Transcript Document

The Ecological Crisis
Social Ecology: World
Sustainability
Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Paradigm Theory
Robert Kuhn
Cultural Groups Develop “insider” views of the
world:
• shared sets of assumptions,
• jargon,
• definitions,
• Methods
Paradigms cause
• Insiders to see the world similarly and
• Outsiders to see the world differently
PARADIGM CHANGE
Anomaly
Sustainability
S Curve
Defense
Crisis
Modernity
J Curve
Revolu
tion
Stages of
Paradigm Change
after Kuhn
Definition
of New
Paradigm
Paradigm
Shift
Raising the Alarm in the 1960s
Murray Bookchin (aka Lewis Herbert) Our
Synthetic Environment, 1962
“to suggest that pesticides, food additives,
chemicalized agriculture, burgeoning urbanization and
nuclear energy were harmful was regarded not merely
as “reactionary” but as a national heresy” given the
sentiment “characteristic of the country as a whole--the equating of progress with mindless growth and the
technocratic ideal of `progress above all.’”
Raising the Alarm in the 1960s
Rachel Carson Our Silent Spring 1962
“the controversy that exploded around
Rachel Carson’s book….highlights the
extent to which American public opinion,
orchestrated by corporate interests and
government agencies, adhered to a “grow or
die” economic mentality and a domineering
attitude toward the natural world.” [Bookchin,
X11]
Carson vs Modern Paradigm
“…the question is whether any civilization can
wage a relentless war on life without destroying
itself and without losing the right to be called a
civilization [p99]….The “control of nature” is a
phrase conceived in arrogance…when it was
supposed that nature exists for the convenience
of man….” and a Neanderthal science, in turning
its weapons against insects, has also turned them
against the earth [297].
Criticism of Carson
Miss Rachel Carson's reference to the selfishness
of insecticide manufacturers probably reflects
her Communist sympathies, like a lot of our
writers these days. We can live without birds and
animals, but, as the current market slump shows,
we cannot live without business. As for insects,
isn't it just like a woman to be scared to death of
a few little bugs! As long as we have the H-bomb
everything will be O.K. P.S. She's probably a
peace-nut too.
Criticism of Carson
The National Agricultural Chemicals Association
spent over $250,000 on PR firm to malign book
and author.
President of the Montrose Chemical Corporation,
DDT manufacturer: Carson wrote not "as a
scientist but rather as a fanatic defender of the
cult of the balance of nature."
Velsicol threatened to sue Houghton-Mifflin;
Audubon and New Yorker also threatened.
Rachel Carson’s Meta Connections
Biomagnification
Ecological Integrity Damaged
Human Health Impacts
Human Caused Impacts
Synthetic Society
Paradigm Challenge
Progression of Anomaly Recognition
• Synthetic Environment (Carson, 1962, Bookchin, 1962)
• NEPA, CWA and CAA, FIFRA, TSCA (1970 and
circa)
• CERCLA 1980--- PRP: polluter pays
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contaminated Communities (Edelstein, 1988,2004)
Our Stolen Future (Theo Colborn et al, 1997)
Living Downstream (Steingrabber, 1997)
End of Nature (McKibben, 1999)
IPCC
Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000)
http://vimeo.com/55073825
Systems Theory
Von Bertalanffy:
General Systems Theory
input
Throughput
Through-put
SYSTEM: CLOSED OR OPEN
output
Limits to Growth 1972
The Club of Rome
The world first confronts the reality that
resources limits constrain growth:
Club of Rome---an international organization of
scholars, industrialists and scientists from 25
nations http://www.clubofrome.org/ --funded Dennis and Donella Meadows to run a
computer model projecting conditions in 2100
from known data from 1900-1970.
The World Model
Jay Forrester MIT
• Model complex systems and project outcomes
given specified assumptions
• Overcome humans’ limited ability to handle
complexity and large number of variables.
• Example of simple linear extrapolation:
Herman Kahn The Year 2000 (Hudson Institute) failed
to anticipate energy, pollution or population problems.
Assumed economic and technological growth would
handle all problems.
