We are witnessing global environmental changes that have generated unprecedented imbalances in the geological history of the Earth. Climate change is one of those imbalances. To this is added, synergistically, the acidification of the seas, the destruction of the ozone layer, the alteration of nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, the unsustainable (and unbalanced) consumption of fresh water and the global loss of biological diversity, writes Guillermo R. Barreto for the 21st Annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club.
Various indices show us a progressive deterioration, with population decreases of vertebrates, plants and corals, a decrease in the forests, mangroves and seagrass meadows, as well as decreases in the water quality indices of rivers and lakes. On the other hand, we’ve observed increases in the use of water sources, the excessive exploitation of species, the invasion of exotic species and increases in greenhouse gas emissions. The changes are so notable that the possible emergence of a new epoch in geological terms is being discussed: the Anthropocene. The term was coined by Paul Crutzen in 2002 taking into account that current indices reveal significant changes with respect to the average values estimated for the Holocene. This term was, however, questioned by Moore in 2017 who has proposed using the term Capitalocene instead (“an ugly word for an ugly system”). The term Anthropocene is questioned on the basis that it assumes a separate relationship between human systems and natural systems (typical of modernity) and generates a “neutral” concept that sees changes as a consequence of human activity without considering the economic system that has caused these changes. “A comfortable story about uncomfortable facts,” Moore would say. It fails to place the changes in a historical context that also makes visible the development of Capitalism since the long 16th century and the power differences that have been established between countries, regions and cultures that finally ended up being expressed in the changes that are observed at the planetary level.
The changes have occurred dramatically over the last 300 years, with an accelerated period from 1950 onwards with unprecedented consequences for the functioning of the planetary system and its possibilities of sustaining life as we know it.There is no doubt that these changes are a consequence of human activity and not a process of extra-human natural origin.
Between 1800 and 1950, atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from approximately 270-280 ppm (pre-industrial values) to 310 ppm in 1950, thus reaching the upper limit recorded throughout the Holocene. This value was considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the limit above which negative consequences for the planetary system would begin to be evident. The period after 1950 marks the most dramatic change in the relationship between humans and nature. During this period, the population doubled, oil consumption multiplied 3.5 times, the number of motor vehicles went from 40 million in 1945 to 700 million in 1996, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased to reach 400 ppm permanently in 2016. About half of the observed changes have occurred in the last 30 years.
Identifying the cause of the changes is crucial in order to prevent impacts, mitigate the effects and reverse, as much as possible, what appears to be an imminent catastrophe. The first thing is to make visible that the problems of Mother Earth are not mere environmental problems limited to the ecological sphere. Human beings have always been related to Mother Earth, but throughout their evolutionary history, that relationship has varied and been diverse depending on times, regions, cultures, and cosmogonies. In other words, depending on the prevailing civilisational model. Why has the crisis arisen and worsened in recent centuries then? What characteristics of the dominant model have generated this situation that we are witnessing?
Modernity as a civilisation and its economic model, capitalism, has its roots in the long 16th century and has five pillars as its founding bases:
1. An international division of labour that separates nations between those that supply resources and goods and those that use and benefit from these resources. It's colonial.
2. A racial hierarchy that places white Europeans in a superior position and the remaining non-whites in an inferior position, subhuman or even non-human. It's racist.
3. The imposition of the patriarchy of Christendom that subordinates and infantilises women. It is sexist, misogynistic and feminicidal.
4. The imposition of knowledge generated by European men as universal knowledge while at the same time making invisible, ignoring and exterminating (or trying to do so), other forms or systems of knowledge. It is Eurocentric and epistemicidal.
5. The imposition of a dualistic Cartesian vision that separates knowledge into disciplines, the masculine from the feminine, the material from the spiritual, the human from nature. It is fragmentary, ecocidal.
Modernity has not emerged as an emancipatory project as a result of the state of advance of Europe as the Eurocentric narrative claims.
Let's observe a simple example of what I'm saying. The central objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biological diversity. The establishment of protected areas is a fundamental element in the global strategy to achieve this objective. It was established that by 2020, 17% of the land surface (including continental waters) and 10% of the marine-coastal surface should be contained in protected area systems. In 2016, protected areas covered 19.8 million km2, which is 14.7% of the total area, close to the goal. The marine reserves, on the other hand, covered 14.9 million km2 (4.1% of the total area). Despite this, the real objective, which was to reduce the loss of biological diversity, was not only unaccomplished, but the problem has worsened to the point that the recent IPBES Global Assessment recognised that at least one million species are threatened.
So far, our way of relating to nature has been framed in the values of modernity. Modern problems have been generated for which there are no modern solutions. The challenge before us is to rescue other visions beyond the Western and Westernised, modern, Euro-North American-centric, patriarchal and colonial vision that from a binary position separates humanity from nature.
It is necessary to find spaces for dialogue between civilisations that respect the diversity of visions and cosmogonies. The Kazan Declaration which followed the most recent BRICS summit calls for strengthening spaces for debate and knowledge production. BRICS offer an opportunity like few others for this meeting of civilisations. It will be from there that we will find solutions for a planet in which we may live in peace and justice in a sustainable way.
