[Vnbiz] Fwd: NEWS ALERT: Asia must attract clean energy investments, ADB President says; New ADB magazine to increase awareness of Asia’s development challenges
Craig Stevenson
cstevenson2000 at gmail.com
Fri May 9 03:44:52 PDT 2008
Globalization, trade and migration: Undermining sustainability
*
William E. Reesa<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#implicit0>,
[image: E-mail The Corresponding Author] <wrees at interchange.ubc.ca>
*
aUniversity of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning,
6333 Memorial Road, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6S 1T2
Received 15 September 2005;
revised 19 December 2005;
accepted 22 December 2005.
Available online 21 April 2006.
Abstract
I examine the impact of expanding international trade and migration on
prospects for global sustainability from a strictly
biophysical/ecological/behavioral perspective. My starting premise is that
techno-industrial society is inherently unsustainable. Humans have a natural
propensity to expand to occupy all accessible habitats and use all available
resources. Because of continuous growth propelled by improving technology,
the modern human enterprise is already in a state of ecological overshoot.
Globalization and trade exacerbate the situation by shuffling resources
around and short-circuiting the negative feedback that would otherwise
result from local resource degradation. This allows population and material
growth within each individual trading region to exceed local biophysical
limits. This, in turn, accelerates the depletion of natural capital
everywhere and ensures that all now trade-dependent regions hit global
limits simultaneously. Large-scale migration also worsens matters by
reducing negative feedback and enabling increased resource consumption.
Moreover, because resource scarcity is likely to precipitate conflict among
self-identifying 'tribal' groups within multi-cultural societies,
uncontrolled migration may create conditions that impede the implementation
of policy measures required for ecological sustainability. Global
sustainability is thus most likely to be achieved through policies that
foster increased regional self-reliance, encourage greater investment in
local natural capital, and favor the development of strong, diverse local
economies 'in place.' Such measures will raise local (and therefore global)
bio-capacities and reduce both the pull and push factors in international
migration.
Article Outline 1. Analytic
framework<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#secx1>
2.
Knowing ourselves: is humanity
sustainable?<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#secx2>
3.
Globalization, trade and
(un)sustainability<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#secx3>
4.
Factoring in migration<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#secx4>
5.
Toward a sustainable 'new world
order'<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#secx5>
References<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bibl001>
1. Analytic framework
The purpose of this essay is to assess the impact of globalization,
particularly expanding international trade and migration, on prospects for
'sustainability.' Since much has been written on the social, ethical and
economic aspects of this problem, I approach it from an explicitly
biophysical/ecological point of view.
I adopt the latter perspective for two practical reasons. First, with
significant exceptions, a truly ecological (as opposed to 'environmental')
framework is still quite rare in discussions of sustainability. Indeed, in
recent years a wish list of allegedly desirable socio-economic goals have
come to dominate sustainability discussions at the expense of even
*shallow*environmental factors. This is unfortunate because it
diminishes the role of
the most fundamental dimension of the sustainability conundrum—a stable
productive ecosphere remains prerequisite to everything else. Second, the
ecological perspective includes more than contemplation of environmental
trends and developmental implications. More interesting and potentially more
important is the behavioral ecology of humans themselves. It is time that
ecological economics became more attentive to the unconscious distal causes
of human social and economic behavior that reside in fundamental human
nature.
2. Knowing ourselves: is humanity sustainable?
>From this strictly ecological perspective, my starting premise is that
techno-industrial society is already fundamentally unsustainable—the human
enterprise is on a collision course with biophysical reality (Rees,
2002<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib6>).
The primary reason is that humans are literally consuming the material basis
of their own survival. Few people understand the implications of this simple
biophysical reality: all 6.4 billion people on Earth plus the entire stock
of manufactured 'capital' – all our homes, cars, stereos, computers,
furniture, toys, offices, factories, infrastructure, etc. – are made from
natural capital (resources) extracted from nature and the maintenance and
further growth of the human enterprise requires the continuous extraction of
ever greater quantities of energy and materials from the same source.
Moreover, all this energy and material throughput is ultimately returned to
the ecosphere in degraded form. The problem is that even current rates of
exploitation of many critical 'resources' exceed the rates at which these
forms of natural capital can self-produce (in the case of living resources)
or be replenished (as is the case of resources such as soils and groundwater
stocks). And non-renewable natural capital is literally that and should be
used with great discretion. In terms of 'far-from-equilibrium'
thermodynamics, we might say that to raise the human enterprise ever further
from entropic equilibrium requires the irreversible dissipation of an
ever-increasing quantity of concentrated energy and matter first produced by
nature and the production of prodigious quantities of (often toxic) waste.
That is, beyond certain limits, the growth and maintenance of the human
system is possible only at the expense of disordering nature, of increasing
global entropy (Schneider and Kay,
1994<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib9>and
Rees,
2003<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib8>
).
