Innovations from around the globe have environmentalists optimistic that we’re on the path to sustainability. A sustainable global economy would create both wealth and well being for rich and poor alike, while maintaining the global ecosystem that underlies (and makes possible) the global economy.
That was the message from the experts at The Worldwatch Institute, an environmental and sustainability think tank that unveiled its ‘State of the World 2008: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy’ report January 9 at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington.
The report, which is a 269-page book written by 19 authors from around the world, says two contradictory trends define the state of the world this year: Environmental degradation threatens the global economy, while a rising wave of innovation promises to create a sustainable global economy that will benefit both man and planet.
Worldwatch president Christopher Flavin and State of the World project co-director Gary Gardner were mostly upbeat at the press conference, citing a flurry of new ideas that are starting to steer the global economy on a sustainable course.
These innovations include a ton of venture capital that is being invested in clean technology, such as renewable energy. These investments jumped 78 percent in 2006 and hit $2.9 billion, making “clean tech” the third-largest venture investment category behind the Internet and biotechnology.
The speakers also mentioned wetlands banks, which are a market-based solution to biodiversity issues (providing a way for land developers to offset wetlands that they destroy). More than 400 of these banks exist in the United States.
In addition, the market for solar photovoltaic cells is doubling every two years; 27 large U.S. corporations are lobbying Congress to pass climate legislation that caps greenhouse gas emissions; microfinance initiatives are taking hold and creating more social sustainability; consumers are demanding green products such as hybrid cars and organic foods; and policymakers in Europe have effectively set a new global standard for chemical regulations, making them environmentally strict for both new and old chemicals.
There’s also the commitment of companies such as Wal-Mart, DuPont and Interface to reduce their environmental impact by slashing waste and conserving energy — with the result that they save lots of money, too.
The Worldwatch folks argue that if these innovations can be scaled up and the major economic players — entrepreneurs, investors, consumers, manufacturers and policymakers — all get behind sustainable development, then the world has a shot at creating a truly sustainable global economy.
These are lofty goals, not likely to be realized soon. It will take a lot of political will in a lot of countries. But it’s encouraging that some changes are underway.
By pushing the economy toward sustainability, what environmental issues will we be solving? First, we don’t have unlimited natural resources, such as oil and fresh water. Second, climate change: We’ve realized the atmosphere has its limits and the consequences of exceeding them could be damaging. Third, urban air pollution that that causes 2 million premature deaths each year. Fourth, fish stocks that could be gone by 2050. The list goes on.
What will the costs be? If we do nothing, the effects of climate change will cost 5 to 20 percent of gross world product each year this century, according to the 2006 Stern Report, whereas the price of slowing down climate change is estimated to be 0.1 to 1 percent of gross world product. Surely this is an investment we can make.
After the press conference, State of the World co-director Tom Prugh told me that as the world moves to a sustainable economy, energy costs will rise to reflect the actual costs that we inflict on the global ecosystem by using energy the way we do. As a result we’ll find that transportation is more expensive, but we’ll be paying the true, full costs of that service.
Manufacturing costs could also rise, but in response companies could create more durable products that last longer, made from components that are reusable. A true valuation of the economy’s impact on nature could spur new innovation that lessens that impact.
There are some proposals in the book that are sure to be controversial. For example, replacing the economic yardstick of Gross Domestic Product with some kind of “green” accounting measure, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator. GDP does not reflect quality of life at all, but GPI would put a value on non-market activities such as parenting and volunteering, and also account for income inequality, environmental degradation and international debt.
Another novel idea is that of commons management — managing natural resources in “trusts” for everyone on Earth. While it sounds good, the commons idea would seem to be very difficult to implement on a global scale. See this article on Grist.org about what an Earth Atmospheric Trust plan would look like.
But the tone of the press conference was optimistic and the parts of the book that I’ve read have a positive outlook, too.
As Tom Prugh told me after the press conference, “we’re not gloom and doom environmentalists. The whole point of this book is to point out that there is a rather astounding collection of innovations out there that are all pointing in the direction of sustainability.” He hopes to see major progress in his lifetime and believes it’s quite possible.
- - - - -
What do you think? Can the nations of the world come together to create a sustainable economy? Can the United States even do so for itself? Post your comments here.
Hello — I have just posted an article on the “Religious Dimension
of Sustainable Development.” The link is:
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n01.html
Please take a look when time permits. The article is on the left
column (white background). A summary is pasted below.
I would be grateful for any feedback (positive/negative/in-between).
Specifically, what do you think about the linguistic analysis of
Genesis chapters 1, 2, and 5 in connection with the original unity
of man and woman.
