Living in the future

Ever wondered what went through the minds of the Easter Islanders as the last tree was cut down? My own guess is that an articulate minority would have been voicing disquiet at the lack of forward thinking - they may have argued that the rituals for which the wood was needed could be performed in other ways without risk.

I also suspect that they would have been howled down, that they would have been labelled as dangerous subversives, people willing to risk the future prosperity of the islanders by abandoning a sacred ritual.

Why would I think that? I believe that the scenario is plausible because the islanders were no different to us, they were not particularly stupid and we are not any smarter than they were. We tend to confuse knowledge with wisdom when even the most cursory glance at the history of ideas will show anyone that there have been wise men and women since the dawn of time; that we are no wiser today than we were thousands of years ago - all that has changed is that we know more.

What clearly hasn’t changed is our capacity to ignore the evidence of our senses. Nor our reluctance to imagine new futures, futures that take us into a breath takingly new directions. Every revolution in human thought has been hard won as the custodians of the past are dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

Right now we are engaged in other war of ideas. On the one side are those who argue that there are alternatives to our profligate lifestyle, that we cannot afford to continue the way we are. Arraigned against them are those that refuse to accept the evidence of our senses, who want to pretend that we can continue much the way we are, those who believe perdition will follow should we change the way our society is organised.

If the conservative forces win then a time will come when it is too late - the last tree will have been hacked down and the human race will, after many generations of expansion, contract. It will not be the end of human life on earth but it will mean that globally we will go back to a new dark age.

Should we change? According to a report in New Scientist (Fred Pearce “Ecocities” 17 June 2006) if our eco-footprint is greater than 1.8 hectare per person we are consuming too much. The 2 per cent of the globe that is covered by cities have a footprint well over that. For example London’s eco-footprint is 197,500 sq km, the potential productive surface of the UK is about 210,000 sq km. Do we really need anyone to tell us that this means that we over spending our ecological budget?

Or consider our growth fetish. Throughout the developed world the idea that economic growth is good for us is accepted as gospel. But do the laws of thermodynamics not apply to the economy? Would not the laws of thermodynamics limit economic growth to the capacity of the globe to support that growth? Unless we are planning to conquer the laws of nature we are on a fool’s errand.

But is it all hopeless? I believe not. The planet can support all of us provided we recognise its limitations. Provided we start paying the rent. We pay the rent by designing cities so they consume less, not more, that they can support its inhabitants by being designed as organic entities so that by and large they can function independently.

Is it possible? Certainly the Chinese think so - a brand new self sufficient city, housing some millions of inhabitants, is being built on the outskirts of Shanghai. This at least demonstrates that we have the technology and it is high time that we started using it.

The challenge with any alternative futures lies not in our capacity to imagine alternatives or even our capacity to implement them; no, it lies with those who wish to remain cocooned in the convenient fiction that there is no need to change.

The real problem that Australia faces is not climate change - Australia can do very little about making a difference to global warming. Although, per capita, our emissions are the worst in the world, overall, our contribution is a mere drop in an ocean of greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course there are those who argue that climate change is simply a myth, peddled by those dangerous, subversives: those environmental terrorists. But even they would surely concede that the resources on which our 21st century lifestyle is based are finite? Surely they would recognise that it would be in our interests to move towards a zero carbon environment that endeavours to mimic the natural world of growth, decline, decay and renewal?

Possibly I am asking too much, for there is simply too much at stake - the short term profits of those corporate giants that are addicted to maintaining the illusion of an infinite resource boom against the long term interests of the planet.

Our real challenge lies in developing a 21st century lifestyle that enables us to cope with global warming in a sustainable manner. While one can develop sound ethical arguments for sustainable development for those not persuaded by the ethics we can appeal to self interest - sustainability is also about ensuring that there is a future in which we may live.

So, are there any off the shelf strategies that will enable us to live in a sustainable future? Here are some ideas:

All businesses need to reduce their energy usage by 20 per cent a year for the next five years. (In otherwords by 66 per cent over a five-year period.) Every target reached will attract a significant tax break - the size of the tax break would be determined by charging a substantial penalty to those businesses that fail to meet the target.

Impossible, I hear. Yet those efficiencies can be achieved with current technology. What is more, even without any tax incentives, the savings alone will more than cover the cost of implementation. (Instead of tax breaks the government could offer interest free loans to cover the cost of implementation to be paid for out of the savings achieved over a five-year period - on that basis the saving is cost neutral.)

All consumer durables would be sold on a lease and return basis. What this means is that when you buy a fridge the manufacturer of the fridge retains responsibility for the repair of the fridge, for its lifetime. And at the end of its useful life the manufacturer must take the fridge back.

How will this help? It will mean that manufacturers can plan accurately how many fridges they need to produce, but it will also mean that they will be encouraged to build consumables out of materials that are recyclable thus reducing the overall strain on the environment. (Too hard? Well Germany is already doing this.)

No doubt there are other ideas out there - so let’s start sharing them. Let’s not waste any more energy talking to those who are convinced that global warming and environmental degradation are dangerous myths. Instead, we should pour our energies into describing the vision of the sort of world we can begin to build now. Leave the nay sayers to mutter to themselves for they are unassailable in their ignorance and given that ignorance is bliss why should we deny them that bliss?

So add your ideas, your knowledge, whether it is a solar powered car or a new way of organising our lives. It is time we start sharing our solutions.