Our part in a different world

It has been said that “sustainability is an ideology, a way of thinking, a way of life. It is not an end product; it is a vision”. There is no denying our progress toward sustainable development. Yes, there are areas that need to be re-evaluated but they are far from what they once were. The quest for sustainability is not one just for conservationists, 'tree huggers', climate change believers or activists, it is a quest for all of us to maintain the quality of life we so flippantly enjoy now. If you have not yet grasped what a green future means, the following video epitomises this vision and the barriers that have conflicted this movement. In an essence, it is somewhat of a summary of my blog to date.

My next post will continue to summarise this blog in bringing it to a close. I aim to explain the links between the conflicts discussed here and draw conclusions on whether these barriers towards a green future, having prevented us from achieving sustainability thus far, will continue to hinder our development and prevent us from achieving sustainability in our future.

Sustainable vs renewable

The last two weeks I have focused on the key elements to a sustainable future:our ability to sustain our needs and our wild areas and the misconceptions of perceived sustainable practices within them. The last requirement to attaining a smooth transition to a green future, is maintaining our current quality of life. I would like to discuss some of the developments that are playing a major role in sustainability and whether they will truly embrace the concept. Here I focus on renewable energies.

Rather than encouraging behavioural changes, renewable energies ensure that our current consumerism ideals are catered to in a more environmentally friendly manner. On closer inspection, one may question whether this true.

Undoubtedly one of the biggest obstacles to a green future is our willingness to consume less, many believe that decreased consumption negatively affects quality of life. This needs to change if we are to achieve and sustain a good quality of life for 8.5 billion people but until such a time, green technologies have allowed us to remain on this path which we excuse because they have less health and environmental impacts than previous technology. But how sustainable are they? Lets consider the top traditional renewables; solar, wind and hydroelectric power. 

Turning a blind eye

Renewable energies have been praised as the primary basis upon which sustainability rests. For most of us keen to do our part in helping to save the planet, we willingly embrace them, but should we be so naive? Later this week I will critique the three traditional renewable energies namely solar, wind and hydroelectic energies in upholding the foundations of sustainability in our goal to maintain our current and future quality of life. The below cartoon lends a bit of insight into this area!

Is it conservation?

I once heard 'an error does not become a mistake until you choose to correct it'. The vision for sustainability is not without mistakes and sometimes our progress turns out to be merely that of motion as we learn more about our environment. Last week’s blog discussed how policy and corporate giants undermine our efforts to sustainably satisfy our needs, in the form of organic farming. Here I would like to draw similar parallels to our efforts in sustainable conservation with respect to ecotourism.

Environmental damage by safari vehicles has been found to be cause of the very environment it is trying to preserve. 

Fools gold

In the last few weeks I have outlined the causes of limited progress towards a green future as a result of individual perception, economic and political barriers. The recent momentum of sustainable development having overcome these barriers, is however what most climate optimists are hanging on to to stay within our environmental threshold. This optimism is entirely based on the idea that our perception of clean energies and sustainable developments are as environmentally sound as one is lead to believe. But are they? At the heart sustainability comes our need for food production and organic farming has recently been targeted.

An article published last week in New Scientist claimed that those wishing to care for the planet should refrain from supporting organic food production. It's predominant reasoning for slating the farming system was based on the argument that organic farming is less productive per hectare and thus more responsible for GHG emissions. In addition it boasts that if you care about GHG emissions then GM foods are the way forward. Looking towards a sustainable future, if this accusation was true, it would be a worrying dilemma. The article was accompanied by the below video summary.

Political shifts

Climate change is pre-eminently a political project. The behaviour of humans under the influence of politics is irrefutably fundamental in discussing why it has taken over 20 years to call for climate action through sustainable development with other barriers including public perceptions and economics.

Internal wars

Thomas Edison famously said "opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work". Attending the Emissions Gap Report Launch some weeks ago, I felt this was the most prominent message. For countries that do not mine fossil fuels, a transition to a green economy and future would result in less fossil fuel imports, greater self-sufficiency and therefore be in their best interests. Norway's shift to sustainability is a great example of this and at the launch, Eric Solheim, former Norwegian politician and now executive director of UNEP said "Climate change is not a cost, it is a shift. There was no cost to fixing acid rain or ozone. Climate change is a business opportunity".  Norway, boasting the greatest number and tallest waterfalls in Europe, has a fantastic hydroelectric power potential. Perhaps it is this potential economic independence that sustainability offers that is one of the last remaining barriers to green economies. This blog is a continuation of last week’s discussion on the suppression of sustainability by economics within the greater context of three dominant barriers faced by the green movement in the past.

Are the days where harvesting energy left landscapes scarred, soon to be a thing of the past?  Recent projects are turning these renewable energy production houses in to landscape features, adding a tourism benefit to their green footprint, an ingenius idea! Pictured here is the Øvre Forsland Hydropower Station in Norway.

