the conventional or Òlight greenÓ view.  This document explains why it is seriously mistaken, and why the environment problem and all the other big global problems facing us cannot be solved without huge and radical social change.

 

            The conventional view.

 

Most people assume,

 

 

o      Development of more efficient systems and technologies; e.g., cars that use less energy, energy-saving fridges

o      Recycling, reuse, e.g., of grey water.

o      More public transport.

o      Better pricing of resources.

o      Reducing subsidies to fossil fuels, etc.

o      Shifting to renewable energy sources.

o      More laws to protect the environment.

o      More effort to protect endangered species.

 

o      These kinds of actions can enable sustainability to be achieved within the present society; i.e., there is no need for radical change to different social systems.  We can solve the problems without threatening high Òliving standardsÓ, an economy driven by market forces, profit maximisation and growth.

 

The critical view is that this conventional position is totally mistaken.  There are two major faults in it. 

 

 

 

Consider the magnitude of the overshoot.

 

Resource consumption.  Our way of life involves consumption of vast quantities of resources. Many resources are in very short supply, and becoming more scarce.  World fisheries are being depleted, water scarcity could be the most serious resource problem this century, tropical forests are being reduced by 20 million ha each year mainly because rich countries want the timber and the forests are being cleared to supply them with beef.  The most disruptive resource problem ahead is likely to be brought on by a peak in petroleum supply before 2020.

 

But most of the resources are being consumed by the 20% of the worldÕs people who live in rich countries.  The rest of the worldÕs people get very few of them.  This is because the global distribution system is a market economy and that inevitably and automatically allocates most resources to the few who can pay most for them.  Thus rich countries get most of the oil.  Even worse, that kind of economy ensures that most of the productive capacity of the Third World is geared not to producing what its people need, but to what will maximise the profits of the corporations via supplying rich world supermarkets.  If all the worldÕs people today were to consume resources at the per capita rate we in Australia do, annual supply would have to be more than 6 times as great, and if the 9 billion we will have on earth soon were to do so it would be about 10 times as great.

 

It is obvious therefore that in an economically just and ecologically sustainable world we in Australia would have to live on a small proportion of the resources we now consume per capita.

 

Footprint.   The per capita area of productive land needed to supply one Australian  with food, water, settlements and energy, is about 7-8 ha.  The US figure is closer to 12 ha.  But the average per capita area of productive land available on the planet is only 1.2 ha.

 

When the world population reaches 9 billion later this century the per capita area of productive land available will be only .8 ha.  In other words if it was to be a world where resources were shared equally we would all have to get by on about 10% of the biological resources Australian people average.  Nothing like that is possible in a consumer-capitalist society obsessed with affluence and growth.

 

Footprint analysts are saying that we are already taking 30% more biological resources from the planet than it can provide continuously.  We are doing this by consuming our Òecological capitalÓ, e.g., by cutting down the forests faster than they are growing, depleting the soils, mining the ground water and destroying the fisheries, etcc.

 

The greenhouse problem. This is the most powerful and alarming  illustration of the overshoot.  The atmospheric scientists are telling us that if we are to stop the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere from reaching 550 ppm, twice the pre-industrial level, we must cut global carbon emissions and thus fossil fuel use by 60% in the short term, and more later.  If we made such a cut and shared the remaining energy among 9 billion people each Australian would have to get by on less than 7% of the fossil fuel they now use.

 

That target, twice the pre-industrial level, is far too high.  A more responsible target of 400 – 450 ppm would require reduction to about 3% of present Australian per capita fossil fuel use, i.e., we should almost shift entirely off coal, gas and oil.

                                                           

These have been some of the lines of argument showing the huge magnitude of the overshoot.  We must make enormous reductions in our resource use if we are to solve the environment problem, and this is not possible in a society that is committed to the affluent lifestyles that require high energy and resource use, let alone a society that insists on constant and limitless increase in production and consumption.

 

            Now add the absurdity of growth.

 

The foregoing points refer only to the present situation, but this society is fiercely committed to constant and limitless growth in Òliving standardsÓ and GDP.