There has, of course, been some recognition of the role of material
consumption in accelerating ecological decay. Even the politically sensitive
proceedings of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de
Janeiro, in 1992 (Agenda 21, Chapter 4) explicitly identified the
"unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in
industrialized countries" as "the major cause of the continued deterioration
of the global environment" (UNEP,
1992a<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib10>).
Similarly, Principle 8 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
(UNEP, 1992b<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib11>)
recognized that "To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of
life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable
patterns of production and consumption…"
"States," however, are notoriously unresponsive to normative admonitions,
however rational they might appear. Fourteen years after Rio, the ecological
state of the world has worsened and the over-consumption of nature's goods
and services remains the proximal cause. According to the recently released
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), "Nearly two thirds of the services
provided by nature to humankind are found to be in decline worldwide. In
effect, the benefits reaped from our engineering of the planet have been
achieved by running down natural capital assets." The MEA advances a "…stark
warning. Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of
Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future
generations can no longer be taken for granted" (MEA,
2005<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib4>
).
One reason humans find it difficult to constrain unsustainable economic
behavior is a fundamental quality that we share with all other species: *Homo
sapiens* has a natural predisposition to occupy all suitable accessible
habitats and use up all available resources, at least to the extent of
prevailing technological
capability.1<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#fn1>This
is, of course, the biological basis of the Malthusian conundrum, the
contemporary growth ethic and mainstream economics' dictum that resources
unused are resources wasted.
It also suggests that human migration has an ancient bio-behavioral
tap-root. People have always sought out greener – or at least emptier –
pastures. This is how we have come, over the past 50,000 years, to command a
geographic range unequalled by that of any other mammalian species. Humans
now occupy virtually the entire planet. And does anyone seriously believe
that were we to discover a new resource-rich continent today, the world
community would this time agree to dedicate it strictly to conservation
rather than squabble over the rights to occupation and exploitation?
Humans not only have the most geographically extensive of habitats but we
also exploit ecosystems ever more intensely than any other species. In the
industrial era, cumulative technology (we get better and better at
exploiting nature) and the globalization of trade (larger richer markets
demand ever greater flows of commodities and resources) have accelerated the
degradation of land and waterscapes on every continent. Indeed, the major
reason contemporary human migrants seek greener pastures is because of our
species' improving record of creating brown ones all over the planet.
Industrial humanity's truly unique status as hyper-consumer has been
underscored by recent studies of our contemporary ecological niche.
Reasoning that, to be sustainable, humans should resemble ecologically
similar consumer species in key parameters, Fowler and Hobbs
(2003)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib3>tested
the hypothesis that
*H. sapiens* is "ecologically normal", i.e., that humans fall within the
normal range of natural variation observed among such species for a variety
of ecologically relevant measures. Fowler and Hobbs rejected their null
hypothesis: their analysis shows that humanity is an outlier species along
many axes representing the exploitation of the life-support goods and
services of nature. For example, human consumption of biomass from marine
ecosystems lies almost an order of magnitude above the upper 95% confidence
limit for biomass consumption by 54 marine mammal species and almost two
orders of magnitude above the upper 95 confidence limit for biomass
ingestion by 96 other mammalian species of all kinds. In these
circumstances, can anyone be surprised that 90% of the targeted fish biomass
has been removed from large areas of the oceans in just 50 years of
industrial fishing (Myers and Worm,
2003<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib5>)?
It is no small irony that, while some economists insist that the human
economy is "dematerializing" or "decoupling" from nature, such biophysical
analyses show that we have, in fact, become the dominant consumer organism
in all the world's major ecosystem types (Rees,
2002/3<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib7>).
Fowler and Hobbs
(2003)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib3>ask
whether, in the circumstances, industrial humans are even
theoretically
sustainable.
3. Globalization, trade and (un)sustainability
As noted, the world talks a good line about sustainability and the need to
shift to less ecologically damaging production and consumption processes.
But practical reality is a different matter altogether. The fact is that all
major national governments and most mainstream international agencies remain
fixated on a mythic vision of global development and poverty alleviation
centered on unlimited economic expansion and fuelled by economic
integration, open markets and more liberalized trade. Indeed,
'sustainability' has been subsumed under this wider agenda via the glib
assumption that through the machinations of the marketplace, increased
factor productivity and the efficiency gains of trade will be sufficient
means to achieve sustainability's end (Rees,
2002<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib6>
).
>From the perspective of environment human ecology and sustainability, this
mainstream development model raises several yellow flags. To begin, the
world community has paid scant attention to the ecosystemic implications of
continuously expanding material consumption. True, some critics raise the
possibility that more liberal trade will lead to the competitive reduction
of environmental (pollution) standards, but this is not the major problem.
More important is the effect on remaining stocks of natural capital. Keep in
mind that the objectives of more liberal trade are to relieve resource
constraints on local economic expansion and *to expand overall economic
production/consumption*. In addition to increasing pollution loads, these
factors stimulate the global demand for resources and allow population and
material growth within all trading regions to be sustained beyond the local
biophysical limits that would exist in the absence of trade.
