Right Action

WE SHOULD ACT LIKE THE ANIMALS WE ARE

Jo Marchant of New Scientist interviews David Suzuki

By Jo Marchant

Is anything more important than the environment?

I can't imagine anything more important than air, water, soil, energy and biodiversity. These are the things that keep us alive.

So why do we put the economy first, and use it to define progress?

You would have thought that our first priority would be to ask what the ecologists are finding out; because we have to live within the conditions and principles they define. Instead, we've elevated the economy above ecology. After all, ecology and economics have the same root -- "eco", from the Greek oikos, for "home". Ecology is the study of home, economics is the management of home, and of course, our home is the biosphere.

How do the economists answer you?

They believe humans are so creative and productive that the sky's the limit, that if we run out of resources, we'll find substitutes. If the substitutes run out, we'll go to the moon, mine asteroids or harvest sunlight in space and microwave it to Earth. They think the whole universe is there as a potential resource.

Isn't space a potential resource?

The option of going into space allows you to pretend that technology will get our asses out of any problem so we don't have to worry, which is just not true. Limitless resources are a fool's dream that we can never achieve. The reality is we are biological beings dependent on the biosphere. What kind of intelligent creature, knowing that these are our crucial limitations, would act as if we can use Earth as a garbage can and not pay a price for that?

Has any human society ever lived sustainably?

When we were hunter-gatherers we had a very small ecological footprint because all we had was what we could carry from one place to another. But as technology increased, we began to live in large aggregates of villages, and people started to use more than the surroundings could supply. As a result, civilizations collapsed again and again, as Jared Diamond described in Collapse. In the past, though, when conditions got more difficult, people were able to move. That's why we spread out from Africa. Well, we filled the world up. Now we're the most numerous mammals on the planet and causing an unprecedented extinction crisis.

Our future is very much at stake. So what can we do now?

We can't go back to scrounging a living off the land -- we wouldn't be able to do it. Also, the land wouldn't be able to tolerate that kind of assault from so many people. For example, 85 per cent of Canadians live in large cities. We're stuck with those urban places, so they have to be made much more benign in terms of energy and resource throughput. We've never had to do this in our history.

Will we need to lower our standard of living?

Yes, if you determine your standard of living by how much money you've got or what material goods you have. But if you judge standard of living by quality of life, by your relationships with other people and your community, then I say that truly sustainable communities offer a far preferable way to live.

What would a sustainable society look like to you?

First, we must acknowledge that we are animals. If you give a speech to children in North America and say: "Don't forget that we're animals," their parents get very angry and reply: "Don't call my daughter an animal, we're human beings." We like to think of ourselves as elevated above other creatures. But the human body evolved to be active, so denying we are biological creatures has taken us in the opposite direction: we stuff ourselves with more than we need, sit on our asses and drive 10 blocks instead of walking! Sustainable living would be much healthier: we would go out and walk around because there would be shops, musicians and people out on the street that we'd want to meet. That's what community is all about.

Plus we have to stop this crazy stuff where cell phones are turning over every six to eight months, where people rush to get the latest iPod, and then it all goes into landfill.

What about population growth?

We're way overpopulated. But it's not just a function of numbers; it also has to do with per capita consumption. The industrialized world has only 20 per cent of Earth's population but uses more than 80 per cent of the resources and produces more than 80 per cent of the toxic waste. I asked a top ecologist at Harvard University how many humans Earth could sustainably support, and he said 200 million if you want to live like North Americans. Even if you only look at industrialized countries, there are way too many of us. When I say this, people get angry. They say the stores are filled with food, we're living longer than ever, we're better off. Well, the reason we have the illusion that everything is OK is because we're using up what our children and grandchildren should expect to inherit.

How do you hope to persuade governments and businesses to make fundamental changes?

When you talk to politicians, they're just focused on the next election. When you talk to business people, they're just focused on the next quarterly report. At the Suzuki Foundation we say to them, let's look ahead a generation. Let's imagine a Canada where the air is clean, and fewer than 15 per cent of kids develop asthma. Let's imagine a Canada covered in forest we can log forever because we're doing it the right way; a Canada where you can drink water from any river or lake, or catch a fish and eat it without worrying about what chemicals are in it. When you define a vision for the future that way, everybody agrees. That's very powerful because you've done two things: we're no longer fighting because we're all on the same side, and we've got a target.

Can you achieve that target?

We have divided foundation activities into nine areas, such as energy, waste, water and food, with targets we believe are achievable in 25 years. We call it "sustainability within a generation". And our parliament just passed a bill mandating that government activities be filtered through the lens of sustainability within a generation. I'm very proud of that.

