 | James Gustave Speth |
In a major federal report issued 25 years ago, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Dean James Gustave Speth warned that prompt action needed to be taken to remedy critical environmental problems that threatened the entire Earth over the next quarter century and beyond.
Called the "Global 2000 Report," the document called attention to a new environmental threat: global climate change caused by the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, and other human activities.
To raise public awareness about and address some of the issues outlined in the report, Speth -- who was co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council -- went on to found and preside over the World Resources Institute. He later promoted sustainable development in countries around the globe as chief executive officer of the United Nations Development Programme.
In a new book titled "Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment," just published by Yale University Press, Speth argues that most of the international initiatives to address global environmental problems since that report was issued have failed to meet their goals. In fact, he writes in the book, environmental threats have become much more alarming, more complex and more urgent.
Speth recently spoke with the Yale Bulletin & Calendar about his concerns surrounding the Earth's environmental future and his hope that his book will inspire immediate action to protect the planet's natural resources for generations to come.
An edited version of that conversation follows.
There are basically three very critical issues.
One is man-made climate disruption, which is, I believe, the most serious. Due mostly to fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 420,000 years, and emissions could increase by 60% by 2025. This buildup of greenhouse gases caused average global temperatures to rise by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (F) in the 20th century. Temperatures could increase by 2.5 to
Second, there is biotic impoverishment and the loss of biological diversity on a grand scale -- the result of deforestation, the destruction of wetlands and diversion of waterways, the over-harvesting of marine and land resources, and other human activities.
Finally, there is the problem of environmental toxins. Thousands of synthetic compounds -- including pesticides, industrial chemicals and food additives -- have been introduced into the environment. Dozens of very harmful chemicals are already accumulating in the tissues of every one of us. We do not yet know their long-term, cumulative consequences.
Global average temperatures are rising; 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. Spring is arriving earlier, and the ranges of species are shifting. Sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting and the floating Arctic icecap has thinned by almost half since the 1970s.
If nothing is done to correct this problem, by current estimates it will be impossible for about half the American land to sustain the plant and animal communities now living there. In one projection, for example, the maple, beech and birch forests in New England would simply disappear.
Scientists predict that other effects of climate disruption will include the dramatic loss of the Earth's biodiversity; extreme weather events including hurricanes, droughts and floods; and possibly deep and abrupt cooling in certain regions, among other drastic changes. The stress of these changes on human societies could bring major social and political tensions around the globe.
It is estimated that from one-third to one-half of the world's forests are gone, as are about half of the mangroves and other wetlands. About half of our tropical forests have been lost, and we continue to lose about an acre per second. Perhaps 15% of tropical forest species have been doomed, but no one really knows.
The data on ocean ecosystems is equally alarming. Seventy-five percent of ocean fisheries are fished to capacity or over-fished, 90% of the big predator fish are gone, and 80% of the hard coral in the Caribbean has been degraded in the past 25 years.
And this is nothing compared to what we'll see if these trends are not reversed. A colloquial way of putting it is that whatever slack Nature cut us, we used up.
We essentially tried to do on an international scale what we did to solve domestic environmental problems. We created environmental law -- international environmental law this time. The problem is that it is nothing at all like domestic environmental law.
In a system with sovereign states -- where any country that wants to water down or sit out an agreement can do so because nothing binds it against its will -- what you get are ineffectual treaties. If Brazil doesn't like what's being talked about on forests or the United States doesn't like the discussions about climate, they just don't agree to cooperate, and that's the end of the story.
Having neglected the root causes of deterioration and freighted environmental law with almost the full burden of the solution, we then left it to a set of U.N. institutions and negotiating procedures that inevitably lead to weak results -- toothless treaties. The convention to protect the ozone layer is the big exception.
Since the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a crowning achievement aimed at protecting the ozone layer, the United States has dragged its feet. The list of environmental treaties not ratified by the United States is long -- the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, to name just a few.
To be effective, international treaties must have the agreement of every country that is important to the outcome. The United States is so big and so important that we're not going to make a lot of progress without its participation, and we haven't had it. It is a long and complicated story, but it is a sad fact.
There are some powerful -- and closely linked -- underlying forces that are an impediment. Among these are growing populations, eco-unfriendly technologies, unsustainable patterns of consumption among the affluent, the effects of poverty on landscapes and resources, and the "growth at all costs" nature of our economic system, along with globalization.
