Indian women tending vegetable plots (CIAT via Flickr)

At this juncture, the scientific consensus on climate change is pretty clear: the world is warming, we’re causing it, and it’s going to get a lot worse for a lot of people a lot quicker than we thought. Given the progressively more urgent calls to arms of past reports, the soon-to-be-released Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is sure to paint an even bleaker, even more certain picture of what is to come. And as such, the question we all must ask ourselves will no longer be “what is the future going to look like?” but rather, “what are we going to do to survive an unfavorable future?” In other words, it’s about time we not just try to prevent climate change’s worst effects, but perhaps more importantly adapt to a warmer world.

Considering the central role of agriculture to human civilization, and how sensitive it is to variations in climatic conditions—including average temperature and rainfall changes as well as variable events like droughts, floods, and extreme weather—helping agricultural systems and farmers adapt is crucial. Of course, in doing so, we must respect the agency and capability of those that need to adapt to find and implement appropriate solutions that fit their own and their communties’ needs.

Indian rice farmer (Adam Jones via Flickr)

Indeed, endogenous agricultural innovation for a changing world happens every day, all over the world, when farmers get creative with the tools that they have to deal with the problems they face. For example, by experimenting with the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)—a series of techniques that allow smallholders to increase rice yields with fewer costs and without resorting to Green Revolution-esque chemical crutches, 4 to 5 million farmers in 51 countries are seeing yields of one of world’s most important crops double. The success of these organic, low-technology techniques are most visible in the agricultural regions of India, where one farmer broke a world record in growing an impressive 22.4 tonnes of rice on one hectare of land. SRI techniques have also been used to successfully boost production of other vital crops like wheat, tomatoes, sugar cane, and yam.

There are simple and effective ideas like those involved in SRI being developed constantly by clever farmers around the globe, but the problem is: how do we get these ideas from farmer A, who has successfully increased her rice crop yield, to farmer B, who is desperate to do the same but can’t afford experimenting with untested techniques?

An India-based NGO called Digital Green has found a way to spread such ideas. Digital Green has pioneered a system that works with organizations already working on improving farming conditions, including established governmental agricultural extension programs, to train them to use video technology to more efficiently disseminate innovative ideas. By creating short videos of farmers who have mastered new techniques and screening them in nearby areas to neighbors who could benefit from them, Digital Green has been able to simultaneously increase rates of adoption of new techniques and decrease costs of agricultural extension. Additionally, in multilingual India, where Digital Green is concentrated, this localized approach has been particularly significant because of its ability to harness and deliver knowledge in the language of the farmers who need it.

Digital Green is still in its inception, but its system shows much promise for sustainable agricultural development. Moreover, the Digital Green model could very plausibly be used to communicate life-saving information when thanks to climate change, farmers can no longer trust traditional agricultural knowledge based on historic climatic conditions. Now a model of farmers helping farmers, it can easily become a model that enables climate change victims to help themselves.

At its most basic, adaptation to a warmer world will be about empowerment. Individuals in communities facing climate adversity, who see their food security threatened, will need to find creative ways to adapt. Enabling the diffusion of a diverse set of adaptation measures, tools like those promoted by Digital Green can provide both knowledge and strategies to adapt, hopefully strengthening bonds of solidarity between those affected and igniting the spirit of resiliency we will all need in the looming “Long Emergency.”

Mobility for the human body, not the car. Photo courtesy of Jennie Moore.

Washington, D.C.—As the world continues down the path of unmitigated and unsustainable development, it is becoming increasingly clear that we have successfully pushed ourselves out of the stable geological era of the Holocene and into the more volatile and unpredictable Anthropocene. Nevertheless, many remain blissfully unaware of this truth due to the fact that ecosystem thresholds are not always marked with warning signs of impending danger. Unfortunately, this means that we may actually pass through a tipping point unaware because it is quite possible that nothing significant will happen at first.

In State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible?, the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) discusses the need to collectively stay within our planetary boundaries if we wish to achieve environmental sustainability and return to a stabler, Holocene-like era.

According to Ecological Footprint studies, humans have already overshot the planet’s ecological capability by about 50 percent. State of the World 2013 contributing author and Senior Researcher at Oxfam, Kate Raworth, notes that the high consumption levels of the wealthiest 10 percent of people in the world and the resource-intensive production practices of companies are the biggest sources of stress on the planet today.

“If ‘one-planet’ living is the goal, then lifestyle choices will obviously have to entail more than recycling programs and stay-at-home vacations,” said Jennie Moore, Director of Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, and also a contributing author. “For success, the world’s nations will have to commit to whole new development strategies with elements ranging from public re-education to ecological fiscal reform, all within a negotiated global sustainability treaty.”

Although it is critical that we reduce our total resource use to a level below the natural threshold, it is equally important that every person has access to the resources they need to lead a life of dignity and opportunity. In State of the World 2013, contributing authors suggest taking into account both our planetary and social boundaries when measuring sustainability:

Examining Planetary Boundaries. Nine planetary boundaries have been identified that together describe an envelope for a safe operating space for humanity, and we may be able to achieve environmental sustainability if we collectively live within these boundaries. These include: climate change, biodiversity loss, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone, ocean acidification, global freshwater use, land use changes, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution.

