Shopping Cart
RSS FeedState of the World 2009: ???
For the past several years, themed editions have helped us frame our annual State of the World report around the big ideas that will speed the transition to an environmentally sustainable world.
Each year, the Worldwatch Institute staff comes together to brainstorm the most important stories to include in our annual assessment of progress toward healthier societies, more equitable economies, and a cleaner environment.
We've highlighted consumption, global security, the rise of China and India on the world scene, and the unprecedented demographic shift that will make the world predominantly urban for the first time in history. Next year, we're planning to focus on the innovations needed to create a sustainable global economy.
Order two or more themed issues at a special discount.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 2004 The Consumer Society |
2005 Redefining Global Security |
2006 China and India |
2007 Our Urban Future |
2008 Greening Economies (coming January) |
Now, we want to hear from YOU. Help us decide what the big stories will be in 2009—and help us pick the theme that best ties them together for a compelling package.
What issues do you think will be most relevant in the months and years ahead? Which topics do you think deserve close scrutiny by experts at Worldwatch next year?
Register or log in to suggest your idea for the next big State of the World theme.
sohbet, sohbet odalari
thanksmirc mirc
thanks admin good
Free Download, New releases,
thanks admin good post
The assumption that more
my suggestion: Community
Economic recession has been
Managing Service Economy
Mike
The 2009 edition should
impacts of 'lifestyle' decisions
this includes food, which is a key issue needing to be addressed in the report, but also includes other issues such as electronic equipment and the release of toxic chemicals into our indoor air (through offgassing) and having environmental and human health impacts (particularly in the end-of-life phase, whether it's to the people physically doing the recycling of these products or the migration of toxic substances into our soils, waters and air during manufacture and after end-of-life).
the aim of the report should not be ONLY consumer awareness and the need to 'choose' better products (if this is possible since there's currently no way to choose intelligently between electronic products on sustainability elements), but also (and especially) the need to set sustainability parameters through product policy. such policy needs to address key sustainability issues such as biodiversity loss (via land management decisions), resource use and waste management, climate change, ecotoxicity and general human health impacts. these are the 4 areas of key concern in current European environmental framework objectives, so form a good basis to start more practical discussion on how to set product sustainability parameters.
by 2009, the European Union should have produced a second 'action plan' on sustainable consumption and production which will (at least at this point, this is what is being discussed) tackle key household consumption activities with major environmental impact: transport, food and drink, and housing (including heating, construction, and impacts of products found within the dwelling). such a broader topic (rather than just food) will also help governments and NGOs globally in the UN process on producing national sustainable consumption and production programmes as part of the Johannesburg implementation plan.
Waste To Energy
The developments in waste to energy worldwide are transferable and can contribute to cleaner and better societies. The focus on gathering food and possessions has to be balanced against the need to properly dispose of waste streams. The negative impacts of poor waste disposal habits is well documented and the growth in waste streams related to population growth are important considerations to electricity production, biofuel production, biogas production and recycling. Based on my own exploration of the topic, I find it a very interesting area, which impacts everyone, and has potential to alleviate poverty conditions. I do hope that you will give this your full consideration.
Yep, overpopulation
It's nice to see what appears to be a resurgence of concern about overpopulation. "Mike in L.A." and others have done an excellent job of detailing the issue.
Reducing fertility rates worldwide is without a doubt the single most powerful, not to mention cost effective, tool we have in our efforts to return to sustainability.
Some credible analyses conclude it's already too late to avert collapse. (e.g., this one) Even if that's the case, addressing population remains one of the the most sensible humanitarian choices among actions which might soften the landing.
In recent years, environmental groups have faced strident criticism whenever they broached the subject of overpopulation. Resistance came from cornucopians on the right, concerned about a loss of profits in an economy which equated population growth with economic growth, and well meaning but misguided leftists who sought political solutions for what are fundamentally ecological problems. Now, as ecological problems loom larger, there appears to be renewed awareness of the central role of population growth as a driver of ecological degradation. Articles by Chris Rapley urging attention to population in the context of climate change are one of many examples. This means that, in raising the topic of population, groups like Worldwatch will have more support, more "backup" from aware supporters.
At Growth is Madness!, I write about population all the time. I've featured guest articles on the topic from Ken Smail and others as well. I'd gladly offer any support I can give to you at Worldwatch in putting population at the center of your agenda. Writing, research, whatever. If you make it the central theme of your report, that alone will push the topic globally. Networking with groups such as Population Action International, the Population Media Center, and the Population Reference Bureau might prove fruitful as well.
I hope everyone here who hasn't done so already will read William Catton's classic text, Overshoot , and then consider that while we've waited longer than we should have, what hope we might have lies in forthrightly addressing our population's having far overshot the earth's carrying capacity for humans.
--John Feeney
Landscape Reconnection
In our modern consumerist society we have lost our connection with the landscape. While there is a fringe movement towards understanding where our food and consumables come from (eg 100 mile diet), this has yet to become fully mainstream.
How many people in a westernised society can tell you who grows their carrots? Who pollutes in their catchment? and Who works to protect it?
Governments can legislate, corporations can green up their act, but at the same time communities need to take responsibility for their landscape and for understanding what is happening in it. Through every individual taking responsibility for their local area, the impacts of their choices on their landscape, and for understanding the process that happen within their landscape, we will begin to see accountability and change.
How can this happen? Education is part of the solution, but I don't have all the answers. I would LOVE to see "Landscape Reconnection" as a topic for SotW 2009, and some of the solutions that may come from this.
Overpopulation is the common root of eco and societal problems.
Too many humans can overcome the positive effects of even the most efficient and eco-friendly lifestyles. The additional necessity of raising living standards in the developing world makes relying on increased efficiency to achieve sustainability a cruel joke at the expense of the poor.
All the familiar problems (warming, air and water, immigration, food and food choice, poverty and overconcentration of political power, energy, biodiversity, global security, and land use) have a common root in overpopulation. All of these problems will continue to get worse even if the human population maintains its present size and living standards. The current clumsy growth in both human numbers and living standards is a prescription for geometrically accelerated disaster. Sustainability and rising living standards require that many fewer humans live here. We need to agree on an international plan to reduce our population within a few generations in order to avoid a completely inhospitable planet, oppressive political systems, and a human population crash.
The development of such a plan requires organized intellect as well as publicity to draw popular attention and international political focus. Worldwatch could best contribute by taking on the most avoided big topic in environmentalism.
State of the World 2009
I must agree that over-arching and overwhelmingly huge issues such as human overpopulation and food choices (i.e., meat-based economies, diets and cultures) are of immense importance and deserve attention. Having said that, however, let me propose a more all-inclusive approach. None of the growing litany of global environmental woes facing the entire biotic community (not to mention humanity, the primary culprit) can be separated out from all the rest. What is needed, rather, is an ecological approach, a detailed yet accessible discussion of how all these issues are interrelated. The separatist philosophy and ethos of the Industrial Age is what has gotten us into this quagmire. Only an ecumenical, comprehensive analysis of the problem and possible solutions will help us all to see the larger picture. In so doing it will become ever more clear to what extent our multiple roles as citizens, consumers, parents, workers, voters, stockholders, business owners, commuters, neighbors, educators really are--how we are contributors by means of daily action (or inaction) and equally vital what steps we can take to reverse these trends.
Overpopulation - State of Ecological Emergency
This is an addendum to my original comments regarding the 2009 ‘State of the World’ theme (“Overpopulation” – September 10, 2007 - 3:35am [page #2]).
Lyle (Worldwatch staffer) wrote on September 4, 2007 - 11:11am (page #2):
-------------------
“I am struck by how many folks feel a real sense of urgency--that a "state of emergency" exists or at least ought to exist if enough of us would wake up to what we are facing. It makes me wonder if just publishing another annual volume is too much business as usual. Maybe instead we ought to create some sort of "solutions guide" and try for far wider distribution. But I'm not sure Worldwatch is equipped to do the next Whole Earth Catalog.
I'd ask you to offer suggestions not just on what is the most important topic, but also how to effect the change the topic requires.”
-------------------
I also enthusiastically endorse the need to declare a ‘state of ecological emergency’, and I certainly agree that something significantly more than ‘business as usual’ is definitely necessary for the 2009 ‘State of the World’ theme. Specifically, if this book does not scare the daylights out of the reader, then it will obviously not convey an accurate message, because the future is truly frightening, no matter what choices humans make.
It seems that there are two main questions that must first be answered to make this book as important and relevant as possible:
1) What message will be clear and persuasive enough to convince an uninformed and apathetic world that there is a multitude of certain disasters looming in the near future from the pollution and resource depletion, assuming the human assault on the environment continues unabated or even accelerates?
2) What action is necessary to undo, halt, or at a minimum, slow or mitigate the present environmental damage and create a sustainable future?
Because of the number and scale of earth’s gargantuan environmental problems, both of these questions inevitably lead me back to my basic thesis that the only change we can make that can actually save civilization is to reduce world population. Credible environmental organizations must stop pretending the earth can possibly indefinitely provide sufficient life-sustaining resources for 9 billion people, a number we’ll reach by 2042, according to the U.S. census bureau. This hesitance to rationally assess the physical limits of the world’s resources will continue to contribute to the delusional thinking of our politicians, economists, and other policy makers, and will therefore result in bad decisions not based on reality.
Considering the world’s remaining oil reserves, and ignoring the ridiculous statistical outliers, the most optimistic estimation of how long oil will be available in sufficient abundance to power our one billion cars is about 50 years. However, more realistic estimates from a much larger consensus of oil geologists and other respected experts have gasoline becoming virtually unaffordable to the average consumer in 10 – 30 years.
Quoting Erica Etelson, former environmental attorney and oil independence activist, “At this point, you might be asking yourself: When oil becomes scarce, how will I get food? That's a very good question. Here are a few more: Will my garbage get picked up? How will my water district purify and deliver water and treat sewage without petrochemicals? What if I need an ambulance? What if my home is one of the 7.7 million that rely on oil for heating? Which of my medications are made out of petrochemicals? How will I get to work? Will I even have a job anymore?”
In a car dependent city such as Los Angeles, the future looks especially bleak unless someone comes up with a good substitute for gasoline. Ethanol is obviously not the answer unless we want to destroy our topsoil and drive food prices so high that millions of people starve to death. Yet, oddly, there is no sense of urgency in L.A. about building large-scale mass transit projects. Rather, there is insane discussion of widening freeways. When the gas runs out, LA will be totally unprepared for what will be a transportation catastrophe.
I bring up peak oil / oil depletion as just one example of how humans are expending resources faster than they can be renewed, and in the case of finite resources such as oil, they are being extracted at an alarming and reckless rate with no plan for the day they are exhausted. However, I could also have used aquifer depletion, fish population collapse, creeping desertification, peak food, etc., as examples of how humans are blindly outstripping the world’s carrying capacity, with either no concern for or awareness of the consequences. This all adds up to the inescapable conclusion that there are simply are too many people and too few resources. Global warming and other forms of massive environmental pollution are the consequence of too many people producing too much waste in a finite space, and far more than the earth can absorb.
Going back to my example of oil depletion, an optimist will say we have enough oil for 50 years. However, I believe that even if we did have 50 years of oil, it’s still a genuine emergency that oil will be gone by 2057, now that we’ve built a world infrastructure that basically assumes infinite oil. But again, more realistic projections have oil essentially running out, or becoming prohibitively expensive, much sooner than 50 years from now, perhaps 10 – 30 years away. Natural gas will also largely be gone by mid-century or sooner, leaving only coal as our main remaining fossil fuel, and even that may be mostly gone by 2100. Almost certainly, there will be no more coal by 2200.
So, the question becomes, can sufficient energy be provided to 9 billion people in a world completely devoid of fossil fuels? I think not. We will need at least some oil for internal combustion engines just to mine the materials to make windmills. I believe this may be the point in time at which resource wars will break out everywhere and people begin to burn the remaining forests just to keep from freezing to death.
Certainly, we need to be as energy efficient and use as much renewable energy as possible. We need to recycle more, consume less, and in general, do all the smart things that the Worldwatch community has suggested. However, if history is any guide, I think we must allow for the fact that many people, and even entire nations, will continue to be uninformed about or indifferent to the need for environmental responsibility. Given that premise, and that world population will increase 40% in 40 years, I think that resource depletion and pollution will ultimately make our world virtually uninhabitable for humans, perhaps as early as 2100.
Therefore, just trying to convince people to be “green” won’t be enough to prevent the collapse of our civilization, although we certainly must be as “green” as possible. Our planet was simply not built to support 9 billion people over the long haul, no matter how energy efficient we are, or how much effort we put into cleaning up our waste.
So how do you convince the scientific community and political leaders to agree that the world is overpopulated, and even more perplexing, what steps are necessary to reduce population? This is obviously the most difficult question of all, but if Worldwatch thinks that reducing population is necessary for a sustainable civilization, then it needs to state that belief unequivocally as a minimum first step.
I can’t think of any major organization that has explicitly targeted overpopulation as the elemental environmental problem, although it is implied by the World Wildlife Fund which maintains, “People are consuming the Earth's natural resources 20 percent faster than nature can renew them.” I believe that fear of controversy has allowed an irrational semi-taboo status to be assigned to the topic of overpopulation, and that is why major environmental organizations don’t talk about it too much.
However, now Worldwatch must ignore all the cornucopian nonsense, thicken its skin, and get on record as identifying overpopulation as the main driver behind almost all of our major environmental and ecological problems, including global warming and oil depletion. Getting the topic of overpopulation into the mainstream environmental and political consciousness, and bringing the issue out of the shadows, is a prerequisite to any action toward reducing population.
How nations decide to deal with overpopulation is obviously up to them, but perhaps a ‘resource usage tax’, increasing with each additional child, would be a possible plan for some countries to discourage large families. However, Worldwatch does not need to advise nations about how to reduce their populations. Rather, it merely needs to tell the world that, somehow, it needs to reduce its overall population and consumption, and preferably in a hurry.
Moreover, it must lay out the consequences of 9 billion people in a crowded world of horrible pollution and brutal resource scarcity. It will not be a world with happy people living in green self-sustaining ecovillages, running on windmills and solar panels. Rather, we are careening toward a dismal world of mega-cities with mega-slums, unreliable or non-existent electricity, and rampant violent crime. This is no time to worry about scaring the children with the facts.
Finally, in 2050, according to the U.S. census bureau, India and China will have 1.8 and 1.4 billion people, respectively, or over 1/3 of the world’s population. Therefore, given their current hyper-industrialization, how they deal with their own population size and resource consumption patterns will greatly affect the ecology of the entire world. I commend Worldwatch for its vigilance on environmental issues related to India and China, and encourage it to maintain its focus on the resource consumption and pollution associated with these two countries. I believe it must also discuss these trends in the context of their large populations.
How do we build a sustaible world?
State of the World is a great report to know where we are and how we are going worse, with many "little" examples about how we could change the actual trends.
From my point of view, we need to know how to change the global trends, how we should manage the world to ensure a sustainable future. I'm thinking about global governance and a propose this issue for SoW 2009. We have to face global challenges so we need global solutions. And, of course, new ways to deal with these global solutions, to manage them and to implement.
We need a new energy paradigm building a huge energy network to take advantage of renewables wherever they are. But how could we manage it?
We need to think about cities as a network, but we can't put all cities together to discuss each new problem. How do we take care of this?
How do we imagine transport in the future? It should be more efficient, but we can't reach this without a global agreement.
We should have an idea about how we will face global challenges as a whole, not giving answer from each state, without any sense because we give contradictory answers which they cancel the others proposals.
We need to begin to build the idea that the world needs a global government that takes of global issues. A govern that fight against global warming and force all states to act, that fight against drug traffic all over the world, that gives global solutions to migrations, etc.
I don't know when we will stablish a kind of global government (I'm sure it will arrive), but, now, we need that people hear about it and imagine it. And, a good path to send this message, is that the SoW talks about it.
An important dilemma
State of the World 2009:
I think the Earth will face a dilemma:
1. To work hard to continue to keep the economic growth going, despite to carry the planet to a collapse.
2. Or voluntarily try to reduce the economic growth and stop population increase in order to keep the ecologic system alive.
