|
Greenpeace physicist: Captain,
change course! There's a collision with nature straight
ahead!
Economist: I dispute this. Your
binoculars are dirty, visibility is poor, and I don't see
anything.
Greenpeace physicist:
OK, let's be specific: I'm 90-per-cent sure there's something
big ahead of us and I'm 50-per-cent sure that it's a collision with
nature.
Economist: Since you
can't prove it, we must continue straight ahead and not disrupt our
schedule.
Greenpeace physicist:
Let's take a detour to be safe.
Economist: That
would be too expensive. Again, you have failed to prove there's an
avoidable collision with nature out there, so we must continue full
speed ahead.
Greenpeace physicist:
Sir, this planet is known to have natural limitations, so a
collision with nature would not be entirely unexpected.
Economist: I have
this environment report published by global corporations claiming
there are no major collisions with nature on the horizon.
Greenpeace physicist:
Sir, that report is 10 years old. Environment despoilation has
increased substantially over that period. The latest scientific
research indicates that we are on a massive collision course with
nature.
Economist: Even if
we were on a collision course as you claim, a small detour from our
corporate agenda would probably lead us into the path of other
natural obstacles with the added cost of an expensive delay in
reaching our objective. As it is, we are running late. Captain, you
must order an increase in speed!
Greenpeace physicist:
Sir, as we come closer, the course ahead indeed looks more and
more like a massive collision with nature!
Economist: This ship
is tough. And the relative importance of biosphere-climate
despoilation and species extinction causing irrepairable damage to
all life on board is still highly disputed. Even if there were an
avoidable collision with nature straight ahead, we could just plow
through it.
Greenpeace physicist:
Sir, if we start a small course change now, it will cause less
delay than if we wait until we're closer.
Economist: We can't
afford any delays. Maybe this physicist can afford to arrive later,
but it would be unfair to our short term investors and they won't
stand for it. In fact, the faster we go, the better chance we have
of plowing through this massive obstacle. Captain, I must insist we
increase speed to the fullest possible!
Who gets the last
word?
Climate is always changing.
But the rate at which we are imposing long-term changes on
components of the Earth's climate system has no geological analogue
back to at least the time when dinosaurs disappeared. Economists
seem happy to ignore this and are more comfortable replacing
uncertain science with sloppy science using outdated citation of
correlations, which, without physical links, do not imply causation,
at least in the physical sciences. They also ignore geological
evidence that variations in atmospheric CO2 have driven past climate
change (e.g., Shackleton, Science, Sept 15, 2000).
When dealing with complex
non-linear systems with layers of feedbacks such as the climate
system, certainty is often unattainable. But when faced with
uncertainty and risk, most of us will take some precautions. Those
who ignore the probable effects of increasing greenhouse gases decry
scientific uncertainty, but appear to claim enough certainty in
their own positions that precautionary reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions aren't warranted.
Economists are happy to
impose large-scale socioeconomic dislocations in the name of the
free market. They then complain that changes to the economic order
will most hurt the poor and conveniently ignore that it's the
current economic order that is hurting the poor the
most.
The economists bottom line
appears to be that both the biosphere (which includes us) and the
climate system must adapt to the current economic/energy
system. I guess the free market has replaced God!
If we don't find socially acceptable ways to
stabilise the population, it will be limited by starvation, disease
and warfare. We should aim for a more civilised outcome. Many
European countries now have a stable population.
Even suggesting that a future world may not
necessarily involve economic growth is enough to cause most
conventional economists to hyper-ventilate. But common sense tells
us that we can't go on indefinitely increasing our resource use and
putting more pressure on natural systems. About half of the earth's
surface has now been transformed for human needs. Telling people
that growth can go on for ever is the well-trodden path to political
popularity but it is just irresponsible.
Successive global reports have been saying for
30 years that we can move to a sustainable world, but it will
involve significant changes. Paul Raskin and his co-authors said in
The Great Transition, published recently, "The momentum
toward an unsustainable future can be reversed, but only with great
difficulty." It will require "fundamental shifts in desired
lifestyles, values and technology", and will take several
decades.
We should not be afraid of this. Today's Canada
is very different from the country in which I grew up, and the
Canada of 2050 will be very different again. We have a duty to our
own children to be moving toward a sustainable future.
If you know you are on the Titanic and heading
towards the iceberg, it doesn't make sense to charge straight on or
speed up. The only sensible response is to plot a different course.
Our ecological iceberg is some way ahead, but we are heading towards
it. Changing course will be difficult, but less painful than the
alternative of telling our children to brace themselves for the
collision. | 