Instead of relying almost exclusively on international environmental law, we need to address these forces.
Our principal challenge is to transition to a sustainable world.
To attain that goal, we must achieve a stable or smaller world population and eliminate mass poverty. We must deploy environmentally smart technologies and shift to environmentally honest prices, in which market forces are harnessed to environmental ends.
We must transition to a world in which consumers are committed to purchasing products and services that are made and used in an environmentally friendly way and that can be disposed of in a way not harmful to the environment.
Across the globe, our students must be offered an education that ensures they become environmentally literate, and we must close the gap between science and the public. We must train a new generation of environmental professionals. We need a new approach to global environmental governance, in which protection of the environment is not a secondary objective to economic growth and other concerns.
Finally, there must be a fundamental shift in our culture and consciousness so that we view the care of our Earth as a universal responsibility and common concern.
This agenda sounds daunting, I know, but if people appreciated the costs of business as usual, making these huge shifts would be seen as worth it. And here is the good news: we know how to do it. The policy initiatives and other measures needed for these transitions are available; we need only to use them.
Individuals can have a big impact.
As voters, we can support political candidates at the local, state and national levels with strong environmental credentials.
As investors, we can decide to invest in "green" companies and environmentally friendly screened funds.
As consumers, we can support sustainable food initiatives, buy hybrids and other fuel-efficient vehicles, buy green-certified products, use mass transit and bicycles as we commute, and green our homes and offices. And Yale.
As workers, we can support and advocate for the greening of companies and businesses. We can join, support or participate in non-governmental organizations that are involved in environmental policy issues at a local, state, national or international level. And we can be activists.
There are an unbelievable number of resources on the Internet today for people who want to get engaged. There are many other ways we can help promote the transition to sustainability.
If we continue with business as usual, it will soon be too late.
People need to realize the gravity of the problems we face, otherwise they will not appreciate the need for serious action now. It is not helpful to sugarcoat these problems.
But there are many reasons to be hopeful. Scientific understanding is increasing, and there are now more technologies available that bring about improvements in manufacturing, energy, transportation, agriculture and other areas that are helping the environment. Population growth is slowing. Businesses, environmental organizations and local governments all over the world are taking initiatives aimed at environmental protection.
Young people are becoming concerned and active in important environmental efforts. At Yale, students in Yale College, at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and in other places across the campus are engaged with these environmental issues and are determined to come to grips with them.
So while our situation is grave, it is certainly not hopeless.
As I say in my book, "New dreams are born most easily when the world is seen with fresh eyes and confronted with impertinent questions." To avert huge or even catastrophic environmental losses, we must begin to think in revolutionary ways. We must begin the Environmental Revolution of the 21st century.
-- By Susan Gonzalez
T H I S
'Whatever slack Nature cut us,
we used up,' declares Speth
What do you see as the most serious global environmental problems?
10.5 degrees F in this century.
What consequences of climate change are we already seeing?
How serious are the threats to biological diversity now?
Why did most of the international efforts to address environmental problems over the past quarter-century fail?
How has the United States helped or hindered this process?
What are some of the other challenges to reversing the damage to our environment?
What specific steps must be taken to avert an environmental crisis?
What can people do as individuals to help in the transition to a sustainable world?
How hopeful are you that we can avert a global environmental catastrophe before it is too late?
W E E K ' SS T O R I E S
Trachtenberg wins inaugural Mellon Emeritus Fellowship
'Whatever slack Nature cut us, we used up,' declares Speth
Director named for new center for writing instruction
Students awarded scholarships for achievement in science ruling
ENDOWED PROFESSORSHIPSRobert F. Thompson will serve another term . . .
Reed honored for commitment to undergraduate art education
Show features miniature portraits of wee ones
Campus talk features architect Zaha Hadid
Brzezinski: U.S. foreign policy guided by 'fundamental misdiagnosis'
Sterling Library exhibit explores subject of love, Mesopotamian style
The relevance of Mahatma Gandhi in today's India is topic of event
Yale Books in Brief
Campus Notes
Bulletin Home|Visiting on Campus|Calendar of Events|In the News
Bulletin Board|Classified Ads|Search Archives|Deadlines
Bulletin Staff|Public Affairs|News Releases|
E-Mail Us|Yale Home