Why cooperate when we can have it all?

BOOK REVIEW

COMMON WEALTH Economics for a Crowded Planet
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
Published by ALLEN LANE, UK, an imprint of PENGUIN BOOKS, 2008
386 pages, Price: GPB 22, Rs. 695/-


Why cooperate when we can have it all?

The “neoconservative mistake”, says Jeffrey Sachs, is the proposition: “Why cooperate when we can have it all?” It is this kind of predatory thinking that has been at the root of imperialism from the days of the Roman Empire and the conquests of Genghis Khan. But today, when the very air we breathe and the water we drink is threatened because of what Sachs calls “the anthropocene” effect --that of humans, “clearing the ecological playing field to satisfy human desires,” albeit in an unequal way; we had better think again.

This is the central message of Jeffrey Sachs’ second book, in which, this distinguished Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia University, makes a lucid and passionately argued case for global cooperation. At stake, as he disturbingly makes clear, is the very survival of our planet, the human race, and all creatures great and small we share it with. Sachs is convincing when he makes the case that we cannot go on as we are and expect to have an unfettered future much beyond 2050. We must make urgent changes, says Jeffrey Sachs, unless we are determined to court certain and irrevocable disaster.

While it is not difficult to agree with this prognosis, the sticking point, as always with the “greens”, is in agreeing on what will be the lever to force the changes necessary. Traditionally, the environmental Left presents its case in lofty moral tones, probably expecting to prick the conscience of the world into righteous action. But this has never worked. No voluntary good sense has ever prevailed. America won’t, as yet, sign the Kyoto Protocol for example. And the Protocol only calls for a modest, some would say miniscule, reduction of 5 per cent in “green house gases”! And none amongst the entrepreneurial classes worried at all about environmental degradation during the substantial growth century or more of the “billowing smokestack” Industrial Revolution.

What became the “game changer” over the ages was always technology. In energy terms, mankind went from wind to steam to coal to petrol--and now, as petrol becomes increasingly scarce and expensive, technology must come to the rescue once again. The imperative, as always, is economic necessity, and profit, not idealism. But thanks to the awareness generated by advocates such as Professor Sachs, the by-product of “progress” might well slow, halt and even reverse the rapid environmental degradation wrought thus far.

The entire set of issues may also have achieved mainstream status at last. In 2006, the Hollywood establishment recognised An Inconvenient Truth, the largest grossing documentary film of all time, starring Al Gore, with an Oscar. Former Vice President Al Gore, cruelly and controversially deprived of the Presidency of the United States, has taken up the gauntlet of a much greater mission. In 2007, the august Swedish Academy awarded a Nobel Prize to Mr. Gore for his activism, jointly with India’s own Rajendra Pachauri, representing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The fact is, depleting oil and gas reserves won’t last beyond the 21st century. “Clean” energy development, therefore, may result as a most welcome side-effect of the search for alternate energy sources, including, perhaps, self-replenishing electrical energy. Similarly, water scarcity from the demands of a population of some 7.5 billion people, or more, by 2050, may eventually be solved by efficient reverse osmosis based desalination of sea water. But the desalination needs to be carried out using vast quantities of renewable energy. It will also have to pumped, and piped large distances, just like gas might be, at present, and in the near future.

While the technological leap of faith looks the most promising solution, most of Sachs’ book concentrates on a Utopian idealism involving cleaner manufacturing, eco-friendly agricultural practices, less rapacious fishery, scrubbed energy generation and a clear cut commitment to alleviate poverty, ignorance, hunger, disease, under development and ignorance in the poorest parts of the world. Sachs wants a sustained commitment of intent. And he wants a small proportion of managerial and financial resources available to the richer nations of the world. He presents all this in terms of good economics because problem areas in a globalised, and interdependent world, affect the affluent too and restrict their topside growth potential too. But mostly, Sachs presents his views in the ethical context--laying out the responsibilities of the rich towards the poor.

But will altruism ever become the animating spirit of the rescue? The poorest parts of Africa, such as Darfur, pose the greatest challenges. But help and succour has and will certainly come. Some of it will come from China and India, both busy courting the “dark continent”. But they are doing so with a definite eye on Africa’s plentiful natural resources; its oil and uranium, its minerals and diamonds, the vast potential for enhanced agricultural production to feed a hungry world, and its lucrative 5 per cent plus a year growing markets. Human nature will certainly prevail. But Jeffrey Sachs may not be happy to acknowledge the notion that saving the planet will be its happy by-product.

(850 words)
Wednesday 7th May, 2008
Gautam Mukherjee

Published in print and online on May 25th, 2008 as "A case for global cooperation" in The Sunday Pioneer, Agenda Section under BOOKS and under BOOKS online at www.dailypioneer.com