Climate change and South America: New beginnings in an old story

Like the rest of the world, South America (SA) is experiencing considerable environmental degradation. This is both a cause of and because of climate change; a result of human greed and apathy toward the natural world – a self-destructive social paradigm . Historically, SA has not been a significant factor in driving climate change (although currently Latin America as a whole is responsible for 12% of the annual global greenhouse gas emissions). That said, this does not mean the continent has escaped the some of the more deleterious effects of human environmental meddling.

Throughout South America (also Mexico), glaciers are in retreat (see these earlier posts). This tendency is particularly pronounced in the southern portion of the continent, Patagonia. In Chile, glaciers in the region have receded up to 580 meters due to reduced rainfall and rising temperatures in the region over the last century. Earlier this year, glaciers in Argentina were observed to break up in the winter for the first time. However, two glaciers have proven to be exceptions to the larger trend – one in Argentina and one in Chile are currently expanding.

The danger presented from the melting glaciers is not merely cosmetic. Rather, the receding glaciers represent a threat to the fresh water supply for both the local populace and agriculture. No glaciers means no fresh water, a dire situation. Still, local governments follow the same path. Recently in Argentina, a carefully crafted law meant to protect this resource was rejected in favor of business development and 'progress'. In Chile, near-future plans to address climate change are widely seen as insufficient.

One of the major sources of GHG emissions in SA (and globally) is deforestation. In an earlier post, some of the issues and attitudes regarding towards the Amazon rain forest were examined with the hope that Brazil would exercise the moral choice of conserving the rain forest for the long-term benefit of all. The actions of the Brazilian government tell one story; the annual tally of forest loss tells another.

The Brazilian government is making an attempt at conservation. A show of force with a crackdown on illegal loggers and a pledge to reduce the rate of deforestation by half in the next decade are some high-profile actions taken recently. Unfortunately, the annual amount of forest cleared has risen for the first time in three years. This is being driven by farmers and cattle ranchers clearing forest in response to capitalize on high commodity prices around the world.

Deforestation is not confined solely to Brazil, but rather endemic throughout the region. And while the effects on the global climate are significant, the local and regional impacts can also be large. For example

• In Colombia, deforestation is behaving synergistically with an unusual rainy season, exacerbating flooding along with avalanches and landslides -- 50 people have been killed, 85 injured, nine are missing and 735,000 have been left homeless. A local meteorologist notes “Human beings are the problem...Cutting down trees in the river basins means that the rains are not contained, but sweep down rapidly into streams and rivers, which rise and overflow.”

• In Paraguay, one of the last uncontacted indigenous tribes is being threatened as their forest homeland is reduced to cattle pasture. More tragically, the lands are protected under some native title legislation; the national government isn't (can't or won't?) enforcing the law.

Like the rest of the world,a common theme in SA appears to be the inability of many of the continent's governments to affect meaningful measures to halt the slide of environmental degradation, opting instead for the illusory panacea of short term economic growth. That said, many nations on the continent are experimenting with new forms of governance. Ecuador's new constitution states: "Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution." That is, it grants explicit rights to Nature. Early next year, Bolivia is likely to enact a new constitution that empowers the long-suffering indigenous people of that nation.

There is no guarantee of success, though -- significant hurdles remain to be overcome. More trials of this sort are needed to develop a new zeitgeist, a different way of living for the 21^st century. The current paradigm of the global North has run its course; an apparent dead end of financial insolvency, endless warfare and destruction of the natural world. The world should learn from and improve upon these experiments. We may well be witnessing the beginnings of a 'New American Century', but this time led from the South and based on the principles of social justice and environmental sustainability.

**
Image: Wikipedia

Brazil and the future of the Amazon rain forest

Brazil has been in the news as of late, with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva defending his government's environmental stewardship of the Amazon rain forest, saying the world needed to understand that the Amazon belonged to Brazilians.

Some concern is warranted, given the dramatic resignation of the environment minister a few weeks ago. An excellent article detailing the background of the situation notes that after a series of lost battles to implement the government's own stated environmental policies, Marina Silva gave up, feeling the battle was lost. Pro-development forces have won.

It is now likely that the government will move rapidly to build more highways and hydroelectric power stations within the Amazon region, making it easier for agribusiness and mining companies to move in.

This anecdote sums up this attitude:

One day, Lucio Flores, a Brazilian Terena Indian, was travelling by truck through the Amazons region alongside a local landowner. Looking at the dense tropical forest around, the landowner said, "Look at this, there is nothing here."

A little further as they left the forest to cross a soybean plantation, the landowner exclaimed: "But here there is soy!" To him, forest was nothing, soy everything.

...For [Flores], the story was a symbol of the opposed views dividing the business community and indigenous peoples. "For agro business, nature is nothing," Flores said. "For us, it is all."

Brazil's case is legally right given the international political system. It's their forest, they can raze it if they so please. But that choice threatens the globe with climate instability and environmental calamity for many years to come. Such a decision would not be a sound ethical choice.

