via Flicker CC License - click for original

[This is part II of an extended post of observations gleaned during my current visit to Singapore.  See part I here.]

We left off with this statement: “this [Singaporean] miracle is more fragile than it appears.  It’s economic, ecological and political foundations are crumbling.  It would be surprising, to say the least, if the Singapore of 50 or 100 years from now was the same miraculous place it is today.”

Let’s unpack that a bit.

Singapore appeared on the world stage in the 19^th Century as an artifact of the expansion of the British Empire into South East Asia.  The geographical accident happens to be Singapore’s location on the southernmost tip of a peninsula that every trading ship from Europe had to pass to get to or from China, and as so often is the case, geography laid the foundation for a vibrant trading economy.  Singapore’s wealth grows out of one of features of modern capitalism:  Those who trade goods or services make more than those who produce them.  [True then, still true now, as evidenced by the wealth of those who “work” in the financial centers of the world but who essentially do nothing more than move imaginary wealth from one column to another day after day after day… but I digress…]

One of the apparent incongruities in the Singapore story is the coexistence of a free and vigorous economy with an extremely restrictive political system.  The infamous ban on chewing gum is only one example of a country that seems to be proving the dictum that people will put up with almost any restrictions as long as they are allowed to make (and keep) their money.  Whether the vigorous economy allows restrictive government policies to remain in place, or restrictive policies help sustain economic vitality through things like the suppression of dissent is an interesting but irrelevant question.  What seems clear, to my mind, is that the Singaporean political system imposes a discipline that has made it possible for millions of people to live on top of each other in relative harmony.  If there is little crime, little visible pollution and a city that functions well for almost all of its residents, it is probably because the government puts up with very little nonsense.  Call it the Cheaper By the Dozen syndrome:  The family with a dozen kids featured in that book learned to function smoothly, efficiently and happily – but only through the application of regimented discipline that would appall most modern families.  Singapore has become, and for the time being continues to be prosperous and relatively content because of the iron rod of political restrictions.

So here’s lesson #1 for the rest of us:  We can continue to increase human population in various parts of the world, as the Singaporeans have done, and still survive.  But if we want to achieve some level of social harmony and economic prosperity along with that, we’re almost certainly going to have to learn to live with the kind of political and governmental discipline that marks this society.  Anyone interested in World Government?  A world-wide Singaporean miracle would only be possible if that were the case. In spite of the  Cheaper By the Dozen example, not many of us really want that kind of restriction imposed on our lives.

Lesson #2:  It is impossible to run a country with the population density of Singapore in a way that will allow God’s creation to flourish.  It just can’t be done.  People here are flourishing, no question.  But birds aren’t.  Snakes aren’t.  Jungle cats aren’t.  Most of the creatures whom God originally put on this island have been banished.  If they are here at all now, it is probably in the local zoo.

Though this is a clean city with lots of trees and flowers, below the surface things aren’t quite as good as they appear to be, ecologically speaking.   Besides banning chewing gum, the government has also banned mosquitoes.  There is an ongoing, energetic eradication program to get rid of such ‘pests’.  This is tropical rainforest country.  And mosquitoes, besides being an annoyance, can be a serious health hazard for humans, bringing malaria and dengue fever.

And this may explain of the surprises of my current visit to this city:  There are far fewer birds here than I expected.  Lots of trees.  Tons of gorgeous flowers.  But in terms of raw numbers, there are less birds here than outside my window in Wisconsin.  I know the migrators will have left for the far north by now – but in an area of tropical rainforest, there should be plenty of year round residents.  What’s going on?  Here’s what I think:  When you ban mosquitoes, you probably eliminate other insects as well.  And when the insects are gone, there is not much left for birds to eat.  So our tropical paradise is pollution-free (relatively) and still beautiful, but it has no birds.  There’s something sad – even tragic – about that picture.  [NOTE:  I would love to be corrected on this by someone with more direct scientific knowledge of the ornithological situation in Singapore.]

But what’s wrong with that?  The birds are presumably still okay outside the city limits.  Maybe?  Here’s my problem.  If we think we’re going to try to do a Singapore all over the world, we can say goodbye to the birds everywhere.  There will be no ‘outside the city limits’ any more.

This represents a fundamental disobedience to God. Before God told us human beings to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ he gave the same command to the creatures:

God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”  (Gen 1:22)

When he gave us ‘dominion’ over the creatures, he was asking us to help the creatures to obey his commands to them, one of which was to ‘be fruitful and increase in number…’   When our increasing, as in Singapore, results in their decreasing, we have a problem.  We’re sinning.

