ENV330

Chapter25

·

· Chapter Introduction

· Core Case Study Biosphere 2—A Lesson in Humility

· 25.1 Environmental Worldviews

· 25.1a Differing Environmental Worldviews

· 25.1b Human-Centered Environmental Worldviews

· 25.1c Can We Manage the Earth?

· 25.1d Life-Centered and Earth-Centered Environmental Worldviews

· 25.2 Role Of Education

· 25.2a Environmental Literacy

· 25.2b Learning from the Earth

· 25.3 Living More Sustainably

· 25.3a Living More Simply and Lightly on the Earth

· 25.3b Bringing About a Sustainability Revolution in Your Lifetime

· Tying It All Together Biosphere 2: A Lesson in Humility

· Chapter Review

· Critical Thinking

· Doing Environmental Science

· Ecological Footprint Analysis

· 25.1aDiffering Environmental Worldviews

· People disagree on how serious our environmental problems are, as well as on what we should do about them. One reason for these disagreements is that people have different environmental worldviews. Your environmental worldview is the assumptions and beliefs that you have about how the natural world works and how you think you should interact with the environment. It is determined partly by your environmental ethics—what you believe about what is right and what is wrong in our behavior toward the environment. According to environmental ethicist Robert Cahn:

· The main ingredients of an environmental ethic are caring about the planet and all of its inhabitants . . . and living each day so as to leave the lightest possible footprints on the planet.

· People with differing environmental worldviews can study the same data, be logically consistent in their analysis of those data, and arrive at quite different conclusions. This happens because they begin with different assumptions and values.

25.1bHuman-Centered Environmental Worldviews

Human-centered environmental worldviews focus primarily on the needs and wants of people. According to one such worldview, called the planetary management worldview:

· Humans are the planet’s most important, intelligent, and dominant species.

· Humans should and can manage and dominate the earth mostly for their own benefit.

· Other species and parts of nature should be valued primarily on how useful they are to humans.

· Because of ever-increasing economic growth, there is always more and it is for us.

Here are three variations of the planetary management environmental worldview:

· The no-problem school: We can solve any environmental, population, or resource problem with more economic growth and development, better management, and better technology.

· The free-market school: The best way to manage the planet for human benefit is through a free-market global economy with minimal government interference and regulation. All public property resources should be converted to private property resources, and the global marketplace, governed by free-market competition, should decide essentially everything.

· The spaceship-earth school: The blue marble in space that we call the Earth (see  chapter-opening photo ) is like a spaceship: a complex machine that we can understand, dominate, change, and manage, in order to provide a good life for everyone without overloading natural systems.

Another human-centered environmental worldview is the stewardship worldview. This view assumes that we have an ethical responsibility to be responsible managers, or stewards, of the earth. It also calls for us to encourage environmentally beneficial forms of economic growth and development and discourage environmentally harmful forms.

Some people with the stewardship worldview believe that we have an ethical obligation to save the earth. American farmer, philosopher, and poet Wendell Berry calls this “arrogant ignorance.” He and others point out that earth does not need saving. It has sustained an incredible variety of life for 3.8 billion years despite major changes in environmental conditions. According to Berry and other analysts, what needs saving and reform is the current human civilization that is degrading its life-support system and threatening up to half of the world’s species with extinction.

Some people believe that any human-centered worldview will eventually fail because it wrongly assumes we now have or can gain enough knowledge and wisdom to become effective managers or stewards of the earth. Critics of human-centered worldviews point out that we are living unsustainably by taking over most of the earth’s land and water, changing the earth’s climate, acidifying the global ocean, and greatly increasing species extinction. According to some scientists, there is evidence that we have exceeded four of the earth’s planetary boundaries, or ecological tipping points (see Science Focus 3.2), and are heading toward exceeding other ecological tipping points. We are doing this even though we have much to learn about how the earth works, how it supports all life and our economies (Figure 23.5), and what goes on in a handful of soil, a patch of forest (Figure 25.2), the bottom of the ocean, and most other parts of the planet.

