One of the challenges I’ve found in talking about environmental justice occurs when justice claims seem to oppose economic ‘development.’ In short, marginalized people around the world too often find their claims about appropriate land use policies and practices ignored or outright dismissed if these claims contradict large-scale industrial development. For example, in the video below, the Dongria Kondh tribe in India tried to block the onset of open-pit bauxite mining sponsored by the transnational company Vedanta. The Indian federal government and Vedanta made fairly similar arguments – opposition was ‘irrational,’ particularly since the arguments made by the Dongria Kondh seemed to rest so much on emotional, religious and cultural appeals. Surely, these should matter little to the possibility of GDP growth, modernization, and capitalist development. This is something we’ve seen before, including in this country.
While the Indian villagers are not convinced that this ban is permanent, it still represents a hope that even the marginalized, if supported by legal institutions, can have a positive impact on environmental practices as linked to social justice.
I find this to be an interesting map, because there are a few different ways to interpret the data (which seem pretty accurate), that reflect how you think about people and the environment. The first is that the population of East and Southeast Asia is massive, and still growing. Since our environmental impact is a product of our population, affluence (or rate of consumption), and use of technology – or I = PAT for short – we could say that the population of East and Southeast Asia is alarming.
This is a logical connection to make. As multiple sites show, our 7 billion people on earth are consuming a lot of resources. Water, oil, and other natural resources are being used at rates that may seem Malthusian. Therefore, there is a solution that also seems pretty logical: we should curb (or reverse) population growth to slow the rate at which we are depleting the Earth’s resources. As this handy-dandy video indicates, our population’s exponential growth over the past 200 years is something unheralded.
The problem with this line of thinking (i.e. focusing on population as the source of environmental woes), is that it shifts the blame for the state of the world’s current condition to people who have not historically benefited from its overexploitation. While it is true that changing lifestyles in China mean that it (and other Asian countries) are consuming more and more, historically and presently, each North American and Western European consumes much more than each Asian.
Garrett Hardin – Secret Eugenicist
Further, this line of thinking may lead to very troubling conclusions. If we focus on population as the source of our problems, then our solutions should likewise focus on population. One prominent environmentalist, Garrett Hardin (read in almost every single class on environmental policy and politics) took this logic to its natural, eugenicist conclusion. In a paper titled “Lifeboat Ethics,” Hardin, noting the problem of a growing world population, argued for cutting off foreign aid to poor people living in Asia. He observed, as clinically as possible, that “every Indian life saved through medical or nutritional assistance from abroad diminishes the quality of life for those who remain, and for subsequent generations.”
The fact that it is we, living in the industrialized world, that are the primary consumers does not seem to have impressed him at all. Of course, population is a concern. And of course Asians (like everybody else, I should add) are consuming more than they did a generation ago. But let us not lose site of who is responsible for the ‘Non-Negotiable Lifestyle’ that started all this.
Well, perhaps it will take longer to update than May 14, after all.
In any case, the next few updates will be from the field: for the next three weeks, I will be travelling through southeastern Mexico – through the states of Quintana Roo, Campeche, Yucatán and Chiapas – studying the politics of biodiversity conservation, land use management, and local autonomy over natural resources.
Why do these things matter? First, as recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity, Mexico is one of the 12 “megadiverse” nations in the world – 70% of the world’s biodiversity is found in these countries. Consequently, if we want to maintain the world’s natural capital, we should be concerned about what happens there.
Second, like most countries around the world – but perhaps moreso in developing countries – Mexico is under pretty severe political, economic and social structural pressures from international, as much as domestic, forces to promote economic growth. Naturally, the idea that promoting growth in certain sectors will bring ‘development’ to a still underdeveloped country and comparatively poor population is attractive; even if such growth comes at the expense of environmental quality in the short term, it may be in the national interest in the long term. In addition, if you consider that much of the environmental issues in developing countries are linked to poverty – issues such as poor water quality, a lack of adequate sanitation, exposure to preventable diseases – then there may also be an environmental justification in promoting ‘development’ in key sectors.
