We had, unfortunately gone even beyond this discussion but good to see one part of the media playing 'catch-up'. 'Sustainability' of course is a nonsense and civilisation is a heat engine.
If
everyone lived in an ‘ecovillage’, the Earth would still be in
trouble
Findhorn
Ecovillage in Scotland.
26
November, 2014
We
are used to hearing that if everyone lived in the same way as North
Americans or Australians, we would need four
or five planet Earths to
sustain us.
This
sort of analysis is known as the “ecological footprint” and shows
that even the so-called “green” western European nations, with
their more progressive approaches to renewable energy, energy
efficiency and public transport, would require more than three
planets.
How
can we live within the means of our planet? When we delve seriously
into this question it becomes clear that almost all environmental
literature grossly underestimates what is needed for our civilisation
to become sustainable.
Only
the brave should read on.
The ‘ecological footprint’ analysis
In
order to explore the question of what “one planet living” would
look like, let us turn to what is arguably the world’s most
prominent metric for environmental accounting – the ecological
footprint analysis. This was developed by Mathis
Wackernagel and William Rees,
then at the University of British Columbia, and is now
institutionalised by the scientific body, The
Global Footprint Network,
of which Wackernagel is president.
This method of
environmental accounting attempts to measure the amount of productive
land and water a given population has available to it, and then
evaluates the demands that population makes upon those ecosystems. A
sustainable society is one that operates within the carrying capacity
of its dependent ecosystems.
While
this form of accounting is not without its critics – it is
certainly not an exact science – the worrying thing is that many of
its critics actually
claim that it underestimates humanity’s environmental impact. Even
Wackernagel, the concept’s co-originator, is convinced the numbers
are underestimates.
According
to the most recent
data from
the Global Footprint Network, humanity as a whole is currently in
ecological overshoot, demanding one and a half planet’s worth of
Earth’s biocapacity. As the global population continues its trend
toward 11
billion people,
and while the growth
fetishcontinues
to shape the global economy, the extent of overshoot is only going to
increase.
Every
year this worsening state of ecological overshoot persists, the
biophysical foundations of our
existence,
and that of other
species,
are undermined.
The footprint of an ecovillage
As
I have noted, the basic contours of environmental degradation are
relatively well known. What is far less widely known, however, is
that even the world’s most successful and long-lasting ecovillages
have yet to attain a “fair
share”
ecological footprint.
Take
the Findhorn
Ecovillage in
Scotland, for example, probably the most famous ecovillage in the
world. An ecovillage can be broadly understood as an “intentional
community” that forms with the explicit aim of living more lightly
on the planet. Among other things, the Findhorn community has adopted
an almost exclusively vegetarian diet, produces renewable energy and
makes many of their houses out of mud or reclaimed materials.
An
ecological footprint analysis was
undertaken of this community. It was discovered that even the
committed efforts of this ecovillage still left the Findhorn
community consuming resources and emitting waste far in excess of
what could be sustained if everyone lived in this way. (Part of the
problem is that the community tends to fly as often as the ordinary
Westerner, increasing their otherwise small footprint.)
Put
otherwise, based on my calculations, if the whole world came to look
like one of our most successful ecovillages, we would still need one
and a half planet’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. Dwell on that
for a moment.
I
do not share this conclusion to provoke despair, although I admit
that it conveys the magnitude of our ecological predicament with
disarming clarity. Nor do I share this to criticise the noble and
necessary efforts of the ecovillage movement, which clearly is doing
far more than most to push the frontiers of environmental practice.
Rather,
I share this in the hope of shaking the environmental movement, and
the broader public, awake. With our eyes open, let us begin by
acknowledging that tinkering around the edges of consumer capitalism
is utterly inadequate.
In
a full world of seven billion people and counting, a “fair share”
ecological footprint means reducing our impacts to a small
fraction of
what they are today. Such fundamental change to our ways of living
is incompatible with
a growth-oriented civilisation.
Some
people may find this this position too “radical” to digest, but I
would argue that this position is merely shaped by an honest review
of the evidence.
What would ‘one planet’ living look like?
Even
after five or six decades of the modern environmental movement, it
seems we still do not have an example of how to thrive within the
sustainable carrying capacity of the planet.
Nevertheless,
just as the basic problems can be sufficiently well understood, the
nature of an appropriate response is also sufficiently clear, even if
the truth is sometimes confronting.
We
must swiftly transition to systems of renewable energy, recognising
that the feasibility and affordability of this transition will demand
that we consume significantly less
energy than
we have become accustomed to in the developed nations. Less energy
means less producing and consuming.
We
must grow our food organically and locally, and eat considerably less
(or no) meat. We must ride our bikes more and fly less, mend our
clothes, share resources, radically reduce our waste streams and
creatively “retrofit
the suburbs”
to turn our homes and communities into places of sustainable
production, not unsustainable consumption. In doing so, we must
challenge ourselves to journey beyond the ecovillage movement and
explore an even deeper green shade of sustainability.
Among
other things, this means living lives of frugality, moderation and
material sufficiency.
Unpopular though it is to say, we must also have fewer children, or
else our species will grow itself into a catastrophe.
But
personal action is not enough. We must restructure our societies to
support and promote these “simpler” ways of living. Appropriate
technology must also assist us on the transition to one planet
living. Some argue that
technology will allow us to continue living in the same way while
also greatly reducing our footprint.
However,
the extent of “dematerialisation” required to make our ways of
living sustainable is simply too
great.
As well as improving efficiency, we also need to live more simply in
a material sense, and re-imagine the good life beyond consumer
culture.
First
and foremost, what is needed for one planet living is for the richest
nations, including Australia, to initiate a “degrowth”
process of planned economic contraction.
I
do not claim that this is likely or that I have a detailed blueprint
for how it should transpire. I only claim that, based on the
ecological footprint analysis, degrowth is the most logical framework
for understanding the radical implications of sustainability.
Can
the descent from consumerism and growth be prosperous?
Can we turn our overlapping crises into opportunities?
These
are the defining questions of our time.
By
Kim / Stories of Creative Ecology
Don’t
talk to me about sustainability. You want to question my
lifestyle, my impact, my ecological footprint? There is a
monster standing over us, with a footprint so large it can trample a
whole planet underfoot, without noticing or caring. This
monster is Industrial Civilization. I refuse to sustain the
monster. If the Earth is to live, the monster must die.
This is a declaration of war.
What
is it we are trying to sustain? A living planet, or industrial
civilization? Because we can’t have both.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.