Finally, lesson #3: The  Singapore miracle is not only not replicable; it’s not sustainable.  In fact, I’ll go further and suggest that it’s just about over.  You would never know by looking at the skyline, or by wandering through the shopping malls, but this economic miracle has almost run its course, keeping in mind that ‘almost’ is a deliberately elastic term.

How do I know?  Take only one curious news item from a couple of years ago having to do with one of the most common substances on earth, sand:

“LOOKING for sea-sand for reclamation project in Singapore. Prompt reply is greatly appreciated.” Many such pleas can be found on Alibaba.com, a popular Chinese trading-website. Malaysia banned sand exports as long ago as 1997. Indonesia followed suit in 2007 on environmental and, some say, political grounds. Ever since, it has become harder for Singapore to secure supplies for its booming construction industry and sea-fill plans. (Economist)

That report was from 2009; the worldwide economic slowdown and adjustments in various markets has meant that there is still sand available for construction here. But it’s a warning:  There is no such thing as an infinite supply of anything.  Sand is just one of many thousands of commodities that have to keep flowing if Singapore is to keep growing.  This economical/environmental miracle by importing vast amounts of everything, which essentially means exporting the ecological problems those substances represent, whether the environmental damage caused by sand extraction or deforestation caused by the need for wood.  As other countries develop, and need more of the stuff that Singapore has been buying from them, or become more aware of and concerned about environmental problems in their own back yards, Singapore will be left to fend for itself.  Being a quintessential capitalist country, when Singapore stops growing, she dies.

So where does that leave us?

There might be ways to manage extremely high human populations in ways that allow for both abundant ecological and economic wealth.  Singapore is not the answer.  What is wanted is a new approach, starting, maybe, with God rather than economics?

via Flickr CC License - click for original

My wife Susanna and I are in the middle of a two week visit to Singapore.  This is an unusually long and delightfully leisurely visit compared with most of my overseas trips.  Because our youngest daughter lives and works here, we’ve come to see and experience her world as well as to share the creation care message in two conferences this week – which is why I’ve been able to experience and explore the city in a more relaxed manner than is usually possible.  These are some of my impressions after five days here – anecdotal, to be sure, but still valuable, I think.

In many ways, this island city-state is everybody’s dream location.  Certainly this is true for those whose lives involve overseas postings, whether they are from the government, corporation or nonprofit worlds.  People native to the region as well line up for work permits and jobs, and the wealth of the citizenry is legendary.  At a dinner two nights ago a Singaporean friend commented:  “A fundraiser that in Australia would net $300 would get $50,000 in Singapore – in one afternoon.”

Built on the tip of the Malay peninsula, the rainforest has been replaced by some of the most modern architecture in the world.  Gadgetry is ubiquitous, from phones and Ipads to high tech expressways with electronic toll systems that are activated only during periods of high congestion.  A superb mass transit system moves thousands of commuters from home to work and back with high efficiency and relatively low cost.  Most people live in high rise apartment complexes because of sheer population density, but even here crime is almost unheard of.  In the city that long ago banned chewing gum, it almost goes without saying that the cleanliness of the streets would make your mother proud.

There is a significant gap between rich and poor, as there is everywhere.  BMWs and Porsches share the highways with motorbikes and pickups filled with day-laborers  on their way home from a day of hard work in hot and humid weather.  These workers are on their way to tiny rooms which, though a far cry from the slums of Manila or Karachi, are certainly less comfortable than where I sit right now.  But still the people come, or try to, from every country in the region.  For many, Singapore at its worst is a paradise compared to the options they have at home.

As the world’s population continues to rise toward a peak of 8 to 12 billion or more within the next generation, Singapore seems to be the perfect example of how to handle lots of people while maintaining a high standard for quality of life.  With an astounding 18,235 people per sq mile, this is the most densely populated country in the world.  Given that a large percentage of the center of the island is reserved for water catchment, the practical density may well be double the posted figure.

Surely this is evidence that people like Cal Beisner and Wayne Grudem are right?

“Long term trends show that human beings will be able to live on the earth enjoying ever-increasing prosperity, and never exhausting its resources.”  Politics According to the Bible, p. 332 (see Living on a Finite Planet)

Beisner and Grudem could point to Singapore and argue that this isn’t even theory – Singapore has done it and there’s no reason the rest of us can’t follow their example.  [This point of view is known as Cornucopianism  - here’s some background information.]

Well, maybe.

Or maybe not.

