Shopping Cart
RSS FeedOnline Discussion: Vital Signs 2006-2007
Worldwatch Live Online Discussion
Erik Assadourian: Research Associate
July 19, 2006 - 2:00pm EDT
Join Worldwatch Research Associate and Vital Signs 2006-2007 project director Erik Assadourian for a discussion about the report illuminating the trends that are shaping our future—from energy and climate to quality of life, military expenditures, habitat destruction and more.
Submit your questions now and return at 2:00 PM EDT for the discussion.
Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to Worldwatch Live! Worldwatch Research Associate and Vital Signs 2006-2007 Project Director Erik Assadourian joins us today to take your questions on the wide range of topics covered by Vital Signs 2006-2007. Welcome, Erik!
Erik Assadourian: Thanks, Steve! I look forward to the discussion!
Worcester, Massachusetts: Today is the second day of the ASPO-5 conference in San Rossore, Italy. There appears to be a growing consensus for a near term peak in world oil production (2010 +/-2 years). There are many that fear this will exacerbate the problems as industrial societies continue their energy binge with increased use of coal, uranium and biofuels. Please comment. Thanks.
Erik Assadourian: More urgent than whether a peak in oil production happens in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 is the recognition that we are nearing a tipping point on climate change. We are currently at 380 parts per million in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change advises that to prevent major changes we need to stabilize levels by 450 ppm. This gives us a window of perhaps 15 to 35 years depending on how rapidly our economies increase. We have to address climate change as rapidly as possible to prevent societal disruptions in the near future regardless of how much oil remains in the ground.
Worcester, Massachusetts: http://www.livescience.com/environment/060714_record_heat.html Scorching U.S.: First Half of 2006 Sets Heat Record By Sara Goudarzi LiveScience Staff Writer "The average temperatures of the first half of 2006 were the highest ever recorded for the continental United States, scientists announced today. " Is average temperature a WorldWatch vital sign?
Erik Assadourian: We do have a Vital Signs article on climate change. And we did find that 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded--since record keeping began in 1880. And 5 of the 8 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. So it's not surprising that 2006 is shaping up to take the record. We must address climate change as soon as possible to prevent major societal disruptions. Glaciers are already melting--which millions depend on for fresh water. Tropical storms and hurricanes are becoming more severe, and if we are not proactive, major flooding could be triggered by the collapse of ice shelves in Greenland and/or Antarctica.
Washington, D.C.: What do you see as the most positive trend covered in Vital Signs, what about the most negative?
Erik Assadourian: I’m sorry to report that the negative trends far outweigh the positive trends this year. Clearly climate change’s advance is one of the most concerning, as is an article on the increasing stress of ecosystem services. According to a report by over 1,800 scientists, 62.5 percent of ecosystem services are being degraded or being used unsustainably—a trend that will likely worsen in the next 50 years if we don’t aggressively change our path. These services, including climate regulation, food and fresh water production, and others are essential to the survival of the human species and must be protected. Yet the trends show that we are destroying many of them as we “develop” (or more accurately grow, as if development isn’t sustainable, it’s not development).
Yet there are a few positive trends: renewable energy production is increasing. Solar PV production increased 45 percent in 2005, biofuels by 19 percent, wind by 24 percent. And indeed wind energy additions each year are now higher than nuclear additions, which is a promising trend.
GUAYAQUIL-ECUADOR: WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE MOST PROMISING ALTERNATIVE(S) ENERGY SOURCE(S) FOR THE PLANET?
Erik Assadourian: Great question: to say that one energy source fits all would be inaccurate. Depending on local areas, the key energy sources will be either solar, biofuels, wind energy, or small hydroelectric (small, meaning now disruptive to river flows). Using a combination of these could provide a large portion of our energy needs, especially if used in conjunction with more efficient technologies.
Warren, MI, USA: What would Worldwatch have citizens do about Global Warming? Form local action groups? Doing what?
Erik Assadourian: Just like in the last answer, no one answer fits all. I would ask you a question: what are your strengths? If you’re a strong public speaker perhaps you should present Al Gore’s powerpoint to your community—whether that’s a church group, a group at your workplace, or any other organization you’re involved with. If that’s not your forte, perhaps talking one-on-one with your politicians (yes, lobbying them) in order to make your concerns clear and that your support depends directly on whether they address environmental issues. And perhaps, if you have an environmental champion politician near you, you can spend more of your volunteer time helping to get him or her reelected.
If politics makes you uncomfortable (and I hope it doesn’t because it’s going to take as many engaged citizens as possible) there are other ways. Get your neighbors to carpool with you, or get them to switch to more efficient energy (and do this yourself). When buying your next car, buy a small efficient one, when buying your next home, choose one near a mode of public transportation.
We need to make all decisions consciously—whether regarding consuming, political power, or our roles as community or workplace leaders.
Chicago, Illinois: I just read an article on genetically modified foods by Nathan Batalion. He quoted several scientist and sources warning of the irreversible and devastating effects on, not only, our food source but the delicate balance of our entire ecological system. This article made it sound as though it is next to impossible to buy foods that have not been genetically engineered and that organic farms are at risk of picking up these genetically engineered traits by bees or pollen in the air and that there is no way to contain or control the plant world from picking up the GM traits. I shop for as many organic foods as I can and it is very difficult to eat all organic foods. Now, not only am I to worry about pesticides and herbicides, now I have to worry that this new science may be cause for using an even more potent form of Round-up to control the super weeds that have been developing around these crops and an added worry about other chemicals that control the life-cycle of plants, not to mention antibiotics, hormones, and who knows what a genetically engineered soy bean will do to you! Now, the worst part is that the government is supporting chemical companies like Monsanto, by relaxing the FDA's regulations on chemical use and not requiring labeling of GM foods -- thus taking away our choice in whether or not we want to eat them. 1) - What do you know about these super foods and what the government's stand is on regulating them? 2) - why do you not hear a peep of this on the news -- well, mainstream news, we know why, but I came upon this information quite by accident on the web -- not by any glaring warnings or headlines. 3) - Can you suggest a web site that will list organic food sources (besides Whole Foods) in the Chicago land area? Thank you for your time.
Erik Assadourian: This is a tough question, which I unfortunately will not answer adequately.
Clearly corporations, with the power that they wield politically and financially have dramatic influence over policymakers and the media. It should not surprise you that you don’t hear much about GM foods. If you are angry about this, which I hope you are, you should get engaged politically. When political leaders only hear from corporations telling them that GM food will solve hunger, increase economic benefits for farmers, and are perfectly safe and don’t hear the other side from concerned farmers, consumers, and citizens, it’s not surprising how they vote. To change this, engage your community and political leaders and tell them I don’t want to eat GM foods. There are campaigns going on that would require labelling of any GM foods. What would this do to sales? If the average consumer saw a “WARNING: these corn chips contain Genetically Modified Corn” would they buy them?
Your best bet at eating organic in Chicago (and a great way to support your local economy) is to shop at local farmers’ markets. Buying directly from the farmer will help ensure better quality food and revenue for farmers (and thus the continuation of local farms near Chicago).
MEXICO: Se observa un incremento en el gasto mundial militar. Hay algunas empresas o industrias en particular que se han beneficiado de esto? (An increase in the military world-wide cost is observed. There are some companies or they train in individual that has benefitted from this?)
Erik Assadourian: I cannot tell you if certain companies benefited specifically but I can provide some more general trends. Of the $1.024 trillion dollars spent on military expenditures in 2004, US companies accounted for $157 billion in sales and European firms accounted for $76 billion. The top 100 weapons-producing companies (excluding China) sold arms worth $248 billion, up from $211 billion the year before.
If just a tenth of the $1.024 trillion was redirected into development aid, the world could more than pay for the Millennium Development Goals—a set of goals that would halve some of the worst poverty and social inequities by 2015. Again, this comes down to political priorities, and in a democracy, if the policymakers don’t hear the loud protests of citizens, but only hear the quiet exchange of large corporate campaign contributions, our current priorities will not change.
Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thank you once again for joining us today, Erik, and thanks to our guests for their questions. Erik, are there any other major points from Vital Signs you'd like to add/discuss?
Erik Assadourian: Thanks for hosting me Steve. It’s always great to answer questions from our readers.
To answer your question, I think perhaps the most interesting finding in this year’s Vital Signs is that 2005 was a year of records.
As a globe, we produced more roundwood, aluminum, steel, cars, and meat than ever before. More people are flying more kilometers, more people own more cell phones and over a billion now use the internet.
And yet, while these records are often discussed as signs of prosperity, I think they need to be seen equally as warning signs.
Each of these economic trends are taking a toll on human societies and on the enviornment—on which human societies depend. And the strain is being seen in a different set of records. In 2005, 3 of the strongest 10 hurricanes occurred—and caused a record-setting amount of eonomic damage ($204 billion). 5 of 8 of the hottest years have occurred since 1998. Nearly 2/3rds of ecosystem services are threatened. In the past five years, forest area larger than the country of Italy have been cleared. 20 percent of coral reefs have been destroyed, another 50 percent are threatened. And the list goes on. If we do not wake up out of this dream of perpetual economic growth at the expense of the environment, I am sorry to report that our dream could easily turn into a nightmare. But we do have the power to change our paths--as consumers, as citizens, as community members, as parents and workers, we have the power to change those around us. But we have to act soon if we are to achieve a sustainable future.
