This document discusses 20th century development and inequality. It notes that global economic development has created unequal development and unsustainable impacts. Waves of economic change from agriculture to manufacturing to services have created pockets of inequality and poverty within countries like the US. Global inequality is also discussed, with the top 1% owning 46% of global wealth. Achieving sustainable development goals while limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius is presented as an immense challenge given the scale of emissions reductions required and accounting for historical emissions. Resistance and system change may be needed to transition to a sustainable path.

1. Humans
Environment
Sustainable Development
Fulbright Lectures
ABV IIIT-M Gwalior
30 Jan-12 Mar
2014
Stephen Zavestoski, PhD
Associate Professor
Sociology and
Environmental Studies
University of San Francisco
San Francisco, California USA
smzavestoski@usfca.edu

2. Lecture 2
Lecture 2
20th Century Development:
Unequal and Unsustainable
Stephen Zavestoski, PhD
Associate Professor
Sociology and Environmental Studies
University of San Francisco
San Francisco, California USA
smzavestoski@usfca.edu

3. Inequality Within
•
Global inequalities often overshadow inequalities within countries
•
Paradoxically, obesity in the U.S. is partially an outcome of inequality and poverty
•
•
•
Poor people may have limited or no access to fresh and healthy food
Affordable food options are usually junk foods with low nutritional value
Waves of economic change, from agriculture to manufacturing to service and
information exchange, have created pockets of inequality and poverty around the
U.S.
•
•
The city of Detroit, known for making cars in the 20th century, is dealing with the
fallout of massive population loss and abandonment of buildings and
infrastructure
The U.S. economy’s transition to information or knowledge exchange has left behind
not only less developed countries, but segments of its own population as well

4. U.S. Economic Activity, Split in Half
Analysis by Andy Woodruff, “It’s Just a Population Map!” http://andywoodruff.com/blog/its-just-apopulation-map/ based on original map http://visual.ly/united-states-economic-activity-split-half

5. Inequality across the globe
•
"Our estimates suggest that the lower half of the global population possesses barely 1% of
global wealth, while the richest 10% of adults own 86% of all wealth, and the top 1%
account for 46% of the total."
From Oxfam report “Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality” (PDF)

6. How did we get here?!
!
Can we get out of this mess?

7. Homo sapiens is not a physically imposing
species—and in terms of biomass does not
take up much room. If the bodies of all 6.5
billion human beings alive on earth today were
log-stacked, they would fill less than a cubic
mile. They could be lowered out of sight in
some small corner or other of the Grand
Canyon. Our musculature is even less
imposing. Thin and wobbly-headed, we
appear to have arisen by natural selection to
run marathons across African savannas in
pursuit of antelope and other strongly built but
short-winded animal prey.

8. How did such frail creatures come to be a
geophysical force and dominate the world?
Brains, obviously. Somehow, by a process still
not well understood, we mastered fire,
invented weaponry, and learned to talk to one
another in arbitrarily devised symbolic
languages. But in rising to power, beginning
with the invention of agriculture a scant 10
millennia ago, we carried along with us the
heavy baggage of ancient primate instincts.
Today, as a result, we live in Star Wars
civilizations ruled by Stone Age emotions,
medieval institutions, and god-like technology.

9. We haven't really figured out yet, as a species,
what we are, where we are going, and what we
will be when we get there. But at least we have
discovered that we are fast ruining the global
environment. The scientific evidence for that
conclusion is now massive and compelling.
The following kaleidoscope of maps ... exhibit
the ghastly power of humanity's planetary
engineering—and the importance of
envisioning the planet as a whole.

10. The bottom line is that we have created a real
mess. In order to avoid wrecking our
planetary home, we have to settle down and
together devise the means to achieve
sustainable development while preserving our
biosphere. The good news is that the same
thing that has gotten us into trouble—those
brains of ours—can get us out. We're smart.
We can do it.
—E. O. WILSON
(“Problems without Borders,” Vanity Fair, 2007)

11. Welcome to the Anthropocene

12. ANTHROPOCENE:
A NEW GEOLOGIC EPOCH
New geological ages are characterized by changes in global
environmental conditions and large scale shifts in types of
species. Recently Earth has entered into a new geological
age:
•
The Anthropocene, from anthropo (man) and cene (new),
defines a new [geological age].
•
•
Humans are now changing the world on a global scale and
ushering in the new era in geologic time.
"The biosphere itself, at all levels from genetic to the
landscape, is increasingly a human product" (Allenby 2000:
15).

13. Where has all this change occurred?
Forest Loss
This map shows the proportion of worldwide net forest loss
that occurred in countries between 1990 and 2000…

14. And who is responsible?
Wood and Paper Imports
… while this map shows the proportion of worldwide net
imports of wood and paper in U.S. dollars. Deforestation
accounts for 25 percent of global carbon emissions.

15. Fuel Imports
Territory size shows the proportion of worldwide fuel
imports. In the next 20 years, the U.S. demand for oil is
expected to jump 30 percent, with demand for natural gas
jumping by more than 50 percent.

16. Fuel Consumption

17. (Unequal) Problems Without
Borders
Our “mess” was not created by all of us equally.
Nor do we share equally in the consequences of
the mess we’ve created.
Environmental studies with a social justice lens
goes beyond focusing on how to use our brains
simply to devise technical solutions; instead
focusing our attention on equitable solutions–
solutions whose burdens and benefits are
proportionate to our contributions to the problem.

18. !
Worldwide fuel consumption averages 1853 kilograms of oil equivalent per person per year.
The highest per person fuel users (in Luxembourg) use almost a hundred times more fuel per
person than the lowest fuel users (in Bangladesh).
!
(1kg of oil produces about 4 kilowatt hours)

20. Climate-Development Vulnerability Index (CDVI)

21. Can a climate agreement be reached
in a world of such inequality?

22. UNFCCC Goals
•
The ultimate objective… is stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system. Such a level should be achieved
within a time frame sufficient…to enable
economic development to proceed in a
sustainable manner. (Article 2, 1992)

23. UNFCCC Goals
•
The more recent Copenhagen Accord states the
goal as to ‘hold the increase in global temperature
below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet
this objective consistent with science and on the
basis of equity’
(UNFCCC 2010)
•
Reiterated in the Cancun Agreements (UNFCC
2011)
•
EU and UK statements emphatically support 2º goal
see Kevin Anderson, 2012, “Climate change going beyond dangerous–Brutal numbers and tenuous hope,” Development
Dialogue. Accessed at: http://www.dhf.uu.se/publications/development-dialogue/dd61/

24. Is 2º feasible?
❖
The disastrous collapse of the Soviet Union triggered 5 per cent
year-on-year emission reductions for about 10 years – a rate just
half to a quarter of what is necessary to give us a 50:50 chance of
achieving the 2°C goal
see Kevin Anderson, 2012, “Climate change going beyond dangerous–Brutal numbers and tenuous hope,” Development
Dialogue. Accessed at: http://www.dhf.uu.se/publications/development-dialogue/dd61/

25. Is 2º feasible?
❖
“Reduction rates of 10-20 per cent are
unprecedented–there are no appropriate analogues
for this level of mitigation The Stern report (Stern,
2006) concludes that cuts in emissions greater than
1 per cent have historically been associated only
with economic recession or upheaval.”!
❖
“The disastrous collapse of the Soviet Union
triggered 5 per cent year-on-year emission
reductions for about 10 years–a rate just half to a
quarter of what is necessary to give us a 50:50
chance of achieving the 2°C goal.”

26. The Climate Divide
Questions
❖
Who gets the remaining atmospheric space for
carbon?!
❖
How do we account for historical emissions?
(Climate Debt)!
❖
❖
Allow non-Annex I countries a grace period
before beginning annual reductions!
Even allowing for a slower curtailment of emissions,
can non-Annex I countries reach the human
development threshold?

27. Climate Debt: !
Ethical Perspectives
❖
Deontological (rights-based)
“Everyone has a right to an equal share of the
remaining atmospheric space” (South)!
❖
Consequentialist (goal-based)
“The goal is sustainable human development,
however we may get there” (North)!
❖
Can agreement be reached from these
divergent perspectives?

28. History of Climate Debt as a
Concept
❖
1991 CSE report “Global Warming in an Unequal World” (Agarwal and Narain)!
❖
argued need to account for sources of emissions and terrestrial sinks when
determining CO2 contributions; and each nation’s “just and fair share of
oceanic and atmospheric sinks–a common heritage of humankind.”!
❖
“survival emissions” vs “luxury emissions”!
❖
Pachauri, then at TERI, applauded CSE’s report for “making public certain
fallacies…currently guiding the thinking of…countries of the North.” !
❖
Development Alternatives: hold developed countries liable based on concept
of “natural debt” (K. Chatterjee, interview with Jasanoff, 1991) !
❖
Beijing Declaration on Environment and Development (1991)!
❖
Placed primary blame on developed countries as “mainly responsible for
excessive emissions…historically and currently”

29. gapminder.org

30. 2º: Is it possible?
❖
Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows have analysed how
far it is possible to push non-Annex 1 emissions,
and then looked at what would be left for the Annex
1 countries. Analyses are based on an emissions
budget corresponding to a 40 per cent likelihood of
exceeding 2°C. They note that this is ”not a very
ambitious scenario in relation to the risks involved.” !
❖
The following figure illustrates what they found
Next three slides: Kevin Anderson, 2012, “Climate change going beyond dangerous–Brutal
numbers and tenuous hope,” Development Dialogue.

31. Realistic Scenario for a 2º Solution
❖
Emissions grow to a peak in 2025, at a growth rate of 3.5 per cent
per annum, much lower than China’s actual 6-8 per cent growth!
❖
Following the peak in 2025, emissions decrease at 7 per cent
every year, twice the rate that the Stern review and most
economists claim is the limit within a growing economy.!