It doesn’t take long for an observer to realize that the Singaporean miracle has grown out of a combination of unusual geography, a fortuitous if hard-working economy, and strait-jacket political policies that are among the most restrictive in the democratic world.  There can be only one Singapore.   And it would be safe to add that as amazing as it is, this miracle is more fragile than it appears.  It’s economic, ecological and political foundations are crumbling.  It would be surprising, to say the least, if the Singapore of 50 or 100 years from now was the same miraculous place it is today.

More on that in our next post.

The Egyptian revolution now underway has a personal connection for me – my niece Annie is attempting to pursue graduate studies in the middle of the chaos.  I had a conversation with her mother, my sister Marilyn this morning:  “So what’s Annie doing?  Trekking to the airport every day to try to get out?”  “Not exactly – she’s trekking to demonstrations every day…” Anyone who knows Annie – heck, anyone who knows her mother – would not be at all surprised by that. Marilyn’s family lived in Egypt for a number of years, and she has been covering the crisis very competently on her blog here if you’d like a well-written day-to-day overview including occasional eye-witness reports from Annie.

There are so many dimensions to this uprising that it’s hard to know even where to start.  There are plenty of obvious dimensions of this crisis:  A hard-pressed population’s desire for freedom.  The fear many have of the possibility – maybe remote, maybe not – of an Iran-style Islamic state taking the reins after Mubarak leaves.

Peeling back the layers, though, there is a dimension of this crisis that directly affects the topic of this blog – creation care.  In yesterday’s New York Times we read

Entrenched corruption, the depredations of police forces and demands for free elections have all helped drive the protest movement, but for many Egyptians, rising prices and unemployment were the strongest motivations to stand up to the government.

When people can’t work or can’t even feed themselves they will do desperate things.  From last night’s All Things Considered:

ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Among the many forces driving political unrest in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries is the rising cost of food. Prices for wheat, corn, rice, sugar, coffee and other basics have been surging. A U.N. report shows its food price index is at the highest level ever recorded. Food subsidies in Egypt have helped tamp down some of the anger there, but concerns are growing along with prices.

NPR’s Chris Arnold reports.

CHRIS ARNOLD: In the past six months, the price of wheat and corn has nearly doubled in many parts of the world. And in areas where people spend as much as half their income on food, that’s making it very hard for people to feed their families.

This is at least part of what’s driving the desperation and anger that’s sending people out into the streets of Cairo, such as this protester who spoke to Al-Jazeera.

Unidentified Man: (Through translator) We are tired, ma’am. We are tired. Stop the price hikes. We are suffering. We are Egyptians. We love Egypt. But stop this. We want to eat. We want to live, we and our children.

ARNOLD: Across a continent in the snow-covered city of Davos, Switzerland, economist Nouriel Roubini spoke to CNN.

Dr. NOURIEL ROUBINI (Chairman, Roubini Global Economics): What has happened in Tunisia is happening right now in Egypt. And also, riots in Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan are related not only to high unemployment rate and to income and wealth inequality, but also to this very sharp rise in food and commodity prices.

ARNOLD: So why are food prices rising so quickly? One reason is that bad weather has ruined crops in many parts of the world. There have been floods in Australia and Pakistan. Extreme heat last summer in the U.S. hurt corn production. Russia was hit by a severe drought last summer.

And that is the creation-care connection to this crisis: People are hungry.  Just two weeks ago we commented on this  food crisis, citing Lester Brown:

The unrest of these past few weeks is just the beginning. It is no longer conflict between heavily armed superpowers, but rather spreading food shortages and rising food prices—and the political turmoil this would lead to—that threatens our global future.

If we are not willing to feed the hungry for their own sakes, setting aside what Jesus clearly teaches us, would we be willing to feed them for the sake of our own security?  I wonder – and mostly because feeding the poor now doesn’t mean bringing a can of food to church for the food pantry or even donating to an international development organization.  Neither of these will hurt, but when the problem is weather (read: climate) , or water, or soil degradation, they aren’t going to help much either.  Lester Brown again:

Unless governments quickly redefine security and shift expenditures from military uses to investing in climate change mitigation, water efficiency, soil conservation, and population stabilization, the world will in all likelihood be facing a future with both more climate instability and food price volatility.

And many more scenes like this:

So how do we respond?  Where to begin?  The people of God have got to take these things seriously.  We may not be able to solve all of the problems, but we can start.  Check out some other recent posts on the role of the church in mobilizing in response to problems like this.