I have to say, the humanity “must” face this dilemma in 2009 (better earlier). If not it will be too late to recover the terribly bad affected ecology and we will, in one or another way, be obliged to leave most of our comforts, even maybe worst.
The Global Ecological Emergency and the Knowing-Doing Gap
I. SUMMARY
Aloha:
Thank you for the opportunity to suggest a theme for the World Watch Institute’s 2009 edition of “State of the World.”
This is thus to recommend that “State of the World 2009” focus on (1) the ‘Global Ecological Emergency’ (with emphasis on the trends, scenarios, and analysis in the "Limits to Growth, "Meadows, Meadows, Randers, 2004 edition); (2) 'the Knowing-Doing Gap' that is proving to be perhaps the major constraint to slowing -much less reversing- the linked negative social, economic, and environmental trends; and (3) an updated ‘Emergency Action Plan’ that explicitly takes into account constraints and lessons learned per 1 and 2, above.
Per this proposal “State of the World 2009” would thus:
1) Update, distill, and prioritize the global social, economic, and environmental trends, with emphasis on the ecological (or environmental) issues and their causes...
AND
2) Update, distill, and prioritize what have proven to be the chief constraints to more effective resolution of the negative social, economic, and environmental trends, and lessons learned in the process…
AND
3) Include an updated global emergency action plan based on 1 and 2 above.
II. METHODOLOGY SUGGESTION: INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP USING SYSTEMS THINKING METHODS
Ideally, in this opinion, World Watch Institute would produce the “State of the World 2009” report not primarily as a collaborative effort of writers and researchers, but rather through an international workshop expertly facilitated by World Watch Institute. The workshop would address the proposed theme ("The Global Ecological Emergency,’ ‘the Knowing-Doing Gap", and ‘Emergency Action Plan’; by engaging technical experts (see authors of books below, for example); representatives of several grass-roots movements (e.g., the Green Belt Movement/Africa, Grameen Bank/Bangladesh, and others); policy makers and planners from the UN, World Bank, and several countries, states, and cities with Green Plans; and so on.
The workshop participants would represent as much as possible gender and global ethnic, cultural, religious, and political diversity.
To help the workshop participants more easily manage the complexity and interrelatedness of the core issues as well as to bridge possible cultural and other differences, the workshop would use proven, easily observable (picture connected bathtubs with people, non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on, emptying and filling over time per generally accepted--and workshop-participant-modifiable--data and rates of change). Participatory systems thinking tools, methods, and systems-savvy co-facilitators/resource persons would also be made available. (Note that then-'High Performance Systems,' presently 'isee systems,' co-facilitated a similar, highly successful, social-economic-environmental trends workshop in Honduras over 10 years ago.)
Systems Thinking References: "The Fifth Discipline" books by Peter Senge, "System Dynamics" definition and links in Wikipedia, STELLA software and links at www.iseesystems.com, and the "World 3-03" model available on CD at the Sustainability Institute (www.sustainer.org) and Amazon.com).
III. OUTPUT
Such a workshop would likely increase the credibility -and widen the readership- of the “State of the World 2009” report, with special emphasis on policy makers and others who have the capacity -with full citizen participation- to help establish the action framework necessary to address the emergency global responses that would likely come out of the workshop.
IV. DETAILS
As of 19 Sept 2007 there are many thoughtful suggestions for the “State of the World 2009” on this page: These two are especially apropo in my opinion: (1) "How to declare an international state of emergency", by Lucy Segatti; and (2) "Social mobilization to solve the sustainability emergency", by Phillip Sutton. Both themes focus on the now well-documented crux of the matter: The world ecology is being devastated on a massive and accelerating scale. Mitigative and preventive efforts to date have been grossly inadequate. Thus to more adequately slow -and ideally eventually reverse- the key negative social, economic, and environmental trends others here have mentioned--will require nothing less than a declaration of global ecological emergency. In addition, a commitment by the UN and each of the world's countries will be needed to address the causes of the ecological emergency in a cost-effective, participatory, transparent, equitable, sustainable, and measurable manner--at all levels--on a long-term basis.
The challenge is that THIS THEME HAS BEEN RESEARCHED, WRITTEN ABOUT, AND DISCUSSED FOR DECADES. THERE HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY POSITIVE RESULTS, BUT THESE, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, HAVE IN LARGE PART BEEN INADEQUATE RELATIVE TO THE GROWING DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE WORLD WATCH INSTITUTE TO CONTRIBUTE A ‘DIFFERENT KIND OF REPORT’ THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE PRECEDING.
The World Watch Institute could build upon the many excellent books and articles that have been written about the ecological and related problems and potential solutions, including: “The Long Emergency,” by James H. Kunstler; “Making Development Sustainable” (a booklet), edited by Ismail Serageldin and Andrew Steer; "Our Final Hour," by Sir Martin Rees; "A Prosperous Way Down," by Howard and Elisabeth Odum; "Limits to Growth: the 30-Year Update," by Meadows, Meadows, and Randers; "Living Within Limits," by Garrett Hardin; "Plan B 2.0," by Lester Brown; "The Future of Life," by Edward O. Wilson; "Believing Cassandra," by Alan AtKisson; "Gaia" books by James Lovelock; "How to Grow More Vegetables," by John Jeavons; "World Changing: A User's Guide for the 21st Century," edited by Alex Steffen; and so on.
In addition, the World Watch Institute could build upon the widely acclaimed global conference on these issues held in Rio in 1992: the UN Conference on Environment and Development (“the Earth Summit”).
Good books have also been written that help explain why environmental and related social and economic problem solutions have in many cases not worked, including: "The Pursuit of Loneliness," by William Slater; "The Knowing-Doing Gap," by Pfeffer and Sutton; "The Lucifer Effect," by Phillip Zimbardo; and so on. The World Watch Institute could extract core lessons learned and best practices from these and related works.
V. CONCLUSION
This is to recommend that the 2009 edition of the “State of the World” focus on (1) ‘the Global Ecological Emergency’, (2) ‘the Knowing-Doing Gap’ constraints and lessons learned, and (3) a ‘Action Plan’ taking into account 1 and 2, preceding.
In addition, it is suggested that the 2009 edition of the “State of the World” be produced largely through a workshop that addresses the three elements above, utilizing systems thinking expertise and methods.
Please feel free to contact me if any clarifications are desired or if you would like to share alternative views.
Thank you.
Peter Heffron
Best Practice Planning
Hawaii USA
Population Decline and Economic Change
While the subject heading may seem more appropriate for a book on economics, it is no secret that the largest factor in Earth's environmental decline is our ever-expanding population. Even vastly more efficient use of our natural resources will not halt the degradation to our planet, because the numbers of humans will simply overwhelmn Earth's capacity to support us. The global economy, while laced with parts of socialist economic structures, is largely based on the capitalist system. This system relies on a growing population and an endless resource base to produce more products and sell them to greater numbers. There must be a global shift in our economic system that places costs on environmental damage and extractive processes, provides incentives to lift Third World countries into the 21st century, and makes us all aware that our use of energy and raw materials in First World countries must be radically overhauled.
I hope to see environmental, economic and political specialists come together to propose solutions to this problem, which overarches all others. I feel this should be the theme of the State of the World 2009.
Agriculture, Water & Cultural Traditions
I started a small artesanal & agricultural cooperative in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Having spent most of the past decade dealing with the issues of small farmers in the tropics, I can vouch that the trend of farms being driven out by big business is as common in South America as it is in North America. Every member of our planet must eat every day, therefore, a concise and educated viewpoint of how to completely revolutionize food is necessary. Who better than WorldWatch to expose this topic?
WorldWatch should consider addressing the impact of corporate agriculture on the future of the planet for the 2009 State of the World. In the past the incredible threats to biodiversity and natural resources have been highlighted, however, we now need to recognize the impact big business has had of cultural agricultural traditions. I sense we are coming upon a precipice. Once traditional agricultural knowledge has been lost, peak oil has passed and fragile tropical soils are contaminated by agrochemicals, and the oceans are over-fished, then what will the next generation eat?
Since traditional cultures have been much more cautious in their agricultural practices, I think it is pertinent to investigate the next steps for saving this vital cultural resource. WorldWatch could investigate the role of farm cooperatives, delve into how the global economy can return to direct purchases between consumers & producers, and highlight the outstanding difference in the global footprint when one buys from local producers.
