Behavioural change
To the extent that we have genuine respect for the natural world and the living things
in it, the conflict between human civilization and the natural world is not an
uncontrolled and uncontrollable struggle for survival. From an ethical standpoint,
the competition between human cultures and the natural ways of other species can
exemplify a moral order that can best be described as live and let live. To realise
this order, we as moral agents have to impose constraints on our own lifestyles
and cultural practices to create a moral universe in which both respect for wild
creatures and respect for persons are given a place. The more we take for
ourselves, the less there is for other species, but there is no reason why, together
with humans, a great variety of animal and plant life cannot exist side by side on
our planet. In order to share the Earth with other species, however, we humans
must impose limits on our population, our habits of consumption, and our
technology. In particular, we have to deal with serious moral dilemmas posed by
the competing interests of humans and non humans. The problems of choice take
on an ethical dimension but do not entail giving up or ignoring our human values.
The aim is to manage situations in which the basic interests of animals and plants
are in conflict with the non basic interests of humans.
Basic interests of humans are what rational and factually enlightened people would
value as an essential part of their very existence as persons. They are what
people need if they are going to be able to pursue those goals and purposes that
make life meaningful and worthwhile. Their basic interests are those interests
which, when morally legitimate, they have a right to have fulfilled. We do not have
a right to whatever will make us happy or contribute to the realization of our value
system, but we do have a right to the necessary conditions for the maintenance
and development of our person-hood. These conditions include subsistence and
security ("the right to life"), autonomy, and liberty. A violation of people's moral
rights is the worst thing that can happen to them, since it deprives them of what is
essential to their being able to live a meaningful and worthwhile existence as
persons.
Our non-basic interests define our individual value systems. They are the particular
ends we consider worth seeking and the means we consider best for achieving
them. The non- basic interests of humans thus vary from person to person, while
their basic interests are common to all.
The principles of conservation apply to two different kinds of conflicts in which the
basic interests of animals and plants conflict with the non basic interests of
humans. But each principle applies to a different type of non basic human
interests. In order to differentiate between these types we must consider various
ways in which the non basic interests of humans are related to the attitude of
respect for nature.
Deep ecology is one of the principal schools in contemporary environmental
philosophy. The term was first used by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in
1972 in his paper "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement."
The term was intended to call for a fundamental rethinking of environmental thought
that would go far beyond anthropocentric (human-centered) and reform
environmentalism that sought merely to adjust environmental policy. Instead of
limiting itself to the mitigation of environmental degradation and sustainability in
the use of natural resources, deep ecology is self- consciously a radical philosophy
that seeks to create profound changes in the way we conceive of and relate to
nature.
Crisis and opportunity
The following two statements made in response to the global financial crisis of
2008. Together that are an indication of the ways that global thinking is changing
towards using economic and environmental crises as stimuli for new economic
pathways to the future.
To address climate change, we need an energy revolution, a wholesale change in
how we power our societies. Economists agree as well: The hottest growth
industry in the world is renewable energy. That's where the jobs of the future are
already being created, and where much of the technological innovation is taking
place that will usher in the next era of economic transformation.
The UN Environment Program estimates that global investment in zero-greenhouse
energy will reach $1.9 trillion by 2020 - a significant portion of global GDP.
Worldwide, nearly two million people are employed in the new wind and solar
power industries, half of them in China alone. Brazil's biofuels program has been
creating nearly a million jobs annually. In Germany, investments in environmental
technology are expected to quadruple over the coming years, reaching 16
percent of manufacturing output by 2030 and employing more workers than the
automobile industry.
We do not need to await the arrival of new technologies, nor need we worry
excessively about the costs of taking action. Studies show that the United States
could cut carbon emissions significantly at low or near- zero cost, using existing
know- how. For evidence, consider how Denmark has invested heavily in green
growth. Since 1980, GDP increased 78 percent with only minimal increases in
energy consumption. Poland has cut emissions by a third over the past 17 years
through aggressive energy-efficiency measures, even as its economy boomed.
For businesses, such savings translate into profits. Today, European companies
in the green tech sector enjoy substantial "first mover" advantages, accounting for
one third of the world's burgeoning market in environmental technologies.