Incorporating Social Boundaries. Living within our planet’s natural boundaries is essential, but taking into consideration social boundaries, such as access to fresh water, education, health care, and other basic needs is as important. Between the social foundation of human rights and the environmental ceiling of planetary boundaries lies a space that is both environmentally safe and socially just, and we must work to move in to that space.

Adapting a parking lot for urban agriculture. Photo courtesy of Jennie Moore.

Living Within Our Means.In order to live within the ecological carrying capacity of our planet, there must be a more equitable distribution of Earth’s resources. This means that significant and widespread lifestyle changes will need to take place. The emphasis is on each individual living within their “Fair Earth-share” which amounts to 1.7 global hectares per capita, according to Moore and contributing author William E. Rees, Professor Emeritus in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia.

Transforming Social Norms.The concept of environmental sustainability must permeate both the social and cultural domains. Until society can shift away from its blind commitment to unconstrained economic growth, progress will not be made. Global action is needed to stimulate corporations and consumers to shift gears toward living within their Fair Earth-shares.

In a world where humans are inextricably intertwined with their environment, a method for measuring society’s degree of sustainability could be just what people need to begin to shift their way of thinking and embrace a truly sustainable lifestyle.

Worldwatch’sState of the World 2013, released in April 2013, addresses how sustainability should be measured, how we can attain it, and how we can prepare if we fall short. The opening section, to which the above-mentioned authors contributed, also includes deeper explorations of how to measure sustainability of energy use, freshwater, fisheries, and nonrenewable resources.

Authors of the book’s opening section include:

• Carl Folke, Professor at and Director of the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics and author of Chapter 2, “Respecting Planetary Boundaries and Reconnecting to the Biosphere.”
• Kate Raworth, Senior Researcher at Oxfam and a teacher at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, author of Chapter 3, “Defining a Safe and Just Space for Humanity.”
• Jennie Moore, Director of Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship in the School of Construction and the Environment at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, co-author of Chapter 4, “Getting to One-Planet Living.”
• William E. Rees, Professor Emeritus in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia, co-author of Chapter 4, “Getting to One-Planet Living.”

Notes to Editors:

For more information and for review copies of State of the World 2013, please contact Supriya Kumar at skumar@worldwatch.org

About the Worldwatch Institute:

Worldwatch is an independent research organization based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy, resource, and environmental issues. The Institute’s State of the World report is published annually in more than a dozen languages. For more information, visit www.worldwatch.org.

In the March online issue of Nature, a group of scientists argued plastic should be treated as hazardous waste. They specifically urge the biggest producers—USA, Europe and Japan—to take measures to modify the current production and consumption trends. In the US, the EPA estimates 45 percent of plastics are used as containers and packaging, and that only 12 percent of these are recycled. In 2012, 280 million metric tons of plastic were produced worldwide. These scientists project that a total of 33 billion metric tons will have been produced by 2050. Less than half of the discarded plastic ends up in the landfill; the rest ends up in the wind and sea. Currently, it is classified as solid waste, such as food or glass.

Food packaging is an important part of plastic production
Flickr/Creative Commons by James Offer

The scientists argue that “the physical dangers of plastic debris are well enough established, and the suggestions of chemical dangers sufficiently worrying” to take important actions. Indeed, plastic debris threatens wildlife directly—as choking and entanglement hazards—but also indirectly by being toxic or by absorbing other pollutants. According to a hazard-ranking model based on the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, chemical ingredients of more than 50 percent of plastics are hazardous¹. For instance, PVC can be carcinogenic. Some other plastics such as polyethylene—used to make plastic bags—are less dangerous, but can be dangerous when absorbing other pollutants such as pesticides. Scientists quote an unpublished study to argue that at least 78 percent of priority pollutants listed by the EPA and 61 percent by the European Union are “associated with plastic debris”, which means they are ingredients of plastic or absorbed.

Public institutions have tried to grapple with plastic pollution for decades. For instance, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was signed in 1973 to minimize pollution from dumping and exhaust pollution with a complete ban on the disposal of plastics at sea in 1988. Since then, problems such as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” have gotten worse. In the European Union, the REACH law to regulate hazardous chemicals is described as the most complex sets of rules in the EU’s history and could have a significant impact, though will take years to demonstrate its effects. Even stronger suggestions exist though, such as the Center for Biological Diversity petitioning the EPA to develop rules on plastic pollution under the Clean Water Act. Still, the situation is getting worse and governments seem unable or at least unwilling to tackle the issue.

Debris, Old Toys | Flickr/Creative Commons by Orin Zebest

The authors suggest using the example of one of the most successful international environmental agreements: the Montreal Protocol of 1989 that classifies CFCs as hazardous. Production of these refrigerants stopped within 7 years with 200 countries replacing 30 dangerous chemical groups with safer ones. A treaty focusing on just four plastics—PVC (construction, especially pipes), polystyrene (food packaging), polyurethane (furniture) and polycarbonate (electronics)—would be a “realistic first step.” These plastics represent about 30% of production, are difficult to recycle and are made of potentially toxic materials. The new classification would allow quick action using already existing legislation. They give the example of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 that would allow the EPA to clean the accumulation of plastic in land, freshwater and sea under US jurisdiction. They calculated that the new classification would reduce the 33 billion metric tons of additional plastic produced by 2050 to 4 billion.

