Possible Personal Contributions towards a Sustainable World
The current state of affairs and possible future of our world does not fill me with joy, neither politically nor ecologically. I am worried about the current civilisation still so much dependent on fossil fuels for years to come with all its consequences. Beyond that, I am concerned about the tenacious belief in continued growth with an accelerating cycle of production and consumption on a finite planet resulting in a rapidly degrading biosphere. Not much time is left, perhaps a decade or two to turn things around before major tipping points are irreversibly reached.
Resignation is not an option, however, or like a friend of mine once said: if in the future our grand children ask “you knew about the state of affairs, what did you do about it?”; then I would like to be in a position to reply:“I tried as much as I could within my capabilities.” This post is about possible personal contributions to a potentially sustainable world, or at least to averting a potential collapse; so I shall be able to say: “ I knew and I tried”.
Status Quo
In order to assess the current state of affairs it is perhaps worth looking at the global energy consumption; energy can be seen as a proxy for all economic and industrial activities because all transformations and processes need energy. It is worth noting, that not only the current consumption matters, but also the current trend. Over the past years, energy consumption rose by about 2.4% annually and is expected to do so for a while. Other related quantities are projected to continue growing as well in the same vein, e.g. production of plastics, clothes, etc.
Other ways to describe the state of affairs are as follows:
- The majority of energy is still supplied by fossil fuels with 8Gt/year coal, 4Gt/year oil, and 3Gt/year gas, all together generating about 40Gt/year of CO2, where 1Gt/year adds about 0.38ppmV to the atmosphere, and 1 ppm generates 0.01°C warming, i.e. ~0.15°C/year in total.
- Land use is changing, from forests to agricultural land used to grow soya for beef production; industrial agriculture using herbicides, pesticides, about 200Mt/year fertiliser and irrigation is linked to soil erosion and degradation, aquifer depletion, and biodiversity loss.
- Urban sprawl and large houses, energy-inefficient construction, too much use of energy intense concrete, millions of hectares lost to build homes, streets and infrastructure, all contributing to risk of flooding and necessitating the use of personally owned cars.
- A global fleet of about 1.5 billion cars, mostly based on internal combustion engine (ICE), 90M produced a year; while electrification may reduce the energy consumption, more resources are needed to build and maintain that fleet, and the fleet is still growing.
The world seems to be focusing mostly on CO₂ emission and aims for net-zero to mitigate climate change; the latter may however be one symptom of a more general disease of our modern industrial civilisation or metastatic modernity as Tom Murphy calls it. All combined, this modernity is about to destroy the ecosphere our lives are built on, pulling the rug under out feet. Perhaps the most catastrophic legacy of CO₂ emissions may be ocean acidification and all its consequences for marine life and in turn for all life on our planet as shown below.
To summarise the status quo, both the exponential growth of industrial performance metrics and exponential degradation of environmental quantities set the scene from where to work.
Possible Trajectories
In 1972, Donella & Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William Behrens III published The Limits To Growth as a report to the Club of Rome. Using system dynamics, they developed various mathematical models, most prominently the so-called World3 model. These dynamic models are defined by parameters, equations and state variables, and together they are able to describe the evolution of our industrial civilisation in terms of variables such as industrial output, pollution, population, food or resources. Scenarios were simulated depending on policies, notably:
- Business-as-usual (BAU), follow the historical trend, i.e. continued economic growth (with continued growth in energy and resource demand): collapse due to natural resource depletion;
- Business-as-usual 2 (BAU2), same approach as BAU, but with double the natural resources of BAU: collapse due to pollution (climate change, or breaching some/all planetary boundaries);
- Comprehensive-Technology (CT), BAU2 + high technological development: rising costs for technology eventually cause declines, but no immediate collapse (or at least not for the simulation frame);
- Stabilised-World (SW), CT + changes in societal values and priorities: population stabilises in the twenty-first century, as does human
welfare on a high level.
In the past decades, various research groups have re-visited these models and re-calibrated them using historical data from the past 50 years, e.g. Gaya Herrington’s Update to limits to growth: Comparing the World3 model with empirical data or Arjuna Nebel’s Recalibration of limits to growth An update of the World3 model. The projected trajectories have not changed too much, and in fact, trying to fit the World3 model to 50 years worth of historical data does not yet give a definitive answer, but it appears that humanity is on a trajectory somewhere between BAU2 and CT; to me this means collapse is just a matter of time.