The incredible writing of Vandana Shiva has exposed how large companies jeopardize small-scale farming. Wes Jackson focussed upon the importance of farming in nature's image. Michael Pollen highlighted how global economies are forcing the small U.S. farmer to give up. I would like to see a State of the World that really delves into these issues and provides a format for the most recent updates by acclaimed food writers. The Slow Food event planned for May of 2009 in SF will be the largest international event to be hosted in the U.S. If WorldWatch could educate its readers beforehand, the small farmers participating the Slow Food's exhibition would have a very supportive market.
Judy Logback
Founder & Development Coordinator
Kallari Association
Present and Future Plagues
Plagues will continue to threaten us and climate change, industrial meat production, deforestation and other man-made changes will foster their spread more than ever. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria remain major killers worldwide. Their further spread is driven by poverty and inequality. HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis are further exacerbated by their dangerous synergies. Malaria is further driven by climate change allowing the vector (mosquitos) to reach new regions.
In addition, new plagues are emerging. These are the major hot spots:
• Industrialized meat production: examples are SARS (contained) and H5N1 (may become pandemic within the next couple of years). This world is shared by 6.5 billion human beings and 30 billion poultry.
• Intimate interactions between wilderness and civilization. Examples are: Ebola, Marburg Virus and HIV/AIDS. Increasing deforestation etc. increases contact of man with wild animals and particularly worrisome is the consumption of bush meat.
• Climate change will particularly promote vector transmitted diseases. Examples are: appearance of West Nile Virus in New York/USA, and of Chikungunya virus in India and Italy/Europe.
2009 Theme
Go beyond what seem like myriad symptoms. Go to the root - social change? Fostering a sense of interconnection with all life. Something beyond ourselves, our desires, our fears. Something beyond facts and figures and ideas of right and wrong. Something we know from our hearts and our lives and inform with intelligence and science. A shift from fixing symptoms to aligning with what is true, to aligning with love for all life, from which naturally will spring the movement to change the conditions from which our difficulties spawn (i.e. "making the world a better place to live").
We like fixing this and that but we are not looking deeply enough at ourselves, at our human and cultural propensities. Until we make a true effort to better understand ourselves and shift our own lives, we will continue to make mistakes, though these mistakes may in the short-term seem like successes.
I would like to see WorldWatch somehow encourage greater self-understanding, a shift towards right-relationship with all life (taking the first small step, and the next small step, and the next, in order to look back over time and notice the big leap we have taken), and joining hands with others to do good work, to support one another, and to inspire others (a critical piece). How does a science-oriented organization do this? I am not sure. WorldWatch is an amazing organization, educating us in things that matter, and striving to connect disparate-seeming issues. Please continue to dig ever deeper. I think only deep understanding, firm grounding, and strong community can give us the foundation on which to bring about wholesome, long-term change.
Thank you for the opportunity to have a voice in determining the theme of State of the World 2009
DOING the Good in the 21st Century
DOING the Good in the 21st Century! The same as "Another World under Construction". According to most of the suggestions already given! Another World in the Making? An economy of demand and supply may become an economy of question and answer! Consumers are the ones who ask the questions. Better questions better answers. Isn't it? We're free to choose but responsible for our choises in the end. Consumer Education is in high gear: see UN Decade for Education in Sustainable Development. Consumer empowerment was already there for thousands of years but unconscious. Now we're in the 21st century of maturity. Now we have to explore Consumer Governance! I think!
Peter Daub
consumer360.org
2009 issue
I suggest an issue entitled alternative futures in which the issue provides outlines of the kinds of societies that are possible, impossible, desirable, undesirable. Perhaps we need to address the question of are there not only natural limits to growth but that only certain types of social arrangements are desirable/possible. This is not utopianism as I would like a rigourous assessment of limitations to what is possible under various scenarios. This is not to deny utopianism as a useful tool, but I believe that utopias are good to think but impossible to realise.
The wisdom we need
Aldo Leopold, in his "Conservation Ethic," took note of the technological innovations that mesmerized Americans of his time: autos powered by fossil fuel; airplanes that traversed the skies; radio and telephone waves that coursed through the ether, then sagely observed, "But are these all, in a sense, mere parlor tricks compared with our utter ineptitude at keeping land fit to live on?"
As humans continue to remake the earth with a violence Leopold compared with "remodeling the Alhambra with a steam shovel," the abused and simplified landscapes are increasingly unable to support the biodiversity upon which our own existence depends. Deserts expand, urban and industrial activities gobble up agricultural land, mining and toxic waste render vast expanses biologically sterile for decades, even millenia.
Our ecological crisis demands we scour the insights of Leopold, Rachel Carson, Wendall Berry (especially The Gift of Good Land, with his concept of "solving for pattern")and numerous others, and rethink education for all ages. We need to promote such wisdom, along with sustainable energy and agricultural practices, such as permaculture, which can begin healing abused land, as we move forward to create sustainable, convivial communities.
Hegemony of the North
Fred J Kruger
CIC International
Pretoria, South Africa
Despite multilateralism and globalisation, public views and public policies relevant to development and the environment are excessively coloured by the Northern mindset. Animal rights movements reflect ethical arguments appropriate to urban people whose knowledge and senisbilities are distantly divorced from the realities of rural life in the developing world if not callously insensitive to it - it is, for example, inexplicable otherwise that Peter Singer's book "In Defense of Animals" should contain the outrageously deceptive statement ""We have no nutritional need for animal products". Jeffrey Sachs has done the necessary work on geographical economics to show us how different the economies of countries can be because of differing access to the sea or navigable waterways, or differing human and animla exposure to disease vectors - and Jared Diamond has done the same kind of thing by looking at environment, technology, disease and other factors, yet this knowledge does not feed through to global policy. We seem, for example, to expect a country such as Namibia to comply with the same energy and climate performance standards as any other, overlooking its remarkably low poulation, resource and infrastructural densities, a situation that locks it into a high-energy economy - e..g through a medium- if not long-run dependence on energy-hungry road transport, at least until new technologies spill over from the North. So taking this as just one small example among many, I argue for a focus on the patterns of and constraints to global policy on the environmemt from the perspective of the developing world.
"Southern" resources?
Fred, I agree with your post. Sitting in Washington, DC, publications of the "Northern mindset" are better publicized and more easily accessible to us than many from the rest of the world.
What are some of your favorite publications on environmental global policy coming from developing countries? I had the opportunity to work with the Center for Science and Environment in Delhi before starting at Worldwatch and greatly value their research, for example.
Best, Zoe (Worldwatch researcher)
Southern issues
Fred J Kruger
CIC International
Pretoria, South Africa
Thank you Zoe. To respond very briefly, I will touch on three fields of global policy, and then on N-S tourism. The three fields are land degradation, climate change, and species protection.
The UNCCD, on land degradation, was something of a sop to African interests. It is now making progress but still skirts the issue: no poverty alleviation without (properly governed) economic development and the resultant economic and demographic shift from agrarian (70-80% in some of the countries at issue, the same as in several of the Asian tigers in the 1960s) to industrial land largely urban societies; no shift, then you have land conflict and degradation. Do we want to address the sonclsuions that would come from deep analysis, instead of romantic notions of rural society?
In climate change, one of the hopeful instruments was or is the Clean Development Mechanism, but the methodologies established to govern the transactions require the services of specially qualified and expensive accounting firms, and are costly to the point of being a barrier to the benefits intended. True, revision is under way, but it is a nice case of the consequences of Northen origins.
CITES is a major global instrument of species protection. CITES forums are highly policised, and prone to the influence of animal rights groups which despite having people from the developing world as members, are highly tendentious. Are trhe consequences ot wildlife management in southern Africa (and elsewhere?) acceptable?
Finally, tourism, epsecially ecotourism, is propogated and offered as the alternative to agriculture and industry, especially in Africa and South America, both standing on the threshold of agricultural intensification, and hopefully, industrialisation. But ecotourism (in Africa) based on the Northern trade must have the Big Five. What consequnence? And what of the threats from Northern tourism operators that the trade will fall away if the Big Five are to be managed?
