Ensuring Conservation

This post finishes the previous post, so read that one first. The cradle-to-cradle production system described here is lifted entirely from the book Cradle to Cradle.

The Confines of the Planet
In the previous post I made the case for conserving diversity of both culture and nature, and in this post I'll propose some actions we should take to do so. Before we examine possible actions, however, we must acknowledge certain constraints. The first is that natural and cultural diversity should grow, not be destroyed. Secondly, the Earth is a closed system in terms of natural resources, but the energy received from the Sun vastly exceeds our current needs. The only possible long-term production system, called "cradle-to-cradle" production recycles resources and uses renewable energy, and such a system would sustain our growth for centuries, if not millenia. The purpose of the Sustainability movement is, or should be, to convert a linear production system into a cyclical one.

Cradle to Cradle Production
The best sources of renewable energy we have developed are solar, wind, and geothermal, and and many companies, including even Google, are investing millions of dollars to make renewable energy competitive, so switching our energy production is a matter of time, investment, and will. Cycling resources is a more complicated matter, but it too is within our grasp. Nature has been recycling nutrients since life first began, and does so far more efficiently than we could manage, so all organic resources should be returned to nature. This means that our clothing will be compostable, and the chemicals used in its production will be non-toxic and biodegradable.

In our current cradle-to-grave production system, valuable inorganic resources are lost, meaning that further resources must be extracted at great economical and environmental cost. For instance, the steel in your car is a high-quality alloy with specific desirable properties. If the steel is recycled at all, it is added during steel production to produce low-quality steel. The desirable properties and expensive additives are lost. Heavy metals like lead are highly toxic, and their safe disposal is very expensive, so often they are not disposed of safely, making it very expensive for everyone else. If these important metals were recycled, both money and nature would be saved.

The Triple-Bottom Line
One of the best tools of sustainable development is the triple-bottom line, where ecology and equity are given the same priority as economy. Why is a triple-bottom line necessary? A company that performs a cost-benefit analysis will ignore any costs that are externalized: costs that they should pay, but that they can pass on to society, for instance by dumping heavy metals as I described above. Many mining operations proceed with the full intention of passing the cost onto the government: for a proposed mine, a company is created by one of the large mining companies, who then underestimate the clean-up costs, extract the ore, and declare bankruptcy when clean-up time comes. The profits go to the large mining company while the costs are paid by the government's environmental agency.

In practice, ecological and social impact cannot be calculated for a specific development. Therefore, rather than developers having a literal triple-bottom line, the concept means that developers examine social and environmental impacts in detail and balance those against the economic benefit. This does not guarantee absolute sustainability, but it provides a way for development to incorporate sustainability, so that the end result is more sustainable.

Confronting Overpopulation
One of the consequences of the constraints is that societies cannot grow rapidly and be sustainable, because each extra human consumes extra resources, so Amazonian rainforest, with its indigenous species and people, is converted to grass and cows, and diversity is destroyed. Therefore we must try to limit our growth until we reach the point that we can produce biomass from inorganic materials (there's plenty of inorganic carbon and hydrogen.) Overpopulation occurs when resources are too scarce to support the population. We all know the third world kind of overpopulation, but the first world is also overpopulated because we are living beyond the capacities of the planet. Therefore our first course of action should be to limit our own consumption to sane levels. After we have started to limit our own consumption, we should look to end overpopulation in the third world.

It's impossible to have sustained overpopulation in a region unless resources enter that region from elsewhere. Grain surpluses in the first world feed overpopulation in the third world. One highly beneficial action would be to end agricultural subsidies in the developed world and invest in the agriculture of the developing world. By subsidizing agriculture in the developed world, we limit the productivity of agriculture in the developing world, ensuring a country imports our grain if it can, or receives food aid if it cannot. Food aid is problematic because although it saves many lives, domestic farmers cannot compete with free, and the region is unable to sustain itself. By investing in agriculture in the developing world, we can help families become self-sufficient, reduce famine in those areas, and ensure that food aid is only provided when it is necessary. When death rates go down and incomes go up, birth rates also go down because having more children is no longer necessary to survive. By first improving our own habits, countries that develop do not adopt our excessive consumption, and the stress on the Earth decreases.

Eternal Optimism
As I hope my first post made clear, the main problems threatening our species existence result from our destruction of diversity, so conserving biological and cultural diversity is an immense task. I am, and always shall be, optimistic, and I consider my optimism justified. Never in our history have we been faced with such immense obstacles, and should we succeed humanity will be more prosperous and enlightened than ever before. The consequences of failure are horrifying, but I reject the idea that we will fail because with those terrible consequences in mind, we must and shall do what is right. Hopefully, having read this, you will go and prove that my optimism is justified.