With best wishes for a good 2008,
Luis
—————————————————————–
SUMMARY
The theme of the month is “religious dimension of sustainable
development.” There is a religious dimension to the United Nations’
“Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs), and there is a religious
dimension to human nature and everything we do. Religion is both
indispensable and dangerous. It is indispensable to attain full human
development beyond the physical, biological, and intellectual levels. It
is dangerous when it degenerates into fanatical delusions about the
absolute superiority of any particular religion, and then leads to
religious intolerance and religious violence.
Many consider religion to be a controversial topic. But, after millennia
of misconceptions about religion, we now have scientific evidence
(initially via the Swiss Psychiatrist Carl Jung) that religion is
essential for human beings to become fully human. This being the case,
our 2007 analyses of the MDGs is incomplete as long as some insight of
the religious influences on the implementation of the MDGs is not
provided. A difficult subject, but it cannot be avoided.
In particular, religion is often an incentive (positive or negative) for
the transition from patriarchy to solidarity, sustainability, and human
development. Granted that financial gain (or loss) will probably remain
as the key incentive for people to change behavior during our lifetime,
futures research entails considering all conceivable possibilities. For
instance, Abraham Lincoln once stated: “When I do good, I feel good;
when I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.” Lincoln’s “religion”
many not qualify as religion in some quarters, but it points to the fact
that, deep in the human psyche, there is the voice of conscience; the
voice of God who abides in us but is bigger than us.
After a brief summary of the MDGs (or “MDGs 1″ when religious
development is considered), evidence is presented that a cultural
transition is needed to support both social justice and environmental
justice at all levels. This cultural transition will entail changes in
human behavior that often cannot be accomplished even when there are
financial incentives. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any such transition
happening without incentives that are stronger than financial gain
and/or resources for domination. Since the power of religion as
incentive for changing human behavior (for good or bad) is pervasive, it
seems reasonable to research this angle next. This religious dimension
has not been absent from any of the previous issues of this newsletter,
but now it will become central.
Incentives from a religious perspective are discussed for overcoming
patriarchy and fostering social solidarity, environmental
sustainability, and human development. In considering this material, it
is essential to distinguish between “religion” and “religious
institutions.” Authentic religion is the expression of our relationship
with God, and it is “good, good, good.” Institutionalized religion can
be “good, bad, or some mix of good and bad.” Some specific religious
institutions are mentioned. The intent is never to deny the significant
amount of good done by those institutions. However, nothing human is
above criticism. Religious institutions often need reformations, just
like all other human institutions often need reformations. Some
religious persons may feel uncomfortable. As always, we shall adhere to
the principle of analysis based on objective evidence. Updates of the
SSNV-MDG knowledge taxonomy and links database continue as time permits.
The current version shows the links sorted by mega-disciplines, and
within each mega-discipline by MDGs. This is “work in progress” but you
are cordially invited to take a look at this resource and download it
(free) for your own use (two options: HTML Web Page or EXCEL Spreadsheet).
This month’s invited paper is “Two Wings of a Bird: The Equality of
Women and Men,” a reflection by the National Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha’is of the United States, published in 1997. The Baha’i religious
tradition emerged in Persia (now Iran) in the 18th century. It is the
first major religious movement that explicitly includes gender equality
as a core belief.
If you believe that collectivism and government control will be in any way positive, you have drunk the wine. The so-called experts are simply bureacrats looking to keep their programs going so as to avoid getting a real job.
The market is the best way to allocate resourses. We know very little about the variables involved in earth’s climate. To date, there have been no identifiable trends, up, down or sideways. We haven’t enough data toeven do that, much less determine what is normal, hot, cold or anamolous.
Worry about government run amok. That is much more likely and dangerous than climate change. Keep in mind that us humans are very adaptable and have survived ice ages and the medieval optimum. We will due well as long as temperatures don’t go off the the scale. Plants and animls also seem to get by.
Dear Luis and Benjamin,
Thanks for your comments here.
We need to share an understanding, I suppose, of how to structure unbridled, seemingly endless global economic growth on a small, finite planet of the size and make-up of Earth.
Steve
Benjamin — You are wrong when you say there have been no identifiable trends. Here are some examples: Scientists have measured the CO2 in the atmosphere from atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1958; the trend is up — see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html (scroll down to see the graph)
Using ice cores, scientists have also measured CO2 going back 649,000 years. Global temperature rises and falls with CO2 for the last 400,000 years — see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html
In addition, we’ve tracked global temperature directly since 1880. It turns out that 2007 was the second-warmest year in the past century — see http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html
- - -
Your comment about how we’ll do well as long as temperatures don’t go off the scale — how high would be off the scale for you? The climate scientists of the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch) project that temperatures will rise 1.98 degrees Fahrenheit to 11.5 degrees F by 2099. If every day were 11.5 degrees warmer, would that be too much?