MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
A BRIEF LOOK AT THE
SUCCESS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM Matthew Watkinson
INTRODUCTION After nearly fifty years of global environmentalism, I thought it might be worthwhile having a brief look at how successful the movement has been to date. A sort of performance review if you will. Much has been promised after all, and a lot of money donated, but promises and donations do not a guarantee make. Why, for instance, has it been up to the present generation, and only that generation, to change things for the best part of at least two generations? It suggests to me that promising miracles in return for cash might not be the best strategy and more than enough justification for a critical appraisal. As Winston Churchill once said: “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”
The WWF thinks we should just carry on regardless of course. They don’t say why it wasn’t up to past generations to act (and act then), or why previous generations failed to act even though they had more time, but they do say: “Whether we like it or not, it is up to our present generation to act, and act now...” and “We have only this generation to get sustainability and the environment right.” WWF, Roadmap for a Living Planet (http://ht.ly/35ZX5)
They think we should all just obediently honour existing promises, and Al Gore agrees: “It is our time to rise again to secure our future.” Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
I have to admit, I can’t quite work out why anybody would need to secure their future again, but that’s what he said. I guess he means ‘secure it for the first time again’, but whatever he means, he definitely thinks environmentalism should just carry on taking cash and making promises. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has absolutely no doubts that what may or may not have worked in the past will definitely work in the future: “Imagine a world in which human well-being for all is secure. Every individual has access to clean air and water, ensuring improvements in global health. Global warming has been addressed, through reductions in energy use, and investment in clean technology. Assistance is offered to vulnerable communities. Species flourish as ecosystem integrity is assured. Transforming these images into reality is possible, and it is this generation’s responsibility to start doing so.”
Again, they don’t say why it wasn’t the previous generation’s responsibility to start doing so, but, again, that’s definitely not a valid reason to delay a critical appraisal. An appraisal it is then, but before I continue I do need to point out that I’m not actually worried about the impact of humanity. I am worried about the impact on humanity, but that doesn’t mean I think there’s anything wrong. And it definitely doesn’t mean I can change anything. Indeed, I wanted to be an eagle when I was younger but that doesn’t mean I am an eagle (I’m not an eagle) and humanity is no different. We are what we are and regardless of how much I would like to change that, I can’t change that.
1
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
And besides, reality isn’t about the way I feel or even they way you feel: it’s about reality. It’s about the way things are. Anyway, let’s crack on.
PROGRESS Inspiring rhetoric and hopeful prayer may be enough to keep the ‘stewards’ happy, but to really evaluate success, or lack thereof, a good appraisal must be based on concrete reference points. It must have targets and time limits and both must be based on benchmarks and reality. There’s simply no point in agreeing to achieve something undefined in an undefined time period based on undefined personal beliefs and, even though that’s exactly what people have been doing for the last fifty years, I’m going to do things properly. I’m going to be objective and the most important requirement is an objective reference year. 1962 seems like the obvious choice, given the arrival of Silent Spring and the most recent advent of global environmentalism, but I think that’s probably a little bit unfair. I think we need to allow the global environmentalists at least 15 years to organise themselves as well and that brings me to 1977. I realise that 15 years isn’t even a geological blink of an eye by the way, and that many will whine as a result, but it’s a lot more than a hominid blink of an eye and plenty of time in which to become sustainable (if indeed it’s possible of course). And besides, by the time you need to be sustainable, you probably also need to get on with it so how long do people want? Either way, I will be using the differences between now and then to illustrate humanities progress towards eternal sustainability and total planetary harmony. The differences themselves will be based on the best available information. Often this will come from internationally recognised sources, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or even the WWF, and even though I don’t know whether the data is 100% accurate, I do know this: if they can’t evaluate these things, there’s no way I can. Not that I really need to worry all that much. Objective judgements based on accurate information are essential parts of a proper appraisal (and ones which I will faithfully honour as much as possible), but in most situations the ‘stewards’ have clearly broadcast their own failure. They haven’t realised that not achieving an intended result is failure of course, but that’s not my problem. Whether they’re aware of it or not, continued change means broken promises and their gloomy observations will significantly strengthen my case. For instance, when the WWF and the IUCN are prepared to say these kinds of things: “Humanity’s demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years.” WWF, Living Planet Report 2008 (http://ht.ly/360og) “At best in our pursuit of sustainability to date, we are walking north on a southbound train.” IUCN, Transition to Sustainability: Towards a Humane and Diverse World (http://ht.ly/360xP)