 

If we average 3% economic growth to 2076, if by then world population reaches 9 billion, and they all rise to the Òliving standardsÓ we will have in Australia by then, total world economic output will be 60 times as great as it is now!  We are already producing and consuming far too much, yet here we are blindly committed to an economy that is hurtling in the direction of many times as much output.

 

 Clearly it is not possible to have a sustainable economy unless it produces far less than the one we have now, and does not grow at all.  Our society flatly refuses to even think about this.

 

 Faulty systems are the main cause of the problem.

 

Saving the environment is usually thought of only in terms of Òwhat individuals can do in their households to reduce environmental impactÓ, such as switching unused lights off.  These things typically involve just changing to buying ÒgreenÓ products, not buying less.  No need to consume less, just need to buy the Òecologically sustainableÓ brand.  No need to reduce consumption or GDP, just produce as much as before but do it in Òecologically sustainableÓ ways.

 

Again this is a totally mistaken assumption.  Firstly all actions within households can only make a negligible difference, because greenhouse gases emitted from that source are only 9% of the national total.  We might have to cut our total national energy consumption by something like 90%.  The significant reductions can only be made by changes in our societyÕs systems, not households or individual lifestyles (although big changes in these are also needed).  Several of our systems force us to use a lot of resources.  For exampleÉ

 

-       Most people have to own a car and drive a lot, because our cities have been built to run that way.   Public transport accounts for only about 8% of trips in Sydney.  ThereÕs no point telling people to take public transport, because most people canÕt get to work that way.

 

-       Individuals have no choice but to throw away all the soil nutrients contained in food, because our settlements have sewer systems.  A sustainable society is not possible unless we recycle all those nutrients back into the soils that grow our food, and that is not possible unless food is grown very close to where we live.  In other words a sustainable society must be radically restructured to have a local agricultural system.

 

-       The average piece of food in the US is produced in very energy intensive ways, then packaged and then transported 1000-2000 km.  Those energy costs can only be cut if we shift to a very different system, obviously again whereby food is grown within and close to our settlements.

 

-       The most faulty system we have is the economy.  The ecosystems of

the planet cannot be saved while we have an economy based on maximising the amount of producing and consuming going on, and increasing these as fast as possible without limit.  Nor can they be solved in an economy that allows market forces to determine what is done (i.e., which allows corporations maximum freedom to produce and sell what will maximise their profits, and allows consumers maximum scope for purchasing goods and services.)

 

Again we have to cut production and consumption dramatically if we are to get those resource and ecological impacts down to a sustainable level from the huge overshoot at present, and that is simply impossible in a society whose systems are about maximising production and consumption and continually increasing them without limit.

 

 

But canÕt technical advance and more conservation solve the problem?

 

Obviously there is much waste in our society, and much scope for resource conservation etc.  The dominant view assumes that more conservation effort and technical advance can reduce the problems sufficiently to solve the environment problem, without any need for us to reduce consumption or Òliving standardsÓ or GDP.  But the magnitude of the overshoot, the degree of unsustainability, is far too great for this.

 

The most optimistic Òtech-fixÓ theorists, such as Amory Lovins, claim that we could reduce environmental impact per unit of GDP by a factor of 4; i.e., to one quarter of their present levels.  It is easily shown that this is far from sufficient.

If we are going to multiply world economic output by 60 while we cut ecological impact, letÕs say in half, then impact per unit of GDP would have been cut by a factor of 120.  Obviously a factor 4 reduction would be no where near big enough to enable and just and sustainable world.

 

Remember, whatever technical advance achieves, with only 3% p.a. economic growth the problem better technology must solve, i.e., dealing with the volume of production and consumption, becomes twice as big every 23 years.

 

CanÕt we change to renewable energy?

 

Central in the faith that no significant change from consumer-capitalist society is needed is the never-examined assumption that we can move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as the sun and the wind.   Springer will soon publish my book Renewable Energy – Cannot Save Consumer Society.  It details the technical reasons why it will not be possible to derive from renewables the quantity of energy consumer society demands. (See Note 1 for a summary of the book's argument.)

