Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What Is Plan B?

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2006.


Eradicate poverty, reforest the earth, restore fisheries, eliminate overgrazing, protect biological diversity, stabilize climate -- Lester Brown says it's all possible.
020206_story
What Is Plan B?
Advertisement

Of all the resources needed to build an economy that will sustain economic progress, none is more scarce than time. That is one of the key messages of Lester Brown's new book, "Plan B. 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble." The world may finally be listening.

China now consumes more grain, meat, coal and steel than the United States. If China's income grows as projected, in 2031 its income per person will match incomes in the United States today. At that point, it will be consuming the equivalent of two-thirds of the current world grain harvest, driving 1.1 billion cars (versus 800 million in the world today) and using 99 million barrels of oil per day, well above current world production of 84 million barrels. That's Plan A.

New threats -- climate change, environmental degradation, the persistence of poverty and the loss of hope -- call for new strategies. Brown -- who left World Watch in 2001 to found Earth Policy Institute -- says it's time for Plan B -- a renewable-energy-based, reuse-recycle economy with a diversified transport system: time to build a new economy and a new world. The world is now spending $975 billion annually for military purposes. Plan B -- social goals and earth restoration -- requires an additional annual expenditure of $161 billion.

Brown, founder of the World Watch Institute, was in Europe recently to address the Royal Geographic Society in London, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and the OECD in Paris. He will speak to the World Affairs Councils of San Francisco and Los Angeles the first week of February.

TERRENCE MCNALLY: For many, environmental issues are local -- the beach, the nearby polluting factory, the smog. Yet you focused on the global environment at a time when few were. Where did that come from?

LESTER BROWN: Well I suppose there were a number of things that contributed to it. One was, when I was farming I was very much aware of the environmental issues that one has to deal with, whether it's water resources or weather or soils or crop diseases or what have you.

Beyond that, after I graduated from Rutgers in 1955 with a degree in agricultural science, I had the chance to spend half of 1956 living in villages in India, and there I was exposed very directly to the food population issue, though India at that time had only 430 million people or so compared with over a billion today.

Then I became a foreign policy adviser to Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman during the Kennedy-Johnson administration. The population pressures on resources and the problems associated with that, whether it's deforestation or overgrazing or soil erosion, aquifer depletion, those problems were becoming evident way back then. By 1974 I was convinced not only that these were going to be major issues, but also that we needed a research institute to focus on environmental issues at the global level.

TM: Yet you also make clear that we need a vision of the future, not just the bad news.

LB: No question. If we don't have a sense of where we want to go, we're probably not going to get there. I think one of the things that's lacking in the global environmental movement is a vision. We spend so much time being against things, it's not always clear what we're for.

TM: In the first paragraph of the Preface to "Plan B: 2.0," you write: "If our goal is to sustain economic progress, we have no choice other than to move onto a new path." Two things -- first, you don't mention the word "environment" in that sentence, you're talking about economic progress. Second, why isn't that reality being recognized and acted on?

LB: Two things are driving the recognition of the need for a restructuring of the global economy. One is the knowledge of what's happening to the economy's environmental support systems, whether it's forests or fisheries or rangelands or soils or aquifers or the climate system. Many environmentalists have been clear for some time that we have to restructure the economy if we want progress to continue. If we don't, we're going to be in serious trouble.

In Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse," he looked at earlier civilizations, many of which also got on to an economic path that was environmentally unsustainable. He pointed out was that some of those early civilizations realized they were in trouble and made the needed course corrections to survive. Others either did not understand they were in environmental trouble, or understood it but politically they could not mobilize an effective response.

TM: "Plan B" came out two years ago. Why did you feel the need to deliver "Plan B: 2.0"?

LB: Enough things have changed over the past two years, both in terms of what we can do and the potential of new technologies like gas-electric hybrid cars and advances in wind turbine design, and so forth. But more importantly, the evidence first of all, that China has already overtaken the United States in the consumption of most basic resources.


Digg!

