global environm ental issues · globalization and sustainable development o chapters authored by...

Red box rules are for proof stage only. Delete before final printing.

Global EnvironmEntal

issuEsSeconD eDition

eDitoR Frances Harris

eDitoRHarris

SeconD eDition

Global Environmental Issues, Second Edition builds on the popularity of the first edition, viewing global environmental problems as complex issues with a network of causes, influenced by a range of actors with differing priorities. the book recognises that science underpins much of what happens in society and therefore it is important to be able to interpret the environmental and social consequences of scientific developments. in addition to discussing the main biophysical causes, the book illustrates how socio-economic and political factors determine why and how people use land, resources and technology, and how this in turn affects natural resource management.

this edition includes new chapters on the politics of science, international environmental regulation and treaties, environmental issues in a globalised world and natural resource management.

Global Environmental Issues, Second Edition is essential reading for upper level undergraduates and Masters students within departments of environmental Science and Geography.

Global EnvironmEntal issuEsSeconD eDition

eDitoRFrances Harris, Kingston University, UK

O includes case studies from around the world to provide a real life context for the issues tackled in each chapter

O considers both the results of human actions and natural environmental change in order to provide balanced, in-depth debate

O includes coverage of contemporary ‘hot topics’ such as biodiversity, globalization and sustainable development

O chapters authored by experts in the field

O includes new chapters on the politics of science, international environmental regulation and treaties, environmental issues in a globalised world and natural resource management

O expanded sections include negotiating multilateral environmental agreements, GM crops, biofuels and marine and freshwater resources

Glo

bal En

viro

nm

Enta

l issuEs

P1: OTA/XYZ P2: ABCJWST095-FM JWST095-Harris September 26, 2011 21:3 Printer Name: Yet to Come

P1: OTA/XYZ P2: ABCJWST095-FM JWST095-Harris November 11, 2011 15:22 Printer Name: Yet to Come

Global Environmental Issues


Global EnvironmentalIssuesSecond Edition

Edited by

Frances HarrisKingston University, UK

A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication


This edition first published 2012© 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley’s global Scientific,Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing.

Registered Office: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply forpermission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website atwww.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UKCopyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, inany form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted bythe UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of the organisations forwhich they work. The publisher and the author make no representations or warranties with respect to theaccuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including withoutlimitation warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales orpromotional materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every situation. Thiswork is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or otherprofessional services. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional personshould be sought. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. The fact thatan organization or Website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or a potential source of furtherinformation does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or Websitemay provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that Internet Websites listed inthis work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand namesand product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks oftheir respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Thispublication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered.It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professionaladvice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Global environmental issues / edited by Frances Harris. – 2nd ed.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0-470-68470-2 (cloth) – ISBN 978-0-470-68469-6 (pbk.)1. Environmental sciences. I. Harris, Frances (Frances M. A.)GE105.G563 2011363.7–dc23

2011021484

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDF 9781119950998; oBook 9781119950981;ePub 9781119952084; Mobi 9781119952091

Set in 10/12pt Times by Aptara Inc., New Delhi, India.

First Impression 2012

http://www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell


For Thomas and Eleanor and their generation.


Contents

Contributors ix

Acknowledgements xi

Part One Introduction 1

1 Human–Environment Interactions 3Frances Harris

Part Two Negotiating Environmental Science 19

2 From Science to Policy 21Frances Harris

3 Confronting a Multitude of Multilateral Environmental Agreements 39Anilla Cherian

Part Three The Changing Surface of the Earth 63

4 Grappling with the Global Climate Challenge 65Anilla Cherian

5 Understanding and Adapting to Sea-Level Rise 87Patrick D. Nunn

6 Conserving Biodiversity and Natural Resources 105Frances Harris

Part Four Meeting Our Needs 131

7 Food Production and Supply 133Guy M. Robinson and Frances Harris

8 Meeting Society’s Demand for Energy 167Nick Petford

Part Five Coping with Our Impact 201

9 Sustainable Urbanisation 203Kenneth Lynch

vii


Contents

10 Coping with Pollution: Dealing with Waste 237Ros Taylor

Part Six Conclusion 275

11 Sustainable Development: Negotiating the Future 277Frances Harris

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 295

References 301

Index 333

viii

P1: OTA/XYZ P2: ABCJWST095-Listofcontributors JWST095-Harris October 5, 2011 12:8 Printer Name: Yet to Come

Contributors

Anilla CherianConsultant Advisor, Environment and Energy GroupBureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development ProgrammeNew York, NY [email protected], [email protected]

Frances HarrisCentre for Earth and Environmental Science ResearchSchool of Geography, Geology and the EnvironmentKingston UniversityPenrhyn RoadKingston-upon-ThamesSurrey KT1 [email protected]

Kenneth LynchDepartment of Natural and Social SciencesFrances Close HallUniversity of GloucestershireSwindon RoadCheltenham, GL50 [email protected]

Patrick D. NunnHead, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social SciencesUniversity of New EnglandArmidale, NSW [email protected]

Nick PetfordVice ChancellorThe University of NorthamptonAvenue CampusSt George’s AvenueNorthamptonNN2 [email protected]

ix

P1: OTA/XYZ P2: ABCJWST095-Listofcontributors JWST095-Harris October 5, 2011 12:8 Printer Name: Yet to Come

Contributors

Guy M. RobinsonDirector, Centre for Regional Engagement, Director, Centre for Rural Health andCommunity DevelopmentUniversity of South Australia111 Nicolson AvenueWhyallaSouth Australia [email protected]

Ros TaylorFounding Director, Sustainability HubKingston UniversityPenrhyn RoadKingston-upon-ThamesSurrey KT1 [email protected]

x

P1: OTA/XYZ P2: ABCJWST095-Ack JWST095-Harris October 5, 2011 15:3 Printer Name: Yet to Come

Acknowledgements

This revised edition would not have been possible without the effort of each of the con-tributing authors, for which I am very grateful. Claire Ivison has prepared most of thefigures with her usual skill and dedication, which is greatly appreciated. Editorial assis-tance was provided by Christine Fears. Throughout, Fergus Lyon has been an excellentadvisor and very supportive.

