As the overdue realisation dawns on governments around the world, particularly those with most to lose because of dense populations perilously exposed to sea level rises, there is a clamour for ‘quick fix’ solutions. Everything from geo-engineering to devices in space designed to block out sunlight.

Whilst well-intentioned, these efforts overlook a far more fundamental problem. This problem can be expressed in a simple, single statement: There are too many people on the Earth, consuming too many resources.

In other words, our impact on the environment can be broadly expressed as follows:

Number of people x Per capita resource consumption

Stabilisation of the global population and a reduction in per capita resource consumption will, in combination, do more to mitigate environmental damage than anything else. The Pareto principle of directing most effort into that which produces the greatest result has never been more important, whilst political prevaricating and drawn-out discussions on relatively minor issues serve only as a distraction.

An effective solution must address both population growth and resource consumption together. There is little point in trying to reduce per capita resource consumption with a surging population as the total impact on the environment will continue to rise.

Politically, however, that is what is happening. Governments regard the subject of population stabilisation as almost taboo. A no-go area not up for debate. Almost immediately, there are accusations of totalitarianism and coercion in reducing family sizes.

Yet, it doesn’t have to be like that. Empowerment and better education of women in developing countries is known to have a downward impact on birth rates. The Obama administration’s progress in encouraging family planning in the US and more broadly within the UN will have a positive longer-term impact. There is so much that can be done and without recourse to totalitarian policies.

However, the size of the problem should not be underestimated. For example, China’s population is still growing now despite the policy of one child per couple having been in place for many years. There is an inherent time lag involved. On top of that there are likely to be greater food shortages and displacement of large populations as climate change impacts upon agriculture in low lying areas, coupled with desertification of areas where deforestation has taken place. This will inevitably compound the problems of migration.

Environmental organisations need to avoid focusing almost explicitly on reducing per capita resource consumption whilst neglecting the other side of the equation; population growth. Global environmental strategies can only be truly effective when addressing both sides of the coin.

Gary Robertshaw

The Green Providers Directory

www.search-for-me.co.uk

Firstly, it signals a radical departure from the previous administration’s policy of denial, apathy and denigration of science. Gone too is the unthinkable prospect of Sarah Palin presiding over US energy policy, whose ignorance on scientific and environmental matters are truly breathtaking.

Secondly, the Obama administration does not regard sustainable energy investment as ‘nice to have but not during a recession’. In particular, there is a stark recognition that a reversion to old coal mining technology and a reliance on foreign oil are not in the US’s long-term economic or international interests. Investment in sustainable projects is seen as a growth opportunity that will contribute to (i.e. not dilute) the US economy, creating new jobs and new technologies. For example, the Obama administration aims to create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyse private efforts to build a clean energy future. It has also set a target of 10% of US electricity from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025.

Thirdly, US environmental and energy policies have ramifications far beyond its borders. The old adage that when the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold applies not just to financial markets, but also to the global environment. As the largest contributor to global emissions, its commitment to developing renewable energy sources, cutting back on fossil fuels (which should concurrently reduce its involvement in foreign conflicts) and investment in sustainable living will naturally have the largest impact whilst encouraging other nations to follow suit. More specifically, the new administration seeks eliminate its current imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years.

Of course the Obama administration will be criticised by both sides. The oil industry, loggers, car manufacturers, arms industry, et al will claim that his ambitions are unrealistic, and that they will cost jobs – they will use lobbying, corporate influence and every tactic available to undermine him (expect to see Bush’s involvement here too). On the other side, he will be condemned by the doom mongers as doing too little too late.

The transition from the world’s worst polluter to a leading, sustainable economy will not happen overnight. Old infrastructure, corporate inertia and scepticism, vested interests and general apathy will slow down progress. However, green campaigners, long frustrated by the Bush years, now have cause to be imbued with real optimism.

Once again we find ourselves in an economic situation unlike any other time in our generation.   This time there is a new problem, a problem that is also the solution – climate change.  I can only fantasise how a ‘Green’ new deal could now help restructure our transportation and manufacturing networks and our energy infrastructure, making them more sustainable, cleaner and greener.

