"...the world does not face separate crises - the "environmental crisis", "development crisis", and "energy crisis" are all one"
This statement was quoted in Thursday's press release for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)'s latest Global Environment Outlook, or GEO4.
As you may know, OT has been researching the latest, most respected international reports to get an idea of what our future holds - what type of world we are set to inherit from our parents. The GEO4 report is the most comprehensive study available, and it does an excellent job of highlighting our biggest global challenges and showing how challenges in each sector are related.
While we (humanity) have successfully addressed many global issues such as ozone layer depletion, protection of many natural areas, and regional health improvements, many greater challenges threaten to undo to the progress we have achieved. The study reveals that current trends in most major areas (climate change, consumption levels, food production, water demand, biodiversity, etc.) are highly unfavorable. If current trends continue, we will likely face many large-scale, interrelated disasters.
As the report emphasizes, major problems are highly interrelated so it's important to focus on holistic solutions that address the bigger problem. For example, it is short-sighted to try to eradicate poverty (improve economic growth) through the continued use of fossil-powered energy. Gasoline cars and coal-fired power plants would greatly improve the standard of living for many people in the world - for a short period of time. However, the compounded impacts of increased pollution, rising fossil energy prices and climate change would likely counteract the previous efforts to combat poverty. In fact, climate change (caused by increase in use of fossil fuels) is projected to lead to water shortages, land changes, floods, and other consequences that will be disastrous for the world's poorest people because they lack the capital to adapt to these changes. (Recall the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the poor populations along the Gulf Coast and the tsunami's impact on the poor populations around Indonesia.)
Instead, true poverty eradication will come from holistic solutions that emphasize building economic growth on education, clean energies, high efficiency, environmental protection, and emergency preparedness. In fact, global shifts towards these holistic solutions are necessary, not just for poverty eradication, but for prevention of major disasters in the upcoming century. Humanity has faced many great disasters such as major world wars, plagues, food shortages, and the fall of many civilizations. But these events have primarily led to regional disasters. With our growing population and global interdependence, we are now more vulnerable than ever to global disasters - wars involving WMDs, global epidemics, global food shortages, and the fall of our global civilization.
Luckily, we have global communications and improved global diplomacy that will help us utilize and develop the many tools we need to address the challenges we face. But everyone must immediately focus on holistic, sustainable solutions in our pursuits of economic growth and well-being. As stated in the GEO4 report,
"while governments are expected to take the lead, other stakeholders are just as important to ensure success in achieving sustainable development. The need couldn't be more urgent and the time couldn't be more opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face, to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future generations"
How can you personally take real steps towards addressing these challenges? How can our government and social institutions take real steps toward addressing these challenges?
Friday, October 26, 2007
It's Official: We have ONE Earth and ONE big problem
Labels:
energy,
environment,
policy,
poverty,
sustainable development,
UNEP,
United Nations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
One thing I find interesting on these development/ecology issues is that there seem to be various camps that push for a singular solution set (i.e., only solar can solve, only carbon sequestration can solve, etc.). It's too bad these camps can't join up with a combination strategy (some solar, some efficiency, some carbon sequestration, some nuclear, etc.) to break the impasse.
I definitely a agree that multiple strategies are necessary. The scale of our problem is so large that unless we use our full set of resources, we might not be able to address the problem in time.
However, there are two caveats. We don't want to trade one problem for another bigger problem; we don't want to invest in a technology that will either exacerbate the problem (an alternative energy that ultimately has a bigger carbon footprint) or backfire/create a new or bigger problem (some speculate that carbon sequestration could cause serious problems.)
The second caveat is that if we spread our resources across a broad field of different technologies instead of focusing our resources on the development of one technology, we might not see a breakthrough in ANY of the technologies.
I personally think that the first caveat is more of a concern than the second. If we invest time in developing a risk/effectiveness assessment to measure their potential for efficiency and carbon reduction, we could focus our investment on the most promising, least harmful technologies.
As I recall there are studies such as the ExternE which calculated the impacts (including carbon) for most of the technologies. Also, I am sure you read the IPCC report earlier this year that presented a wide variety of technologies ranging from renewables to nuclear to even rice cultivation changes.
I agree with you that the second issue is not as serious. When I worked in S. Korea, they were building solar, nuclear, coal, and LNG tankers. Obviously not all of these are carbon friendly, but if a small country like S. Korea can apportion resources to such a variety of technologies, it may also be possible for countries as China and India. If folks can just be a little more willing to mix and match. :-)
Thanks for pointing out ExternE. I think they are a solid starting point for energy technology assessment.
I think the real indicator for the effectiveness of alternative energy investment strategies is the percentage of our energy mix consisting of low-carbon technology. Diversity of energy is important, but actual reduction in carbon emissions is the true indicator of success. Hopefully, in a few years, we will see more countries dominated by low- and no- carbon energy production. Maybe S Korea will be the leader...
And also the IPCC report detailing potential solutions also brought up soil conservation and food cultivation practices. I even recall Freeman Dyson discussing how much carbon can be absorbed in topsoil if properly cared for. It was an eye-opener learning that it is more than a fossil fuel issue.
Post a Comment