The contributors would like to thank those who have given their permission toreproduce their figures and tables.

xi

P1: OTA/XYZ P2: ABCJWST095-Ack JWST095-Harris October 5, 2011 15:3 Printer Name: Yet to Come

P1: OTA/XYZ P2: ABCJWST095-01 JWST095-Harris October 18, 2011 10:44 Printer Name: Yet to Come

Part One

Introduction


Chapter 1Human–Environment

InteractionsFrances Harris

1.1 Introduction

Environmental issues have been a concern for many years. Yet somehow they are problemsthat we have not been able to resolve, despite research, media attention, increased publicawareness about environmental problems, campaigns by environmental pressure groups,and international agreements. Our environment is dynamic, constantly changing and evolv-ing in response to stimuli. Yet in the last century it became apparent that mankind ishaving an increasing effect on the planet’s ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles, so muchso that our activities are now causing environmental change which is overriding the nat-ural dynamism of the earth. Yet despite the evidence of environmental problems such asbiodiversity loss, land cover change observable from satellite imagery, records of climatechange and many examples of pollution, we still pursue activities which perpetuate theproblems. As the world’s population increases, and the per capita consumption of naturalresources increases, we will have an even greater effect on these environmental problems,exacerbating them further.

Why are such problems so hard to resolve? There are three broad reasons: first,the science of environmental problems is complex. We are dealing with many interrelateddynamic systems, within which and between which feedback mechanisms occur. Second,there are many stakeholders involved in both the causes and the solutions to environmentalproblems. Organising all of these stakeholders to act in a co-ordinated manner is difficult.Third, resolving global environmental issues will require changes in our own consumptionand pollution of natural resources, which will mean changes to lifestyles. This will requirecommitment at the personal level, which not everyone is willing to make.

Human–environment interactions involve not only the question of resource useper person, but also our ability to understand the science of the environment, our ability toregulate our impact on the environment, our beliefs in the value of the environment, our

Global Environmental Issues, Second Edition. Edited by Frances Harris.© 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3



attitudes to the future, particularly risk, and our ability to negotiate solutions both at thelocal and the global level. This book aims to discuss environmental issues from a scientificand socio-economic viewpoint, so that they are understood not only as contested scienceconcerning natural resources, but also as political and social issues. In this way, the readergains a fuller understanding of the complexity of environmental issues and the challengeswe are faced with in order to resolve them. ‘The science of the environment is socially andpolitically situated, rather than unambiguous or separable from the subjective location ofhuman perception’ (Stott and Sullivan, 2000, p. 2).

1.2 Global demands on natural resources

Throughout the world, people earn their livelihoods through the use of whatever resourcesare available to them. Our livelihoods are ultimately natural resource dependent. Naturalresources provide us with the land and water for agriculture (whether for subsistence needsor to serve a wider market), trees for firewood and timber, ocean and freshwater resourcesfor fisheries, wildlife for meat, animal products, tourism, oil, gas and coal for energy, andalso mineral resources (rocks, minerals, gems, coal . . .). Many economies are dependenton natural resources. At the household and community level, this can be in the form ofagriculture or natural resource products gathered and sold (e.g. wild foods, honey). At thenational level, most countries rely on their natural resource base to meet basic needs andprovide the resources for economic development, for example, through cash crops, forestryor mining. Globally we rely on natural resources for ecosystem regulation. Even wherepeople do not rely on natural resources for their day-to-day livelihood-generating activities,the role of natural resources and ecosystem services in maintaining the environment is stillcrucial. The role of ecosystem services has been recognised in recent years (MillenniumEcosystem Assessment, 2005), raising the importance of the conservation of biodiversity.There is no substitute for the global climate regulation mechanism. Neither can the effectsof land cover change be reversed to recreate the natural environment which existed prior toland degradation and urban sprawl. Although we can save some seeds of plants, and keepsome animals in zoos, recreating ecosystems is a much greater challenge.

In 1798, Malthus predicted that human population growth would be checked byfood supply. Although Malthus’ prediction concerned specifically food, wider concernsthat the human population’s needs will outstrip the planet’s resources have been of ongo-ing concern. Ehrlich (1968) argued that population growth rates at that time would exceedthe world’s resources. Furthermore, as most population growth, and also declining foodproduction, were found to occur in developing countries, he advocated population control.However, these arguments assumed a steady ‘carrying capacity’ of the earth, whereas inreality, technological developments alter the ability of land to produce food, and risingstandards of living alter the demands for food. Boserup (1965) argued increasing popula-tions can be the driving force for agricultural intensification, which increases food outputper unit area of land. For example, the Green Revolution had an enormous impact on agri-cultural productivity, particularly that of rice and wheat. (Subsequently it was realised thatthe Green Revolution also created new social and environmental problems, as discussedin section 7.4.1, but its effect on the population–food debate remained.) Simon (1981)also argued that more people bring positive change, as this results in more ideas, more

4


Human–Environment Interactions

experimentation, and more technological innovation which can help resolve the problemsof resource limitations. In contrast, Dyson (1996) maintains that food production increasedand outstripped population growth in the last decades of the twentieth century and Bennett(2000) points out, ‘There seems to be no evidence that our ability to produce food hasbeen a lasting brake on population growth.’ Michaelson (1981, p. 3) stated that ‘Overpop-ulation is not a matter of too many people, but of unequal distribution of resources. Thefundamental issue is not population control, but control of resources and the very circum-stances of life itself.’ Globally, sufficient food is produced to feed people. However, foodshortages occur because of variations in land productivity, and also because of problemsin food distribution, due to poverty, conflict and failing markets (Bennett, 2000). Problemsof inequality and existing power struggles affect people’s access to resources and people’sentitlements to food and other natural resources (Sen, 1982; Leach et al., 1997) on whichtheir livelihoods depend.

The global population is currently estimated to be near 7 billion, and there is wideconsensus that it will reach 9 billion by 2050 (Lutz and Samir, 2010). It is anticipated thatthe global population will reach a plateau within this century. However, anticipating foodrequirements of this population is a complex process, do to changing cultures, settlementpatterns, and diets. Furthermore, these social changes need to be assessed in the light ofchanging environmental conditions, particularly the impact of climate change, and increas-ing land use competition, as well as rising prices of energy, which underpin all agriculturalproduction. Since 1940, industry and services have been an equal or larger sector of theglobal economy than the primary sector, and since 1980, they have employed more peoplethan the primary sector (Satterthwaite et al., 2010). In 2008, the global population shiftedfrom being predominantly rural to predominantly urban (Satterthwaite et al., 2010). Thishas implications for the number of people producing food, as well as the number requir-ing food to be supplied to them. Urbanisation also corresponds with increased affluenceand disposable income, as well as a more sedentary workplace, which affects both dietarychoices and public health. For those who are on extremely low incomes, their vulnera-bility to food price rises is exacerbated by their move away from subsistence agriculture(Liverman, 2008). The challenges of providing food for a growing and changing populationare discussed in Chapter 7.

The impact of population on the environment is determined by the size of thepopulation, its affluence (and hence consumption per capita) and the type of technolo-gies used. These arguments are summarised in the equation (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1990;see also section 10.3.3):

Impact = Population × Affluence × Technology

Therefore an extremely large but poor population using low impact technology could havethe same impact as smaller but more affluent population using highly polluting technology.The impact depends not only on the size of the population, but also on whether the technol-ogy used is highly polluting or ‘green’ (i.e. reliant on renewable energy or non-polluting).It should also be remembered that in some cases, ‘green’ technology requires affluence,and hence is not necessarily associated with the developing world.

The rising global population will affect the environment in several ways. Thesheer numbers of people may seem daunting when the need to provide food, water, ahealthy environment and to cope with pollution and waste are taken into consideration.

5



Estimates suggest that just under 15 per cent of the population do not have access tosufficient food, and an equal amount are over-fed (Godfray et al., 2010), therefore thedistribution of food among the population is also a concern.

The demand for food is partly affected by absolute population numbers, but alsoby the diet of the global population. Rising affluence of emerging economies is resultingin increasing numbers adopting a more complex diet based on meat and dairy products.This nutrition transition (Kearney, 2010) will result in increased demands on food systems.Average grain production per capita in 1997/98 was 356 kg grain. A grain-based diet re-quires 180 kg grain per capita per year, whereas a meat-based diet required 930 (Millstoneand Lang, 2003). Thus the implications of moving from a predominantly vegetarian andgrain-based diet to the meat and dairy-based diet of a more affluent society is clear: moreprimary production is required. Meat-based diets required higher levels of grain as grainis needed to feed livestock. There are also implications for the amount of water required,as well as for the amount of energy. In addition, livestock production produces greenhousegases, particularly methane, which contribute to climate change. In addition to requiringmore food, the nutrition transition also results in a greater diet-related disease burden: non-contagious health problems such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Dealingwith these health issues places an additional burden on countries, one that some predictcould be crippling for emerging economies such as India (Caballero and Popkin, 2002).

Agricultural production also faces additional challenges such as the impact of cli-mate change. Increased CO2 levels have been linked to the concept of ‘carbon fertilisation’,an increased input of carbon in the system which may increase photosynthesis. However,not all crop plants are predicted to respond well to this. Furthermore, rising temperaturesmay increase pests and diseases, as well as increase water stress, which could limit plantgrowth. It is also anticipated that there may be an increase in extreme weather events, in-cluding storms and droughts, whereas agriculture requires a more regular supply of rain.Storm events result in excess water, causing erosion, floods, and increased run-off, andare therefore not beneficial to crop plants. On a larger scale, increased temperatures willaffect glaciers, changing the hydrology of major catchments and rivers. Sea-level rise willimpact on coastal agriculture (Godfray et al., 2010). With so much uncertainty, it is hardto quantify exact effects and thus predict what will happen (Gornall et al., 2010).

In addition to climate change, there are concerns about world energy supplies.The agricultural industry is heavily reliant on energy, for machinery, for agro-chemicals,for transportation and distribution of inputs and products, and especially for the productionof nitrogen fertiliser. Concerns to find more environmentally sustainable forms of energyhave meant that growth of biofuels has increased worldwide. Growth of biofuel productionhas had an impact on agricultural productivity (through diverting land from food produc-tion) and biodiversity (through clearing land of other vegetation to make space for biofuelcrops) (section 8.5.5). Increasing competition for land use among urbanisation, agriculture,biofuels and recreation has had an impact on basic ecosystem services previously eitherunrecognised or taken for granted. The role of ecosystems in producing less obvious, non-harvestable benefits is highlighted in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), and itis argued that these need to be valued more clearly to ensure the long-term benefits of bio-diversity are not sacrificed to immediate needs for growth and development (MEA, 2005).

Human–environment interactions are not just about meeting the global popula-tion’s food needs, or even about meeting natural resource needs. The human population

6



also affects the environment through what it leaves behind. The impact of the human popu-lation on the environment is seen as, among other things, land use change (forest clearance,reduced wildlife, changes in agricultural landscapes as farming systems intensify), urban-isation, pollution of water, seas and landscapes. In some cases, our impact is less visible,at least immediately, such as gaseous pollution and changing atmospheric composition.Harrison (1993) argues that it is the effect of pollution which will drive a ‘third revolution’for change in the world. The arguments concerning population–environment theories rangefrom debates based on numbers of people and food resources, more complex argumentsconcerning the effect of environment and technology on carrying capacity, to social andpolitical factors affecting access and entitlement to natural resources.

1.3 Ecological footprints

The ecological footprint of a specified population or economy can be defined as the area of eco-logically productive land (and water) in various classes – cropland, pasture forests, etc. – thatwould be required on a continuous basis to (a) provide all the energy/material resources con-sumed, and (b) absorb all the wastes discharged by the population with prevailing technology,wherever on Earth that land is located.

(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996, pp. 51–52)

As such, ecological footprints are an ‘accounting tool . . . to estimate the resource con-sumption and waste assimilation requirements of a defined human population or economyin terms of a corresponding productive land area’ (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996, p. 9).

The concept of ecological footprints has caught the attention of many due to thesimplicity of the basic concept and the ability of the ecological footprint tool to be used inan educational manner to highlight and compare individual, community, regional, or na-tional effects on the environment. Ecological footprints link lifestyles with environmentalimpact. Ecological footprints are determined by calculating the amount of land and waterarea required to meet the consumption (food, energy, goods) of a population in a givenarea, and assimilate all the wastes generated by that population (Wackernagel and Rees,1996). Obviously such a calculation relies on the accuracy of the data provided, and ofthe ‘conversion factors’ used in determining agricultural productivity of the land providingfood, and the forest area required to meet energy needs. Indeed, there are those who havemade serious criticisms of the method (van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999), some ofwhich may be valid. However, as a comparative tool, it has its value in making individualsor societies think about the implications of their lifestyle on the environment. Calculationmethods have been adjusted slightly in subsequent years. For example, electricity gener-ated by nuclear energy is no longer included in calculations as the demands and impacts(although not negative) are hard to equate with the ecological footprint accounting sys-tems (WWF, 2008). Furthermore, methods have been refined so that ecological footprintsare now also subdivided into carbon footprints and water footprints. The following discus-sion focuses on national ecological footprints. Urban ecological footprints are discussed insection 9.3.2, and the role of waste in ecological footprints in section 10.3.4.

7



Obviously, many people are not ‘living off the land’, especially nearby land. Mostpeople rely on some imported goods. International trade has gone on for centuries, andprovides us with many of the staples we rely on. Jevons (1865) stated that:

The plains of North America and Russia are our [British] corn-fields; Chicago and Odessa ourgranaries; Canada and the Baltic are our timber-forests; Australasia contains sheep-farms, and inArgentina and on the western prairies of North America are our herds of oxen; Peru sends hersilver, and the gold of South Africa and Australia flows to London; the Hindus and Chinese growtea for us, and our coffee, sugar and spice plantations are all in the Indies. Spain and France arevineyards and the Mediterranean our fruit garden, and our cotton grounds, which for long haveoccupied the Southern United States, are now being extended everywhere in the warm regions ofthe Earth.

In the intervening centuries, world trade has increased, and in addition to food imports,trade also provides many non-perishable goods and commodities. Consumption, whetherthrough trade or from local sources, creates an ecological footprint. This is then aug-mented by the waste generated, some of which is generated overseas in the creation of theimported goods (e.g. sugar refineries or leather tanneries). If we create demand for a waste-generating product, then we are in some way responsible for the associated waste, even ifit is not produced in our country. Furthermore, some waste, such as gaseous emissions, isdumped in the atmosphere: a global ‘no man’s land’ whose degradation has implicationsfor all of us. Dumping rubbish and waste in the world’s seas and oceans is another problem.Pollution of the global commons is proving hard to regulate, and where funds are requiredto resolve problems of pollution in this area, there can be huge disagreement concerningwho should bear responsibility and pay. If resource depletion, and the pollution and wastecaused by consumption are generated at a distance, the impact on the ecological footprint(via pollution in production and transportation processes) is less visible to the consumer,but ecological footprint analysis does bring it into account. Ecological footprints are a trulyglobal measurement of the impact of people on ecosystems.

Figure 1.1 shows the ecological footprint per capita of a sample of 16 countries.What is most apparent from Figure 1.1 is that countries with ecological footprints higherthan the world’s ecological footprint are in the developed world, whereas those withlower ecological footprints are more likely to be in the developing world. Although thedeveloping countries include nations with high population densities (Nigeria, China,India, Bangladesh), the number of people does not seem to be the problem; rather it is thedeveloped countries, where affluence is greater and technology is in greater use, whichhave the large footprints. It is also possible to relate a country’s ecological footprint to thenatural resources available to that country. An ecological deficit means that the needs ofa country’s population cannot be met from the resources within that country. Countriessuch as Australia and Brazil, with large, sparsely populated areas and large forest reserves,may have large ecological footprints, but can usually meet these from their own resources.This may be partly due to the fact that the mechanism whereby ecological footprints arecalculated converts energy requirements into equivalent fuel wood (van den Bergh andVerbruggen, 1999), and so countries with large forested areas are able to compensate forhigh energy use, whereas countries without forests do less well in the calculation, even ifthey could provide energy by other renewable means such as hydroelectric power. Some50 per cent of the world’s biocapacity can be found in eight countries: the United States,

8



Figure 1.1 The ecological footprint and ecological deficit of 16 countries, compared with the globalecological footprint. (Compiled from Global Footprint Network, 2010)

Brazil, Russia, China, Canada, India, Argentina and Australia, however, three of these(India, China and the United States) are ecological debtors. More than three-quarters of theworld’s population live in countries which are ecological debtors (WWF, 2008). Countriessuch as the UK, Spain, Portugal and Egypt have ecological footprints more than 150 percent greater than their biocapacity, and emerging economies such as India, China andMexico have an ecological footprint 100–150 per cent greater than their biocapacity.Ecological debtors survive through mining their own resources, importing resources,or assuming the atmosphere will absorb greenhouse gases, or a mixture of all three(WWF, 2008). Of course, national statistics are the result of averages, and individualhousehold ecological footprints could vary enormously. The ecological footprint conceptis useful in helping individuals or societies to think about their contribution to globalenvironmental issues.

The water footprint of a nation is similar to the ecological footprint, but calcula-tions focus only on the water required to produce food and other products for consumers.The average water footprint for a country is 1240 m3/person/year, with a range from700 m3/person/year for China to 2480 m3/person/year for the USA (Hoekstra andChapagain, 2007). India, China, the United States, the Russian Federation, Indonesia,Nigeria, Brazil and Pakistan together make up 50 per cent of the global water footprint.Water footprints are influenced by consumption (related to affluence), climate and wateruse efficiency in agriculture (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007). Rice is the crop which re-quires the largest amount of water, but wheat also requires significant amounts of water.There has been much discussion of the impact of vegetables imported into Europe fromwater-stressed countries in Africa (e.g. East African green beans). European consumers are

9



benefitting from their scarce water supplies, leaving local people with less water to meettheir own needs. Drought-prone countries can benefit enormously from importing highlywater-demanding crops such as wheat, which stores and travels well, saving precious waterfor other demands. It is argued that Israel uses this strategy (Allan, 2003), benefitting fromthe ‘virtual water’ that was used to grow the crop.

Ecological footprints show that any change in the global ecological footprint willrequire a change in lifestyles, consumption and pollution from all nations, especially thosein the developed world. There is considerable disparity between the North and the Southconcerning environmental pressures and pollution. The ecological and water footprint anal-ysis shows that the North’s lifestyle (affluence, technology, consumption levels) is havinga bigger impact than that of southern countries. As countries that were below the worldaverage move towards living standards similar to those in the West, the global ecologicalfootprint will be enormous. This raises the argument that if the North is more responsiblefor some of the global environmental issues (e.g. climate change), should it bear more ofthe responsibility to overcome and resolve these problems, even if this means changinglifestyles to moderate its effect on the environment? This raises issues of ethics, justice andour relationship to distant others and future generations.

1.4 Environmental justice

The concept of environmental debtors raises the issue that some groups in society haveborne the consequences of economic development without receiving all the benefits of de-velopment. For example, those whose environments are damaged by mining, deforestation,or intensive cropping, as well as those affected by pollution. The environmental justicemovement merges concerns about equity, social justice and environmental sustainability,taking community, international and intergenerational perspectives. The concept of envi-ronmental justice has its roots in the United States, drawing on civil rights and social justicemovements but working in response to environmental problems and inequalities. Brown ar-gues that ‘ethnic communities suffer disproportionately from poor quality environmentalconditions, and are usually left out of the processes which could serve to address theseconditions’ (Brown, 2000). The concept of environmental justice is particularly relevant inrelation to industrial processes, through which some (often distant) people benefit, whileothers are left with the burden of environmental pollution. Frequently, those who are disad-vantaged come from marginalised groups, whether they are immigrants, or have differingethnic or religious backgrounds from the mainstream. However, environmental justice canalso take an intergenerational perspective, where it takes on the concerns of future gen-erations and unborn children. Examples include those affected by the Union Carbide gasleak in Bhopal, India, industrial pollution of water in Minamata Bay, Japan (mercury poi-soning), toxic land dumps (Love Canal, USA), victims of industrial pollution in EasternEurope, and those affected by environmental pollution along the petrochemical corridoralong the Mississippi in Louisiana, USA. The environmental justice movement also con-cerns itself with those displaced by major development projects such as new dams in China(the Three Gorges) and India (the Sardar Sarovar dam on the Narmada), those suffering theconsequences of desertification in the Sahel, people who face displacement from farm landto accommodate other developments, those suffering from flooding caused by upstream

10



erosion (Brahmaputra delta due to Himalayan deforestation), and those affected by coastaland delta inundation due to global warming. Victims of environmental injustice may facephysical or mental injury, a negative impact on their livelihood, or displacement from theirhomes. Frequently those most affected by environmental injustices are those least able todefend themselves as they may be from marginalised groups, be less educated, or be poorlyrepresented in democratic institutions.

The environmental justice movement differs from the mainstream environmentalmovement, which stemmed from interests in nature conservation, and is dominated by thewhite middle class. Whereas the environmental movement tends to be composed of bet-ter educated people who can debate scientific/technical evaluations, deal with legislativeapproaches, and engage in political lobbying (see Chapter 2), the environmental justicemovement is a grass-roots movement of victims who are generally too poor to choose tomove away from affected areas (Stephens, 2007). Such groups may lack the educationand political leverage to engage in effective protest and make their voices heard. Thereis widespread environmental concern among disadvantaged groups, but language and per-ceptions about environmental groups are off-putting for these groups, which results in theexclusion of voices and perspectives of racial minorities and working-class populationsfrom environmental policy-making (Brown, 2000).

Environmental justice at an international level is evidenced by the overuse ofscarce global commons by some groups, leaving others to cope with the ramifications ofa depleted natural resource base. Thus environmental justice requires that individual coun-tries do not use more than a fair share of the globe’s ability to absorb pollution or absorbcarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This relates environmental justice directly to questions ofecological and water footprints. What is the impact on other communities of the use of rawresources consumed by the UK to maintain its lifestyle? Ecological footprints can be seenas evidence of environmental injustice.

Some (Stephens et al., 2001) consider the concept of environmental justice froma historical viewpoint, taking into consideration recompense required for resource extrac-tion during colonial periods, the export of natural resources under unequal terms of trade,historical and current intellectual appropriation of ancestral knowledge, and the use of wa-ter, air, the best land, and human energy to establish export crops, jeopardising the localenvironment and local people. The same authors look to the future and identify areas ofconcern for intergenerational injustice such as activities that will impose costs on futuregenerations without balancing benefits, e.g. nuclear waste, reducing the ability of the en-vironment to provide non-substitutable resources and services, creating ongoing negativeenvironmental impacts through climate change, and the use of technologies with unknownpotential long-term effects, e.g. persistent artificial chemicals in the environment.

1.5 Our relationship with nature

In any discussion of global environmental issues it is important to be aware that thereare many different attitudes associated with valuing the environment. The value whichindividuals, communities and nations place on their environment is affected by culturaland religious values as well as economic and social systems. These are sometimes referredto as cultural filters (Pepper, 1986), and can affect the way we perceive the environment

11



and ‘scientific evidence’ about it. Significantly, these attitudes underpin the developmentof strategies and priorities to conserve the environment.

A fundamental issue is humanity’s relationship with nature. Are we a part of na-ture, and one of many animals in a global ecosystem, or are we separate from nature, placed‘above’ nature and entitled to control it and use it to further our own needs regardless ofthe effect on the remaining ecosystem? The answer to this question affects how we treatthe environment. The world’s religions have addressed this issue. Stewardship is centralto Judaic, Christian and Islamic beliefs. Religious texts can be cited stating that man canrule over and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28–30), or that the world belongs to God, withhumanity in the role of a servant or trustee, accountable to God concerning the stewardshipof the Earth (Attfield, 1999). The Great Chain of Being also places humans within a hierar-chy, above nature, but below God. However, as each link in that chain is equally important,and mutually dependent, the Chain of Being also implies an equality between humans andnature (Pepper, 1986). Religious texts can be cited to support either side of the argument.The Bible says, ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and letthem rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all theearth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground”’ (Genesis 1.26, New Interna-tional Version). Later verses say, ‘fill the earth and subdue it’ (Genesis 1.28). Such viewsare reiterated in Psalm 8 where the writer talks about man saying, ‘You have made himruler over the works of your hands; you have put everything under his feet: all the flocksand herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all thatswim the paths of the seas’ (Psalm 8: 6–8). Islam also sees the world as belonging to God,with humanity in the role of a servant, a trustee of the earth, accountable to God concern-ing its stewardship of the earth (Attfield, 1999). Buddhism promotes respect for all formsof life, and encourages individuals to ‘give back to the earth what one has taken away’(National Environment Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, 1998, p. 12). All themajor religions believe that a judgement will be passed on acts in this life before progres-sion to the next. Hence there is an incentive to follow religious teachings. For those who donot believe in an over-ruling God or religion, there are ethical arguments for stewardship ofthe environment based on our obligations to future generations (Attfield, 1999). Of course,people do not always live up to ideals. People of all religions may fall short of the teachingsthey profess to adhere to. Those who argue that we should conserve the environment onstrictly moral and ethical (rather than religious) grounds may also fall short of achievingtheir ideal. Thus belief in the value of the environment does not necessarily translate intoactions which conserve the environment. The assumption of human–environment dualityunderpins much of the writing on environmentalism in the West.

Religion and spiritual values are not the only factors which affect our attitudesto the environment. Philosophical and political values can also have a strong influence.O’Riordan (1981) divides environmentalists into two broad groups: technocentrics andecocentrics. Technocentrics have more faith in science and technology. They believe inman’s dominance over nature, and furthermore are more optimistic that future scientificand technological developments will enable us to overcome environmental problems andconstraints. Ecocentrics, on the other hand, believe in a greater degree of equality betweenhumans and nature, and even the subordination of man to nature. As such, they believe weare just one part of a global ecosystem, which must be respected. Important issues shapingthe extent to which someone is technocentric or ecocentric include their faith in the ability

12



of science and technology to resolve environmental problems, and belief or scepticismregarding science and technology as driving forces in economic development.

How do these factors affect global environmental issues? The debates about globalenvironmental issues and the sustainability of the planet are also debates about the valuesand priorities of the populations relying on that environment. Any international debateabout global environmental issues will include representatives of many cultures, politicalsystems, and values. Each may hope to impose their own views of human–environmentinteractions onto others. Thus the predominantly Western technocentric view based oneconomic development as the pathway to development will be juxtaposed with more eco-centric views such as those of Bhutan, a nation whose environmental strategy stresses thefact that ‘socio-economic development and environmental and cultural integrity are notmutually exclusive, but are equally critical to the long-term viability of the Bhutanesenation’ (National Environment Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, 1998, p. 18).This more holistic approach is guided by Bhutanese culture and Buddhist values, and abelief that ‘Gross National Happiness is more important that Gross National Product’ (HisMajesty King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, as quoted in National Environment Commission,Royal Government of Bhutan, 1998, p. 18).

There is growing recognition of the need for an alternative to gross domesticproduct (GDP) (and its basis on consumption) to measure ‘success’. The Happy PlanetIndex (HPI) (Abdallah et al., 2009) refers to the happiness of the environment and planet,and so measures well-being delivered per unit of environmental impact. It is based onthe idea that consumption does not lead to higher well being, and that well-being doesnot necessarily require excessive consumption of world resources. The HPI contrasts withthe Human Development Index (HDI) to measure well-being through life expectancy, lifesatisfaction, ecological footprint, and claims to measure ‘the real efficiency with whichnations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens’(Hennig, 2009).

The HPI is calculated based on existing statistics such as life expectancy atbirth, an assessment of well-being (based on individual vitality, opportunities to engage inmeaningful activities leading to competence and autonomy, life satisfaction, education, re-lationship and employment status and other social factors) (Abdallah et al., 2009). Thismethod shakes up the league tables for development. Costa Rica has the highest score withthe highest life satisfaction and life expectancy, and an ecological footprint of 2.3 globalhectares per person. For OECD countries, HPI scores were higher in 1961 than in 2005.Although life satisfaction and life expectancy have increased over this time period, so toohave ecological footprints. Of the G20 nations, Brazil comes highest in ninth place. All butone of the top ten countries are in Latin America. Small island states also tend to do well.Rich developed nations are middle ranking in the HPI. However, Sub-Saharan countriesstill fare poorly, taking the lower ten scores. The lowest scoring country is Zimbabwe. No-tably, ‘no country successfully achieves all three goals of high life satisfaction, high lifeexpectancy, and one planet living’ (Abdallah et al., 2009).

The concept of measuring an alternative to GDP is increasing in popularity, withFrance and Britain both considering how to measure progress to happiness and life satis-faction. In 2008, the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)included life satisfaction among its indicators for sustainable development, and in 2010the Prime Minister, David Cameron, expressed a desire to assess progress by an alternative

13



mechanism, accepting that GDP would not necessarily be as good a measure in turbulenteconomic times as well-being, life satisfaction or happiness.

1.6 Conclusion

This introductory discussion aims to provide an analytical framework to the next ten chap-ters. As this book deals with environmental problems on a global scale, we need to stepback from our particular cultural viewpoint and local or national needs to consider otherpoints of view and priorities. Taken together, the previous sections on environment and cul-ture, global demands on natural resources, ecological footprints, environmental justice andour relationship with nature show that environmental issues are not just scientific issuesbased on a global ecology; they are also political and social issues, framed by our culturalfilters, political power struggles, aspirations for quality of life as well as the environmentin which we live. We need to accept that there are many ways of valuing the environment,and philosophies concerning how we, as humans, should interact with the environment.

The traditional Malthusian population–natural resource debate has been adjustedover the years as we have acknowledged the adaptability of humans in the face of changingenvironmental conditions, and the role that technology can play with regards to our impacton the environment (both good and bad). The interpretation of environmental science bynon-scientists, and its translation into effective policy- and decision-making, is importantin influencing how we react to global environmental issues (Bryant, 1998). Cherian (Chap-ter 3) discusses the politics of negotiations concerning controlling global warming andCO2 emissions, something discussed more than a decade ago by Rees (1997). Nunn(Box 5.1) discusses the role of politics in influencing the interpretation of sea-level gaugesin the South Pacific.

It is apparent that there are huge distortions in food availability, lifestyles, qualityof life, and standards of living across the globe, which can be broadly seen as a divisionbetween developed and developing countries or a North–South divide. This gross globalinequity invites us to consider the difference between rights, needs, demands, and desires.The adaptability of populations as a result of environmental change, and the willingness ofpopulations to curb lifestyles and activities to avoid environmental damage, is important forour collective future. This is mediated by our perceptions of risk, discussed in more detailin Chapter 2. As Newby (1991) states, the solutions to environmental problems rarely resultfrom technical fixes alone, but rather from the interplay between technology and humans.

Since the first edition of this book, there have been many new developments. Cli-mate change has moved from being a topic for environmentalists to being a mainstreamtopic. Since 2000, climate change has appeared increasingly in the media, until by 2009 itwas a daily phenomenon. Everyone had heard of climate change, and many people werebeing urged to ‘do their bit’ whether through changing light bulbs, buying a more fuel-efficient car, or reducing flights. Rooftop windmills to generate electricity increased in pop-ularity, especially promoted by David Cameron when he became leader of the ConservativeParty in the UK. The Stern Review (Stern Review, 2006) established the economic ratio-nale for acting on climate change; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Report (2007a) confirmed the scientific premise of the Stern Report. There was a grow-ing hope that after the Bush era in the USA, there would be new impetus and leadership

14



towards a global agreement to address climate change. As the Copenhagen Summit onclimate change loomed, hopes were high for dramatic changes in carbon emission tar-gets. However, just prior to the Copenhagen Summit damning criticisms of the sciencewere made. The ‘Climategate scandal’ centred on two issues: academic conduct and datahandling at the University of East Anglia; and inaccuracies in the IPCC report. ‘Climate-gate’ undermined public confidence in the scientific data which underpinned any calls forchanges in CO2 emissions. These scientific doubts, when added to disagreements overhow emissions cuts should be distributed across the global population, and poorer coun-tries’ concerns for financial assistance to help them cope with the effects of climate changealready impinging on livelihoods and economic productivity, meant that the Copenhagentalks did not end as hoped. Disappointed delegations returned to their home countries, won-dering if they could ever muster the same momentum for change again. In the longer term,enquiries established the scientific merit of the research at University of East Anglia, andthe source of one error of data in the IPCC report. It was concluded that the overwhelm-ing body of evidence remained robust (Oxburgh, 2010). Sadly this was too late for thenegotiations.

Climate change is of overarching importance as it impinges on many of the otherglobal environmental issues in this book. However, there have also been developments inother areas. In biodiversity, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) hasprovided a clearer picture of biodiversity issues. A new focus on ecosystem serviceshas prioritised the role ecosystems make through provisioning and regulating functions.In Western countries there has also been an increased awareness of the role of culturalecosystem services, particularly their role in health, relaxation, and environmental educa-tion. This brings a new, and for many more tangible, way of valuing biodiversity. It is alsoa reaction to our increasing distance from nature through development.

Food production continues to be an area of contention. Debates over organic,ethical, local, and genetically modified (GM) foods remain. These are heightened due toincreasing knowledge and concerns about the effects of agro-chemicals on the environ-ment, the role of trans-national corporations deeply involved in food production, fromselling seeds and farming inputs to distributing global food products. GM remains con-tested for a range of reasons (see Chapters 2 and 7). However, the food debates are nowgrappling with a larger demand for food, both due to increased global population, as wellas increased demand for food, particularly meat, as populations grow in wealth, and wanta correspondingly better diet.

Concerns about climate change go hand in hand with concerns about energy.Whereas once the concept of ‘peak oil’ was viewed as an environmentalist scaremonger-ing tactic, it is now seen as not only realistic, but more imminent than supposed. Addto this the current wars and conflicts which seem to pit the Arab world (where much ofthe world’s oil reserves remain) against the West, and there are many concerns about fu-ture energy security. Meanwhile, the renewable sector continues with limited public fund-ing and investment, honing the technology and ideas (e.g. wind, wave, solar) that havebeen known for quite some time. Public and environmental concerns against windmills orwave energy limit their wider application. Significantly, many of the energy companies arenow offering energy-saving devices, and also investing in renewables. However, the scaleof renewable energy production remains low compared to conventional energy. Biofuels(section 8.5.5) are the one area where there has been significant change. A ‘renewableobligation’ in fuel has resulted in a growth in biofuel production. However, there remain

15



concerns about the environmental impact of biofuel production, as well as social impact(as food crops are displaced by biofuels) and the efficiency of growing biofuels (in terms ofenergy use).

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (see section 10.5) in the Gulf of Mexico whichhas resulted in barrels of oil pouring out into the sea will change oil exploration. This crisisis partly the result of energy companies’ determination to harvest more remote supplies ofoil (deeper, further off shore, or in more complicated forms, for example, the oil sands inAlberta, Canada). Oil spills result in an enormous loss of oil, horrendous environmentalpollution, and large economic losses when all the knock-on effects on local industry aretaken into account. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon spill, Obama’s stance has beento demand that the oil company pays all damage, including associated economic, employ-ment and social costs. This has resulted in huge liabilities for the oil company, and willchange the way oil companies assess cost-benefit analysis of these types of more risky oilextraction. It also signifies a significant change in attitude and relations between the USgovernment and the oil industry. A growing concern is the role of large multinational cor-porations, operating in many cases above the law, and seemingly beyond the control ofany individual country. The concept of environmental justice has also gained prominence(Agyeman et al., 2002). Hurricane Katrina highlighted the plight of many people who werevictims of environmental disasters (the combination of the hurricane, and legacy of pollu-tion in the Mississippi delta). It was all the more shocking and high profile for being in adeveloping country, where it was assumed these things could never happen. However, en-vironmental injustices happen many times in developing countries, where media links, andthe ability to speak out and be heard, are not as strong. Whether it is oil exploration in theNiger delta, sea-level rise on atoll states, or electronic pollution in China, environmentalinjustices are increasingly common. Environmental justice was an element of the cli-mate change deal which sought to provide support for countries already being affected byclimate change. There are hopes for a new environmental economy. Environmental restora-tion: cleaning up pollution, developing renewables, and providing more environmentallyfriendly solutions to environmental problems, is a new growth industry. Green investmentfunds are seen as viable in the longer term (Cunningham, 2008).

Overall, there has been an increased awareness of the role and importance of inter-national treaties and laws, and the way they lead to action on international environmentalproblems. Therefore a new chapter has been added to address this. International agree-ments are no longer of concern to special interest groups alone. These agreements havetrickle-down effects which determine how individuals live and behave in households, andhow communities use chemicals (e.g. CFCs in freezers, agrochemicals), manage energy,and deal with waste (e.g. recycling). They affect the cost of travel (particularly flying), andwhat we eat (e.g. GM foods). The growing impact of international agreements on what weconsume and how we behave in our homes means that there is a need for the public tobecome more engaged in policy and treaty making, and play a role in voicing opinions andconcerns. Thus there is also a new chapter exploring the links between science and policy(Chapter 2), taking into consideration the public voice through pressure groups.

The past decade has seen a wide range of international reports highlighting theurgency of human behaviour change to cope with environmental change. The Millen-nium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), the International Assessment of AgriculturalKnowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (McIntyre et al., 2009)concerning food and agriculture, the Stern Report on economic incentives to address

16

global environm ental issues · globalization and sustainable development o chapters authored by...

Documents