Globalisation has brought increased global competition and cheaper goods, but all too often we have overlooked the negative consequences of our rapid accent in the name of development -  pollution from transportation, rape of the planet’s resources and the devastating effect of unregulated industrialisation.

Trade has taken place for hundred of years, but at a more docile pace.  Prior to the Industrial Revolution, trade never released large quantities of carbon.  On the whole energy was free, clean, and available to all – the ships sail, the river that drove the mill. Times were hard, but no harder than they will be in a world going through climate change and a population without the skills and mechanisms to cope. If we were to look away from our continuous obsession for accumulating material wealth so quickly, we might discover a new concept of happiness and wealth.

‘I think the capitalist system is re-booting itself’, an ecologist, and old friend, told me the other day.  I think he is right.  Growth isn’t sustainable when it’s based on endless consumption of material goods sourced from the cyclic extraction of new renewable resources created from ancient sunlight.  It’s not sustainable when it’s based on consumption driven by debt.

Maybe we need to look away from the globalized model and look towards economies closer to home.  Competition driven from smaller geographic areas can still push technological evolution and efficiency, providing market diversity exists.  Some will see this as protectionism and claim it is a bad thing.  The question is which option is better for the environment.

The price of recycled materials has collapsed recently due to reduced demand from China, so what!  Let’s start industries in our own economies to recycle all our waste and supply industry closer to home. We need to reduce consumption. Not so long ago appliance repair shops existed on every high street.  Let’s bring them back – Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

By supplying companies closer to home, we reduce our transportation costs, reduce pollution, and provide jobs.  The resources we need are already in circulation; landfill and recycling can be the new mining industries.  The end of a product lifecycle can be the start of a new one and help create self sufficiency on a local level and a national level.  This is the new economic model we need so badly.  This is the dream we need to make a reality.  There will still be a need for commodities like tea, coffee, fruit and chocolate.  These are the products ancient trade routes that will help lift our friends in other countries from poverty.  They too mustn’t become dependant on one source of income and make the same mistakes we’ve made in the past.  Their role is different.  They are our saviours now.  The carbon sinks we once had on our forested nations are gone, our friends are the trustees of the last remaining pockets of our pristine world. Snow and they need our help and we need theirs.  The benefits of competition from globalisation must be renewed, by moving away from unsustainable profit driven by devouring consumption.

Industrial growth can be modelled on nature.  Nature’s raw materials are often based on self regulating chains and food webs.  Many of the members of these specialised  communities rely on each other for life and growth and when the strength of one member becomes too great their population usually balances out or disappears entirely. We have enough raw materials without ripping up more mountains for precious metals or processing more oil for plastics.  Through these methods of resource exploitation we have created toxic bi-products affecting our biological communities unlike any other species on Earth.  If every company had an ecologist on their board advising how we might best achieve this we might not be in the mess we are now.

Question everything, improve everything, change your electricity supplier, change your car, change your car insurance, stop buying crap, start growing, stop travelling so much, we can all be great so long as we act great. Tand the new economy won’t just happen due to political intervention. It will only happen if we shape it. Whatever your ideals, be it reducing environmental damage or providing jobs for the people of your country, consumers can drive the agenda much faster than any trade laws can.

The credit crunch, wall street crumbling, markets dropping all around the world , ‘Times they are a changing’.

What significance does this have for the Environment?

Well in times of hardship people become more prudent with their spending. Generally this is good on a local level, people start to buy second hand items, get things fixed and become less obsessed with buying new things all the time. This means less resource consumption, less shipping and less pollution. Though on a negative note any country whose economy is sustained by exports will suffer in a global recession.

Deeper than this is something interesting. Something that could spell a change for the global political system for years to come.

What we’re seeing now is state interventionism in the market unlike we’ve seen before. This is especially important in global development, because the world is divided between those that believe that market forces are the best means of governance and those that believe that the state can do a better job. A series of state intervention failures in the past, such as the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies of the 1980s, has meant the free market vision has been winning.

That is up until now. The USA – a champion of the free market and capitalism – has taken an unprecedented U-turn. It has recognised the failing of the banks and intervened. Not just once but in various different ways: Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae and now the $700 billion bailout plan.

