Well, seeing how Lenin's birthday (also known as earthday) just passed us by, I thought it'd be high-time I update my blog, seeing as how I'm supposed to be in the midst of a series on the environment. So what do you think, does the planet need saving badly enough that we need something better than a Soviet Dictator to celebrate on April 23rd? This I think is the macro question of the eco-hour that I’ll try to shed some light on in this post. Of course, I may well fail in my light-shedding task, in which case, I’m just using my blog for what blogs do best: vent random misinformed opinion. In this case, I hope I can at least entertain.
Measuring the state of the environment is an incredibly pretentious activity. I find it quite sobering to note that in almost every book I’ve perused on the topic of the environment, from left to right-wing, they all lay claim to be able to help the reader navigate the morass of eco-misinformation. I was actually hoping to lay a similar claim: that I can point to some good data on this subject, but since that claim has been made so many times, I’m a little sheepish to make it myself. So I won’t. I have no formal education in environmental issues, but I do think (however naively) that I can point to some resources on a handful of issues that as near as I can tell, are good ones, and ones I would like to see eco-dialogue refer to more often.
A lot of this just comes down to trust and authority. Most of us are crowd-followers of one stripe or another. We believe something because someone (or some group) we trust said it. So if someone we trust tells us that a football field worth of rainforest is chopped down every day, and we’re going to run out of forests within a decade, resulting in global warming and all the ice melting and the continents drowning, we’ll likely believe it -especially if said trusted person can do so accompanied by harrowing apocalyptic music and hair-raising visual illustrations.
*sigh* If only I had such magical powers.
So how is the environment doing anyways? Bad? Good? Most people seem have a sense that things are ill-fated for mother earth at the moment. I don’t think environmental conversations often stop to ask exactly how such a sweeping measurement can possibly be made, or even if it’s important. Consider that any one-word evaluation of the state of the world presupposes a standard of measurement, and places the state of the earth below a certain ideal on that measurement scale. So let’s say that we were to measure the wellness of earth on a scale of 1 to 10. Anything 6 and above is “good” and anything 5 and below is “bad”. So let’s say we get excellent data and rate the earth at 8. It’s “good”. But we might ask “well, if it’s good, why didn’t it get a 10?” And suppose we find out that our data reveals that 80% of the world is doing well, but we’ve actually irrepperably polluted 20% of its continents and seas?
The argument goes both ways -let’s say earth scores a 5, and that means we’ve got 50% of the earth that is healthy, thrivin’ liveable and ecologically sustainable, with nothing worth complaining about in that area.
So judgments like “environment doin' fine” or “environment doin' bad” are statements about the aggregate state of affairs of the environment. Everything from seas to forests to skies are included in this evaluation. And this is why I think one’s opinion on the aggregate picture of the environment might well be useless information. We can’t do anything with an aggregate evaluation, what is useful is knowledge of specifics: what specifically is going wrong that we can fix? What specifically is going well that we can conserve?
I think there’s a valuable lesson to be learned from this. Ask yourself: is your degree of emotional involvement with your eco-opinions really commensurate with the a) reliability of your information and b) the usefulness of that information?
My impression of the average Joe’s eco-data (mine included) is politicised hearsay of a rightish or leftish stripe. In my books, that’s a “Reliable-information” fail. Consequently, so is the usefulness of this data.
Nevertheless, I see something useful in having good data on the aggregate state of affairs. That is, I really do feel that each individual must have in their minds an objective way past the polarized, politicised BS of the environmental movement and its opponents. What we really need to find is some ground of agreement for good discussion and education.
A gold mine of information on this topic for me has been the “Environmental Sustainability Index”
This index, put together by some smart dudes at Yale, evaluates the world by political boundaries on the basis of 5 components of Sustainability:
1. Environmental Systems: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable to the extent that its vital environmental systems are maintained at healthy levels, and to the extent to which levels are improving rather than deteriorating.
2. Reducing Environmental Stresses: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable if the levels of anthropogenic stress are low enough to engender no demonstrable harm to its environmental systems.
3. Reducing Human Vulnerability: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable to the extent that people and social systems are not vulnerable to environmental disturbances that affect basic human wellbeing; becoming less vulnerable is a sign that a society is on a track to greater sustainability.
4. Social and Institutional Capacity: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable to the extent that it has in place institutions and underlying social patterns of skills, attitudes, and networks that foster effective responses to environmental challenges.
5. Global Stewardship: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable if it cooperates with other countries to manage common environmental problems, and if it reduces negative transboundary environmental impacts on other countries to levels that cause no serious harm.
These are further broken down into 21 Indicators, and 76 variables. It’s a great read, check it out:
http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf
And here’s a summary of the index in colored picture form for those of you who won’t follow the link. Basically if you’re a country that’s been industrialised for awhile, and you don’t live near the equator, you’ve probably got good marks. Let’s hear it for the Western world in temperate climates, Yay! Boo (most of) Africa, China, and the middle east! Get rid of the equator, it's clearly negatively affecting the aggregate state of affairs! We need a new equatorial Occupy movement!
Another resource I have found helpful is the “Environmental Performance Index”
They have a real pretty website where you can look at a whole host of different factors on a big colored map of the world. Got a hangup about forestry, fishing, or infant mortality rates? Just select your latest eco-hangup from the drop-down bar and see if your opinions line up with reality at the click of a button!
http://epi.yale.edu/epi2012/map
Happy belated Earthday!
No comments:
Post a Comment