Implications of Environmental Change in the 21st Century

Environmental change may well become the single greatest societal and political issue of the 21st century. Each year more and more aspects of environmental change are brought to our attention. Besides global warming, or "climate change," which is now on everybody's lips, there are many other massive problems such deforestation, loss of biodiversity, loss of topsoil, groundwater depletion, and many others. This essay discusses how these environmental problems will likely affect our lives in the 21st century.

Background

Living in a tidy, well-maintained community such as those of American suburbia, it may be hard to imagine that there are serious environmental problems in the world that could affect our lifestyle. We have our parks and green areas, we no longer chop down our forests at unsustainable rates, air pollution seems to be under control, our cars' gas mileage is increasing, wind farms are sprouting up around the country, and we increasingly buy "organic" at the supermarket.

The truth is, we are not the ones paying much of the environmental costs of our own lifestyle. The palm oil that goes into our foods comes from places like Borneo, where vast monoculture palm groves have replaced the biodiversity of tropical rain forests. Our livestock feeds on Brazilian soybeans grown where jungle used to be. The coal that fuels the manufacturing of our consumer goods pollutes the air of China, not our own. Finally, the global climate change of which the U.S. economy is such an integral part affects the entire world more or less uniformly, not where the greenhouse gases are produced.

We can get away with such an unfair distribution of environmental costs because we are a rich country. The money we can pay to poor countries to exploit their resources means little to us but a lot to them. Imagine that the tables were turned. We would be cutting down our forests and shipping the lumber to Indonesia in order to put food on our tables. They would be the ones with the sparkling cities, verdant parks, and clean air, while we would be dealing with wide-ranging deforestation, erosion, groundwater depletion, drought, and ecological impoverishment.

The fact is, these and other environmental problems are developing around the world at an alarming rate, and our western lifestyle is a prime driver, even though the effects are often felt elsewhere. Reading National Geographic and watching environmental documentaries such as Home will make one better aware of the scope of human impact upon the environment, as will visiting places where environmental issues have become acute. As problems get worse, they gain increasing attention in mass media not specifically devoted to conservation or lifestyle, such as Newsweek, The Economist, or the Oprah Winfrey Show. For many people, the wake-up call comes at the gas station when the price of gas reaches $4 a gallon.

Climate change predictions

What scientists are telling us is that the improvements we are making worldwide are too minor to avert the impending catastrophes, the most immediate of which seems to be global warming. The main trend has not changed -- that of rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the depletion of nonrenewable or resources. Human population continues to rise, and consumption along with it. Predictions for when climate change will produce irreversible changes have been moved up to the coming decade or two, mainly because melting of polar ice and subarctic permafrost is taking place faster than originally expected.

The polar regions have a particular impact on the Earth's temperature. Ice and snow act as a reflector of the sun's heat, whereas open water absorbs it. If polar sea ice were to disappear as is now predicted, it would accelerate the Earth's warming even more. If Greenland's ice cap melts -- of which we are alreading seeing the first clear signs -- it would raise sea levels by seven meters, inundating areas where hundreds of millions of people now live and where much food is produced. Furthermore, the influx of fresh meltwater into the North Atlantic could disrupt the flow of the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into the cold even as the rest of the world warms. Disappearance of sea ice and melting of Antarctica's ice cap in the southern hemisphere would have similar effects. Finally, as subarctic and arctic regions warm, melting permafrost (perpetually frozen soil) will release large amounts of trapped methane into the atmosphere. Methane is considered to be 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

These changes, many scientists now suggest, could occur (over centuries) even if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to stabilize at the current level, much less continue rising as predicted. Estimates of what would be a "safe" level of carbon dioxide -- a level that would preserve the Earth in more or less its current state -- are increasingly being revised downward to levels below that of today. At the same time, some debate still exists as to the causes of climate change and whether human-produced carbon dioxide is the main culprit or not. However, the effects of global warming on human society will be disastrous regardless of its cause.

Societal consequences of climate change

For instance, as Himalayan glaciers continue to retreat, less and less water will be available for the 2 billion Asians who depend on meltwater from these glaciers. As they lose their sustenance, people will migrate in search of food, water, and work. Naturally, as water and other resources grow scarcer, the poor will lose access to them first. They will either migrate to already swollen cities or to any place where there is water and food, ignoring national boundaries and threats. These people will be desperate and will not care about preserving the remaining resources. Famine, war, and death will be the likely consequences.

As climates change and sea levels rise, similar migrations could take place in increasingly drought-prone regions of Africa and in low-lying coastal areas around the world, causing enormous social upheaval. Some of this is already happening today on a relatively small scale. As people move into others' territory, wars may result over limited land and resources. It could be hard to avoid an Easter Island scenario, where a desperate people on a limited territory decimate all remaining land in their search for food, and end up perishing anyway. Some scientists, such as James Lovelock (author of the Gaia hypothesis), see a real possibility of much of the Earth's population starving to death by 2100.