So, here, hopefully, are a few indicative issues that may themselves be tendentious, but which I suggest tell us what may be worth examining.
Regards, Fred Kruger
Overpopulation
The theme for ‘State of the World 2009’ should be the topic that will most affect the long-term sustainability of our planet. That, of course, is the world’s population, or to be more accurate, overpopulation.
Admittedly, global warming, peak oil / oil depletion, peak food, and other forms of worldwide resource depletion and pollution, each by themselves have the potential to destroy civilization as we know it. However, none of these problems would be so urgent if we had one or two billion people in the world. Further, I can’t imagine how any of these problems can be solved with the earth’s current population of 6.6 billion, going to 9.2 – 9.4 billion by 2050, according to the United Nations and U.S. Census Bureau, respectively.
Mort Zuckerman, billionaire owner of the US News and World Report, recently wrote, “in 1964, we discovered 48 billion barrels of oil and consumed approximately 12 billion; in 1988, we found 23 billion barrels and used 23 billion barrels; in 2005, we found 5 billion to 6 billion barrels and consumed 30 billion barrels.” Most geologists predict that oil demand will significantly outstrip supply sometime in the next 15 years, with an increasing number of scientists believing that peak oil may have actually already occurred. This is another “inconvenient truth” that doesn’t get a lot of attention from the uninformed media, but there are serious basic survival questions associated with the issue of peak oil.
Erica Etelson, former environmental attorney and oil independence activist, states, “the impacts of peak oil range from dire to catastrophic: At best, get ready for a crippling recession and widespread inflation. At worst, we face severe global food shortages that threaten wide-scale starvation and an overall breakdown of social and economic institutions. And if history is any guide, we can expect a series of military invasions into every remaining oil hot spot in the world - invasions that may, by the way, require even more fossil fuels than we could possibly expropriate by force.”
Many people suggest that solutions to peak oil might involve greater and more creative uses of coal. However, as is abundantly obvious, coal is an absolute disaster for global warming, acid rain, air and mercury pollution. Also, coal extraction wreaks havoc upon ecosystems.
Nevertheless, even in our future globally warmed greenhouse of a planet, there will be some brutally cold winters, and so coal will play a large role in our energy future whether we like it or not. For example, if the earth’s average temperature increases 5 degrees Fahrenheit, Moscow would still have an average January low temperature of 14 degrees. To keep billions of people from freezing to death after all the oil and natural gas are gone, massive amounts of coal will continue to be burned, because it is not likely that wind, solar, and (heaven forbid) nuclear can meet the entire energy needs of 9 billion people.
Of course, even coal is finite, with recent analyses of coal reserves suggesting the peak of world coal production may occur as early as 2030, far sooner than had been previously projected. You can add this to the list of future looming nightmares, because as destructive as coal is, we aren’t near a viable alternative energy source that can serve as its replacement. For some context, the U.S. and China get 50% and 80%, respectively, of their electricity from coal.
It is unlikely that we could get global warming under control in a future world so dependent on coal for most of its energy (until it runs out, perhaps as early as 2100). Famed British environmental scientist, James Lovelock, referring to air pollution’s “global dimming” effect, states, “We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."
Niall Ferguson, L.A. Times columnist, frets, “Some people worry about peak oil – when we reach the peak of petroleum production. I worry about peak grain. World per capita cereal production has already passed its peak – in the mid-1980s – not least because of collapsing production in the former Soviet Union and sub-Saharan Africa. Meanwhile, rising incomes in Asia are causing a worldwide surge in food demand. Already, the symptoms of the coming food shortage are detectable. The International Monetary Fund recorded a 23% rise in world food prices during the last 18 months.”
This latest craze of using ethanol for a transportation fuel will only make the looming food crisis far worse, and won’t come close to compensating for world oil depletion. Nevertheless, it illustrates how desperation to keep our cars running at any cost will inspire insane and destructive national energy policies. At every turn, it seems that any attempt to solve one monstrous problem only exacerbates another.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that global warming, peak oil / oil depletion, peak food, etc., are sub-problems of the overarching elemental problem of overpopulation. All of these sub-problems have their own causes, but none would be particularly alarming, and they would probably be manageable, if we had one or 2 billion people on the planet (there was 2.57 billion in 2050, for reference). That is, one could argue that global warming is not the result of humans burning fossil fuels, but rather it is the result of 6.6 billion people burning fossil fuels. However, overpopulation is rarely targeted by environmental groups or the media as being the underlying basis for all other negative environmental and ecological trends.
In a recent Worldwatch poll discussing the ‘demographic shift to a more urban world’ (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5190), Robert Engelman (Vice President for Programs, Worldwatch Institute) recommended the pdf publication “Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable”, written by J. Kenneth Smail.
Smail’s preface is quite direct: “Looking past the near-term concerns that have plagued population policy at the political level, it is increasingly apparent that the long-term sustainability of civilization will require not just a leveling-off of human numbers as projected over the coming half-century, but a colossal reduction in both population and consumption.”
Smail also states that, “It is, however, worthy of note that several investigators and organizations have developed reasonably well thought out positions on future global population optima, and those estimates have all clustered in the range of 1 to 3 billion.”
For the sake of argument, let’s accept Smail’s claim that civilization’s ultimate survival requires a “colossal reduction” in population. Further, let’s assume that reputable environmental organizations such as the Worldwatch Institute, World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute, Earth Policy Institute, the Union of Concerned Scientists, etc., all actually agree with these ecologists, environmentalists, biologists, and other assorted experts who spend their time estimating the maximum sustainable populations. That is, they agree that the sustainable world population number is 1 – 3 billion, or at least some number far less than the current 6.6 billion, not to mention the projected 9.4 billion by 2050.
If all this is true, then one might ask, why aren’t these environmental organizations doing more to alert an unfortunately rather clueless world to what is certain to be civilization’s undoing? That is, by only rarely discussing overpopulation’s relation to all environmental problems, these organizations consistently and consciously evade what they know to be the biggest environmental issue of all. Moreover, why do we never see a call for any action, or better yet an actual plan to reduce population, except for promoting birth control access? Perhaps it’s fear or bewilderment, but here is how Smail describes the absence of what is probably the most important conversation we should be having:
“It is surprising how little scientific and public attention has been directed toward establishing quantifiable, testable, and socioculturally agreed-upon parameters for what the Earth’s long-term human carrying capacity might actually be. Unfortunately, with only a few notable exceptions, many otherwise well-qualified scientific investigators and public policy analysts have been rather hesitant to take a clear and forthright position on this profoundly important matter. One wonders why – inherent caution, concerns about professional reputation, the increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political enterprises, or any of several other reasons. Given the issue’s global nature and ramifications, perhaps the chief reason is simply “scale paralysis,” that enervating sense of individual and collective powerlessness when confronted by problems whose magnitude seems overwhelming.”
The fear of harming one’s professional reputation is somewhat understandable. When reducing population is suggested, even as absolutely necessary for the survival of civilization, the attacks can be relentless, even by some who accept the main overpopulation premise. In my experience, the most common responses to the assumption that we need to reduce population are, “Why do you want to kill people?” or “So you want to kill or abort baby girls like they did in China, huh?”
And of course, there is the infuriating ‘doomsayer’ / ‘anti-economic-growth-nut-case’ label that is attached to anyone even suggesting that overpopulation is a serious problem, as if they are some sort of heretic. U.S. Corporations could not be more thrilled that China has 1.3 billion potential customers, and that India will have 1.8 billion in 2050. CNBC, a popular business channel that regularly marvels at China’s 11% GDP growth, has never mentioned ‘ecosystem carrying capacity’, to the best of my recollection – it’s just not on their radar screen. There is also a substantial amount of religious opposition to any discussion of limiting population. Politicians are either unaware that overpopulation is a problem, or they don’t think discussing it is beneficial to their career aspirations.
However, given the urgency to make rapid, radical, and fundamental changes to our way of life, someone needs to step up to the plate, and as Smail suggests, “Confront the inevitable”. I believe that governments need to take serious action to discourage large families, even if that means taxing births at greater amounts for each additional baby. Overpopulation must be taken “out of the closet”, elevated to the stature of global warming, and it should be seriously discussed and debated at the U.N. level. This can only happen if our brightest and most influential scientists can get courageous all of a sudden, and inform world leaders, political institutions, and corporate stakeholders that natural resources and economic growth are indeed finite, and per capita prosperity is diminishing as world resources are depleted.