An objective appraisal hardly seems necessary. The trouble is, they still can’t see the failure for the catastrophe and thus they still seem to think they’re trend-bustingly amazing. Here’s the WWF’s glowing self-assessment for example, even though, in their own words, “humanity’s demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years”:
2
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
“With an established track record in supporting the development of sustainable lifestyles, WWF is well placed to provide leadership in helping to reduce the UK’s footprint and supporting other countries to do the same.” WWF, WWF Strategic Plan: 2008-2013 (http://ht.ly/360su)
Maybe they meant ‘an established track record in supporting the development of unsustainable lifestyles’. Either way though, why would you let evidence get in the way of some totally unwarranted autonomous back-patting? ‘With our reputation for generating and disseminating sound scientific knowledge, our diverse structure and credibility that allows us to convene a range of stakeholders around key problems and our local to global reach, IUCN can play a catalytic role in the renewed global effort.” IUCN, A 2020 vision for IUCN (http://ht.ly/360uI)
Exactly. The point is that everybody thinks hideous failure means they’re doing a wonderful job, so it’s probably worth continuing with the appraisal after all. As such then there will be two fundamental parts to the appraisal: one, humans and two, the biosphere (everything else). They’re inextricably linked of course, but we will return to the inescapable conflict threatening the impossible fairytale later. Right now it’s time to get started and I will begin by looking at the biosphere: “The world’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are being modified in extent and composition by human activity at an unprecedented rate.”
For all those who are wondering whether that’s as good as it gets: yes, that’s as good as it gets. In the words of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and despite more than 45 years of environmental rhetoric, “The world’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are being modified in extent and composition by human activity at an unprecedented rate”, “the unsustainability of the way the Earth’s resources are being used is increasingly evident” and “there are no major issues raised in Our Common Future for which the foreseeable trends are favourable.” Which shouldn’t leave anybody in any doubt about how successful the ‘stewards’ have been. Our Common Future was published in 1987 by the way (which was ten years after the start of the appraisal period) and written by the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). It was also the report that popularised sustainability and it’s definitely worth pointing out that humanity probably became unsustainable while this report was being written, which is wonderfully ironic if nothing else. According to the Global Footprint Network, which is an environmental auditor that produces data for the WWF and the UN amongst others, “humanity first went into overshoot in 1986” (the year before Our Common Future was published), and things have been getting worse ever since: “This year [2009], more than two decades since we first went into overshoot, we are now demanding resources at a rate of 40 percent faster than the planet can produce them.” That’s a 1.8% increase in demand for every year since reducing demand became a global priority. Brilliant.
3
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
More specifically, and according to the 2007 UNEP report that explicitly looked at progress since Our Common Future 1, “annual global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels have risen by about a third”, “the ‘hole’ in the stratospheric ozone layer over the Antarctic…is now the largest it has ever been” (although emissions of ozone depleting substances have been significantly reduced); “species are becoming extinct at rates which are a 100 times faster than the rate shown in the fossil record” and “the reduction in distribution and functioning of land, freshwater and marine biodiversity is more rapid than at any time in human history”. None of which sounds much like a fairytale ending to me. If you want some referenced figures, here are some…referenced figures:
CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC), which supplies information to the IPCC amongst others, the 1977 and 2007 (the most recent year available) emission levels were: 1977 – 18.5 billion tonnes of CO2 2007 – 31.1 billion tonnes of CO2 That’s a 68% increase in emissions of the gas that’s causing, in the words of the UNEP, “increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice”, “rising global average sea level”, “ loss of biodiversity” and “degradation of land, soil, forest, freshwater and oceans.” And they’re still rising.