The attitude reflected in the anecdote above is analogous to the idea of terra nullius, or 'empty land' employed in the conquest of Australia. Today the idea is seen for the ruse it is, scurrilous behaviour on the part of colonists. Rapaciously destroying the the rain forest in the name of never-ending 'economic growth' will similarly be seen by future generations as the atrocity that it is

Lula's amusement that countries who were among the world's worst polluters want to talk about preserving the rain forest points to the need for leadership on this and other environmental issues by the Global North. Brazilians can't be forced to preserve the rain forest or even use it sustainably. The richer nations must act decisively, not just talk -- lead by example.

Ultimately, it is in Brazil's interest to preserve the forest as well as the globe's. Everybody will pay for climate change in the end. If Brazil wants to be a leader in the 21^st century, over-exploitation of a one-time gift from Nature for fleeting 'growth' is a poor choice. Visionary thinking is required to develop new models for living harmoniously with the environment. In some ways, beginning from a less-damaged environmental state could provide a head start for developing these methods. This is a saner path to future leadership.

**

Image: Mouth of the Amazon river, northern Brazil. False-color MODIS image from 26May08.

We did what...!?

The magnitude of human induced changes to the planet is astounding. The existence and reality of anthropogenic global climate change, largely wrought by greenhouse gas emissions, is itself difficult to comprehend. And as global capitalism continues to accelerate, CO2 levels have reached new peaks, up to 394 ppm. Contrary to the claims on deniers, the recent global warming has not stopped, nor is it likely to in any sort of imaginable near future. Unfortunately, our environmental problems are not limited to the atmosphere.

All the 'spheres' (i.e. atmo-, hyrdo-, bio-, etc.) of the Earth are deeply interrelated, each affecting the other through poorly understood feedback mechanisms. Changing one aspect of the environment can have dramatic effects on a different, seemingly unrelated aspect. Over the eons, these different aspects of the environment have reached a 'dynamic equilibrium', allowing all we sense and rely upon to exist. Unfortunately, humans are radically altering all of these spheres at once, risking our existence. Often, this is done for the purpose of short-term profit and unchecked economic 'growth'. A few examples follow.

Our attitudes towards the ocean and its fish stocks are particularly shocking. Overfishing has long been a concern, but governments around the world continue to subsidize these activities and turn a blind eye towards regulation. Corruption rules the day. Recent studies using records of fishing activity from the pre-industrial era have begun to shed some light on the enormity of these transgressions against nature. A quote:

In 1855, just 43 schooners out of Beverly, Mass., were catching considerably more cod in the waters south of Nova Scotia in a season than their modern counterparts can catch today. Crews fishing over the side with baited hand lines caught 7,800 metric tons of cod – about three times what fishermen caught in that area in 2006. And they did it within sight of land in coastal waters where today cod are virtually nonexistent.

Consider also that the ocean's 'biological deserts' have expanded by over 15% between 1997 and 2006, likely driven by anthropogenic global warming. What effect will these have on future fish stocks? Will carbon sequestration in the ocean be reduced as a result, hence increasing global warming? What about man-made nitrogen? What will people who rely on the sea eat?

Our attitudes to the forests of the world, particularly in tropical regions, are also primarily motivated by profit. After a few years of relative decline, deforestation in the Amazon is again on the upswing, driven by high commodity prices and other land use pressures. The government is unlikely to take any serious remediative action. Similarly, mangrove swamps have declined by 20% since 1980. Land use changes, particularly conversion for agriculture is the main driver. These forests are mainstays of biodiversity and are a crucial part of maintaining the 'dynamic balance' needed for life as we know it to continue to exist. However, the true rate of tropical deforestation remains uncertain due to data quality issues.

While many of these changes are occurring in less-developed regions of the world, one can hardly fault them for following the model for success which served the western world so well. It continues there today. Similar questions to those for the ocean apply here. What about the carbon sequestration by the forest? What is the greater effect of species loss?

Issues of tropical deforestation were discussed at the recently Bali conference, and a tentative agreement was struck. Regardless, the World Bank continues sponsor destruction of the forest a month after promising to fight deforestation. If there is a buck to be made, they will make it. This attitude is symptomatic of the environmental problems we face. Our global economic system is harsh, with two possible outcomes: exploiter or exploited. The exploited get to live in post-collapse conditions now; the rest of us have to wait a few more years.

The magnitude of the environmental crises we have caused is beginning to be more widely recognized. So is the main driver of global capitalism and incessant economic growth. Bill Gates, one of the world's richest men, recently issued a call for a “kinder capitalism”. How to actually go about creating a low carbon society is being serious discussed by academics. But we in the rich nations cannot make our taking action contingent on action by the poor. We must lead by example and act unilaterally, freely sharing our knowledge to create a better life for all. We largely created the problems, we need to fix them. A new lifestyle is needed around the world, free from the clutches of unrestrained global capitalism. The changes won't be easy, but they are the only hope we have.

To achieve this, we must both summon to political will to change, as well as make a personal commitment to lead a more sustainable lifestyle. Duplicitous climate change talks won't do it. Neither will greenwashed BS like the Eco credit card. It's easy to expect nothing of our political leaders or ourselves. Most wouldn't elect someone who runs on a platform similar to what is required.

We have already pushed ourselves into a new geological epoch with our radical alteration of the planet. We need to act now so that there will be future scientists to interpret these events in the geological record and marvel at how we avoided calamity.