For more than 40 years we
have talked about the sustainability of our life choices as a species. From
1972 in Stockholm to 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, we are yet to reach a consensus on
concrete action to put our civilization on an even keel with our planet
In 1972 Donella Meadows and
colleagues in their seminal book, The
Limits to Growth, pleaded for profound technological, cultural and
institutional change to avoid the increase of our ecological footprint beyond the
Earth’s carrying capacity. Evidently we have not paid attention. Collectively,
we have been long on rhetoric and short on concrete action to steer our planet
and our civilization on a sustainable path.
The world’s population has
grown from 3.84 billion in 1972 to 7.3 billion today. Globally, we lose about
23 hectares of arable land per minute. In 30 years we have seen the unraveling
of the Green Revolution as soils turned saline, ground water has been depleted.
As we opened up land for cities, farms and pastures we destroyed habitats and
exterminated biodiversity and vital biodiversity collapsed. As we powered our
homes and factories and moved goods and services we cast a cocktail of foul
gases into the atmosphere our planet warmed and the oceans acidified.
In 1987 we formalized the
definition of sustainable development, awakening the conscious of politicians
and development aficionados to an evolving global crisis. But the world barely
stirred in its slumber. The notion of sustainability became instantly divisive
in an ideological sense; largely perceived as an assault on the broad and noble
goals of accumulation for socio-economic development.
In 2002, Nobel Laureate and
Chemist described our age as the Anthropocene;
the age in which mankind posses a
capacity to alter Earth processes on a scale hitherto assumed possible by
earthquakes, volcanoes and glaciers. In 2009, a group of scientist warned that
were pushing hard beyond the safe operating zone on vital life support systems.
Johan Rockstrom and his colleagues added the notion of planetary boundaries to
the global discourse on sustainability. For over decade before 2009, a group of
interdisciplinary scholars under the auspices of the Resilience Alliance had
argued for inclusion of transformation and renewal when talking about
sustainable development.
The rise of China,
economically, seems to have complicated the path to a global agreement on
curbing green house gas emissions. China believes that it too, just like
Europe, Japan and North America must burn dirty hydrocarbon fuels on its way to
economic and social advancement. The US believes that cutting back emissions
and leading the scientific and technological innovation to transition to green
economy will somehow diminish its global power status. How ludicrous!
On global warming Africa is
the victim here. Africa believes it is owed technology and loads of cash to
adapt to climate change. What about Africa’s own budgetary resources? We know
that grand theft and corruption has created thousands of odiously wealthy
politicians and public servants. Do African universities have any role in
driving innovations to cope and adapt to the local effects of climate change?
Moreover, Africa is to too
poor to preserve its forests, wetlands, lakes and farmlands. The excuse usually
is that we must destroy these resources just to eke out a living. We would like
to believe that there is some kind of Environmental Kuznets Curve; that we must
destroy and profit from nature, and create the wealth to then preserve nature.
We are saying to nature there is no such thing as free lunch. This is Grade B
tripe!
In the foreword to Jeffery
Sachs’ new book, The Age of Sustainable
Development, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon notes that poverty plagues mankind,
climate change threatens livelihoods, conflicts are raging and inequality is
widening. The Age of Sustainable Development is beckoning. Do we have the
courage to hearken to the call?
We must do more that
converge in New York in September 2015 to register commitments to the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). We committed to the MDGs and 15 years down the road
there is so little to show, except the need to agree on another set of global
development goals. Can this time be different?
Sustainability must be more
than goals nations commit to. It must reflect individual and collective
understanding and respect for the inextricable connections between humans and
nature and about equitable and inclusive socio-economic prosperity for all of
mankind.
No comments:
Post a Comment