Countdown to Cape Town: What does the church have to offer? Part 2

Countdown to Capetown – Final: A Call to Respond

This won’t be a surprise to those who paid attention to some of the serious weather events of 2010:  When Russia’s wildfires exploded, we heard that Russia would be banning wheat exports for the immediate future.  Then Pakistan lost an entire rice harvest and a good deal of wheat due to the worst flooding in that nation’s history – requiring Pakistan to import more than it normally would have done.  And now Australia’s floods are affecting not only coal but  wheat and other commodities.

We had a food-price crisis in 2008 – (see chart) – but that one appears to have been driven by a speculative and greedy market where investors who had no interest in food were grabbing futures contracts in the hope of exploiting the competition between eaters and drivers  in the rise of biofuels, particularly ethanol.  The Great Recession seemed to have provided some relief for eaters, and prices dropped back toward normal.

[Washington Post Graphic - click image for full size]

I’m not an expert – but this year’s food crisis seems to be different.  It is being driven by a disruption in supply, not by speculation in the market, and if this is the case, we need to be listening to people like Lester Brown who says “The new reality is that the world is only one poor harvest away from chaos.”

If you are an eater 0r a driver, you need to educate yourself on this story.  The Washington Post has a good story from last Saturday.  A couple of excerpts:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recently warned that in December its food price index surpassed its previous peak of early summer 2008, fed by particularly sharp increases in sugar, cooking oils and fats. Corn and soy prices were also moving up quickly, with corn hitting a 29-month high Friday.

In Bangladesh, rice prices jumped 8 percent in December. In India, the price of onions soared 80 percent in just one week.

“Now everyone is having fears of going back to the levels of 2007-08,” said Sudakshina Unnikrishnan, a Barclays Capital commodities analyst.

Rising food prices may have been an ingredient in the instability in Tunisia that drove that country’s president, Zine el-AbidineBen Ali, from office Thursday…

Lester Brown has a report out this week on the topic:

Whereas in years past, it’s been weather that has caused a spike in commodities prices, now it’s trends on both sides of the food supply/demand equation that are driving up prices. On the demand side, the culprits are population growth, rising affluence, and the use of grain to fuel cars. On the supply side: soil erosion, aquifer depletion, the loss of cropland to nonfarm uses, the diversion of irrigation water to cities, the plateauing of crop yields in agriculturally advanced countries, and—due to climate change —crop-withering heat waves and melting mountain glaciers and ice sheets. These climate-related trends seem destined to take a far greater toll in the future…

…The current surge in world grain and soybean prices, and in food prices more broadly, is not a temporary phenomenon. We can no longer expect that things will soon return to normal, because in a world with a rapidly changing climate system there is no norm to return to.

The unrest of these past few weeks is just the beginning. It is no longer conflict between heavily armed superpowers, but rather spreading food shortages and rising food prices—and the political turmoil this would lead to—that threatens our global future. Unless governments quickly redefine security and shift expenditures from military uses to investing in climate change mitigation, water efficiency, soil conservation, and population stabilization, the world will in all likelihood be facing a future with both more climate instability and food price volatility. If business as usual continues, food prices will only trend upward.

Brown’s latest book, World on the Edge, is available here.

So what should a Christian response be? We need to open our eyes:  Big things are happening in our world, but Jesus warned us, didn’t he?  We need to practice stewardship in our own lives so we will be able to help others.  There are good biblical examples for this with remarkable parallels to our own day (rich Christians in one part of the world helping those in another part).  You can help practically by supporting organizations like Care of Creation - our Farming God’s Way program has great potential to increase food supply by making God’s earth healthier.

And some of us may be in a position to do more,  If we have the ear of those in authoriy, or the authority ourselves to modify policies or to move corporations who can make a difference, then the example of Esther probably applies.  Who knows but that God has placed you in the position you are in today for ‘such a time as this?’

Do we live in a world of limitations or one of potentially inexhaustible resources?

Wayne Grudem, writing in Politics According to the Bible, makes this rather astounding statement in an attempt to persuade his reader that there’s really nothing to worry about with regard to the global environmental crisis:

“Long term trends show that human beings will be able to live on the earth enjoying ever-increasing prosperity, and never exhausting its resources.” (p. 332)

I’ll be doing an in-depth review of Grudem’s book in the near future – let’s just say for now that it’s kind of hard to believe that he and I are living on the same planet.  Case in point: two different news items over the last couple of days:

1. From the BBC and the New York Times – Food prices are on the rise again:

World food prices continued to rise sharply in December, bringing them close to the crisis levels that provoked shortages and riots in poor countries three years ago, according to newly released United Nations data.

