Transcript Global Change, Eco-Apartheid and Population Health, 11/7/2007

Global Change,
Eco-Apartheid and
Population Health
William E. Rees, PhD
University of BC
GLOBAL CHANGE AND HEALTH: WHO ARE THE VULNERABLE?
Ottawa, Ontario
5 November 2007
Context: An Anomalous Period
of Geometric Growth





Population has
quadrupled to 6.3 billion
Energy use is up 16-fold
Industrial production has
grown 40-fold
Water use has increased
9 times
Fish catches higher by a
factor of 35
 Carbon Dioxide emissions
are 17 times higher
 Sulphur emissions have
increased 13-fold
 Other air pollutants are
up by a factor of 5
 Accelerating tropical
deforestation and
desertification
Estimated Human Population over the
2007 Population: 6.6 billion
Past Two Millennia (Cohen 1995)
Continuous growth—population and economic—is an anomaly. The growth spurt that
recent generations take to be normal is the single most abnormal period of human history.
Symptom: Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide: Up 30% in the past century
 Pre-industrial concentration
of GHGs: 280 ppm
 Present concentration:
430 ppm (a 54% increase)
N. Hemisphere Temp. Reconstruction (blue);
Instrumental Measurements (red)
Climate Change Summary
(IPCC 2006 Consensus)
 Atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and other




greenhouse gases are at the highest levels in at least
650,000 years.
It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the
dominant cause of the observed global warming over the
past 50 years.
Global average temperatures this century will rise by
between 2C° (the target ‘allowable’ increase) and 4.5C°.
The increase could be enhanced a further 1.5C° as a result
of “positive feedbacks.”
Some warming has been offset by cooling from other
anthropogenic factors (suspended aerosols). (Without
this effect, mean global temperatures would be even
higher.)
Recent Conclusions (Oct 2007)
 The Arctic’s floating sea ice is headed toward
summer disintegration as early as 2013, a
century ahead of the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) projections.
 The rapid loss of Arctic sea ice will speed up the
disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet and a
rise in sea levels by even as much as 5 metres by
the turn of this century is possible.
 The Antarctic ice shelf also reacts far more
sensitively to warming temperatures than
previously believed.
Unprecedented Losses of
Sea Ice In 2007
Such massive ecological changes in the circumpolar Arctic threaten wildlife—we may
see the extirpation of polar bears from much of the North—and herald the permanent
loss of the Inuit way of life. Diabetes and related health risks are clearly associated with
replacement of ‘country food’ with store-bought junk food in Northerners’ diets.
Have we passed a tipping point?
IPCC Projections: Way Off
Meltdown: A hundred years ahead of schedule?
Multi-Layered Auto-Catalysis?
(Potential for runaway positive feedback)
Increasing greenhouse
gases
- Melting permafrost
- Release of gas
hydrates
- More forest fires
Global warming
Decreased albedo
(more heat retention)
Melting polar
sea ice
Recent Findings (Oct 2007), Part 2
 Temperatures are now within ≈1°C of the maximum
temperature of the past million years.
 It is now “very unlikely” (≤ 10%) that the world can avoid
a potentially catastrophic mean global temperature
increase of 2 C°
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are now growing more
rapidly than "business-as-usual", the most pessimistic of
the IPCC scenarios. (Increases are 35% higher than
expected since 2000.)
 Long-term climate sensitivity may be double the IPCC
standard (of 3C° for a doubling of atmospheric CO2)
Probable Impacts of a 3-4 Celsius Degree
Increase in MGT (Stern Report)
 Major declines in crop yields over entire regions.
 Sea level rise threatening London, Shanghai, New York,





Tokyo, Hong Kong, Cairo and areas inhabited by 5% of
the world’s population (350,000,000 people).
Collapse of the Amazon rainforest.
Collapse of the Gulf Stream (European cooling) and
irreversible climate feedbacks, e.g., methane release.
Loss of up to 40% of the world’s species.
Loss of the world’s major glaciers; shifting precipitation
spreading deserts here, major flood risks there (or both).
Major health epidemics particularly among the poor
and the displaced.
The Economic Driver: Our
Ecological Footprints
 The ‘ecological footprint’ of a specified
population is the area of land and water
ecosystems required to produce the resources
that the population consumes, and to
assimilate the wastes that the population
produces,wherever on Earth the relevant
land/water may be located.
Eco-Footprints Vary with Income
 The average per capita
ecological footprints of
residents of highincome countries range
between four and ten
hectares (10 to 25
acres).
 The residents of the
poorest countries
survive on less than
half a hectare.
Ethio
pia
Worl
d
Indi a
Moza
mbiq
ue
Paki
stan
Som
alia
Country
Peru
Hung
ary
Mexi
co
Braz
il
Chi n
a
Thai
land
Nige
ri a
Indo
nesia
Germ
any
Neth
erlan
ds
Japa
n
Spai
n
Geec
e
Cana
da
Aust
ralia
Uni te
d Kin
gdom
tes
(Gha/Capita)
Uni te
d Sta
Per Capita Ecological Footprints of Selected
Countries (2003 data from WWF 2006)
12
Eco-Footprint
10
8
6
4
2
0
B ioc a pa c ities a nd E c olog ic a l F ootprints
of S elec ted C ountries C ompa red to World
(2003 d ata fro m WWF 2006
16
14
Domestic Biocapacity
Gha/Cap
Ecological Footprint
12
10
8
6
4
2
Country
World
Canada
Somalia
India
Japan
Netherlands
Germany
United Kingdom
United States
0
All countries
that run ecodeficits are
dependent on
‘surplus’
biocapacity
(exergy)
imported
from low
density
countries
(like Canada)
and the
global
commons.
Symptom: Biodiversity Loss
(The Competitive Exclusion Principle)
 Growing the human enterprise necessarily
degrades ecosystems and displaces other
species from their habitats (biodiversity loss).
 The current rate of species extinction is
approximately 1000 times the pre-industrial
rate.
 With increasing resource scarcity, global
change, and the morals of the ‘new world
order’, the rich will also increasingly
exclude the poor.
Competitive Exclusion: The expansion
of the human enterprise…
Human Ecological Footprint
1961-2003
…necessarily displaces non-humans
(Vulnerable ecosystems collapse before the human onslaught.)
Living Planet Index
1970-2003
20% of
population
20% of population
75% of world income
1.5% of world income
Social Justice and the Income Gap
 Income ratio between world’s richest and
poorest countries in 1820: three to one. In 1998:
19 to one.
 The richest 500 people in the world enjoy a
combined income greater than that of the
poorest 416 million.