Of course, the problem is that this idea that developing countries can solve their issues through development should be critically examined. While major economic sectors such as tourism (since I’ll be in the coastal area of the Yucatán Peninsula) do promote GDP growth in the aggregate, it’s not always clear that this growth ‘trickles down’ to the marginalized population who needs development most. Ownership of capital and resources tends to be highly concentrated in the large earners, and aggregate figures may mask real socioeconomic inequalities. In addition, while it would be impossible to escape an environmental impact in any human activity, a lot of this activity is highly ecologically unsustainable. Coastal hotels, such as those that characterize Cancún, are severely disruptive of natural ecosytems. Over time, the precise features that the economic sector depends on – an aesthetically pleasing coastline – are those that are at risk of overexploitation and collapse. Without proper management then, these economic activities may contain the seeds of their own destruction.
In any case, I’ll update when I can – I’m about to board, so the next time I post, I’ll be in Mexico!
Season’s Greetings! Here’s a question I was pondering: how can you have a more environmentally friendly Christmas?* This may be more difficult than it seems. First, environmentalists are not generally known for their optimism, joyous spirit and good cheer – all of which are presumably necessary for holiday celebrations. Second, Christmas represents gross consumerism and the purchase of disposable goods (particularly by the richest 20% of the world, which consumes 80% of goods and services), most of which are produced by underpaid labour across the globe – then shipped here – all of this, of course, necessitating the burning of more fossil fuels, and oh Lord, I’m doing it again.
Anyway, yes, we environmentalists aren’t always Grinches. Here’s how we can all have a slightly greener Christmas:
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree
So, which is better for the environment: cutting down a tree, or purchasing an artificial one? The answer is slightly more nuanced than you might think. In fact, last year, PE Americas conducted a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of the most common artificial trees and the most common types of real trees to get to the bottom of this and found that the results are mixed (PDF).
In short, artificial trees are reusable, and the vast majority of them are recyclable (which may not be widely known). However, their manufacture requires the production and use of polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs), which can lead to the emission of persistent, bio-accumulating, and toxic compounds including dioxins and PCBs. While the risk of absorbing dioxins from your own, personal Christmas tree is low, at the point of manufacture and disposal, the risk is much higher – particularly since, as the LCA shows, much of the artificial Christmas trees are produced in China.
At the same time, if you’re concerned about emissions of GHGs, keeping an artificial tree for longer than 4 years lowers your carbon footprint more than if you bought a real tree each year – particularly if doing so requires shipping the tree for long distances. Moreover, as agricultural products, Christmas trees often require pesticides, including Roundup and lindane, which is a persistent organic pollutant (POP).
Personally, my preference is to go for the lindane-enhanced real tree. They smell better than the artificial ones – all piney, and delicious – and if you manage to buy local, they tend to be better than, or even with, artificial trees in terms of GHG emissions. In addition, by avoiding the production of PVCs, real trees are less likely to contribute to dioxin production. While lindane is incredibly toxic, dioxins may be the most problematic of the widely-used POPs.
Eat All the Food on Your Plate (but Don’t Pile it On)
No, this isn’t about the starving children in Ethiopia (and I never understood how eating all my food helped the starving children in any way – why couldn’t I just ship my casserole to them instead, huh Grandma?). Rather, when it comes to Christmas dinner, try to eat less, but eat all of what you take.
In a 2009 study (PDF) carried out by a National Institute of Diabetes in Bethesda, Maryland (and published by the Denmark Institute of Preventive Medicine), food waste has a deleterious impact on the environment. Wasted food means wasted water and wasted fossil fuels, both in production and disposal. In addition, producing food we don’t eat requires the introduction and emission of GHGs, pesticides, and herbicides – in addition to agricultural runoff and other forms of pollution. It’s bad enough that we have to do this for subsistence – it’s downright insulting when we contribute to these processes for no productive reason. In fact, the study indicates that 1/4 of freshwater consumed in the US goes to the production of food waste, a serious problem considering the water shortages plaguing the Southwest of the USA.
Of course, the solution is not really to eat everything that has been produced on the market – hello, rising obesity rates – but rather, to eat less (but hopefully eat better food). And eat it all!
Get Good Gifts – or Consider Charity
Get good gifts! Try to be thoughtful, instead than buying something likely to be disposed, just to have an item under the real/artificial tree. I personally would like to reinstate cash as an appropriate gift, but also consider donating to a charity in the name of someone as well. Donating to charity also brings socioeconomic benefits, as well as environmental, considering all the people who are doing without in these trying economic times.