Figure 25.2

We have limited understanding of how the trees, other plants, and animals in this patch of sequoia forest in California survive, interact, and change in response to changing environmental conditions.

Critical Thinking:

1. How does this lack of knowledge relate to the planetary management worldview? Does this mean that we should never cut such trees? Explain.

STILLFX/ Shutterstock.com

As biologist David Ehrenfeld puts it, “In no important instance have we been able to demonstrate comprehensive successful management of the world, nor do we understand it well enough to manage it even in theory.” Biologist and environmental philosopher René Dubos made a related observation: “The belief that we can manage the earth and improve on nature is probably the ultimate expression of human conceit.” The failure of the Biosphere 2 science project (Core Case Study) supports this view.

According to some critics of human-centered worldviews, an unregulated global free-market approach will not put us on a more sustainable path because it is based on ever-increasing economic growth of essentially any type (Figure 23.4). These critics argue that we cannot have unlimited economic growth and consumption on a finite planet with ecological limits or boundaries. They also call for using the marketplace to discourage environmentally harmful forms of economic growth and to promote more environmentally beneficial forms of economic development (Figure 23.17 and Figure 23.18)

1/20,000th

Fraction of the total time life has existed on the earth during which humans have existed

The image of the earth as a gigantic spaceship in space (see chapter-opening photo) has played an important role in raising global environmental awareness. However, critics argue that thinking of the earth as a spaceship that we can manage is an oversimplified and misleading way to view an incredibly complex and ever-changing planet. They point out that we are a newcomer species that has been around for only about 200,000 years of the planet’s 3.8 billion years of life (1/20,000th of the total time life has existed), with far too little understanding of how the planet works and sustains all life and our economies. This makes it unlikely that we can manage the planet.

25.1dLife-Centered and Earth-Centered Environmental Worldviews

Life-centered environmental worldviews hold that all forms of life have value as participating members of the biosphere, regardless of their potential or actual use to humans. However, people disagree over how far we should extend our ethical concerns for various forms and levels of life (Figure 25.3).

Figure 25.3

Levels of ethical concern. People disagree about how far we should extend our ethical concerns on this scale.

Eventually, all species become extinct. However, most people with a life-centered worldview believe that we have an ethical responsibility to avoid hastening the extinction of species, for two reasons. First, each species is a unique part of the diverse genetic information that helps the earth’s life to continue by changing in response to changes in environmental conditions. Second, every species has the potential for providing us economic and other benefits through its participation in providing ecosystem services.

People with an earth-centered environmental worldview believe that we have an ethical responsibility to take a wider view and preserve the earth’s biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the functioning of its life-support systems for the benefit of the earth’s life, now and in the future. According to German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.”

One earth-centered worldview is called the environmental wisdom worldview, which in many ways is the opposite of the planetary management worldview. According to this view:

· We need to learn how nature has sustained life on the earth for 3.8 billion years and use these lessons from nature (environmental wisdom or biomimicry) to guide us in living more simply and sustainably.

· We are part of—not apart from—the community of life and the ecological processes that sustain all life.

· We are not in charge of the world.

· We are subject to nature’s scientific laws that cannot be broken.

· Human economies and other systems are subsystems of the earth’s life-support systems (Figure 23.5).

· The earth’s natural capital (Figure 1.3) keeps us and other species alive and supports our economies.

· We need to learn how to work with nature (Figure 25.4) instead of trying to conquer it.

· By not degrading the earth’s life-support system, we act in our own self-interest. Earth care is self-care.

· We have an ethical responsibility to leave the earth in as good a condition or better than what we inherited—in keeping with the ethical principle of sustainability.

Figure 25.4

The earth flag is a symbol of commitment to promoting environmental and economic sustainability by working with the earth at the individual, local, national, and international levels.

Courtesy of Earth Flag, CO., 33 Roberts Road, Cambridge, MA 02138

In 2000, the United Nations published the Earth Charter, which was created with the help of 100,000 people in 51 countries and 25 global leaders in environmental science, business, politics, religion, and education. The charter incorporates many of the ideas and ethical concerns found in the earth-centered environmental worldview. Here are 6 of its 16 guiding ethical principles:

· Respect the earth and its life in all its diversity.

