sagar-paper

Policy Matters:

Insight from Civil Society Engaging with Science and Technology

Report As it happened >>> | Papers>>> | Presentations>>>

Are humans going to be self destructive in the 21st century?

1. The ecological footprint of human society started exceeding the earth’s bio capacity in the mid-1970s. Today, close to 1.4 times earth’s bio capacity is required to sustain the current human activity levels. Humans are eating into natural capital in a manner that makes it unsustainable.

2. Given the current rate of spoilage of the global commons, particularly air, some say that we have already crossed the point of no-return, while others believe that we have a narrow 25-50 years window to fix the problem.

3. Saving the earth and humanity can no longer be done merely by technical, economic or legal fixes.

4. Energy production/use is central to environment and development issues. Peak oil is expected to occur within the next 5-10 years, with peak gas to follow within a few decades. No viable energy source, green or otherwise, is available to replace oil and gas. Development must now be re-defined as:

Capping energy production at current levels immediately, and rolling it back to 1975 (or thereabouts) levels within the next few decades;
How to ensure that all people have equal: 1) access to energy and other natural resources, 2) consumption levels of energy and other natural resources, 3) participation levels in decision making over all issues related to energy and natural resources, in such a manner that the eco footprint for earth as a whole, and its various geographic regions, do not exceed their bio capacities.
If the above is accepted, GDP/GNP can no longer be used as a development milestone and a suitable development milestone will have to be fashioned out and accepted, eg, “Gross national happiness” (Bhutan).

5. The above can only be achieved if global thinking shifts from “gain maximization for a few people” to “risk minimization for all of life”. Implicit within the latter is the acceptance of three equities: a) between people, b) between generations, c) between species.

6. Point 5c) above challenges the definition of “economic value” as understood by classical and Marxist economics, both of which are anthropocentric. Value, then may have to be based primarily on a measurable index of environmental withdrawals, pollutants recycled to earth, interference with natural cycles (carbon and hydrological cycles, ..) and biota, besides the amount of human labour that goes into a product or service. (More on this later)

If human society survives the impending environmental crisis, a transition from equity between species to equality between species is desirable, if not inevitable. Value as an economic category, as we understand it today, will then disappear.

7. Major political and sociological institutions today are also based on an anthropocentric view. These structures will change if a biocentric view becomes more acceptable.

8. Other questions come into play. For instance, humans are the only creatures that have succeeded in colonizing new environments because of their ability to create and use knowledge, which has helped them destroy nature and brought them to the current crisis. No doubt, knowledge has done some good for humans, but on balance it seems to have done more harm. What then is the point in developing more knowledge? More importantly, greed seems to drive humans to consume wantonly. Yet, humans like all other animals have a self-preservative instinct. Which is the greater human motivator—greed or need for collective self-preservation?

9. Whatever be the goal we start moving towards, which will unfold only in time, a practical road map for the next 50 years is required.

10. The Indian and Chinese states feel that they have a real chance to catch up with the north nations. To do that they are now willing to sacrifice their secondary risk minimization programmes (environmental protection, occupational health & safety, etc). (China and India emit 70 and 24 kg of SO₂/US$ 1,000 value added, respectively as compared to 4 by the US. However, China, India and the US have a per capita SO₂emission of 23, 6 and 84 kgs/annum, respectively).

This implies that interventions to minimize secondary risks through state mechanisms and organs (regulatory authorities, courts) will largely fail, as will interventions through other organs (press). Consequently the cost of externalities will be dumped onto people and common property resources (air, water, common lands, parks) will increasingly become inaccessible to people.

The only major force that can buck this trend is people, but for them to do this requires great changes to be put into place.

Per capita consumption

Current
World—1.2 TOe
India—0.4 TOe

For a sustainable world — 0.67 TOe

<<< PREVIOUS