Contents

References............................................................................................................................. 1

Text 1: Guidance and Comprehension Questions..................................................................1

Text 1: Zou (2015). Trend 6: Rising pollution in the developing world. World Economic
Forum..................................................................................................................................... 1

Text 2: Guidance and Comprehension Questions..................................................................1

Text 2: Jacobson (2016). The developing world can leapfrog dirty coal and go straight to
clean energy........................................................................................................................... 1

Text 3: Guidance and Comprehension Questions..................................................................1

Text 3: Bernardo (2021) Technologies that can save the environment...................................1

Text 4: Guidance and Comprehension Questions..................................................................1

Text 4: Boyce (2019). Economics for people and the planet: Inequality in the era of climate
change................................................................................................................................... 1

Text 5: Guidance and Comprehension Questions..................................................................1

Text 5: Pegram & Kreienkamp (2021). Global obsession with economic growth will increase
risk of deadly pandemics in the future....................................................................................1

Seminar Questions................................................................................................................. 1

1
References
Bernardo, A. (2021) Technologies that can save the environment. Available at:
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/environment/technologies-that-can-save-
the-environment/ (Accessed: 04 June 2021).
Boyce, J., (2019). Economics for people and the planet: Inequality in the era of climate
change. Anthem Press.
Jacobson, M. (2016). The developing world can leapfrog dirty coal and go straight to clean
energy. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/3056313/the-developing-world-
can-leapfrog-dirty-coal-and-go-straight-to-clean-energy (Accessed: 28 May 2021).
Pegram, T. & Kreienkamp, J. (2021). Global obsession with economic growth will increase
risk of deadly pandemics in the future. Available at:
https://theconversation.com/global-obsession-with-economic-growth-will-increase-
risk-of-deadly-pandemics-in-future-156509 (Accessed: 28 May 2021).
Zou, J. (2015). Trend 6: Rising pollution in the developing world. World Economic Forum.
Available at: https://reports.weforum.org/outlook-global-agenda-2015/top-10-trends-
of-2015/6-rising-pollution-in-the-developing-world/ (Accessed: 28 May 2021).

2
Text 1: Guidance and Comprehension Questions

1. First skim read the text quickly (1 min). What two groups of countries does the text
discuss in relation to rising pollution, and which of the two groups is suffering more
from environmental pollution?
Now read through the text carefully.
2. Which countries are the three largest greenhouse gas emitters?

3. Focus on the example of China in the text. What was the cost of its big increase in
power generation capacity?

4. What technological means are needed to reduce the fossil fuel use of China and
other developing countries?

5. Should high-income developed countries also be considered responsible for the

environmental crisis? Why?

6. What are the two main ways in which developed countries can help developing
countries in tackling environmental crisis?

7. Now look at the Pictures 2 and 3 in the text. For which region is the rising pollution in
the developing world the biggest problem? Which region is expected by 2050 to
suffer from the greatest levels of urban air pollution?

3
Text 1: Zou (2015). Trend 6: Rising pollution in the developing world. World Economic
Forum.

Zou, J. (2015). Trend 6: Rising pollution in the developing world. World Economic Forum. Available
at: https://reports.weforum.org/outlook-global-agenda-2015/top-10-trends-of-2015/6-rising-pollution-
in-the-developing-world/ (Accessed: 28 May 2021).

Zou Ji is Deputy Director-General, National Centre for Climate Change Strategy and International
Cooperation, China, and a Member of the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change.

The industrialization of the developing world is creating unsustainable pollution levels. The
solution requires a technological and an intellectual revolution; an alternative route to
economic prosperity that preserves resources and limits carbon emissions has to be
developed before it is too late.

The developing world has learned a lot about commercial models, infrastructure and
technology from Europe and North America. Those patterns worked well economically, but
the world’s carbon capacity cannot allow us to continue on this path.

Rising pollution in the developing world is ranked as the sixth most significant global trend
this year – and in Asia it’s the third. China became the largest greenhouse gas emitter in
2005 and in this position, followed by the United States and the European Union,
according to the World Resources Institute. Brazil and India are the fifth and the eighth
biggest polluters.

Developing countries will suffer the most from the weather-related disasters and increased
water stress caused by global warming, consequences outlined in our other trend
chapters. Even 2°C warming above preindustrial – the minimum the world will experience
– would result in 4-5% of African and South Asian GDP being lost and developing
countries are expected to bear 75-80% of impact costs.

Which region will be most affected by rising pollution in the developing world in the next 12-
18 months?

4
China’s burgeoning manufacturing sector produced one of the biggest historical increases
in power generation capacity – but this has come at a huge cost. According to analysis by
the Global Burden of Disease Study, air pollution in China contributed to 1.2 million
premature deaths in 2010, representing a loss of 25 million years of healthy life. We need
to find a means to continue the country’s expansion while reducing fossil fuel use. This
means investing in a power generation network that can replace coal, including
renewables, nuclear and gas, and phasing out low-efficiency generators. Progress needs
to be measured by something other than GDP, which does not include environmental
conditions or quality of life.

As important as China’s role will be, the developing world must stick to targets set for
renewable power generation, ensure high-polluting industries are properly regulated, and
promote clean energy. As the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China’s policies are
critical in addressing global warming, and are also influential for other developing nations.
The latter have the most work to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will bear the
impacts of global warming, yet the responsibility for the crisis can’t rest with them alone;
World Bank research estimates high income countries are responsible for two-thirds of the
CO2 released into the atmosphere since 1850.

How great a problem does rising pollution in the developing world pose for regions around
the world?

5
There are two main ways developed countries need to help with this process. There
needs to be a flow of funding to the developing world, providing the means to finance
change, and we must cooperate to develop new low carbon technologies. It’s crucial that
countries such as China build up their research and development capacity for solar power,
wind turbines and carbon capture, and international cooperation can help developed
countries become involved higher up the supply chain.

The 2010 Cancun accord, which set long-term funding arrangements, is the second part
of the puzzle. The Green Climate Fund, formalized at the conference, provides a
mechanism for helping developing nations adapt and reduce their carbon emissions. Even
so, we still need to ensure that the money flows to these projects, and developed
countries need to make clear how to achieve this financial assistance target.

It is important to understand that once high-carbon solutions have been implemented, they
are difficult to replace. This means the decisions being made today on power generation,
and the way our cities and transport networks are designed, are absolutely crucial. There
is a potential to have a big impact now, but the window of opportunity will close very soon.

How will urban air pollution change over time around the world?

6
End of Text

7
Text 2: Guidance and Comprehension Questions

1. First just read the author’s bio. Based on the author’s disciplinary background, what
do you predict this text will focus on in relation to environmental issues?

2. Find the paragraph in the text that discusses “leap-frogging”. What does this mean
and which countries/continents are being discussed?

3. Find the reference to the author’s research in the text. What does this research
suggest about the ability of Africa in particular, and of nearly every country in the
world more generally, to transition to renewable energy?

4. The author states that his work is based on “detailed engineering” and a “mix of
technologies”. What does that include?

5. What are the benefits of providing financial and political support to countries so that
they can transition to renewable energy?

6. The author states that the main obstacles to a faster transition to renewable energy
are “neither technical nor economic”, but rather “social and political”. What does he
mean by that?

8
Text 2: Jacobson (2016). The developing world can leapfrog dirty coal and go straight
to clean energy.

Jacobson, M. (2016). The developing world can leapfrog dirty coal and go straight to clean energy.
Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/3056313/the-developing-world-can-leapfrog-dirty-coal-
and-go-straight-to-clean-energy (Accessed: 28 May 2021).

Mark Jacobson is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and
director of its Atmosphere and Energy Program. Jacobson develops computer models about the
effects of different energy technologies and their emissions on air pollution and climate. He is a
Senior Fellow at both the Woods Institute for the Environment and the Precourt Institute for Energy
at Stanford. He’s also the co-founder of the nonprofit Solutions Project.

When solar farms in sub-Saharan Africa start to become more common than coal-fired
power plants, it is time for the rest of the world to take notice. The clean energy revolution is
happening right now under our feet.
Two centuries of burning fossil fuels brought development to much of the world, but also brought
large-scale climate change and a host of severe impacts: millions of deaths from air pollution and
excessive heat, lack of access to modern energy services for billions of the world’s poor and
geopolitical conflicts over resources. While climate change is one of the most urgent crises of our
time, extensive research indicates that the possibility of quickly switching to 100% clean, renewable
energy that will mitigate these impacts is at our fingertips.

The recently signed Paris Agreement is a watershed moment for the clean energy transition. It
provides the strongest market signal yet for companies and countries to double down on their
renewable energy investments and to continue moving away from fossil fuels.

That change is already happening in many parts of the developing world. The rapidly
unfolding energy transition is bypassing coal and going straight to low-cost renewables.
As countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America seize this chance to “leapfrog” over fossil
fuels and expand their clean energy capacity, they not only benefit from economic growth
and cheap electricity, they also increase their security and avoid the severe damage to
health and the environment that burning fossil fuels causes.

In fact, the Paris Climate Conference prompted the creation of the African Renewable Energy
Initiative, a continent-wide program to massively increase Africa’s clean energy over the next 15
years while bypassing the pitfalls of fossil fuels.

As the new African Renewable Energy Initiative indicates, countries have the ability not only to
leapfrog fossil fuels, but also to replace them while keeping the lights on. Our research, conducted
at Stanford University and the University of California, shows that by 2050 nearly every country in

9
the world can transition its all-purpose energy to 100% clean, renewable wind, water and sunlight.

Africa has significant clean energy resources available that make it technically and
economically feasible for 80% of the continent’s energy to be switched to renewables from
fossil fuels no later than 2030.

As Africa’s current population grows from 1.1 billion to 1.6 billion by 2030, wind and solar
could overtake fossil fuels as the dominant forms of energy. For example, our analysis
shows that South Africa could get 56% of its electricity from utility-scale solar, Kenya 28%,
and Mozambique 34%, all for lower cost than electrifying with coal. While conservative
scenarios predict about half of the continent will have access to the electricity grid by
2030, this means 640 million Africans will plug into the grid for the first time thanks to
renewables.

This is not just pie in the sky. Our work is based on detailed engineering and an itemized
mix of technologies and costs for 139 nations, including how much land and rooftop area
would be needed to add renewable technologies. Some may wonder where all of this
energy will come from. The vast majority of electricity will be generated by wind and solar
power: nearly a third from wind, over half from solar power (the majority utility-scale
photovoltaics) and the rest via hydroelectric dams, geothermal and tidal power.

The clean energy transition will occur by electrifying everything: cars, heating, agricultural and
industrial equipment can all run on electricity. Rapidly advancing battery technology ensures this
power will be there when needed. Electrifying reduces power demand by about a third thanks to the
efficiency of electricity over burning fossil fuels.

There is no doubt that undertaking this type of massive transformation in developing countries will
be challenging. It will require sufficient financial and political support, which can be hard to come by
in countries that experience political instability and low public financing. Public money will be
necessary to get the ball rolling through initiatives like the public funds transfers from developed
countries to developing ones, set up by the Paris Agreement. These funds will open the door for
trillions of dollars of private sector investment.

The benefits of achieving this transition are global. They include eliminating 4 to 7 million premature
air pollution deaths per year–similar to the annual deaths caused by smoking. It would provide
steady power to four billion people that do not currently have it and create over 20 million long-term
clean energy jobs. Turbocharging the clean energy transition is also critical to tackling climate
change.

Countries that choose to skip past fossil fuels in favour of renewables avoid increased
healthcare costs and see stronger job growth and greater political stability. The clean
energy transition will avoid air pollution costs that that are over 3% of annual world GDP

10
and prevent $16 to $20 trillion per year in global climate costs by 2050.

The main barriers to a more rapid conversion are neither technical nor economic. They
are social and political. As Western leaders like President Francoise Hollande of France
acknowledge, there is a huge opportunity for developing countries to move immediately to
new, clean energy technologies. The moment is ripe for international policymakers to
leverage the Paris Agreement’s strong market signal and accelerate the current progress.
The roadmaps to clean energy that we have developed give confidence to world leaders
that the path to 100% renewable energy is clear and achievable. Much of the world is
already heading down that path to a clean energy future. The more we support that
transition, the better off we all are.
End of text

11
Text 3: Guidance and Comprehension Questions

1. First look at the pictures in this text. Which of them represent environmental issues
and which an alternative, eco-friendly technology?

2. This text has three sections. Look at the first section of the text. What is circular
economy and what are its goals?

3. Now look at the second section. What is biotechnology, and which examples are
mentioned from the field of agriculture, and which from the field of transport?

4. Now look at the third section. What are the examples of living organisms being used
to clear toxic materials from the environment?

5. Now look at the concluding paragraph of the text. The author states that “research,
as well as scientific and technical innovation, will be critical to saving the
environment.” To what extent do you agree with this statement, based on the
readings you have done so far?

12
Text 3: Bernardo (2021) Technologies that can save the environment.

Adapted from: Bernardo, A. (2021) Technologies that can save the environment. Available at:
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/environment/technologies-that-can-save-the-
environment/ (Accessed: 04 June 2021).

Technologies That Can Save the Environment

We are living at a critical time, both for humanity and the whole planet. The need to protect and to
seek more sustainable formulas for interacting with the environment, became clear at the COP21
climate change conference. The meeting, held in Paris in December 2015, confirmed the
importance of fighting against global warming, an effort in which technology and the so-called
circular economy will play a key role.

In addition to improving the efficiency of linear production processes, the circular economy aims to
reuse elements that are traditionally considered waste. The goal of this sustainable development
strategy is to produce goods and services while reducing raw materials, water and energy
consumption and waste. One aspect is the bioeconomy, in which either living organisms or their
parts are used to help the environment – which can contribute to our growth. According to
European Union calculations, every euro invested in R&D&I in the bioeconomy, funded at
community level, will generate ten euros of added value in 2025. This data supports scientific and
technical strategies that will not only improve employment figures, but could also help save the
environment.

Agriculture, biofuels and energy

The technology applied in agriculture is one great example. The development of improved crops,
boosted in recent decades by sufficient scientific evidence to support its usefulness and safety,
shows how biotechnology can produce crops which are resistant to climate change. In addition to
initiatives such as vitamin A-enriched golden rice, scientists have been able to create other
varieties of rice which are resistant to flooding. It is not the only alternative that will allow us to

13
adapt to the changing weather conditions caused by global warming. Recently, the European Union
claimed they would support a research study aimed at developing drought-tolerant cereal, which
will be directed by a team led by Dr. Ana Cano Delgado from Barcelona’s CRAG-CSIC. Floods,
drought and other hazards such as wildfires are some of the problems that climate change will
exacerbate, especially in the poorest regions.

The future will not only be marked by our ability to evolve and adapt to change. Among the
technologies that will save the environment, electric cars and biofuels play a special role. The term
“green cars” is not only restricted to the electric type, but also includes cars that consume less to
travel the same distance, hybrid vehicles, and many others. Moving towards a new culture in this
industry is essential, since, for example, in the United States alone, car, bus, motorcycle and truck
trips cover an annual distance equivalent to making 13,440 round-trips to the Sun, according to the
US Environmental Protection Agency.

And while we are still seeking alternatives to conventional vehicles, in order to reduce consumption
of oil and fossil fuels, renewable energy is appearing on the horizon as a key pillar of our
development. This includes biofuels, an alternative to traditional fuels generated from the biomass
of living organisms or their metabolic waste. Research studies today are focusing on taking
particular advantage of crop waste, such as sugar cane or corn, with the aim of promoting the
circular economy.

Biotechnology

Biofuel production is a solution that facilitates the use of biotechnology for environmental purposes.
But it is not the only one. Environmental disasters such as the sinking of the Exxon-Valdez and the
Prestige were the catalyst for scientists to implement pioneering technologies for cleaning oil-
contaminated environments. The use of microorganisms for these tasks is called bioremediation,
and it employs bacteria or fungi to decontaminate waste water from cities. These alternatives show
that “living” technology will be crucial in promoting sustainable development.

14
And in order to ensure sustainability, we should not forget to mention innovation in new materials.
Some of these, such as biomaterials used to “store” carbon dioxide, can help to reduce the
greenhouse effect and global warming. Others, such as banana blades, manufactured in Mexico for
construction, increase the chance of eliminating toxic compounds such as asbestos, which is
related to increased risks of cancer.

Research, as well as scientific and technical innovation, will be critical to saving the environment,
reducing the impact of global warming, helping in adapting to climate change, cleaning up polluted
areas and taking care of our own health. The examples mentioned above show that science and
technology will be better prepared to meet the challenges of the future. In addition, overcoming
these challenges will allow us to move towards a different economy, an environment-friendly one
that generates qualified employment.

End of text

15
Text 4: Guidance and Comprehension Questions

1. This text refers to many geographical locations and features. They are listed below:
Lima, Peru, the Andes, glaciers, New York, New Orleans, the Philippines, Europe, the Horn
of Africa, Manhattan, Bangladesh, the poles, coastal areas.
 Which are cities?
 Which is an area within a city?
 Which are countries?
 Which are regions?
 Which are continents?
 Which are landscape features?

2. This text mentions many extreme climate events such as storms. More are listed
below:
 Flood, typhoon, heat wave, drought, hurricane.
 Categorise them under the headings below.
 Water-related:
 Wind-related:
 Temperature-related:

3. Many different types of people are referred to. They are listed below:
Millionaires, real estate barons, the poor, property barons, farm workers, starving children,
the ‘one-percenters’.
Categorise them under the headings below.

 Wealthy:
 Poor:

4. This text discusses politics too. Which of the following are legal documents of a
country, and which are the guiding principles of those documents?
Human rights, the South African Constitution, the equity principle, the US Declaration of
Independence, inalienable rights.
 Documents:
 Principles:

5. The text discusses economic approaches to addressing the issue of climate change,
and suggests that contrary to conventional economic models, we should “count each
person equally, not each dollar”. Based on your understanding of the text, what does
this mean?

16
Text 4: Boyce (2019). Economics for people and the planet: Inequality in the era of
climate change.

Boyce, J. (2019). Economics for people and the planet: Inequality in the era of climate change.
Anthem Press.

Chapter 27: Climate adaptation: Protecting money or people?

Will climate adaptation be a commodity distributed on the basis of purchasing power or a human
right for all?

At the December 2014 international climate talks in Lima, Peru, melting glaciers in the
Andes and recent droughts provided a fitting backdrop for the negotiators’ recognition that
it is too late to prevent climate change altogether, no matter how fast we ultimately act to
limit it. We now confront an issue that many once hoped to avoid: adaptation.

Adapting to climate change will carry a hefty price tag. Sea walls are needed to protect
coastal areas against extreme floods, such as those in the New York area when
Superstorm Sandy struck in 2012. We need early-warning and evacuation systems to
protect against human tragedies, like those caused by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines
in 2013 and by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005.

Cooling centres and emergency services must be created to cope with heat waves, such
as the one that killed 70,000 people in Europe in 2003. Water projects are needed to
protect farmers and herders from extreme droughts, like the one that gripped the Horn of
Africa in 2011. Large- scale replanting of forests with new species will be needed to keep
pace as temperature gradients shift toward the poles.

Because adaptation won’t come cheap, we must decide which investments are worth the
cost.

A thought experiment illustrates the choices we face. Imagine that without major new
investments in adaptation, climate change will cause world incomes to fall in the next two
decades by 25 per cent across the board, with everyone’s income going down, from the
poorest farmworker in Bangladesh to the wealthiest real estate baron in Manhattan.
Adaptation can cushion some but not all of these losses. What should be our priority:
reduce losses for the farmworker or the property baron?

For the farmworker, and for a billion others in the world who subsist on about $1 a day,
this 25 per cent income loss will be a disaster, perhaps spelling the difference between life
and death. Yet, in dollars, the loss is just 25 cents a day.

