A friend and I were chatting this week over lunch (not as portrayed above) and speculating on how big the task is to save wildlife in the UK and on the planet, and what it would take to make a real difference.
We came up with three game-changing events:
1. A human pandemic
If half of us died then the survivors could make a better fist of living sustainably on the Earth – or would we just make the same mistakes (or bigger ones?) all over again?
2. Technological breakthrough
Are there solutions out there which would allow us to travel as much as we like, use energy at current levels, eat as well as we do now, but also reduce our footprint on the planet and stop treading on wildlife? Is a free market the right context for finding those solutions or should governments get more involved and cooperate to provide a solution for humanity? What might be the role of GM crops in the future?
3. A change in approach
If there are just as many of us with similar technology to today then the only hope (?) is for changes to the way we live – quite drastic changes in some cases. Might that come from a bottom-up groundswell of opinion across the world or would it need an inspirational leader to emerge to persuade a few billion people to live differently? Can you see how either of those things might happen?
Got any good ideas – anyone?
[registration_form]
We need global rationing of power, fuel and consumables. And leaders (cultural as well as political) to make it acceptable and fashionable.
Hilary – thank you. I agree that a global approach would be wonderful as it immediately removes all that ‘unlevel playing field’ and ‘it’s not fair’ stuff. difficult to see that happening though – maybe we should start a global political party calling for it? Shouldn’t be too hard – what are you doing this afternoon?
Absolutely nothing that can’t wait. Will bring recycled paper and pencil stubs. Where do you want to meet?
I just recently did some deliveries in my truck around Brighton (Green Party council) and due to a dispute between the council and the binmen, rubbish has been left uncollected and rotting in the streets for a few weeks now, plastic from the recycling bins blowing across the streets etc. I got talking to a bloke at one of my drops and I asked him what’s with all the rubbish, he was telling me all about the dispute, the Green’s inability to deal with the situation and he himself was somewhat downbeat about the Green party in the council (he did vote for them…he says) and was saying how his vote next time would be for the Libs, so sadly on the basis of what I saw I can’t see the Green party being a strong voice for UK politics.
Hopefully you and Mark can sort out all the worlds woes just don’t use your car to meet up, Mark has consumed enough fossil fuels this year!
This is one of the few things that I tend to agree with moonbat on.
http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/
and that’s enough of that. His moonbattiness has had more than enough coverage on this blog recently…
1) A pandemic – let’s hope not.
2) A technological breakthrough – a pipe dream.
3) A change in approach – not likely I’m afraid. Sadly, despite the advances of science and our related ability to make predictions about the future we remain fundamentally a reactive species, unwilling or unable to change our current behaviour in the interests of a hazy future we may not experience. Just look at our fisheries management to see how short term we can be. Science offers few certainties, only probabilities, and we all seem inclined to continue in the remote hope that things will turn out fine (someone will crack cold fusion maybe) or we’ll be dead and it’ll be someone else’s problem.
So I am certain we will carry on pretty much regardless, occasionally indulging in some hand wringing along the way as we lament the shifting baselines of ever-declining environmental expectation experienced by each new generation. Until this nibbling away at the earth’s diversity of life finally results in a catastrophic global collapse of ecosystem services, one so severe that it even affects the insulated rich and powerful, we will ignore all warning signs in the interests of short term gratification and political expediency. That’s simply human nature.
I have got no good ideas but unfortunately I think if ‘people’ is the problem then ‘people’ is the answer and I suspect this is where that selfish gene kicks in. Yes we do need global rationing of power etc and global leaders able to do it, but it will be case of ‘NIMBY’.
Alright, I am feeling a bit grumpy today but how many of these decisions are taken at Govt level over 3/5 course dinners or having flown around the world in private jets to get there.
I must finish this quickly as my lunch is about to be served but I do fear the outcome is likely to be a combination of your scenario 1 backed up by necessity with scenario 2. I do fear for the next few generations.
Mark, thanks for this. There’s no point in conservation unless we believe it will make a difference in the longer term. Postponing the inevitable is not much of a cause!
1. The probability that people will take the second chance in the event of a pandemic is dependent on the third option, namely that there is a groundswell of change leading to a lifestyle change, and one couldn’t hope for a pandemic anyway.
2. Technological advances have so far only led to us exploiting resources at a quicker rate, not reducing consumption.
3. Which leaves only the third option. At some point humanity will realise what a mess we’ve made of it and realise we’ve got to change fast. Let’s hope its not too late.
In response to Ralph’s cartoon. I would submit that we have no right to discuss population without first addressing the issue of our own personal consumption. Hey, maybe i could do something about working on Mark’s groundswell this afternoon: Where can i make a radical lifestyle change and reduce my own personal consumption?
Francis – welcome and many thanks.
I have to admit I think the pandemic is the one that might, and I say might work. It has got to strike in the ‘developed’ world, although if it hits all continents that would be useful.
In case anyone replies with a “bet you want to survive it”, actually I am not concerned either way.
Look no further then Russia and it’s inability to deal with human form of Tb and last year alone killed 20,000. And it’s now becoming drug resistant (let’s hope it doesn’t make it over here, we’ve all seen how we deal with Tb in animals!!).