Which trajectory would we like to be one? Well, this perhaps depends on one’s position, vested interests or time horizon in mind. If you want the high life as if there was no tomorrow, perhaps BAU2 is for you; if you think for 7 or more generations ahead, perhaps you would aim for SW; in-between lies CT for the techno-optimists that human ingenuity will fix all, well some at least, and for some time. Perhaps we can all start on CT as it is acceptable and gradually move over to SW, that is what I am hoping for at least. If we continued on BAU2, then the future will not be too rosy, I am afraid, as when resources decline, there is a danger of a run to the last, i.e. conflict rather than cooperation. As for CT, we may run into the energy trap: when EROI decreases a downward spiral follows.
It is interesting to observe, that for most people economic growth is an unshakable paradigm. But rapid economic growth was only possible through exploitation of non-renewable fossil fuels; this is an anomaly, not the norm. Growth (exponential) seemed normal as long as our civilisation stayed far within carrying capacity of the planet with a large margin; as our civilisation breaches planetary boundaries, the growth paradigm cannot be acceptable any more. This mindset of unlimited growth reminds me of old Western movies set in North America: when a situation becomes untenable, just go West. Well, we have reached the west coast. Therefore, we need to come up with a way organising our society to live with the consequences or our existence, to live with the means on board of spaceship Earth without destroying it, e.g. Gaya Herrington’s pledge for an “enough for all” society, i.e. the SW trajectory.
Personal Contributions
Being aware of the self-inflicted predicament humanity finds itself in, what can I do, and what would I like to contribute with and to, and on what path? It does not feel helpful to me to just protest and shout out loud: “stop all that” (e.g. stop BAU or BAU2) and feel all smug about being cognisant of the situation; that is cynical and not constructive. First and foremost, it is important to identify a long term goal, a vision, and then a pathway or trajectory towards that desired state. To me that vision is true sustainability, or paraphrasing an expression of Sir David Attenborough: a mode of life for humanity that can be maintained in perpetuity, where humanity lives as an integral part of the biosphere.
So where do we go from the current status? What trajectory can humanity follow towards true sustainability, and what can I do? Well, we all are embedded in this complex society that cannot just make a leap into a different state, jump straight into a state of sustainability; we need to evolve into the desired state, as society and as an individual, incrementally yet fast. In the spirit of Ikigai, I have to find a balance between what the world needs (sustainability) and what the world wants (that pays my bills in the current world state) as well as a balance between where I am good at and what I enjoy doing. I do have to accept that some compromise has to be made on this trajectory; perhaps a combination of BAU2, CT and SW scenarios, at times hopping between them, or being involved in aspects of each of them, a bit of CT to earn my living, yet being involved in SW as well; it may sound hypocritical but it is practical.
Apart from live style changes, I am talking about active participation. Given my formal training and experience, I would like to contribute or get involved in the following areas from the current state:
- renewable energy generation through solar, wind & water, energy distribution through global grids, energy storage in various forms, demand response balancing consumption and production (CT),
- electrification of almost all industrial and domestic activities (transport, heating, etc), energy management and energy efficiency improvements, energy not spent does not have to be produced (CT);
- sustainable mobility, reduction of the number of personally owned vehicles through human-centred urban planning (avoidance of mobility needs), cycling and public transport, shared mobility (CT/SW);
- regenerative agriculture, reduction of synthetic fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides through alternative farming practices (automated mechanical seeding and weeding), regeneration of soil (CT/SW);
- writing about the need to incorporate negative externalities as soon as models for them, or other topics in around sustainability to create awareness as well as advocating modesty in all forms (SW);
- involvement in non-governmental or non-profit organisations that promote sustainability, regeneration and protection of the biosphere, our forests and water cycles our life depends on (SW).
That said, as an individual I cannot change the world in an instance (which would be quite dangerous in various ways), but I can try to contribute to my best knowledge to improve the situation and help maintaining life according to my world view. If we start with CT, perhaps a transition towards SW will become more acceptable in a few years; then we may become stewards of this planet. We, as humanity, who are so proud of our capabilities and achievements, we have therefore the duty of care, individually and collectively.
General Contributions
There are many resources listing ways to mitigate climate change, and beyond that, making the world more sustainable:
