EARTH - THE DOCUMENTARY

Prior to researching the debate around offsetting my automobile and airplane emissions, I sat down to watch the documentary Earth – to learn and be inspired by the amazingly beautiful planet and its inhabitants whom we are fighting to keep in existence (along, of course, with the survival of the human species). As you can see in the trailer below, it was marketed to coincide with this year’s Earth Day, and thus, I thought it an appropriate follow-up to my previous posting about the importance of April 22.

As I watched the DVD, not only was I moved by the cinematography, but also by the poetic words spoken throughout. I have taken some of those words and reproduced them down below. I hope they remind us to always keep an eye on the bigger picture that is earth.

1 minute: “Of all the planets in our universe, there is only one we know that can support life. Just the right distance from its sun, with a perfect climate – it’s been called the ‘lucky planet.’”

2 minute: “All life on earth is built on chance and powered by the sun. But the delicate balances of our world are faltering as the planet struggles to support our growing demands. This is the time to take stalk of what we have, and what we stand to lose. We follow a year on earth, joining our fellow creatures as they battle to raise their young in a world that is rapidly changing.”

13 minute: “There are as many trees here [in the taiga forests] as in all the world’s rainforests combined: one third of all the trees on earth. As spring creeps from the south, the taiga is unveiled. It’s known that this forest produces so much oxygen that it refreshes the atmosphere of the entire planet.”

22 minute: “What will the rest of the year hold for our planet’s latest recruits?”

24 minute: “Here [in the tropics] the sun shines for 12 hours a day, everyday of the year. This is what allows the jungle to grow unchecked and support so much life. Rainforests now cover a third of what it once did – a mere three percent of our planet’s surface. And yet, it contains more than half of all the animals and plants on earth.”

29 minute: “Three percent of our planet, 50 percent of its plants and animals – nowhere is there more at stake. These tropical forests enjoy 12 hours of sunshine all year round, but they also need lots of rainfall. As weather patterns change, there are already signs that these forests are starting to dry.”

30 minute: “Deserts cover one third of the land’s surface on planet earth – and they’re getting bigger every year. This is a land where only few can survive – only a special few. And the challenges are becoming greater than ever.”

36 minute: “Where dust meets water, the march of the deserts is halted. Sand dunes give way to prairies and savannah. Grass is a great unsung hero of our planet: it keeps deserts in check, and fuels many of earth’s great spectacles.”

38 minute: “Everyday on wide open plains the world over, a timeless ritual plays itself out: the drama of hunter and hunted. This is the circle of life, that most of us – in our urban lives – have lost touch with."

47 minute: “The sun that scorches the deserts also brings water to the land. As it beats down on tropical seas, moisture rises from the warming oceans powering our global weather system. Moist winds from the Indian Ocean sweep north towards the Himalayas; as the air rises, so it cools and the water falls as snow."

53 minute: “The sun melts the snow and the waters go on their way again – a start of their long journey back to the oceans. This is the great unending cycle: sunlight and fresh water bringing life to every corner of planet earth.”

55 minute: “For generations humans and animals alike have come to depend on the great rivers and their seemingly endless flow.”

61 minute: “Like the elephants, these waters have travelled great distances to reach here. And all along the way their flow is threatened by extractions for towns and farmland. In its long life, the calf will make this journey many times. Whether the flood will always arrive is far from certain.”

62 minute: “The seasonal cycle that drives the lives of elephants on land, is just as important in the ocean."

64 minute: “To find food, she [sperm whale] will have to lead her calf on an epic 4,000-mile journey to richer feeding grounds in the southern extremes of our planet. This is the longest migration by any marine animal and it depends entirely upon a healthy ocean all along the way.”

67 minute: “Strong winds and currents draw nutrients up from the depths and life blooms wherever the sun’s rays can penetrate.”

70 minute: “These magnificent predators [sharks] – at the very top of the food chain – are a vital part of a healthy ocean, and yet we slaughter almost 100 million of them every year. There populations are in free fall.”

72 minute: “Glacial melt waters pour from the land, mix with the sea and speed up the thaw. Each year, as the climate warms, there is less and less ice in the arctic. This is a disaster for polar bears: without a solid platform, they struggle to hunt the seals they need to survive.”

78 minute: “These whales, as most of the life in Antarctica, ultimately depend on krill. Without it, the far south would be almost deserted; but krill depend on ice – and ice is in decline.”

89 minute: “The polar bear has become an emblem for the state of our planet – and for all the creatures who are struggling to live along side us. Finally, we’ve begun to understand how precarious it is – the state of our once ‘lucky planet.’ If we are to go on sharing earth with such a rich variety of life, and preserve its fragile balance for our own children, now more than ever – it is in our hands.”

SO WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH EARTH DAY?

Earth Day 2009 has just come and gone. I must admit that prior to this past April 22, I didn’t know much about its origins.

As it turns out, this year is an auspicious year to be introduced to the meaning of Earth Day. It was 40 years ago that the idea was born by former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson. (The first official Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970, thus making next year the actual 40th anniversary celebration.)

It was reported that the 1970 event had 20 million participants across the US. This year, Earth Day was expected to have more than one billion people across the globe making commitments, taking action, and reassessing their lifestyle choices. The Earth Day Network seems to be the largest organization set up to specifically support Earth Day-related activities, but it is by no means the only one promoting proactive change for environmental – and ultimately human – benefit.

Hawai‘i-based Kanu Hawai‘i, Sustainability Association of Hawai‘i and Blue Planet Foundation are just a few of the many groups whose underlying missions reflect the values that drove the creation of the inaugural Earth Day.

Similarly, Aotearoa New Zealand-based Celsias, Intersect, Transition Aotearoa and many others encourage their members – and the rest of society – to be accountable for the future by making informed, personal decisions.

However, “[Earth Day] doesn’t raise awareness among the general public in the same way that it used to,” said Amy Cassara, a senior associate at the Washington, D.C.-based World Resources Institute in a recent National Geographic article. “But it still provides a benchmark for reflection among those of us in the environmental community.”

The lack of media coverage and paucity of Earth Day-related activities here in Aotearoa New Zealand seems to prove Cassara’s point. Not only was this disappointing, but I also found it to be counterproductive to the branding (“100% Pure,” “Clean and Green,” etc.) that this country is trying to build – though some would argue disingenuously – both abroad and at home.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark won international accolades for her role in placing this country on the path towards carbon neutrality; Wellington was the international host city for World Environment Day on June 5, 2008; and Aotearoa New Zealand heralded itself as the first major country in the world to turn off its lights for the international campaign Earth Hour on March 28, 2009.

Yet, in spite of these – and many other noteworthy deeds – there were next to no activities relating to Earth Day. Why?

In contrast to Aotearoa New Zealand’s silence, it was almost deafening how much activity was happening in the northern part of the Pacific: the events at the University of Hawai‘i campuses (Mānoa, Kapi‘olani, Kaua‘i, Leeward, Windward and Hilo); Grow Hawaiian Festival at Bishop Museum; and articles about Earth Day in the media (such as this one) are just a sampling of how Hawai‘i demonstrated its contributions to the worldwide activities.

Clearly the state of Hawai‘i was not alone in its Earth Day awareness: National Geographic together with SunChips have put together the Green Effect competition; RenewableEnergyWorld.com offered a free job posting special in honor of Earth Day; the New York Times alone had more than 10 articles/blogs dedicated to the global celebration of April 22; and I even learned from Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show that Elmo has gone green (figuratively and literally) for Earth Day! And of course, there was President Obama's speech given at Trinity Structural Towers (a Newton, Iowa-based former Maytag plant revitalized into a wind turbine tower manufacturing plant). And this is just a handful of what was happening throughout the US.