They also condemn the preferential treatment offered to the plastic industry. While food or pharmaceutical industries have to prove that their products are safe, plastic producers ask governments to prove that plastic is not safe. The authors recognize the lack of research to make definitive statements on the risks of plastic toxicity, but there is enough to invoke the precautionary principle. Regulations need to be changed to head towards a closed-loop system where plastics are re-used and recycled, starting with the most dangerous one. To those arguing the plastic industry is an important sector during an economic crisis, the authors remind readers of the costs of dealing with plastic debris. For instance, the Division of Maintenance in the California Department of Transportation reports spending approximately $41 million a year just on litter removal. Some plastic manufacturers are already working on closed-loop systems and safer materials to boost innovation. Scientists call the biggest producers to “act now,” as plastic pollution is getting worse every day and the window to deal with it effectively is closing.

Mr. Macguire in The Graduate was right, “there is a great future in plastics.” Not in unregulated production of 280 million tons a year, but in changing policies to ban the worst of them; finding ways to limit consumption of them; redesigning plastics to be environmentally benign; and in developing a closed-loop production, consumption and recycling system to avoid a catastrophic accumulation of plastic in our environment.

Copenhagen

On the day that Worldwatch Institute launched State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? 69,578 cyclists crossed the Dronning Louise Bridge into the centre of Copenhagen providing a very simple answer to that very weighty environmental question. Of course sustainability is possible, if we make sustainable choices. In the Danish capital, hundreds of thousands of people have chosen the bicycle as their main mode of transport, turning Nørrebrogade, a main thoroughfare into the city, into Europe’s busiest road in terms of bicycle traffic.

Worldwatch president Robert Engelman kicked off the launch event by talking about the concept of “sustainability”. He asked whether the word itself is “sustainable” – coming to the conclusion that yes, it is possible, but that a lot of work needs to be done. In the spirit of the first section of the State of the World 2013 report, which he authored, Engelman explains that the book examines if there are market indicators that show us when we are surpassing sustainability in the different resources that we use, and in the second section whether we can use those methods to develop policies for a more sustainable state. The third section asks how we will have to adapt if we don’t manage to achieve a sustainable society.

Robert Engelman gave the opening talk of the afternoon

Is there a way to bring real prosperity and real quality to the world without having to overuse the earth’s resources, he asks. He explains the importance of moderating the amount of fossil fuels that are responsible for increasing temperatures which may potentially make the world uninhabitable by humans.

Engelman gave the example of Cuba becoming truly sustainable when it lost its main patron in 1989 – after the collapse of the Soviet Union – and was forced to become more self-sufficient and less dependant on fossil fuels. Cuba also started creating municipal gardens, and improving life and health indicators.

He said that we can not have environmental sustainability without social sustainability because it will not last. He highlighted the potential of using natural methods to absorb carbon and added that we cannot solve the problem of sustainability if we do not have national, international, and local governance. “Get the government to prioritize public interest over private well-being.” Engelmans says. The real question Engelman raises is how to make people think of the welfare of future generations when they live so well today, and concludes that the real work in sustainability will be made in the social sphere. “Time is the scarcest resource of all, but our minds, brains, hearts, and souls are the most abundant natural resources of all. We need to use them for this cause”.

The Danish Development Minister Christian Friis Bach followed by also talking about the importance of cutting down on fossil fuels. “If we got rid of fossil fuel subsidies we could cut global emissions by 13%”, and gave the example of the World Bank who offered Egypt a social protection scheme in return for cutting fossil fuel consumption. He says that the combination of less fossil fuels, energy efficient measures, together with tariffs for renewable energies and a social protection scheme would result in lower CO₂ emissions, less poverty, more growth, and improved welfare for the country. “That’s how one needs to tackle sustainability and it can be done”, he said.

The General Secretary of the Nordic Council of Ministers Dagfinn Høybråten pointed out ways in which leaders can move the sustainability road from “babble” to action. “If there is political will to stay on the goals and stay on the action, we can do it”, He says that it’s not about scarcity but about access to resources. He also outlined the importance of teamwork and showcased a number of joint projects. He said that in the decision making process, there needs to be more content, and not just minor improvements.

Christian Friis Bach addresses the first discussion panel

Questions from the audience to the speakers on pension funds, de-growth, and de-population, and whether the world is moving away from sustainability sparked vigorous debate. The President of the Worldwatch Institute, Robert Engelman, said that what we need to achieve is a higher standard of living with more quality, and that this in no way implies reducing the population to do that.

The second session of the conference, Getting to True Sustainability, examined policies and perspectives that could build a truly sustainable society if implemented. Ed Groark, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Worldwatch Institute, set the tone for the discussion asking how we came to live in a society that is exploiting all of its resources to make products that we dispose of. “It takes a hundred cans of water to make aluminum for one can” was just one of the examples he gave to show that we do not really think about where these products go once we no longer need them. Is it possible that corporations evolve in a way that they can support our grandchildren’s society indefinitely and sustainably? He suggested five principles in order for a corporation to become sustainable – recycle materials, renewable energy, waste free production, resource productivity, non-linear productivity. He concluded that companies will get a competitive advantage over time and will evolve to become more profitable through sustainability.