Feel sure that hardly anyone will agree but although I really wish that we could sort it out by agreeing to waste less,consume less,no more wars and several other things that would prolong the standard of living for future generations they are all pie in the sky.That in my opinion just leaves the option of just one child per family which would have to be enforced absolutely.
“just one child per family which would have to be enforced absolutely” **
Easy for someone in the opulent west to recommend.
Less easy for those in the developing world who have multiple children almost as an insurance policy (so to speak).
No.
The problem’s root isn’t overpopulation.
It’s much more to do with unequal distribution of “wealth” and “consumption”.
**Even China doesnt enforce this “absolutely”. (Which they couldn’t of course…. no-one can).
It would need to be one hell of a pandemic to halve current world population. The Spanish flu of 1918 was a highly traumatic event but made barely a pin prick on total world population levels.
If we were to face a pandemic that did wipe out half the total world population then we would very likely go into a significant decline economically and technologically as we simply would be unable to maintain the modern technological systems after such a massive loss of life. It would undoubtedly hugely reduce our impact on biodiversity for a very long time.
Such an event seems pretty unlikely which leaves the other two options. I do believe both technology and and a change in approach will be necessary to meet the challenges we face. Technological change will be forced upon us as fossil fuels become less readily available and if alternatives struggle to supply energy at the same rate we are likely to be obliged to learn to do more with less.
With regards to feeding the population we clearly need to learn to be more efficient. This is a huge challenge – we have seen how agriculture can dramatically increase yields per hectare but also the harmful impacts this can have on biodiversity water quality and in some areas at least on long term soil productivity. We need to find ways around these problems in order to be able to carry on feeding 7 billion people and more and cannot pretend that there are easy, painless ways of doing this. Some of the options involve eating less meat, wasting less food and possibly considering new and unorthodox food sources but none of these is a solution by itself.
Some combination of 2 and 3 might be less painful than we might think. I don’t subscribe to the idea that we are doomed unless we go back to living in the stone age.
It is possible that we might solve our energy problems rather easily. The ability to create biofuels from algae for example might change the world very quickly. Perhaps this will never happen, but there are many other opportunities in the pipeline.
I don’t agree that the challenge to change our approach is so huge. Societies and culture can change fairly rapidly and often do so because people want to adopt different ways, not because they are forced to.
Perhaps the biggest problem is getting the world to recognize that our current lack of sustainability and its impact on the natural world, is going to lead to serious problems in the future. However overstating the challenges and saying “it’s going to be really tough, and you’ll hate it” dissuades society from taking simple actions that can make a big difference.
Rob – many thanks.
A pandemic. Brilliant. Maybe it’ll be just like Europe after the black death.
Alex – thank you.
I was out yesterday at Langholm. Amazing views of Hen Harriers. 3 -4 young birds in the air together learning sky dancing. A lad turned up who is always there. I complained about the management of the moor with chemical sprey used all over the place. ‘that’s not the problem’. ‘Its the guns wanting more birds to shoot’. ‘How can we protect these wild places’ i said. Too many people in thee world’ he said. ‘Hang on a minute. Look around you. Not a sole in sight. certainly not to enjoy the specktical we had just whitnessed’. And there lies the real problem. Do they really care!
People will not change or do anything radical to adapt their lifestyles unless their survival is threatened. Humanity needs to use less energy and take a smaller proportion of earths productivity for itself before the natural world will see any real benefits.
What we need is a collapse of industrial civilisation, even a small pandemic affecting less than 10 percent of the population could precipitate it. Lets face it we are already in a depression and the economic outlook is grim for many people. That need not be a bad thing, in fact we should welcome it and all learn to get by with less. I would tax the large corporations, which are hoarding all the cash and causing the bulk of the environmental damage, out of existence and then change our whole economy to focus on small scale entrepreneurial business and environmental improvement, all organised at local level, with a mass bonfire of bureaucracy at all levels. Revolutionising agriculture and forestry would be a big part if that.
Sadly not many folks will go for such a radical approach but as Guy MacPherson, on the extreme fringe of ‘doomer porn’ points out, nature bats last.
A collapse of the Yellowstone caldera – allegedly long overdue – could spoil things for a lot of people. Apart from covering large areas of North Americol with an inconveniently thick layer of ash the ejection of dust into the atmosphere will provide beautiful sunsets for years so aspiring Turner copyists can paint while we all starve in a succession of severe winters and failed summers.
filbert – or just create total winter for the northern hemisphere for decades. Yes, that would be one to add to the list. If it happens, I would like to be watching a grizzly inside the caldera when it happens please – that would be a good way to go, and a way to avoid the unpleasantness.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/newly-discovered-asteroid-2013ps13-shadowing-2005wk4-whizzes-past-earth-today/
How big is the task to save the wildlife in the UK? Really Mark! I thought we all knew the answer. Send your daughter/grand-daughter out to the garden and make a hedgehog box and then (the best thing that you can do) join the rspb. That’s what is says on the tin.
Sorted.