Modeling Complex Systems Cont.
•
Complex systems have multiple feedback loops
• Short run, linear decision making fails to anticipate
unexpected results ex. Iron rule of highways.
• Each variable affects all
• Synergistic interactions 2 + 2 = 5 ex. Drug interactions
• Time Delay ex. Ozone hole, climate change
Forrester Assumed that Social
Systems:
• Engage in counterintuitive behavior
• Welfare of system contradicted by subsystems with
different goals
• The actions of one subsystem affect all
• Short term improvements conflict with long term
perspectives because invariably lead to degradation
• Insensitive to policy changes intended to change the
system’s behavior.
System Dynamic Computer
Modeling
•Assume key variables, trends and weighting of factors
plus interactive factors.
•Use mathematical equations to simulate multiple
interactions and non-linear relations among variables.
•Clearly specify assumptions. Can change as new
information comes to light.
•Test different scenarios.
Not predicting the future. Project current trends to see
consequences and allow for correction.
5 Key Variables Dynamically
Interacted
• Population
• Pollution
• Natural Resources
• Industrial Output per capita
• Food per capita
Limitations
Examples:
Omitted many types of pollution and focused
only on long lived types.
Resources lumped all together.
Assume resources last 250 years at 1970
use rates.
6 Major Assumptions
1.Finite stock of exploitable, non-renewable resources
2.Finite amount of land to grow food
3.Finite capacity of environment to absorb pollution
4.Technological change is incremental assuming
money and environmental technology to allow.
5.Finite yield of food from any unit of arable land
6…..
Thomas Malthus
• 1798 Malthus published On Population.
• Imbalance between population and resources
is inevitable because
o
o
Food increases arithmetically
Population increases geometrically
“God created a world in which the power of the
eater to reproduce himself is of a superior order
than that of the earth to produce food because fear
of starvation stimulates men to be industrious.”
Assumptions Continued
6. Exponential growth of population, pollution
and industrial output as long as resources and
their interaction permit.
• Ex. World Population is increasing at 1.7% 1.8%.
• Population increased more than 6x in 200
years.
• http://www.poodwaddle.com/Stats/
World Population (billions)
6.5 billion in 2005
4 billion in 1975
2 billion in 1920
1 billion in 1800
Source: UN Population Division 2004; Lee, 2003; Population Reference Bureau
Exponential Growth
When a quantity changes exponentially, its value
will double (or halve) in regular time intervals.
The time it takes to double depends on the
annual percent of growth. You calculate
doubling time by dividing this annual growth
rate into 70.
Doubling time in years = 70/growth rate or
70/1.8=39 years.
World GDP (trillion 1990 dollars)
$52 trillion in 2003
$10 trillion in 1967
$1 trillion in 1900
Source: DeLong 1998
Overshoot = Crash
S curve
crash
Phantom Capacity & Overshoot
Catton: carrying capacity illusions x reality
cc
CC
Unlimited
CC
load
load
load
Unrealisms:
Phantom or
Ghost
Capacity
Prosthetic/
Tech Fix
realism
Overall Findings of Limits to Growth
• If population and industrial growth continue to J
curve, sometime after 2000, nonrenewable resources
will be depleted and a population crash will follow de
to scarcity of food and medicine.
• If assume technological advance doubles all resource
reserves and you allow 75% recycling, there will be a
sharp increase in pollution increasing death rates and
causing a population crash.
Improving Standard of Living with Population
Increase
• World averages 2 children per family
• World industrial output/capita stabilizes at 1975 levels
• Reduce resource consumption and pollution to ¼ of
1970 levels
• Shift consumption from material goods to services
• Direct capital toward food production, soil enrichment
and erosion control
• Industrial capacity is built to last much longer.
Criticisms of Limits to Growth
• Not Assume technology and ingenuity increases to
solve all problems
• Not assume people can adapt to all conditions
• Not objective; computer replaces humans
• Failure assured given exponential growth and finite
resources
• Fatalistic---lessen hope, self fulfilling prophesy
• Lumps unique regions of the globe together
• See
http://www.clubofrome.org/archive/publications/van_Dieren_Doors_of_Per
ceptions.pdf
Mankind at the Turning Point
Messarovic and Pestel 1974
To address criticism that world regions differ
2nd study divided world into ten regions.
