One might ask how the theme of nature-culture is related to the question of “one world or many.” The central issues between the two include the impact of globalization processes on ecosystems and local communities, and the promise and peril of new technologies for the natural world. Globalization represents for some an ever-expanding world economy. Where will the natural resources come from to fuel this expansion? Global fossil fuel consumption is rising dramatically in response to the demands of China’s and India’s rapidly expanding economies. As a result of past and ongoing industrialization, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level is higher today than it has been for at least 2 million years. Physical geographers now think in terms of “no analog future” scenarios for the Earth’s ecosystem. In other words, there is no past experience in human history to guide our understanding of a future ecosystem transformed by the Industrial Revolution.

Whether fearful or hopeful, most forecasters agree that recent trends indicate rising levels of consumption worldwide. Specifically, the cultures of mass consumption that developed first in the United States and Europe are spreading to every corner of the globe. China is a case in point. As the twenty-first century unfolds, China has become the world’s largest consumer of coal and automobiles. The cultures of mass consumption at the heart of globalization require enormous amounts of natural resources and produce prodigious quantities of pollutants. Given the ecological problems associated with the mass consumption of commodities such as cars, refrigerators, and so forth, we are compelled to ask ourselves whether current trends in consumption are sustainable for much longer.

The question of sustainable development on a global scale has been around since the 1970s. Cambridge geographer William Adams has produced the most comprehensive and carefully researched history of sustainable development. He suggests that the first attempt to create a plan for globally sustainable development came in 1980 with the publication of the World Conservation Strategy. This idea was refined a few years later by the UN-sponsored World Commission on Environment and Development. The commission brought sustainable development into the mainstream with its 1987 book Our Common Future. It identified poverty as a fundamental cause of the world’s ecological problems and concluded that to reduce global ecological problems, we need to reduce global poverty through the promotion of economic development. Today, just about everyone from the barefoot “tree hugger” to the well-heeled international bank executive advocates sustainable development. This is what Adams labeled the “mainstream” version of sustainable development, by which he meant that the concept had been redefined in a way that posed no serious challenge to the status quo of continual global expansion of consumption and economic growth.

479

But, let us take a closer look at the mainstream approach to sustainable development. In essence, it says that the familiar industrial model of continual economic expansion is the cure for both global poverty and ecological problems. However, although globalization has brought new prosperity and higher levels of consumption to some parts of the world, ecological problems only seem to be increasing. China’s rising coal consumption has led to increased emissions of carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas. It is now the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide and is projected to far exceed the United States, now in second place. Furthermore, as we noted previously, the rewards of globalization are distributed unevenly, with the majority of poor people remaining poor and only a few people becoming richer.

Some observers conclude that the term sustainable development is an oxymoron. Given the ecological record of modern industrialization, the faith in economic growth as a cure for environmental ills seems misplaced (Figure 11.19). Cultural and political ecologists have been strong critics of the mainstream approach to sustainable development. They claim that it does not take into account the larger-scale historical and structural causes of poverty, such as the lasting effects of European colonialism. Unless these are addressed, it is unlikely that the mainstream approach to sustainable development will substantially decrease poverty levels. A further criticism is that the focus on the link between poverty and ecological degradation downplays the environmental impact from high levels of consumption in affluent countries. For instance, Americans alone consume one-fourth of the world’s petroleum output and generate one-fourth of the carbon dioxide pollution.

One suggested alternative is to formulate sustainable development “from below” rather than through a top-down global program. The idea is to assist local initiatives and employ local knowledge to craft different economic paths for developing countries and communities that will not degrade land and resources along the way to higher living standards. Such alternatives, because they are informed by the communities they most immediately concern, would also be designed to maintain cultural identities, landscapes, and regions. Across the globe there are now hundreds of such efforts, which go by a variety of titles, such as “community conservation,” “joint forest management,” and “indigenous peoples’ reserves.” Approaching sustainable development from below means that the future will be defined by cultural heterogeneity, not homogeneity.

480

Another suggested alternative is to switch our main energy source from fossil fuels to renewable resources such as wind and solar. Again, China, which a 2012 Pew Charitable Trusts report labeled “the world’s clean energy leader” in every measure of alternative energy growth, is an important signpost in forecasting the future. China is now the fastest growing market for solar power, third in the world in installations behind Germany and Italy (Figure 11.20). It is also the world’s largest market for wind power. Moreover, the government launched a major incentive program for the development of “new energy” vehicles, including hybrid and all-electric cars. Our sustainable future will likely be determined by how quickly the rest of the world adopts less environmentally harmful technologies and abandons the energy sources that have so far fueled the ongoing Industrial Revolution.

Perhaps sustainable development from below can mitigate widespread poverty while minimizing the ecological degradation that accompanies many top-down development initiatives. But what about the environmental effects of modern affluence—how can those be addressed? Throughout the 1990s, a series of international conferences were held that sought to identify the world’s most pressing environmental problems and propose global-scale initiatives to address them. The most prominent of these was the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Now known simply as the Rio Conference, it produced international conventions or agreements that sought to reduce global ecological problems such as species extinction and global warming. The most prominent of these was the Convention on Biological Diversity. This convention committed states that signed on to protecting wildlife habitats and pursuing economic development policies that minimize species loss.

The approach taken at the Rio Conference is best captured in the slogan “Think Globally, Act Locally.” If we plan carefully, actions taken at the local scale in places around the world will collectively result in an improved global environment. For example, the establishment of local parks and reserves will provide a global network of protected habitats that will help to maintain the Earth’s biodiversity.

The introduction of hybrid cars—vehicles that combine traditional fossil fuel engines with electric motors to greatly reduce gas consumption and pollution—is another case in point. When the state of California passed a law requiring 10 percent of all car sales to be hybrids, it forced carmakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars. Since California is the largest car market in the United States, its action has had ripple effects nationwide and, ultimately, worldwide. China is now promoting hybrid cars for its burgeoning market, and several of the new auto factories will produce hybrids. These local- and national-level initiatives should help considerably in reducing global levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

481