The ecological result is potentially (and predictably) catastrophic but
generally ignored by proponents of globalization. Many wealthy trading
nations have enormous ecological footprints that vastly exceed their
domestic bio-capacities (Wackernagel and Rees,
1996<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib12>and
Rees,
2002<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib6>).
Through trade and accompanying impositions on the global commons, these
nations now live largely – and relatively precariously–on bio-productivity
imported from other countries and on common pool global life support
functions. For example, the UK Japan, and the Netherlands, have 'ecological
deficits', four, five and six times larger respectively than their domestic
bio-capacities. Even the relatively low-density, resource-rich United States
imposes an ecological load on other countries and the global commons
equivalent to twice that nation's gross biophysical output (estimates based
on data in WWF,
2004<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib15>
).
Clearly, not everyone can follow this conventional development path—for
every country running an ecological deficit there has to be an equivalent
surplus somewhere else. Unfortunately, there are few surpluses. Indeed, the
world is in an overall state of ecological 'overshoot' 20% beyond the
sustainable long-term bio-productivity of the planet (WWF,
2004<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib15>
).
That we can seemingly ignore global 'overshoot' underscores one of the most
ecologically dangerous effects of trade. By enabling consuming populations
to support themselves on the output of distant ecosystems, trade eliminates
negative feedback from stressed local ecosystems that would normally curb
population and material growth and maintain them within domestic carrying
capacity. Thus released from local ecological constraints, import-dependent
populations or their *per capita* consumption continue expanding, often to
the extremes illustrated above.
Trade seems to increase carrying capacity only because we think of each
trading region/country as a separate open system. However, the world as a
whole is materially closed and this makes the situation considerably more
complicated. Resources – particularly non-renewable resources – imported for
consumption in region 'a' are no longer available for consumption in the
exporting region 'b' and visa versa. Hence, the exchange may result in a
one-off increase in the population of each region, but it also increases
global consumption and waste generation. Meanwhile, any export-related
depletion of natural capital stocks limits future development options.
This latter point suggests how unfettered trade may actually lead to a
permanent *reduction* of global carrying capacity. Global trade exposes
pockets of scarce resources everywhere to the largest possible market and to
a growing pool of ever-wealthier buyers. If this bids up prices, it may
encourage ever-greater exploitation/harvest rates by exporting nations (or
of common pool resources) to the point of stock depletion or ecosystemic
collapse (as has often been the history of open-access fisheries).
In other circumstances, resource depletion is accelerated by
*falling*prices. Where there are several competing suppliers of a
particular
commodity, market surpluses may drive prices down. Exporting nations then
have to sell more resources to pay for expensive manufactured imports or
simply to service their development loans (and there will be more buyers at
the lower prices). Harvest or depletion rates thus increase, but as 'profit'
margins decline, less surplus is available for the sustainable management of
productive stocks which then deteriorate.
In summary, trade does not actually increase total carrying capacity; it
merely enables all countries, their economies happily expanding through
trade, to hit the biophysical ceiling – global limits to growth –
simultaneously. Unfortunately, in the absence of negative ecological
feedback where it counts (in the richest countries) sheer systemic momentum
has driven today's world into a state of ecological overshoot. In these
circumstances, and contrary to mainstream beliefs, unfettered trade
permanently reduces long-term human carrying capacity with potentially
disastrous consequences.
4. Factoring in migration
The environment created by globalization and expanding material trade
provides the context in which to assess the ecological implications of
similarly liberalized migration policies. Again, I largely ignore
humanitarian and economic arguments for and against migration with only the
reminder that ultimately ecological considerations trump all others.
International migration is currently more restricted than trade which, to
many observers, seems unfair and illogical—if goods can move freely, why not
people? From the ecological perspective, this may be the wrong way to put
the question. As argued above, unfettered material flows create numerous
environmental problems and there are probably as many reasons for a
cautionary approach to open migration.
Perhaps the most-repeated ecological argument against more liberal migration
is that immigrants to wealthy countries eventually come to adopt the
consumer life-styles, and therefore acquire the larger eco-footprints, of
their new compatriots. No surprise here—after all, one of the major
motivations for migration is pursuit of higher material standards. Most
observers recognize that, while migration benefits the immigrants, it also
places more stress on the ecosystems of their newly adopted homelands and
that this is counter-productive in terms of sustainability.
But the situation is actually more complicated than it first appears. First,
remember that buoyed up by trade, many wealthy countries seemingly float
freely far above their own domestic carrying capacities. Thus, in many
cases, the additional ecological impact of the new immigrant actually falls
as much or more on exporting countries and the global commons than it does
on his/her new homeland. In this way, migration from poor to rich countries
not only contributes to the total ecological load of adopted wealthy
countries but also accelerates the drawdown of 'surplus' natural capital in
various developing countries around the world.
Second, immigrants and temporary laborers in wealthier countries often send
considerable sums of money to their families back home (see Heilmann,
2006-this issue<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib16>).
These transfers or remittance payments no doubt improve the material
standards of the recipients—Heilmann even suggests that remittances "can be
seen as possible source of sustainable development."
