Life in the Rear-view Mirror

The Perfect Global Storm

Our biosphere has been hit by a perfect storm: an increase in per-capita consumption, an even larger increase in population, and governments' inability to deal with long-term issues. These have conspired to stress Mother Earth almost to the breaking point.

To feed the increasing appetite of a growing world population for food and consumer products, we have been digging the earth's crust to extract non-renewable resources such as metal ores, rare minerals, and fossil fuels at alarming rates. We have cut forests and rainforests, which are the earth's lungs, to the point where the earth is developing emphysema; and we have over-fished the oceans so much that many species have become extinct, and others are close to it.

If world population continues to increase at the same rate as the last fifty years, by 2050 it will be close to fourteen billion - almost double what it was five years ago. Clearly, increased per-capita consumption and increasing world population cannot continue at the same rates of the past fifty years. There are limits to growth, and we are pretty close to them. In some, we are already there.

The path to sustainability is much different than the one we are on. Without being alarmist, time is running out and the time to change path is now. The health of our biosphere and the future of the human species, as well as that of all others, are at stake. Inaction is not an option, and concerted, collaborative, and timely action is urgently needed.

Three big issues are staring us straight in the face: availability of potable water, depletion of natural resources, and contamination of our biosphere. However, the one that's most talked about is climate change, which is a long-term issue and a less-pressing one than the others. Even if the climate change predictions were to be true, and there is much uncertainty in them, the impact is about a century away. However, we have water shortages now, not a hundred years from now! Californians are already struggling, and they are not the only ones.

The world health organization has already declared the air we breathe as dangerous to our health. In 2013, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization issued a press release classifying air pollution as carcinogenic to humans. The worlds leading experts, convened by the International Agency for Cancer Research, concluded that exposure to polluted outdoor air causes lung cancer. With every breath we take, we increase the risk of developing cancer. We have air pollution problems now, not a hundred years from now!

Ambient air pollution, in both cities and rural areas, was estimated to cause 3.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2012, from stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and acute respiratory diseases. Stroke and heart disease accounted for about 80%, while respiratory diseases claimed 14%, and lung cancer 6%. The principle sources of particulate matter, which is the major component of air pollution, include: sulphates, nitrates, ammonia, black carbon, and mineral dusts, all arising from industrial activities.

The air we breathe is killing us and causing us pain in the process. Why are we not talking about it? Why are the media obsessed with uncertain climate change and not the more immediate issues?

If we were aware of the health and environmental costs associated with the products we buy, would consumer behaviour change? Would we avoid buying products that are directly, or indirectly, harmful to our health and the environment?

Unfortunately, there are no labels on consumer products telling us how harmful they are to the environment and us. If all consumer products had such labels, we would be astonished by the findings. The lack of such information frees us from any guilt of wrongdoing, and predisposes us to buying things of marginal utility, and even some that we don't really need.

If we went to the store to buy a leaf blower, and its label told us that it has a big impact on health and the environment, would we buy a rake instead and collect leaves manually the way people have always done?

Why don't we have such labels?

When I was young, food labels didn't have nutritional facts as they do today. The nutritional information provided on them nowadays helps us make better decisions. Look at what happened when food products had to divulge how much sugar, fat, and salt was in them, as well as the other ingredients and their nutritional values! The system is not perfect, and not everyone pays attention to them, but the majority do, and they enjoy healthier foods.

But something more important happened; the food industry itself changed. Food processors started producing more nutritional foods. And we all benefited from the simple labelling change. Many of us eat much healthier because of it!

Would people buy a new cell phone every six months to take advantage of the latest features of the new model, if the label on the package gave us the level of environmental damage caused by its fabrication? The processing of rare-earth metals used in cell phones and other electronic devices is one of the most polluting and hazardous to human health, but very few people buying a cell phone know that! How can they make responsible decisions without such information?

If such labelling were to be introduced, the same thing that happened with food products would happen with consumer products. Once people are aware that everything we buy has a pollution footprint (an index measuring the environmental and health damage), their first action would be to buy the one with the lowest index. It's the same with energy efficiency labels on appliances. We all try to buy the most efficient, which are also the least polluting because electricity production contaminates the environment.

The second thing that would happen is that people would think twice about replacing their cell phones and other gadgets with newer models, simply because that's what the manufacturers want us to do. In turn, manufacturers would adapt to the new reality that pushing a new gadget every six months is not profitable.

Wouldn't that be great for Mother Earth and humanity?