Even while the present state of human civilization poses a risk of destroying the environment and makes it difficult to compete for limited resources, it is not yet too late to save the world.
Stockholm was the host city for the inaugural United Nations World Conference on the Environment, which took place in 1972. In the lead-up to the summit, a team of scholars working for the Club of Rome penned a book called The Limits to Growth, which went on to become an unexpected best-seller. The writers cautioned that if the world does not acknowledge the effects that human activities have on the environment, then ultimately growing demand would surpass the Earth's limited natural resources, which will result in an ecological deficit and the breakdown of our civilization. In the middle of the 21st century, if current trends continue, there is a possibility that there will be a significant drop in population, issues with food and energy supplies, rising levels of pollution, deteriorating standards of life, and so on.
The disturbing inferences drawn from the study were undoubtedly mocked more often than they were taken seriously in the decades that followed its publication. Many others dismissed it as a potential catastrophe that would be rendered irrelevant by the inventiveness of humans and the advancement of technology. Nevertheless, more than just a forecast was included in The Limits to Growth. A recent analysis conducted by Gaya Herrington has demonstrated that three of the four scenarios suggested in the report fit the empirical facts very well. The authors of the paper proposed numerous possible development choices based on distinct human tactics.
This is a very concerning development due to the fact that two of these three scenarios forecast total collapse by the middle of the century, while the third still forecasts considerable reduction. "Humanity is on a road where it does not voluntarily select the limitations of its expansion, but where those limits are forced on it," Herrington says. "This is a very dangerous place for humanity to be."
But all is not lost: the fourth scenario, which assumes large economic and social improvements, predicts that a better living is achievable for all people within the natural constraints of the world. This prediction is based on the assumption that significant economic and social changes will occur. This was the impetus for the creation of Earth for All, a new study that was compiled by the Committee on Economic Transformation of the Club of Rome (of which I am a member) and a group of professionals who specialize in computer modeling.
The authors demonstrate that a happy existence can still be had by all people on a (relatively) stable planet, but this can only be accomplished if we make significant changes to the way our economic system is structured. They are specifically asking for five actions to be implemented in order to eradicate poverty, fight injustice, ensure women have equal access to opportunities, alter food systems, and make a full energy transformation via "total electrification."
These aims are supported throughout the study by real and interconnected solutions in each of the five sectors of activity. Obviously, all of this demands a significant rise in public expenditure as well as a big increase in investment. Increasing tax rates is an essential component of this agenda, and this is especially true with regard to the exceedingly rich and major enterprises. In addition, in order to cut down on carbon emissions and unnecessary wasteful expenditure, it is necessary to place restrictions on the wealth and consumption of the super-rich.
Greater financial flexibility for governments in developing countries would be achieved if global liquidity were created, for instance via the granting of special drawing rights, the reserve balance of the International Monetary Fund, and the lowering of the overhang of national debt.
It is now abundantly evident that the food systems of the world are not operating properly. They now encourage unhealthy and unsustainable patterns of production and consumption as well as large quantities of waste, and they need to be altered so that they may more effectively promote health. The regulation of the markets for public goods would be the most crucial step in this approach. Nevertheless, not just the food market but also the markets for products and (financial) services, labor and land, and any and all markets that have an influence on the natural world and its inhabitants need to be managed in a methodical and efficient manner.
We need a democratization of information, ubiquitous access to new technology, and the acknowledgement and sharing of old knowledge in order for our regulations to have any significant effect. Increasing the power of working people and women would not only lead to happier, healthier, and more equitable societies, but it would also help to stabilize population levels.
The findings of global modeling are presented in the paper titled "Earth for All," which focuses on two main scenarios in particular. The first adage, "Too little, too late," is appropriate given the present state of affairs, in which national governments and international organizations engage in extensive discourse on topics such as sustainability and climate change, but take very little steps to actually affect change.
In this hypothetical situation, the competition for limited resources that takes place between different population groups and whole nations results in rising inequality and a breakdown of trust throughout society. If there isn't a concerted effort made to reduce the enormous amount of stress placed on the natural world, the Earth's life-supporting systems (climate, water, soil, and forests) will continue to deteriorate, and some regions will get dangerously close to or even pass the point where change can no longer be reversed. Many humans who now live in poverty, as well as untold numbers of animal species, are headed for hell on earth.
The second scenario is titled "The Great Leap," and it depicts a situation in which politicians attempt to enact five significant reforms in an effort to truly enhance the lives of all people. That is to say, it defends dignity (so that every human being may be secure and healthy), nature (a restored and safe environment for all forms of life), and cohesiveness (the coming together of individuals into a cohesive whole) (a sense of connectedness and institutions that serve the common good). And it is a champion of fairness (justice in all its aspects, with a far smaller gap between the wealthy and the poorest), as well as the empowerment of individuals (active engagement of citizens in entrenched communities and economies).
It goes without saying that doing all of this won't be simple. A proactive government that is ready to change markets and pursue a long-term vision for society is required in order to achieve a general improvement in the common good that is also sustainable. This, in turn, will need political will and a fundamentally changed mindset among governments, both of which are unlikely to occur in the absence of significant pressure from the public and widespread mobilization. The zero option would have grave repercussions since we are dangerously near to so many tipping points. These include environmental deterioration, significant economic disparity and vulnerability, and possibly unsustainable social and political conflicts.
Because of this, Earth for All is more than just a report; rather, it is a guiding light. Because the essential changes are so significant, strong social movements with widespread involvement are required to bring them about. The lessons of history demonstrate that passivity and a defeatist attitude almost always result in failure. On the other hand, it shows us the importance of governments caving in to the demands of their people or being overthrown.
The author Jayati Ghosh is Professor of Economics at the Center for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India.
Courtesy: Project Syndicate