Global Change, Eco-Apartheid and Population Health

Global Change, Eco-Apartheid and Population Health

William E. Rees, PhDUniversity 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 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.

2007 Population: 6.6 billion

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 ofSea 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?

Meltdown: A hundred years ahead of schedule?

IPCC Projections: Way Off

Increasing greenhouse gases

Global warming- Melting permafrost- Release of gas hydrates- More forest fires

Melting polar sea ice

Decreased albedo(more heat retention)

Multi-Layered Auto-Catalysis?(Potential for runaway positive feedback)

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 IncomeThe average per

capita ecological footprints of residents of high-income countries range between four and ten hectares (10 to 25 acres).

The residents of the poorest countries survive on less than half a hectare.

Per Capita Ecological Footprints of Selected Countries (2003 data from WWF 2006)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Country

Eco-Footprint

(Gha/Capita)

Biocapacities and Ecological Footprints of Selected Countries Compared to World (2003 data from WWF 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16U

nited S

tate

s

United K

ingdom

Germ

any

Neth

erlands

Japan

India

Som

alia

Canada

World

Country

Domestic Biocapacity

Ecological Footprint

All countries that run eco-deficits are dependent on ‘surplus’ biocapacity (exergy) imported from low density countries (like Canada) and the global commons.

Gha/Cap

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.

Human Ecological Footprint1961-2003

Living Planet Index1970-2003

20% of population 75% of world income

1.5% of world income20% of population

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 ResponsibilityAt 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 Headed2015 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 sea-level 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).

12 April 2007

‘Losing weight’ need not be painfulIn 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).

(Siegel 2006)

(Siegel 2006)

Essential Criteria for SustainabilityBiophysical: A society is sustainable only if it does

notconsume 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 at all?

The Good News The Bad NewsWe 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 eco-paralysis.

“The ecologically necessary is politically infeasible but the politically feasible is ecologically irrelevant.”