Authoritatitiveness of science

As hard as it is to believe in such a fantastic scenario from the vantage point of a suburban armchair, these are the messages that today's prophets of science are telling us, and it comes from a vast body of data gathered from all over the world over many decades and centuries in the course of scientific exploration and inquiry. Their predictions may end up being off; their explanations may in time be replaced by even better substantiated theories, but these are the most knowledgeable experts that we have. If the collective voice of empirical science is not to be trusted, then what is? If the predictions are inaccurate and we still act quickly to cut our consumption, then we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, the predictions are accurate and we do nothing, the consequences will be devastating. Common sense dictates that we take precautionary measures in the absence of perfect knowledge. However, scientific knowledge of human-related environmental impact is fast approaching perfect, and the predictions have so far been getting worse, not better.

Geopolitics and climate change

The implications of continued global warming have started to reach politicians around the world and will likely influence geopolitics more and more in the years to come. There is a real possibility that an awareness of the gravity of the threat may cause the leaders of nations to throw aside their differences and work together towards a common goal on a scale never seen before. Popular support for international cooperation will probably grow around the world as the general public becomes aware of the issues in spite of big business' attempts to downplay the environmental costs of existing practices. The voting populace will then support leaders who enter into international treaties and limit domestic consumption through administrative means. Since both nations and individual citizens tend to cut back on consumption only if everyone else does, too, the treaties must be perceived as fair and binding for all countries. If they are also accompanied by agreements that promote demilitarization and peace, nations and their citizens might be even more accepting of treaties that limit their own consumption. After all, it is not one's absolute military strength that ensures national security, but one's strength relative to other states. Undoubtedly, the role of international organizations such as the United Nations would grow as a result of a clear need for international cooperation. This could ultimately provide the foundation for establishing some degree of lasting peace between nations as envisioned by Immanuel Kant in "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch".

In any case, international action must be taken before two critical "tipping points" are reached: 1) the melting of polar ice caps, which could lead to great loss of human life and runaway global warming, and 2) depletion of resources to the point where an Easter Island scenario would become inevitable. Most likely, the measures taken will be modest at first and grow tougher and tougher as global environmental problems progress. How harsh limits on consumption may become we can only imagine. As we are seeing, international discussion of climate change inevitably touches upon a whole host of related problems -- population growth, resource management in developing nations, water rights, poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth, agriculture subsidies in the developed world, application of military force, protection of endangered species, and others. Maybe these issues will finally be addressed satisfactorily given the urgency of climate change talks.

There is a chance that large-scale geoengineering projects will be unveiled, such as spewing dust into the atmosphere to block sunlight and lower temperatures, seeding the oceans with iron to promote algae growth, putting mirrors in orbit to block the sun, etc. Humans are ingenious and might come up with a temporary technological solution to climate change, but the possibility that such measures might be developed should not prevent governments from taking measures to reduce environmental impact today.

Impending changes in lifestyle and consumption

We can expect significant lifestyle changes in the decades to come. Hopefully, these changes will be smooth and gradual rather than cataclysmic. For instance, taxes on fuels may be increased which, combined with rising oil prices, would make it unrealistic for most people to drive their cars (or fly) as much as they do today. Even if taxes are not raised, gas prices will still hit new highs due to diminishing supply. Public transportation will be developed further, and people will switch to vehicles that use less fuel, or even bicycles. However, most modern American communities are built around the automobile. Unless a new source of cheap energy is found soon, this model of residential development is sure to fall into disuse because of the unreasonably high cost of building the infrastructure, fueling homes and providing utilities, and transporting residents from their houses to all the distant places they need to go. Mankind's brief experiment in suburban living will eventually come to an end, and people will go back to living as they always have -- within walking or cycling distance of where they need to go, by dwelling compactly in cities, towns, and villages where everything necessary is located close by.

Taxes may eventually be levied on all sorts of goods and services -- from drinking water to plastic bags -- in order to direct resources away from consumption and towards recycling, restoration, and sustainable management of resources. For instance, with the full cost of supplying water figured in, the cost of maintaining a green lawn or a golf course in the desert Southwest would probably be prohibitive. Even if taxes are not raised, consumption cannot continue to rise indefinitely, or even remain at current levels, since the resources being used are finite. With generations of steadily increasing consumption behind us, our civilization has developed a cultural myth of ever-increasing material wealth and endlessly rising gross domestic product. Until now the desirability of perpetual economic growth has been taken for granted, but we will soon have to reconcile ourselves to a lower degree of abundance than that enjoyed by our parents and grandparents.

However, a decrease in consumption -- whether by personal choice or necessity as prices go up -- need not imply a lower quality of life. On the contrary, some of our modern ailments may actually stem from our high-consumption lifestyle -- such as obesity, sendentary living, loneliness, and depression. A move away from the current automobile-centric lifestyle may well result in greater physical and emotional health as people become more active. Furthermore, instead of each person owning a vast number of possessions that he uses occasionally (e.g. lawnmowers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, etc.), people could pool their resources and share many possessions, owning only the things that they use frequently. This would promote greater cooperation between people without diminishing their quality of life or even free time. One does not have to lead a lifestyle that amounts to consuming dozens of gallons of oil and hundreds of gallons of water daily to be happy and healthy.