Insouciant economics

When calling for climate action, it is fundamental that the economics work; money talks. In the past, economics have been a major conflict towards sustainable developments, so what has changed to allow for economically sound climate action?

The profitable investments in fossil fuels made the transition to green alternatives difficult as investors have favoured traditional fossil fuel usage due to high returns over the lower returns of sustainable alternatives. In addition, many global economies were and are supported by their fossil fuels exports and a move away from these commodities threatens to send these countries into recession. It is no secret that fossil fuel companies have in the past and continue to lobby politics against participating or promoting green movements, pretending to withdraw their funding to parties, and locking them in to dirty fuel based growth. In a nutshell, fossil fuel investments boasted high returns with little concern for a shift in consumption patterns as promoted by politics. The role of politics in sustainable development is a topic I will cover in the next few weeks, here I would like to focus on how a lack of supportive policy has lead to unfavourable economics and hence little to no sustainable development in the past. 

In 2012, the top 40 mining companies earned a profit of 13 cents per every US$ spent. However, since 2011, oil prices have dropped drastically as a result of over supply and investment uncertainty giving renewables a market opportunity to compete. 

Art that speaks

Having discussed in my last blog how our opinions and perceptions have acted as barriers in the past but now changed to bring sustainability to action, its time to put our money where our mouths are! Later this week I will be looking at the role of economics as a barrier in achieving a green path in the past to our present. This street art pictured below gives you an idea of what it looks like!

We are change

Leonardo DiCaprio, a UN messenger of Peace on climate change, addressed the leaders of today at the Paris Agreement in December 2015 in his recent documentary stating "The world is now watching, you will either be lauded by future generations or vilified by them. You are the last, best, hope of Earth. We ask you to protect it, or we and all living things we cherish, are history." In the documentary he questioned whether they will change our course to one of greater sustainability, but most of all, whether it will be in time. Twenty years ago, this sense of urgency was not present. So what has changed?

Climate protests have been gaining momentum over the past 2 years with the Global Climate March in December 2015 being the largest environmental movement in history with approximately 785 000 protesters in 175+ countries taking part in the event. In Paris, protesters were banned from marching and left 20 000 pairs of shoes in the street, demonstrating their participation. 

An end to intent

'Without action, the best intentions in the world are nothing more than that: intentions' - wise words from Jordan Belfort. This week there has been a surge in climate change publicity, through launches of the 1 Gigaton Coalition Report, The Emissions Gap Report, and Before the Flood to name a few, all of which have called for action. After 21 years of negotiations and research, time has run out and panic is duly starting to set in as we witness the first real consequences of climate change through social media platforms, but why has it taken so long to call for action? I believe it is a result of a combination of 3 main factors - public opinion, economics and politics. 

In 2015, Pacific Island nations appealed to wealthy countries to assist with climate associated migrations and employment as islanders leave amidst rising sea levels. Guna Yala pictured here, has started preparations for relocation due to sea level rise of 2cm/annum. 

Foundations for failure

As mentioned in one of my earlier blogs, the most recognised definition of sustainability to date is that of the Brundtland Report

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: 1) the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and 2) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.” 

It is fine as a broad definition but lacks focus on the more modern outlook of the different pillars of sustainability as discussed by the World Summit in 2005. This outlook of sustainable development needs to be embraced by mass governing bodies such as the IPCC, that is measurable and more encompassing of the three pillars which are defined by Thwink.org as:

      

Consequences of choice

Perhaps the more current movement towards accepting climate change is in line with the old idiom 'fail to plan, and you plan to fail'. As previously mentioned, sustainability is a part of the larger context of climate change. The following video expresses the importance of choosing sustainability in preparing for climate change, whether or not one has chosen to believe in the latter. 

In order to prepare for the worst case scenario, that climate change is real, we need to take action; we need to positively influence the climate by changing our behaviour and technologies to a path that our future generations will not be plagued to walk along. My next blog will endeavour to explain what sustainability means for policy and development and what has stopped us from achieving it. If you would like to read more about this topic from a societal point of view, the Huffington Post summed it up rather well just last week! You can read their article here.

A recent study has found that by 2040, there will not be enough fresh water on the planet to satisfy human thirst and continue with current energy and power programmes. Just for basic survival, we need to seriously reconsider our perceptions, behaviours and goals. 

Welcome to my blog!

Following years of denial since its discovery, climate change is finally being accepted as a certainty and global threat to humanity, requiring immediate action. The threat is not however that of extinction. We have survived and surpassed all expectation by overcoming previous disasters and will continue to dominate the Earth. The threat surrounds a loss of wealth of life.

Since 01 September 2016 - 10 October 2016 approximately 1.5 million people have been displaced by natural disasters globally (IDMC, 2016)