1 / 65

The Ecological Crisis

The Ecological Crisis. Social Ecology: World Sustainability Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D. Paradigm Theory Robert Kuhn. Cultural Groups Develop “insider” views of the world: shared sets of assumptions, jargon, definitions, Methods Paradigms cause Insiders to see the world similarly and

henrik
Télécharger la présentation

The Ecological Crisis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Ecological Crisis Social Ecology: World Sustainability Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.

  2. Paradigm Theory Robert Kuhn Cultural Groups Develop “insider” views of the world: shared sets of assumptions, jargon, definitions, Methods Paradigms cause Insiders to see the world similarly and Outsiders to see the world differently

  3. Anomaly Sustainability S Curve Defense Crisis Revolution Definition of New Paradigm Stages of Paradigm Change after Kuhn PARADIGM CHANGE Modernity J Curve Paradigm Shift

  4. Raising the Alarm in the 1960s Murray Bookchin (aka Lewis Herbert) Our Synthetic Environment, 1962 “to suggest that pesticides, food additives, chemicalized agriculture, burgeoning urbanization and nuclear energy were harmful was regarded not merely as “reactionary” but as a national heresy” given the sentiment “characteristic of the country as a whole---the equating of progress with mindless growth and the technocratic ideal of `progress above all.’”

  5. Raising the Alarm in the 1960s Rachel Carson Our Silent Spring 1962 “the controversy that exploded around Rachel Carson’s book….highlights the extent to which American public opinion, orchestrated by corporate interests and government agencies, adhered to a “grow or die” economic mentality and a domineering attitude toward the natural world.” [Bookchin, X11]

  6. Carson vs Modern Paradigm “…the question is whether any civilization can wage a relentless war on life without destroying itself and without losing the right to be called a civilization [p99]….The “control of nature” is a phrase conceived in arrogance…when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man….” and a Neanderthal science, in turning its weapons against insects, has also turned them against the earth [297].

  7. Criticism of Carson Miss Rachel Carson's reference to the selfishness of insecticide manufacturers probably reflects her Communist sympathies, like a lot of our writers these days. We can live without birds and animals, but, as the current market slump shows, we cannot live without business. As for insects, isn't it just like a woman to be scared to death of a few little bugs! As long as we have the H-bomb everything will be O.K. P.S. She's probably a peace-nut too.

  8. Criticism of Carson The National Agricultural Chemicals Association spent over $250,000 on PR firm to malign book and author. President of the Montrose Chemical Corporation, DDT manufacturer: Carson wrote not "as a scientist but rather as a fanatic defender of the cult of the balance of nature." Velsicol threatened to sue Houghton-Mifflin; Audubon and New Yorker also threatened.

  9. Rachel Carson’s Meta Connections Biomagnification Ecological Integrity Damaged Human Health Impacts Human Caused Impacts Synthetic Society Paradigm Challenge

  10. Progression of Anomaly Recognition • Synthetic Environment (Carson, 1962, Bookchin, 1962) • NEPA, CWA and CAA, FIFRA, TSCA (1970 and circa) • CERCLA 1980--- PRP: polluter pays • Contaminated Communities (Edelstein, 1988,2004) • Our Stolen Future (Theo Colborn et al, 1997) • Living Downstream (Steingrabber, 1997) • End of Nature (McKibben, 1999) • IPCC • Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000)

  11. http://vimeo.com/55073825

  12. Systems Theory Throughput output input Von Bertalanffy: General Systems Theory Through-put SYSTEM:CLOSED OR OPEN

  13. Limits to Growth 1972The Club of Rome The world first confronts the reality that resources limits constrain growth: Club of Rome---an international organization of scholars, industrialists and scientists from 25 nations http://www.clubofrome.org/ --- funded Dennis and Donella Meadows to run a computer model projecting conditions in 2100 from known data from 1900-1970.

  14. The World ModelJay Forrester MIT Model complex systems and project outcomes given specified assumptions Overcome humans’ limited ability to handle complexity and large number of variables. Example of simple linear extrapolation: Herman Kahn The Year 2000 (Hudson Institute) failed to anticipate energy, pollution or population problems. Assumed economic and technological growth would handle all problems.

  15. Modeling Complex Systems Cont. Complex systems have multiple feedback loops Short run, linear decision making fails to anticipate unexpected results ex. Iron rule of highways. Each variable affects all Synergistic interactions 2 + 2 = 5 ex. Drug interactions Time Delay ex. Ozone hole, climate change

  16. Forrester Assumed that Social Systems: Engage in counterintuitive behavior Welfare of system contradicted by subsystems with different goals The actions of one subsystem affect all Short term improvements conflict with long term perspectives because invariably lead to degradation Insensitive to policy changes intended to change the system’s behavior.

