Need for 'deep ecology' not 'shallow environmentalism'
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Nerun Yakub
DEBUNKERS of climate change theories have lately been seizing on every available mistake and miscalculation to trivialise the fact that the earth and its ecological health has indeed been brought to the brink by the planet's predominant species -- precisely, the mindless acquisitiveness of homo sapiens. Over-exploitative and indiscriminate methods of 'development', led by the over-consuming industrialised North, and blindly followed by most of the world even now, have been heating up the planet and throwing global climate out of kilter, triggering erratic and extreme weather patterns everywhere.
Paul Schaefer, an electrical engineer in Kansas City, USA, who has about four years' of experience building nuclear weapons, knows what he is talking about when he says that the current abnormal energetic state of the Earth and its atmosphere is due to imbalances already caused by the industrial and atomic age, especially by the radiation of large numbers of tiny, high-velocity particles into our environment. This 'unnatural level of motion of highly energetic particles in the atmosphere, in radiation belts surrounding Earth, is the villain in weather disruptions… the Earth is discharging its buildup of heat, relieving stress and regaining a balanced condition through earthquakes and volcanic action', claims Schaefer.
Researchers have lately 're-discovered' the old truth that Bangladesh is geologically young and, and in the eternal flux there is more accretion than loss going on, despite the endless human tragedies due to river bank erosion and the rise and disappearance of 'chars' and 'dwips' at the micro level. But the re-discovery that Bangladesh has been growing in land size due to the mountains of silt washed downstream by the mighty force of the Padma-Meghna-Jamuna -- Isn't that how this land mass was formed in the first place ? Where was the coastline 500 years ago ? -- does not in any way belie the fact that Bangladesh is very much in the midst of an ecological crisis brought on by the same plundering mindset, the same soul-less attitude to development that is at the root of the planet's current sorrows.
It needs no saying however that although people in this country have been polluting and destroying their own natural resources thoughtlessly enough, in terms of global carbon emissions, Bangladesh is among the lowest contributors, about 0.2 tonnes. The developed countries are responsible for 15 to 20 tonnes, while the developing countries' share is a mere 1.6 tonnes. Environmentalists warn that if the same inherently unbalanced development continues, and Southern countries catch up and even overtake the worst polluters, in all likelihood 'we risk triggering a runaway disruption of the world's climate that could last centuries and that our descendents would be powerless to stop.'
How might mankind redirect its course to minimise the hazards of such a scenario ? After all, we all share the same planet. Prior to the Copenhagen Summit last year, a coalition of environmental rights groups pointed out, that the industrialised North with their transnational conglomerates, and the international financial institutions, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, should be held responsible for propagating the kind of development model that has wrought the greatest harm. [Curiously, the very serious disrupters, that is, the global military industrial complex, including the nuclear industry, seldom get mentioned.] The above are the main debtors to the world's poor, and as such should be obliged to pay reparations. For the most vulnerable must get on with their development efforts, but within a new, ecological vision of reality, even while trying to cope with the worst effects of climate change.
Prior to the Copenhagen Summit activists also worked on other, more specific, proposals, like the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework (GDRF). This focused mainly on establishing equity and justice vis-Ă -vis development and climate change negotiations. According to this framework, people whose purchasing power parity was below $20 a day -- that is, the vast majority of the world's population --were to have no emissions-reduction obligations. Those above this threshold would be required to undertake cuts according to their responsibility (for climate change) and capability (for mitigation and adaptation). In addition, they would also have to help the poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.
Another suggestion was, to focus on high-emitting individuals -- said to be some 700 worldwide -- and compel them to cut emissions by 30 billion tonnes over a 20-year period. In addition, giant corporations with their high carbon goods deserved to be taxed proportionately. To all intents and purposes, this GDRF should have been perfectly workable, as well as morally acceptable, to all who believe in a just world. That is the swiftest way to get on to the sustainable path.
But for Fritjof Capra, professor of high-energy physics, this would not be good enough. He would have called it 'shallow environmentalism' as against 'deep ecology,' for the global crisis demands a new systems approach that is 'rooted in a perception of reality that goes beyond the scientific framework to an intuitive awareness of the oneness of all life, the interdependence of its multiple manifestations and its cycles of change and transformation.'
Capra explains: Whereas shallow environmentalism is concerned with more efficient control and management of the natural environment for the benefit of 'man,' the deep ecology movement recognizes that ecological balance will require profound changes in our perception of the role of human beings in the planetary ecosystem. In short, it will require a new philosophical and religious basis, a shift from material consumption to voluntary simplicity, inner growth promoted by the human potential movement, the holistic health movement, the feminist movement, and various spiritual movements.
Capra's concept of deep ecology, however, is likely to go over the heads of most environmentalists who have made a name for themselves despite their 'shallow' kind of understanding. Few, unfortunately, internalize the systems approach. But it is better to have some kind of environmental awareness -- than none at all -- to detoxify our fertile land, our sweet and salt waters, our forests, and to institute an inclusive and sustainable development model that eventually delivers wholesome, not bitter fruits.