· Care for life with understanding, love, and compassion.

· Build societies that are free, just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.

· Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection.

· Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

The planetary management, stewardship, and environmental wisdom worldviews differ over how public resources should be managed in many parts of the world, including the United States (see the following Case Study).

Case Study

Managing Public Lands in the United States—A Clash of Worldviews

No nation has set aside as much land for public use, resource extraction, enjoyment, and wildlife habitat as has the United States. About 28% of the country’s land is jointly owned by all U.S. citizens and managed for them by the federal government. About three-fourths of this federal public land is in Alaska and another fifth is in the western states (Figure 25.5).

Figure 25.5

Natural capital: National forests, parks, and wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. federal government.

Critical Thinking:

1. Do you think U.S. citizens should jointly own more or less of the nation’s land? Explain.

(Compiled by the authors using data from U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. National Park Service.)

Some federal public lands are used for many different purposes. For example, the National Forest System consists of 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. These lands, managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), are used for logging, mining, livestock grazing, farming, oil and gas extraction, recreation, and conservation of watershed, soil, and wildlife resources.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages large areas of land—40% of all land managed by the federal government and 13% of the total U.S. land surface—mostly in the western states and Alaska. These lands are used primarily for mining, oil and gas extraction, and livestock grazing.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages 562 national wildlife refuges. Most refuges protect habitats and breeding areas for waterfowl (Figure 9.20) and big game to provide a harvestable supply of these species for hunters. Permitted activities in most refuges include hunting, trapping, fishing, oil and gas development, mining, logging, grazing, farming, and some military activities.

The uses of some other public lands are more restricted. The National Park System, managed by the National Park Service (NPS), includes 59 major parks (see Chapter 10 Case Study and opening photo) and 359 national recreation areas, monuments, memorials, battlefields, historic sites, parkways, trails, rivers, seashores, and lakeshores. Only camping, hiking, sport fishing, and boating can take place in the national parks, whereas hunting, mining, and oil and gas drilling are allowed in national recreation areas.

The most restricted public lands are 756 roadless areas that make up the National Wilderness Preservation System (Figure 10.23). These areas lie within the other public lands and are managed by the agencies in charge of those surrounding lands. Most of these areas are open only for recreational activities such as hiking, sport fishing, camping, and non-motorized boating.

Many federal lands contain valuable oil, natural gas, coal, geothermal, timber, and mineral resources. Since the 1800s, there has been intense controversy over how to use and manage the resources on these public lands.

Improving this understanding begins by grasping three important ideas that form the foundation of environmental literacy. First, natural capital matters because it supports the earth’s life and our economies. Second, our ecological footprints are immense and are expanding rapidly. Third, we should not exceed the earth’s ecological and climate change tipping points (Figure 19.9) because the resulting harmful consequences could last for hundreds to thousands of years. Accomplishing this involves stewardship, respect for nature’s limits, working together, learning from nature, and working with rather than against nature. It also means recognizing that the earth does not need us but we need the earth.

Environmental literacy involves being able to answer certain key questions and having a basic understanding of certain key topics, as summarized in Figure 25.6. This also involves using the principles of biomimicry (Chapter 1 Core Case Study and Science Focus 1.1) to understand how life has sustained itself on the earth for 3.8 billion years. Then we can apply these principles and the three scientific principles of sustainability to find out what works (Figure 25.7) and what lasts and how we might copy such earth wisdom.

Figure 25.6

Achieving environmental literacy involves being able to answer certain questions and having an understanding of certain key topics.

Critical Thinking:

1. After taking this course, do you feel that you can answer the questions asked here and have a basic understanding of each of the key topics listed in this figure?

Figure 25.7

By applying the solar energy principle of sustainability, scientists and engineers developed solar cells that can be used to produce electricity in this solar village in Vauban Freiburg, Germany. 