Despite assuming technological optimism, more
pessimistic.
1. Unless economy and growth redistributed from rich to
poor nations,
2. Resources and food will collapse by 2050 in poor
nations causing a population crash
3. Interdependency means regional collapse will pull all
down. Ex. Asian Flu 1998
Neo-Malthusian view
Beyond population, increased resource use is problem
Recognize World System---interconnected
Differences between poor and rich countries
West plus Japan and Russia --- ¼ population and 80%
resource use
US 5% world population, 1/3 resource use and 1/3
pollution
Global 2000
July 1980
May 1977, Pres.Carter ordered study world
population and natural resources thru 2000
Done by US CEQ and DOS
US govt. no tradition of long term planning
Trend projection using long term global data
and models employed by federal agencies.
Global 2000 Conservative Bias
• Used existing long term data and models of
US government
• Data on population, GNP, resources and
environment taken sequentially 1977-1979
• Thus, not interact factors
• Allocate resources repetitiously
• Assume continued growth of earth’s goods
and services without maintenance or higher
costs
Assumptions of Global 2000
• Continuation of public policy
• Continuation of rapid technological
development without resistance
(ex. Continually increasing crop yields)
• Assume that shortages of resources cause
rising prices which will drop demand
• International trade not disturbed by war,
politics or economics, etc.
Sample Findings Global 2000
• As population increases, the gap between the rich and
poor will widen
• Food production increase 90% 1970-2000 assuming
constant climate and environment
o
Due to energy intensive farming not new land
 Fertilizer, pesticide, machines, irrigation
o
o
o
o
o
Only a 15% per capita increase
Costs of food double
Increase food importation
Bulk of food go to rich
# of malnourished triple to 1.3 billion
Sample Findings Global 2000 #2
Food Cont.
•
1 hectare of arable land (2.5 acres) support 1970 --2.6 people
• 2000 ---4 people LDC 5.5 people
• Soil loses yearly size of Maine; by 2000 lose 1/3
world’s arable land
• Increased use of grain for alcohol fuels
•
Contradiction—increase production from Green
Revolution ignores degradation from soil loss
Sample Findings Global 2000 #3
Soil Destruction is constraint to food
growth:
• Higher yields at cost
of soil integrity:
o
o
o
organic humus—nutrients, water absorption
inorganic clay and salts---infertile
rock pieces, bedrock
• Desertification: barren land ex. Sahel
o
o
o
3x 1970-2000
overgrazing, farming on marginal lands
Drought cycles
Sample Findings Global 2000 #4
Threats to Arability
• Waterlogging, salinization, alkalinization
o
o
Asia, S. America, California
collapse of Mesopotamia and Upper Nile
• Deforestration---increased flood and
erosion
• Erosion---corn and marginal land farming
o
Loss of organic matter and largest CO2 sink
• Development---urbanization of river
valleys, industrialization, sprawl
Sample Findings Global 2000 #5
Other factors affecting food:
1. Monocultures
2. Loss of diversity
3. Use of hybrids and designer crops
4. Fuel subsidies to agriculture
5. Pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, etc.
Net effect: shift farming from renewable to nonrenewable and unsustainable basis!!!!
Sample Findings Global 2000 #6
Other Conclusions:
• Fisheries overexploited
• Loss of forests ½ California/year
o
Particularly in LDCs (40% by 2000), Trop RF
• Severe Water shortages
o
•
•
•
•
•
doubling with population, irrigation
Mineral resources no reserves, more $, inequity
Global Climate Change by 2050
Loss of 20% of all species as habitats vanish
Toxics cause health problems
Oil reach maximum capacity despite higher prices
Sample Findings Global 2000 #7
The case of Fuel Wood
• ¼ use wood for fuel “Poor man’s oil”
• By 2000, need exceed supply by 25%
• In Sahel (Sahara border) fuel wood gathering
full time---20-30% family income
• No trees left 50-100 k around cities
• Deforestation, erosion, desertification, higher
costs, less fuel, and substitution of dung and
crop residues.