We also ought to be pulling back on taxes on good things that we want to encourage, and tax the hell out of bad things. We pay CAN$99 a tonne to put garbage into a landfill but we don't pay to put pollutants into the air! Our corporate community screams and yells at the very suggestion of a carbon tax but I'm sure one is coming, it's only a matter of time.

You're clearly very passionate about this.

I have grandchildren. Anybody that's not passionate about this doesn't give a shit about their grandchildren. I'm 72. I would love to be retired and doing some painting and the other things that I've left off doing all these years, but I don't ever want my grandchild to look at me and say: "Grandpa, you could have done more."

==============

David Suzuki received a PhD in zoology from the University of Chicago. He hosts CBC's long-running science show The Nature of Things, syndicated in more than 40 countries. He co-founded the David Suzuki Foundation in 1990, to work "to find ways for society to live in balance with the natural world that sustains us". Visit www.davidsuzuki.org.

Real Conservation

WHAT POLITICIANS DARE NOT SAY
By Tim Jackson

Scratch the surface of free-market capitalism and you discover something close to visceral fear. Recent events provide a good example: the US treasury's extraordinary $800 billion rescue package was an enormous comfort blanket designed to restore confidence in the ailing financial markets. By forcing the taxpayer to pick up the "toxic debts" that plunged the system into crisis, it aims to protect our ability to go on behaving similarly in the future. This is a short-term and deeply regressive solution, but economic growth must be protected at all costs.

As economics commissioner on the UK's Sustainable Development Commission, I found this response depressingly familiar. At the launch last year of our "Redefining Prosperity" project (which attempts to instill some environmental and social caution into the relentless pursuit of economic growth), a UK treasury official stood up and accused my colleagues and I of wanting to "go back and live in caves".

After a recent meeting convened to explore how the UK treasury's financial policies might be made more sustainable, a high-ranking official was heard to mutter: "Well, that is all very interesting, perhaps now we can get back to the real job of growing the economy."

The message from all this is clear: any alternative to growth remains unthinkable, even 40 years after the American ecologists Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren made some blindingly obvious points about the arithmetic of relentless consumption.

The Ehrlich equation, I = PAT, says simply that the impact (I) of human activity on the planet is the product of three factors: the size of the population (P), its level of affluence (A) expressed as income per person, and a technology factor (T), which is a measure of the impact on the planet associated with each dollar we spend.

Take climate change, for example. The global population is just under 7 billion and the average level of affluence is around $8000 per person. The T factor is just over 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per thousand dollars of GDP -- in other words, every $1000 worth of goods and services produced using today's technology releases 0.5 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So today's global CO2 emissions work out at 7 billion × 8 × 0.5 = 28 billion tonnes per year. [One tonne = 2200 pounds.]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that to stabilize greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a relatively safe 450 parts per million, we need to reduce annual global CO2 emissions to less than 5 billion tonnes by 2050. With a global population of 9 billion thought inevitable by the middle of this century, that works out at an average carbon footprint of less than 0.6 tonnes per person -- considerably lower than in India today. The conventional view is that we will achieve this by increasing energy efficiency and developing green technology without economic growth taking a serious hit. Can this really work?

With today's global income, achieving the necessary carbon footprint would mean getting the T factor for CO2 down to 0.1 tonnes of CO2 per thousand US dollars -- a fivefold improvement. While that is no walk in the park, it is probably doable with state-of-the-art technology and a robust policy commitment. There is one big thing missing from this picture, however: economic growth. Factor it in, and the idea that technological ingenuity can save us from climate disaster looks an awful lot more challenging.

First, let us suppose that the world economy carries on as usual. GDP per capita will grow at a steady 2 or 3 per cent per year in developed countries, while the rest of the world tries to catch up -- China and India leaping ahead at 5 to 10 per cent per year, at least for a while, with Africa languishing in the doldrums for decades to come. In this (deeply inequitable) world, to meet the IPCC target we would have to push the carbon content of consumption down to less than 0.03 tonnes for every thousand US dollars spent -- a daunting 11-fold reduction on the current western European average.

Now, let's suppose we are serious about eradicating global poverty. Imagine a world whose 9 billion people can all aspire to a level of income compatible with a 2.5 per cent growth in European income between now and 2050. In this scenario, the carbon content of economic output must be reduced to just 2 per cent of the best currently achieved anywhere in the European Union.

In short, if we insist on growing the economy, then we will have to reduce the carbon intensity of our spending to a tiny fraction of what it is now. If growth is to continue beyond 2050, so must improvements in efficiency. Growth at 2.5 per cent per year from 2050 to the end of the century would more than triple the global economy beyond the 2050 level, requiring almost complete decarbonisation of every last dollar.

