In contrast to Sal's approach, I'd like to look at the 'man/nature' question at the collective level - through a particular case of increasing controversy. Krugman's Op-Ed piece today discusses an growing source of worry for climate scientists: China's exponentially expanding environment endangering emissions (how's that for some alliteration?).China's cumulative carbon consumption - chiefly (cheap) coal - has doubled in a decade and shows no signs of slowing down. Just this January, the government announced its plans to increase coal production by 30 percent over the next 6 years. And they already lead the world in CO2. However, when confronted with critisms of its policies, largely from American and European environmentalist groups, China simply shrugs and says, "Really? Look who's talking."
The majority of global warming can still be attributed to Western nations - who themselves never had to deal with any type of environmental restrictions while going through their own phases of industrial development. And in the U.S., for all the administration's talk about renewable energy and taking the lead on proactively confronting climate change (through such Congressionally unpopular measures as cap-and-trade) Americans still have the highest global levels of per-capita emissions. This is, of course, the very same United States that distinguished itself as almost the only country in the world to thumb its nose at the Kyoto Protocol.
But is Western hypocrisy at all relevant to the issue at hand? Can the world sustain China's development in this manner without suffering severe environmental repercussions? And India's? And Brazil's? If the answer is no, then how do industrialized nations incentivize eco-friendly economic development? Do they even have the ability to do so when countries like the United States have yet to even implement such policies themselves?
Is it even possible to cooperate on this issue or must some short-term/long-term interest threshold first be met? And will we hit such a threshold before we lose the ability to effectively reverse the environmental consequences?
To paraphrase a good point I heard someone make recently: The term "sustainable" isn't just another buzzword. It means that if something is not sustainable, it will fail. End of story.
ReplyDeleteSo to the question "can the World sustain China's development in this manner" the answer is a resounding no. If China as a nation doesn't want to collapse, it will have to adjust accordingly. And no need to point fingers, so will the U.S. and Europe and India and Brazil. And everyone else. Global warming is just the tip of the iceberg. If we as a species don't change the way we interact with our surroundings (and I'm convinced we'll do just that) we will fail.
This will surely entail many forms of cooperation, but there really isn't a choice. It's succeed or fail.
In some ways, arguing the whole climate control issue is irrelevant. It is.
ReplyDeleteHaving stared at the world's efforts at climate control over the last ten years, what are the odds that we will succeed before we witness some major climate change? Our CO2 rates have been rising beyond some or our wildest predictions. People don't care, and probably won't, with climate change being a gradual, nearly invisible affair.
The results of the climate situation are pretty much going to play out in two (or almost certainly #2 followed by #1) ways:
1) Enough nasty climate change happens to make people pay attention. Oceans will rise or crop yields will severely fall. At that point, countries will be willing to sacrifice 1-5% (or more) of their GDP for fixing our world. It will be a much easier case to make at that point.
2) We fix climate change through some radical new technologies. We actually already have the technology to do it. It is just not fully thought out, is risky, has many unpredictable side effects, and probably puts us down a technologist path into the future. If climate was a life or death issue tomorrow, however, we could fix it. Watch this really good video from TED for a really good explanation and demonstration: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html
Interesting video Sal. So what if China decides to unilaterally begin to employ that technology in order to avoid cutting down on its emissions? Then not only do we still have the environmental issues that continue to remain unsolved (such as increasing the acidity of the oceans, etc.) but we also have a situation where new, unforeseen problems may arise at the same time as we create - in Keith's words - a "moral hazard" that de-incentivizes necessary alternative strategies.
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting issue. I think that unsolicited unilateral action is unlikely, unless China is tremendously in danger from climate change, while the rest of the world is not and ignores China's plight.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that this will probably happen as a last resort by the international community if all else seems to be failing.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
ReplyDeleteIndustrial Society is destroying necessary things [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things [consumer goods].
"Growth Rate" - "Economy Rate" - "GDP"
These are figures of "Ecocide".
These are figures of "crimes against Nature".
These are figures of "destruction of Ecosystems".
These are figures of "Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality".
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land].
Chief Seattle of the Indian Tribe had warned the destroyers of ecosystems way back in 1854 :
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you realize that you cannot eat money.
To read the complete article please follow any of these links.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav
Delhi, India
Sushil,
ReplyDeleteI admit I only skimmed through your considerable research on this issue, but I can't agree with your conclusion that man and nature are ultimately incompatible; in fact, it is very possible to do so, and even smaller-scale efforts such as recycling (which you dismiss) can play essential roles in this regard.
Destructive developmental policies are rapidly increasing the need for a greater shift toward eco-friendly technologies that place a greater emphasis on sustainable development and renewable resources. Best of luck with your project.