Wednesday 18 August 2010

Economically valueless

Today I passed an advert for an oil company touting their research into algae to create a fuel of the future. Should the corporates discover a new way of making hydrocarbon based fuels we'll be doomed to further consumer driven destruction of our ecosystem.

It would be a blessing if our current way of life came to a crashing holt when the final drop of oil is pulled from the earth. War, famine, disease, and death most surely would ensue, but we're not exempt from Darwinian Evolution simply because we've coined the phrase.

I'm not an eco-warrior, environmental nut, or green handwringer. I couldn't say that I give much credence to the theory that humanity are causing climate change. I'm simply a pessimist with respect to human nature. We spread across the planet, busily devouring finite resources as though Earth is a cornucopia. It isn't.

The genetic imperative to breed and ensure the viability of offspring leads individuals to care about sustainability. This meme transfers to our elected representatives in government who care about being re-elected. This results in laws that protect individuals and the environment from the worst excesses of business. Perhaps I am able to feel untroubled by the impending doom of our species because I bequeath no legacy to the gene pool. I'm not a breeder. The parental instinct to protect one's offspring has never been awoken in me.

In business, the individual's imperative is overlaid by the survival imperatives of the business: growth and profitability. Social and environmental issues created by business just create more business opportunities. For diversified corporates this is ideal. Sell a food colouring agent that causes hyperactivity in children, and this creates a business opportunity to develop and sell a treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. There is no survival advantage for a business to care about sustainability.

Increasingly corporate interests trump those of individuals in government legislature. Follow this progression to its natural conclusion? Margaret Atwood in her book 'Year of the Flood' does just this.

Ironic that I explore these thoughts whilst the train carries me through the beauty of the countryside, but it would be a mistake to confuse our landscape with untouched nature. For centuries our land has been shaped. Scraps of the primordial woods that once covered the land survive here and there, but most are planted forests created for sport or timber crops.

The large fields of monoculture crops are protected by pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. They may be fenced with hedgerow and trees, a thin skin of eco-diversity, but only because hedgerows are protected by UK & EU law, otherwise the imperative of business efficiency would have rung their death knell.

Small mammals, insects, birds and fish remain. Large wild mammal species have been whittled down to foxes and deer which provide a sport of sorts. The only wild spaces in Britain are those that are economically valueless.

Exxon are thrilled by the prospect of their algae biofuels because :

"Algae can be grown using land and water unsuitable for crop plant or food production, unlike some other first and second generation biofuel feedstocks."

So finally every inch of the planet will serve us. A terrible prospect.

No comments:

Post a Comment