9
sheet roots
June 24, 2011
f
DIAM ONDS, from page 8
inequality in the world, there is no way you can
lift people out of poverty without having some
kind of trade, and often the trade will involve
some kind of luxury goods.
You’ve got two paths: Dumping cash on the
developing world and raise them out of poverty;
that has’ failed, because it doesn’t create
incentives for performance. The only other
option you have is trying to encourage some
positive, sustainable mechanism of livelihood.
And livelihoods are not possible without trade.
R.R.: How has this, message been received so far
by the environmental movement? bo people think
your idea is bunk?
SA.: Qn the whole, it’s been positively
received. My argument is that there aré' no
simple, magic bullet solutions and we will have to
make some kind of sacrifice in terms of
environmental crises, just as we often have to
sacrifice our human wants. And sometimes
environmentalists just look at one side of the
story in terms of consumerism and say, “Well,
let’s just consume less.” But that’s really kind of
an ostrich (with it’s head in the sand) mentality
and I think environmentalists in the developing
world really appreciated my message.
I got some pushback, definitely, from Western
environmentalists who said, “Well, you know, it’s
a slippery slope if you start consuming more.”
And my argument is, “Well, the reality is most of
your doom-and-gloom scenarios, which I agreé
are likely to happen — there [are] a vast number
of people who are already living in those gloom-
and-doom scenarios.” If you go to some areas of
sub-Saharan Africa, where you see ’abject poverty,
people are living in that apocalyptic world that
the A1 Gore narratives tell you about. So how you
lift them out of that poverty is particularly
important. Until environmentalists pay attention
to poverty alleviation they’ll never get traction.
And that’s what has happened with the failure of
the climate change negotiations time and again¿ I
.think more environmentalists are. coming around
to it, and they’ve appreciated that I’m
approaching this with nuance and I’m not trying
to be sensatiónalistic about it
Some people, some journalists, have this view,
“Oh well, his argument is a bit meandering and
it’s not linear.” Well the world is not linear. I
don’t want to pretend to give an argument like
(New York Times columnist) Thomas Friedman
that McDonald’s will save the world or that kind
of very simplistic view, which sells books but is
just not the reality.
R.R.: You were profiled in National Geographic
and you said, “Environmental issues have the
power to unify groups with seemingly irreconcilable
differences. Shared concerns about resources in
conservation can resolve even bitter conflicts. Can
you give examples?
SA.: So, this is the other side of my work, to M
say, “How do we use environmental issues as a .
peace-building strategy?” Because environmental
factors can be seen as a common threat, you can
get people to cooperate on issues where they
might not otherwise. So for example, if two
countries have been in conflict over a border
area, and there has been recognition (that) this
is an ecologically very important area, you can
get people to resolve their disputes.
One example is the dispute between Ecuador
and Peru that has waged on for many decades in
a region called the Cordillera del Cóndor. It’s a
beautiful area where the Andean ecosystem
meets the rainforest ecosystem, and this war
went on for decades because that border was not
properly delineated by the Spanish colonials. In
the mid-90s, the U.S., with the help of the
Brazilians — one of the few cases of U.S.
diplomacy actually succeeding — were able to
resolve that dispute by making it an ecological
préservation zone and creating this peace park.
And thankfully, both countries have diplomatic
relations, and I would say the environment really
brought them together.
toothpaste, started by a husband-and-wife team,
sold to Colgate-Palmolive. It’s the only path
that’s going to end up being efficient. Now (if
activists) really want to keep pressure on the
company, to make sure they’re socially
responsible, to make sure they don’t abuse their .
workers, I’m all for that. But you will shoot
yourself in the foot if you say get rid of big
companies.
R.R.: Earlier you mentioned the Democratic
Republic of Congo. There’s a civil war raging there.
How could an environmental issue, in the heart of
Africa, be resolved through thé unity of groups
dealing with this environmental issue?
R.R.: I know some people who won’t buy Tom’s of
Maine toothpaste anymore.
SA.: Well, the same argument is. not
applicable in all cases. In the Congo, there is the
Virunga National Park proposal, to make the
Virunga volcanoes a conservation area. But the
problem is there’s just no governance to begin
with. The DLC government, the democratic
government of the Congo, (has) absolutely no
authority in Eastern Congo. There’s a complete
lack of control. There’s international meddling
from Uganda and Rwanda. So until there is
political will and enforcement...
So I’m very much a pragmatist. I’m not saying
the same strategy could be used everywhere.
You have Liberia and Sierra Leone: a terrible
conflict during the 1990s and into the early part
of 2000, but the conflict was not a territorial
dispute. It was again similar to the Congolese
conflict: lack of governance, lust for resources.
Once it was resolved, (Liberia and Sierra Leone)
established a trans-boundary conservation zone
in that region where they also used to have
smuggling of diamonds and so on. Now that can
help to sustain the peace. So you need multiple
strategies,,
R.R.: What if the environmental movement
worked more with corporations?
SA.: There’s just no other option. There’s a
reason why corporations evolved. The same is
true about environmental organizations. Many
îm é Î tïïéÿ wiÎÎ' meTgé‘.+r corîië''frôm Vemiont,
which is, of course, home of Ben & Jerry’s.. Well,
Ben & Jerry’s started small, in a garage, and
became part of Unilever. Look at Stonyfield
Farms, bought by Dannon. Ultimately you have
economies of scale. It works more efficiently to
add resources that way.
So the corporate model itself, it has
functionality. But as with anything related to
human behavior, you need to create checks and
balances. You can’t do it without regulations. You
need to have government involvement in
managing corporations. But the corporate model
itself is not necessarily flawed. And I think
environmentalists are going up the wrong road to
suggest that we should no longer have
corporations and everyone should run mom-and-
pop shops. That’s a recipe for disaster
environmentally because it would be very
inefficient
R.R.: I ’m not saying I disagree with you —
Well, you’re welcome to. But just think of
resource usage. There is a reason why,
organically, you have corporations develop. Now
that doesn’t mean that mom-and-pop shops hâve
no place in society. There are certain niche
markets where they do have a place, like for art
galleries. In fact, my town has become a great
magnet for them.
But for most kinds of commodity exchanges,
small scale doesn’t work, from a resource
utilization perspective. You end up using far
more resources for doing the same thing, which
is bad environmentally, Look at Tom’s of Maine
coffee bean
T
N T E R N A T I O N A L®
we tip
coffee to Street
Roots and keeping our vendors warm tn the morning!
Thank you!
SA.: (Laughs.) There yougo. If you’re going
to live on a planet with nine billion people by
2050, we cannot have that same level of
devolution of production. It will end up being
terribly inefficient You’ll end up using more
resources per unit input, which is bad for the
environment.
R. R.: This, might be a silly question but: Do you
have hope for our environmental future?
S. A.: You know, when people ask me if I’m an
optimist or a pessimist, I say I’m neither. I’m a
pragmatist And I have no idea if we’re going to
be able to challenge aU of these problems that
exist with technology.
But what I do say is we have no other choice.
We need technology. Technology is really our
only hope if we are going to be able to meet
these challenges. That doesn’t mean that I’m
optimistic. I’m being realistic. So I get worried
when environmentalists get threatened by
technology and you’ll see many of them, “Oh, the
technologists are somehow going to make us
complacent and we won’t be very involved in
conservation.” Not at all. The reality is, if you
want individual choice, there’s always some point
where you have to say, “Look, we can regulate,
we can create incentives.”
But how much are we going to regulate
individual choice? Population is ultimately the
fundamental variable for environmental impact.
But as a society we have decided that we are not
going to regulate population. So we will always
come up with a suboptimal outcome. And when
you’re dealing with that suboptimal outcome,
your only salvation will be technology. So, that’s
how I approach it
I think that human ingenuity so far has
triumphed. That doesn’t mean it will always. But
my only feeling is that we have thus far been too
confining of our technological work in the
environment. We see people try to present.one
solution and get shot dowu. You look at biofuels,
you get shot down. You try something else — I
think environmentalists need to stop that kind of
tendency. You’re in a very high-tech incubation
corridor (in Seattle). We should celebrate that.
We shouldn’t be afraid of th at And I come across
far too many environmentalists who are so
threatened by that. So that’s my sort of take-
home message.
R. R.: I just have one more thing to say: I didn’t
know they were drilling for diamonds in the Arctic.
S. A.: Oh, yes. I just visited the Diavik
Diamond Mine in November, which wasn’t the
best time to go. It was minus 40 degrees. But it
is an amazing place. They’ve actually got two
diamond mines in the Northwest Territories,
about 200 miles north of Yellowknife. If you’re so
inclined, visit Yellowknife. It’s become the
diamond capital of the North.
R.R.: Well, I never thought I ’d hear a line like
that.
Originally published by Real Change News,
Seattle, Wash.
Consider a one-time or
recurring donation to Street
Roots by sending a check to
211 NW Davis St.,
Portland, OR, 97209,
or online at
www.streetroots.org.