The potential for technological improvements, renewable energy, carbon sequestration and, ultimately perhaps, a hydrogen-based economy has not been exhausted. But what politicians will not admit is that we have no idea if such a radical transformation is even possible, or if so what it would look like. Where will the investment and resources come from? Where will the wastes and the emissions go? What might it feel like to live in a world with 10 times as much economic activity as we have today?

Instead, they bombard us with advertisements cajoling us to insulate our homes, turn down our thermostats, drive a little less, walk a little more. The one piece of advice you will not see on a government list is "buy less stuff". Buying an energy-efficient TV is to be applauded; not buying one at all is a crime against society.

Agreeing reluctantly to advertising standards is the sign of a mature society; banning advertising altogether (even to children) is condemned as "culture jamming". Consuming less may be the single biggest thing you can do to save carbon emissions, and yet no one dares to mention it. Because if we did, it would threaten economic growth, the very thing that is causing the problem in the first place.

Visceral fear is not without foundation. If we do not go out shopping, then factories stop producing, and if factories stop producing people get laid off. If people get laid off, they do not have any money. And if they don't have any money they cannot go shopping. A falling economy has no money in the public purse and no way to service public debt. It struggles to maintain competitiveness and it puts people's jobs at risk. A government that fails to respond appropriately will soon find itself out of office.

This is the logic of free-market capitalism: the economy must grow continuously or face an unpalatable collapse. With the environmental situation reaching crisis point, however, it is time to stop pretending that mindlessly chasing economic growth is compatible with sustainability. We need something more robust than a comfort blanket to protect us from the damage we are wreaking on the planet. Figuring out an alternative to this doomed model is now a priority before a global recession, an unstable climate, or a combination of the two forces itself upon us.

==============

Tim Jackson is professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Surrey, UK. His research focuses on understanding the social, psychological and structural dimensions of sustainable living. He is also a member of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises the UK government.

Future Green Jobs

U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS and GLOBAL INSIGHT Study GREEN JOBS

Dwindling natural resources, growing global demand for energy, climate change – these issues are irrevocably altering our global economy. In their report, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Global Insight have examined the economic benefits of the 'Green Economy' - that part of economic activity which is devoted to the reduction of fossil fuels, the increase of energy efficiency, and the curtailment of greenhouse gas emissions. The greening of the U.S. economy, of the global economy, is not a dismantling of the past, but a new step forward – the next step in a continuous process of economic growth and transformation that began with industrialization and led us through the high-tech revolution.

The economic advantages of the Green Economy include the macroeconomic benefits of investment in new technologies, greater productivity, improvements in the US balance of trade, and increased real disposable income across the nation. They also include the microeconomic benefits of lower costs of doing business and reduced household energy expenditures. These advantages are manifested in job growth, income growth, and of course, a cleaner environment.

OIL AND GAS CONSUMPTION
As is well known, the United States has a thirst for oil that well exceeds its production. In 1970, when domestic oil production peaked, net imports of foreign oil supplied 21% of total consumption in the United States. By 2007, that figure had risen to 59%, and Global Insight forecasts the import share of consumption to rise to 65% by 2030, unless measures are taken to decrease America's dependence on foreign sources of oil. [For Puerto Rico, 98% of all electricity produced on the island is based on coal or petroleum products, and all of them are imported.]

The primary driver behind our ever-increasing demand for foreign oil is the transportation sector, namely cars and trucks. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) the transportation sector consumed 69% of total petroleum products in 2007. Global Insight estimates that the transportation sector consumed a combined 179 billion gallons of petroleum-based fuels in 2007, and demand for all petroleum products is forecast to grow 7.7% by 2030. That increased demand, combined with lower domestic production, is expected to result in a 27% increase in daily petroleum imports by 2030 over 2007 levels. The transportation sector also accounted for 33% of CO2 emissions in 2007. [Puerto Rico buys $4 billion dollars worth of foreign fossil fuels a year, or just about 30% of our GDP.]

Our increased reliance on foreign oil has led to significant debate on topics such as energy security, foreign policy, and financial stability related to the widening trade deficit. Combining Global Insight’s oil import forecast with our expectations for crude oil prices, we are currently forecasting an average outflow of $240 billion per year, measured in 2006 dollars, to pay for imported oil through the year 2030.2 That $240 billion dollars, or 2.3% of Gross Domestic Product, acts very much as a tax on the U.S. economy. Indeed, it is worse than a tax - for the money flows out of the country, not to be re-invested in areas such as health care, education, or infrastructure.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Energy demand outside of the transportation sector is also growing, as the population increases and energy-dependent appliances continue to be ever more integrated into homes and businesses. The residential and commercial construction sectors, which use energy for heating and cooling buildings and homes, and electricity for lighting and appliances, are major sources of consumption.