Jasper Steinhausen, Chief Market Manager of Sustainability at COWI, a leading northern European consulting group that provides state-of-the-art services within the fields of engineering, environmental science, and economics, responded positively to the question of whether businesses can function as a driver of sustainability. He suggested a shift to renewable energy and biodegradable materials. “Reuse of second or third-hand products might create local jobs” he said and concluded that companies should challenge existing structures and routines in order to survive.

Katherine Richardson, Professor in Biological Oceanography at Copenhagen University, took the debate to a different level by talking about the climate and about how the human species can actually affect the whole way that the planet functions. She pointed to the different stages the earth has gone through in the past, where at some point the human species understood its course, and thrived, and underlined nine different points where scientists wouldn’t want to intervene but let nature and humans take their course.

On the question of whether sustainability is still possible she said that this is not the question we should ask ourselves because “We’ve only just developed the tools for sustainability and there is no definition for the environmental and social components”. “Who has the right to use the last half of a certain resource?” she asked and concluded by saying that if we are going to use that resource we should use it properly. “We have an important role as human beings and we should not ask how to take care of the planet but how to take care of ourselves”, Richardson said.

Last but not least, Martin Ågerup, Director of CEPOS (Centre for Political Studies) appeared in the role of the devil’s advocate, and challenged the previous three speakers by saying that he does not consider sustainability an emergency – he said it’s all about adapting because “society was never sustainable is a steady state but we’re still around because we have adapted to new situations”. Instead he defended the free market by saying that it has been quite capable of dealing with scarcity and environmental problems. “Most of us are better off than 20 years ago and we are solving environmental problems by recognising that we can adapt” he said. He questioned certain aspects of the book such as working time policies, minimum and maximum wages, progressive tax rates approaching 100%, rewriting our cultural narrative and copying New Guinea and Cuba as an example of sustainability saying that all this is utopian stuff and not the kind of thing that will move us forward. He agreed with the idea of a common tax system.

Katherine Richardson responded by saying that there is a labour, economic, and resource limited market, we need to make the transition and it’s not certain that the market can do that on its own. She also argued that some things the market and technology can not change in the natural system such as phosphorus which cannot be replaced. Technology can’t make energy either. There will be a transition to other forms of energy, Martin Ågerup says but the question is how and when.

Ed Groark speaks during the second discussion panel

Can businesses find ways of using resources more efficiently? Is sustainability a useful term? Should we be limited to how much we earn or how many crops we grow? “No, I don’t want that”, Martin Ågerup says. But in Richardson’s opinion, “Businesses will take it where they want to go”. Groark is keen to point out that. “Corporations will start responding to a little bit of scarcity but unless it is hurting them economically they will not have the motivation, but they are quite adaptable. We just have to give them the motivation to do that”, he adds.

“We are not talking about picking the winner. All we are saying is where society wants to go in the future.” Richardson concludes.

A lot of ideas, a lot of different opinions, and a lot of intellectual passion did not always agree. But where the experts DO agree is that as human beings, we need to collectivley get on our bikes and make sustainability a practical reality. Copenhagen’s thousands of cyclists would surely approve.

The Talks

View Robert Engelman’s full presentation here
View Christian Friis Bach’s full presentation here
View the first discussion panel (Robert Engelman, Christian Friis Bach, Dagfinn Høybråten) here
View Ed Groark’s full presentation here
View Katherine Richardson’s full presentation here
View the second discussion panel (Martin Ågerup, Ed Groark, Jasper Seinhausen, Katherine Richardson) here

While official measurements reveal that the UK’s domestic production of CO2 has dramatically decreased, the country is the second highest global importer of embodied emissions. Because much of the UK’s industry has migrated to cheaper countries, in-state production has decreased, but consumption has not. Instead, the UK simply imports goods from developing nations. When taking such imports into account, the UK has actually increased its emissions by 10 percent in the past two decades.

Though China recently surpassed the United States as the largest carbon emitter in the world, it does so in a globalized society obsessed with cheap goods and labor, both of which China willingly supplies. Indeed, a 2008 study demonstrated that up to a third of China’s CO2 emissions were a result of exports to other countries. There is no doubt that China and other developing nations like India and Brazil have drastically increased global carbon emissions. However, measuring emissions purely based on domestic production neglects the reality of a global economy. For example, while Brazilian consumption is responsible for much of the Amazon’s deforestation, exports are responsible for an increasing percentage. It is both unfair and irresponsible for the Western world to point its fingers at the very countries it has outsourced much of its industry to. Though India and Brazil, and certainly China, need to mitigate their own emissions, they will continue to find it challenging to do so as the rest of the world clamors for their cheap labor. Consumers fart and the Chinese get the blame.

A clever portrayal of what happens when adding imported goods into the UK’s emissions (Leo Murray)

Imagining a sustainable America in 2100. (Image courtesy of E Magazine)

Ever since directing State of the World 2010: Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to Sustainability I’ve gotten the question of yes, but what would a sustainable culture really look like? As I started writing about degrowth for State of the World 2012, this question only grew in frequency. So, recently I attempted to paint a utopian vision of a Sustainable America in 2100.

