“I am Not a Scientist but I Am a Believer

You've heard the phrase “I'm not a scientist but...” It is the rallying cry of climate change deniers, those who cherish the status quo and believe that taking climate action will hurt the economy. Politicians in the US and Australia (and probably other parts of the world) clinging to their ill-fitting ideological cloaks have grabbed this phrase as a mantra: “I am not a scientist but...” Just last week the US Speaker of the House John Boehner avoided addressing the climate question by stating: “I am not qualified to debate the science of climate change” and then continued to discuss economic issues but forgot to mention that he was not an economist either.  In political jargon it's called "choosing your battles".  Trouble is, Climate Change is the nerd on the playground and always gets chosen last.  

If you really are a scientist, it appears that you believe that climate change is happening and that it is a threat, or at least 97% of you do, and I believe you. I believe that not taking action to survive in a changing physical environment will not just hurt the economy, but will make life in the future very different from life as we know it now. Politicians are not usually scientists, but we elect them to make decisions, to create and implement policy, to protect us as individuals, as well as protect the economy. Making sound decisions requires sound data and data comes from science. Our leaders should be consulting the best science as the foundation for decisions that will take us into an uncertain future. It is hard to know exactly what a person is thinking by listening to what they say or observing what they do, Nevertheless, one gets the impression that the “I am not a scientist but” club would like to take us back to the middle of the 20^th century, or earlier. It is easier to pretend to relive those years rather than make the hard decisions that need to be taken to ensure a sustainable future.

I may not be an environmental scientist but I can read. Ignorance is no excuse. We have the internet, we have MOOCs, Massive Open Online Courses available free from respected universities, (my favourite is Coursera), and of course there is the local library. The proposition that pollution will destroy the environment is not a new idea. Rachel Carson wrote The Silent Spring more than fifty years ago. (You can google an online copy.) It's true that she was concerned primarily with the issue of pesticides and their systemic effect, nevertheless,  her courage directly led to the US Environmental Protection Agency. As a consequence we took lead out of both paint and petrol. We stopped using DDT. Even in Los Angeles, we reduced smog.  And later we managed to close an ozone hole in the atmosphere.  Back in the middle of the 20^th century we discussed the notion that science was god, we believed that scientists could and would provide us with the answers for a better world. We believed, we made changes. But we got diverted. We are a little like small children and shiny objects.  What grabs our attention now can so easily be forgotten.  We are accustomed to the 24 hour news cycle.  Today's missing plane obliterates yesterday's tornado.  In our highly complex physical and social worlds things can change very quickly.  

Change, we know, is inevitable.  But it is not predictable. Confronting the inevitable is not simple. The environment is a complex system. When one thing changes, other things change as well. As the environment changes there is a natural biodiversity loss. Some species change, some diminish in numbers and disappear. That is a natural evolution. But a recent article in the journal Science suggested that our currents rates of extinction are more than 1000 times greater than they would be without human 'development'. We are losing biodiversity and we have no way of knowing the consequences.

We are losing more than biodiversity. We are losing the ice cap in Antarctica, Greenland's glaciers are diminishing and this is not because the air temperature is warming. It is because the ocean is warming. The ice is melting from underneath. On June 25 The New Scientist indicated that the disappearance of the ice sheets may already be irreversible. Rising seas are the inevitable consequence. As the oceans warm, they expand, that naturally raises the sea level. As the polar and glacial ice melts, the sea levels rise higher. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that the sea levels will rise a metre this century. Changing shorelines is predictable and so is the increased risk of storm damage to coastal areas. Cities that have never faced serious flooding are now at risk. The problem is magnified because most of the world's large cities are coastal. Historically, we built towns and villages near waterways. It was just common sense. The easier access to waterways for trade and transportation meant faster growth. Now those same cities, New York, Sydney, London, Shanghai, Singapore, Rotterdam, Yokohama (to name just a few) are at risk. These cities are the transportation and trade centres of the world. These cities are the home to millions and millions of people.