Those experiencing ‘scale paralysis’ will simply throw up their hands and say, “There’s nothing we can do about reducing population, so let’s at least try to do what might be achievable, like recycling plastic and driving hybrid cars.” However, if the population problem is not solved, then it really doesn’t matter what other problems we attempt to solve. The accumulation of ecological deficits and global pollution is so vast that it’s difficult to imagine meaningful progress on any of the world’s more intractable problems, such as global warming or the consequences of oil depletion, unless population is reduced. All the trends are terrible, and the deterioration is accelerating.
From Worldwatch’s Danielle Nierenberg and Mia MacDonald (“The Population Story…So Far” [September 2004]):
a) Industrial fleets have fished out at least 90 percent of all large ocean predators – tuna, marlin, swordfish, cod, halibut, skate, and flounder – in just the past 50 years, according to a study in Nature in 2003.
b) Half the world’s original forest cover is gone and another 30 percent is degraded or fragmented.
c) Carbon dioxide levels today are 18 percent higher than in 1960 and an estimated 31 percent higher than they were at the onset of the Industrial Revolution in 1750.
d) An estimated 10 – 20 percent of the world’s cropland, and more than 70 percent of the world’s rangelands, is degraded.
From Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner, Brian Halweil (“Beyond Malthus” [1999]):
“David Seckler, head of the International Water Management Institute in Sri Lanka, the world’s premier water research body, observes in a new study that “the extraction of water from aquifers in India exceeds recharge by a factor of 2 or more. Thus almost everywhere in India, fresh-water aquifers are being pulled down by 1–3 meters per year.” Seckler goes on to speculate that as aquifers are depleted, the resulting cutbacks in irrigation could reduce India’s harvest by 25 percent.”
A recent editorial in the Hindustan Times suggests that, “Only a bitter dose of compulsory family planning can save the coming generation from the fast-approaching Malthusian catastrophe.” Among other things, this comment appears to implicitly recognize the emerging conflict between the reproductive rights of the current generation and the survival rights of the next generation.
From the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [June 2004]:
1) From the mid-1990s to 2000, 1,374 square miles have turned into deserts each year - an area about the size of Rhode Island. That's up from 840 square miles in the 1980s, and 624 square miles during the 1970s.
2) By 2025, two-thirds of arable land in Africa will disappear, along with one-third of Asia's and one-fifth of South America's.
3) Fertile topsoil can take centuries to form, but it can be washed or blown away in a few seasons. Human activities such as over-cultivation, deforestation and poor irrigation practices combined with climate change are turning once fertile soils into barren patches of land.
4) In Mexico, 47 percent of its land is affected by desertification, causing vast population movements.
In its regular 2004 Living Planet Report, the World Wildlife Fund said, “People are consuming the Earth's natural resources 20 percent faster than nature can renew them - a dangerous imbalance that is driving the loss of species and may lead to critical resource shortages in the years ahead.
The world has some 28 billion acres of productive land and ocean to meet the needs of 6.3 billion people (in 2004) -- an average of 4.4 acres per person. At current rates of consumption, however, the global ecological footprint requires an average of 5.4 acres' productivity per person -- roughly 20 percent more than what can be sustained at today's levels.
"We are spending nature's capital much faster than it can be regenerated. Collectively, we are bequeathing to our children the most dangerous budget deficit of all, an ecological debt of growing proportions," said Richard Mott, WWF's Vice President for International Policy.”
Of course, finite resources, by definition, will never be renewed. They are a one-time natural inheritance that, in hindsight, should have been thoughtfully rationed. At some point in the future, we will look back on how we used our one-time endowment of earth’s 2 trillion barrels of oil, of which we have used more than half. I am confident that “smart” is not an adjective that will appropriately describe how we spent our oil inheritance.
Entire books can be written (and have been) about the creeping ecological catastrophes now upon us, such as those mentioned above. The projected conclusion, assuming no significant changes, is always the same – massive ecosystem meltdown and then ultimate collapse of civilization. Likewise, the obvious course of action is and has been crystal clear for a few decades, but never more so than today. That is, population must be swiftly reduced to match the earth’s rapidly diminishing resources, and this needs to be the major headline from any reputable environmental organization that actually views saving civilization as its mission, including Worldwatch.
It is generally accepted that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is not an appropriate exercise of freedom of speech. The obvious exception to that conventional wisdom would be when the theater is actually on fire. In that case, you could argue that it would be irresponsible or worse not to yell “fire!”, even though such a warning is very likely to cause some degree of panic. Well, the theater is now officially on fire (population has outstripped carrying capacity), and Worldwatch must boldly and forcefully alert the world to that fact. It must provide supporting data, obtain the opinions and projections of leading environmental experts, lay out best and worst case scenarios, and simply ignore any criticism it gets from having the courage to tackle this tough issue.
Either humans will act soon to create a sustainable world, or by mid-century, we will be looking forward to a bleak dystopian future, with 9 billion people trying to eke out a miserable existence on an empty shell of a planet, largely devoid of vital resources necessary for survival. By 2100, life on earth will make Mel Gibson’s Road Warrior / Mad Max world look like a vacation resort.
Much of what I have learned about the environment has come from various Worldwatch essays, books, and other publications. I believe that it has provided an invaluable service in presenting an unemotional and straightforward account of how the world has been falling apart at the seams over the years, primarily with its annual universally respected “State of the World” series.
However, now things are different, and I think Worldwatch’s tone and direction should reflect that ominous increase in urgency. In the 1987 edition of Worldwatch’s State of the World, Sandra Postel explained that “natural systems (e.g., the climate, forests, human body, world, etc.) may absorb stresses for long periods of time without much outward sign of damage. A point is reached, however, when suddenly conditions worsen rapidly. Scientists may anticipate such sudden changes, variously called jump events, thresholds, or inflection points, but rarely can they pinpoint when they will occur. As the scale and pace of human activities intensify, the risk of overstepping such thresholds increases.”
We are now past the world’s inflection point / threshold by just about any measure, and therefore, immediate action is essential unless humans are ready give up on a sustainable world. The Worldwatch Institute has done a brilliant job of detailing the problems, but now it must do more than simply be a ‘World watcher’. It must take risks to its reputation that not many scientists or environmental organizations who understand the consequences of overpopulation are willing to take.
In changing its focus to population reduction above all else, Worldwatch can expect a healthy dose of vitriolic political opposition, but this is a time to welcome that most important debate, rather than be timid and shrink from it. The data and facts visibly demonstrate the overpopulation dilemma as never before, an increasing number of informed people are beginning to realize that fact, and they would rally to Worldwatch’s defense. Worldwatch would be on the vanguard of a bold new direction in environmentalism, and if Worldwatch does not take on this challenge, then who will? Someone simply must.
As Smail states, “Perhaps it is time that the burden of proof on these matters, so long shouldered by so-called neo-Malthusian pessimists, be shifted to the “cornucopian optimists.” Let them answer: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand, without irreparable damage, another two or more centuries during which global human numbers and per-capita consumption increasingly exceed the Earth’s optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity?”
Integrated systems
I think that very few people can comprehend how integrated all our systems are. We are getting a taste, with news stories like biofuels causing starvation in Mexico, but no on is adding everything together. Like, climate change will raise temperatures, rice blossoms are very sensitive to warmer night-time temperatures, half the world eats rice, half the world also lives within 50 miles of the coast, and climate change will also raise sea levels and increase storm severity.
I don't want to harp on climate change, it was just the first set of examples. As a matter of fact, I am concerned that climate change will drown out sustainability, and in order to achieve sustainability, we must understand how deeply interlinked all of our actions are.
State of the World 2009
All of the concerns our world faces can be summed up in one word-Energy. Food, environment, economies, water, war or peace, industry, transportation, communication, climate change-you name it-our individual and planetary life depends on energy.
The (i)rational use of energy
It should include how the world os preparing itself for the future demand of energy.
Brazil for istance, with its huge capacity for hydropower and biofuels, is reconsidering the investment in a 3rd nuclear power plant. In the opposite direction to a sustainable supply of energy, I think.
