The debate continues as to whether human activity is likely to cause harmful and irreparable climate changes.  Until there is concrete, indisputable proof either way, it will continue to be deliberated.  It’s entirely pointless to waste so much time and energy arguing this issue though.

Let’s say that we conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that global warming is nonexistent, and the environmental movement receives a crushing blow as a result.  Then imagine that, 20 years from now, we realize we were wrong.  Not good. As Scooby Doo would say, “Ruh roh, Raggy!”

But what if we decide that global warming is a threat to humanity, make a committed, unified effort to fight that hazard, only to find out 20 years later that there was no serious threat in the first place?  Were our efforts wasted?  Nope.  Far from it.

If global warming doesn’t exist, yet we believe it does, our “blunder” will be a tremendous benefit to all who inhabit our planet.  Consider the following:

1.)  Energy Security:  Since our imported energy is composed entirely of dirty fossil fuels, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy necessarily means fixing our energy imbalance.  No longer will we be at the mercy of OPEC.  No longer will our nation instigate conflict in the Middle East to secure energy supplies.  Instead we will power our nation with the natural, renewable resources that we have in abundance.

2.) Less Environmental Destruction:  Conversationalists have been around since long before global warming was on anyone’s radar (like this dude), but their efforts have certainly been aided recently by broader environmental movements.  Conservation is now accepted as far deeper than simply preserving the beauty and diversity of natural ecosystems for future generations to enjoy.  Now we see conservation as vital to the well-being of the planet as a whole; to our very existence.  We’re discovering how interconnected we are with the entire living world.

3.) Less Human Injustice:  We remain in trade agreements that foster continued exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the rich, all the while creating more and more environmental damage.  Our corporations travel to remote corners of the globe, blatantly violating human rights (often of indigenous populations) in the ruthless exploitation of resources ranging from oil to cheap labor.  The way we treat each other and the way we treat our planet is highly correlated.  A movement to address one is almost invariably related to the other.

4.)  Stronger Communities:  We’re learning that it’s not sustainable (nor desirable) to live in the franchised, outsourced, isolated world we do.  Small-town America has been overrun by fast food chains (”do you want fries with that?”) and box stores, causing local businesses to fail.  Our inner cities struggle as suburbia continues to expand.  Our clothes come from China, many of our fruits and vegetables from Central America, and a good portion of our fuel from the Middle East.  More efficient, locally-based economies are not only better for the earth, but arguably much more rewarding as well.

~

The movement to combat global warming is about far more than the possibility of rising temperatures.  It’s about bringing meaning back to our lives.  It’s about questioning our values (why again are we working so hard to buy more stuff we don’t need?).  It’s about reconnecting with our planet, with each other, and with ourselves.

Global warming or no, we have the chance to go down in history as either those who ushered in a new era of meaningful existence, or those who perpetuated the status quo and handed our successors an even bigger mess.  What’s there to debate?

Note: For my next Toastmasters speech (mid-September), I’m planning to give a speech similar to this.  My first two speeches have been more of the informative type; now I’d like to try my hand at a persuasive style. I’ll probably post it here when it’s done.

Does economic growth by its nature include positive development, or vice-versa? I certainly don’t think so. These concepts are not always positively correlated, and it is a mistake to use the terms interchangeably.

Paul Hawken said it best in The Ecology of Commerce:

“A growing economy is getting bigger; a developing economy is getting better.”

It would make logical sense to focus the brunt of our efforts on the development of our economy, but a quick browsing of the Wall Street Journal or a few minutes of watching CNBC proves this is not the case. The GDP apparently is the all-important measuring stick. It’s simple, really. GDP falling = bad, GDP rising = good. Most economic policy is based in some way off of this assumption. Sadly though, it’s an assumption that desperately needs to be challenged.

Just because something is growing does not automatically it is improving. As it is, we ask “Is our economy growing?” and “Are profits rising?”. If we can answer yes to both of these questions, then the economy is generally thought to be moving in the right direction.

But what about the questions that really matter?

• Are people genuinely better off, or happier, now than before (not just materially)?
• Are businesses adding actual value?
• Are we becoming healthier?
• Are our ways sustainable?
• Are the 49ers in the playoff hunt?

These are questions of development, and they unfortunately get less attention than the questions of growth.

I’d like to point out two industries in which growth clearly takes precedence over development.

1.) Energy:

The fossil fuel energy sector grows by degrading the planet and exploiting its resources. Ecosystems are destroyed by expanded drilling and mining. More CO2 is released in the atmosphere as we burn fossil fuels, and we remain ever-addicted to finite, dirty sources of energy. Yet, the economy, as measured by GDP, grows, and supposedly this is good. This is economic “progress”.

On the other hand, energy development might not increase the GDP much, but we would certainly be better off. We could make our transportation more efficient, walking, biking, and utilizing public transportation more than we do (bonus: Americans get more exercise!). We could build more efficient buildings, or better yet, retrofit the buildings we already have to be more efficient. We could foster the development of food networks that provide locally-grown options. In this environment development would take precedence over unconditional growth; any growth that results is a byproduct of achieving true progress.

The alternative energy field represents an area where growth and development are in alignment. Installing wind turbines helps the economy grow and develop at the same time, as we simultaneously reduce our dependence on dirty fuels. This is desirable as well, but we should not expect to solve the energy and climate crises simply on growth alone.

2.) Health Care:

Isn’t it ironic how the “health” care industry grows as people become more and more unhealthy? Sick care would clearly be a more appropriate name.

This is an industry that thrives on treatment, not prevention, because treatment is where the big bucks are. When people are sick (or think they are), we can prescribe them expensive pills and put them through expensive treatments. This boosts the profit of everyone from shareholders of Merck to the physician down the street, and the GDP grows (as health-care costs and insurance premiums skyrocket). This is clearly another instance where growth does not equal progress, yet the nightly news would be giddy over the rising economic figures.

Instead, if we put aside our concerns for the stock prices of the pharmaceutical companies and focused on development, we would be immensely better off. We could actually concentrate on, rather than paying lip-service to, preventative medicine; simple things like eating healthier and exercising. Instead of sending an obese person home from the doctor with a handful of new prescriptions, they would be sent home with an earful about their couch-potato lifestyle and poor eating habits.

~

Eventually, we will need a new economic paradigm that isn’t entirely dependent upon infinite growth. This shouldn’t be a surprise, given that our resources are finite in nature. In fact, we’re probably already close to surpassing (if we haven’t already) our planet’s sustainable carrying capacity.

Such a model is hard to fathom right now, as our entire capitalistic structure is supported by future growth prospects, but there are ways us individuals can do our part. Most of them have to do with minimizing our negative impact on the planet, and/or taking better care of ourselves.

• Use less energy.
• Use more human-powered transportation.
• Reduce, reuse, recycle.
• Shop for value and longevity rather than the cheapest price.
• Fully wear things out before discarding.
• Eat locally grown food.
• Scrutinize your wants vs. your needs.
• Exercise consistently and eat healthy.

In the grand scheme of things, some of these actions may seem miniscule. I believe in the extraordinary potential that grassroots movements have though (Ron Paul 08! haha). As more and more people begin to take notice of these vitally important issues, I think we’ll naturally move towards a society that rightfully values development above all else.