Prices are expected to remain high this year, prompting concern that the world may be approaching another crisis, although economists cautioned that many factors, like adequate stockpiles of key grains, could prevent a serious problem.

The United Nations data measures commodity prices on the world export market. Those are generally far removed from supermarket prices in wealthy countries like the United States. In this country, food price inflation has been relatively tame, and prices are forecast to rise only 2 to 3 percent this year.

But the situation is often different in poor countries that rely more heavily on imports. The food price index of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization rose 32 percent from June to December, according to the report published Wednesday. In December, the index was slightly higher than it was in June 2008, its previous peak. The index is not adjusted for inflation, however, making an exact comparison over time difficult.

Notice once again that it is the poor who are bearing the brunt of a mismanaged world system.

2. Something you probably have noticed more than food prices:  The price of energy also continues to rise, with predictions of $5 gas (in the US; it’s already well over that in many parts of the world, of course) and $100 per barrel oil:

“Oil prices are entering a dangerous zone for the global economy,” Birol told the Financial Times. “The oil import bills are becoming a threat to the economic recovery. This is a wake-up call to the oil consuming countries and to the oil producers.” (The Guardian, citing a new report from the International Energy Agency)

Look for a lot more price disruption throughout the world (and your local) economy as the effects of the Australian floods on wheat and coal prices combine with the previous damage caused by the Pakistan floods last summer on wheat and cotton.  You might want to add to that list increasing difficulties in manufacturing electronics of all kinds because of a worldwide shortage of the rare earths necessary for their manufacture, 90% of which are subject to a new rationing system by China. A fascinating sidebar to this story comes from India, where it appears there are severe shortages of… sand. (A couple of years ago there was a trade spat between Singapore and Indonesia over the same commodity.  Who would have thought we’d ever run out of sand?)

It would be really nice to be able to believe with Grudem that we could live here forever without exhausting the resources on this finite planet.  I hope he’ll understand why I’m not quite convinced.

In this blog we don’t spend a great deal of time on climate change/global warming.  This is not because we do not believe it’s a problem – it is.  But in the larger picture of what is happening in God’s creation, climate change is one of many problems, including loss of biodiversity (extinctions), water, deforestation, chemical pollution – the list could go on and on. The January issue of the Journal of the Royal Geographic Society, one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world, devotes itself to the question of whether and when the globe might reach a temperature increase of four degrees Celsius (7 degrees F) and what such a temperature rise might mean.

This is not good bedtime reading, but you need to at least take a look. Keep in mind that the 2070′s (see the first article below) are within the lifetime of today’s college students, and that this is not material from the radical edges of the blogosphere.  These are some of the world’s most respected scientists, but – considering the scenarios they are describing – some of them are more optimistic than I would have expected.

Below are some of the articles in this issue with a quote or two from each.  The content is free today – I’m not sure if it will remain so.  I have copies if the links to the articles no longer work – drop a note in the comments or send me a message.

When could global warming reach 4°C?

The A1FI emissions scenario would lead to a rise in global mean temperature of between approximately 3°C and 7°C by the 2090s relative to pre-industrial, with best estimates being around 5°C. Our best estimate is that a temperature rise of 4°C would be reached in the 2070s, and if carbon-cycle feedbacks are strong, then 4°C could be reached in the early 2060s—this latter projection appears to be consistent with the upper end of the IPCC’s likely range of warming for the A1FI scenario.

Regional temperature and precipitation changes under high-end (≥4^°C) global warming

[Note: The point in this paper is that 4 degree warming globally will very likely produce a number of ‘hotspots’ where regional warming is much greater than 4 degrees.  Also keep in mind that all temps are in Celsius…]

Under the high-end models, Northern Africa is projected to experience high (greater than 6^°C) temperature increases and large precipitation decreases in both DJF and JJA, suggesting that this region is most at risk from high-end climate change. In addition, during JJA, Southern Europe and the adjacent part of Central Asia are projected to warm by 6–8^°C, together with a decrease in precipitation of 10 per cent or more. This result suggests that drier soils, a consequence of the reduced precipitation, are the cause of the elevated temperatures, as the evaporative cooling effect will be smaller.

Water availability in +2°C and +4°C worlds

In a +2°C world, population growth in most large river basins tends to override climate change as a driver of water stress, while in a +4°C world, climate change becomes more dominant, even compensating for population effects where climate change increases run-off. However, in some basins where climate change has positive effects, the seasonality of surface run-off becomes increasingly amplified in a +4°C climate.

…changes in mean annual run-off in a +2°C world are generally amplified in a +4°C world: drier areas dry further and wetter areas become wetter.