DEBUNKERS of climate change theories have lately been seizing on every available mistake and miscalculation to trivialise the fact that the earth and its ecological health has indeed been brought to the brink by the planet's predominant species -- precisely, the mindless acquisitiveness of homo sapiens. Over-exploitative and indiscriminate methods of 'development', led by the over-consuming industrialised North, and blindly followed by most of the world even now, have been heating up the planet and throwing global climate out of kilter, triggering erratic and extreme weather patterns everywhere.
Paul Schaefer, an electrical engineer in Kansas City, USA, who has about four years' of experience building nuclear weapons, knows what he is talking about when he says that the current abnormal energetic state of the Earth and its atmosphere is due to imbalances already caused by the industrial and atomic age, especially by the radiation of large numbers of tiny, high-velocity particles into our environment. This 'unnatural level of motion of highly energetic particles in the atmosphere, in radiation belts surrounding Earth, is the villain in weather disruptions… the Earth is discharging its buildup of heat, relieving stress and regaining a balanced condition through earthquakes and volcanic action', claims Schaefer.
Researchers have lately 're-discovered' the old truth that Bangladesh is geologically young and, and in the eternal flux there is more accretion than loss going on, despite the endless human tragedies due to river bank erosion and the rise and disappearance of 'chars' and 'dwips' at the micro level. But the re-discovery that Bangladesh has been growing in land size due to the mountains of silt washed downstream by the mighty force of the Padma-Meghna-Jamuna -- Isn't that how this land mass was formed in the first place ? Where was the coastline 500 years ago ? -- does not in any way belie the fact that Bangladesh is very much in the midst of an ecological crisis brought on by the same plundering mindset, the same soul-less attitude to development that is at the root of the planet's current sorrows.
It needs no saying however that although people in this country have been polluting and destroying their own natural resources thoughtlessly enough, in terms of global carbon emissions, Bangladesh is among the lowest contributors, about 0.2 tonnes. The developed countries are responsible for 15 to 20 tonnes, while the developing countries' share is a mere 1.6 tonnes. Environmentalists warn that if the same inherently unbalanced development continues, and Southern countries catch up and even overtake the worst polluters, in all likelihood 'we risk triggering a runaway disruption of the world's climate that could last centuries and that our descendents would be powerless to stop.'
How might mankind redirect its course to minimise the hazards of such a scenario ? After all, we all share the same planet. Prior to the Copenhagen Summit last year, a coalition of environmental rights groups pointed out, that the industrialised North with their transnational conglomerates, and the international financial institutions, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, should be held responsible for propagating the kind of development model that has wrought the greatest harm. [Curiously, the very serious disrupters, that is, the global military industrial complex, including the nuclear industry, seldom get mentioned.] The above are the main debtors to the world's poor, and as such should be obliged to pay reparations. For the most vulnerable must get on with their development efforts, but within a new, ecological vision of reality, even while trying to cope with the worst effects of climate change.
Prior to the Copenhagen Summit activists also worked on other, more specific, proposals, like the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework (GDRF). This focused mainly on establishing equity and justice vis-Ă -vis development and climate change negotiations. According to this framework, people whose purchasing power parity was below $20 a day -- that is, the vast majority of the world's population --were to have no emissions-reduction obligations. Those above this threshold would be required to undertake cuts according to their responsibility (for climate change) and capability (for mitigation and adaptation). In addition, they would also have to help the poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.
Another suggestion was, to focus on high-emitting individuals -- said to be some 700 worldwide -- and compel them to cut emissions by 30 billion tonnes over a 20-year period. In addition, giant corporations with their high carbon goods deserved to be taxed proportionately. To all intents and purposes, this GDRF should have been perfectly workable, as well as morally acceptable, to all who believe in a just world. That is the swiftest way to get on to the sustainable path.
But for Fritjof Capra, professor of high-energy physics, this would not be good enough. He would have called it 'shallow environmentalism' as against 'deep ecology,' for the global crisis demands a new systems approach that is 'rooted in a perception of reality that goes beyond the scientific framework to an intuitive awareness of the oneness of all life, the interdependence of its multiple manifestations and its cycles of change and transformation.'
Capra explains: Whereas shallow environmentalism is concerned with more efficient control and management of the natural environment for the benefit of 'man,' the deep ecology movement recognizes that ecological balance will require profound changes in our perception of the role of human beings in the planetary ecosystem. In short, it will require a new philosophical and religious basis, a shift from material consumption to voluntary simplicity, inner growth promoted by the human potential movement, the holistic health movement, the feminist movement, and various spiritual movements.
Capra's concept of deep ecology, however, is likely to go over the heads of most environmentalists who have made a name for themselves despite their 'shallow' kind of understanding. Few, unfortunately, internalize the systems approach. But it is better to have some kind of environmental awareness -- than none at all -- to detoxify our fertile land, our sweet and salt waters, our forests, and to institute an inclusive and sustainable development model that eventually delivers wholesome, not bitter fruits.