  17. System Dynamic Computer Modeling Assume key variables, trends and weighting of factors plus interactive factors. Use mathematical equations to simulate multiple interactions and non-linear relations among variables. Clearly specify assumptions. Can change as new information comes to light. Test different scenarios. Not predicting the future. Project current trends to see consequences and allow for correction.

  18. 5 Key Variables Dynamically Interacted Population Pollution Natural Resources Industrial Output per capita Food per capita

  19. Limitations Examples: Omitted many types of pollution and focused only on long lived types. Resources lumped all together. Assume resources last 250 years at 1970 use rates.

  20. 6 Major Assumptions Finite stock of exploitable, non-renewable resources Finite amount of land to grow food Finite capacity of environment to absorb pollution Technological change is incremental assuming money and environmental technology to allow. Finite yield of food from any unit of arable land 6…..

  21. Thomas Malthus 1798 Malthus published On Population. Imbalance between population and resources is inevitable because Food increases arithmetically Population increases geometrically “God created a world in which the power of the eater to reproduce himself is of a superior order than that of the earth to produce food because fear of starvation stimulates men to be industrious.”

  22. Assumptions Continued 6. Exponential growth of population, pollution and industrial output as long as resources and their interaction permit. Ex. World Population is increasing at 1.7% -1.8%. Population increased more than 6x in 200 years. http://www.poodwaddle.com/Stats/

  23. World Population (billions) 6.5 billion in 2005 4 billion in 1975 2 billion in 1920 1 billion in 1800 Source: UN Population Division 2004; Lee, 2003; Population Reference Bureau

  24. Exponential Growth When a quantity changes exponentially, its value will double (or halve) in regular time intervals. The time it takes to double depends on the annual percent of growth. You calculate doubling time by dividing this annual growth rate into 70. Doubling time in years = 70/growth rate or 70/1.8=39 years.

  25. World GDP (trillion 1990 dollars) $52 trillion in 2003 $10 trillion in 1967 $1 trillion in 1900 Source: DeLong 1998

  26. Overshoot = Crash S curve crash

  27. Phantom Capacity & Overshoot cc CC Unlimited CC Catton: carrying capacity illusions x reality load load load Prosthetic/ Tech Fix realism Unrealisms: Phantom or Ghost Capacity

  28. Overall Findings of Limits to Growth If population and industrial growth continue to J curve, sometime after 2000, nonrenewable resources will be depleted and a population crash will follow de to scarcity of food and medicine. If assume technological advance doubles all resource reserves and you allow 75% recycling, there will be a sharp increase in pollution increasing death rates and causing a population crash.

  29. Improving Standard of Living with Population Increase World averages 2 children per family World industrial output/capita stabilizes at 1975 levels Reduce resource consumption and pollution to ¼ of 1970 levels Shift consumption from material goods to services Direct capital toward food production, soil enrichment and erosion control Industrial capacity is built to last much longer.

  30. Criticisms of Limits to Growth Not Assume technology and ingenuity increases to solve all problems Not assume people can adapt to all conditions Not objective; computer replaces humans Failure assured given exponential growth and finite resources Fatalistic---lessen hope, self fulfilling prophesy Lumps unique regions of the globe together See http://www.clubofrome.org/archive/publications/van_Dieren_Doors_of_Perceptions.pdf

  31. Mankind at the Turning PointMessarovic and Pestel 1974 To address criticism that world regions differ 2nd study divided world into ten regions. Despite assuming technological optimism, more pessimistic. Unless economy and growth redistributed from rich to poor nations, Resources and food will collapse by 2050 in poor nations causing a population crash Interdependency means regional collapse will pull all down. Ex. Asian Flu 1998

  32. Neo-Malthusian view Beyond population, increased resource use is problem Recognize World System---interconnected Differences between poor and rich countries West plus Japan and Russia --- ¼ population and 80% resource use US 5% world population, 1/3 resource use and 1/3 pollution

  33. Global 2000 July 1980 May 1977, Pres.Carter ordered study world population and natural resources thru 2000 Done by US CEQ and DOS US govt. no tradition of long term planning Trend projection using long term global data and models employed by federal agencies.