For the real estate baron and other ‘one- percenters’ in the United States with average

17
incomes of about $2,000 a day, the 25 per cent income loss would be a matter of regret,
but not a threat to survival. They can manage to get by on $1,500 a day.

In human terms, the property baron’s loss pales compared with that of the farmworker. But
in dollar terms, it’s 2,000 times larger.

Conventional economic models would prescribe spending more to protect the barons than
the farmworkers of the world. The rationale was set forth with brutal clarity in a
memorandum leaked in 1992 that was signed by Lawrence Summers, then chief
economist of the World Bank. The memo asked whether the bank should encourage more
migration of dirty industries to developing countries and concluded that ‘the economic
logic of dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we
should face up to that’.1 Climate change is just a new kind of toxic waste.

The ‘economic logic’ of the Summers memo – later said to have been penned tongue-in-
cheek to provoke debate, which it certainly did – rests on a doctrine of ‘efficiency’ that
counts all dollars equally. Whether it goes to a starving child or a millionaire, a dollar is a
dollar. The task of economists, in this view, is to maximize the size of the total dollar pie.
How it is sliced is not their problem.

A different way to set adaptation priorities is to count each person equally, not each dollar.
This approach is founded on the ethical principle that a healthy environment is a human
right, not a commodity to be distributed on the basis of purchasing power, nor a privilege
to be distributed on the basis of political power.

This equity principle is widely embraced around the world, from the affirmation in the US
Declaration of Independence that people have an inalienable right to ‘life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness’, to the guarantee in the South African Constitution that everyone has
the right ‘to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well- being’. It puts
safeguarding the lives of the poor ahead of safeguarding the property of the rich. In the
years ahead, climate change will confront the world with hard choices: whether to protect
as many dollars as possible or instead to protect as many people as we can.
End of text

18
Text 5: Guidance and Comprehension Questions

1. Skim the text quickly in search of quotes from different authors. What is the original
source of each of the following quotes?

“Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature.
We are part of nature, not separate from it.”
2021 is “the year to reconcile humanity with nature.”
“The creature that wins against its environment destroys itself.”

2. Watch the short (1min 40sec) video from Mike Ryan, Chief Economist at the World
Bank, who is mentioned in the text. What key points does he make?

3. There is quite a lot of biological, ecological vocabulary in this text. Look at the list
below and check the meaning of any words that are unfamiliar:
Ecosystem, living organism, terrestrial organism, marine organism, aquatic organism, the
species barrier, zoonotic disease, biodiversity, habitat.

4. Look at the second and third paragraph in the text. How is Covid-19 related to
environmental issues?

5. The text mentions global biodiversity targets set within the Paris Agreement. Watch
the short (1min 40sec) video from the United Nations Framework Convention for
Climate Change (UNFCCC) website. Then answer the following question: What is
the Paris Agreement?

6. Look at the last paragraph in the text. Which science, according to the author, should
be considered “the master science” and what should it be combined with (hint: what
should be “embraced”) in order to address environmental issues?

19
Text 5: Pegram & Kreienkamp (2021). Global obsession with economic growth will
increase risk of deadly pandemics in the future.

Pegram, T. & Kreienkamp, J. (2021). Global obsession with economic growth will increase risk of
deadly pandemics in the future. Available at: https://theconversation.com/global-obsession-with-
economic-growth-will-increase-risk-of-deadly-pandemics-in-future-156509 (Accessed: 28 May
2021).

As governments around the world roll out COVID-19 vaccine programmes and seek to
kick start their economies back to life, recovery seems to be within reach. However, hard
questions must not be sidestepped. How did this pandemic happen? And how resilient are
we to future global risks, including the possibility of deadlier pandemics?

Importantly, COVID-19 was not a “black swan” event – an event that cannot be
reasonably anticipated. As Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health
Organization’s emergencies programme, made clear in an impassioned address in
February, COVID-19 is very much a human-made emergency. By continuing to privilege
economic growth over environmental and social sustainability, “we are creating the
conditions in which epidemics flourish … and taking huge risks with our future”.

