I. INTRODUCTION
Take that somewhat notoriously impenitent universal addiction to the burning of fossil fuels for starters; add it to a corollary economic “necessity” to accommodate – perhaps adapt to – clearly self-induced devastations to humanity’s ecological [im]balance; divide that by the enthronement of a robust global economy over and above an equally robust global ecology that is pregnant with abrupt, runaway, cataclysmic climate change; minus ecological threats from economic calculations even when both have become inextricably linked in the 21st century; multiply that by the irretrievable depletion of natural resources in conjunction with major alterations to natural ecosystems that have placed humanity on a dedicated path to Eco-Armageddon; now, what do you get? It looks more to me like a generation set to be vilified by posterity if sustainability of the ecological kind remains within the confines of a pastime priority. “It is in any case apparent that we, in our time, are faced with a choice which we must make with full awareness; a choice, namely, between two directions which are presented to us…” (Catharina 1989, p. 74)
II. THE NECESSITY OF ‘ECONOMISM’ FOR SUSTAINABILITY
On the one hand there is the direction, as it was described by Catharina J.M. Halkes in her writings, towards “economism,” which is concerned with the economic pillar of sustainability: “absolutizing the economy” despite the truism that it risks commercializing the obliteration of human existence as we careen toward the great eco-unknown.
Economism, as it were, will make a good start for our construction because therefrom will inspiration be drawn to stabilize ecosystems, facilitate a shift away from fossil fuels to climate-benign renewable, pool investment for energy autonomy, and create a more equitable sharing of Earth’s wealth. Moreover, without an economic outlook there will hardly be alternative incentive(s) capable of initiating imperative voluntary commitments to the ideal of ecological sustainability. It then follows that absolutizing the economy may entail not what it seems at first glance. Rather it breeds the foundation upon which humankind’s adaptation to a “greener” revolution will be rooted.
Because the value of the ecosystem that nature provides for free has been estimated to be almost twice the value of overall economic activities, it is clear that without economism, prices will not reflect the true worth of the Earth and the global commons will be squandered: “we do not protect what we do not value.” Hence establishing efficient global markets for ecosystem services will, on top of their obvious purpose, provide the added benefit of steadily albeit indirectly restoring ecosystems ravaged by relentless emissions of climate-disrupting greenhouse gases (pollutions resulting mainly from the world’s energy economy of carbon-rich fossil fuels).
But it will dawn on us – perhaps after a few more hurricanes – that the Earth will become uninhabitable in our time unless we embrace energy efficiency first, then renewable afterward. Again, economy comes to the rescue as global corporations encourage spin-offs and carve-outs that demonstrate potential to unearth ground-breaking innovations which promote energy efficiency and make renewable energies available in consonance with surging global demand. As time goes by, major global corporations will come not to be judged by profits alone, but by demonstrating a desire to meet obligations of saving the planet through cleaner corporate strategies and production technologies.
I believe an Eco-Revolution is at hand. It will reconfigure the status quo by carving an ecological niche in all that have to do with human progress. Nowhere would it be more felt than in any shifts away from the presently dominant energy economy. There is hardly a country today that provides all of its energy needs by itself, yet from the “globalization of the energy economy,” what we now have is its “localization.” This means every country will now have to figure out an energy strategy that fits its economic aspirations and incorporates its ecological priorities without necessarily having to sacrifice either.
Still that may prove to be inadequate until it is accepted that the sustainability we seek can quite easily be attained via more equitable sharing of the Earth’s wealth which need not, and must not, be communism. It is, instead, placing brakes on the excessiveness that is characteristic of the industrialized West, and just letting that “excess” go round to others who have-not, while dispelling disingenuous expectations that the poor countries limit carbon emissions on the same timetable as the super-affluent who double as super-polluters. We should be able to tell the difference between allowing pollution for a poor country to improve basic human needs, and the rich getting another SUV.
Evidently, economic systems are the most productive subset of ecological systems; they must then maintain or expand natural capital. Sustainability is not concerned with growth that destroys natural capital because growth as a measure of economic activity is ecological malignancy. However, a steady state, sustainable economy must be business, industry and humanity’s goal.
III. ‘ECOLOGISM’ AS BASIS FOR ECONOMISM
On the other hand Catharina points out that politicians, economists and technocrats in Western society speak of “ecologism,” that is, “the absolutizing of nature and environment” as a distinctive ecological pillar to sustainability and fundamental to the economic prosperity nations hanker for. It proceeds by making clear that the natural environment is the baseline physical reality upon which human advancements – in their entirety – are utterly dependent.
Ecologism comes into our structure not just as basic to life on Earth for, at least, a few more generations, but also as a surefire guarantor of the economic heft states desire. It is possible to summarize my opinions in this section thus: “No ecology, No economy.” There will be NO economy if ecosystems collapse! It’s as simple as that. This is the fundamental flaw of the growth machine mentality that threatens global ecological sustainability and a collapse of both ecosystems and economies. It may be “criminally negligent” to deny the human impact on ecosystems plagued by climate change, but I’m certain of how unsustainable it is to maintain the pursuit of material well-being at the expense of our very existence. Do we realize how much we have borrowed from the survivability of generations to come? A natural debt which we can start paying – with bits of sacrifice now, or mayhem and global ecocide later.
