The
scientific consensus is clear: there are important ecological consequences to
unchecked economic growth. The Earth is not an unlimited source of capital
inputs, nor an inexhaustible waste sink. Rather, the economy is a subsidiary of
the biosphere. With a growing population of over 6 billion, and a rapidly
industrializing global South, this fact presents humanity with an awkward
dilemma. The question of which economies develop, how, and at what pace, is no
longer just a matter of equity, but of global socio-ecological stability.
The answer
to this challenge is dynamic institutional innovation. We need a system that
effectively accounts for the social and ecological consequences of human
activity at multiple geographical levels. While daunting, this is entirely
feasible. Essentially, we need a global trade regime that takes the findings of
such efforts as the United Nations' Millennium Ecosystem Assessment seriously.
By merging data on the relationship between ecosystem integrity and human
well-being with international trade law, we can create a far more equitable,
sustainable global economic system.
Without
this merger, however, the prospects for coherent global governance are rather
dim. In the absence of a functional global initiative to manage
socio-ecological change, by 2020, biophysical limits to growth will be a
central element of geopolitical strategy. The developed North will be forced to
forestall the rapid, carbon-fuelled growth of the South, while energy- and
water-hungry states will vie for access to resources with increasing ferocity.
Global supplies of food and water will become far less predictable, while
demand will continue to rise. Richer countries will begin to feel vulnerable to
the vagaries of an increasingly interdependent world market, and a renewed call
for protectionism will emerge in the North. Meanwhile, pro-growth logic will
require these same countries to continue pursuing access to Southern markets.
This moral contradiction will seriously endanger North-South relations. Traces
of this can already be seen in the failure of the Doha Development Round.
Essentially, we could witness the breakdown of the current global system, to be
replaced by a new, multipolar realpolitik of resource scarcity.
That said,
this stark future is not inevitable. The present crisis is, in fact, a golden
opportunity to construct socio-ecologically
resilient institutions. However,
this requires not only initiative, but an implementable vision. What we must do
is begin accounting for the true socio-ecological costs of our activities in an
explicit, globally standardized fashion. World leaders must create a new global
trade institution that demands and facilitates standardized life-cycle
assessments (LCAs) for all traded products.
LCAs
estimate the myriad effects of the production, transport, sale, consumption and
disposal of a given product on ecosystems and human well-being. LCAs can then
be made explicit to consumers via a straightforward, intelligible labeling
scheme--much like today's mandatory nutrition labeling on packaged foods. With
its penalization of fossil-fuel intensive production and transportation
processes, and its concomitant bolstering of local, durable economies, the
simple act of making such information explicit has the potential to radically
improve the sustainability of global trade and, ultimately, the quality of
international relations.
Domestically,
LCA-ratings could be used to shift tax regimes in favor of "sustainable" goods,
and away from "dirty" goods (e.g. as with alcohol and tobacco taxes today.)
Under such a scheme, consumers would be empowered to make more informed choices
in line with their core values. This, in turn, will provide producers with
incentive the necessary means to modify their business models to fit
contemporary socio-ecological reality.
LCAs are
already conducted on a regular basis, and an international standard (ISO 14000)
already exists for their implementation. If constructed in a transparent,
even-handed manner, a global regime of obligatory LCA-labeling would greatly
enhance the integrity and resilience of the planet's rich, but threatened,
diversity of cultures and ecosystems. With such a mechanism in place, social
and environmental justice will be more palpable on a global scale, making it
far easier to establish international consensus on other, equally important
issues. This alternative future is no pipe dream: it is entirely feasible.
However, without the concerted effort of world leaders, it stands no chance of
materializing. Time is of the essence.
Jordan Levine is a PhD Student at the University of British Columbia's Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. His thesis addresses the human elements of coastal ecosystem management.
This article has been shortlisted for the Atlantic Community's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.
The Atlantic Community's World Economic Forum Focus Week (Jan 22 - Jan 28)
This article is part of the Atlantic Community's World Economic
Forum focus week in a 5 day run-up to the WEF Davos Conference
(conference begins Wed 28 January). We are focusing on two of the
most pressing aspects of the conference: the Global Economy and Climate
Change.
Other articles in our series on the WEF:
- Yam Ki Chan: Unipolarity's Days Are Numbered
- Scott Edward Hartley: Political Liberalism at the Heart of International Trade
- Sam Vanderslott: Action on Climate Change Requires Global Technology Transfer
- Alyssa M. Ramsey: Human Rights: A Matter of Guiding the Invisible Hand
- Scott Micheal Moore: A Multidimensional Approach for a Planet in Peril
- Dr. Luke Nichter: Redefining the IMF
From the discussion on the community
page we will generate
a special Atlantic Memo that will be distributed to WEF organizers and
to decision makers worldwide at the start of the conference. Please
share your comments on the recommendations and issues raised in this
article.
- To what extent is the economy a subsidy of the biosphere?
- Is a new global trade institution a likely approach for the WEF? How might they put in place mandatory life-cycle assessments (LCAs)?
-What approaches should the WEF take to stave off resource scarcity?
- 4
January 22, 2009
Christia Flourentzou, Cyprus Embassy Berlin, Silver Contributor (67)
Firstly, there is no direct link between environmental degradation and national security. Climate change, deforestation or resource depletion are not seen as developments which have a direct impact on the national interest. Unfortunately, in the current international system issues become part of ‘high politics’ and are acted upon once a direct relationship to the national interest is established. (although environmentalists make the case that linking the environment to national security might also be counter productive as it would risk militarizing the issue) Secondly, the attempt to create an international system which “effectively accounts for the social and ecological consequences of human activity’’ is likely to face implementation difficulties. When it comes to the question of who is going to allocate responsibility to the “polluter” difficulties emerge. The issue of environmental degradation is one which overcomes state boundaries and produces regional and global consequences so that it is not clear whether a state or an NGO or an international organization like the UN should be in a position to hold parties accountable. Additionally, when it comes to punishing violators of international law, weak enforcement mechanisms result in ‘soft’ punishments which do little to discipline offenders.
I think that the article is addressing a very contemporary issue, as environmental degradation is one of the biggest global challenges currently. The planet does not provide us with unlimited resources and indeed, resource scarcity is expected to be the main cause of conflict in the next decades. While a “stark future is not inevitable” it will take a lot of commitment, sharing of responsibility and multilateral cooperation to secure a viable solution. Bearing in mind the limitations, the WEF starting next week provides the best forum for the discussion of this controversial issue and offers the opportunity to world leaders to take a first step towards creating a more environmentally friendly international system.