Not only are sea levels rising, but atmospheric temperature is rising.  A rise of two degrees will be uncomfortable and destructive to the global economy.  A rise of four degrees will be disastrous.   To state the obvious, rising temperature means heatwave, heatwave means drought, drought means failed crops and food shortages. Right now California is in the the midst of one of the greatest droughts in history. After three consecutive years of below-normal rainfall, Governor Jerry Brown has declared a state of emergency. Entrepreneurs have stopped drilling for oil and have started drilling for water. Just don't search for water anywhere near CSG exploration!

Here in Australia we seem to have a climate roller coaster, with alternating crises of not enough water, then way too much. Queensland struggles through sequential floods and droughts and Australia's breadbasket, The Murray-Darling Basin, has been plagued with problems associated with water mismanagement and salinity creep. Protecting our farmers and agriculture should be a number one priority. Everybody needs to eat!  We know that Agriculture and food preparation create nearly 30% of green house gasses globally. And it isn't all from ruminating livestock. Changing the levy on diesel fuel seems to be putting a bandaid on severed femoral artery. Why don't we have a policy that puts renewable energy on every farm, wind turbines and solar panels? Let the farmers harvest energy and keep them from bankruptcy. Help farms to be self sufficient, to run on renewables. Invest in desalination. Put scientists to work on finding better storage systems for energy.  One major obstacle to running on renewable energy is the problem of energy storage.  We need a better battery.  Jack Kennedy said “We can put a man on the moon” and we did. Tony Abbott could say “We can build a better battery and export it to the world!” But he probably won't. It's an El Nino year, so let's wait and see what the Prime Minister is saying early in 2015.

Rising sea levels and rising air and sea temperatures are a genuine threat to our way of life and to our physical well being. It is clear that we can't depend on many of our elected representatives to actually represent us. With that in mind, it is past time to elect people who do understand science and are willing to accept the challenges of a changing physical environment. For now, there is plenty we can do as individuals. Sustainability is not just political and environmental issue. It's personal. To end with a note of sarcasm: it's great to zip around in a flashy car, but it won't be quite so much fun if you run out of gas while trying to find something to eat or drink!

What is Sustainable Development?

This blog is about about the environment, about inequality, about social change, and about innovation and development.  These are big ideas and controversial.  So, defining Sustainable Development seems like a good place to start.

It used to be that when I talked about Sustainable Development people would immediately think of agriculture and start talking about the farm ... not any more.   Just a couple days ago our treasurer here in Australia used the phrase Sustainable Development to justify his anti-Keynesian economic strategy.  In a recent speech he even threw in the words green and recycle when talking about selling off state owned assets. Politicians speak in talking points, they use trigger words and they hope that we will only hear what they say and ignore what they mean.  My purpose here is to avoid mis-understanding.  This is not just about subsistence,  is it not just the new buzz word for political bean counters.

Sustainable Development is an emerging discipline with specific focus. It is a driving concept for much of the work of the United Nations over the past 40 years.  There is no simple definition, but we can get a good start with Wikipedia which states that: "Sustainable Development is an organising principle for a finite planet."  As an intellectual pursuit, sustainable development tries to make sense of the complex relationship between the world economy, the global society and the Earth's physical environment. Simply stated:  Sustainable Development calls for socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable economic growth.  It is here that the anti-Keynesian economists loose their grip on the term.  It is the 'socially inclusive' and environmentally sustainable' part of the economic growth that brings them unstuck.  Sustainable Development is, at its core, a statement of values, not a financial statement.  We value people and we value the planet and we want to be able to continue economic development that respects those values.

When we talk about Sustainable Development we mean growth for all without endangering the Earth we share, without ignoring our need for bio-diversity.  We mean protecting the rain forests, letting the rivers run, protecting the ocean and cleaning the air.  When we talk about Sustainable Development we mean no one left behind, health care that is inclusive, education that is inclusive, employment that is inclusive.  Sustainable Development does not understand discrimination on the bases of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference.  When we talk about Sustainable Development we are talking about values and responsibility.  Underpinning these lofty notions is the mandate for corporations to take seriously their role in our complex future including jobs, wages and profits, and stewardship of the environment.  There is a mandate for each of us to examine the place where we stand on this planet and the foot print that we leave.