The three richest people in the world had assets
that exceeded the combined gross domestic
product of the 48 least developed countries.
 Income disparity is increasing both between and
within countries, including Canada.
Symptom: Eco-apartheid - Competitively
Excluding the Poor
 ‘Eco-Apartheid’ is the effective segregation of people along
environmental gradients
 With increasing resource scarcity, global change, and the
competitive ethic of the world economic order, the gradient
is steepening.
 Eco-apartheid is a contemporary reality—The rich live in
the world’s healthiest, most productive habitats.
Impoverished people and racial minorities are often
segregated in urban slums and degraded landscapes
characterized by toxic waste, polluted air and water
and contaminated food with obvious public health
implications.
Sunrise in Suzhou: What
is Canada’s contribution
to eco-degradation and
damage to population
health in China?
A Lesson from “Collapse: How Societies Choose
to Fail or Succeed” (J. Diamond 2005)



Any society contains a built-in blueprint for failure if elites
insulate themselves from the ecological and social
consequences of irresponsible decisions. (This is the pattern
among governing elites throughout history.)
By extracting wealth from ordinary people, distant countries
and the global commons, they remain ‘well fed’ while everyone
else suffers the effects of general decline.
The US [Canada?] is now a country in which elites increasingly
cocoon themselves in gated communities guarded by private
security patrols and filled with people who drink bottled water,
depend on private pensions, and send their children to private
schools (Moyers 2006).
With Knowledge Comes Responsibility
 At the limits of biophysical carrying capacity, routine acts
of non-essential consumption can result in violent
harm to the poor and racial minorities.
 Wealthy consumers who are ignorant of the distant
systemic consequences of their material habits might be
excused. However,...
 Once we raise to collective consciousness the link between
consumption, pollution and eco-violence, society has an
obligation to view such violence for what it is.
 Not acting to reduce or prevent eco-injustice converts
erstwhile blameless consumer choices into acts of
positive aggression.
Knowledge: Where We’re
Likely Headed
 2015 is the last year in which “the world can afford a
net rise in greenhouse gas emissions, after which ‘very
sharp reductions’ are required” (IPCC Chairman, Sept 2007)
 5% or more of the worlds people (350,000,000) are
likely to be displaced from their settlements by sealevel rise. (Stern report, 2006).
 Up to two billion people worldwide will face water
shortages and up to 30 per cent of plant and animal
species would be put at risk of extinction if the average
rise in temperature stabilises at 1.5C to 2.5C (IPCC, Sept
2007)
Solution: What the Science
Says
 “Industrialized world reductions in material consumption,
energy use, and environmental degradation of over 90%
will be required by 2040 to meet the needs of a growing
world population fairly within the planet’s ecological
means.” (BCSD 1993; ‘Getting Eco-Efficient’)
 To avoid a mean global temperature increase above 2 C
degrees, the world must reduce carbon emissions by 90%
by 2050.” (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research 2006)
 For sustainability with equity, North Americans should be
taking steps to reduce their ecological footprints by 80% to
their equitable Earth-share (1.8 gha).
The Other Inconvenient Truth: EcoFootprints are Correlated With Lifestyle
12 April 2007
‘Losing weight’ need not be painful
 In many rich countries
neither objective nor felt
well-being are still
associated with rising
GDP/income per capita.
 On the contrary, “here we
see US data showing “…the
strange, seemingly
contradictory pattern … of
rising real income and a
falling index of subjective
well-being” (Lane 2000).
What do we Gain from GDP
Growth in Rich Countries?
(Siegel 2006)
Wasted Wealth: Diminishing Returns
from Health Care Expenditures
(Siegel 2006)
Essential Criteria for Sustainability
 Biophysical: A society is sustainable only if it does
not
 consume resources faster than nature produces.
 produce wastes faster than nature assimilates.
 Social: A lifestyle is sustainable only if it could be
extended to the entire human family without
degrading the ecosphere and overloading global
life-support systems.
 Question: Can the already wealthy be persuaded
to live on smaller footprints so the poor may live
The Good News
The Bad News
 We have the
technology today to
enable a 75%-80%
reduction in energy
and (some) material
consumption while
actually improving
quality of life.
 Yet we do not act.
Privileged elites with
the greatest stake in
the status quo control
the policy levers.
Ordinary people hold
to the expansionist
myth. North American
society remains in ecoparalysis.
“The ecologically necessary is politically infeasible but
the politically feasible is ecologically irrelevant.”