At the Planet Talks, WOMADelaide, Polly Higgins introduced the need for a 5th international law - to eradicate Ecocide.
A law ending Ecocide - no more mass damage and destruction - is far more likely than it may appear at first sight. Polly describes her 'light bulb moment' - how is it that this is not a crime? She realised there were international precedents, that the Rome Statutes create a structure for such law and it was an extraordinary gap. Subsequently, she generated substantial support from some of the 82 signatory countries that are necessary to enact international law. Eradicating ecocide law would change our investment landscape, redirecting funding to clean technology alternative and supporting national environmental legislation.
On stage with Polly was Tim Flannery and Peter Garrett. The ecocide concept impressed to such an extent that Tim saw Polly as the next William Wilberforce. An extraordinary seminal figure in the history of positive change.
Unfortunately, as Tim pointed out, William spent 44 years introducing bills to the British parliament to end slavery. During this time many people must have thought he was either crazy or sadly deluded. There was no hope of ending slavery. There were far too many rich and powerful vested interests who wished to profit further at other's expense.
Fast forward 200 years. Does this sound familiar? Powerful vested interests that would prefer maintaining the fossil fuel status quo? It's not the first time such comparisons have been made.
So, can we wait 44 years? Or are we already the equivalent of 40 years into this movement, especially given how exponentially faster waves of change are today? Here's why I think international law to eradicate ecocide may be possible and upon us.
The abolish slavery movement arrived at a time when global awareness was growing substantially. A revolutionary time for human liberty, equity and justice albeit equally one of great struggle. Fast forward to today and we have an analogous physical reality. There's a growth of consciousness alongside awareness of the gross scale ecological systems collapses that are confronting us. Old polluting technology is becoming irrelevant (such as a 1/2 trillion dollar threat)
As an analogy, many would have thought you were mad if you said the Berlin Wall was about fall in 1988. Yet that is exactly what happened through 1989.
Ending ecocide may just be more realisable than many believe. Notwithstanding this, for large scale investors in fossil fuel or environmentally destructive activity, its a major investment consideration.
The need for quick, sustainable, global transformations versus our relative inaction appears to be a complete paradox. It's so obviously in our own collective, as well as individual, self interest to act on many pressing environmental issues. It's often in our own financial self interest to change. Yet we're still far from seeing the sort of positive futures represented by such alternatives being holistically adopted.
...when we come to issues such as global warming, [time is] exactly what we don’t have. However we choose to proceed we’re now set on a path that leads through a period that will test humanity as never before. In the process, the most vulnerable areas will likely see dramatic decreases in human populations.
Richard explicitly looks for what may take us through the needed transformation - an 'awakening'.
For some, such a transformation may sound far fetched. From a technical standpoint, looking at our very significant ecological debt, achieving global and deep structural sustainability transformations looks very hard. However, there's more than just measurable carbon dioxide levels and technology that may create such a shift.
In this great new audio Robert Kegan, Professor in Adult Learning and Professional Development at Harvard, explains the Self-Transforming Mind. Humans are at a unique point in history being both the makers of our own peril, knowing this peril race and at the same time with greatly expanded lifespans and the wisdom this may bring with age.
Kegan's talk briefly explains how we (can) move through more mentally complex stages in life and the distinct step changes that are characteristic of these shifts. His model of human development results from decades of study but this talk is mostly presenting his "big idea". This is that the very longevity of our lifespans - in part also a determinant of the stresses placed on our biosphere - may also enable our older centre of gravity to figure out how to save our species.
Older people are more likely to reach Kegan's fifth and final 'mental complexity' stage, the self-transforming stage. With this comes vital capacities that make it more likely we can manage, act on and move past many of the barriers which have left us facing "the biggest wakeup call in history".
A full explanation, audio plus video soon, is here.
Is there a sea change in our attitudes? Just as many people may not understand exponential growth and its consequences are we also missing another fundamental change - the underpinnings for a transformed society?
There are signs the climate movement could be on the verge of a remarkable and surprising victory…. [We’re looking at] the removal of the oil, coal and gas industries from the economy in just a few decades and their replacement with new industries and, for the most part, entirely new companies. It would be the greatest transfer of wealth and power between industries and countries the world has ever seen. ....
This time, the economics is playing on the same side as the environment. Just in time.
Balancing the positive signs are the scales of our multiple challenges. On the physical side human emissions of greenhouse gas have locked in climate change. Culturally, our societies tend to focus on the present rather than ‘rationally’ accounting for future risk.
