Email this page to a friend!

Book Review: The God Species

 

We’ve written recently about the global population ticking over 7 billion this year. Forecast to reach 9 billion by mid-century, our team at the Global Poverty Project are often asked, “How is the world going to cope with having so many people? Won’t having fewer poor people damage the environment?”

Mark Lynas picks up these questions in his challenging new book, The God Species. Starting with the idea that humans have altered our planet so fundamentally so as to create a new geological era – the Anthropocene – Lynas outlines nine planetary boundaries which we must respect if we’re to ensure that humanity can continue to flourish.

At first glance, this is an environmental book, not one about extreme poverty. But at its core, it’s about how humanity, and in particular the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us, will survive and thrive over the next century.

Taking a couple of the boundaries as an example, it’s clear to see how these issues connect back to extreme poverty:

Climate Change Boundary. We’ve written before about how climate change is already hitting the world’s poorest first and hardest, even though they did the least to cause it. They live in the most vulnerable locations – arid areas increasingly prone to droughts, low-lying areas prone to floods, and the world’s poor often lack the capital and infrastructure to respond as the climate changes.

Nitrogen Boundary. Nitrogen has fueled the green revolution and the world’s ability to feed itself, and as the world adds 2 billion people (many of whom will be eating more meat) in the next 40 years, managing its use will become increasing important. Lynas takes a swipe at the organic farming movement, and those opposed to GM-foods, citing increased efficiency in industrial farming methods as perhaps the best way to safely feed the world’s population.

Freshwater Boundary. Balancing the needs of human populations – for drinking, agriculture, industry - and the environment for fresh water is pondered at length. Lynas argues that technological innovation and effectively managed markets hold the answers to overcoming the challenge that is 850 million people currently lacking access to clean drinking water, and the increasing need for food production in coming years.

Aerosols Boundary. Lynas outlines how emissions from dirty fuels not only contribute to climate change, but damage the health of millions. And, many of these emissions are caused by the cooking habits of the world’s poorest – “Indoor smoke pollution from old-style stoves or open fires burning wood, dung or coal kills 1.6 million people a year due to respiratory infections worsened by smoke inhalation; India alone suffers as many as half a million premature deaths.”

For a book about complex scientific issues, The God Species is highly readable, and unlike many books of its genre, it eschews the temptation to scream that we’re all going to die. Instead, it offers some sober and optimist ideas on what can be done to ensure that all humans, both present and future, can live safely and happily on our planet.

You can buy The God Species from Amazon.

Posted by Simon Moss in Environment & Climate for column Issue Analysis on Dec 13th 2011, 16:00

Comments

16/12/11 3:09am - Posted By Sharon - Reply to this comment
Thanks for this review Simon, and for raising this issue of planetary boundaries and how they relate to the goals of GPP.

For those who want to know more, this is based on the work of the Stockholm Resilience Centre - check out this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/johan_rockstrom_let_the_environment_guide_our_development.html

It is a huge and dangerous fallacy to think of 'environment' and 'people' as separate, and its been a failing in some parts of the environment movement in years gone by. However contemporary claims that environmentalists are misanthropic are way off target. The notion of environmental protection or conservation is upside-down, as its the earth that protects us (and all life).

This idea of 'sustainability' is about how can everyone live a good life (of which material wealth is only one part of wellbeing) **within planetary boundaries** ie. we can't, overall, keep growing on a planet that isn't growing (this is the conversation we are helping to build with Post Growth Institute postgrowth.org).

Under our current 'operating system' (political economy and values underlying it) the first people to be impacted on by breaches of boundaries, or resource scarcity, or environmental degradation will be those people who are already vulnerable, and cannot buy in resources from elsewhere.

Another planetary boundary which is crucial, and which 'bundles up' resource demands into a common 'currency' of hectares (area required to sustain resource flows), is the Ecological Footprint. EF measures whether we are in overshoot, or using nature's regenerative capacity faster than nature can replenish it.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

The Global Footprint Network maintain accounts for most countries dating back to the 1960s to monitor biophysical 'supply and demand' and determine the level of overshoot.

Question: what does overshoot mean for the world's most vulnerable people?
12/11/12 4:53pm - Posted By Rajdeep - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
made statements that have been prevon false. I am looking for an example. [Reply: Look them up yourself]Hansen has been on stage with Gore on invitation, for a rally, and he lobbies state governments to not build new power plants, that’s political activism. And he quite clearly states that he is speaking as a citizen when he does so. I’ve read several of the letters where he does so.He can’t have it both waysAccording to who?being a gatekeeper of data and political activist for a cause using that data is a conlfict of interest.If someone can prove misconduct on his part, so be it. Until then he is doing nothing wrong.Hansen- “In my opinion” nobody else is calling for such, thus Hansen is an outlier. Did read Lomborg's Op-Ed before reprinting it? His entire point is that there is a vast Green Inquisition calling for the same. [Of course, once one actually tracks down the statements being made, none of them refer to skeptics and all of them refer to those and only those who are deliberately and knowingly engaging in actions or inactions detrimental to the public welfare.] Look at BP, big alternate energy program.Assuming BP's CEO(s) didn't engage in deliberate disinformation campaigns, Hansen's comment doesn't apply, nor to any other person who wasn't doing the things Hansen explicitly names.Hansen’s appeal as an emotional activist is a conflict of interest to his role as scientistYou keep saying this, but I'm not sure why. I am unaware of any requirement of any scientific body that Hansen is a member of that requires him to censor himself in his personal life.he is keeper of the data used to push the agenda he supports.Do you honestly believe that if A) Hansen wasn't the ostensible caretaker of GISTEMP that it would not show similar warming to the HadCRUT or NCDC anomalies? or B) That if Hansen was not the ostensible caretaker of GISTEMP but knew exactly what he does now he would not hold the same opinions about CO2e goals we need to reach?REPLY: Yes Hansen is not an ostensible caretaker of data. He uses the data to push the agenda, that's not only a conflict of interest, but I believe a lapse in professional ethics.I never said censor , you did. And he quite clearly states that he is speaking as a citizen when he does so. Your argument about private citizen is absolute rubbish. Just because Hansen says I'm speaking as private citizen somehow negates his publicly funded research? Truly you are gullible if you believe that.Once you become a public figure, you can't just take off one hat and put on another at will when speaking about the issue that made you a public figure. If Hansen had no connection to global warming research he would never have been invited by Gore or be lobbying the Iowa legislature. He can't just be a private citizen lobbying on GW after using public research money to elevate himself to international celebrity on the GW issue. If Hansen was invited someplace to speak about something he does as a hobby in his private life, coin collecting for example, then he'd be a private citizen in that venue. Being invited to speak at a political activism rally about fruits of your AGW research from a publicly funded government position, does not entitle him to be a private citizen in that capacity just because he says so. Your argument is deeply flawed.Show me where Richard Lindzen has gone on stage, spoke about AGW, and said I'm a private citizen not speaking as a learned scientist . Show me where Lindzen has lobbied state legislatures with private letters with his home address, rather than his university one, and said I'm speaking as private citizen only .
13/11/12 1:18am - Posted By ydadkxpf - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
M9WSdY <a href="http://gjkuhimurwmz.com/">gjkuhimurwmz</a>
15/11/12 4:58am - Posted By ucmnwdzrecc - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
f4jHGw <a href="http://quqpezuruyah.com/">quqpezuruyah</a>
02/03/13 3:02pm - Posted By Pharma992 - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
Hello! dbekkac interesting dbekkac site! I'm really like it! Very, very dbekkac good!
02/03/13 3:02pm - Posted By Pharmd867 - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
Very nice site! <a href="http://aieopxy.com/osoasvv/1.html">cheap viagra</a>
02/03/13 3:03pm - Posted By Pharmk185 - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
Very nice site! [url=http://aieopxy.com/osoasvv/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
02/03/13 3:04pm - Posted By Pharmk720 - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://aieopxy.com/osoasvv/4.html

Add Comment

Your Name:

Your Email (Not Displayed):

Please enter the code in the image into the box

Code:


Can't read the image? Reload