Living down under and not participating in any Earth Day activities, I feel as though I haven't done my part…

As great as I might think writing this blog may be, I do not pretend that it aids in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions – arguably it contributes to it through the electricity usage of my laptop and lights. Thus, in honor (albeit belatedly) of my newly gained understanding of Earth Day, my next blog will be addressing the debate surrounding carbon offsetting. Specifically, I will be seeking verifiable, cost-effective and actionable ways for my family to offset emissions from our recent road trip to Lake Taupo (approximately 728 km | 452 mi), as well as my upcoming round-trip flight to Honolulu (approximately 15,194 km | 9,434 mi).

From the conclusions I reach based upon my research, I will be taking action.

WHAT CAUSES AN ISLAND SOCIETY TO COLLAPSE?

GNS Science | Te Pū Ao (otherwise known as the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd) is one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s nine crown research institutes. Dr. Troy Baisden, an environmental scientist with GNS Science, is leading a group of scientists “to use sophisticated analytical techniques to solve the mystery of the sudden collapse of the population on Rapa Nui in pre-European times.”

The project is entitled: “Was Collapse Inevitable on Easter Island (Rapa Nui)? Reconstructing a Civilization’s Failure.” View the blog here.

Inspired by Jared Diamond’s 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Baisden developed a research project based upon Rapa Nui’s fragile soil, which hypothesizes “that Easter Islanders would have overshot the carrying capacity of their landscape, reaching maximum population as soil nutrient depletion caused declining crop yields.”

Though the research is examining soil to uncover past events, the implications of the research are potentially far reaching and future oriented: “Collectively, the analyses will enable bio-geochemical modeling to help predict the future of societies around the world where we are stressing carrying capacity of landscapes.”

It would appear that many islands such as Hawai‘i, are either dangerously close to, or have already surpassed their carrying capacity, which is why the project’s research is extremely relevant to our future and how we choose to build a society that succeeds (borrowing Diamond’s terminology).

But what actually constitutes a “collapse?” This is a central issue that Baisden himself returns to in his blog. Equally important is his discussion about what emerges after the collapse:

For me, the take home message of the Birdman cult is that there was recovery after collapse, and that the focus on the dramatic feat of recovering the egg provided a very positive alternative to the clan warfare that appears to have emerged immediately following "collapse."

So, it would seem that in spite of a “collapse,” the Rapa Nui society moved on and forged a less resource-intense culture.

Baisden also summarized the words of John Flenley – former professor and head of geography at Massey University (Aotearoa New Zealand), and author of three books on Rapa Nui with over thirty years of research on the island – from an informal presentation Flenley gave on April 11:

Many of the most remarkable things we learn from deciphering the Rapa Nui experiment, center around the ways the island’s leaders cultivated the moai-building and Birdman rituals to maintain peace between the many tribes/clans on the island. He also notes that the focus of the rituals seemed to shift appropriately from the extremely resource-intensive moai-building to a re-emergence of the creator god Make Make, as resource issues related to deforestation (and presumably maintaining food production) became a dominant source of concern for the society.

This leads me to contemplate: Can we – as local island societies in Hawai‘i and Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as the collective we in the larger global sense of “island earth” – shift our rituals (i.e. consumerism, energy usage, etc.) so that we become less resource intensive while still being able to maintain peace between potentially aggressive groups/countries/regions?

Moreover, what will future generations think when they look back at the beginning of the 21^st century? Will my grandchildren question in disgust how I and my generation chose to live an extravagant and frivolous lifestyle at the expense of all future generations’ ability to live on the planet? Or, will someone in their generation write a tribute to us – similar to the likes of Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation – in reverence to our “extraordinary service, sacrifice and heroics?”

At least one person – Susan George's “We Must Think Big to Fight Environmental Disaster" – has likened climate change for the current generation to that of fascism for the Second World War generation. Let us hope history acts as a good teacher and that we learn the important lessons from the past and draw-up strategic plans to combat our generation’s greatest foe.