Unquestionably money transfers would be a clear benefit if their only effect
were to reduce poverty and inequity. Unfortunately, from the biophysical
perspective on an ecologically overloaded planet, the indirect impacts may
actually detract from net long-term sustainability. First, to the extent
that they are dedicated to consumption, particularly of imported goods,
remittances may well contribute to net resource depletion and pollution,
both local and global.2<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#fn2>Second,
money payments from abroad may have the same damping effect on
sustainability-oriented reform in impoverished countries as material trade
has in rich countries. By shielding the recipient countries from the ill
consequences of degradation of domestic ecosystems, transfers tend to
short-circuit negative feedback from the local environment that might
otherwise lead to domestic policies that would moderate population growth
and ecological decay. Hence, remittances, like trade, contribute to the
gross ecological overshoot that may yet prove fatal to global biophysical
integrity. Third, a significant opportunity cost of consumption is that it
makes remittance monies unavailable for investment in local development.
This does nothing for the long-term sustainability in the recipient
community. Fourth, to the extent that the short-term local benefits of
remittances to some families stimulates the emigration of members of other
poor families in the same community, they contribute to a snowballing
positive feedback loop that exacerbates all the above ecological problems.
A final sustainability-oriented argument against uncontrolled large-scale
migration is a sensitive (eco-)behavioral one. It starts from the evidence
that humanity is "a biological species that evolved over millions of years
in a biological world, acquiring unprecedented intelligence yet still guided
by complex inherited emotions and biased channels of learning"
(Wilson, 2005<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib14>).
One inherited pattern that biases our learning is the near universal human
tendency to identify more with like than with dissimilar individuals. In
short, humans have a predisposition for what we might call tribal
affiliation. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the relevant 'tribe' can
be defined by many disparate characteristics ranging from skin color and
facial features among races to ideology, religion and language even within
racial groups.
In an ideal world such seemingly superficial differences would have no
effect on how people treat one another. Many humanistic analysts' normative
vision of the future is one in which fully integrated multi-racial and
multi-cultural populations are able to coexist in contentment and peace. But
this is not an ideal world. People of different linguistic, religious or
ethnic 'tribes' may live together in relative harmony when times are good,
everyone's basic needs are satisfied and the future looks bright. However,
social discord and civil strife is almost certain to erupt among
self-identifying groups within larger (e.g., national) populations if land
and resource scarcity intensifies (as may result, for example, from climate
change) or some groups appear to be systematically privileged by prevailing
social and political institutions. The simple fact is that "There is
something deep in religious [or linguistic, or nationalist, or ideological
or…] belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict" (Wilson,
2005<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib14>),
and nothing has more potential to amplify societal conflict than existing
inequity aggravated by resource scarcity and economic decline.
The modern world is replete with examples of tribal strife at least partly
rooted in land or resource shortages ranging from spectacular episodes like
the 1994 Rwanda genocide to the long-running Irish Protestant–Catholic and
Palestinian–Israeli conflicts. The reestablishment of political stability in
'post-war' Iraq is being complicated by religious and ideological conflicts
among rival Islamic sects. The three weeks of rioting by Muslim and other
poor immigrant groups in various French cities in October, and violent
outbreaks between white Australians and Arab (Islamic) immigrants in Sydney
in December 2005, serve as warning that civil society may crumble even in
our richest cities when tribal divisions along religious or ethnic lines are
exacerbated by bigotry, social inequity and persistent poverty.
In short, there is sufficient evidence to hypothesize that multi-racial or
multi-cultural countries are more likely to unravel chaotically in the event
of rapid ecological change, resource shortages, or economic decline than are
more homogenous societies. Because socio-political stability is a
prerequisite for ecological sustainability, we thus have yet another reason
for a pre-emptive cautionary approach to large-scale migration in coming
decades. National immigration policies should both limit immigration to
manageable levels and adopt explicit 'melting pot' strategies designed to
facilitate the integration and assimilation of new-comers into the social
and economic fabric of their adopted countries. They should also include
ongoing public education programs that stress both the need for, and the
national benefits of, limited immigration.
The main objectives of this approach are to discourage the development of
persistent immigrant enclaves, to accelerate immigrants' development of a
sense of identity with the larger society, and to improve public
understanding of the modern role of immigration. Strong social cohesion is
necessary to facilitate the implementation the economic and environmental
changes that may be required for ecological sustainability. Immigration
policies that favor multiculturalism and that apparently succeed during
periods of growth and plenty may not be adaptive in the face of rapid global
ecological change or economic decline.
5. Toward a sustainable 'new world order'
As noted, analysts often argue that labor should be treated the same as
capital and goods in the globalization process. Neumayer (this volume)
suggests that "…it is hypocritical to allow goods, services and financial
flows to cross borders without restriction but to restrain completely the
cross-border follow of people." I agree that there should be more co-equal
treatment of people and goods in international relations but with a twist.
Rather than merely liberalizing migration to match the free-flow of
goods/capital, the world should seriously consider re-regulating both to
help achieve ecological sustainability.
