Toxic Economic Development is NOT Development

Is our society capable of connecting the dots and operating from any type of objective logic which would avoid lethal assaults on the environment and society? Or are we destined as a species to extinction from an apparent emperor-has-no-clothes affliction for illogic? If economic development that creates toxic environments is NOT development by any rational and objective calculus, then why do we pursue it with an emperor-has-no-clothes logical illogic?

The latest example of this emperor-has-no-clothes logic affliction is China (BBC: Beijing's Air Polluion Soars to Hazard Level), where the air is now three times higher than safe levels. We not only seem incapable of perceiving systems-level reality based on logic and then taking avoidance action, but even when the evidence is clearly in front of our faces, burning our eyes, and clouding our vision, societal institutions still can't seem to understand that 2+2=4.

The logic of climate change is an example of the first question - can we pursue avoidance based on logic? Climate change is based on simple physics upon which there is plenty of historic agreement. It was presented to the world in the early 1970s when there was likely sufficient time to execute a catastrophic-climate-change avoidance strategy. Unfortunately, the majority reaction was swift collective denial that paralyzes an effective societal response to this day. To date, we have entered into an insufficient global agreement (Kyoto) that will expire soon, we are nowhere close to meeting needed climate-change-reversal targets, and we are unlikely to renew a sufficient global agreement. Thus, we are undeniably now on a trajectory of 6-degree C global warming by the end of the 21st century and the accompanying catastrophic climate change. Yet, we can't or won't see it and act. Instead of seeing reality and the present moment as a sure trend to an unfriendly future, we view reality as a static moment where everything appears more or less fine, with plenty of time remaining to solve any problems that might arise at the point when they become so big that we must notice and act. Our response to climate change is an example of the first point--inability to operate from clear logic.

China's air pollution situation, and its environmental destruction more generally, is only the most recent case of the second, "I-told-you-so," point of not being able to understand even when the problem is clearly before us. Development experts (many of whom are resident nationals of the developing nations) have been telling China and the developing world for years that following the historic industrialized-country model of development not only is physically incapable of generating the wealth that it did in the historic period of western-world industrialization, but that it would generate negative wealth that would cripple, if not kill, those nation's who tried.  Of course the footnote that has little resonance in this debate is that doing so collectively would also kill the "golden goose" biosphere and its regenerative life support capacity. This would destroy modern society as we know and NEED it, kill billions of people in the process, and wreak appalling destruction on the natural systems that support us. To witness one dire example of this later case, simply read the recent BBC news story on air pollution levels in China exceeding WHO hazard standards for toxicity.

In addition, development experts have been pointing to and practicing the sustainability alternative capable of "fattening the golden goose" by creating an economy whose systematic effect is on-going enhancement of natural and social systems instead of their on-going destruction. They have been pointing to and advancing ecological or "sustainable" development as the concept and platform for equitable perpetual prosperity and well being for nations, communities, and the world.

We hope that we are still within an historical moment where a just-in-time save in the form of a soft-to-not-so-soft crash landing is possible as Donella Meadows was fond of saying. Fortunately, there is no better framing of our predicament than that of the late Donella Meadows’ discussion of love, hope, and sustainability at the end of her book, Beyond the Limits--Confronting Global Collapse and Envisioning a Sustainable Future(Chelsea Green, 1992, pp 235-6). The last seven paragraphs of the next SOS Journal post are particularly poignant). That discussion provides the basis for authentic hope and constructive action for ultimate sustainability success in 2013 and beyond. It allows us to accurately hold and effectively act on the daunting challenge of sustainability that we face as sustainability champions, practitioners, and well-meaning citizens.