|
Do we Need Nature: A
Modest Answer
An entry for an irresistible essay competition
New Statesman, 9th June 2003
Who would say no to $20,000? Not me. So I was recently
thrilled to come across an advertisement inviting me
to submit an entry for this year's Shell-Economist essay
prize. All I need to do is write 2,000 words addressing
the subject chosen by the magazine and, if I win, the
money's mine. So here goes.
This year's question is simple: "Do we need nature?"
Yes, at last someone has had the balls to ask what many
of us have been thinking for so long, but have been
prevented by the PC police from saying out loud. It's
a vital and complex question, but the answer can nevertheless,
I think, be summed up thus: "mostly, no."
To explain this, let's look ahead to the challenges
that await us as we move into the 21st century. The
key task, as ever, is growth. Growth is good. Growth
works. Growth is what happens when we do what economists
call creating value - turning things that are worth
nothing into things that are worth lots. We can then
trade the things that are worth lots, and all grow rich
together.
This helps us all, especially poor people. True, many
of the things that are worth nothing are "owned"
by poor people, whereas the task of creating value from
them is done by rich corporations. But that's just a
matter of using the correct expertise; utilising what
economists call comparative advantage. Poor people are
usually ill-equipped to exploit their resources fully,
so it's only sensible that those who are more able do
it for them. True, some poor people occasionally disagree
with our economists' definitions of "value",
saying unhelpful things like "but that's my land
you've just stolen for your gold mine", and "just
because we haven't patented and commodified the things
that grow on our common land doesn't mean they're worthless".
But I would simply say to such people: look at the statistics.
In 1960, gross world product was US$10tr. By 2000,
it was US$43tr - all thanks to a great expansion of
growth through trade. Back in 1960 the 20 per cent of
the world's population living in the rich industrialised
countries had 30 times the income of the world's poorest
20 per cent; today, we have 74 times as much. This is
because we are better at growing. Why do 2.8 million
people in the world live on less than $2 a day? Why,
according to the World Bank, is that figure 10 per cent
higher than it was in the late 1980s? The answer, surely,
comes down to one thing: these people have too much
nature, and not enough growth. Our job is to help them
understand this, and to help them change.
In our quest to continue growing, we need to continue
finding worthless things to turn into money. And when
you look around you, wherever you are in the world,
what do you see? That's right, a whole load of worthless,
green, messy, wet, dirty stuff - nature - just crying
out to be turned into value and added to the GDP. Perhaps,
then, my earlier answer needs some clarification: we
do need nature, but not in its current form. We need
it dug up, cut down and turned into money. And in an
increasingly competitive global economy, all of us,
all over the world, need to make sure that it's us who
does the digging up and cutting down, before someone
else does.
At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to influence
the judges unduly, I'd like to say how appropriate it
is that this competition is organised by Shell and the
Economist. These are two of the institutions in our
society which best understand this crucial point - and
have done an enormous amount to put it into practice.
Take the Economist, a principled and unflinching champion
of capitalist globalisation. Who would have thought,
30 years ago, that a hotchpotch of unfashionable ideas
developed by a little-known economist named Milton Friedman
and a few of his chums in a couple of smoky rooms in
Chicago would
become an all-pervasive global ideology? Yet today,
Friedman's idea - neoliberalism - is all-consuming.
This is in no small way thanks to the Economist's influential
cheerleading.
Friedman and the Economist have been proved right:
neoliberalism is the best and most efficient way of
getting rid of worthless nature and replacing it with
valuable money. Again, the statistics bear this out.
As restrictions on trade and financial flows have been
removed in recent decades, untold amounts of worthless
natural things have become, as if by magic, valuable.
Here in the richest countries, it takes 300 kilograms
of natural resources to generate $100 of income. In
the US - an example which the Economist urges us all
to follow - just 5 per cent of the world's people turn
a heartening 30 per cent of all the natural resources
consumed in the world each year into profitable consumer
goods. By the time a baby born in the US in the 1990s
reaches the age of 75, he or she will have consumed
43 million gallons of water, produced 52 tons of waste
and used 3,375 barrels of oil. Just think of the profits!
And revel in the good news that, as we all follow the
same development path, we will all be able to play our
part in the transforming of nature into money that has
for so long been a part of the American dream.
It's not just in the US that this heartening process
is going on. All over the world, energy use has increased
by nearly 70 per cent since 1971, all due to oil drilling,
coal mining and gas exploration, turning worthless black
muck into valuable greenhouse gas-creating fuel. Deforestation
continues apace (though we can surely do better than
a global rate of just 2.4 per cent since 1990), as unproductive
trees are converted into productive dollars. Nitrogen
fertilisers and other agricultural chemicals continue
to replace worthless soil, insects and micro-organisms
with vital cash crops for our supermarkets. In the past
century, we have replaced half the world's wetlands
with more profitable habitats, and driven 12 per cent
of the world's least productive birds and a quarter
of its most useless mammals to the edge of extinction.
Thirty-four percent of the world's fish species are
about to go under (excuse the pun) - a sure sign that
they are being converted into value at a stunning rate.
The news is good wherever you look.
Look to the future and it keeps getting better. According
to the UN, over 70 per cent of the Earth's land surface
could be affected by the impact of roads, mining, cities
and other developments in the next 30 years, as wasted
green spaces become economic powerhouses. Climate change
will provide us with golden economic opportunities for
profit-making techno-fixes, developed by the same companies
that gave us the climate-changing fossil fuels in the
first place. All these trends will be locked into place
by a global economic system which has its priorities
exactly right. The World Trade Organisation has already
forced the US to modify its growth-restricting Clean
Air Act. It has instructed Japan to raise the legal
level of pesticide residues in imported foods and declared
illegal an obstructive EU ban on hormone-injected beef.
We can expect more of the same in future, for the WTO
dares to say what all of us secretly know: in the battle
between trade and nature, we cannot afford to take prisoners.
Then there's the shining record of Shell, whose contribution
has been, in many ways, even more valuable. For while
the Economist has provided the intellectual framework
for the campaign to replace nature with growth, Shell's
unflagging efforts have put theory into practice, and
come up trumps every time. In 2001, Shell's global sales
were $150bn. In February it announced profits of $2.78bn
- up almost 50 per cent on the previous year. None of
this could have happened without Shell's expertise at
transforming nature into something much more useful.
In the Niger River Delta, for example, Shell continues
sterling work, despite ill-informed opposition from
local people. Shell Nigeria is producing about 900,000
barrels of oil a day, and this doesn't include the plentiful
oil and gas it donates to local people in the form of
leaks, spillages, pollution and burst pipes, all of
which provide fisherfolk and farmers with valuable oil
rather than considerably less profitable clean air,
water and land. In Argentina, Shell still struggles
to convince backward-looking people in the town of Magdalena
to make the most of the economic benefits it provided
them with in 1999, when one of its tankers thoughtfully
donated 5,300 cubic metres of crude to their local Unesco
biosphere reserve. Sadly, the company is currently under
orders from a judge to clean up the mess or spend some
of its valuable profits paying fines.
But Shell is unbowed. It understands that replacing
nature with money is not always an easy task. It knows
that people will try and slow progress - people like
those in Durban (South Africa), Port Arthur (Texas)
and Xinjiang province (China) who continue to call on
Shell to remove the oil lakes and spills it has only
recently provided for them, to remove itself from their
land or "clean up" the air it has filled with
toxic chemicals.
But there will always be doubters. Some people persist
in arguing that the separation of "humanity"
from "nature" is half the problem in the first
place, and won't stop going on about how this "mechanistic,
industrial, post-Enlightenment view" was not shared
by any of the world's traditional cultures. Others say
things like "but what about the majesty and wonder
of the natural world?" But when we have the complete
works of David Attenborough on DVD, what need is there
for the real thing? Sure, we all like elephants, but
are they productive? Yes, trees "grow" in
one sense, but statistically, it means nothing. Let's
get real.
Sadly, some people still don't get it. Somebody said
to me just the other day, for example, that perhaps
the real question I should be answering was "does
nature need Shell or the Economist?" or "do
we need neoliberals?" But I am not going to waste
my time answering stupid questions.
|
|