As argued above, the current form of trade-oriented globalization leads
inevitably to ecological unsustainability through the accelerated erosion of
natural capital. Other studies show that the coincidently widening income
disparity both within and between countries reduces population health,
increases crime rates and weakens social cohesion (Wilkinson,
1996<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib13>).
Large-scale migration can significantly exacerbate both trends.
It seems that if the world is serious about achieving an ecologically
sustainable socio-political and economic order then it should abandon the
prevailing models of globalization. World leaders, international development
agencies and society at large must be weaned from the perpetual global
growth myth and its spin-off policies of economic integration, expanding
trade and even freer movement of people. In short, we need a genuine
paradigm shift. Let us face collectively the possibility that on a planet in
ecological overshoot, achieving sustainability will demand lower levels of
material consumption, reduced movement of goods and people, and the
rehabilitation of ecosystems everywhere in support of local human
populations. It is also time that the wealthy contemplate consuming less in
order to free up ecological space for the poor. The ultimate goal of global
sustainability should be to enable the entire human family to live with
dignity and a reasonable degree of economic and social security within the
ecological means of nature.
In contemplating such a sustainable new 'new world order,' the following
should be kept in mind: • What recent generations take to be 'normal' –
continuous economic growth with constantly rising material expectations – is
actually an historical anomaly. In this respect, the past two centuries
represent the single most atypical period of human history. A return to
normalcy requires the adoption of a stable steady-state economy.
• The expansion of human capital (individual knowledge, wisdom, leadership
skills) and social capital (capacity-building relationships and mutual
support networks) should be able to compensate for the reduced material
throughput required to enable the recovery of essential natural capital.
Indeed, social capital and an enhanced sense of community may prove to be a
more than adequate substitute for the excesses of private consumption that
characterize high-income countries and that undermine ecological
sustainability. Meanwhile let us recognize that:
• For both biophysical and geopolitical reasons, is not even theoretically
possible to manage and control the global economy as a functional unit.
(This is a question of scale and complex systems behavior.) On the other
hand:
• It should be possible to manage and contain local/regional (even national)
economies. If all significant regional economies were to achieve
sustainability (i.e., economic adequacy, reasonable equity, and a level of
resource throughput that conserves adequate stocks of natural and
manufactured capital) the aggregate effect would be global sustainability.
• Sustainable economies are more likely to be locally based economies, those
with a stake in maintaining local natural, human, social and manufactured
capital stocks. (Contrast this with today's preoccupation with seeking out
and [over-]exploiting cheap resources and labor all over the world, both to
increase market share at the corporate level and to maintain currently
unsustainable levels of resource consumption and economic growth in
high-income countries that have depleted their own natural capital or
otherwise overshot domestic carrying capacity.)
• Fortunately the well-developed eco-social philosophy of bioregionalism
provides a conceptual framework for 'living in place' and a practical
approach to strategic planning that emphases regional self-reliance and
sustainability (Carr,
2004<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib1>
).
• As suggested above, ecological sustainability requires the maintenance of
adequate *per capita* physical stocks of natural capital. Rather than
encouraging resource-depleting trade (which can drive people from the land,
creating refugees and out-migration pressure), international programs for
sustainable development should be redirected to investment in natural
capital (fisheries, soils, forests, etc.) particularly in developing
countries.
• The rehabilitation of local ecosystems should, in turn, enable the
development and maintenance of local economies 'in place' reducing the push
factor in international migration.
None of this is to deny that have created a world in which *some* trade and
migration are necessary, particularly to maintain resource poor regions
through the transition. However, we also need to recognize that in an
ecologically over-stretched world, material exchange should be confined to
essentials and true ecological surpluses, and migration designed mainly to
serve humanitarian purposes such as relieving the suffering induced by wars,
persecution and natural disasters.
To many, turning back the clock on globalization will seem an impossible
task and they may well prove right. However, if global downsizing is a
precondition for sustainability the only way to avoid the implosion of
modern civilization may be to abandon our present ways of thinking and
being. On this point history again holds a lesson. Jared Diamond's study of
'how societies choose to fail or succeed' shows that successful societies
(those that are able to head off ecologically induced collapse) are those
bold enough to challenge and replace their core values when the latter have
clearly become maladaptive (Diamond,
2005<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bib2>
).
References
Carr, 2004<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib1>M.
Carr, Bioregionalism and Civil Society: Democratic Challenges to
Corporate Globalism, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver (2004).
Diamond, 2005<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib2>J.
Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Viking
Press,
New York (2005).
Fowler and Hobbs,
2003<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib3>C.W.
Fowler and L. Hobbs, Is humanity sustainable?,
*Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences*
*270* (2003), pp. 2579–2583. *Full Text* via
CrossRef<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=3&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1098%2Frspb.2003.2553&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=e5f766500e3083f675443ed20911c8b8>|
View
Record in Scopus<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=655&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Frecord.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0345830677%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3Dfaa930cb0522a6f1dd3e77923331b138&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=54110e22f4fc3bc43b4afbdcbc7bb028>|
Cited
By in Scopus (7)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=656&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Fcitedby.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0345830677%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3Dfaa930cb0522a6f1dd3e77923331b138&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=cd30fda6e54ee0b443b0f10b231d3add>
Heilmann, 2006<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib15>C.