So why is this a good thing? Well personally I’m hopeful that it might mean a quicker turn around in terms of state intervention for environmental problems. Take the Olympics for example. China managed to clean up it’s air quality in a matter of weeks by just switching off it’s industry. Would this been as quick if they relied on the free market? Personally I don’t think so. People might not like the controlling nature of the state, but sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice some economic freedom in return for change. Change that doesn’t mean bigger material gains. But change that leaves society feeling greater and happier. But this change won’t come without tears and fears.

For many years people have deliberated the moral hazard of bailing out developing countries from their debts. Why should we help those that have squandered our money on wars and corrupt dictatorships. All of a sudden the argument has come home to roost. Now the questions is why should we bail out those that have taken limitless risks and profited from this risk?

I can’t guarantee the world will change overnight. But one things for sure, the direction of global politics is changing. I’m optimistic the shifts we are seeing now will ripple into a number of political areas in the future and facilitate change for the better.

Recently the UN have forecast a boom in green jobs, so not everything is doom and gloom. We’re just beginning our new economic journey.

“I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” she said. Bring it on I thought, this is America’s first possible female Vice President. Sarah Palin’s gusto image invoked a warm glow in my soul. Don’t be deceived, this Alaskan coined herself the pitbull with lipstick for a reason.

You may be thinking why you should care about what the British, or for that matter any other country, think who you vote for. Well unfortunately for the rest of us, American policy influences so much of the world. I hate the fact that any country in the world has so much power. But that’s the legacy that World War II has given us.

I hope that those that were brave enough to start the new world in the name of freedom, democracy, trust and liberty can see the light of day, and vote with their heads and their hearts. The world desparately needs leadership styles we haven’t seen since the likes of the Second World War, to tackle issues just as important: Climate Change, Poverty and Energy Crises.

“We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.

More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas.” Not my words, but those of former President Harry Truman and call me skeptical but I don’t think he’d like Sarah Palin.

Green isn’t a dirty word – It’s an opportunity. An opportunity to bring the world together, to unite to solve common goals, to change the way we make a living for the better. In many ways, the problems we now face require the embodiment of the American spirit. Which lets face it, is the reason we used to love America in the first place.

You can be a hunter, a fisherman and a member of the National Rifle Association and still be green. Many professional hunters, kill for food in a sustainable manner. Some may say it’s cruel, but at the end of the day if you are a meat eater you can’t deny that this free range method is better than factory farming. Some hunters even seek to conserve the environment to maximise the quality of game, take the British Association of Shooting and Conservation as an example. Unlike economists these people already recognise the importance of all parts of the ecosystem.

Palin couldn’t give a hoot about Green Issues. Check out some of her environmental credentials:

1. Has supported oil drilling in some of the most ecologically sensitive areas in Alaska – The Trail, 29 Aug 2008
2. Sued the ‘Bush Administration over its decision last week to place the animal under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, claiming that climate models predicting the continued loss of sea ice – the main habitat of polar bears – are unreliable.’ – The Times, 23 May 2008
3. Has oppposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. On the Issues, Aug 2008
4. Doesn’t attribute Climate Change to being man made. Time 1 Sep 2008

So forget the consensus from 1000’s of scientists, forget what the Pentagon have said about the threat of climate change, just forget all that climate change mumbo jumbo. Palin knows best, and she’s on her way. (Apparently!)

“I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” but she can only really do this if she wakes up to climate change.

Ironically Governor Sarah Palin’s official website for Alaska has just declared that it’s Energy Efficiency month. Call me cynical but I can’t help but wonder if that’s political spin, or a genuine concern.

Why not drop Governor Palin a line and make this thing called democracy work for you?

Perhaps you’d like to tell her how much you know about climate change? Or maybe just throw her a few wise words.

governor@gov.state.ak.us

But whatever you do, just vote in a good pair of good leaders this time. Whoever they are.

A bunch of 10 strangers met for couple of hours, came up with some solid ideas, exchanged few emails and after only a week(!), a simple, single-minded and hopefully effective campaign was born!

Well done to all people involved.

The Canvass Your MP campaign aims to encourage members of the public to engage with their local MPs on the climate change bill issues by going to meet them in person. When they need our vote, MPs are going door-to-door to convince us why they deserve our support. We want to flip this practice and get people to canvass their MPs to convince them to press for a stronger, more effective bill.

