What if sustainability doesn't work out? (original) (raw)
Related papers
How Have We Come to This: Climate Change and The Future of Planet Earth
2019
Revised December 3, 2019. This paper includes top-level summary statements regarding the primary factors driving likely near-future societal chaos. Also included are a number of citations from experts and scientists in the fields of climate change, economics, and sustainability. Many of the citations are not paraphrased, as the subject is complex and doesn’t lend itself to simplification. My studies of these topics, on and off for two decades, have led me to the view that civilization as we have known it cannot long continue. The purpose of this paper is not to add to the growing list of alarming climate-related disasters and those that loom, but rather to help people better understand how we got here, and why the civilization we have known cannot go on for very much longer. Then we can hopefully apply what we’ve learned, as wisdom, to better prepare for the oncoming climate chaos. And we can plant the seeds of a successor civilization, starting with sustainable, resilient communities which can be enfolded into the future successor civilization. When humanity has enough new understanding of reality, a more highly evolved level of awareness emerges and can serve to overturn obsolete forms.
Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents
Climatic Change, 2011
The frequently heard call to harmonize adaptation and mitigation policies is well intended and many opportunities exist to realize co-benefits by designing and implementing both in mutually supportive ways. But critical tradeoffs (inadequate conditions, competition among means for implementation, and negative consequences of pursuing both simultaneously) also exist, along with policy disconnects that are shaped by history, sequencing, scale, contextual variables, and controversial climate discourses in the public. To ignore these issues can be expected to undermine a more comprehensive, better integrated climate risk management portfolio. The paper discusses various implications of these tradeoffs between adaptation and mitigation for science and policy. 1 Introduction A recent president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest international general scientific society, and currently U.S. President Barak Obama's Science Advisor, John Holdren, has famously and repeatedly said that the world has three choices in dealing with climate change: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. The balance between the former two and the latter option is inversely related: The more we limit climate change and minimize its negative impacts, the less loss and disruption we will have to endure (Holdren 2008, p 431). A growing chorus of voices argues that, not only should we do much more in terms of mitigation and adaptation to reduce the penultimate suffering, but
2014
A lot of effort has been spent in the last few decades demonstrating that the climate is changing more rapidly now than it did through history and prehistory, and that the reason for this rapid change is anthropogenic action. In addition to climate changes, habitats are being directly modified, and organisms are being directly acted upon. Some species are shifting ranges on a global scale resulting in invasions, causing habitat modifications, impacting interspecific interactions, and generating diseases. Other species are being directly persecuted or overharvested to the point that they are no longer able to function in their communities the way they did historically (Jackson, 2008). This has caused many species to become endangered or even go extinct. The future prospects for many species and habitats are in question. Will species be able to survive such rapid environmental changes? Are they flexible enough to adapt to changes of such magnitude? Can we predict which species are at ...
Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents: an essay
Climatic Change, 2012
The frequently heard call to harmonize adaptation and mitigation policies is well intended and many opportunities exist to realize co-benefits by designing and implementing both in mutually supportive ways. But critical tradeoffs (inadequate conditions, competition among means for implementation, and negative consequences of pursuing both simultaneously) also exist, along with policy disconnects that are shaped by history, sequencing, scale, contextual variables, and controversial climate discourses in the public. To ignore these issues can be expected to undermine a more comprehensive, better integrated climate risk management portfolio. The paper discusses various implications of these tradeoffs between adaptation and mitigation for science and policy. 1 Introduction A recent president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest international general scientific society, and currently U.S. President Barak Obama's Science Advisor, John Holdren, has famously and repeatedly said that the world has three choices in dealing with climate change: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. The balance between the former two and the latter option is inversely related: The more we limit climate change and minimize its negative impacts, the less loss and disruption we will have to endure (Holdren 2008, p 431). A growing chorus of voices argues that, not only should we do much more in terms of mitigation and adaptation to reduce the penultimate suffering, but
Science, climate change and civilisation: securing a better future for next generations.