And by utopian, I mean that in both the positive and negative sense of the word–ideal but impossibly so. With ancient political realities in play (power preserves itself) the idea that we will smoothly transition to a post-consumer, post-growth, post-fossil fuel world is pretty hard to believe. But this is my imagining of a sustainable 22nd century America where reason prevailed. After all, without fantasies about the future, what keeps us motivated to keep on working towards utopia?  Below you’ll find a few excerpts from my recent E Magazine article, “Choose Your Future: A Vision of Sustainable America in 2100.”  You can read the full piece online.

Climate change has had a devastating impact, and it’s not over yet. The total warming of 3.3 to 4.5 degrees Celsius predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has led to considerable ecological changes. Chicago now has the climate of New Orleans, and New Orleans, well, much of that was claimed by the Gulf of Mexico. The rest of that city, one half of Miami, a third of Manhattan and many other cities were either lost to rising sea levels or proactively converted into wetlands in order to provide a buffer to what habitable land remained. Losing that land was a great tragedy, but a shrinking population, combined with an increasingly agrarian economy made it less painful—in economic terms at least. Nothing will ever replace the loss of the birthplace of jazz.

I started the piece by making it clear that even in the extremely utopian future, we’re going to have ugly ecological changes. We’ve built those into the system already. So, I’m sorry Miami and New Orleans but I don’t think you’ll make it through the century, no matter how quickly we course correct (Manhattan, on the other hand, is so loaded that they’ll probably insulate themselves for a while with sea walls).

Perhaps the most striking shift in the United States in 2100—and one of the reasons for [the fact that America now has negative CO2] emissions—is that a large proportion of Americans now consider their primary occupation to be “homesteaders.” The vast majority live in what were once called “bedroom communities,” suburban infrastructure that was long ago retrofitted into small farmstead communities that provide a secure source of food, textiles and goods both for families living there and the adjacent urban populations.

How does everyone live in this future? Mostly like we have throughout history: as smaller, subsistence farming communities. Either in rural, suburban, or urban settings (though of course urban populations are more specialized, drawing food surpluses from rural areas–but many manage ecosystem services, parks, and community gardens). And also gone are the days of single-family living:

One of the effects of a shift to homesteading, smaller family size, and an increasingly informal economy has been the return of multi-generational households. The era of outsourcing elder and childcare came to an end as the total number of jobs shrank and cheap transportation declined but this was readily solved by having elders once again taking care of children while younger adults worked either in remaining formal jobs or around the homestead. Clearly—in such an individualistic culture—this transition didn’t come without friction.

I of course had to discuss major changes in consumption as well–the end of the private car, major reductions in electricity consumption (thanks to carbon taxes and tiered pricing schemes), drastic cutting back of TV time,  huge reductions in meat consumption, and yes, the major shrinkage of pet populations:

While discussing population, one surprise may be the dramatic decline in America’s pet population, which fell from its 2013 peak of 171 million dogs and cats to less than two million today. Americans still have pets, but often they are shared at the community level and are full members of a community—serving important roles like guarding farm animals from predators or getting rid of mice. Most households no longer have their own dog or cat but have productive or edible pets, like chickens, rabbits or goats. While hard to believe, dogs and cats are minimally missed now that our human population isn’t as socially isolated as it was in 2011. Pets’ valuable therapeutic role became less important once people had close communities of friends and family to lean on and bond with.

I also discuss nationalizing fossil fuel industry and relegating these fuels for only unsubstitutable purposes (special plastics, medical supplies, drugs) and how there was resistance to this (partially triggering the Gray Depression) but this was eventually quelled. And I also discuss that while the formal economy continues to shrink, this is more than offset by a growing informal or to use Juliet Schor’s word “plenitude economy.” The final point I leave on is that while this is a good future (in my mind, probably not the average American’s though) the more likely future is a post-Soviet collapse scenario. I just hope that we work toward something better than that.

Admittedly all this adds up to an almost alien world as compared to America in 2012. First and foremost, this vision assumes an ever increasing level of equity—resources better distributed among Americans including employment, land and, most importantly, a fair share of wealth being returned to society by the richest in order to fund public infrastructure and social goods, including a basic level of healthcare for all people. But America is not like that, nor is any country in existence today. Instead, growth in all its forms is celebrated uncritically.

More likely, the America of 2100 will have more in common with post-Soviet Tajikistan. Tajikistan in 2012, two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is rabidly inequitable with most people lacking heating in the winter while a small minority lives an affluent consumer lifestyle, complete with iPhones, gym memberships and foreign travel. Much of the infrastructure is old and inefficient Soviet construction—not a comfortable lifestyle for those that can’t afford gas or electricity. Most people eke out a living in the informal economy, but lack any security whatsoever—access to healthcare, a social safety net, even a functioning banking system.

This, sadly, is a more probable path for America, but it is certainly not inevitable. The key to avoiding this, however, will be to have a clear, attainable vision of a truly sustainable society. Even a green consumer lifestyle is directly in conflict with the realities of a finite and increasingly overtaxed planet and is a vision based on denial. Only when people face this reality will a future of true sustainable prosperity for the United States and the planet be possible.

Read the full E Magazine article here.