BIODIVERSITY According to the WWF’s living planet index, which is an “indicator designed to monitor the state of the world’s biodiversity”, and one that’s heavily used by the UNEP amongst others, biodiversity has fallen by 36% in 30 years: 1975 - 112% of the 1970 reference level 2005 - 72% of the 1970 reference level I do need to point out that the living planet index is based on population trends in just 1,686 species (out of a total estimated number of somewhere between 2 million and 100 million), but that’s the best available data and all I really have to work with. Either way, it’s impossible to deny that almost all charismatic species of megafauna (i.e. tigers, elephants, whales, rhinos, pandas, etc. etc.), have become ‘conservation reliant’ and thus reduced to a shadow of their former glory.
LAND USE According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the amount of agricultural land (i.e. non-wilderness land) has increased by 2.9 million km2 (6.4 %): 1977 – 463.4 million km2 of agricultural land 2007 – 493.4 million km2 of agricultural land 1
Global Environment Outlook (GEO4): Environment for Development by the UNEP (2007).
4
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
Now, that may not seem like a big leap, but given that humanity was already using 35.5% of available land in 1977, that’s probably just because the starting figure was so high. And besides, 2.9 million km2 is still 12 times the size of the United Kingdom. To be fair, since 1977, and according to a project run by the UNEP and the IUCN (the World Database on Protected Areas), a little bit more terrestrial and marine wilderness has become glorified zoo land (protected)2: 1977 – 1% of total surface area3 (5 million km2) was “clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means...” 2007 – 3.4% of total surface area (17.4 million km2) was “clearly defined geographical space” etc. etc. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot less wilderness to protect these days. Indeed, the WWF is only aiming for a measly “10 per cent allowance [of bioproductive area] for wilderness and wildlife”4 anyway. 10%. The rest is ours apparently, and that’s an anthropocentric vision of a ‘healthy planet’ that I don’t find particularly inspiring. The Global Footprint Network, the organisation that supplies the WWF with its environmental impact data, assumes that “no land is set aside for other species that consume the same resources as humans”, which, apart from casting doubt on the WWF’s 10% allowance, is even worse. And besides, protection isn’t a guarantee anyway. It doesn’t totally eliminate threats such as poaching and deforestation etc. It just legally recognises the intention to eliminate these things, and that’s a very different thing, as the United Nations is well aware: “…protected areas can be poorly managed and face continued assault from pollution and climate change, irresponsible tourism, infrastructure development and increasing demands for land and water resources.” Incidentally, the WWF thinks that protected areas “cover around 12 per cent of the Earth’s surface”5, which is only about 40 million km2 out. They also use three different bioproductive area totals that differ by as much as 2.2 billion hectares (22 million km2), but I will cover the subject of bioproductivity allocations and ecological ‘footprints’ elsewhere.
FOREST COVER According to the FAO again, the amount of forest land has decreased by 1.4 million km2 (3.4 %) since 1990 (earliest available data): 1990 – 407.7 million km2 of forest 2007 – 393.7 million km2 of agricultural land Again, that may not seem like a big leap, but it’s still an area of forest almost six times larger than the United Kingdom.
Please note, these figures don’t include protected sites with no year of establishment, which probably means they’re about 0.5-1% lower than they should be, although I’m not 100% sure because I can’t find accurate data (especially for 1977). 3 According to the CIA World Fact Book, the total surface area of Planet Earth is approximately 510 million km2. 4 Source: Roadmap for a Living Planet 5 Source: Roadmap for a living Planet (2008). 2
5
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
LAND DEGRADATION According to the FAO, yet again, and without access to accurate comparative data, the most recent estimate for the amount of land that has been turned into desert by human activity is: 12.3 million km2 Which means 35% of the world’s total desert area has been created by human activity. Does anybody really need to hear any more? And does anybody really think the ‘happily ever after’ promises made by the environmentalists of the past to the children of today have been realised in any way? As usual, the WWF thinks they and many other groups have done an amazing job: “Over the past half-century, WWF and many other groups have worked to conserve the world’s most exceptional ecosystems and endangered species, promote sustainable use of natural resources, and reduce pollution and wasteful consumption – with impressive results.”
