Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Barriers to energy efficiency need to be overcome, and individuals and organizations
need to be informed, educated and persuaded to act in a more sustainable fashion.
That the 'business as usual' assumption is no longer tenable is, at least publicly,
increasingly acknowledged. Nonetheless, Jonathan Porritt, the British environ-
mental campaigner and former Chair of the UK Sustainable Commission, warns that
although politicians may heed some (economic) warnings about climate change, many
other problems, such as the build-up of toxic chemicals in the environment or the
continuing loss of land to new development, are frequently ignored. This is partly
because it is assumed that nature is infinitely resilient or that something is bound
to turn up to offset the disasters that have beset previously civilizations (Diamond,
2005). As Porritt writes:
The idea that we now live in an age of evidence-based policymaking is
preposterous. . . . Talk of a whole host of natural limits to economic growth
as presented in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report, and that's a
completely different story. You're suddenly a radical subversive beyond the
pale of intelligent discourse.
(2005: 307-8)
In this context the Stern Review is perceived by many as being either highly
optimistic, erring on the side of caution and conservatism. In 2012 the American
campaigner Bill McKibben wrote a highly influential article for
Rolling Stone
magazine
which swiftly went viral. In it he explored the economic interests involved in climate
change debates and our fossil fuel addiction in the clearest of terms. He noted that
if we burn all the fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas - currently held in reserve by
governments and big energy corporations, we would easily and relatively quickly
exceed the modest carbon budgets that international agencies have tentatively
suggested that we need to adhere to. What is more, he continued, given the economic
value of these reserves, US$27trillion, and the economic valuation of the companies
and presumed economic growth needs of the world's nation-states, it is highly unlikely
that most of these fuels will remain unspent and the economic value therefore not
realized. That would mean leaving 80 per cent, or US$20trillion, in the ground.
Institutional investors - pensions, insurance companies, universities - often look to
fossil fuel companies for a regular return, which implicates virtually everyone
in reproducing the conditions that make pro-sustainability transformative change
the 'big ask' that it is. Indeed, from this perspective, it is in the economic interests
of governments and corporations to resist measures to limit economic growth and
fossil fuel-based energy consumption just as it remains a cultural and social want
for most citizens to drive, fly and buy those carbon-based goods and services that
constitute what is considered a desirable material standard of living, a sense of status
and social worth. Thus, McKibben writes (2012):
In early June [2012], Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled on a Norwegian
research trawler to see firsthand the growing damage from climate change.
'Many of the predictions about warming in the Arctic are being surpassed by
the actual data,' she said, describing the sight as 'sobering.' But the discussions
she traveled to Scandinavia to have with other foreign ministers were mostly
about how to make sure Western nations get their share of the estimated