Heilmann, Remittances and the migration-development Nexus-challanges
for
the sustainable governance of migration., *Ecological Economics*
*59*(2006), pp. 231–236 (this issue).
*Article*<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4K1295B-1&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5995&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=9ecc73e0061a695681ab7f03e2a2be90&ref=full>|
PDF
(136 K)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_imagekey=B6VDY-4K1295B-1-1&_cdi=5995&_user=426478&_check=y&_orig=search&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkzk&md5=d43832fd53f9623ad09eb3ce70fae6d0&ie=/sdarticle.pdf>|
View
Record in Scopus<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=655&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Frecord.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-33747823195%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3Dc0710808e2326c4c28ac4efe0903131e&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=7cd63aba13ff76578e8997c2932d735f>|
Cited
By in Scopus (1)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=656&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Fcitedby.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-33747823195%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3Dc0710808e2326c4c28ac4efe0903131e&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=f03910301dbb5265778d61e7fbf63660>
MEA, 2005<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib4>MEA,
Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-Being.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Statement from the Board) (2005).
Myers and Worm,
2003<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib5>R.A.
Myers and B. Worm, Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish
communities, *Nature* *423* (2003), pp. 280–283. *Full Text* via
CrossRef<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=3&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1038%2Fnature01610&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=94b8bb8bbdcab7a43eae84729019b3b0>|
View
Record in Scopus<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=655&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Frecord.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0038688384%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3D37295c1dd89c39385e03a24bde857c46&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=9887ca44a1b545c2d99bf109476c2e1f>|
Cited
By in Scopus (424)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=656&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Fcitedby.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0038688384%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3D37295c1dd89c39385e03a24bde857c46&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=1711c808906e8cc1964c6846cbf4f8f4>
Rees, 2002<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib6>W.E.
Rees, Globalization and sustainability: conflict or convergence?,
*Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society* *22* (2002) (4), pp. 249–268.
*Full Text* via
CrossRef<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=3&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1177%2F0270467602022004001&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=81eccdcf01bef43b5992ab69f78c93d4>|
View
Record in Scopus<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=655&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Frecord.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-18544362830%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3D3d1667c51f40b63697739a0fe0d80d81&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=d482893d2377d9c4a9e9bb8488e4c0d0>|
Cited
By in Scopus (16)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=656&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Fcitedby.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-18544362830%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3D3d1667c51f40b63697739a0fe0d80d81&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=6e04c698840988d72217b9855791c40d>
Rees, 2002/3<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib7>W.E.
Rees, Is humanity fatally successful?,
*Journal of Business Administration and Policy Analysis* *30–31* (2002/3),
pp. 67–100.
Rees, 2003<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib8>W.E.
Rees, Economic development and environmental protection: an ecological
economics perspective, *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment*
*86*(2003), pp. 29–45.
*Full Text* via
CrossRef<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=3&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1024098417023&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=d7934e03e3b158059cc6b9acc727a26c>|
View
Record in Scopus<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=655&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Frecord.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0038756359%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3D771a08ed5b98513d16e504ca5b9d56e0&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=560eca6635077b3c90fdb279e151f21c>|
Cited
By in Scopus (10)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=656&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Fcitedby.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0038756359%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3D771a08ed5b98513d16e504ca5b9d56e0&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=7074061cbdb0da394535ed8c4293af17>
Schneider and Kay,
1994<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib9>E.D.
Schneider and J.J. Kay, Complexity and thermodynamics: toward a new
ecology, *Futures* *26* (1994), pp. 626–647.
Abstract<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V65-460P4PM-1S&_user=426478&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1994&_fmt=abstract&_orig=search&_cdi=5805&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=e7bf8daa1cac90cf6e675b232ebfb07d&ref=full>|
PDF
(2029 K)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_imagekey=B6V65-460P4PM-1S-1&_cdi=5805&_user=426478&_check=y&_orig=search&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1994&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkzk&md5=382081627a5d5ba5db7e7317f5eea668&ie=/sdarticle.pdf>|
View
Record in Scopus<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=655&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Frecord.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0028561427%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3De024f39bebdf21aa8ede2b575f834b60&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=7baf7cd7261b4c5246230dd38d7806b9>|
Cited
By in Scopus (61)<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=656&_targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fscopus%2Finward%2Fcitedby.url%3Feid%3D2-s2.0-0028561427%26partnerID%3D10%26rel%3DR3.0.0%26md5%3De024f39bebdf21aa8ede2b575f834b60&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_userid=426478&md5=73e06289ec1d1247cec7564e30b9f712>
UNEP, 1992a<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib10>UNEP,
1992a. Agenda 21 (Chapter 4). United Nations Environment Program.