Putting a very complex issue into oversimplified terms, there are arguably three broad approaches to “persuade” people to take proactive action against climate change: inspiration, fear and knowledge.

Wasting no time on the persuasion factors are a number of people who have already created films or written books to motivate and shock us into realizing the monstrous task we have to overcome.

Herman Daly wrote a New Scientist piece “Life in a Land Without Growth” about what the world could look like in the near future if a steady-state economy prevailed. Likewise, The Eleventh Hour talks about how we are living at the greatest time in history because we can “turn mankind’s darkest hour into its finest.” Also stating that there are real opportunities to proactively create a better world are many other books such as Peter Senge et al.’s The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World and Cradle to Cradle: Remaking Things the Way We Make Things by William McDonough.

We seem to be standing at a juncture where our actions could have an enormous effect upon future generations. If inspiring us into action does not work, perhaps scaring us will?

Richard Heinberg, in his book Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Decline wrote chapter 10 entitled “A Letter From the Future,” where someone from 2107 writes about the devastation that resulted from our ignorant choices. In a similar vein, the recently-released, independently-funded film The Age of Stupid also has “a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, looking at old footage from 2008 and asking: Why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?”

The April 8, 2009 Economist reviewed several books relating to climate change. One point picked-up on in Anthony Giddens’ new book The Politics of Climate Change was that “people are more likely to change their habits if offered a happy future to look forward to rather than a bleak one to avoid.”

While this may be partially true, I’m not convinced that this holds true for a majority of people. Does this not assume that most humans are short-term thinkers who are selfish and can’t stomach challenges that would entail some sort of personal sacrifice?

Also in the same review was David MacKay’s book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air (which can be downloaded free here). His online synopsis gives a great response to those who think we can mitigate climate change without having to make significant changes to our lifestyles: “If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little.” And though a lot of little things do add up to something bigger, the scale of the problem is such that more than just a little action needs to take place - particularly by those who have the higher levels of per capita emissions, energy use and food consumption.

It seems clear that there is no one-size fits all approach, and that a combination of inspiration, fear and knowledge will aid in building a society that succeeds. It also seems abundantly clear that the biggest problem inhibiting this success is something just as complex as the science of climate change: human behavior.

HAVE WE GONE PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN?

Three nights ago, I began watching the first half of What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire a documentary I bought from the Kapiti Transition Towns group at the recent Kapiti Coast Sustainable Home and Garden Show.

From the start, I was inundated with information that thus far – I still have the second half of the film to watch – has left me feeling somewhat depressed, guilty and more than a bit overwhelmed. What a Way to Go looks at four major problems facing all of us: climate change, peak oil, mass species extinction and population overshoot. Individually, each of these topics is quite sobering. However, when put together, they not only expose the extremely dangerous path we are taking, but they compel us to critically examine how we choose to live, as well as contemplate the legacy our actions will leave for our descendants.

Adding to this, yesterday I just read George Monbiot’s March 16 column “A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” Monbiot writes – based upon increasing amounts of scientific research with the same conclusion – that we have already pushed ourselves past the point of no return: no matter what we do from this day forward, we have basically secured ourselves at least a global average temperature increase of 2˚C (3.6˚F). He also believes that mitigation – in spite of its less-than-successful record to date – is still the only option humans have, because adaptation is nearly impossible due to the predicted severity of climate change.

As if the film and Monbiot’s column weren’t enough bad news, I then followed one of Monbiot’s source links and skimmed through Deiter Helm’s February 21 lecture at Oxford: “Environmental Challenges in a Warming World: Consumption, Costs and Responsibilities”(PDF). Amongst many other things, Helm had this to say:

For many resources are – even when there is unemployment and excess capacity – scarce. In the general macroeconomic context, financial capital is scarce now, and the corollary of all the proposed sending is borrowing – creating a mortgage on the future. We got into this credit crunch and recession through excess borrowing, and the proposed solution is yet more borrowing. This was not just financial – we have borrowed the atmosphere and the biodiversity too from the future – we have been writing a large environmental mortgage on the consumption possibilities of future generations.