In March, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) released a report investigating Europe’s land footprint, which is one of the highest in the world. They define a land footprint as “the land needed to produce all the products and services we consume.” The idea of a land footprint is vitally important because land is a clearly defined planetary boundary. The world has a limited amount of land, and an even more limited amount of usable land. The earth’s development of new land is an exceedingly slow process, whereas destruction and degradation of land can happen in an instant. If we cease to live within our land boundary, we face the dangers of production shortages, famine, large-scale migrations, and economic failure—not to mention decline of biodiversity and ecosystems.

High consumption drives the overuse and degradation of arable land around the world. (photo courtesy of the Knowles Gallery via flickr)

One of the key messages of the report is that consumption is a major driver of land use. Every item we buy, from meat to laptops, has an embodied land footprint – the amount of land used to produce that particular item. This embodied land footprint consists of land used to grow coffee plants, or to mine lithium for batteries, or to grow cotton for textiles. For example, a cup of coffee requires an average of 4.3 m² of land to produce, and a car requires 150 m² of land from mining and production processes.  Of course, the land on which coffee is grown continues to produce for years, and can be cultivated in harmony with the environment, whereas mining depletes a finite amount of resources. Different production processes certainly influence land footprints, and many industries are focusing on lessening their ecological impacts and reducing the amount of physical space needed for their production. Globally, meat products have the highest footprint (997 million hectares annually), followed by raw milk (620 million hectares annually). Think about it this way: it takes 75 ft² of grazing land and land for growing animal feed to produce a single, quarter-pound hamburger. Importantly, all this land, which feeds both our physical needs and our consumption addiction, functions as a global commodity, imported and exported as a virtual good embedded in products.

In our globalized world, products are increasingly imported, bringing with them embodied land. Europe’s consumption habits far outstrip their land capacity, leading to significant land imports which are used elsewhere to grow, extract, or process goods for European consumption. Friends of the Earth Europe found that 40 percent of agricultural land required to satisfy Europe’s demand for products is located in other regions of the world. (And the report focuses only on crop production and livestock farming, ignoring forestry and industrial land use, which, if incorporated, would surely make the results even more disturbing.) Within Europe, the largest net importers of agricultural land are Germany and the United Kingdom. Grazing land, oilseed, and wheat are the largest contributors to embodied land.

This increased appetite for goods contributes to land grabbing in other regions of the world, particularly in places with ambiguous or uncertain property rights, or where natural resources can be taken by the state and sold to the highest bidder. Policies that on the surface seem to be protecting the environment and natural resources are having unforeseen and dangerous consequences. For example, the Renewable Energy Directive, an attempt to lower emissions from transport fuels, increases the demand for biofuels and exacerbates the land footprint issue, though its purported goal is an admirable one. Increased biofuel production is a dominant driver of land grabbing. Additionally, the European Union’s trade liberalization agenda, seeking access to cheap raw materials to keep its own export markets cheap and competitive, undermines developing countries’ abilities to protect their natural resources.

Beyond contributing to land degradation and overuse, Europe’s high consumption and dependency on foreign land leads to the loss of indigenous knowledge and livelihoods. For example, much of South America has devoted itself to producing animal feed to feed Europe’s cattle, leading to the clearing of tropical forests and the forced expulsion of natives. As the recognition of land limitations spread, a focus has been on increasing land productivity. Technological advances and the mechanization of farming, while increasing productivity, contribute to native job losses and indigenous communities losing their cultural histories as they are forced to adapt to rapidly changing technologies and development. Though industrial agriculture benefits from such advances, to the detriment of the environment, organic farming offers an alternative path to increased productivity, while accounting for local knowledge and environmental preservation.

Organic farming has been touted as one way to lower our land footprint, by functioning in harmony with the ecosystem instead of in opposition. (photo courtesy of thebittenword.com via flickr)

Organic agriculture seeks to use years of local knowledge and ecological understanding to maximize profit while still preserving the balance of nature. Though results differs depending on crop type and farming techniques, organic farming can produce just as efficiently as can industrialized agriculture. FOEE argues for an integrated strategy to satisfy the world’s nutritional requirement: make agriculture in industrialized countries less intensive, using fewer inputs and producing and consuming less meat. In some developing countries agriculture can be enhanced by utilizing systems that respect the ecology, like agro-ecological methods, by combining traditional knowledge with technology. In countries with unfavorable land tenure conditions (where ownership is unclear or lacks legal recognition), inclusive and transparent agrarian reforms are necessary.

Recognizing that global land flows must be accounted for, a coalition has made a united call for European governments to lower the continent’s land footprint. The coalition, consisting of a variety of NGOs, individuals, and non-profits, have called upon individual countries and the EU to measure and report their land footprints, set land footprint reduction targets, incorporate land footprint analysis into new policies, protect customary and traditional land rights, and require large companies to report and reduce their land footprints. Specific policy options to reduce land use include: increasing organic agriculture; increasing local and regional material flows as opposed to global ones; reducing food waste; increasing recycling and reuse rates; abandoning biofuel targets; and individually, reducing meat and dairy consumption, and purchasing recycled products. Certainly nobody is suggesting that we cease cultivating land. When farmed, mined, and developed within its ecological capacities, land functions as a sort of renewable resource, nurturing life for years to come. The danger lies in the fact that high consumption rates are coercing people to simply increase productivity, discounting environmental degradation. Additionally, lands that traditionally have been sustainably farmed are increasingly being bought up by large corporations and governments and used for industrial agricultural and unsustainable extraction processes,threatening both the environment and indigenous livelihoods. However, if Europe and the rest of the world unites in a global effort to reduce land footprints, food distribution will become more equitable, soil quality will increase, local economies will improve, and environmental degradation across the world will be mitigated.