With the right policies and incentives we can steer economic growth in a low-
carbon direction. With the right policies and the right incentives, we can be sure
that developed and developing countries alike contribute to the cause of fighting
global warming, without compromising every nation's right to the economic well-
being of its citizens.
'Crisis and opportunity': by Ban Ki Moon et. al.. International Herald Tribune.
November 9, 2008.
..................................................................
BARCELONA, Oct 6 (IPS/Terraviva) - The financial meltdown in most of the
industrialised world presents an opportunity for a new economic model that would
end short-sighted search for high returns, according to leading economists
attending the IUCN World Conservation Congress here.
"Right now, the most conservative leaders in the industrialised world, such as
George W. Bush of the U.S. and Angela Merkel of Germany are allocating public
money to save the banks from bankruptcy," Alejandro Nadal, a Mexican
economist attending the congress told IPS. This rediscovery of the role of the
state as a major actor in economic affairs, and the perspective of a new regulation
of international financial transactions opens a window of opportunity to rethink
neoliberalism in the developing world," Nadal said. This is not only an academic
question, it is an extreme political matter," he said. And it can have an
environmental dimension, he said. Nadal urged the IUCN to coordinate a global
effort among civil society organisations to rethink the role of the state in linking
macro-economic and environmental policies.
The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), organiser of the
Barcelona congress that continues until Oct. 15, is the oldest and largest global
environmental network, with a membership of more than 1,000 governments and
NGOs, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries.
"It is time for civil society and environmental organisations to take the world," Pavan
Sukhdev, an Indian economist and co- author of 'The Economics of Ecosystems
and Sustainability' told IPS. Unlike earlier crises such as the stock exchange crash
of 1987, or the currency crisis of the 1990s in Latin America, South East Asia and
Russia, the present crisis has come amidst a new awareness of the dramatic
environmental costs of neo- liberalism, Sukhdev said. "Back then, most of us had
no idea of the environmental crisis lurking in nature. But now we are aware that
we cannot go on with this economic model based on the destruction of
biodiversity and the abuse of most of humankind. "Now we have the wind on our
backs. And when you have wind in your sails, you sail. Let's sail towards a new
economic model, one that respects both nature and humanity, instead of this one
that destroys them."
Joan Martínez Alier, professor of economics and economic history at the
Autonomous University of Barcelona, said the present economic crisis "will mean
a welcome change to the totally unsustainable increase of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions in the last few years." Carbon dioxide is considered by scientists to be
the principal greenhouse gas arising from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming, and consequently
climate change and the decimation of biodiversity. Alier believes the economic
crisis, by reducing industrial and transport activities, offers an opportunity to put
the economy on a different trajectory regarding material and energy consumption,
and could therefore help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "The crisis might
also offer an opportunity for restructuring social institutions in industrialised
countries, with the objective of living well without the imperative of economic
growth," Alier said. "Happiness is not necessarily a function of economic growth,
above a certain level of income."
But in developing countries, the economic crisis could damage the environment for
the converse reason. Since below a certain income level wellbeing is dependent
on economic growth, governments may push economic activity regardless of its
environmental costs in order to overcome the economic crisis.
"The global economy could suffer a deep and protracted recession as a
consequence of the financial crisis," Argentine economist Alain Cibils told IPS.
"As the crisis unfolds, priorities will be put on recovery for growth and employment,
and controlling inflation, instead of forestalling climate change. Protecting
biodiversity, aquifers and soil erosion may be seen as non-priorities." Cibils said
that the neoliberal economic model applied in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and other
Latin American countries since the late 1980s has given priority to
macroeconomic policies aimed at reducing inflation and fiscal deficits, and
increasing export, regardless of social and environmental costs. "These policies
are epitomised in Argentina by intensive year- round agriculture concentrated on a
couple of crops such as soybean and maize, and priority to short-term high-
returns, very much as in financial globalisation," Cibils said.
The land area cultivated with soybean has more than doubled in Argentina from
seven million hectares in 1997 to 16 million hectares in 2008. The land for wheat
cultivation has remained constant.
"Soybean growing has taken place in Argentina at the expense of native forests,"
Cibils said. "Year-round agriculture has produced severe soil nutrient depletion
and soil degradation, and a substantial loss of biodiversity." (END/2008)
ENVIRONMENT: Twisted As Unnaturally as the Banks
By Julio Godoy