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hopefully I'm Wrong
Posted by: O.B.Server on Feb 2, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree with the concepts set out in this interview. From where I set it appears there is one very massive fly in the ointment preventing a earth turn around and it is: The United States of America. Surprise?! The US has been intractable on the world scene since its inception. It has never been a team player and in spite of Mr. Brown's touting the appearance of hybrid cars, I cannot imagine anything changing the greed factor in the U.S. "powers-that-be" in time to keep the Earth from slipping into the muck. Europe is environmentally intellegent. South America has voted in some promising leaders. But the U.S.? I hope I am wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WHAT.THE.FUCK. Posted by: rollo
» RE: WHAT.THE.FUCK. (Answered) Posted by: The Old Hippie
Alternet Sevices!
Posted by: The Butcher on Feb 2, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That bis all I have to say
You are as bad censors as people you inveigh against.
Francois

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ugh, Posted by: maxpayne
Lester
Posted by: Llama11 on Feb 2, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the same Lester Brown that was in prison and became a motivational speaker? I'm thinking probably not. I saw that guy, and he certainly never mentioned anything like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cliche but it can be fun fixing the planet
Posted by: gladwyn on Feb 2, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
junk you tv, take a hike
dump your car, ride a bike
plant a garden, feed a tyke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A good plan, but...
Posted by: leemiller38 on Feb 2, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lester's ideas are reasoned and should be immediately tried. However, we have seen some of them before in William Vogt's, "Road to Survival" (1949). Osborn's, "Plundered Planet", in the 50's, and Paul Ehrlich's, "Population Bomb", and subseqent books since 1968. In fact there was a guy named Malthus in 1798, but we keep on breeding and plundering the planet despite it all.
I have to agree with the comment that the U.S. is a rogue nation controlled now by militarists and corporations who are too vested in the status quo. The urging toward energy independence has been going on since Nixon, when we only consumed 50 percent foreign oil. The population was only about 180 million. Now we consume 60 percent foreign oil and the population is 295 million and we lack the will to even change the CAFE standards for SUV's.
I highly recommend that we all join the Exit Society and stop breeding because this population/environmental mess is going to be resolved in an ugly manner not to anyone's liking. Let the cockroaches and wildlife remnants repopulate the place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Balance equals LIFE
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 2, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We humans are the only lifeform on the Planet that does'nt seek balane with it's environment. Because we are the only beings on the rock that have 'free-will', we sellt out everything for the buck. The use of wind and solar will create an energy 'surplus'. Pruducing fuel and charcoal from Ag crops kills two birds with one stone because they are also food. The plant wastes make fuel.
It is clear that if humanity is to survive beyond the next century we mush change our model of how we relate to the Planet,the environment and ourselves.
Mass consumption Nations,like us, have to develop more sound energy policies. The cleanup of the Planet must begin now. We can have all the crap society thinks are the hallmarks of civilization,but we can make them work cleaner.
The old model of 'Plunder and Profit' needs to be replaced by 'Balance and Respect'. Protect the Earth, Protect the People,Protect all Life, we can do it,we have the power,we
have the will, but, will we take action. If we do.....WE ALL WIN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Balance equals LIFE Posted by: Doug1956
» RE: Balance equals LIFE Posted by: Plenum
Same message, different decade
Posted by: DDZimm on Feb 2, 2006 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The underlying issue becomes will ANY future economy be based on short-term profit or long term social stabilization? A complex pyramid scheme or a not-for-profit-but-social-good scheme? Otherwise, the Rich will still get richer and the poor will still get poorer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mass consumption is the real problem
Posted by: 10wwjd29 on Feb 2, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have a become such a mass consumption-oriented society that we are dependant on the destruction of the environment for the way we now live or strive to live. Until we break away from our habits to fulfill unnecessary desire we will never have true equality because Capitalism and the structure of the market makes poverty and (wage) slavery inevitable and absolutely necessary. It is nice to think of a "Plan B" but truly the majority of Americans aren't going to change their excessively wasteful lifestyle until they are forced to, and at that point it most likely will be too late. It is western culture (capitalism, consumerism, individualism) that ultimately is at the root of the problem. We exploit the environment and eachother for our own self-interest to have more than we need, an unnatural right, in an attempt to fulfill our insatiable desire for true happiness. The strive to live the "good life" and attain a higher standard of living is the cause of worldwide human suffering and will inevitably be the downfall of humankind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A place for religion
Posted by: Wildlander on Feb 2, 2006 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greed is the root cause of our problems. And you know what bothers me most, the Bible and other religions told us this long ago. And yet we reject religion today.

Same story and no body is listening. No body wants to listen. It pisses you off. Right?

A strong religion provides a set of rules that the community adheres too and hold one another accoutable for. The community in their Love for God adhere to those rules and allow themselves to be held accountable.

Love is the opposite of greed.