Refutations of Global 2000
“A Resourceful Earth”
Julian Simon Heritage Foundation
Herman Kahn Hudson Foundation
“The year 2000 will be less crowded (with more
people), less polluted, more stable ecologically,
less vulnerable to resource supply disruption.
People will be richer and have more food.”
Refutations of Global 2000
Assumptions made by Simon and Kahn:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No water shortages
Spread of cheap nuclear power
Air & water pollution overblown problem
US farmland not being urbanized signif.
More than enough farmland
No rapid species loss
More food to feed the hungry
Birth rate down while life expectancy is up
Refutation of Global 2000
Simon and Kahn’s Magic:
• Resource problems become opportunities inviting
entrepreneurs to solve them with ingenuity
o
Wood crisis-coal, coal crisis-oil, whale oil-oil
• They spur increases in knowledge which spurs growth
• Solutions to problems leave us better off
o
Ex. Rail to haul coal
• Need stimulus for discovery
Refutations of Global 2000
Simon & Kahn:
People are not just the cause of problems but
with training, the means to solve these problems:
WE NEED MORE AND BIGGER PROBLEMS
Steven Bardwell “The World Needs 10 Billion People”
Fusion Sept. 1981:
• “Qualitative innovations in technology must be
planned on but cannot be planned for”
• fusion energy allows more people and consumption
Refutation of Global 2000
Bardwell:
Convert J curve of productivity to linear
curve because:
• Higher population leads to increased labor
division, ingenuity, ideas, increased
productivity
• Complex technologies can support more
people
• More people are required for complex
technologies
Our Common Future: World Commission on
Environment and Development
Brundtland Commission) --- 1984-1987
• Can’t separate economic development from
environmental issues
• Inequality is main env. & devel. Problem
• Problem of the rich over consumption
• Problem of the poor natural disaster over time
o
exploit resources for export, debt, dumb aid, militarization,
increase population, unemployment and cities, loss
farmers, loss soil, drought and flood
Our Common Future 2
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
Meeting the needs of the present without
compromising future generations.
• Need for lifestyles within the planet’s
ecological means; population size and
growth in harmony with environment.
Ecological Footprint
Source:http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint
/
Ecological Footprint U.S.
Global Footprint Network
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/us/
U.S. 2005 Footprint
Global Footprint Network
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/us/
NEOMALTHUSIAN INEQUITY
We live in a world where
• 1/5 of people and 1/3 of children are hungry
• 1/5 of people lack clean water
• 1/5 of people lack adequate housing
• 1/3 of people lack health care and fuel
• ½ of people lack sanitation
• ¼ of adults cannot read and write
U.S., Russia, China and India
U.S., Russia, China and India
U.S., Russia, China and India
Sierra Leone, Rwanda and U.S.
Source: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_debtors_and_creditors/
Sierra Leone, Rwanda and U.S.
UN Conferences
• 1972 Stockholm conference on the
environment, consensus on problems of
development.
• 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development---Rio
o
o
Agenda 21
Emergence of Civil Society and Governmental
Paths to Sustainability
• 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development---Johannesburg
RIO+20 Brazil June 2012:
The World We Want
Shift to Social and Economic Sustainability:
• Equity
• Green Economy
• Renewable energy
• Hunger (Millennium Ecosystem Goals
• Culture (i.e., First Nations)
• Happiness indicators
• Bien Vivier : Right of Nature to Life
• Recognize next generations as key
stakeholders
Lovins: Soft Energy Paths
•
•
•
•
•
Renewable energy flows (energy income)
Diverse (many small contributors)
Flexible and low tech
Resilient/ decentralized
Match in scale and geographic distribution
to end use needs
• Match in environmental quality to end use
needs
Web Sources:
• The (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
• http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Produc
ts.Synthesis.aspx
• Koffi Annan “We The Peoples: The Role of
United Nations in the 21st Century.”
• Chapter 4 : “Sustaining Our Future.”
• http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/ch4.pdf
• Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/