 

The limits are most is most clear with respect to liquid fuels.  Even if optimistic technical assumptions are made (See Fulton, 2005) the per capita amount that could be produced from biomass would probnably be less than about 5% of the amount rich countries consume now.  There is also a strong case that we will never have a Óhydrogen economyÓ, in view of the significant costs and energy losses involved in dealing with the small and light hydrogen atom. (Chapter 6 of the book.)   Many regions will be able to get a lot of electricity from sun and wind, but the major problems set by the variability of these sources makes it very unlikely that they can supply a large fraction of the electricity we now take for granted. (Chapters 2 to 4.)

 

None of this is an argument against renewable energy sources.  We must move to them as fast as possible, but they cannot sustain the high Òliving standardsÓ that go with consumer-capitalist society.  Renewable Energy argues that using them as heavily as possible would still leave gaps in supply that would require more coal use than is safe in terms of greenhouse limits.

 

Conclusion

 

To repeat, these simple well-known facts and arguments show that there is no possibility of bringing environmental impacts down to sustainable levels unless we dramatically reduce the volume of producing and consuming going on, that is, undertake very radical social change, especially involving abandoning  commitment to high material living standards, high incomes and high GDP and the commitment to constantly increasing all these as much as possible and as fast as possible without any end in sight.  In other words the problem cannot be solved without huge and radical change to quite different systems.

 

Our societyÕs general attitude to these issues was recently stated elegantly by President Bush when he said, ÒThe American way of life is not negotiableÓ.  The fundamental cause of the whole range of alarming global problems now threatening to destroy Western society is simply over-consumption.  This is the direct cause of Third World poverty (because we in rich countries are hogging most of the worldÕs wealth), and war (because control over resources is the main cause of armed conflict) as well as of resource depletion and environmental destruction.

 

 Our society professes concern about these problems, but flatly refuses to think about their fundamental cause.  This astounding situation raises serious doubts about the capacity of our society to save itself.  Despite being highly ÒeducatedÓ, having large numbers of experts and well funded bureaucracies and institutions, and billion dollar communications and educational systems, rich countries refuse to think about the possibility that some of their fundamental structures and goals are extremely mistaken. They show almost no capacity to respond to the gigantic challenge confronting us.  Most people know our society faces very serious problems.  Some analysts expect catastrophic breakdown in coming decades with the possible die-off of billions.  (See www.dieoff.com)  Yet all politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, educators and ordinary people flatly refuse to even think about the possibility that ecological sustainability is incompatible with consumer society.

 

The hypocrisy/delusion of Òecologically sustainable developmentÓ rhetoric.

 

There is a great deal of talk about ÒEcologically Sustainable DevelopmentÓ, but just about all of it is based on the delusion that sustainability can be achieved without any threat to affluence and growth, via technical fixes, more conservation effort, etc.  Firms, governments and environmental agencies congratulate themselves for reducing the impacts of each unit of current production and consumption somewhat, but steadfastly avoid any suggestion that there might be a need to reduce the volume of production and consumption.

 

What ESD means in consumer-capitalist society is merely trying to do the same thing, to produce and sell as much as possible, while making some effort to reduce the associated resource and environmental impact.  Thus a corporation can say it is making its operations Òmore sustainableÓ, even though it  might be producing wasteful luxurious items and even though a similar effort from all corporations would still leave the total volume of resource use and waste far above tolerable levels.  The ÒlimitsÓ analysis shows that a sustainable world is not possible unless there is a huge reduction in the amount of production, factories, investment, trade etc. we have now, possibly reduction to 10%, and unless any notion of increasing production and consumption over time is totally abandoned..

 

            But why arenÕt peak environmental agencies such as the ACF saying

these things?

 

Almost no environmental agencies, either private or governmental, mention let alone discuss the argument being summarised here.  They never suggest that ecological sustainability is incompatible with affluence or growth; they never even refer to the possibility.  The reason is simply because if they began saying this they theyÕd instantly be ignored and lose all their subscribers.  ItÕs hard enough for them to get people to think about saving Koalas and trees, which threatens nothing.  So they content themselves mostly with campaigns like saving the whale that (are noble but) can make no difference whatsoever to the fate of the planet.  They can make no difference because they do nothing to get people to even think about the possibility that affluence and growth are the fundamental causes of the environment problem and the other alarming global problems.