Daniel Schoenen/imageBROKER/Age Fotostock

25.2bLearning from the Earth

Formal environmental education is important, but is it enough? Many analysts say no. They call for us to appreciate not only the economic value of nature (Science Focus 10.1), but also its ecological, aesthetic, and ethical values. To these analysts, the problem is not just a lack of environmental literacy but also a lack of intimate contact with nature and an incomplete understanding of how nature works and sustains us. This can reduce our ability to act more responsibly toward the earth and thus toward ourselves and other people.

A growing chorus of analysts suggest that we have much to learn from nature. They call for us to have a sense of awe, wonder, mystery, excitement, and humility by being in a forest, enjoying a beautiful scene in nature (Figure 25.8), or taking in the majesty and power of the sea. You might pick up a handful of topsoil and try to sense the teeming microscopic life within it that helps to keep us alive by supporting food production. You might look at a tree (Figure 25.2), a mountain, a rock, or a bee, or listen to the sound of a bird and try to sense how each of them is connected to you and you to them, through the earth’s life-sustaining processes.

Figure 25.8

Experiencing nature can help us to understand the need to protect the earth’s natural capital and to live more sustainably.

djgis/ Shutterstock.com

According to some psychologists and other analysts, experiencing nature is necessary for healthy living. Journalist Richard Louv has specialized in studying relationships among family, community, and nature. He coined the term  nature-deficit disorder  to describe a wide range of problems, including anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit disorders, that can result from a lack of contact with nature. Louv argues that the problem is especially apparent among children who play mostly indoors and at best view the natural world digitally—something new in the history of humankind.

Psychologist David Strayer and other scientists have been conducting physiological and psychological research on the beneficial effects of getting away from the stress of everyday life and experiencing nature. They found that escaping the stresses of living by interacting in relaxed ways with nature can help reduce depression, anxiety, stress, blood pressure, and mental fatigue. Research indicates that, in addition to reducing stress and calming us down, connecting with nature can improve our attention skills, short-term memory, and creativity.

Urban living, along with extensive use of the internet, cell phones, and other electronic devices, contribute to nature-deficit disorder. Many environmental leaders are helping people connect directly with nature (Individuals Matter 25.1). When we lack an understanding of how nature keeps us alive and supports our economies, we can unknowingly degrade the earth’s natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides. Learning about and protecting natural capital is an essential component of living more sustainably.

Individuals Matter 25.1

Juan Martinez: Connecting People with Nature

REBECCA HALE/National Geographic Image Collection

National Geographic Explorer Juan Martinez learned first-hand about the value of connecting with nature. Now he is instilling that value in others, particularly disadvantaged youths.

Martinez grew up in a poor area of Los Angeles, California, where as a boy he was in danger of becoming absorbed by a gang culture. One of his teachers recognized Martinez’s potential and gave him a chance to pass a class that he was failing by joining the school’s Eco Club.

Martinez took that opportunity and when the club planned a field trip to see the Grand Teton Mountains of Wyoming, he jumped at the chance. As a result, he says, “I still can’t find words to describe the first moment I saw those mountains rising up from the valley. Watching bison, seeing a sky full of stars, and hiking through that scenery was overwhelming.”

The experience transformed Martinez’s life. Today, he spearheads the Natural Leaders Network of the Children and Nature Network, an organization creating links between environmental organizations, corporations, government, education, and individuals to reconnect children with nature. His work as an environmental leader has inspired many others to do similar work.

Martinez has received a great deal of recognition for his efforts, including invitations to White House forums on environmental education. His greatest reward, however, is in seeing how his efforts help others.

Earth-focused philosophers say that to be rooted, each of us needs to find a sense of place—a stream, a mountain, a patch of forest, a yard, a neighborhood lot—any piece of the natural world that we know, experience emotionally, and love. According to biologist Stephen Gould, “We will not fight to save what we do not love.” When we become part of a place, it becomes a part of us. Then we might be driven to defend it from harm (Figure 25.9) and to help heal its wounds. We might discover and tap into what conservationist Aldo Leopold (Individuals Matter 25.2) called “the green fire that burns in our hearts” and use this as a force for respecting and working with the earth and with one another.