32. Is a rights-based climate
debt frame viable?
❖
Stern (2009): ‘if the allocation of rights to emit in any
given year took greater account both of history and of
equity in stocks rather than in flows, then rich countries
would have rights to emit which were lower than 2 tonnes
per capita (possibly even negative)’ (p. 154).!
❖
Are non-Annex 1 countries asking for negative
emissions?!
❖
No, but “assertions of climate debt are likely to be
interpreted more as aggrieved political rhetoric than as
considered policy proposals.” !
❖
Bonding vs. Bridging
see Jonathan Pickering and Christian Barry, 2012. On the concept of climate debt: its moral and political value, Critical
Review of International Social and Political Philosophy Vol. 15, No. 5: 667–685.

33. The low-carbon solution
❖
How is economic growth
compatible with this reality?
❖
For Annex I, it’s really a NO carbon
solution requiring immediate
transition to a steady-state economy.
❖
For non-Annex I, this aggressive target requires a lowcarbon solution, presumably dependent on adoption of
high-efficiency technologies.!
❖
How much improvement in CO2 intensity per unit of
economic output depends on how much economies are
expected to/need to grow to achieve human development

34. gapminder.org
Cumulative CO2 emissions and HDI
In the last 40 years, improvements in human well-being have been mostly driven by
increasing GDPs which have consistently carried increases in CO2 !
Continuing on this path requires reducing carbon intensity of economies

35. gapminder.org
kg CO2 per 2005 PPP $US and GDP
All of the easy efficiency gains have been realized

36. Why is this so stark?
❖
Previous analyses assumed!
❖
1-2% annual CO2e increases before peaking; and!
❖
a peak reached around 2015 or 2016!
❖
❖
❖
The assumed reduction rates are dictated by economists,
which is why the early years of these analyses are unrealistic
(Anderson)!
The split between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries is
neglected or hidden in many analyses (disregard for HDI goals
and capabilities)!
A global 2015 peak would require China and India to peak by
2017/18; “yet no analysts suggest this is, in any respects,
either reasonable or equitable.”

37. Can development goals be reached
when linked to GDP growth?
❖
How effective or efficient has GDP been at driving
down poverty?

38. Conversion of GDP growth into
poverty reduction (1981-2011)
1981-2011
1981-2011
Pop. below % GDP inc.
GDP %
Population poverty line
for 1%
change
% change (% change) poverty dec.
(billions)
Bangladesh
321%
81%
13%
25%
China
1,750%
35%
68%
25%
India
508%
68%
17%
30%

39. Estimated economic growth needed
to eliminate poverty by 2044
2011
% in poverty
Pop. below
poverty line (%
change)
% GDP inc. for
1% poverty
decline
2044
% change in
GDP to end
poverty
Est. CO2
emissions 2044*
(millions of mt)
Bangladesh
77%
13%
25%
1,925%
171
China
30%
68%
25%
750%
9,287
India
69%
17%
30%
2,070%
4,674
* at 2005 carbon intensity level; assumes doubling of efficiency and no
population growth

40. So are we “f**ked”?
At Fall 2012 meeting of the American Geophysical
Union, geophysicist Brad Werner presented a paper
titled:
❖
“Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global
Environmental Management and Possibilities for
Sustainability via Direct Action Activism”

41. Werner’s answer?
❖
“More or less.”!
❖
Werner’s computer model incorporated system
boundaries, perturbations, dissipation, attractors,
bifurcations, etc.; but it also pointed to a new
component atypical for a serious scientific meeting…
see Naomi Klein, “How science is telling us all to revolt,” New Statesman, Oct 29, 2013. !
Accessed at: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt)

42. Werner’s answer?
❖
“Resistance”!
❖
“environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the
dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by
indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist
groups”.!
❖
mass uprisings…represent the likeliest source of “friction” to
slow down an economic machine that is careening out of
control. !
❖
“if we’re thinking about the future of…our coupling to the
environment, we have to include resistance as part of that
dynamics.” That, Werner argues, is not a matter of opinion,
but “really a geophysics problem”.
see Naomi Klein, “How science is telling us all to revolt,” New Statesman, Oct 29, 2013. !
Accessed at: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt)

43. An Alternative Development Path
A cultural tunnel through the Environmental Kuznets Curve
Source: adapted from Munasinghe 1995a (also see http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/155728/)

44. A Cultural Tunneling Through…
•
What would it look like? What would be
required?
•
•
•
Transformation of the Social Life Processes
Identity transformation driving technological,
political, economic and other transformations
Recall the “Social World-Biophysical World
Communication” diagram from Lecture 1…

45. Social World-Biophysical World Communication
ECOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
SOCIAL LIFE
PROCESSES
Water and air purification
Cultural beliefs
Material culture
Value systems
Economic systems
Political systems
Social institutions
Self-concept
Socialization
Social control
Social structure
Social World
Technology
Ecological
Processes
Biophysical World
Social Life
Processes
Drought and flood
mitigation
Decomposition and
detoxification of wastes
Generation and renewal of
fertile soil
Pollination
Seed dispersal and
translocation of nutrients
Maintenance of biodiversity
Protection from UV rays
Climate stability
Moderation of extremes
(e.g., temp., waves, wind)
(Daily 1997)