| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« THE STRONGEST MAGNET IN THE WORLD | Main | Pride and Prejudice: universally acknowledged guide to the human heart »

January 26, 2013

For the first time in history we could end poverty while protecting the global environment. But do we have the will?

John Quiggin in Aeon:

TianjingEven to those who are thoroughly inured to warnings of impending catastrophe, the World Bank’s recent report on climate change, Turn Down the Heat (November, 2012), made for alarming reading. Looking at the consequences of four degrees of global warming, a likely outcome under current trajectories, the Bank concludes that the full scope of damage is almost impossible to project. Even so, it states: ‘The projected impacts on water availability, ecosystems, agriculture, and human health could lead to large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems.’ Among the calamities anticipated in the paper are large-scale dieback in the Amazon, the collapse of coral reef systems and the subsistence fishing communities that depend on them, and sharp declines in crop yields.

By contrast, most of us are already inured to the continuing catastrophe reported in the Bank’s annual World Development Report. Hundreds of millions of people go hungry every day. Tens of millions die every year from easily treatable or preventable diseases. Uncontrolled climate change could produce more crop failures and famines, and spread diseases and the pests that cause them even more widely.

Economic development and technological progress provide the only real hope of lifting billions of people out of poverty and destitution, just as it has done for the minority in the developed world. Yet the living standards of the developed world have been built on cheap energy from carbon-based fossil fuels. If everyone in the world used energy as Americans or even Europeans do, it would be impossible to restrict climate change to even four degrees of warming.

For those of us who seek a better life for everybody, the question of how much our environment can withstand is crucial. If current First World living standards can’t safely be extended to the rest of the world, the future holds either environmental catastrophe or an indefinite continuation of the age-old struggle between rich and poor. Of course, it might hold both.

More here.

Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 06:48 PM | Permalink

Comments

It would require an environmental bureaucracy with enough power to make significant changes to the world economy. What checks could be established to that power which would be appropriate to balance but not eviscerate it?

Power in a democracy ultimately accommodates the bottom line of the electorate, if it doesn't conform to its median. A significant first step in establishing this kind of world may be to limit false environmental speech which has been a powerful tool in delaying action on global warming. Establishing a consensus to sacrifice some freedom in spreading false environmental information, with criminal accountability, could lead to political action grounded in an informed consensus of the people rather than a magic rule or super environmental bureaucracy divorced from or above our established system.

Posted by: Jb | Jan 29, 2013 5:04:14 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Joel Grant on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

musafir on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Norman Costa on Race Is Not Biology

Geoff on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Kai Matthews on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

fallensparks on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

jon s on Race Is Not Biology

musafir on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

musafir on Faith Healing

Dave Ranning on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Geoff on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Luke Lea on Race Is Not Biology

fallensparks on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Luke Lea on Race Is Not Biology

jo smith on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

jo smith on Guy de Maupassant

Geoff on Jeremy Scahill & Noam Chomsky on Secret U.S. Dirty Wars From Yemen to Pakistan to Laos

Jim on Friday Poem

JF on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Jesse on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Kenan Malik on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Pierre on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

chris on Race Is Not Biology

Dave Ranning on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Sumiran on Friday Poem

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed