How can we effectively modify the dangerous human striving for more and more?

In one of the last issues of Science (3 July, p.11), Thomas R. Pickering, in an Editorial mentioned, “ We can begin to think now on a larger scale – an opportunity not to be wasted.” and pointing to interrelationships “…that the issues of economic growth, development, and poverty be seen as linked with the key drivers of food, water, and health, just as climate change is now linked to the key drivers of energy and environment…” he suggested: “Because improvements in any one area depend on the other two, why not devote a summit at the UN General Assembly to the interlinked broad questions of food water and health ?”

Indeed a wonderful idea and first and foremost demonstrating, the world is not a collection of things but a system of interacting processes (dynamics in signaling networks!) So, focusing on natural sciences alone will never be enough, to solve the challenging questions for our planet’s future. There is a human-induced warming in addition to natural trends and cycles of natural climate change and of course, if there should be a solution at all, we have to mind social sciences as well.

Truism is: Economic growth cannot be unlimited and ecology shows the fatal consequences of the call for a never ending consumerism. Ongoing conceptions, initiated by the global financial crisis together with “Peak Oil” and climate crisis, like the “Green New Deal” together with an up-dated “green Keynesianism” are perhaps better than nothing but, basing on sole economic growth, they cannot be the solution.

Kohlmann

How can we convince the richest 20% of humanity to half their ecological impacts by 2012?

The richest 20% degrade their own and everybody else’s quality of life, so stand to gain from reducing their impact, they are perceived as role models by large parts of the global population, and they started the problems associated with excessive consumption, so should take the lead in implementing available solutions urgently.

Increasing “use and throw” products producing lot of waste on the earth such as e-waste, M-waste, p-waste etc. How to control or stop or eradicate such non bio-degradable waste in the future?

Most of the products available in the market such as cell phones, laptops, computers, television picture tubes, electronic components etc.(E-waste); medical “one time used” kits and products, (M-waste); plastic bottles, containers, tetra packs, plastic carry bags (P-waste) are non bio-degradable and they cannot be recycled. Further more, there are certain other things such as ceramic pots, containers, tiles, waste building material, debris, hard cement, etc. which also are non-recycled. Therefore in the near future or so these non bio-degradable products may become very serious. Because as these are not bio-degradable they will remain in the soil. Therefore soil fertility may get affected and hence the soil quality. Only way to destroy is to burn them out. But this will produce toxic gases in the earths atmosphere resulting in air pollution, which may be further added up to the green house gases. Which ultimately leads to Global warming.

Can products and services be labeled in such a way to allow proper quantification of environmental impact at the consumer, household, and institutional levels?

Any attempt to link educational efforts, social campaigns, and even the spread of Earth Systems scientific knowledge with behavioral change capable of causing significant positive environmental consequences will require quantification of environmental impact at the individual, household, and institutional levels. However, such quantification is still very complex, coarse, and innacurate. Basic and applied reasearch, as well as standardization and policy making will be fundamental in this area. Just like WeightWatchers count calories based on product labels, so ClimateWatchers should be able to count GHG emissions. Environmental impact labels should be mandatory, but we don’t have such labels, neither the science to provide the information to print on these labels.

How to measure and evaluate progress in achieving the “overarching objective” of sustainable production and consumption?

At the 1992 Earth Summit, world leaders acknowledged that unsustainable production and consumption patterns are the major cause of environmental degradation. These patterns drive climate change, biodiversity loss, and other global crises. In 2002 the World Summit on Sustainable Development identified sustainable production and consumption as one of the “overarching objectives” of sustainable development. However, to achieve this objective — to develop appropriate policies, programs, and criteria for critical decisionmaking — we need scientific consensus on how to define, measure, and evaluate progress. If this “overarching objective” is to be taken serious by the international community as a global priority it needs to be grounded in meaningful, operational definitions and measures.

What modes of reorganisation of politics, economy and society could we envision in order to prevent global environmental catastrophe and the attendant conflicts?

At the root of the global environmental crisis are systems of organisation of society – production, consumption and power relations – which have led us to the increasingly unsustainable state in which we find ourselves. Clearly, it is within our reach to rethink the models of development and social organisation that we have followed to date in order to overcome the cumulative diificulties that now threaten systemic collapse.

How to model future scenarios considering anthropocentric activities and suggest solutions which are strategic, targeted, and more fundamental in nature which will have positive outcomes/results for ecosystems, their services and human well-being?

Human activities threaten the Earth’s ability to sustain future generations. Increasing population obtains its resources has caused irreversible changes that are degrading the natural processes that support life on Earth. This burgeoning world population drove an unsustainable rush for these natural resources. To decrease stress on earth systems requires changes in consumption patterns, better education, new technologies and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems. The range of current responses is not commensurate with the nature, the extent or the urgency of the situation that is at hand.

How can society transition away from depleting conventional fossil fuel energy without exacerbating climate change by using poorer quality fossil fuels in greater quantities, such as coal or tar sands, and without causing major economic collapse(s) and or massive starvation and famine?

Climate change is of the utmost importance but is, at a fundamental level, a symptom of over-consumption of fossil fuels. We live, to put it simply, in the Age of Oil, and oil is depleting rapidly, and to properly address climate change we need to properly address the cause of the symptom, not the symptom itself. Analyzing current energy consumption patterns so that we as a society are able to slowly power down from a fossil fuel based civilization to a solar based civilization will, in the words of Faber et al. (1996), define how we transition to the next “paradigmatic image of the world”.

What is the agreed time span (Number of years) over which Climate Change (as distinct from Climate Variability) should be assessed, and what are the agreed major contributors in assessing Climate Change?

Climate Change is a topical subject, but there appears no international agreement as to how many years would be valid to assess Climate Change in the Earth’s system. The Earth is not in a constant position relative to those of other planets, and “change” has been a natural aspect of the Earth’s evolution.

Since the Industrial Revolution, human contributions to use and modifications of the Earth’s Ecosystems (Forest, Dryland, Inland Waters, Coastal, Marine, Island, Mountain, Polar [MA])have become increasingly significant, human energy utilisation has increased, as have population numbers, and per-capita consumption of living and non-living resources; gaseous emissions and solid and liquid waste have all increased.

Structures have been built from materials of widely different heat absorptive and light- and heat-reflective properties.

What long-term standardised measurements or indicators(and therefore comparable over significant lengths of time) have been established and maintained?

Many changes to natural ecosystems have been made by humans, without adequate knowledge of the interactions and interdependencies of the living (micro- and macro-) and non-living components of such ecosystems. A holistic approach is necessary.

What share of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions is due to consumption in rich nations compared to poor nations?

Since 1990 emissions in Annex B countries (those with emission constraints) have largely stabilized, while emissions in non-Annex B countries (developing countries) have increased substantially (e.g., Figure 2, http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/background.php). Several recent studies indicate that it is likely that a significant share of the growth in non-Annex B emissions is due to consumption in Annex B countries (e.g., US, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0629110; UK, http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV02033_7331_FRP.pdf; China, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036540.shtml). This is due to a shift of Annex B countries towards services with a corresponding increase in imports. Despite the availability of data and methods no one has undertaken a comprehensive study of how consumption (as opposed to production) acts as a driver for greenhouse gas emission increases over time. A key question for climate negotiations is how much of the emissions growth in non-Annex B countries is due to consumption in Annex B countries. There is a need for both retrospective studies looking into historical developments as well as studies looking at how this may change as Annex B countries begin more aggressive mitigation after 2012.