I believe the discussion about energy should be the main topic in the following years, since inequality, scarcity of resources, pollution, wars, and several other problems derives from it.
Empowerment
The distribution and effective generation of responsible power seems a critical issue to me - aligned with responsible ICTs. In the powerful world we are drowning in communication chaos. We are also denying communication empowerment through lack of effective power and telecommunications distribution. (does the ICT aspect of this form a dimension of naontechnology as referred to by Prof. Hunt?)
Energy Accounting
A green economy allows people to maintain a work ethic. But is it enough to maintain the people? To stay alive, people need the energy that's stored in food. To maintain technology, whether a computer, a nuclear reactor of a farming hoe, people need energy to power industry and transform technology into benefits. I would like to see the State of the World consider how to live in a future where the energy supply for people and technology does not equal the energy demand. Can we live with this possibility?
Mark Mortimer
http://www.civilizationsfuture.com
High time for World State
Saluton! (hello, in Esperanto)
For years, WorldWatch has been fostering the awareness that the world is our homeland. Now it is high time to spell the solution to our many social and environmental illnesses; if we share this planet, we must build the frame of living together: a world federal state. We understand the urgent need to green our parties, so that we can vote green in our municipalities, the same is true for the national governments - how long can we deny our obligation to vote also on the global scale?
The basic failure of our democracies is the hypocrisy of limiting our responsibility for human beings and the environment to our national borders. State of the World series has tracked the links between global environment and globalizing markets, now it's time to highlight the need of world government, that will democratically represent the interests of world community.
Oded Gilad, world patriot.
theme for 2009
Ronald Paul Palmer-I suggest that the theme for 2009 be the beginning of the age of "Human-Powered Electricity". We have the technology to build an exercise machine that would re-direct a moderate, 10 minute workout into a substantial amount of electricity, which can be stored in batteries for use when needed. People could be generating a large part of their electrical needs - in their own homes - with just a moderate amount of daily exercise.
Simple human power is the most abundant, renewable, non-polluting source of energy in the world, and it is being ignored.
The larger implication of this idea is this: Every able-bodied human being on the planet could have a commodity that will always be in demand...to use for their own needs, or to sell. Poverty in the world could be eliminated. Global warming could be reversed. Energy crises could be a thing of the past.
This idea was born over 30 years ago, and in view of the present state of the world, perhaps its time has come.
Disposable societies
A good hard look should be taken at the mismatched view of many governmental regulations regarding the disposable goods industry and manufacturers. On one hand we have legislational changes to help combat climate change and many other environmental issues.. then on the other hand, you have shopping centres full of disposable products that are used once and then are wasted.
Remove the majority of these products, phase in products that are built to last not built to break. In conjunction with this run an educational program regarding the reason to change. The changes that can be made at grass roots levels have the potential to be huge....
There are too many situations where we walk the walk but don't talk the talk and we definitly need to look at consumer based waste of resources and ways to combat them. Maybe look at the processes used by our grandparents and greatgrandparents to save money, back when there was not this disposable commodity mentality that would produce a crisis, if it carries through to the developing world.
2009 theme suggestions
I think Fr Thomas Berry's quote "an extracting economy is a terminal economy" or Brian Swimme's quote "economic prosperity equals environmental bankruptcy" has potential for many articles. I was inspired by a National Geographic presentation on the megastructures of Dubaii. Life after oil!!! If we could harness that kind of creativity for all the life afters eg. ocean fish, World wide forests, that is, life after trees, life after extinction of fish species etc then we could follow the example of the King of Dubaii, fast track 30 years, and live as though they were already gone in order for what is left to survive. What we desparately need is a litany of what can be done to make a difference on a grand scale. Thankyou Worldwatch for your magnificient and courageous work. As Thomas Berry says "It is the GREAT WORK" and you do it so well.
2009 theme suggestions
I think Fr Thomas Berry's quote "an extracting economy is a terminal economy" or Brian Swimme's quote "economic prosperity equals environmental bankruptcy" has potential for many articles. I was inspired by a National Geographic presentation on the megastructures of Dubaii. Life after oil!!! If we could harness that kind of creativity for all the life afters eg. ocean fish, World wide forests, that is, life after trees, life after extinction of fish species etc then we could follow the example of the King of Dubaii, fast track 30 years, and live as though they were already gone in order for what is left to survive. What we desparately need is a litany of what can be done to make a difference on a grand scale. Thankyou Worldwatch for your magnificient and courageous work. As Thomas Berry says "It is the GREAT WORK" and you do it so well.
Danger of radioactive contamination
In light of the renewed interest in building nuclear power plants (especially in Asia) and the construction of reprocessing plants for spent nuclear fuel, it seems as if the issue of radioactive contamination of the water, soil and air is completely ignored.
In earthquake prone Japan, there is a growing awareness by the general public about the dangers of nuclear power plants (many of the 1970's models which are built above major fault lines), and of the deadly contamination of the ocean and air expected from the Rokkasho spent-fuel reprocessing plant, which is expected to emit daily 2yrs worth of radiation emitted by an average nuclear power plant.
As ocean water and air have no boundaries, the effects of these power plants and processing plants can be potentially harmful to the well-being of ocean life and our food source.
This is just an example, but I would like to see the overall dangers of radiation researched and discussed in depth as we face this new sparked interest in nuclear power as an alternative energy source.
Earth Voice food Choice
EARTH VOICE FOOD CHOICE
Our world is facing huge problems, from environmental and health issues, to wars and resource mismanagement. These problems seem unsolvable and affect us all on a deep emotional level. Surprisingly, there are actually solutions. All of us can contribute – everyday – without expensive campaigns, demonstrations or lawsuits.
Most people can agree that our world is run by money. The billions of people of the Earth spend money every day. What most are not aware of is that with every dollar they spend they cast a vote. Our monetary vote is a powerful tool to speak directly to industry and corporations. If we don’t want polluted lakes and rivers, but keep buying toxic food we cast a vote for a toxic world. This is just one example of how we all can start speaking out without waiting for politicians or government to “fix it” for us. Voting with our dollars goes right to the source. If we don’t buy it, they won’t make it. We have this power.
The effects of our individual food choices are far-reaching. Our everyday food choices directly affect global warming, water pollution, and topsoil depletion as well as obesity, cancers, and heart attacks. Buying and consuming more whole, organically grown plant foods is one of the most powerful, yet simplest actions we could do everyday to help our health and the health of our world.
The production of animal food products is responsible for causing many of the planet’s most catastrophic environmental problems and depleting natural resources at an unprecedented rate. The animal and chemical agriculture industries are the primary polluters of our planet’s water and soil. They accelerate desertification, forest loss, global warming and the depletion of water, soil and ozone. Chemical and animal agriculture is even a major cause of species extinction. Furthermore, the livestock industry is consuming most of America’s grain supply, which could be used to help solve world hunger problems and be used as biofuels.
Animal products such as meat, poultry, fish and dairy are also heavy contributors to most of the diseases afflicting Americans. Heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, osteoporosis, some forms of cancer, obesity, and other less life-threatening diseases are all influenced by the excess consumption of animal foods. Treating these diseases is costing hundreds of billions of dollars per year in health care and health insurance. Notwithstanding advice from experts, the United States government continues to spend billions of tax dollars to subsidize these industries.
In contrast, a diet of organically grown plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds produced without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, enhance personal and environmental health. Plant foods contain vitamins, nutrients, protein, fiber, antioxidants, phytochemicals, essential fatty acids and many other beneficial compounds designed by nature to promote health and prevent disease. Plant foods are heroes for health. Plants are the only living things on Earth that have the ability to take the sun, the air, the water and the soil, and make food and oxygen for most of the living beings on our planet.
Compared to animal foods, plant foods are less polluting to the environment and conserve natural resources. If plant foods were consumed more and animal foods less, hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved on health care costs.
The animal and chemical agriculture industries, through the Department of Agriculture (USDA), supply enormous volumes of chemical laden, animal foods to children in schools. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is the United States largest feeding program. It is based on an outdated model that teaches children little about the cause and effect of their food choices. Our health and our planet are suffering the effects of an economically driven food program that needs to be updated to twenty-first century nutrition standards. The manner in which our children view food, the development of their eating habits, their health and the condition of the world they will inherit, are directly linked to the NSLP. Earth Voice Food Choice Project addresses the detrimental effects of America’s current National School Lunch Program and offers logical suggestions for its improvement.