Figure 25.9

This woman and others in Vancouver, Canada, are protesting the clear-cutting of old-growth forests for timber in the Canadian province of British Columbia.

Joel W. Rogers/Corbis

Individuals Matter 25.2

Aldo Leopold

Courtesy of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, www.aldoleopold.org

However, to others, the more stuff we possess, the more we are possessed by stuff. According to research by psychologists, what a growing number of people really want, deep down, is more community, not more stuff. They want greater and more fulfilling interactions with family, friends, and neighbors. Some people are adopting a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity. It should not be confused with poverty, which is involuntary simplicity. Voluntary simplicity involves learning to live with less stuff, using products and services that have smaller harmful environmental impacts, and creating beneficial environmental impacts. These individuals view voluntary simplicity not as a sacrifice but as a way to have a more fulfilling and satisfying life. Instead of working longer to pay for bigger vehicles and houses, they are spending more time with their loved ones, friends, and nature. Their goals are to consume less, share more, live simply, make friends, treasure family, and enjoy life. Their motto is: “Consume less. Shop less. Live more.”

Living more simply and sustainably starts with asking the question: How much is enough? Similarly, one can ask: What do I really need? These are not easy questions to answer, because people in affluent societies are conditioned to want more and more material possessions and to view them as needs instead of wants. As a result, many people have become addicted to buying more and more stuff as a way to find meaning in their lives, and they often run up large personal debts to feed their stuff habit. Figure 25.11 lists five steps that some psychologists have advised people to take to help them withdraw from this addiction.

Figure 25.11

Five ways to withdraw from an addiction to buying more and more stuff.

Critical Thinking

1. Make a list of your basic needs. Is your list of needs compatible with your environmental worldview?

Throughout this text, you have encountered lists of ways we can live more lightly on the earth by reducing the size and impact of our ecological footprints. Figure 25.12 lists eight key ways in which some people are choosing to live more simply and sustainably.

Figure 25.12

Living more lightly: Eight ways to shrink our ecological footprints.

Critical Thinking

1. Which three of the eight steps in Figure 25.12 do you think are the most important? Which of these things do you already do? Which of them are you thinking about doing? How do your answers to these questions relate to

1. the six principles of sustainability, and

2. to your environmental worldview?

Living more sustainably is not easy, and we will not make this transition by relying primarily on technological fixes such as recycling, changing to energy-efficient light bulbs, and driving energy-efficient cars. These are, of course, important things to do. They can help us to shrink our ecological footprints and to feel less guilty about our harmful impacts on our life-support system. However, these efforts cannot solve the environmental problems resulting from excessive consumption of and unnecessary waste of matter and energy resources (see Case Study that follows).

Some analysts have suggested that the environmental movement has focused too much on bad news and laying blame, which has then led people to feel guilty, fearful, apathetic, and powerless. They suggest that we can move beyond these immobilizing feelings by recognizing and avoiding the following three common mental traps that lead to denial, indifference, and inaction:

· Hoping we can move to another planet (see Science Focus 25.1)

Avoiding these three traps helps us to be inspired by empowering feelings of realistic hope and action, rather than to be immobilized by feelings of despair and fear.

Critical Thinking

1. Have you fallen into any of these traps? If so, are you aware that you have, and how do you think you could free yourself from either of them?

Science Focus 25.1

Biosphere 3: Can We Move to Mars?

Some people suggest that if the earth is too crowded and polluted, we can move to another planet such as Mars (Figure 25.A). The atmosphere on Mars is about 95%  and has no oxygen, compared to the earth’s atmosphere which is 78% nitrogen  and 21% oxygen .

Figure 25.A

Mars: the red planet.

Nerthuz/ Shutterstock.com

The United States has the world’s third largest population and the highest population growth rate of any industrialized country. It also has one of the world’s largest per capita ecological footprints (Figure 25.12, bottom)—mostly because of high resource use per person. If everyone in the world used resources equal to what the average American uses, we would need about five planet Earths to support them, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Global Footprint Network. China has the world’s largest population and total ecological footprint (Figure 25.13, top). However, it has a much lower ecological footprint per person than the United States has because of its much lower rate of use of resources per person (Figure 25.13, bottom).