But that goes against human nature (we are all sinners). But you do not want to admit that do you? We do not want rules and we do not want accountability. We want to do whatever the sam hell we want too. And to hell with what others want. It is not just Bush, it is the American people themselves individually. We seek out life in the city for its annonimity and to leave small towns where everyone knows everyone else's business. We seek in the city an anonimity so that we can be socially inresponsible, screw others for the weatlh we can get out of them, so that we can get rich.

And so we destroy our true sense of community and religion (actually one and the same) for our insatible desire for wealth and stature.

"He who dies with the most wins the game!" Right?

That is the game we are and have been playing all these years.

Greed.

And so we reject religion. A set or rules based on Love (not on litigation) for holding one another accountable.


-Ken
Wildlanders.com

Loading the Ark with animals was an act of conservation and the first environmental model for all mankind! Conservation was born of the Christian religion! TRUE Christains are envionmentalists by nature and by the example set by God! So few Christians want to recognize that but instead immerse themselves in that ocean of greed. In His covenant with us after the flood, God said He would never flood the earth again - but He made no promise about protectiing us from ourselves! Unless we find our love and respect of God, we WILL self destruct! And every one of you can see that now. And yet you still reject God. And so you reject your own salvations even here on earth.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God."
Jesus Christ
The Book of Matthew

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A place for religion Posted by: Moonray
» RE: A place for religion Posted by: mazur
» Hate is the opposite of Love Posted by: errandchild
» RE: A place for religion Posted by: Wildlander
» Don't You Dare Posted by: errandchild
» RE: A place for religion Posted by: stormchilde1975
Religion is the problem
Posted by: Phenix on Feb 2, 2006 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate to let you in on this secret but Christian fundatmentalists are the major backers of our current quasi-fascist and environmentally destructive system. These people have several beliefs that are leading us all down the path of destruction. The one belief we all know about is that we are now living in the end of times i.e. the Rapture and all those good consuming patriotic americans are going to heaven while the rest of us get tossed into the pit. They see no reason to change their behavior.

The second reason that I believe is most pertient is the protestant belief in redemption through suffering. Capitalism is built off of this very foundation. The poor are poor b/c they are sinners and those who learn from their suffering will redeem themselves and enter the middle class. On a side note this partially explains are overly punative prison system oops I mean justice system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion is the problem Posted by: Wildlander
Religion is a curse
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 2, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seeking help from an invisible man in the sky is hardly the answer to mankind's problems. The irrationality that fuels Christianity and other religions -- none of them makes any sense -- is the cause of most of our suffering. Religion doesn't open minds, it closes them, and thus sets the stage for more bigotry, injustice and war. Religion is the curse of humanity, not its salvation -- truly a fool's paradise

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion is a curse Posted by: Wildlander
» Religion Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: eligion is a curse Posted by: NowYogi
An Economic Mainstay
Posted by: ConnecttheDots on Feb 2, 2006 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we could open our minds to cannabis hemp's potential, and find the courage and collective will to legalize it, we could, within the year, begin reaping the benefits of the world's premiere renewable natural resource. By making use of hemp we could restore the forests, clean up the environment, achieve energy independence, make family farms profitable, and create a sustainable economy.

With potential like that, why should I care if anybody - or everybody - chooses to get stoned once in awhile?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wind and solar not a realistic solution
Posted by: jpinder on Feb 2, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
source: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

According to author Paul Driessen, it would take all of California's 13,000 wind turbines to generate as much electricity as a single 555-megawatt natural gas fired power plant.

Wind energy is expensive. England’s Royal Academy of Engineering and Scotland’s David Hume Institute found that wind farm electricity costs twice as much as nuclear or fossil fuel power (including facility decommissioning costs). Similar cost imbalances apply in the U.S., but subsidies, special tax treatment and laws requiring utilities to purchase wind-generated electricity mask its true costs, notes energy consultant Glenn Schleede.

Wind power is land-hungry. A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state’s wind turbines, journalist Ron Bailey has calculated. The gas-fired plant requires a mere 15 acres. The turbine forest impacts 105,000 acres.

Generating 20 percent of America’s electricity with wind (what it currently gets from nuclear power) makes for good PR or barroom banter. But 1 percent of the United States is the state of Virginia--23,000,000 acres--whereas all the nuclear plants in the USA take up only 73,000 acres.