This paper explores different approaches to solving climate change. Climate change is the defining issue of our time and as Diamond (2005) argued in his book, "Collapse" how we respond to such life-threatening phenomena largely determines our ability to survive and overcome them. As weather patterns around the world display extreme conditions, a large majority of scientists present a view that humanity is running the risk of catastrophic climate change that may result in habitability crisis. Historically, when there are severe environmental strains on cultures, civilisations or nations the byproducts were unpredictable and dangerous. If the current trends continue the strain on our global civilisation could me enormous and leading to disruptive events. Human activities from hunting to habitat destruction have already driven countless species to extinction, and despite the reasonable voices of scientists and ecologists, the process is accelerating. The destruction of the Earth and its sustainable indigenous cultures has led to tragedy in almost every place around the world. Meanwhile, scientists have confirmed what indigenous cultures have taught for thousands of years: all forms of life are vitally connected. Removing even a single strand from the web of life produces a widening ripple of catastrophe (Ney and Thompson, 2011: 43). Previous research focused on two broad, problem-solving approaches: 'a global strategy' and 'a sustainable retreat strategy'. Both approaches display strengths and weaknesses. According to the first one, global co-operation mainly through multilateral, summit diplomacy and particularly among world leaders, is a vital element of reaching governmental consensus on climate. The second strategy advocates that humanity ought to be acting locally while implementing methods of a civilised retreat allowing Gaia for a temporary respite. There is a significant gap in knowledge as none of the approaches examine the contention that because climate is 'a global public good' it belongs not only to human beings but also to all Life. Elements of both approaches could be combined to gain a broader and unique perspective. Hence, this paper critiques both approaches and sets an agenda for a new perspective. The focus of research centres on the idea that it is in the common interest of all of humanity to preserve civilisation for future generations. This paper suggests some keys to solving climate change in an intelligent and constructive manner. It suggests that human ingenuity and inventiveness can do it. To save civilisation, secure a better future for the next generations humans will have to allow Earth to restore balance in the natural environment, ecological balance. Our planet needs a respite to return to its natural rhythm that humans have been undermining what resulted in a great imbalance. Mankind needs to work with Earth as a medium so that to listen to the signals Gaia sends. Humanity must enact nature-based solutions and be ready to turn them ''into viable and implementable public policies. Governments have to make choices as to the types of policies to create, the sectors they should cover, ministerial jurisdictions and funding'' (Massey, et al. 2014: 10). Gaia is awakening what results in extreme weather events. Consistent with Toynbee, (1976: 290), who researched and examined ancient Meso-American, Hellenic and Indian civilisations Earth could be compared to a goddess, who can use her powers destructively and malignantly, as well as creatively and benignly. According to these beliefs, "even if Mother Earth can sometimes turn savage, it is no wonder that the weather is morally ambivalent power; for the weather is capriciously inconstant, and its caprice can either devastate the crops by flood or drought or can make them yield a harvest by giving and withholding rain in due season." (Ibid). These ideas were further developed on the grounds of 'Gaia hypothesis' by Lovelock (1972). This theory aims to explain why, unlike other planets in the solar system, the Earth’s atmospheric composition and history alongside physics and chemistry can be explained through a strong influence of biology. It explains the survival of life on Earth for nearly 4 billion years by treating life and the global environment as two parts of a single system. In effect, micro-organisms, plants and animals behave in such a way that the Earth’s environment becomes adjusted to states optimum to their maintenance. This is not a conscious act on the part of the biosphere but instead, it argues that adjustments arise from natural selection (Burroughs, 2012: 342). Given humanity's interference with the climate on Earth, the process of 'Gaia awakening' may be happening either in symbiosis with organised humanity or destructively to it. While Gaia is awakening human consciousness must synchronically become more sensitive to the planet. Each of us can become a global citizen and each of us remains individually responsible to stay informed, to vote and keep politicians and institutions in check. We must be conscious that civilisation has its durability which has certain limits and if they are exceeded, cataclysm might occur. Considering the age, the Earth is still powerful and global leaders must take into account rare events such as the conjunction of planetoid impacts, increased