Figure 25.13

Comparison of total and per capital ecological footprints of the United States and China.

(Compiled by the authors using data from the Global Footprint Network 2018 and World Atlas 2017)

Since the 1960s, China has cut its birth rate in half and its population is growing at a rate slower than that of the United States. However, if its middle class continues to grow and consume more resources as projected, China could have the world’s largest per capita footprint within a decade or two.

Because of their economic power and high and growing levels of resource use, the United States and China will play the key roles in determining whether and how we can live more sustainably on the planet that keeps us alive and supports the world’s economies.

In the 1970s, the United States led the world in developing laws and regulations designed to improve environmental quality. However, since 1980 the U.S. environmental community has had to spend most of its time fending off attempts to weaken or repeal the country’s major environmental laws—many of which need updating.

At the federal level, many members of the U.S. Congress think that climate change is a hoax or that it is not caused by human actions and want to weaken or overturn environmental laws and regulations, reduce funding for climate research, and get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, the country that led the world into concern for the environment is now reducing its global environmental leadership. Under pressure from coal, oil, and utility companies, certain legislators have blocked efforts to reduce fossil fuel use (especially coal), use a carbon tax or a carbon-trading system to reduce  emissions, shift to greater dependence on renewable energy from the sun and wind, and build a modern smart electrical grid to make this shift possible.

China’s leaders have plans to become more environmentally responsible over the next few decades for two reasons. One is to maintain their political power by heading off growing citizen unrest over the country’s severe pollution, as the U.S. government did in the 1970s. The other is to dominate the world’s rapidly growing and profitable green energy and low-carbon businesses. If successful, China could become the world’s leader in making the shift to more sustainable economies and societies and reduce its total environmental footprint.

China produces and sells more wind turbines and solar cell panels than any country in the world and is building a smart electrical grid to distribute electricity produced by the sun and wind throughout the country. It has also developed a growing network of bullet trains that can help reduce car use.

Over the next few decades, the Chinese government plans to depend more on cleaner energy systems and become the global leader in developing a low-carbon economy. It has plans to tax carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels and to use the income to shift away from fossil fuel use before the United States does. The goal is to make money by becoming the global leader in making the shift to the new energy transition (Section 16.1). However, China burns coal to provide 65% of its electricity and reducing its dependence on abundant and cheap coal is a major economic and political challenge.

The United States and China face similar problems. They have large reserves of coal that can be burned to produce electricity at a low cost, as long as the price of such electricity does not include the harmful environmental effects of burning coal. According to critics, global efforts to reduce air pollution, slow climate change, and rely more on renewable energy from the sun and wind depend heavily on whether China and the United States decide to leave much of their coal reserves in the ground. This is a difficult economic, political, and ethical decision.

25.3bBringing About a Sustainability Revolution in Your Lifetime

The Industrial Revolution, which began around the mid-18th century, was a remarkable global transformation. Now in this century, environmental leaders say it is time for another global transformation—a sustainability revolution. Figure 25.14 lists some of the major cultural shifts in emphasis that could help bring about a sustainability revolution in your lifetime.

Figure 25.14

Solutions: Some of the cultural shifts in emphasis that scientists say will be necessary to bring about a sustainability revolution.

Critical Thinking:

1. Which of these shifts do you think are most important? Why?

The sustainability movement is a decentralized global movement arising mostly from the bottom up, based on the actions of a variety of individuals and groups throughout the world. One of the leaders in the movement to develop and promote detailed plans for making the shift to more sustainable ways of living is Lester R. Brown (Individuals Matter 25.3).

Individuals Matter 25.3

Lester R. Brown: Champion of Sustainability

KFEM/Earth Policy Institute

Lester R. Brown served as president of the Earth Policy Institute, which he founded in 2001 until his retirement in 2015. The purpose of this nonprofit, interdisciplinary research organization has been to provide a plan for a more sustainable future and a roadmap showing how we could get there.

