Bas de Leeuw*
March, 2010
It is becoming painfully clear that the world is running out of resources. This will not happen tomorrow, or even next year – but at some stage in the not too distant future, we will no longer be able to reconcile our desire for growth and demand for resources, with the available supply of resources. The public debate has shifted in response to this. Once upon a time, if you raised the issue of resource scarcity, you were accused of being a prophet of doom. This is no longer the case.
Physical limits are in sight for some critical metals on which our information technologies are increasingly dependent. Some of these metals may not be scarce in a strictly quantitative sense, but they are only to be found in a very limited number of countries, which raises security of supply concerns. The supply of water is becoming a topic of major concern and a source of potential conflict as well. Economic forces are responding to these limits, with prices going up where there are no alternative resources available, and the social and environmental consequences of resource scarcity are receiving increasing attention. As we deplete resources, our earth is getting dirtier and more dangerous for our health, and despite the promise of growth, poverty is still far from eradicated.
More and more people have more and more needs. Yet despite all the conferences, multilateral agreements and protocols, we are still very far from providing a decent and dignified life to all people on our planet. Is it utopian to want this? I don’t think so – in fact it is a natural human ambition, and it is very possible to achieve. But first we need to accept the reality of our situation, and then work to deliver change that can respond to this reality.
The limits of growth
Unfortunately, up until this point we have been living in denial. This is still the case. Dennis Meadows, co-author of the groundbreaking book “The Limits to Growth”1, made the following observation about the critical responses to the book, which was amongst the first to identify the resource scarcity problems our modern societies face. In the 1970s, critics argued that there were no effective limits to growth. In the 1980s, they acknowledged that perhaps there were limits, but they were far away. In the 1990s, it was accepted that the limits might be near, but we were told that technology and markets would help us avoid them. In the 2000s, critics noticed that technology and markets had not yet solved the problems of resource scarcity, but they were able to convince us that they would do so as long as we could deliver more growth. In 2010, the critics have finally begun to admit that growth might actually be aggravating the problem, but their answer is… it is too late to do anything!
It is indeed a long bridge to walk, from science to policymaking, from accepting reality to doing something about it. So are we now too late? I get asked this question frequently, usually not in formal panel discussions or “Q&A” sessions with the audience, but rather in the corridors, after stepping down from the podium. Perhaps that is because people are too afraid to ask the question, thinking I will say, “yes, it is too late”. But on the contrary, I normally say what I deeply believe in – that it is never too late to change your own life, and therefore it is never too late to change the world. The key is to organize this change effectively.
Currently, we see that many governments at least appear to be stepping up to the plate in terms of acknowledging that something needs to be done if we are to address resource security and deliver sustainable consumption and production. The problem is that not much is coming of this realization. We are currently locked in a pattern of repetitive rituals where diplomats negotiate without really knowing what they are negotiating about. With secretariats failing to provide clear and timely feedback about the interim results of policies – they are keeping track of statements and side events, but are failing to make clear how those statements fit into the overall picture, how they address the issue at stake. We need to devote more attention to the verifiable outputs of policies; we need to pay more attention to numbers instead of statements.
International pipe dreams
There are currently no effective international mechanisms for bringing about this shift. For example, there is little prospect of achieving an international agreement on “consumption” or on “resource use per capita”. On the contrary, such agreements remain a pipe dream; we have not even started the groundwork analysis, which they would need. Despite a call by leaders at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg to develop a framework for sustainable consumption and production, we have not yet seen any baseline figures – what were the figures for global and national per capita consumption and production in 2000? What are the trends, what impacts do they have, and what objectives should the world aim to achieve? And if we don’t achieve these, what will happen? In order to bring about a sense of urgency and a spirit of cooperation these types of numbers are needed. The clearer the picture, the better the action will be.
On a more positive note, at the national and local levels there has been tremendous progress. The sustainable consumption and production tool box has been filled better and also used more effectively – there has been considerable innovation in terms of education, marketing, eco-design, eco-labeling and cleaner production. It is however remarkable that the one tool, which only governments can use, is actually used the least – here I am referring to legislation. I am not talking about a “thou shalt not consume” law, but rather about legislation aimed at producers, which prevents suboptimal products and services to be offered to consumers. Too often governments allow these products to be produced and distributed, whilst at the same time calling upon consumers (by way of information campaigns) to make alternative purchases. This is a very indirect, and inefficient, way of regulating. Governments appear very hesitant to regulate directly, but by doing so they could deliver considerable improvements in consumption and production compared with current approaches.
Progress at national and local levels is not enough however. More needs to be done if we are to address the issue of resource scarcity. The sustainability impacts (environmental, economic, social) of our consumption and production patterns are well known, and scientists have been calculating and modeling the risks and writing and arguing about the solutions for decades. Right now, all the necessary strategies and tools exist to bring about change.
A vital element to this process of change will be adopting a so called “systems approach” to our thinking. This involves recognizing, and understanding, how different elements influence one another within the whole. The world is a complex system, but up until this point, any attempts to address global problems have been brought to the level of conferences and meetings, each with their own agendas, practices and networks. We haven’t been focusing on the world as a whole, but rather on its small constituent elements. Yet it is increasingly becoming evident that smarter and more holistic oversight and management is needed. Dynamic systems analysis, which shows the “what if…” scenarios, can offer a common platform for all negotiators, demonstrating the real consequences of inaction regarding resource scarcity, and showing what the end result needs to be – so that we can define exactly what “sustainable” consumption and production is and achieve it.
Effective individual action
Change will be built on three pillars, effective global governance, effective nation states, and effective individual action
It is now recognized that enabling more individual action – coordinated, informed, organized – is necessary. We talk a lot about global governance, and about the role of nation states, but we often forget the role of individuals in addressing issues such as resource scarcity. But change will be built on three pillars, effective global governance, effective nation states, and effective individual action. Individuals are increasingly seeing the connections between their own decisions and global problems. As Klaus Töpfer, former Executive Director of UNEP, has pointed out “It is becoming more and more evident that consumers are increasingly interested in the ‘world that lies behind’ the product they buy. Apart from price and quality, they want to know how and where and by whom the product has been produced. This increasing awareness about environmental and social issues is a sign of hope. Governments and industry must build on that”.2
Providing individuals with additional information will act to further improve their awareness. But information must be harnessed not just because it helps individuals when making decisions about purchases, but also because it can help devise new and innovative solutions to global problems. Individuals are increasingly connected to the worldwide grid. In the past it was important where you were born, where you lived, what education you had, and what networks you were part of. Nowadays it is literally possible for anybody with access to a laptop and Internet connection to disseminate and get support for their ideas. Ideas that can save the world. This opens up a huge pool of creativity and potential solutions.
The question is where do we begin, right now? Let’s start by daring to describe the problem in real terms by zooming out and looking at the whole system, identifying where the leverage points in the system are, how the flows within it are directed and how they can be influenced. Let us do this on the basis of clear numbers and speaking the truth. Then various groups who together can deliver the solutions – not necessarily “country delegates” – can meet and zoom in: identify exactly what every stakeholder can do, and bring it about, serving and influencing the quality of life of the billions of people who do not need to think about sustainability on a daily basis, but just need the right products and services, and the right information.
* I would like to thank my colleagues Jeanne Veach-Bragdon and Jay Bragdon for their insightful comments on this essay.
1Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William Behrens III, “The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind”, New York, Potomac Associates, 1972.
2Klaus Töpfer, UNEP News Release NR99-90, 23 August 1999.
This article is part of the Foresight India symposium taking place March 25-26 in New Delhi. A pdf of the full reader is available here.