But after looking at what some people like to call ‘evidence’ does anybody really think they haven’t been blinded by their own self-importance? Yes, some probably do, but this isn’t about blind hope and liquorice all-sorts. This is about reality and, in reality, the human race is obviously and undeniably totally unsustainable. Why though? After so many important meetings and so many long reports (and I do mean long), why is humanity still so obviously and undeniably totally unsustainable? A lot of the ‘stewards’ blame consumption patterns, amongst other things. The WWF thinks that “our consumption of the Earth’s natural resources is depleting the planet’s ability to replenish itself” for example. They think “the root of these problems is the way that we humans live, work and play” and that “the challenge therefore is to find a way in which all the world’s people can lead happy and healthy lives within the natural limits of our one planet”. That includes you and me of course, but the problem is that sustainability isn’t just about you and me. It’s about everybody. And ‘everybody’ isn’t even a fixed quantity yet. In fact, ‘everybody’ is an exploding quantity that’s currently mocking the entire concept.
FAVOURED RACE If, for the sake of arguments, humans and the biosphere are mutually exclusive, what do you think recent environmental devastation tells us about recent human success? In the absence of infinite resources, it seems pretty obvious to me that a reduction in the biosphere probably means an increase in humanity, and, sure enough:
6
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
In the words of the United Nations Population Division (UNPD): “World World population did not reach one billion until 1804. It took 123 years to reach 2 billion in 1927, 33 years to reach 3 billion in 1960, 14 years to reach 4 billion in 1974…13 years to reach 5 billion in 1987’, and then ‘ just 12 years to reach 6 billion’ in 2000. Beyond 2000, and ‘according to the 2008 Revision of the official United Nations population estimates and projections, the world population is projected to reach 7 billion early in 2012, up from the current 6.8 billion, and surpass 9 billion peoplee by 2050.” UN, The World at Six Billion (http://ht.ly/360Xf)
For those who missed it, that’s 6.8 billion now (late 2009), and 9 billion people by 2050. 9 billion people. Does anybody really think an exploding population and an imploding biosphere are just j an unlucky coincidence? Especially when you realise that sustainability became a global priority at about the same time as population became a global threat? “The The rapid growth of the world population started sta in 1950…” UN, The World at Six Billion (http://ht.ly/360Xf)
The IUCN remains typically confused of course: “There There is a profound paradox here. On the one hand, the twenty-first twenty first century is widely heralded as the era of sustainability…On the other hand, the evidence is that the global human enterprise ent is rapidly becoming less sustainable and not more.” IUCN, The Future of Sustainability (http://ht.ly/360Vm)
But other than them, are there really people out there who still think everybody and everything can live happily ever after? “The aim is that hat everyone lives within the Earth’s capacity to sustain people people and nature…” WWF, Roadmap for a Living Planet (http://ht.ly/35ZX5 http://ht.ly/35ZX5)
Yes, there are, and they have been part of the conservation movement since the Stockholm Conference way back in 1972: 7
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
“Several speakers…argued that all strategies for development and environment would be fatally damaged unless the rate of population increase was reduced. Other speakers said that population increase was not the problem.”
How can anybody seriously believe there’s “no incompatibility between population growth and preservation of the environment” though? And how can the IUCN seriously believe that continued growth of the human population will bring “exciting benefits” for the future of sustainability? Honestly, I would love to know, because I genuinely have absolutely no idea. Well, none beyond clinical delusion anyway.
8