Global Insight projects that by 2030, more than 36 million new homes and 20 billion square feet of commercial building space will be constructed to accommodate new demand and replace older structures. This new construction will generate net additional demand of 790 billion kilowatt hours of electricity by 2030, equivalent to 465 million barrels of oil. Electricity expenditures in 2030 for those net additions are expected to be $120 billion.

Electricity generation can also have a negative effect on health conditions. Pollution caused by "dirty" power plants (namely, coal-generated utilities), car and truck congestion, and energy-intensive manufacturing plants, all have adverse health effects on the population.

A GREENER ECONOMY
Scientists have almost universally accepted that global climate change is a reality. As a result, many nations are making concerted efforts to reduce the buildup of carbon dioxide CO2) and other GHG emissions either by reducing the use of fossil fuels or by finding ways to prevent emissions from entering the atmosphere. While the United States accounts for only 5% of the world's population, it accounts for 20% of worldwide energy usage and 20% of global CO2 emissions. Becoming a greener economy will enable the U.S. to transition to a lower carbon economy, a step in the direction of preventing the adverse effects of global warming as well as improving public health and stabilizing energy expenditures. It will also create a significant number of new jobs.

Global Insight has calculated the current total number of Green Jobs in the U.S. across several broad industries. These are industries that have high growth potential as the U.S. becomes a greener economy. We have also calculated potential growth under assumptions for the future of renewable electricity generation, increased energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings, and increased usage of renewable fuels by the transportation sector.

This data has been broken out at both the national and the metro level. Metropolitan economies are the engines of U.S. economic growth; if investment in green industries is to successfully transform the U.S. economy, it must happen at the metropolitan and local level. This investment is critical to our competitiveness in the global economy, to our living standards, indeed, to our future. These investments carry macroeconomic benefits as well – they create jobs, increase productivity, and generate income that creates further jobs. It is a virtuous cycle, an investment that has real returns for both the short and the long term.

We estimate that as of 2006 there were just more than 750,000 Green Jobs in the U.S. economy. More than half of existing jobs were in Engineering, Legal, Research and Consulting, revealing the importance of these indirect jobs to the Green Economy. The second largest category was Renewable Power Generation, with more than 127,000 jobs. Agriculture and Forestry provided a significant contribution of 57,500 jobs.

Green Jobs by Major Category

Renewable Power Generation 127,246
Agriculture and Forestry 57,546
Construction & Systems Installation 8,741
Manufacturing 60,699
Equipment Dealers & Wholesalers 6,205
Engineering, Legal, Research & Consulting 418,715
Government Administration 71,900

Total 751,051

See the full report here:http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/GreenJobsReport.pdf

Grading the Politicians by Environmental Standards

¡Las EcoNotas!
Lunes 3 de noviembre, 2008
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contacto: Ricardo de Soto (787) 996-0888

El Comité Evaluador de la Legislación Ambiental (CELA) emitió esta tarde las EcoNotas, donde como ya es tradición, se evalúa la actuación Ambiental de la legislatura.

El CELA mantiene esta gestión de escudriñar el record legislativo para informar al pueblo sobte la actuación de su legislatura. ¿Fué a favor o en detrimento de la integridad del medio ambiente.? Otorgándoles una nota (A<>F) de acuerdo a su gestión legislativa, esperamos alertar al público al respecto. “La conspiración por parte de la industria del desastrollo para corromper al gobierno de Puerto Rico hasta ahora ha sido sumamente efectiva. Ha llegado a las más altas esferas. Lo demuestra claramente el caso de Castro Font y las irregularidades en torno a la decisión del Supremo en Paseo Caribe, así como la inacción de Justicia sobre todos los otros angulos de este caso. Se pretende entre otros males, privatizar los bienes de dominio público. Los bienes que no son de nadie porque son de todos. De facto existen dos poderes en la política el dinero los votos: Vox populi… Vox Dei.” Expresó Ricardo de Soto, GuardaMar de Puerto Rico.


