Australia has strong ties with the global economy. At the moment neither Australia nor the global economy are ecologically sustainable. Global warming is a key indicator; there are others.
To a significant extent economic increase drives environmental deterioration - at least in the affluent parts of the world. This is because economic increase is based on increasing the production and consumption of material goods, which currently involves increasing CO2 emissions and industrial toxins.
Thus it would appear that in our present industrial civilisation economic increase and environmental sustainability are incompatible. This might be called The Great Contradiction.
Below I will show some graphs from Prof Will Steffen (ANU) showing the correlation between economic increase, population growth and increase in global economic activity...
My question for this forum is: is it true that achieving environmental sustainability and pursuing global economic growth are incompatible?
Our answer to this will shape many other considerations.
Andrew Gaines, Alliance for Sustainable Wellbeing; Member of the Society for Sustainable Business
Andrew Gaines has thirty years experience improving human performance as a Feldenkrais practitioner, creativity trainer and psychotherapist. His book "Evolving a World That Works" explores the connections between the environment, our industrial system, economics and psychology, and highlights constructive points of change that can make Australia a world leader in ecological sustainability and social wellbeing.
The Society For Sustainable Business is a vehicle for multi-disciplinary professionals and their organisations to network, exchange ideas, support one another, build partnerships, and to dialogue on the technical, social and practical aspects of achieving sustainability. Major goals include the creation of a network of qualified change agents who will give presentations, forums and workshops to senior business leaders, as well as provide presentations, education and workshops to business professionals at all levels.
________________________________________
Graph 1
Graph 2
Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P.D., Jäger, J., Matson, P., Moore III, B., Oldfield, F., Richardson, K., Schellnhuber, H.-J., Turner II, B.L. and Wasson, R.J. (2004). Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. The IGBP Book Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 336 pp.
The references to the data for each individual panel are given in the book.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Definitely not. This is a
Definitely not. This is a huge topic so I'll just point out one perspective. Japan has risen to a world power economically from total poverty after the 2nd world war on the back of manufacturing. Their production systems are designed around a waste elimination philosophy. In this context waste equals cost.
Clearly waste elimination is ecologically beneficial. No waste - no pollution.
Economics will change with environmental sustainability
The coincidence of environmental degradation and economic prosperity is just that. A simple counter example: some of the worst polluters (such as the old Soviet bloc states) have been economic basket cases.
But more fundamentally, no simple coincidence tells us anything without some underpinning modelling.
In my view, we do have a big problem in the way so many economies depend on the huge industries that go with mined energy. When you dig up coal and burn it (or uranium and 'fission' it) you enjoy economic returns from the mines and the towns that are built, in some cases the necessary refining of ore, the transportation of the fuel to the power plants, the building and operation of the power plants, and in the case of nuclear, you even have industries created around waste disposal.
In most renewable electricity generation schemes, there will not be nearly so much economic activity, just the building and maintenance of windmills/solar cells/geothermal plants/tidal turbines. I think this is surely going to take some adjustment.
Stephen Wilson.
cost and adjustments
Some good points, the structural adjustments associated with switching from dirty power to clean power are going to have serious effects across the whole economy because as you so rightly point out Stephen coal-based power production is deeply entrenched in our economy. Although I think there's merit in the notion that a rapid push toward alternative power sources, simply by removing the subsidies currently enjoyed by the dirty power sector, would enable us to develop technologies for which global demand is set to increase dramatically. (Not sure about the Japan example - they're facing some serious pollution problems thanks to a tendency to incinerate waste products - but would be interested in finding out more...)
There can certainly be economic growth, and prosperity within a sustainable system, inventing technologies to get ourselves out of these fixes is what human beings are so very good at after all, however it is crucial for governments to stop privileging the coal and mining sectors, and allow the price for the power they create to reflect the real cost, through carbon trading or whatever mechanism they come up with.