Available at:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52&ArticleID=52&l=en<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=externObjLink&_locator=url&_cdi=5995&_plusSign=%2B&_targetURL=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.unep.org%252FDocuments.multilingual%252FDefault.asp%253FDocumentID%253D52%2526ArticleID%253D52%2526l%253Den.>
.
UNEP, 1992b<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib11>UNEP,
1992b. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. United Nations
Environment Program. Available at:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?ArticleID=1163&DocumentID=78&l=en<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=externObjLink&_locator=url&_cdi=5995&_plusSign=%2B&_targetURL=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.unep.org%252FDocuments.Multilingual%252FDefault.asp%253FArticleID%253D1163%2526DocumentID%253D78%2526l%253Den>
.
Wackernagel and Rees,
1996<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib12>M.
Wackernagel and W. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact
on the Earth, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC (1996).
Wilkinson, 1996<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib13>R.
Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality,
Routledge,
London (1996).
Wilson, 2005<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib14>Wilson,
E.O., 2005. Intelligent Evolution. Forum, Harvard Magazine (Nov–Dec
2005). Available at:
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/110518.html<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=externObjLink&_locator=url&_cdi=5995&_plusSign=%2B&_targetURL=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.harvard-magazine.com%252Fon-line%252F110518.html>
.
WWF, 2004<http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4JSFVD8-3&_user=426478&_coverDate=09%2F12%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020278&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=426478&md5=cea501#bbib16>WWF,
Living Planet Report 2004, Worldwide Fund for Nature International,
Gland, Switzerland (2004).
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM, <Hong-Phong_Pho at ita.doc.gov> wrote:
> [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
>
>
>
> Dear anh Shane:
> You really don't want it to go all pear shaped because if it did, those at
> the bottom of the pear will get crushed first.
> Don't worry about the American propensity to over consume. (It is this
> tendency that gives Vietnam a 10 to 1 trade advantage with the U.S., and no
> other trading partners.) The laws of nature and economics will see to it
> that whatever is not sustainable will not be sustained. Instead, look at it
> as an opportunity to further economic development so as to position Vietnam
> well for the next stages of global development.
> And the next stage will come.
> Charles Dickens' England must have seemed to reach the limits of
> industrialization and development when coal-powered civilation pushed the
> limits of environmental pollution. The streets of Philadephia, of and
> Craig's forefathers, must have been intolerable with the by-product/exhaust
> of horsepowered transportation at the turn of the 20th century that someone
> could have rightly wondered how a growing nation will develop its
> transportation sector.
> Then came the horseless carriage and petroleum. The whale blubber fueled
> lamps that illuminated virtually all of New England coastal communities were
> replaced by kerosene lamps that quickly spreaded all over the world. In
> Vietnam, it still called the American lamp.
> Except for geothermal and nuclear energy, all other forms are solar-based
> energy. I would look to the sun as the source of power in the next phase.
> The discussions on this forum does not reach the academic level yet; we're
> not economic of financial experts here.
> I am happy for you that you and your family have plots of land to fall back
> on when it all goes to seeds. I have a garden plot myself that I enjoy
> tremendously when it suits me to get my hands dirty and to break a sweat.
> But I am not under the illusion that I'll be able to feed my family, or
> just myself even if I put my full time and energy to cultivating it. There
> was a reality show that put families of contestants on homestead lands to
> make a living off the land with that land as the prize. None made it for
> the whole year.
> Your father was wise to pay for 240v and took the next step. He followed
> the same human instincts that got us out of caves and into warm and dry
> houses. You don't want it all to go pear shaped because that would mean
> you're back to 32v, if not kerosene lamp. Only this time, there will be
> social chaos that will not leave to in peace to farm your plots of land, if
> it's your land anymore. You may be farming some collective farms somewhere,
> and not willingly. You know this is not a made-up scenario. Someone in
> your neighborhood may have experienced it first hand. Folks next door in
> Cambodia can't forget it. It's the Hobbesian world where life is "poor,
> nasty, brutish, and short".
> Cheers,
> HPP
>
>
>
> *Shane Wall <shane.wall at translingualexpress.com>*
> Sent by: vnbiz-bounces at mail.saigon.com
>
> 05/08/2008 11:50 AM Please respond to
> vnbiz at vietlinks.net
>
> To
> vnbiz at vietlinks.net cc
> Subject
> Re: [Vnbiz] Fwd: NEWS ALERT: Asia must attract clean energy investments,
> ADB President says; New ADB magazine to increase awareness of Asia's
> development challenges
>
>
>
>
> [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
>
> Dear ALL CACC,
> I was born in a very poor part of rural Australia. At that time we
> did not have electricity ... or all the other things that come with
> elecrification! Perhaps THAT is why I understand the plight of the
> farmers here in Vietnam!
>
> In the years of my childhood, we had a 32v wind powered turbine that
> gave us light after sunset ... after the initial capital investment, IT
> WAS FREE POWER! In the early '70s, we got connected to the national
> power grid. The opportunity to have a refrigerator, a freezer, time
> saving ways of cooking (wood fired stoves are VERY fickle and time
> consuming) and other "conveniences" were considered to be "advancements"
> for us. My Dad, His God bless His Soul, signed up!