A Continuación Las EcoNotas:
A+
Maria de Lourdes Santiago Negrón PIP SENADO A +
Orlando Parga,Hijo PNP SENADO A +

A
Victor García San Inocencio PIP Camara de Representantes A
José Luis Rivera Guerra PNP Camara de representantes A
Eudaldo Baez Galib PPD SENADO A
A-

B+
Cirilo Tirado,Hijo PPD SENADO B +

B

B-
Carlos Vizcarrondo Irrizarry PPD Camara de Representantes B menos
Johnny Méndez Nuñez PNP Camara de Representantes B menos
Norma Burgos PNP SENADO B menos
Antonio Silva Delgado PNP Camara de Representantes B menos
Javier A. Rivera Aquino PNP Camara de Representantes B menos
Luis Vega Ramos PDP Cámara de Representantes B menos

C+
Luz Z. Arce Ferrer PNP Senado C +
Lornna Soto PNP SENADO C +

C
Héctor Ferre Rios PPD Camara de Representantes C
Liza Fernández PNP Camara de Representantes C
Jorge Navarro Suárez PNP Camara de Representantes C
Nelson Del Valle PNP Camara de Representantes C
Héctor Torres PNP Camara de Representantes C
Gabriel Rodríguez Aguiló PNP Camara de Representantes C
Carlos Molina PNP Camara de Representantes C
José E. Concepción Hernández PNP Camara de Representantes C
Sergio Ortiz Quiñones PPD Camara de Representantes C
Carlos M. Hernández López PPD Camara de Representantes C
Norman Rámirez Rivera PNP Camara de Representantes C
Lydia Méndez Silva PPD Camara de Representantes C
Roberto Cruz Rodríguez PPD Camara de Representantes C
Ramón A. Reyes PPD Camara de Representante C
José L. Jiménez Negrón PNP Camara de Representante C
Carmen I González González PPD Camara de Representantes C
Pedro I. Cintrón González PNP Camara de Representantes C
Jorge L. Ramos Peña PNP Camara de Representantes C
Sylvia Rodríguez Aponte de Corujo PPD Camara de Representantes C
José M. Varela Fernández PPD Camara de Representantes C
Angel R. Peña Rosa PNP Camara de representantes C
Cristóbal Colón Ruiz PNP Camara de Representantes C
Joel Rosario Hernández PPD Camara de representantes C
Pedro Rodríguez González PPD Camara de Representantes C
Epifanio Jiménez Cruz PNP Camara de Representantes C
Migdalia Padilla Alvelo PNP SENADO C
José Emilio Gonzalez PNP SENADO C
Modesto L. Agosto Alicea PPD SENADO C
Juan Eugenio Hernández Mayoral PPD SENADO C
Rafael A. García Colón PPD Camara de Representantes C

C-
Luis Raúl Torres Cruz PPD Camara de Representantes C menos
Angel Pérez Otero PNP Camara de Representantes C menos
Bernardo Márquez García PNP Camara de Representantes C menos

Roberto Rivera Ruiz de Porra PPD Camara de Representantes C menos
Carmelo Rios PNP SENADO C menos

D+
Pedro Rosselló González PNP SENADO D +

D
Iris M. Ruiz Class PNP Camara de Representante D
Maria de Lourdes Ramos Rivera PNP Camara de Representantes D
Rolando Crespo Arroyo PNP Camara de Representantes D
Francisco González Rodríguez PNP Camara de Representantes D
Alba I. Rivera Rámirez PNP Camara de Representantes D
Luis Pérez Ortiz PNP Camara de Representantes D
Tomás Bonilla feliciano PNP Camara de Representantes D
Angel Bulerín Ramos PNP Camara de Representantes D
Hector Martinez PNP SENADO D
Luis Daniel Muñiz Cortez PNP SENADO D
Carlos Pagán PNP SENADO D
Bruno A. Ramos Olivera PNP SENADO D
Margarita Nolasco Santiago PNP SENADO D
Sixto Hernandez Serrano PPD SENADO D
José J. García Cabán PPD Camara de Representantes D

D-
José Chico Vega PNP Camara de Representantes D menos
Jorge Colberg Toro PPD Camara de Representantes D menos
José Luis Dalmau Santiago PPD SENADO D menos
Antonio J. Faz Alzamorra PPD SENADO D menos

F
Jennifer Gonzalez Colón PNP Camara de Representantes F
Ferdinand Pérez Román PPD Camara de Representantes F
Roberto Arango PNP SENADO F
Sila Mari González Calderón PPD SENADO F

F-
José Aponte Hernández PNP Cámara de Representantes F menos
Carlos Diaz PNP SENADO F menos
Jorge De Castro Font PNP SENADO F menos
José Garriga Pico PNP SENADO F menos
Kenneth McClintock Hernández PNP SENADO F menos


Enemigos del medioambiente::

€ Jorge de Castro Font

€ Carlos Diaz

€ Kenneth McClintock

€ José Aponte

€ José Garriga Pico


Paladínes del medioambiente y la eco-logía social:
* Orlando Parga*
* Maria de Lourdes Santiago Negrón *