Earth Voice Food Choice is a multimedia Manual and DVD designed to educate teachers, parents, students and government officials how to present, inform and inspire people to eat more unrefined, organically grown plant foods and fewer chemically processed animal and junk foods. The Project is designed to initiate a positive shift in human awareness and in the hearts and minds of children, parents, teachers, and people in government. The possibilities for beneficial change are monumental.
Earth Voice Food Choice Manual
Getting Real About Our Food Choices
A Multimedia Project for Teachers, Parents, Young People and Food Personnel
Earth Voice Food Choice is a “How to” Manual for anyone who wants to initiate a healthy food and education project in their schools, homes, camps, or institutions. This Manual contains over 350 documented facts; history of the USDA; proven field tested strategies for implementing the project in schools; tips how to present to students; actions students can take to inspire government to support the concept of healthier foods in schools; kitchen preparation ideas for food personnel; institutional size recipes that fit within the RDA’s and the USDA’s meal pattern requirements and draw off existing and available USDA commodities; delicious recipes for home use; handouts for students and parents, letters of introduction, news articles, announcements and everything else people will need to implement a successful project. (200 Pages, 8.5” x 11” Manual with 100 Recipes.)
Earth Voice Food Choice DVD
Health, Environment, Global Survival and You!
What’s the Connection?
This DVD takes you on a ride through outer space in search of a planet that has the three things humans need for survival: air, water and soil. Fly into the atmosphere of Earth and witness the profound beauty of our world and the animals we share it with. Watch hundreds of beautiful pictures of the natural world and learn about Earth’s life support systems. Experience how humans have destroyed much of our natural resources. Learn how animal and chemical agriculture are negatively affecting health, environment, economy and world hunger. Travel into the interior of the human body and learn how to prevent disease. Meet the super heroes for health and the power of consuming and producing more organic plant foods. Learn how to make mindful food choices, vote with our monetary purchases and become part of the solution. This DVD is great for classroom and auditorium presentations and for home use. (39 minutes, plus 57 minutes of bonus features.)
Todd Winant, the founder of Earth Voice Food Choice, has been delivering this presentation to tens of thousands of people around the United States since he first introduced the Healthy School Lunch Program in 1991. Todd created and narrated the Earth Voice Food Choice DVD and is the author of the Earth Voice Food Choice Manual and has motivated many people to achieve success with this project.
For more information, to see clips of the DVD or pages of the Manual, and to order these materials, please visit www.earthvoicefoodchoice.com
Todd Winant
earthvoicefoodchoice.com
State of the World 2009: Going Mobile
The mass migration of peoples is not a new phenomenon. Examples include the arrival in the USA of waves of European immigrants fleeing religious persecution in the 18th century, famine in the 19th century, and the Holocaust in the 20th century. But seeking refuge in other lands has become increasingly easy with the advent of modern transportation and communications systems. Today, drought, flood, famine, war, political instability, and poverty, among other things, are driving millions of people to migrate in search of a better life. What impact will this have on ecosystems and local cultures? How can we stabilize economies and political systems so that people are not compelled to relocate? How do we plan for our future energy needs if we can't predict our population due to porous borders? In short, will we become a planet of refugees or find better solutions?
When Will the Sh*t Hit The Fan: Time to Fight or Flee?
There are sooooo many BAD things happening now: overpopulation, dwindeling resources (water, food, oil), global warming (I think it's WORSE than "they've" been saying) and irrational religious bigots. The economies of the world are all screwed up too.
Honestly I have NO hope for the future unless we abolish money, laws and international boundaries. (Glad I don't have any kids.) Only a Messiah could do that, someone with charisma would have to find a way to gain publicity, like marrying someone rich/famous or making a movie about a Messiah rebuking the powers that be, advocating abolishing money, allowing free distribution of LSD, MDMA (ecstacy), magic mushrooms, etc.
Is there any hope? I'm NOT counting on it.
It's time to flee Babylon. Babylon deserves to fall but it could be saved.
I'm looking for a nice place to escape. BE PREPARED! We see the "signs of the times."
How about a State of The World on saving, logistically certain areas of the world. Like Portland, Oregon recently studied how they would survive Peak Oil.
Can Arizona farms (where I live), be converted to Corn & Soybeans? Will we be able to grow locally all we need? (I lived on and loved Corn & Soybeans, with a pinch of salt and 125mg vitamin C for one year as an experiment.)
More info at my website: http://www.666isMONEY.com
State of the World 2009
The economic costs of global warming (inter alia) need closer analysis in a framework that brings estimates of costs in the resource economy into the established national accounts of the monetary economy. If GHGs traded at prices including currently non-monetized external costs, what would the prices be? At those prices, what would be the elasticities of competing technologies? Over a period of say 10 years what would the prices, costs, and benefits be, including the resource economy? How would that compare with business as usual? The premise is that the real economy is deteriorating, but partial monetization fails to quantify of the losses. The money economy justifies big investments in business as usual which appear to benefit the investor and society. A more comprehensive accounting would show losses. Similarly, a more fully monetized economy would show profit from more sustainable investments and societal net benefits. Following up on the Stern report, we can't afford not to invest in non-carbon alternatives if we measure the economy correctly. Our accounting system has little to do with real economics or free markets; it results from cultural assumptions, ignorance, vested interests, and the use of political power arising from these forces.
Toxics and Ecological Health
I see many big issues here that I think are key, esp. those of water and climate change. But equally pressing is an issue I don't see talked about here: the bioaccumulation of toxics. This is an issue which presents a potentially devastating future for human health and perhaps worse indicators for the ecological health of ecosystems worldwide.
We have yet to determine many of the effects of the chemical cocktail that is brewing in our bodies, in our lakes and rivers. Yet it seems so many of the "innovative" products on the market today, as well as the materials we use to build our urban environments, are full of chemicals whose effects are only beginning to be understood. Someone also mentioned nanotechnology - I fear the potential power of particles tiny enough to pass unnoticed through cell walls being manufactured wholesale and captured in the items we use day-to-day, let alone being released, intentionally or unintentionally, into our air and water. I would love to see these issues captured in a State of the World.
Even if it is not a central theme, I could see this topic being brought together with some of the other topics previously mentioned, e.g. water and food (and the packaging they come in). I'd welcome other suggestions as well.
Agree re: health
Sarah, I was nodding as I read your post. I agree that human health is a central issue to most everything we talk about--water, food/ag, economies, etc. Our health drives our quality of life, and therefore influences many decisions we make. Our health is so integrally connected to our local environment--and increasingly--to our global environment. I'd love to see us expand understanding of the environmental/health implications of climate change.
Best, Zoe (Worldwatch researcher)
Integrative Improvement
The challenges we face in our economies and societies in our divided unsustainable world are perhaps greater than at any other time. These challenges have arisen because of how we have been trained to think, plan and act as individuals and how we have applied this training to the way we organise and govern ourselves. We have thought, planned, organised, governed and acted as though our world is comprised of parts that can be separately exploited by humans and managed by us from one stable state to another. We have forgotten we are just one species in a complex natural world. We have tended to act without a sense of wholeness - without integrity. Meeting these challenges will require new approaches to how we are trained to think, plan and act as individuals and how we are trained to organise and govern. These new approaches will need to be based on our current scientific understanding of our world and the human mind.
Integrative Improvement (II): development as if people and their physical, social and cultural environments mattered, is such an approach. It is science-based, demand-centred, technology-enabled and adaptive. In economic terms II is about improving individual and organisational productivity.
The core process for developing and applying II is centred on improving the integrity, creativity and performance of each person involved, improving the integrity, creativity and performance of each organisation involved, facilitating the evolution of networks and providing a common basis for communication between individuals and within and among organisations.
Kind regards,
Graham Douglas
GRAHAM DOUGLAS
FOUNDER, INTEGRATIVE FEDERATION
Achieving Sustainable Development
http://www.integrative-thinking.com
integrative@optusnet.com.au
Topic Editor, Sustainable Development, Encyclopedia of Earth
http://www.eoearth.org/