On Demand
The Leonard Lopate Show
Questioning Earth’s Future
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
How likely is it that Earth will become uninhabitable for humans in the near future? James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, tells us what we need to do to save it for future generations. He’s the author of The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability.
- About This Program »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Guest Hosts »
- Guest Picks »
- Latest Show »
- Tapes & Transcripts »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date. Subscribe to the Podcast
Shop at Amazon!
Leonard Lopate Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
In all the prescriptions for saving the environment, no one ever seems to talk about limiting our proliferation, which to me seems to be the most critical issue. I'm hoping Mr. Speth will address this.
Green capitalism is an insidious scourge on the planet. It simply encourages us to dig ourselves deeper. It seems as if one of the only groups to take this issue as seriously as it needs to be is the Earth Liberation Front and when any of them are arrested they are threatened with life-long prison sentences for protest acts of vandalism and property destruction.
One of the problems is that the crises needs to be re-framed: no longer as an environmental crisis but as a humanitarian crisis. We are at war with nature now. And if we don't address it like a war, nature will wipe us out.
It's not about "environmentalism" any longer. It's about "humanism".
On another note, arguing about the facts of global warming is like arguing about gravity - it;s settled.
Does this put Prof Speth at odds with the environmental establishment?
is environmentally harmful growth motivated soley by profit (dividend) seeking or does the drive for captial gains also play a role? does the way dividends and captial gains are taxed affect this behavior?
Ken,
I disagree strongly. The reason we are in this mess is because thinking that we are "at war with nature" is what got us and the planet where we are now. Western man's adversarial attitude toward nature and the desire to subjugate, civilize & otherwise wipeout what is wild damaged the Earth to a point were it will likely not recover for centuries. Anthropocentric ideologies need to be abandoned.
Why is it that no one seems to be willing to talk about population growth? If we continue to proliferate at the rate we have been, nothing else we do is going to stem the problem.
Mr. Speth -
Please address the role of militarism in its impact on our planet.
Thank you for all your work these many years.
Nydia Leaf
So what else is new? We are a suicidal species, and I am not sure what is so unthinkable or terrible about that. In fact, that would seem to be what the second law of thermodynamics would entail. I think the planet is just about done with us -- we will not be missed.
Dr. Speth is stating matter-of-factly an inescapable fact: our profit-driven world economy is and has been incompatible with the environment and health of the planet. The concept of economic growth is never questioned, but is at the root of the problem. One need look no further than our own backyard, where a mayor who has presided over the biggest building boom in memory (hence, growth and the congestion of many more people in Midtown) seeks schizophrenically to limit congestion by levying tolls on cars entering Manhattan. How about putting first things first?
Shall we Declare Energy Independence in Ten Years and get the candidates to sign on?
When will we reach the point were it will to late? And does this really mean stunting the growth and development of the third world?
no future
Paul,
Property damage is a crime and certain members of ELF are criminals. They need to grow up and use nonviolent means.
Ken,
Sorry, as a scientist, I can tell you the facts of global warming are not settled at all, but the average person can't handle complex issues so global warming gets framed in black and white soundbites by both sides.
You cannot have infinite growth in a finite system..we reduce growth or increase the size of the system. Given that we can't increase the size, we have only one option...
I'd like to hear Dean Speth's view on whether population reduction is necessary in order to stop global warming from overwhelming our other efforts in this regard.
People, ever heard of the Ehrlich-Holdren equation: I = P.A.T ??? It says that enivornmental impact is the functin (at this high level of abstraction) of three things: population, affluence, and technology. Every one of these factors matters, though to different degrees in differnet places.
Paul,
I agree with you in the "old world" paradigm.
I'm not saying that environmentalism isn't important or that our arrogant approach to the environment isn't what got us in this dire predicament in the first place.
But, in terms of mobilizing society, society needs to know that this isn't a matter of saving polar bears or other species now - it's a matter of saving ourselves.
Of course we are really at war with ourselves, in terms of our gluttonous ways, but it is nature that will wipe us out....and the effort required to transform society will be of WWII proportions.
What would be the effect on the planet if all countries in the world agreed not to use cars and trucks (with agreed exceptions, i imagine) on the same day for just one day? would that have an impact at all?
this all too little too late we won't create a new technology to save our current standard of living. all we build is our children's coffins. read John Zerzan.
It seems that as an a organizational problem the sovereignty of the modern state is an obstacle!
Interesting thesis, as with all environmental concerns the issue is not will the planet survive. The issue is absolutely centered around we humans surviving, pleasurably. We protect the aspects of nature that we like, Tigers Birds... deadly contagion, disease carrying vermin they are also nature. Our National Parks, if we really wanted to protect them we would lock the gates. If we were to nuke the entire planet life would survive, humans may not, but life certainly will continue. Yes we should save ourselves but we should be clear about the initiative,
Chris,
I would agree that there are many details of global warming that are not settled. But the IPCC reports resoundingly settle the basic underlying science.
What a breath of fresh air! Too bad we haven't heard talk like this from Washington-types since the republicans took over twenty-eight years ago (White House demopublicans of the '90s notwithstanding).
Chris,
Yes you are right by law convicted Earth Liberation Front activists are criminals. They are also political prisoners. What is your point? When doing what is right is criminalized you can call me a criminal. The threat of being labeled a criminal didn't stop Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman, John Brown, Nelson Mandela, Thomas Jefferson, or many others who risked the freedom and sometimes their lives to stand up for justice.
In admitting that he caved in and had a third child, Mr. Speth reveals himself to be a hypocrite of the first order. Humans, at their current population level, are already on a course for making the planet uninhabitable for future generations. Having more than 2 children is pure selfishness.
You just can’t win against Mother Nature. She will always prevail in the end. We could completely radiate the planet and wipe ourselves out and take most of the environment with us. But at the end of the day evolution will continue right along. Sure it may take a million years or so to undo what we did. But that’s not even a grain of sand in Earth’s existence. Basically, nothing lasts forever, including humans. We add absolutely no benefits for the environment and never have. We are not as big and bad as we think we are in the grand scheme of things. We’re just another parasite waiting for extinction. How long we stick around is up to us. But don’t worry about earth, she’ll do just fine when we’re gone.
I'd like to recommend people read Derrick Jensen. He is a radical environmentalist, but this is an extreme issue that requires a revolutionary solution.
Have to agree with steve (26). One child is one too many (espeically when one AMErICAN child is equivalent to hundreds of poor children in terms of enviornmental impact over a life time).
Paul,
Can we also include people who shoot abortion provders as "those who stand up for justice"?
Don't compare people who commit violence to MLK or Harriet Tubman.
Paul,
Sorry, but putting ELF in the same category as Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson and Nelson Mandela should be a crime in itself. Burning down SUV dealerships solves no environmental problems and brings absolutely no realistic, intelligent solutions to the table. It might piss a few people off but people are still buying SUV’s. Even with gas at $3.50 a gallon. Destroying stuff is not the answer. The normal blue color low middle income American could care less about what ELF does.
Amen, Jon P.(27). This isn't about saving the planet, it's only about saving ourselves (from ourselves). When "enlightened" people like Mr. Speth can't even be counted on to act responsibly, what does that say about our chances?
Learn your history. Harriet Tubman and Nelson Mandela were armed insurgents labeled a terrorists by governments including the U.S. Jefferson was also a revolutionary who advocated armed resistance against the state. MLK Jr. was an advocate of non-violent civil disobedience i.e. breaking the law when ones conscience demanded it. The ELF engages in vandalism and property destruction. They are not the same as the historical figures I mentioned except that they can be dismissed as criminals, but simply doing so is a cop out.
If anyone is offended by comparing the ELF to Harriet Tubman it shouldn't be because the ELF have used violence against property. Tubman after all was a co-conspirator with John Brown and supported his plan to wage a guerrilla war against slavery. If anyone is offended by the comparison it should be because the ELF is far more tame and takes fewer risks than Tubman ever did.
This thread is closed.
Back to Episode