Green Horizon's Turkish sister publication Yesil Ufuklar catches up with environmentalist and author Lester Brown during a visit to Istanbul to promote his new book
By Nafiz Guder
You have shifted your strategy from 'saving the planet' to 'saving civilization.' What is the reason for that? Have you observed concrete fruits from a change in strategy?
We environmentalists have been talking for the last three decades about 'saving the planet,' [but] the planet is going to be here for a long time. I mean, the planet is happening 'somewhere else,' as something outside us. That is no longer the issue. The issue is: How long are 'we' are going to be here? We have to try to cut carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020. This is almost a wartime mobilisation, but this is also a wartime situation. We are now facing a threat to civilisation.
If we talk about saving civilisation, it is clear that we all have a stake in saving it. It is for our interest. It occurred to me in a phone conversation several months ago with someone talking about universities. They needed to emphasise 'sustainable development,' and it occurred to me that the alternative to sustainable development is unsustainable development or decline and collapse. Sustainable development, however, is not a very sexy term, you know. It fails to convey much.
The stress is building, and the number of failing states is increasing. We have to reverse that trend. It is going to take enormous effort, but saving civilisation is not a spectator sport. We all have a stake in it. I mean, 'saving civilization' means something to people. I think it gives people a sense that they need to participate. I think that's why saving civilisation becomes the right way to address the issues.
What do you propose in your book 'Plan B 3.0' in order to save civilisation?
One of the things we do in Plan B 3.0 is to simply recognise that the traditional military threat coming from a superpower does not really exist today. And yet we are still building weapons systems as if we are still in the Cold War. The threats to our security now are climate change, population growth, poverty, soil erosion, spreading water shortages, et cetera. We really need to redefine 'security.' The threats are very real and imminent.
In the book we outline a plan in response to the trends that are undermining our future. There are four components of this plan: cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020; stabilising population at not more than 8 billion; eradicating poverty for the first time in history. We have the resources to eradicate poverty if we choose to do so. We put stabilising population and eradicating poverty together because they reinforce each other. The fourth thing is to restore the economy's natural support systems, the forests, the grasslands, soils, aquifers, fisheries. These are all in a state of decline and, in some cases, in actual collapse.
The cost required to stabilise population, eradicate poverty and to restore natural support systems is 190 [US] dollars a year. We can no longer say "it costs too much." We have to ask ourselves: "How much it will cost if we don't do it?" The cost is really the future of civilisation itself, and I don't know how to put a price tag on that.
No civilisation has ever survived the continuing decline and degradation of its environmental support systems. Nor can we. We are now on an economic path that is not environmentally sustainable, and the question is whether we can make the needed course corrections in time. If we don't adopt a 'Plan B' or something very similar to it, civilisation is unlikely to survive.
What kind of institutional changes are needed for implementing Plan B 3.0?
Getting from where we are today to the new energy economy of 2020 can be done through restructuring the tax system. The market does many things well, but one of the things it does not do is incorporate the indirect costs of using fossil fuels. When we buy gasoline, for example, we pay the cost of pumping the oil, getting the oil to the refinery, and the gasoline to the local service station. We do not pay the cost of climate change, the cost of damage of acid rains, cost of respiratory illnesses and treatment of them.
According to the Stern Report, climate change is a massive market failure. Socialism collapsed because it did not allow the market to tell the economic truth. Capitalism could collapse because it does not allow the market to tell the ecological truth.
What we need to do is to get the market to tell the truth, to include all the costs. The way to do this is to estimate the costs of climate change, air pollution, acid rain damage, and to incorporate these in the price of gasoline and coal-powered electricity by restructuring the tax system. We don't need to change the amount of tax revenue, which makes it easier to create jobs; and we tax carbon more, which will accelerate the shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and to investments in efficiency.
Multinational companies respond to market signals. They take prices into account when making decisions. The problem for them as economic decision makers, and for us as consumers, is that the market is giving bad information on prices. This is why I so strongly emphasise restructuring the tax system to get the market to tell the truth. If we begin incorporating the costs of climate change into the price of fossil fuels, multinationals will change their behaviour. If we can get the market to send the right price signals, we will see fundamental changes in behaviour.
You say: "You and I are going to change the planet." Who will be the leading actors in a paradigm shift? Poor people, rich countries, intellectuals, businessmen or statemen?
It's difficult to say. I mean, in some cases, the growing political movement to oppose new coal-fired power plants in the US is really, in a sense, coming from the people. Many of them are environmentalists, but others are from community groups that are concerned about pollution. And a lot of people now are concerned about climate change, not just the environmentalists. So I think [change] can come from a lot of places, and I think leadership might come from unexpected places and in unexpected ways. That the US could be moving to a leadership role in opposing new coal-fired power plants, for example, is a really exciting development. This is very different than internationally negotiated treaties on 'which countries are going to do what' — almost illusory situations in which no national representatives want to appear that they've given too much away. If we're going to make it, it's going to be because individual countries really begin to step out and do things on their own. And there is evidence that it is happening.
Ministers of energy have got the most important job in the world because they will determine the amount of climate change that we are facing. I cannot think of a more important responsibility. This is going to shape the future, but they cannot act independently of us.
Until very recently, food shortages were something that could be dealt with by ministers of agriculture. The new reality is that ministers of agriculture alone can no longer assure food security. Decisions made in the world's energy ministries may have a greater effect on long-term food security than decisions made and actions taken in ministries of agriculture. The success or failure of ministries of health and family planning may have a greater effect on future food security than anything the world's farmers will be able to do. We are looking at a world very different from the one we have known in the past.
The media now have an enormous responsibility, by the way. No other institution in society is as capable of raising public awareness and understanding of the issues fast enough to support effective policy responses.
The important people are the 6 billion of us who are determining policies by our actions, and by our inaction. You and I and a few billion other people around the world need to get involved in this process because we have a stake in the future. Many of us have children, and many of us have grandchildren. It is their world and their future that we are now deciding.
What will human life be like in 2040 if we begin properly implementing Plan B 3.0 today?
Well, we'll be living in cities that will be largely free of pollution for first time since industrialisation began. We'll live in cities that are quiet because plug-in hybrid cars don't make much noise. It's going to be a much more pleasant world than the one we're living in now, and that's the exciting thing about it.
Any particular observations about Turkey?
Several countries have now phased out the old-fashioned, inefficient, incandescent light bulbs. That could be a goal for Turkey. Set a date, and begin to move. Banning new coal-fired power plants is another issue, and so is a world-class recycling system. But it's up to you and me to work and organise.
