Page sponsored by Texaco Caribbean Limited
Publication: Daily Nation
Paper Page: 15A
Paper Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2002
Byline: Compiled by Terry Ally
|
Page sponsored by Texaco Caribbean Limited |
|
Apathy or activism – the
choice is ours
by Rory Spowers
Special to the Green Page
|
Rory Spowers is a
freelance journalist, photographer and broadcaster who specializes
in travel and environmental issues. After 10 years of “always
travelling and never arriving”, he has anchored himself in Wales
to pursue an interest in permaculture. His first book, Three
Men on a Bike follows a 10,000 km journey through Africa
that Rory undertook with two others, riding the original three-seater
bicycle from the BBC series, The Goodies. After that adventure, Rory
went on a 3,000km walk from the south of India to Calcutta, writing
the book Full Moon at Sunset. |
I often ask myself this question: Why isn’t everyone concerned about the state of the planet which we are all dependent upon from moment to moment?
Doesn’t everyone want to drink clean water, breathe clean air, eat safe food, leave their children with a liveable biosphere? I will offer some answers to this question but first want to present some sobering facts to start the New Year.
Despite the warnings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that we need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 to 80 per cent to avoid catastrophe, most of us continue to conduct business as usual.
The latest projections made by the Hadley Centre are even more alarming as it forecasts an average global temperature rise of eight degrees Celsius by 2100,. The IPCCs worst scenario is 5.8 degrees, which would cause a sea level rise of nearly a metre.
Since one-third of humanity lives in areas threatened by a sea level rise of just 25 centimetres, the implications are clearly quite dramatic.
Most of us find it hard to deal with information like the above. How should we respond? How can we make a difference?
Most environmental issues, from global warming and ozone depletion to the accumulation of toxic chemicals in the food chain, appear so invisible, so intangible, so disconnected from our daily lives. Many of us are so daunted by the sheer magnitude of these problems that we find it hard to accept the reality.
Our excuses are: “The planet will be better off without us”, or “It won’t happen in my lifetime”, or “What can I do about it?”
Many assume technology will provide all the solutions, that “there’s plenty more where that came from” and that we don’t have to worry about the fact that we have used a third of the planet’s resources in the last thirty years. Some suggest that we will find ways to manufacture soil, water, and oil, off the shelf and made to order. Others say we can colonise other planets to find the resources.
Perhaps the most sinister reason why so many still feel cynical about the environmental agenda is what is known in Britain as the “Greenwash”. This refers to the rapidly expanding industry employed by corporations and governments to publish conflicting sets of data and spread dis-information.
For example, the American government takes its advice on global warming from Fred Singer, a climate change cynic and director of the Science and Environment Policy Project, who has been a paid consultant for ARCO, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, and Unocal.
Even if we do feel concerned about the state of the planet, most of us find it hard to make the necessary changes in our lifestyle. Some of us are dependent on using the company car, clocking up the air miles as part of our job, or buying imported products for the home.
Many who embrace ecological issues make an effort to recycle plastic bags but still purchase imported food which has been energy-intensive in its production, packaging, and transport. This then creates feelings of guilt, making us think we are somehow inconsistent. It often appears “the system” makes it impossible for us to make the informed decisions that we would like.
Another response is what I call the ‘black and white division’. Just because one sees limitations in the current form of capitalism does not mean that one is a communist. The corporate take-over of the global economy may be to blame for many of the issues tackled by the environmental movement, but there are some positive aspects to globalisation, like climate change agreements, bio-diversity treaties and the spread of eco-technologies.
Similarly, people often make the assumption that the green agenda is anti-technology, anti-science, anti-progress and that a sustainable, ecological society can only be achieved by returning to some dark age of deprivation and suffering.
Part of the challenge that the environmental movement faces is to convince the public that they can have the non-negotiable demands of modern life (cars, TVs, and washing machines) within an ecological society.
What we really need to address is our attitude towards these things, our methods of production and our dependence on fossil fuels. Many people within affluent societies have now realised that “more” does not always equal “better”.
It is interesting to note that in Britain, during the last war, rations led to an enforced resource efficiency, life expectancy for those at home rose and infant mortality fell.
The environmental movement forces us to challenge some basic assumptions and exposes inherent flaws in our economic system. Our politicians and business leaders still believe that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet with finite resources. This is logically impossible.
Similarly, we need to replace economic indicators like the gross domestic product (GDP) with systems that reflect “quality of life‚ rather than “standard of living”. Growth is currently measured by rates of consumption - the speed at which we are turning resources into rubbish.
How can GDP accurately reflect economic health if it increases every time we drive rather than ride a bicycle, or turn on the AC rather than open a window?
We need to stop taxing the things that are meant to be good for us, like jobs and income, and tax those things that are bad, like pollution and resource depletion.
The “ecological footprint” method reveals that Barbados is living beyond its ecological capacity by a factor of four times. Fifty years ago, this island but was a model of sustainability, despite being one of the most populated agricultural nations on the planet. The island’s 3.8 billion year inheritance of “natural capital” – the land and sea – which constitute its real wealth, is being traded for golf courses, luxury villas, and short-term profits. As every business man knows, living off capital rather than income leads to bankruptcy, but that is what is happening.
So, what can we all do? I think the most important thing is to be conscious of what is at stake, to be mindful about using our cars, to be informed about the products we buy in the supermarket.
Every decision we make is casting a vote for the future of the planet. Buy Bajan. Support the local economy before the global economy. Consume less, but live more. Lobby politicians, write letters, join pressure groups.
We are not powerless as individuals. Change is always propelled by a minority and even a single micro-organism can change the course of history.
At the end of the day, the decision that confronts us all is simple in the extreme.
Apathy or activism – the choice is ours.