By examining a subset of the world’s major river basins, we have shown that the picture for water stress in each river basin is dependent on the magnitude of the climate change and the nature of the population growth. For some river basins, the effects of climate change become large enough to offset the large increases in demand in a +4°C world, e.g. in the Ganges; in most basins, however, climate and population growth combine to increase stress or climate change is insufficient to offset increased demand.

Agriculture and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa in a 4^°C+ world

Agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa faces daunting challenges, which climate change and increasing climate variability will compound in vulnerable areas. The impacts of a changing climate on agricultural production in a world that warms by 4^°C or more are likely to be severe in places. The livelihoods of many croppers and livestock keepers in Africa are associated with diversity of options. The changes in crop and livestock production that are likely to result in a 4^°C+ world will diminish the options available to most smallholders. In such a world, current crop and livestock varieties and agricultural practices will often be inadequate, and food security will be more difficult to achieve…

Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a ‘beyond 4°C world’ in the twenty-first century

The range of future climate-induced sea-level rise remains highly uncertain with continued concern that large increases in the twenty-first century cannot be ruled out. The biggest source of uncertainty is the response of the large ice sheets of Greenland and west Antarctica. Based on our analysis, a pragmatic estimate of sea-level rise by 2100, for a temperature rise of 4°C or more over the same time frame, is between 0.5 m and 2 m—the probability of rises at the high end is judged to be very low, but of unquantifiable probability. However, if realized, an indicative analysis shows that the impact potential is severe, with the real risk of the forced displacement of up to 187 million people over the century (up to 2.4% of global population).

Climate-induced population displacements in a 4^°C+ world

In the event of a 4^°C+ warming, not only is it likely that climate-induced population movements will be more considerable, but also their patterns could be significantly different, as people might react differently to temperature changes that would represent a threat to their very survival. This paper puts forward the hypothesis that a greater temperature change would affect not only the magnitude of the associated population movements, but also—and above all—the characteristics of these movements, and therefore the policy responses that can address them.

Population movements associated with climate change impacts are expected to take place mostly at the internal level, over short distances, and eventually on a permanent basis. Overall, it appears that the most significant impact of a 4^°C+ warming on migration would be to reduce populations’ ability to move on their own terms, as many people would no longer have the choice to stay or to leave when confronted with environmental changes.

On the other hand…

Climate-induced migration should be addressed not only within the framework of climate change, but also within the discussions on the global governance of migration. In many cases, migration does not have to be envisioned as a humanitarian catastrophe, but can also be a solution to environmental disruption, which would allow people to relocate into safer areas and to cope better with climate change impacts.

Rethinking adaptation for a 4^°C world

With weakening prospects of prompt mitigation, it is increasingly likely that the world will experience 4^°C and more of global warming. In such a world, adaptation decisions that have long lead times or that have implications playing out over many decades become more uncertain and complex. Adapting to global warming of 4^°C cannot be seen as a mere extrapolation of adaptation to 2^°C; it will be a more substantial, continuous and transformative process.

…We therefore show how it is possible to systematize an approach to the resulting decision-making challenges in ways that have the potential to reduce the disempowering impacts of uncertainty, by disaggregating the decision-making process into actionable steps that use well-established methodologies. To do this, we have shown how the lifetime of a decision interacts with the different types of uncertainty and the nature of potential adaptation responses. The resulting six categories of decision pathways require distinctive risk-management strategies and tactics, all of which are individually well understood.

There is an article this week on The Chronicle Review from the Chronicle of Higher Education that comes pretty close to ‘must reading’.  “We are all Madoffs” by David Barash (University of Washington) makes a simple, and surprisingly powerful, connection between the Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme and what we are all doing to God’s creation.

If you are one of the few who don’t remember exactly what Bernie did that had the entire nation enraged, it was this: He ran one of the country’s largest (and most successful – until he was caught) pyramid schemes.  The idea was simple, the execution complex and ingenious:  Collect “investments” from people – pay “dividends” back to those people from new “investments” from other people.  The scheme runs well until you run out of new investors or someone blows the whistle.

It’s not hard to see analogies to all kinds of things we take for granted – the cartoonist’s connection to the Social Security system is an easy one; and here’s Barash’s connection to the natural world in the article referenced above:

Make no mistake: Our current relationship to the world ecosystem is nothing less than a pyramid scheme, of a magnitude that dwarfs anything ever contemplated by Charles Ponzi, who, before Madoff, was the best-known practitioner of that dark art. Modern civilization’s exploitation of the natural environment is not unlike the way Madoff exploited his investors, predicated on the illusion that it will always be possible to make future payments owing to yet more exploitation down the road: more suckers, more growth, more GNP, based—as all Ponzi schemes are—on the fraud of “more and more,” with no foreseeable reckoning, and thus, the promise of no comeuppance, neither legal nor economic nor ecologic. At least in the short run.