Anyway, hopefully this hasn’t been too Grinchy. Have a happy holidays! I leave you with one of my favourite Christmas songs of all time:
*I realize this leaves out all those who don’t celebrate Christmas; hopefully there will not be too many posts that are this parochial.
Wow, this is flattering: my blog has been listed as a useful resource tracking the Durban climate talks. This plug provided on the Forest Carbon Portal, a website run by the Ecosystem Marketplace, a research organization dedicated to analyzing the benefits of marketizing ecosystem services, including biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and water. As indicated, their primary goal is to help “…give value to environmental services that, for too long, have been taken for granted.”
They have a wealth of information on forest and carbon markets, including work on REDD. Check their site out, see what you think, or see the new links provided to their reports in the Research and Resources tab.
Smoke and Gas for Burning Automobile Batteries in 1972
Over at The Atlantic, you can find a sample of 46 photos taken in the 1970s, under the auspices of the then-newly created EPA. These photos, taken between 1971 and 1974 show domestic manifestations of the global environmental crisis: mountains of damaged oil drums; a virtual blanket of parked automobiles; a fish, twisted and deformed from mercury poisoning; oil wells dotting Galveston Bay in Texas, site of a terrible oil spill in 1990 (bonus: there is a picture here of a couple swimming in the Bay, indicating its history as a site of recreation and nature enjoyment).
See, too, evidence of the racial and class injustice prevalent in environmental problems. Industrial smog squatting, visibly, on a black neighborhood in Alabama. A miner’s child, outhouses visible in the background, whose father was participating in a strike against unsafe working conditions, labor exploitation, and exposure to pollution caused by the practices of Eastover Coal Company.
A visual understanding of what environmental harm means, I think, is necessary to understand what the political debate on regulation is about. It’s not just about jobs, profit margins, and esoteric wonkery. It is, fundamentally, about life.
Here’s a telling discussion: in order to deal with the fact that certain commercially consumed fish species, such as salmon, have declined precipitously, human society has engaged in fish farming. In short: commercially consumed fish, such as salmon and tuna, are raised in captivity, corralled and contained on the coast in full or semi-captivity, and fed a controlled diet to ensure maximum marketability. The problem, however, is that in order to raise salmon and other carnivorous species in captivity, aquaculturalists end up capturing and ‘converting’ lesser fish into fish meal. In doing so, we end up consuming a greater amount of fish as hidden costs: it takes about 20kg of fish meal to produce 1kg of farmed tuna.
Simple economics. What a shame. There are a variety of problems with this attitude – instead of re-examining the nature of excessive consumption (a worthwhile topic, considering the rates of obesity), science is being dedicated towards maintaining the rate of resource exploitation – worse yet, advocating the adoption of engineered and unnatural fish food in the guise of environmentalism and sustainability. It should be noted as well, that reforming the fish feed process will also likely lead to greater environmental stress in other ways. Raising fish in captivity, regardless of whether they are fed an unnatural vegetarian diet (to which they have to become ‘accustomed’), places them at greater risk of disease. To take only one epidemiological study, in a 2007 study published in Science Magazine, projections of the spread of salmon lice indicate that 99% of farmed pink salmon populations could collapse in 4 generations. This is not even to mention the contribution of unnatural concentrations of fish waste and byproducts of antibiotics to marine coastal pollution, nor the fact that the industrialization of fish production means a greater concentration of capital, market share, and hence wealth among an elite few. For a more in-depth critique of fish farming, which also has negative impacts on socioeconomic equity, food security, and animal rights, see this study.
Once again, the problem is straightforward – excessive and unbridled consumption threaten ecosystem stability and the natural balance and, not surprisingly, socioeconomic justice. The solution should be straightforward as well – change the patterns of consumption. Reduce the quantity of fish consumed – avoid industrially produced farmed fish for sure – and try to live sustainably. Yet, once again, human ingenuity is being dedicated to maintaining irrational behavior at all costs.
Well, this is a good thing. A member of the Middlebury faculty has designed a project to promote conservation, sustainable growth, and cultural protection in Ghana. Read more about it here. This project is going to be funded in part through donations from Kickstarter – they only have about $200 to go to receive additional funds. Pledge now, even if it’s only $5!