Human civilisation is on a collision course with the laws of ecology. Experts have long warned of
zoonotic diseases jumping the species barrier as a result of growing human encroachment on
nature. A 2019 landmark global biodiversity assessment showed that species and ecosystems are
declining at rates “unprecedented in human history”.

Biodiversity loss is accelerating, driven by multiple interrelated forces, all of which are
ultimately produced or greatly amplified by practices that push economic growth. These
include deforestation, agricultural expansion and the intensified consumption of wild
animals.

Climate change often steals the headlines, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the
prospect of mass biodiversity loss is just as catastrophic. Crucially, these two challenges
are deeply interlinked. Global warming is putting massive pressure on many of our most
diverse natural ecosystems. In turn, the decline of these vital ecosystems weakens their
ability to store carbon and provide protection from extreme weather and other climate-
related risks.

These effects cannot be captured in simplified metaphors such as “the war on carbon”,
which may be politically expedient but obscure the complexities involved in protecting life-

20
sustaining ecosystems. There is no single measurement that captures the “the variability
among living organisms from all sources including […] terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part”. In fact, many of the
living organisms on Earth are still unknown to humans.

Uncharted territory

Although it has long been argued that there are hard limits to unsustainable economic growth on a
finite planet, these arguments have been largely dismissed by western economic powers. But
market forces will not abolish natural scarcity or do away with planetary limits.

Belatedly, driven in part by growing public awareness of environmental destruction, economic

planners are waking up to our ecological interdependence. As the recent Dasgupta Review,
commissioned by the UK Treasury, puts it: “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend
on our most precious asset: nature. We are part of nature, not separate from it.”

Aggressive deforestation is the primary threat to the Bornean orangutan.

Buoyed by school climate strikes and the declaration of climate and nature emergencies
around the world, UN Secretary General António Guterres has declared 2021 as “the year
to reconcile humanity with nature”. However, the lack of progress is sobering. Of the 20
global biodiversity targets agreed in 2010, none have been fully met a decade later.

The international community remains way off track when it comes to implementing the Paris
Climate Agreement. And although the COVID-19 crisis has led major economies to make
commitments to build back better and greener, much of the recovery spending is flowing into
business-as-usual economies.

21
A fundamental shift in thinking

How can political reality be brought into alignment with biophysical reality to ensure our
societies do not prosper at the expense of the ecological life support systems upon which
they ultimately depend?

As ecologist Gregory Bateson observed: “The creature that wins against its environment
destroys itself.” The COVID-19 pandemic is a canary in the coalmine; more are sure to
follow. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that the
environmental challenge requires “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all
aspects of society”.

What is perhaps less clear from this statement is that the mindset, models and metaphors
which shape society’s goals and aspirations must also change. Where might we look for
inspiration? According to the Yale Environmental Performance Index, Botswana and
Zambia rank first and second in the world for biodiversity and habitat protection. In fact
Botswana is unique in that most of its biodiversity remains intact. Such examples hold
lessons for how we can converge towards a reconciliation with nature.

Political scientist William Ophuls argues that political struggle must now urgently focus on
making ecology the master science and Gaia the key metaphor of our age. In other words,
we need to stop thinking of ourselves as somehow above or outside the natural systems
that support us. Humanity’s efforts to embrace the politics of ecology could well prove to
be the defining story of this century if we are to avoid indulging the tragedy of homo
(in)sapiens.

End of text

Seminar Questions

22
1. What challenges do developing countries face in relation to environmental issues,
and how could they address them? Discuss.

2. Are developed countries to take some of the responsibility for the environmental
issues, and how could they support developing countries in addressing them?
Discuss.

3. How important is science, and which sciences in particular, in tackling environmental

issues? Draw on the information from the texts.

4. How important is technology, and which technologies in particular, in tackling

environmental issues? Draw on the information from the texts.

5. What social inequalities in relation to climate change are important to consider,

according to the texts?

6. Is Covid-19 a consequence of environmental destruction caused by humans,

according to the texts? Discuss.

7. One of the texts suggests to combine the terms “politics” and “ecology” into “the
politics of ecology” to help us address environmental issues. How might this term be
helpful?

23