In the long term? We’re all dead, along with the planet.

He pulls in some powerful numbers to back up his argument:  Since the 1940′s, we have used as much of the world’s mineral resources as all generations before us.  We in the US have, in the last 200 years, wiped out half of the country’s wetlands, 95% of our old-growth forests and 99% of our original prairies.  And of course many parts of the world are much much worse off than we are in the United States.

The immorality of a ponzi scheme lies in the fact that the early investors live off the wealth of those who come later.  If I am an early investor, my ‘dividends’ are taken direclty from the principal of the investors that follow me.  I am robbing people I don’t know – even if I don’t know I’m doing the robbing (because Bernie hasn’t told me).

And that’s the direct connection to God’s creation:  In order to live a rich life now, every one of us is robbing those ‘investors’ who come later.  And who are they?  Our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren.  And this is shameful.  At least Bernie Madoff was robbing other people!  We’re robbing our own families.  Look at it this way – if a person is to be honored and respected for working hard and setting money aside as an inheritance for his children and grandchildren, what is to be said about the person who not only doesn’t try to set aside an inheritance, but actually commits those children and grandchildren to future perpetual poverty so he can live in a mansion for a few short years?

If you get a chance to read the article, take a moment to skim some of the comments that have been collecting.  The readers of the Chronicle are, not surprisingly, a thoughtful group – and the question of greed and spirituality popped up early in the discussion and somewhat unexpectedly:

“We need to tame that beast, now,” says jdeng. Sure, let’s do that. Change the humans. Problem solved.

Most people I know would say that religion and spirituality are important in their lives. And most would say that they are on the side of the environment. But they still drive their SUVs all over tarnation, avoid revolving doors, run their air-conditioners nonstop, or whatever their particular wasteful behaviors may be.

Religion, or spirituality, or ethical appeals just aren’t effective in changing behavior, at least not longterm. Financial incentives and penalties are more effective, but our corporations are highly motivated to stop our government from imposing them.

I guess we’ll have to move to another planet, if we can locate a good one and build the spaceships in time.

If there’s a little Madoff in all of us (there is), and if the only real solution to the problem is to ‘tame that beast’, and if the ‘religion and spirituality’ most people are practicing isn’t doing the job… hmm – maybe there’s room here for a dose of the real gospel:  For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last (Romans 1:17)

And may I add James to the mix?  What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (James 2:14)

If my “gospel” (or “spirituality” or “religion”) isn’t producing the results needed – in this context, is failing to tame the beast of consumerism, selfishness and greed that is driving me to rob my own children and grandchildren – maybe what I’ve got isn’t real.

from Flickr (CC License)

Human population growth – it’s one of the most controversial and difficult aspects of our environmental crisis.  In all likelihood, it is controversial because it’s difficult:  Human beings are precious, especially if you hold to the Biblical teaching that humans are ‘created in the image of God‘ – but even if you don’t have that perspective.  Really, which of us, no matter what our religious (or non-) persuasion, would put a pet or a backyard squirrel on the same plane as one of our children or grand-children?

The difficulty lies here:  If every human being is precious, how can there be too many of us?  How can there be too much ‘preciousness’?  But it is clearly possible to have too many people in one place at one time.  Ever read a news story about an overloaded ferry boat?  How about the woman in California who recently gave birth to octuplets, though she was unmarried, without financial support and already had six children?  This is the population problem in miniature:  God in his wisdom placed us on a globe that, by definition, only has so much space, so much water, so much oil, so much whatever…  And whether you believe the maximum population level is four billion, six billion, or 50 billion, there is a limit?  I personally believe we passed the ideal limit sometime in the last couple of decades – but that’s purely an academic point.  Once the people are here, the challenge is…

Well, the challenge is and always has been this:  How to keep within the natural limits imposed on us by the size of our planet while still affirming basic human rights and dignities?  I have been teaching in my Our Father’s World Seminars for several years now that a)coercive government actions do not work but b)policies that provide health, education and empowerment for women do work, and so I was pleased to find my position affirmed by a recent story from the Times of India.