Brown is an interdisciplinary thinker and one of the pioneers of the global sustainability movement. For decades, he has been researching and describing the complex and interconnected environmental issues we face and proposing concrete strategies for dealing with them. The Washington Post called him “one of the world’s most influential thinkers,” and Foreign Policy named him one of the Top Global Thinkers.

Brown’s Plan B for shifting to a more environmentally and economically sustainable future has four main goals:

1. stabilize population growth,

2. stabilize climate change,

3. eradicate poverty, and

4. restore the earth’s natural support systems.

Brown has written or coauthored more than 50 books, which have been translated into more than 40 languages. He has received numerous prizes and awards, including 25 honorary degrees, the United Nations Environment Prize, and Japan’s Blue Planet Prize. In 2012, he was inducted into the Earth Hall of Fame in Kyoto, Japan. He also holds three honorary professorships in China.

Despite the serious environmental challenges we face, Brown sees reasons for hope. They include his understanding that social change can sometimes occur very quickly. He is also encouraged by improvements in fuel efficiency, the emerging shift from using coal to using solar and wind energy to produce electricity, and a growing public understanding of our need to live more sustainably.

A growing number of people call for us to change the way we treat the earth and thus ourselves by living more gently on the planet that sustains us. Figure 25.15 lists a number of agents of change that can help us shift to a more sustainable path within your lifetime. These seedlings of change, which have been discussed in this book, can break out of their position of slow growth on the bottom of the curve of change in Figure 25.15 and round the bend on the J-curve of rapid exponential growth toward more sustainable living. Supporting and encouraging these agents of change can help us to make the shift to a more sustainable path much faster than you might think.

Figure 25.15

Seedlings of environmental change and hope. The agents of change in this figure are growing slowly. However, at some point, some or all of them could take off, grow exponentially, and help bring about a sustainability revolution within your lifetime.

Critical Thinking:

1. Which two items in each of these four categories do you believe are the most important to promote?

NASA

Here are two pieces of good news about the possibility of bringing about a sustainability revolution over the next few decades. First, social science research reveals that for a major social change to occur, only 5–10% of the people in the world or in a country or locality must become convinced that the change must take place and then act to bring about such change. Second, history also shows that we can bring about change faster than we might think, once we have the courage to leave behind ideas and practices that no longer work and to nurture new trends such as the rapidly growing seedlings of sustainability listed in Figure 25.15.

We have the knowledge to shift from our current unsustainable path to a more sustainable one. Within this century, a small but dedicated group of people from around the world can bring about a sustainability revolution. They will likely understand three things. First, we have been borrowing from the earth and the future and our debt is coming due. Second, as a species we are capable of great things, if we choose to act. Third, once we start on a new path, change can spread through our web-connected global social networks at an amazing pace.

· Biosphere 2 (Figure 25.1) was designed to be a self-sustaining life-support system like Biosphere 1—the earth. Instead, numerous unexpected problems occurred. As a result, Biosphere 2 was not able to support eight people for 2 years.

·

· Joseph Sohm/ Shutterstock.com

6. The American theologian, Thomas Berry, called the industrial–consumer society, built on the human-centered, planetary management environmental worldview, the “supreme pathology of all history.” He said, “We can break the mountains apart; we can drain the rivers and flood the valleys. We can turn the most luxuriant forests into throwaway paper products. We can tear apart the great grass cover of the western plains, and pour toxic chemicals into the soil and pesticides onto the fields, until the soil is dead and blows away in the wind. We can pollute the air with acids, the rivers with sewage, and the seas with oil. We can invent computers capable of processing 10 million calculations per second. And why? To increase the volume and speed with which we move natural resources through the consumer economy to the junk pile or the waste heap. If, in these activities, the topography of the planet is damaged, if the environment is made inhospitable for a multitude of living species, then so be it. We are, supposedly, creating a technological wonderworld. But our supposed progress is bringing us to a wasteworld instead of a wonderworld.” Explain why you agree or disagree with this assessment. If you disagree, answer at least five of Berry’s charges with your own arguments as to why you think he is wrong. If you agree, cite evidence as to why.