  34. Global 2000 Conservative Bias Used existing long term data and models of US government Data on population, GNP, resources and environment taken sequentially 1977-1979 Thus, not interact factors Allocate resources repetitiously Assume continued growth of earth’s goods and services without maintenance or higher costs

  35. Assumptions of Global 2000 Continuation of public policy Continuation of rapid technological development without resistance (ex. Continually increasing crop yields) Assume that shortages of resources cause rising prices which will drop demand International trade not disturbed by war, politics or economics, etc.

  36. Sample Findings Global 2000 As population increases, the gap between the rich and poor will widen Food production increase 90% 1970-2000 assuming constant climate and environment Due to energy intensive farming not new land Fertilizer, pesticide, machines, irrigation Only a 15% per capita increase Costs of food double Increase food importation Bulk of food go to rich # of malnourished triple to 1.3 billion

  37. Sample Findings Global 2000 #2Food Cont. 1 hectare of arable land (2.5 acres) support 1970 ---2.6 people 2000 ---4 people LDC 5.5 people Soil loses yearly size of Maine; by 2000 lose 1/3 world’s arable land Increased use of grain for alcohol fuels Contradiction—increase production from Green Revolution ignores degradation from soil loss

  38. Sample Findings Global 2000 #3Soil Destruction is constraint to food growth: Higher yields at cost of soil integrity: organic humus—nutrients, water absorption inorganic clay and salts---infertile rock pieces, bedrock Desertification: barren land ex. Sahel 3x 1970-2000 overgrazing, farming on marginal lands Drought cycles

  39. Sample Findings Global 2000 #4Threats to Arability Waterlogging, salinization, alkalinization Asia, S. America, California collapse of Mesopotamia and Upper Nile Deforestration---increased flood and erosion Erosion---corn and marginal land farming Loss of organic matter and largest CO2 sink Development---urbanization of river valleys, industrialization, sprawl

  40. Sample Findings Global 2000 #5Other factors affecting food: Monocultures Loss of diversity Use of hybrids and designer crops Fuel subsidies to agriculture Pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Net effect: shift farming from renewable to non-renewable and unsustainable basis!!!!

  41. Sample Findings Global 2000 #6Other Conclusions: Fisheries overexploited Loss of forests ½ California/year Particularly in LDCs (40% by 2000), Trop RF Severe Water shortages doubling with population, irrigation Mineral resources no reserves, more $, inequity Global Climate Change by 2050 Loss of 20% of all species as habitats vanish Toxics cause health problems Oil reach maximum capacity despite higher prices

  42. Sample Findings Global 2000 #7The case of Fuel Wood ¼ use wood for fuel “Poor man’s oil” By 2000, need exceed supply by 25% In Sahel (Sahara border) fuel wood gathering full time---20-30% family income No trees left 50-100 k around cities Deforestation, erosion, desertification, higher costs, less fuel, and substitution of dung and crop residues.

  43. Refutations of Global 2000“A Resourceful Earth” Julian Simon Heritage Foundation Herman Kahn Hudson Foundation “The year 2000 will be less crowded (with more people), less polluted, more stable ecologically, less vulnerable to resource supply disruption. People will be richer and have more food.”

  44. Refutations of Global 2000Assumptions made by Simon and Kahn: No water shortages Spread of cheap nuclear power Air & water pollution overblown problem US farmland not being urbanized signif. More than enough farmland No rapid species loss More food to feed the hungry Birth rate down while life expectancy is up

  45. Refutation of Global 2000Simon and Kahn’s Magic: Resource problems become opportunities inviting entrepreneurs to solve them with ingenuity Wood crisis-coal, coal crisis-oil, whale oil-oil They spur increases in knowledge which spurs growth Solutions to problems leave us better off Ex. Rail to haul coal Need stimulus for discovery

  46. Refutations of Global 2000 Simon & Kahn: People are not just the cause of problems but with training, the means to solve these problems: WE NEED MORE AND BIGGER PROBLEMS Steven Bardwell “The World Needs 10 Billion People” Fusion Sept. 1981: “Qualitative innovations in technology must be planned on but cannot be planned for” fusion energy allows more people and consumption

  47. Refutation of Global 2000Bardwell: Convert J curve of productivity to linear curve because: Higher population leads to increased labor division, ingenuity, ideas, increased productivity Complex technologies can support more people More people are required for complex technologies

  48. Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development Brundtland Commission) --- 1984-1987 Can’t separate economic development from environmental issues Inequality is main env. & devel. Problem Problem of the rich over consumption Problem of the poor natural disaster over time exploit resources for export, debt, dumb aid, militarization, increase population, unemployment and cities, loss farmers, loss soil, drought and flood

More Related