>
> 32v in those days had very limited uses. We had lights after dark,
> but that was about it. This 240v stuff was like magic ... which we had
> to pay for!
>
> The company that can successfully RETURN THE POWER to the individual
> food producing residents of this earth could be the most successful
> company in human history!
>
> Of course all the 'academic' discussions about current market,
> pricing, controls, cartels, etc. issues is needed if we are to avoid a
> global economic meltdown caused by the American consumer's propensity to
> buy things with money that they don't have, i.e. on credit!
>
> When it all "goes pear shaped", my family and I here in Vietnam will
> have our plots of land on which we can grow enough to sustain ourselves ...
>
> Hoanh? Craig? Phong? Anybody care to comment?
>
> Shane
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Shane Wall
> Managing Director
>
> Trans Lingual Express
> 188/16 Nguyen Thuong Hien St,
> P.1, Q. Go Vap, HCMC,
> Vietnam
>
> Mail: shane.wall at translingualexpress.com
> Web: www.translingualexpress.com
>
> Ph: +84 (8) 588 1701
>
> Mbl: +84 (090) 9484 753 (English)
> Mbl: +84 (090) 7885 375 (Vietnamese)
>
>
>
> Tran Dinh Hoanh wrote:
> > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Dear sis. Jackie,
> >
> > What does a typical do-it-yourself solar kit do? And how much does it
> > cost now?
> >
> > Hoanh
> >
> > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Jackie Nelson
> > <ephemeropterae at gmail.com <mailto:ephemeropterae at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Tran Dinh Hoanh <tdhoanh at gmail.com
> > <mailto:tdhoanh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have serious problem with biofuel. Here is an excerpt from
> > a Time article entitled "The Clean Energy cam" about biofuel
> > and how it is damaging the earth.
> > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
> >
> >
> > Absolutely. Biofuels that rely on fossil fuel farming techniques
> > have long been discredited by the green community. There are some
> > interesting developments, such as ALGAculture, but we have a ways
> > to go. USA's Farm and Energy Bills are extremely short-sighted in
> > this regard.
> >
> >
> >
> > Renewable fuels has become one of those
> > motherhood-and-apple-pie catchphrases, as unobjectionable as
> > the troops or the middle class.
> >
> >
> > Mom and apple pie? Hardly. There's a term for feel good, but
> > misguided attempts to 'go green' = <corporate> greenwashing.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think dams provided the cleanest energy source, but why
> > every time someone builds a dam, the envrionmentalists are up
> > in arms?
> >
> >
> > Dams damage riparian ecosystems, and when large rivers are dammed,
> > it affects those downstream too. Yes, hydro is 'clean' as far as
> > carbon though. In my neck of the woods, micro hydro is popular.
> > Also small wind---you use the natural capital you have. Since we
> > are among the windiest places in USA, wind makes sense. Lots of
> > folks have small streams as well, which could be another
> > diversification of energy needs.
> > A local physician started a LLC to harness wind to sell to our
> > electricity cooperative. He fought neighbors <worried about
> > noise> and realtors <feared ruining the viewshed> and gave up due
> > to legal expenses.
> >
> >
> >
> > Solar energy is still too expensive to pursue.
> >
> >
> > Prices are coming down fast as economies of scale kick in.... most
> > folks here can put up do it yourself type kits. The big
> > excitement though, is large scale solar...perhaps the most
> > promising form of power in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > How about nuclear energy?
> >
> >
> > Not crazy about the idea, but with our voracious appetites for
> > energy, I don't know how to meet demand at this time without
> > adding nuclear to our energy portfolio. The waste issue is
> > extremely problematic...also, nuclear takes a long time to get up
> > and running. As well, nuclear requires enormous amounts of water,
> > but my understanding is that newer designs require less water.
> > Also, uranium <?> is a limited resource as well.
> >
> >
> > Have a great day!
> >
> >
> > You too! And all brothers and sisters here!
> > The great hope, I believe, especially for Viet Nam and much of USA
> > is solar...large scale solar with megawatt capability. Look at
> > Cuba -- went through an almost overnight energy fast after the
> > fall of USSR.
> > The people adapted, using solar, and many alternatives.
> > Each locality should use the natural capital it has, whether wind,
> > solar, tidal, geothermal, etc. Ideally, the local energy company
> > would provide technical assistance for start up. Tax incentives
> > to go thriftier, etc. But we are not there yet, and until the
> > energy paradigm is changed, we will require petrol for the
> > transition.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jackie
> > Anything but coal :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tran Dinh Hoanh, Esq., LLB, JD
> > Washington DC
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
> > vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
> > Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
> > Archive at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
> > or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
> > or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz
>
> _______________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
> vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
> Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
> Archive at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
> or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
> or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
> vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
> Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
> Archive at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
> or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
> or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz/attachments/20080509/6d33e5aa/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vnbiz
mailing list