 

It can be argued that the campaigns carried out by the Òpeak environmental agenciesÓ actually do more harm than good because they reinforce the assumption that there is no need to question the commitments to affluence and growth.  They give people the impression that all we have to do is recycle, buy Ògreen energyÓ, get a smaller car, donÕt use plastic bags, etc., while we all go on consuming voraciously and getting richer without limit.

 

For many the same reasons governments have refused to raise the possibility that affluence and growth must be rethought, knowing that this would be electoral suicide.

 

            The ideological problem.

 

What we are up against here is an extremely powerful ideological phenomenon, a mentality of denial and delusion, a steadfast refusal to face up to our potentially fatal situation.  For more than 40 years now many scientists and authors have been documenting the Òlimits to growthÓ analysis of our global situation sketched above, but this has made no impact whatsoever on governments or publics.  Large numbers of environmental campaigns and government inquires are conducted without any recognition that if we are serious about sustainability we must at least think about the possibility that it is not compatible with consumer society.  But this is not done.  There is now a vast sustainability industry, there are hoards of politicians, bureacracies and educators and journalists professing concern for the environment, but almost none of them ever even thinks about any need to question the fundamental, cherished values of consumer society – material wealth and getting more of it all the time.  The record provides strong support for the conclusion that this society does not have the wit or the will to save itself – because it refuses to even acknowledge its situation and its causes, it steadfastly maintains its comforting delusions.

 

What then is the solution?

 

Many now realise that there is a way out of this predicament, one that would solve the enormous problems of Third World poverty and of armed violence in the world as well as the resource depletion and the environmental problem.  This alternative way would be very easily established – if we wanted to do that.  WhatÕs more, its advocates insist that it would yield all people a much higher quality of life than they have now even in the richest countries

 

It is clear from the above discussion that a sustainable and just world is not possible unless we move to far lower rates of resource consumption, and that this cannot be done within the systems of consumer-capitalist society.  It requires transition to The Simpler Way.  This is a society in which we live well with non-affluent lifestyles, with high levels of self-sufficiency in households and regions and nations, and in which we therefore have mostly small local economies meeting needs from local resources, mostly via cooperative and participatory systems (involving voluntary committees, working bees and community commons supplying many free goods), and some very different values.  The focal concern in The Simpler Way is to enjoy a high quality of life, not to get rich.  (The general model was elaborated in my The Conserver Society, Zed Books, 1995.  For a more recent outline see, http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/12b-The-Alt-Sust-Soc-Lng.html)

 

In other words, there has to be an enormous cultural change, away from a mentality driven by competition, selfishness and greed.  Households must derive satisfaction from frugal and self-sufficient ways, growing and making and repairing. Most of us would have far less need for money than at present, meaning we might need to work in a paid job only one day a week.  We would therefore have much time for community affairs, arts, crafts, festivals and learning things.  None of this implies any need to reduce the quality of high tech activities that are important, such as medical research. In the above mentioned account of the Simpler Way it is argued that it would probably enable our footprint to be cut to well under 10% of its present value.

 

There is no possibility of achieving this transition without huge and radical change to a quite different kind of economic system, one in which market forces did not have a major role and in which there was no growth at all. (See The New Economy.)

 

It is of course not at all likely that people in consumer society will opt for The Simpler Way.  Yet there are many groups around the world, especially within the Global Eco-village Movement, pioneering The Simpler Way.  Our fate depends on whether they can develop enough impressive examples to persuade people in the mainstream not just that The Simpler Way is the only way to solve the environment and other global problems, but that it would be a much more rewarding way to live.  Our task is to have in place a sufficient number of illustrative alternative settlements so that when the big problems impact, such as a major and lasting petroleum scarcity, people will be able to see around them examples of a much more sensible way.

 

The most important goal for anyone who wantÕs to save the environment is to help us get this radically critical perspective onto the agenda of public discussion, to at least get people to think about the possibility that affluence and growth are the basic causes of the global predicament.

 

                                                                        -----

 

A summary of the argument in Renewable Energy Cannot Save Consumer

Society is at http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D100.RE.cant.save.25.7.o6.html

 

Fulton, L., 2005, Biofuels For Transport; An International Perspective, International Energy Agency.

 

For detailed summaries and documentary evidence on the above themes see The Simpler Way web site,   http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/