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.

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.