Wind farms ruin habitats and scenic vistas. Because most are located along escarpments and mountaintops, monstrous turbines the height of the Statue of Liberty destroy aesthetic values. Even wind energy advocates like Senator Ted Kennedy morph into vocal opponents when wind farms are proposed for Cape Cod or other sites in their own backyards.

Robert's calculation assumes the solar cells are operating at 100% of their capacity. In the real world, 2.the average solar cell operates at about 20% of its rated capacity. This means that the combined output of all the solar cells in the world is equal to less than
2.40% of the output of a single coal fired power plant. According to ExxonMobil, the amount of energy distributed by a single gas station in a single day is equivalent to the amount of energy that would be produced by four Manhattan sized city blocks of solar
equipment. With 17,000 gas stations just in the United States, you don't need to be a mathematician to realize that solar power is incapable of meeting our urgent need for a new energy source that - like oil - is dense,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An economic view
Posted by: condenser on Feb 2, 2006 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American dream is to create financial wealth. We have associated that with prosperity. Our monetary system is based on the financial economy and not a wholistic view of the economy. What matters to the policy makers are things like real GDP as a measure of production, but it conveniantly neglects all that is produced that is not a measure of wealth. It defines the monetary constraints we have (or don't have). GDP figures do not include any information about the state of the environment or our well being, hence we are rewarded as a society if we simply produce more goods and services. The same equations would serve us well if, instead of GDP we used a measure of something that was more in line with real overall wealth. The effect would be that declines in real wealth measures (environment degradation, etc) would trigger inflation just like a decline of GDP would and curb consumption. It would be the brakes on any runaway system of abuse. You could also tax business and industry based on the real wealth value of their production. Sustainable industries could go tax free in this regard.
Until we redefine what Gross Domestic Product means, our monetary system (our prosperity view) will not help us because it encourages all production, good and bad equally. We should accept that we need to suffer when we produce pollution and harm to others. It's the tough pill that we need to swallow.
I don't think the free market is going to go away overnight. It probably doesn't have to. The right technologies would make good business sense and necessity would become the mother of invention again. Let's face it. Nothing is happening now because it is not in the USA's financial interest to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Money is complete folly...
Posted by: SeverelyJaded on Feb 2, 2006 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a succinct analysis of the problem with thinking that a civilization based on money, religion, and politics will ever be fair and just to everyone. Until there is unequivocal truth and justice as the core inspiration and primary purpose of our civilization, humanity's unceasing struggles and suffering will never end.

This guy's writings point the way to true solutions that are fair to everyone, not just to those who can make the most money. You may not like his writing style, but the inherent wisdom presented is unassailable.

"Most people have no idea that the common-denominator math of all the world's currencies forms an endless loop that generates debt faster than we can ever generate the value to pay for it. Those who scoff at this analysis have simply failed to do the math. Consequently, this civilization is verifiably based on purposeful and institutionalized deception, coercion, and exploitation. The time is long overdue to change the human equation and end the root causes of most injustice and suffering". - Seven Star Hand

Money is institutionalized greed controlled by the most greedy and unjust among us. It is virtual slavery, pure and simple. If humanity was really as smart as we delude ourselves into thinking, we would stop lusting after the chains to our prisons, and simply walk away from the source of power used against us by our deceptive and duplicitous leaders and their shills in money, religion, and politics.

http://www.geocities.com/sevenstarhand/articles.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You gotta be kidding. Posted by: Sojourner
Who do you trust?
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 2, 2006 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sad fact is that no group in a leadership position today can be trusted to act for the benefit of all the people.

The problems that loom before us cannot be resolved without some giving up their inherited advantages. We've been well trained to get what we can before someone else gets it. Once you have it, you have resources to fight to hold on to it.

That's what "markets" are all about. The freedom to buy whatever you can pay for. And everything else is just talk.

"What" we need has not been an issue for a long time. So long as we choose the unenlightened as our leaders, our difficulties continue to grow. "Why" we must look to the future, like it or not, is a religious matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It sounds good in theory
Posted by: Geni on Feb 3, 2006 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but most people who try to live outside the money system end up like our local messiah wannabe, accepting handouts from people who do work for money, and hauled up before court repeatedly for sleeping on public property. When someone asked what alternative trading system he proposed to meet the needs of 6 billion people, he said he guessed a few billion would just have to die off. That outcome may be inevitable in the long run, but I certainly wouldn't wish for it to be the immediate next step! But he does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]