There is no such thing as a free lunch
How is it that with all the brains and capacity locked up in society’s many institutions that humanity is unable to steer towards real sustainability? Could it be that in their current configuration they’re simply impotent in the face of an all-powerful status quo (Business as Usual) that protects the interests of the very rich?
A quarter of a century since 9/11 – history’s most deadly terrorist attack – and we’re again seeing horrific scenes as even bigger towers crumble and crush all that lie in their shadow. These new collapses aren’t of human structures, they are of our high mountains and their glaciers, often described as the water towers of the world. But their demise is every bit as much a story of human folly as the fall of the Twin Towers.
Nature in Australia stored almost $60 billion worth of carbon in 2021–22! How do we know? Because this value was recorded in the country’s second set of ecosystem accounts just put out by the ABS. And they are open for everyone to see. You can look up your favourite ecosystem to see how it is doing in terms of its extent and condition, and the ecosystem services it provides. Here, Michael Vardon explains why these accounts are important and how we should be using them, and laments at how little attention they given.
This is just a quick note to say that Sustainability Bites has been quiet now for several months. But that will change soon.
Quentin Grafton responds to the question, what is your Theory of Change (TOC) in terms of shifting away from the current business-as-usual trajectory of ever rising greenhouse gas emissions? While acknowledging TOC has value at an individual or organizational level, he sees it as a distraction to the changes in how democracy is practiced if we are to effectively mitigate climate change.
Everyone has a ‘theory on change’ though, for most of us, it’s not something we explicitly articulate. That’s something that should change. Given the failure of society to engage with the existential issue of sustainability, maybe it’s about time we all started thinking and talking about what we think enables change.
In the face of an increasingly uncertain future there are growing calls for change across society. But our elected officials, despite talking big at election time, only give us increments of nothing when it comes to delivery.
Earth Day – does it provide hope, make a difference or is it actually something that blinds us to a greater truth? Protect the environment, it demands; let us create a truly sustainable future, it implores. But shift the status quo? Not if it pushes up the cost of living!
The sirens of BAU (Business as Usual) are singing a seductive song that everything will be okay if we just apply a bit more technology, a bit more efficiency and a lot more optimism. Well, the wheels are starting to come off ‘spaceship Earth’ yet the siren song is still being sung, to great applause. Consider the latest offering: Hannah Ritchie’s ‘Not the End of the World: How We Can be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet’. It’s a Pollyanna potion we should think carefully about before taking.
There’s a super battle underway for Planet Earth. It involves titanic forces and existential stakes. One side of the battle has a super power that serenades people into a false sense of security, and this side is winning. Wake up citizens of Earth, this is no block buster movie.
Recently released Cabinet Papers throw valuable light on what the government was thinking back in 2003 when it was attempting to tackle the problem of inland water shortages and an ailing River Murray. The papers reveal that they were prepared to accept the scientific advice as long as it didn’t rock the boat and didn’t cost too much. Exercising ‘precaution’ they were not.
Despite the overwhelming benefits to humanity from the post war period of rapid economic growth (the Great Acceleration), there has also been a massive downside: ocean acidification, unsustainable water use, deforestation, degradation of wetlands, catastrophic declines in biodiversity, and global warming. Arising from this downside we’ve also experienced the Great Extinction, the Great Injustice and the Great Dissatisfaction. If humanity is to survive, now we need another ‘G’, the Great Transformation.
What do we know, more or less, for sure about the future? First, the world is getting hotter at a faster rate. Second, maintaining or increasing greenhouse emissions will result in substantial temperature increases within coming decades that entails substantial costs and risks. Third, carbon sequestration, over the coming few decades will only make, at best, a very marginal contribution to lowering atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Fourth, despite the rhetoric, the world’s greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise to at least 2030. These are our future certainties under business-as-usual. Much of the uncertainty about what the future holds is about what we choose to do about it.
The concept of doughnut economics incorporates both biophysical elements and social justice elements in one framing, something few other approaches to sustainability do in a comprehensive manner. Unfortunately, 2023 is revealing solid evidence that the doughnut of sustainability is being remorselessly crushed. We’re breaching our ecological ceiling at the same time we are failing on most of our internationally agreed minimum social standards. Humanity’s space for sustainability is shrinking before our eyes, right at the same time climate disruption is beginning to tear apart society’s foundations.
“What we are hearing and reading and seeing is a continuation of the grand rhetoric from the Rio Earth Summit over thirty years ago in which ‘Business-As- with modifications’ will give us richer tomorrows with no sacrifices today. It’s based on the fantasy that carbon offsets and credits, the planting of one trillion or more trees, and advanced machines can suck enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to set the world right.This is a sort of a Business-As-Usual with ‘market and technology extras’ that will allow us, with a few tweaks, such as driving an electric vehicle (EV), to carry on as we have always done. If only this were true. Business-As-Usual, even with all the brightest bells and squeakiest whistles, will continue our trajectory towards catastrophic consequences.”
Quentin Grafton
Will ‘Nature Positive’ deliver real change or just a new opportunity for box ticking and political window dressing? As a concept, Nature Positive has plenty of potential for good biodiversity outcomes and its endorsement in the Henry Review is a good thing for biodiversity nationally. However, like ESD before it, Nature Positive can be hollowed out or reduced to a slogan if that is where the politics takes it.