**Uniqueness 2 Generic Links 16
Impacts- Econ Bad- Environment
Download 0.75 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Impacts- Econ Bad- Climate Change
Impacts- Econ Bad- EnvironmentEconomic Growth Destroys the Environment North 5 (Peter, engineer and with qualifications in economics and accountancy , http://www.pacificecologist.org/archive/growthenvi.html ) ET Where are we ecologically speaking? In this debate, for the most part the economists hold sway. Some governments are more active than others in addressing looming problems of environmental degradation and resource shortages. But this has made little difference to the economic policies that rule the world. On the economic front, almost all nations pursue economic growth as their number one objective. Growth policies that increase consumption of the world's resources are encouraged, the environment continues to degrade and the global population continues to grow at about 80 million per annum. There are many ways to look at the question of man's impact on the planet. One of the most common is the ecological "footprint." For the purpose of the ecological debate, the "footprint" of a country is defined as the area of land needed to support the average individual of that country. Many studies have been published on the subject of footprints. A 1997 study by the Earth Council found the world was using up its renewable resources at a rate of about 2.3 hectares per world citizen, whereas the space available was around 1.7 hectares per world citizen. From this, the Earth Council study concluded the earth was running a 35% "ecological deficit" at that time - meaning the sustainable limits of the earth had already been exceeded. Studies by bodies such as the U.N. and Australia's CSIRO reached similar conclusions. The Earth Council report studied 52 countries with about 80% of total global population. It found countries using up their resources unsustainably were spread fairly indiscriminately across rich and poor countries alike. The country with the highest impact on its environment, was the USA (1997 population 268m), with a consumption footprint of 10.3 ha per capita and a capacity of 6.7 ha per capita - indicating an ecological deficit of 3.6 ha per capita. At the bottom of table was Bangladesh, with 0.5ha per capita consumption, 0.3 ha per capita and a deficit of 0.2ha per capita. Only 20% of the countries studied - all geographically large countries with low-population density - were living sustainably. Impacts- Econ Bad- Climate ChangeEconomic growth fuels climate change- root cause Godhaven 9 (Merrick, staff writer, Organic Consumers assocociation, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18583.cfm , 7.15.10) ET Technology is part of the solution to climate change. But only part. Techno-fixes like some of those in the Guardian's Manchester Report simply cannot deliver the carbon cuts science demands of us without being accompanied by drastic reductions in our consumption. That means radical economic and social transformation. Merely swapping technologies fails to address the root causes of climate change. We need to choose the solutions that are the cheapest, the swiftest, the most effective and least likely to incur dire side effects. On all counts, there's a simple answer - stop burning the stuff in the first place. Consume less. There is a certain level of resources we need to survive, and beyond that there is a level we need in order to have lives that are comfortable and meaningful. It is far below what we presently consume. Americans consume twice as much oil as Europeans. Are they twice as happy? Are Europeans half as free? Economic growth itself is not a measure of human well-being, it only measures things with an assessed monetary value. It values wants at the same level as needs and, while it purports to bring prosperity to the masses, its tendency to concentrate profit in fewer and fewer hands leaves billions without the necessities of a decent life. Techno-fixation masks the incompatibility of solving climate change with unlimited economic growth. Even if energy consumption can be reduced for an activity, ongoing economic growth eats up the improvement and overall energy consumption still rises. We continue destructive consumption in the expectation that new miracle technologies will come and save us. And, continued accelerated climate change will annihilate humanity Tickel 8 (Oliver, , Climate Researcher. The Gaurdian, 8-11-2008 “”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange) ET We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
Download 0.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|