All that said, the extent to which one is pessimistic depends not on the actual human induced environmental changes that are happening, but on how you believe nature will react and the socioeconomic and health impacts to human nature. Douglas (1992) proposed 4 ‘nature myths’ that depict the different views out there. The ’communards’ are pessimists who view nature as fragile and reacting sharply to even minor changes. On the other hand, the ‘entrepreneurial expansionists’ more optimistic and view nature as robust and able to handle the human induced changes. Therefore each individual will read the changes differently.
So what are these changes that are causing all the pessimism? What are the big issues? Despite claims of ‘decoupling’ economic growth from resource exploitation in the ‘new economy’, we are still largely dependent on depleting renewables, such as fisheries, forests and water resources. The cornucopian view that the markets will ensure infinite supply of resources does not seem to work in relation to these resources and this has led to a lot of pessimism. Water consumption has increased dramatically and ground water deficit is 160 billion cubic metres (Brown et al 2000). Parts of Africa and Asia are already experiencing water shortages (UNEP 1999) and this has direct effects on agricultural output. If trends continue, IBID predicts that 2 out of 3 people will experience water shortages by 2025.
The new economic power houses of India and China with their massive populations are adding extra strain on the world’s limited resources. Wood consumption has increased 64% since 1961 and in asia demand has rapidly increased but reserves are already short. In the 1990s alone, Indonesia cut down 12% of its tropical rain forest. Over fishing and water pollution has resulted in a decrease of around 60% of the world’s ocean fisheries and demand continues to increase (Ibid). If these trends continue, the future looks grim.
Simon 1995 in the State of Humanity draws his optimism from the fact that over time non renewable resources have become more abundant and less expensive despite the massive increase in population witnessed during a large part of the 20th Century. But in his naïve optimism, he fails to recognise the detrimental impacts consumption of these resources is having on the environment. Kasperson et al 1993, in Project on Critical Environment Zones identified 9 regions where changes were unusually severe and threatened local livelihoods and the list is increasing. The use of pesticides, chemicals and heavy irrigation during the Green Revolution increased output but also polluted rivers, killed beneficial insects and poisoned farmers (IFPRI).
Climate change is a major global problem and many have little faith in institutions and organisations to deal with it. The causes and consequences are exceedingly complex and rooted in the very structure of our society. The costs are massive and the short sighted nature of our political system makes solving the issue more difficult. In light of the new financial crisis, dealing with climate change will most likely be set aside, as politicians and public concern themselves with their financial woes (UNIPCC 2008). Carbon trading certificates have dropped in price to allow companies to focus on overcoming immediate economic problems.
To sum up we have seen that recently the media have played a major role in bringing environmental problem to the surface, mostly focussing on how human activity causes environmental changes. Looking at the socioeconomic consequences of environmental change, there are many reasons to be pessimistic, mainly due to the fact that environmental problems are becoming more global and complex. Depletion of primary resources is a major concern to an ever increasing population, and our use of non renewable resources is polluting the very systems that support life on our planet. Another major source of pessimism is the lack of faith in our institutions and organisations to deal with such global and costly problems.