Monopoly 2.0 / EcoLabs / Creative Commons / Flickr (Click for a larger image)

Lorenzo Fioramonti, author of Gross Domestic Problem, started the discussion by strongly criticizing the GDP, the “most well-known statistic in the contemporary world”. As he noted, this indicator only measures priced objects and forget to consider what is free, including nature, and can even increase while Earth’s biocapacity—which the economy ultimately depends on—decreases. He called GDP a “Global, Debt-based Ponzi scheme” and said we need to use alternatives to measure ecosystems’ services. Indicators have already been created, such as the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting or World Bank’s WAVES (Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services). The consequence of these mechanisms is that when we price nature, we give a definite value to all ecosystems services. According to Fioramonti, it is a dangerous method because it leads to the inclusion of nature into the financial system. This strategy is defended by the neo-liberal conservation movement and many businessmen. In short, they want to save nature by selling it. Nature simply becomes “natural capital” we need to manage.

This introduction helped set up other panelists’ criticisms of the current obsession with financializing nature. One example was given by Niranjali Amerasinghe of CIEL: REDD+. It is an interesting project because it recognizes the important role of forests in climate change mitigation. But the system focuses too much on carbon and don’t recognize that forests have many roles, from water management to providing local communities their basic needs. By creating a carbon market, the system put a variable price on forest which is quite distinct from its real value. It also has to face difficulties to account for emission reductions because of the many loopholes in definition of forests and forest management as well as a lack of transparency. But it can be effective when it is paired with a decentralized community-based governance system, like in Nepal.

Protest during Bangkok Climate Negotiations in 2009 (Creative Commons/Flickr)

As was discussed in the panel, and is explored in this Food & Water Watch fact sheet, cap-and-trade is the most well-known example of this market-based approach to regulation. It can be a dangerous method because it gives (or sells) the right to pollute instead of eliminating pollution. We grant the right to pollute to the highest bidder. Moreover, price volatility leads to periods of cheap rights to pollute, as happened in Europe where the ton of carbon emitted started at $32.50 in 2005 and plunged to $3.90 in early 2013. As Michele Merkel of FWW noted, many cap-and-trade systems led to less reductions than regulatory programs. And finally, as several panelists and guests noted, these prices never reflect the real cost of this carbon. If we created a cap-and-trade system considering the true cost of carbon emissions, the price of fossil fuels would skyrocket.

As Fioramonti noted, the true value of things is different from their price, which is basically a measure of exchange. The question is: do we want to rely on market-based schemes to protect the environment, when its destruction is in large part due to them? In 2007, Nicholas Stern, World Bank chief economist, described climate change as “the greatest widest-ranging market failure”. The financial sector is looking for new ways to fuel its profits, and with the increasing awareness around environmental issues, nature management looks like a promising market. Transferring the administration of our common resources to banks and hedge funds would lead environmental protection to become the second goal of our global conservation system. It also means we can create a senseless system where a few big players can have enough to corner the market on nature. How can we avoid this? By considering common resources as a common good. It means working especially on long-term sustainability, which is something finance doesn’t do well.

There are many ways to reach this goal. The first step towards a sustainable management of nature is to get rid of GDP. As Fioramonti said, it will allow a discussion on how to develop governance systems able to protect commons. We need to develop tools to measure the value (not the price) of nature as well as the price of inaction. Market-oriented environmentalists argue that finance can bring the money needed to develop these tools, but as panelists noted, there are other ways to get that money, such as a carbon tax or a tax on financial transactions. The challenge is to shift the debate away from seeing financialization of nature as a solution—but as just one more way to profit from the rapid decline of our planet. The faster the debate changes, the more we’ll be able to develop strategies to sustain people and the ecosystems they depend on.

Letting Nature Take Its Course?

Is sustainability still possible? Yes. Is it still probable? No. With bold action today, tomorrow, and in years to come, we could succeed in creating a sustainable and prosperous society. But what does bold action actually mean?

Generating Solar Energy in the French Pyrenees (photo courtesy of Getty Images)

First and foremost, we have to start living within Earth’s boundaries: stop changing the climate, wiping out biodiversity, disrupting the phosphorous and nitrogen cycles, and so on. And to do that we’ll need to live a one-planet lifestyle.

For some that’ll mean increases in consumption – as they step out of poverty – but for the two billion consumers on the planet, it will mean dramatic alterations in how they live. For example even if the average resident of Vancouver became a vegan, gave up flying and driving, lived in passive solar homes, and cut their purchases in half, they’d still be living 60 percent above a one-planet threshold, according to Ecological Footprint analysis.

To get to that scale of change (and keep in mind the goal of such radical changes is to prevent a dystopian future of runaway climate change) will require nothing short of a complete overhaul of human cultures, a topic explored in depth in Worldwatch’s latest report, “State of the World 2013.″

Gone are the days where profit, growth, and stuff come first. We’ll need to shift corporate structures, the rules of marketing, and once again ground our economies in ecological realities. We’ll need to relocalise, and cultivate community interdependence again. We’ll need to reserve fossil fuels for their essential uses only – unsubstitutable ones like making drug inputs or high grade plastics for surgical use – and quickly move toward a renewable-energy based civilisation even if that means significant cuts in energy in the short-term (as we build our renewable energy capacity).

Living from waste in Manila, Philippines (photo courtesy of Getty Images)

And to get any of this done, we’ll need activists and entrepreneurs pushing us toward this new normal – using all sorts of strategies: social enterprises putting positive impact over profit, an upgrade of the environmental movement that builds long-term power and helps people adapt to life in a sustainable culture, a redesign of environmental education to prepare future leaders for the challenges to come, and political movements that aren’t afraid to use civil disobedience and make audacious demands.

But even then, with such bold action, success is far from guaranteed. Thus we need to also start preparing for “the long emergency” now – while we still have capital (of the natural, financial, social and human varieties) and a window of stability to draw upon.

And how should we prepare? Make our governance systems more robust and deepen their commitment to democracy; assess the risks and benefits of ‘magic bullets’ like geoengineering, before we make a rash decision in a moment of panic; prepare for the large flows of migrants that climate change – even at its current level – have locked into the system; and start applying the lessons from other forced contractions to today’s societies and figure out how to make these inevitable transitions as painless as possible.

For one way or another, our civilisation is going to contract, the only question is whether we take proactive control of this process, or we wait for nature to take its course. A course that very few will like.

Bob Engelman addresses the audience.

Worldwatch president Bob Engelman kicked off the symposium by talking about the concept of “sustainability” and questioning whether it is still possible. In the spirit of the opening chapter of State of the World 2013, which he authored, Engelman instructed attendees to be wary of “sustainability” becoming nothing more than “sustainababble” (this “CO2 is Green” ad campaign is a particularly egregious example of Engelman’s sustainababble). He encouraged those listening to be critical of greenwash, and, given the intransigence of governments and institutions domestically and internationally, to take the struggle for the environment into their own hands. After all, he concluded, the responsibility for acting now on sustainability rests on everyone’s shoulders. In other words, we shouldn’t just blame corporations and governments for being in on the sustainababble game—we ourselves should step up our individual and collective efforts to get to true sustainability.

The first panel of authors, entitled: “Getting to True Sustainability” reflected the mission of the first two-thirds of the book, which discusses ways of measuring sustainability and determining whether it is still possible for us to achieve it in time. Worldwatch researcher Shakuntala Makhijani talked about the hope of renewables, Canadian professor Jennie Moore pointed out ways in which individuals can live “one-planet” lifestyles, water specialist Sandra Postel referenced the importance of taking into account our water footprints when measuring our environmental impact, and economist Eric Zencey proposed measuring energy use in physical thermodynamic terms rather than straight economic terms.

Although the four authors approached sustainability from very different backgrounds, their passion was tangible and their consensus was clear: despite (or maybe in part because of) all the sustainababble out there, we most likely won’t get to true sustainability before it’s too late.

However, the symposium would not have done the book justice if it did not uplift attendees after presenting such a bleak view of the future. Indeed, among the buzzwords of the day were more importantly “social movements,” “resilience,” and “resistance.” One of the most important messages of State of the World 2013 is that in the probable case that humanity doesn’t get its act together in time, we need to have tools to deal with the “long emergency” that is to come.

State of the World 2013 authors discuss the “Long Emergency”.

The second author panel, “Preparing for the Long Emergency”, explored ways in which we can help not only ourselves but also the planet’s most vulnerable adjust to a changing, more hostile climate. Writer Laurie Mazur set the tone for the discussion in recognizing that by virtue of their agency, humans are incredibly resilient creatures and yet, our societies and systems aren’t. As such, part of the struggle will be making those systems as resilient as they can be. Michael Maniates, himself an educator, touched on the themes he discusses in his chapter about teaching youth to be prepared for the turbulence ahead. State of the World 2013 project co-director Erik Assadourian spoke about taking a page from the books of religion and transforming environmentalism into a genuine life philosophy, while researcher Pat Murphy complemented the other panelists’ theories with discussion of Cuba’s forced contraction and the the constructive lessons about cooperation and sustainability it can provide us.

After the second panel, science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson gave the symposium’s keynote speech. A true science fan, his take on the ever-evolving human condition was quick to inspire hope to those in the room. He argued that when we consider that humans evolved by cooperating with each other and planning for the future, the ‘flawed human nature’ argument for why sustainability is not possible is invalid. On the contrary, he proclaimed, our humanity can give us hope for the future.

Stuart Clarke, executive director of the Maryland-based Town Creek Foundation, a supporter of the State of the World 2013 project, then went on to echo Robinson’s sentiments in his closing remarks: ultimately, humans are characterized by their values systems. If we are to make the transition to sustainability as pain-free as possible, environmentalism must cease to be agnostic on values; rather, it must harness the capacity humans certainly possess for innovation, for resilience, and most importantly, for compassion. All in all, a hopeful day, considering the daunting topic being discussed.