Critical to the lowering of consumption is that all society is involved in the process. People are competitive by nature; just like nations, we tend to assess our success and "power" not in absolute terms, but relative to others. If all people in our society are subject to the same rules and have to change their lifestyle and consumption habits, they will find meaning in the process. It will become a source of national pride, just like sacrifices made during periods of defensive war. If other nations are involved in the same process, this could produce a new sense of international solidarity.

Role of government in achieving sustainability

Of course, minimizing environmental impact is not only about reducing consumption, but also about using sustainable practices. Hopefully, in the coming decades sustainability will become the new paradigm for all aspects of human activity. A truly sustainable practice is one that can be continued indefinitely without any lasting damage to the environment. Since all forms of life are intertwined and evolved together, any naturally occuring behavior is by definition sustainable -- such as the feeding and migratory habits of vast bison herds before they were decimated by the white man, who replaced buffalo with poorly adapted cattle and exterminated wolves and other predators. Unsustainable practices can only be maintained for brief periods during times of superabundant resources and an absence of predators. Our modern, fossil fuel-based civilization is precisely such a period. If sustainability is to be achieved without reverting to an 18th century lifestyle or worse, it will be through the development of renewable energy sources and careful management of resources.

Is careful management of resources best achieved through private ownership of resources or through central management? This may become a matter of great debate, and the answer could redefine our economic system. Jared Diamond in his book Collapse provides evidence that private stewardship is the best mechanism for ensuring sustainable land use on small territories where each person is aware of everything that is happening on the territory. In this case, people cannot get away with "cheating" and overexploiting available resources, because everybody will know about it. On large territories central management becomes crucial to ensure that individuals use sustainable methods. Here, one person cannot know everything that is going on unless he has some sort of network or administrative system providing him with accurate information.

In other words, sustainability cannot be achieved unless there is accurate information (i.e. environmental monitoring) about the effects of our activities and unless there is a method for enforcing use of sustainable practices, either through social norms or a legal system. Since our territory is very large, we can expect the government's role in establishing legal boundaries of consumption and resource use to increase, as well as its power to punish offenders. If the government (federal, state, or municipal) does not enlist scientists to help monitor impacts and does not rise to this task, market forces will ensure that resources are exploited unsustainably in all but the smallest, autonomous communities where social pressure might be enough to keep people in line. Luckily, the government is already heavily involved in environmental monitoring and resource management and has a history of making at least occasional good environmental decisions -- for instance, establishing national parks and wilderness areas, establishing air quality standards, and protecting endangered species and critical habitats.

Cultural changes

Not only will we see increased government involvement in resource management, but popular culture will evolve to reflect mankind's growing environmental awareness. Culture adapts to the realities of life and provides guidelines for living that are appropriate to current (or recent) conditions. We are already seeing this in the form of popular catch phrases such as "reducing your carbon footprint," "green lifestyle," "going green," and others. As public awareness of human impact on the global environment grows, so will the "greenness" of popular morality. People may begin to chide others for purchasing goods made of plastic, for driving to work instead of walking or cycling, for buying fruit grown far from home, for eating meat, for having more than one or two children, or for using flush toilets. Like any popular morality, some of the new mores may be rooted in misinformation, and some excesses are bound to result. The cumulative effect of this culture will be to shame people into reducing their environmental impact.

There is a chance of a much deeper environmental awakening as well -- one that carries a more spiritual meaning. In indigenous societies people view themselves as an integral part of nature that depends on many different sources for sustenance and well-being. Modern man has largely lost that connection and lives insulated from nature in a world of artificial materials kept spic-and-span through the use of chemicals and machines. He does not sense his dependence upon the natural world and often forgets it exists; instead, his mind is preoccupied by human society and its creations. Modern man is anthropocentric; his religions declare him the crowning purpose of the Universe. These attitudes could be turned on their head by environmental problems, resulting in a renaissance of animistic and pantheistic spirituality. People might begin to search for and revive the beliefs and attitudes of indigenous peoples that contributed to their mentality of sustainability, such as nature worship, a reverence for life, and rituals of harvest, hunting, feasting, etc. that acknowledge man's dependence on the forces and balance of nature. As humanity's environmental problems come to the forefront of its consciousness, we can expect spiritual attitudes to incorporate this awareness.

Conclusion

Increasing awareness of environmental problems will have a great effect on society and politics in the 21st century. The measures taken and the ensuing lifestyle changes might well be drastic. In a worst-case scenario, no concerted international effort will be made, and climate change and other problems will play out according to pessimistic predictions, causing a profound alteration of the Earth's ecosystems and enormous loss of human life. In a best-case scenario, nations will set aside their differences and cooperate closely to reduce our combined enrivonmental impact and avert catastrophe. The challenges facing us provide new opportunities to build a more rational, sustainable society and even enjoy more world peace. We should rise to the occasion.

Notes:
To read a highly acclaimed book with an outlook very similar to mine, see The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability by James Gustave Speth.
To find out more on religion's role in determining environmental attitudes and its need to adapt to an environmental age, see the article Examing Religion's Role in Environmental Degradation and Resurrection.