« July 2008 | Main | September 2008 »

August 2008 Archives

August 7, 2008 - Low Impact Food

So here's another sustainability bottom line: the prospect of 120 billion animals for human consumption is no more sustainable than the prospect of 9 billion human beings. The two numbers are connected of course: more humans, more meat consumption. More better-off humans, much more meat consumption – with a few exceptions like India.

There are 60 billion animals in the world today, a number which the Food and Agriculture Organisation reckons will double by 2050 simply because of increased demand. The combined impact of these animals is already massive, accounting for 18% of total global warming effect, for a third of the world’s arable land, for worsening levels of water and air pollution, and for equally massive impacts on human health. And that’s before one begins to think about these things from animal welfare perspective.

A sustainable world will, therefore, be a world in which less meat is consumed – especially in countries like ours, which already eats too much of it. I have not met anyone who can refute the logic of that – especially if you subscribe (as our Government does) to the notion that we should only be increasing food supply "in a way that does not degrade the natural resources on which farming and food production ultimately depend." Rest assured that going from 60 to 120 billion animals will systematically screw those resources for good and all.

But logic can be a wretched thing when it comes to taking your electorate with you. The Cabinet Office's recently published 'Food Matters' recognised that dilemma, and seeks all sorts of different ways of finessing it. For instance, it proposes a new "Healthier Food Mark" to promote healthier, "low-impact" food in the public sector – without quite spelling out that low-impact must (presumably?) mean less meat-intensive.

Good idea, but if it's promoted with the same laissez-faire spinelessness as the current Public Sector Food Procurement initiative, it will achieve precisely nothing. Hence the excellent recommendation from the Green Alliance (in its timely and very accessible new paper "Cutting Our Carbs: Food and the Environment") that the Government should make compliance with the Healthier Food Mark compulsory for all public sector bodies by 2012. For once, this would mean leading by example and by clear, unambiguous regulation.

And if you're still uncertain why that would be such a good thing, do please check out Compassion in World Farming’s website for details of its brilliant 'Eat Less Meat' campaign.

PS By the way, I am keen to round out my troika of inherently unsustainable numbers (ie 9 billion humans, 120 billion animals) by investigating the number of pets in the world today – and exactly how fast that number is growing, with what sort of impacts on food supplies and the environment. Does anybody know where I might unearth that kind of data?

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on August 7, 2008 11:56 AM | | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

August 8, 2008 - Coal verses Nuclear

So, here are the offending words:

"I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen – as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future most be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be."

Source: one George Monbiot, scourge of literally all and sundry, especially of those who are perceived by him to be "betraying the cause."

Context: George is (probably even now) at the Climate Camp outside Kingsnorth in Kent, energetically supporting the campaign against E.ON's proposal to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth – with or without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) built in.

Common ground: this is a campaign with which I am in total agreement – planning permission for E.ON at Kingsnorth would usher in a new and utterly disastrous lease of life for coal in the UK. There may be up to eight further coal-fired power stations in the pipeline. The fact that BERR would appear to be minded to go ahead with such a proposal tells you all you need to know about the Government’s head-long retreat from what we now know to have been the high point of sustainable energy thinking in the 2003 Energy White Paper.

Disagreement: as George says, a horror story. But does one’s horror at one horror story justify turning a blind eye to another – equally horrifying – horror story? "Yes", says George, because our every sinew must now be strained to combat the threat of resurgent coal. "No", say I, because a resurgent nuclear industry constitutes (almost) as grave a threat to the emergence of truly sustainable energy strategies as coal does.

I am putting the 'almost' in there to build a bridge back to George's startlingly irresponsible and throw-away 'green light' for nuclear. As you can see, he is trying to hedge that improbable endorsement with a few conditions that both he and I would agree are all but impossible for the nuclear industry to comply with.

But a communicator as astute and clever as George should (and surely does) know the difference between a 'Yes … If' position and a 'No … Unless' position.

Does all this mean an irrevocable split in the Green Movement? Yes and No. Yes, because there are indeed widely diverging views about the potential contribution that nuclear might make to a low-carbon world. No, because there always have been such diverging views, and we are all (for the most part!) united in our anger and disgust at the sheer stupidity of something like Kingsnorth.

So please do check out the Climate Camp 08 website. It's excellent.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on August 8, 2008 10:39 AM | | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

August 14, 2008 - Globalism & Regionalism

OK, so the global economy is in freefall, the days of cheap oil are gone, for good, the latest data about climate change is fast exceeding our worst fears, and severe food shortages loom for hundreds of millions of people. But there are still lots of people out there who think the "globalisation project" is firmly on track.

There is no clearer example of the kind of contradictions now arising out of clashing world views. Every government in the world is theoretically signed up to sustainable development, but not one of them believes that this entails anything other than "business-as-usual" with a few low-carbon trimmings added on. Yet all the evidence regarding the state of the planet shows far more dramatic, structural changes are inevitable. And imminent. Clashing tectonic plates come to mind.

My view on this is simple: this particular model of globalisation (US-led, neo-liberal, deregulated globalisation) is dead in the water. What’s more, the need for a completely different kind of globalisation (based on dramatic decarbonisation and the accelerated achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, underpinned by local and regional economic development) has never been more urgent.

And that’s exactly what my new book (or booklet rather!) "Globalism & Regionalism" is all about. It pulls no punches. The ideological fundamentalism that has shaped the last two decades is at last in retreat, but it will take a long time to repair the massive damage caused. We desperately need some new – and honest – thinking to create a more equitable, resilient and sustainable model of globalisation.

Whatever some people may say, it’s not too late. There’s still time to turn things around. But every year we press ahead – unheedingly, it would seem – with our current model of globalisation, it makes it that much harder to bring forward the necessary alternatives.

globalism_regionalism_front_cover.jpgGlobalism and Regionalism
Edge Futures
Paperback, 19.0 x 14.0 cm, 96 pages
UK £7.99
Globalism and Regionalism considers the impact that dwindling resources and restricted travel will have on global competitiveness and regional identity. Competition between countries is likely to increase. Whilst this may lead to conflict it could also facilitate greater creativity. This in turn will put a premium on technological advancement and on our ability to respond rapidly to change. Simultaneously, regionalism will develop and localities could become more distinctive and potentially aggressive.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on August 14, 2008 5:33 PM | | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (0)

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]