A day will come

As a teenager watching television, 10 years ago, I decided I wanted to dedicate my life to sustainability because of a single campaign advertised on MTv. Since 2012, I have been working in this sector from various aspects before returning to study Climate Change in hope of answering the last pieces to my puzzle. Over the last few months I have investigated the barriers society has faced in the pursuit of a green future. I was eager to learn what had been tried and tested, what was successful, what was in progress and what potential barriers still existed to a green movement and ultimately future. I noted the significance of climate change within this pursuit, quoting the 2007 IPCC report in stating that “[climate change] is part of the larger challenge of sustainable development. As a result, climate policies can be more effective when consistently embedded within broader strategies designed to make national and regional development paths more sustainable”. 

The provision of solar panels to poor communities has improved the quality of life, reduced their carbon footprint (predominantly through forest clearing and burning for/of wood) and consequently, the reduced their contribution to climate change.

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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)