There’s nothing like a bit of one on one time to convince someone of your true feelings and many people feel passionately that the it’s time for the politicians to pull their fingers out of their a**e and to start taking positive, effective, cross-party action on Climate Change.

This is a politics neutral campaign. The issues are far more serious and urgent than any petty party-politics and herd-voting. We want to know who is serious about tackling climate change and who is just paying lip service to make him/his party look good.
Canvass Your MP is providing three easy steps for you to take action.

1. If you don’t already know your MP you can find out by entering your postcode into the Find Your MP website.

2. Contact your constituency MP at their surgery. You can use this website to find telephone numbers and surgery times.

3. As soon as you get a response from your MP, saying that they will (or won’t) support the 80% target, let us know by reporting back.

The Canvass Your MP website will show people taking their future into their own hands, proving that the power of the individual is an amazing force. The more people that meet their MPs to discuss their thoughts about the Climate Change Bill the more informed the Government will be and the more likely they will vote for the 80% target.

Thanks ever so much to Jez from Make Hay Ethical E-media for putting the wonderful site together in no time.

Tony’s message was clear. “Democracy is not just voting every 5 years, watching Big Brother in between and wondering why nothing happens. Democracy is what we do and say. Where we live and work….”

Like anything in life if you want to use, it you need to know how to. Democracy is a lot like that, if you want to make real changes, you need to learn to use it.

Last year I visited my local Member of Parliament (MP) to find out how to use the system.

This is what I found out…

Email campaigns
You plug your name and address into a website, like magic an email wings its way to your local politician describing your disdain for whaling, climate change or the latest concern of the day.

Lots of people make a difference, but MPs sometimes treat these emails like a petition. It’s easy to sign something without giving it much consideration and MPs know this. “If you get 15 e-mails in one go, the usual reaction is not ‘this is important’ but ‘oh God, my inbox is full of e-mails!”

Effectiveness rating: *

Protests
The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, Gandhi’s march, the Iraq war protests.

Protests can raise important media attention and apply intense pressure to political systems. They can even be used to highlight the ridiculousness of legislation, such as Mark Thomas demonstrations against restrictions on campaigning in Parliament Square.

Effectiveness rating: * to ****

Letters
I highlighted the sentiment of an email was the same as a letter but was told: “It would be better if somebody wrote a letter in their own words. Sometimes if lots of people send an email it can have an impact, but most of the cynical politicians will think ’somebody has just gathered 50 people to annoy me by filling up my inbox”.

I guess the pen is mightier than the keyboard.

Effectiveness rating: **

Face to face
Many politicians run appointments when you can go along and meet them in person. Don’t be shy, most of them are human. If you know a few people with the similar concerns go along together. If there are many of you why not invite them to come and see you.

Politicians know that issues must be really important to their constituents when they take the time to meet them.

Effectiveness rating: ***

Political systems are different in every country. The guidance above will help you get started, but it is by no means exhaustive. All politicians are different and vary in the type of communication they take most notice of. Different countries have different forms of democracy. The more liberal a democracy is, the more accountable the government to the people, the increased civil and political rights people have and the freer and fairer elections are. (Dahl, 1989)

I know people that give up even before they’ve tried, they tell me their concerns, ‘One person can’t make a difference’. I believe they can. Florence Nightingale, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln. History is full of individuals and groups making a difference.

Over the last few weeks I’ve decided to see my MP about Climate Change. I’ve dusted off the notes from my Environmental Science degree, boned up on the latest developments from the IPCC, and have taken it upon myself to give my MP a grounding in the climate science basics.

The first meeting went well. Once we had finished our ‘Save the World’ talk, I took it upon myself to complain that it takes 5 years in my town to get an allotment. A giant leap from the melting permafrost, or destruction of the rainforest, but I’ve come to realise that everything is connected to everything.

Effectiveness rating: ? Watch this space

References:

Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and Its Critics, Yale University Press, New Haven

Links:

In the UK you can find out who your local MP is at http://www.WriteToThem.com

Mark Thomas – Mass lone demonstrations : Against legislation to prevent free protest around British Parliament http://www.markthomasinfo.com/demo/default.asp

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of risk of human-induced climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch