Environment: What are we prepared to give up to save it?

For last few weeks the planet has been coping with two major environmental disasters, an unpronounceable volcano in Iceland and the oil well accident in the Gulf of Mexico; the volcano belching smoke and ashes into the atmosphere and the well leaking thousands of barrels of oil a day into the ocean which is destroying all living organisms as it spreads along the surface of the sea. Bad as these events may be, they are nothing in terms of the cumulative impact of what we humans do every day in the normal course of our lives. The environmental crisis in the form of Global Warming was grave before these disasters and is only marginally worse because of them.

How worried is the general population by pollution in the biosphere and the environmental calamities predicted by climatologists? My sample is perhaps too small to reach a general conclusion. However, the worried acquaintances tend to be relatively affluent. Average Canadians are occupied with other issues in their lives and have no time for alarming predictions of the academics. Our elected leaders know this and therefore they do nothing more than pay lip service to the reduction of harmful emissions. I have harped for decades on the evils of consumer society, increasing consumption in total and per capita terms, growing population which is already much greater than the planet can sustain. Now I ask myself, “Okay, it is critical to counter Global Warming and reduce pollution for the sake of my grandchildren. It is too late for band aid of recycling. We have to get down to the serious business of actually reducing the consumption levels. So what am I prepared to give up to achieve this?”

Inevitably, the answer must involve the spouse: one can’t give up what is dear to the partner without hurting the relationship. For example, selling the home now that the next generation has flown the coop, and moving to a smaller one near the most frequented facilities may cause a serious disagreement. Giving up the second car and using the public transit is not practical in most Canadian cities. In any event, to help the environment, people have to travel less often so there are fewer gas guzzling and pollutant emitting cars and buses on the road. The reduction in consumption will reduce economic activity; there will be fewer jobs to go round. Higher unemployment and reduced standard of living are unacceptable in a society where citizens want to ‘earn a good living’ by contributing to the general good through their productive labour rather than depend on handouts for a living and measure their success by how many of the latest gadgets they can buy.

So what do we do? Science and Engineering are helping us in this direction. New cars, planes, appliances and general machinery are more energy efficient; more environmentally sensitive products for daily use are coming on the market. Many people are working from their homes. Internet is reducing the need – if not the urge – to travel. Genetic crops are producing more food on less land though with more chemicals. On the other hand, science is also devising new gadgets and promoting the population growth by enabling the people and their pets, to live longer and reproduce at an inappropriate age. When it comes to scientific developments, starting from the day a human learnt to control the fire to the great inventions of today, every step forward has also been a step back.

While the engineers continue to improve the efficiency of tools, we need to set a limit to how much of the planet’s non-renewable resources we use, sort of quota if you wish. If our leaders hesitate to lead in this direction we should do it individually on our own. This will reduce employment and hit poor people hard. We can alleviate this by acquiring the items we need from local craftsmen even if they cost more, repair broken down equipment whenever possible and do whatever else we can do to provide employment locally. The process involves the restructuring of not just the economy buy the society as well. It involves the deconstruction of society created by industrialization and its replacement, not by feudal society of yore, but by an egalitarian society which values all life forms equally, human and animal, of today and of the future.

Will it ever happen? I am afraid not. Nature will intervene, in its own cruel way, to save the planet from the rapacious humans. Or, there will be a major war that will set the humans back to sustainable levels, both in numbers and in the stage of ‘development’.