volcanic emissions and eustatic lowering of seal-level which cannot be ruled as impossible. Gore (2013: 374) noted, human civilisation on the planet "has reached a fork in the road, we have long travelled to achieve almost a pinnacle of progress as the most powerful of all predators on Earth, who now can undermine its very own existence.'' Gore (2013: 274) states, "One of the two paths must be chosen. Both lead us to the unknown. But one leads toward the destruction of the climate balance on which we depend, the depletion of irreplaceable resources that sustain us, the degradation of uniquely human values, and the possibility that civilisation as we know it would come to an end." The other pathway leads towards a sustainable future and living within the means of the often underappreciated benefits that our sacred planet provides for us. The essence of living green, of being global citizen respecting Gaia is neither naive optimism nor a predisposition to pessimism. If humanity can think about itself as a part of a giant living organism and a cause of Gaia's ailing, equally, we may be guided to live within the limits of our planet in a way that is seemly and healthy (Lovelock, 1991: 20). Humans can never be healthy in a world without wilderness, clear air, crystal blue oceans and beautiful parks. Despite the potential ruthless destructiveness of nature, Earth is not yet at war with us. Earth might be though seriously outraged. In truth, Earth is humanity's best friend, the almighty Protectress of life, the Goldilocks planet that ''has been, so far and all in all, just right for life: not just right at any one time, but continuously so for three billion years'' (Zalasiewicz, 2012: 2). Earth has no hatred, but she also has no fear. Gaia is awesome, fraternal and maternal. It is impossible to lessen her, to humiliate her or to irritate her. Mother Nature loves all Earth’s children unconditionally being resilient against human harm. After so many catastrophes, She still sends her Love to all the peoples from heavens expecting that caring humanity will be responsive by rearranging civilisation wisely with respect for Life and Love. Earth is our shelter and wants to give us everything we need to live intelligently, in good health and with dignity. As Attenborough (2019) noted, ''Each community on the planet has been blessed with a special kind of energy, such as wind, solar, hydro-electric, biomass, hydrogen, geothermal. Each region can help humanity choose a wise symbiosis.'' Thinking this way, however, are we not closer to establishing a world government? And is it a better tool for managing climate than ineffective leaders chosen by materialistically motivated populous? A coevolutive symbiosis has to lead to an economy not based on exploiting fossil fuels. Instead, humans have to create a new economy that is based on restorative and regenerative growth. Stop digging fossil fuels and wisely rearrange civilisation by halting deforestation, restoring forests and investing in clean sources of energy. This energy shift needs to happen well before the fossil fuel reserves are exhausted. Policy decisions to subsidise an energy source can influence investment decisions. Our cities can live in symbiosis with nature. Decision-makers have the tools to do the job of abandoning fossil, but we need a strong, united and global response that is more than an aspiration on the piece of paper. Humanity is running out of time, but there is still hope. We need the political will, a degree of persistence and readiness to act wisely with a long-term goal in mind and following the right strategy.
Progressive Adaptation: The Key to Sustaining a Growing Global Population
2015
Adaptation is an evolving long-term process during which a population of life forms adjusts to changes in its habitat and surrounding environments. Adaptation by the global community as a unit is vital to cope with the effects of increasing populations, global warming/climate change, the chemical, biological, and physical impacts on life-sustaining ecosystems, and competition for life sustaining and economically important natural resources. The latter include water, food, energy, metal ores, industrial minerals, and wood. Within this framework, it is necessary to adapt as well to changes in local and regional physical conditions brought on by natural and anthropogenic hazards, by health threats of epidemic or pandemic reach, by social conditions such as conflicts driven by religious and ethnic fanaticism, and by tribalism and clan ties. 9.2 Adaptation to Population Changes Although the rate of global population growth is declining and is expected to fall to the replacement level by mid-twenty-first century, it is still increasing by about 75-80 million people annually (see Chap. 1). A grand part of the growth is taking place in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East that together already accounts for a 2014 population of 5.9 billion of the 7.2 billion people worldwide. Conversely, populations are contracting or stable in most of Western and Eastern Europe, and Japan. Together with the United States that has a stable population, this latter group today is home to the other 1.3 billion people. Thus, although there are two population situations to adapt to, both have common problems of sustainability to address.