The story itself is an acknowledgment that for the most part population control policies in India have been an abysmal failure – but in that description of gloom and doom the journalist finds one very bright spot in the southern state of Kerala:

In 1979, China’s total fertility rate was 2.8, while Kerala’s was 3. By 2007, 28 years after it forced a coercive one-child policy on its people, China’s fertility rate stood at 1.7. Kerala reached the same figure but without treating its people like laboratory rats. Its success stands on the three ‘E’ pillars: Education, Employment, Equality. On the ground, Kerala’s three Es translate into a high literacy rate, regular income for families and more confident women.

For reference, a population rate of 1.7 is overdoing it slightly – the normally accepted ‘replacement’ fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman.  (It might also be worth noting – though I cannot claim to have investigated or confirm the connection – that Kerala is home to many of the Christians who live in India.)

What is the lesson here?  Quite simply, it is possible to achieve population balance (and environmental balance in other ways) and still treat people with love and dignity. One of my proverbs runs like this:  “If it’s good for the environment, it will be good for community (and for people); and if its good for community (and for people), it’s probably good for the environment.”

This is the kind of environmental ethic we need to strive for – and it is the reason I teach and promote Christian environmental stewardship:  I frankly don’t believe we can find the balance between people and God’s creation anywhere else.

Your thoughts?

It was a brief and on the surface completely unremarkable conversation. Two conference speakers complimenting each other on their talks, discussing points each one appreciated in the other’s presentation.

But this encounter was somewhat unusual and possibly quite special. The scene played out at Kansas State University, in the midst of an academic symposium on sustainability issues in Africa. I was one of the participants in the conversation, and had, the day before, presented a talk on ‘mobilizing the African church to respond to the African environmental crisis.’ The other speaker was a representative of a prominent and important botanical garden, and had just presented what I considered the best talk of the conference on dealing with biodiversity loss in Madagascar.

As it happens, Madagascar is one of the richest – and one of the poorest – countries in the world. Rich in plants, animals and insects that are found no where else. [Your favorite zoo animal, the Lemur, is found only on Madagascar, for example.] 90% of the animals there are ‘endemic’ – they occur only on this one, large island. But Madagascar is poor – the people who live among this rich abundance are among the poorest in the world. And both groups – the plants and the people – are under great pressure. Plants and animals are going extinct. People are going hungry. Which one do we help?

We two agreed – we have to help both or we will end up helping neither. My talk – mobilizing the church – meshed perfectly with my friend’s approach to his work: “People are a large part of the problem, but people have to be part of the solution as well…” and we went on to discuss possible ways that we might be able work together to achieve a goal we both want: A solution to the pressures that are squeezing the flora and fauna and the people of Madagascar.

So what was unusual or remarkable about this conversation? Well, I’m a preacher – a confirmed evangelical Christian. The whole conference knew that because of my talk the day before. And he is a scientist, specifically a botanist, and a “devout atheist” (his words). He has no belief in God but he has a passion for the plants of Madagascar and a very real concern for the people who live there. We come from such different worlds that many people – from each of our worlds – would have wondered what we even had to talk about, let alone how we could discuss the potential of working together.

Two worlds – science and faith – met today, shook hands, and agreed that we can help each other.

That is no small thing.

[to be continued, I'm sure...]

Cross-posted at Sustain Lane.

“Half of the apartments in New York City are occupied by single individuals.”

"Modern Loneliness" - from Flickr (Le Pere, Creative Commons License)

Listening to To the Best of our Knowledge on NPR this morning, that phrase jumped out at me.  The topic for the morning was loneliness and solitude, and for the most part, the comments were interesting if predictable.  Yes, our culture has made us lonelier than we’ve been in the past.  No, there is no difference between men and women – both genders are equally lonely, though (again, predictably) men tend to be less likely to admit to loneliness.But the statistic from New York City really struck me:  50% of us (in that city anyway) live alone.  This is a terrible statement about the condition of community, but it is also points up a significant environmental concern.  Think about it:  The environmental impact of a city apartment is almost the same whether it is being used by one person or four.  With the possible exception of water, the cost of lighting, heating is exactly the same.  The person living by herself places four times the burden on the planet as another who has three roommates (or family members).

One of the principles I have developed over the years is this:  If it’s good for community, it’s probably good for creation.  And if it’s good for creation, it’s probably good for community. Both the fault and the solution can go in either direction.  Our retreat from nature and from each other into a busy, noisy, confusing world has made us lonely and has been devastating for our experience of community.  And our return to a more creation-friendly lifestyle, whether we pursue it because we want community or because we want to be kind to the planet, will be helpful to both.

So – live lightly on the planet:  Get a roommate!