The heart of this worldwide ecological crisis is that too many people are consuming too much and their economic developments have brutally diminished our natural environment. Human populations surpass what the Earth can bear, the planet system’s geochemical cycling of energy and nutrients has been ripped apart, and consequently, the natural system which provides habitat for humans is failing. These crystallize the need to reduce human population on our own accord or the Earth will do so for us. Global limits should be placed on the number of children born, beginning by using incentives such as tax benefits for smaller families. This will help to limit the pressure on nature’s capacity to withstand man’s brutal ecological footprints.
The signs are pervasive. Mother Nature is ailing. Environmental devastation is real, is happening now, and is the political, social,
economic and ecological challenge of all time. Increasingly erratic and dangerously extreme weather will impact most of us – perhaps only excluding the super rich – in a myriad of ways; ranging from agricultural decline, to flooding, to deadly heat waves. Our consumption patterns make matters worse by virtually impacting all ecosystems, giving rise to toxic food chains, depleted water, soil loss, natural forest clearing and reduction of ecosystems’ ability to hold carbon.
Indeed, this climate change we speak of isn’t just another issue in this complicated world of proliferating issues. It’s the issue that, unchecked, will swamp all others. The preponderance of evidence that climate change is causing more extreme weather events, and other demonstrable impacts of global warming, makes acting now to protect nature a matter of prudence and sound judgment. Our response will determine the extent and seriousness of droughts, mudslides, super storms, melting glaciers, sea rise, agricultural collapse and forest die-back which are now upon us.
These show that the future of humanity lies in the balance - we shall either change our ways by encouraging respect and reverence for nature and environment, and evolve, or suffer a hell on Earth and a grisly death of civilization. By the destruction of the environment, humanity is ensuring it has no future and no prosperity nor economy. The task of our time is to stop the destruction, restore the damage, using every tool at our disposal to seek global ecological sustainability. Absent ecologism as well as an immediate major surge in ecological based policies in virtually every human realm, there is little hope of the Earth and humanity regaining a state of balance.
IV. A PROGRAM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
To achieve the change to sustainability therefore, is it exactly possible to make “a choice” between the two directions presented to us? With all due respect to Catharina Halkes’ hypothesis, my opinion favours a yes but no. Yes because there is a possibility of choosing responsibly between either paths since both are quite capable of leading to the desired end. But no because the way I see it, economism brings innovation while ecologism brings conservation: both are equally indispensable ingredients for sustainability.
Rather than making a necessary trade off thus, we can create a future that accommodates the compatibility of both concepts. The issue is not about ecology versus economy, neither is it environment versus development nor rich versus poor; both spheres have a clear interest in preserving natural resources and promoting sustainable development. Instead the integration of ecology and economy provides new insights about the linkages between ecological and economic systems, and further suggests some broad policies concerning how to achieve sustainability. They include:
1. “A natural capital depiction tax aimed at reducing or eliminating the destruction of natural capital.” It would be passed on to consumers in product prices and would send the proper signals about the relative sustainability of each product, thereby moving consumption toward a more sustainable product mix.
2. “The precautionary polluter pays principle (4P)” applicable “to potentially damaging products to incorporate the cost of the uncertainty about ecological damages as well as the cost of known damages.” Producers would then have a firm and instantaneous inducement to develop their environmental performance so as to lessen the amount of the environmental bond and tax they would have to pay.
3. “A system of ecological tariffs” which permits “individual countries or trading blocks to apply” both above “without forcing producers to move overseas in order to remain competitive.” The proceeds from the tariffs could then be reinvested in the world’s environment, “rather than added to general revenues of the host country. (Costanza R. 1994).
In addition to these, coal and oil must be phased out so greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced rapidly. A substantial carbon tax can be introduced while investing in renewable energy and rigorously pursuing conservation and efficiency.
Ancient forest logging too must end, if not for protecting remaining intact natural habitats, then, at least, to ensure that carbon sinks are not destroyed. The Amazon, for example, is reported to contain some 90 billion tonnes of carbon; more logging will mean more release of carbon and, in this case, it could be more than the Earth can handle. Hence the protection of large, connected ecosystems over much of the land and sea too (think of industrial fishing) must be established. Too many ecosystems have already been lost and diminished for humanity to persist. Achieving sustainability depends upon targeted restoration of important ecosystems.
Priorities for ecological restoration include watersheds, establishing ecological core areas and urban environments. Other chances for an ecologically sustainable future can be harnessed by restricting excessive resource use to meet frivolous human wants. This can be done by simply promoting a sense of sufficiency amongst all peoples, especially those of the industrialized West.
V. CONCLUSION
So take the potential for innovation inherent in economism; add it to the wisdom for conservation conveyed via ecologism; minus every tendency to make a necessary swap between them; multiply that by the power of collaboration which any viable 21st century program must possess; and divide all by a non-negotiable obligation to achieve sustainability of the ecological kind; now, what we get must resemble “a global change to sustainability,” otherwise, I beg to add that the prospects of man relocating to Mars will begin to get really attractive.
« return.