Australia is in the grip of "a once-in-20 or 30-year heatwave" with extremes over 40 degrees. Despite the heat, and the likelihood that there will be many more extreme events like this as climate change hits, the Australian media almost universally omits to mention greenhouse gas, global warming or climate change in its reporting. A quick search (1, 2 & 3) finds less than ten stories.
The consequences, of extreme heat, are usually mainstream media material. For example 370 people died from extreme heat in Victoria during the same week that 173 people died from the 2009 Black Saturday fires in the state. The same report predicts that extreme heat in Melbourne could, without mitigation by 2050, kill over one thousand people in an event.
Numbers like these seem to be losing salience in with the Australian public, or at least our media. The lack of reporting certainly enhances research that demonstrates fear won't do it and views that "Our leaders and the community at large are still in denial (or studiously unaware) of the realities of global change"
Paul Gilding, the author of “The Great Disruption,” ... argues that rather than a steady decline, the human world will, in the next one or two decades, experience shocks of such magnitude arising from our disordered economic system, climate change and peak oil, that they will call forth an emergency crisis response that will enable us to harness human ingenuity to craft a genuinely sustainable future for those humans who survive the shocks.
There's plenty more here but, of course, no simple solutions for complex entangled problems such as global warming.
''corporate wealth translates into political power ... into further wealth ... Wealth begets power, and power begets wealth,'' Part of this power "has played a notorious role in the fight to keep climate change off the US agenda" underwriting "a generation of anti-scientific propaganda to confuse the American people."
Governments have now begun to concede, without evincing any great concern, that they will miss their target of no more than 2C of global warming this century. Instead we're on track for between four and six degrees. To prevent climate breakdown, coal burning should be in steep decline. Far from it: the International Energy Agency reports that global use of the most carbon-dense fossil fuel is climbing by about 200m tonnes a year. This helps to explain why global emissions are rising so fast.
Australia however may have bucked some these trends (ironically as the world's leading coal exporter). Australia's Environment Minister Tony Burke, perhaps a little optimistically, points out"in 2012 we returned the Murray Darling to health, became the world leader on protecting the oceans...". Australia also introduced a carbon price in 2012 and, within the context of what Sachs and Monbiot outline, this is genuine progress.
What is different? Leadership perhaps? A more civil society? An economy that still supports a broader environmental debate? Regardless of the fact that we are clearly far from a successful sustainbility shift on the scales needed (e.g. see Beyond Denial: managing the uncertainties of global change) are there some pointers to come from Australia's 2012? It's not easy to generalise from such trends so comments welcome!
Image: Giant fish made entirely from discarded plastic bottles. Rio, UN Conference on Sustainable Development.
Looking at climate change and sustainability challenges it's clear that individual action, our actions, are necessary. However we struggle when faced by scale and speed - a fast and revolutionary global shift is needed. How can any one person make a difference? The German Advisory Council on Global Change puts individuals at the heart of a radical new 'business basis'. They say:
"individual actors can play a far larger role in the transformation of social (sub-)systems than the one that has been accorded to them for quite some time"
We've seen unsustainable societies - such as the USSR, communist eastern Europe, Libya and Egypt -fall in recent times. Today's unsustainable global carbon society could be similar but we have to actively plan for our future.
The council compares our the change we'll undergo to only two in human history - the neolithic (farming) and the industrial revolutions. The difference is it requires consious guidance rather than the evolutionary change seen during these previous revolutions.
"This ‘Great Transformation’, then, is by no means an automatism. It very much depends on ‘organising the unplannable’ if it is to succeed within the available tight timeframe. This is unique in history, as the ‘world’s great transformations’ of the past were the result of gradual evolutionary change.
And the Council's take home line? It "has reached the ultimate conviction that the great transformation into a low-carbon society is not just necessary, but really feasible."
Shrink My City! A City's Eco Footprint
Sustainable Business Logic Ray Anderson CEO Interface
Stern GFC and Climate
Solar Cars Sustainability Tour
Obama Energy Independence
Amory Lovins: Profit from climate action
Prize winner: U at 50
Worldchanging | Evaluation + Tools + Best Practices
Cameron SinclairAfter a long hiatus we are coming back.
In September my organization, Architecture for Humanity acquired Worldchanging and all its assets. Starting in November we will begin to merge this site with Open Architecture Network to create a robust and informed network to bring solutions to global challenges to life.