They – of course – have not been consulted.

“We have been writing a large environmental mortgage on the consumption possibilities of future generations” was a terrible statement that resonated.

In spite of the dire warnings that have been and continue to be given by the science community, the world in which we live is governed by money – and it seems to wield a disproportionate influence on decisions which have far-reaching implications. Thus I have begun to educate myself about the economics that drive these decisions. Currently I’m reading two books about ecological economics: Energy and the Ecological Economics of Sustainability by John Peet (1992) and Natural Capital and Human Economic Survival by Thomas Prugh, et al. (1999).

I have purposely started with books written in the previous decade because they seem to hone in on the differences between ecological and neoclassical (or conventional) economics. Back then, ecological economics seems to have been very much an upstart branch, and thus, in-depth historical background as well as justification for a paradigm shift in economic theory is given. In learning about neoclassical economics, it was shocking to see that all inputs (labor, capital and land) are considered substitutable on a one-for-one basis. I may not be an economist, but it seems this ideology (along with others such as exponential growth being limitless, etc.) is a major contributor to why we are now in the current predicament.

Were neoclassical economics not the conventional path, perhaps there would not be such need for alarm, but the truth appears to be that this form of economic theory informs major policy development on local, national and international levels. It seems that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as well as the way in which climate change policy is being handled in the discussions that are leading to the international post-Kyoto framework in Copenhagen at the end of this year still, for the most part, are utilizing neoclassical economics.

Feeling pessimistic about our future, and just simply depressed from all the scientific predictions as well as the current economic model, I needed something that could uplift me in a realistic manner. I happen to run across Garrett Hardin’s writing. Two sentences from his book Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos (1995) helped put my feelings into perspective:

One who looks for causes before seeking remedies should not be condemned as a pessimist. In general, a great deal of looking for causes must precede the finding of remedies. (p. 5)

Finding remedies is precisely the point. What a Way to Go, Monbiot, Helm, and many others seek causes so that more of us can then look for remedies. Though not an epiphany per se, it did put into place a continued reason for me to remain optimistic about our future. And having two sons, I don’t really have a choice but to do my best to ensure that the worst repercussions of the environmental mortgage that Helm spoke of do not become reality.

Though it seems governments, businesses and citizens are not awakening at the speed which is needed, they are waking up nonetheless to the fact that climate change is a complex problem that requires an inter-disciplinary approach. Established, large institutions such as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and many others are gaining more receptive ears from mainstream media and citizens (as opposed to just scientists). And, increasing numbers of new organizations are being created with multi-disciplinary approaches, such as the recently formed Center for Island Climate Adaptation Policy at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, and the University of Victoria’s New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute.

Human beings – more so than any other animal that has walked the earth – have an uncanny ability to fight with all the resources they can muster once they have come to understand that they and their loved-ones’ lives are at stake.

Monbiot attempted to tap into this fighting spirit in an almost William Wallace-like inspirational ending to his column:

Yes, it might already be too late – even if we reduced emissions to zero tomorrow – to prevent more than two degrees of warming, but we cannot behave as if it is, for in doing so we make the prediction come true. Tough as this fight may be, improbable as success might seem, we cannot afford to surrender.

Less poetic, but certainly very clear in his thinking is – “earthship” eco-architect and subject of the documentary Garbage Warrior – Michael Reynolds’ reason for fighting the good fight:

If humanity takes the planet down the tubes – I’m dead. I’m trying to save my ass, and that is a powerful force!

If it’s true that we have gone past the point of no return for a global average temperature increase of 2˚C, I certainly hope we have the foresight to harness our collective human fighting spirit to ensure that we don’t surpass the next threshold of 3 or 4˚C.

WHY LOOK TO ISLANDS FOR MODELS OF SUSTAINABILITY?

In a well-informed essay about the strengths, vulnerabilities and uniqueness of islands in a globalized world, Alan AtKisson, CEO and President of the AtKisson Group, wrote:

All islands are similar in being excellent case studies in the concept of sustainability, and in the value of systems thinking. They have clear boundaries, and clear physical limits. What comes in must either fit into what already exists, or leave, or push something else out to make room. When the economy ruins the natural world, everybody can see it. If the social organization is not working, economy and nature both suffer. And human health and well-being is a fundamental asset, whether the island's prosperity depends on tourists seeking peace and fun, or on the hunting prowess and ingenuity of a traditional people.

There are disastrous examples from the past such as Rapa Nui, which stand to remind us of “the dependence of human societies on their environment and the consequences of irreversibly damaging that environment.”[1] Both Clive Ponting in his book A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations, and Jared Diamond in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, make a point in highlighting the history of Rapa Nui as an example of what could happen to “island earth” if we continue unchecked on our current path – one which does not match economic growth to our ecological limitations.

Rapa Nui’s demise was the result of detrimental actions by the very humans who inhabited the island. The world, however, is now a different place. The combined activities of countless people – many of whom live thousands of miles away and are unaware of the consequences of their individual actions – are now having a negative impact upon islands and islanders alike.

Two noted examples of island societies soon to be swept under the rising waves of the Pacific are Tuvalu, and the Republic of Kiribati. These two nations along with other Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have appealed to international forums to bring about greater awareness, as well as seek collaborative solutions to their diminishing way of life.

In 2002, Tuvalu attempted to sue Australia (and other major green-house gas emitters such as the US), but in recent years has taken a more diplomatic approach with their nearest continental neighbor. In the past, Tuvaluans have tried to appeal to the Australian government under the Howard administration but have been categorically denied any special immigration status. The current administration may be more sympathetic to the plight of Tuvalu, as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and acknowledges the risks of climate change to its Pacific neighbors.

Similarly, Kiribati President Anote Tong approached former Aotearoa New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark in June 2008 during World Environment Day events – Wellington was the international host city – to plead Kiribati’s case and persuade the government into granting his people resettlement opportunities.

To date, neither of these two island nations has secured a future place for its people – and not for lack of trying – on a foreign island and/or continent where its language, cultural practices and history can live on well after their traditional island homes have been consumed by seemingly inevitable sea-level rise.

On the other hand, there are also examples of hope and determination where some islands are trying to deal with the effects of climate change in innovative ways. The current scientific research forecasts that low-lying atolls and islands such as the Maldives will be engulfed by the sea at the end of this century. In spite of this, Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed plans to make his island nation in the Indian Ocean the first near-zero-carbon economy by 2020, thereby leading the pack[2] and demonstrating to large greenhouse gas emitters that fossil fuel independence and carbon neutrality may very well be a reality within a decade’s time.

The Caribbean region is also taking an ambitious and collaborative approach to climate change. Due to the region’s numerous island nations and the intertwined relationship between its economy and ecology, it has been a long-time advocate for proactive climate-change initiatives. In 2004 the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) was officially opened, and it currently “aims to raise US$35 million over the next three to five years to tackle the challenges of climate change and its effect on tourism in the Caribbean region.”[3] This is in addition to other projects that the region has initiated since the 1990s such as developing renewable energy resources, mainstreaming climate change issues, creating a strategy for climate change adaptation, and others.

In January 2008, the State of Hawai‘i signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which laid the foundation for the Hawai‘i Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI). Amongst other things it aims to “achieve a 60 to 70 percent or greater clean energy basis for Hawai‘i within a generation [by 2030]” and to “serve as an ‘open source’ learning opportunity” while also being able to “create economic opportunity at all levels of society.”[4] How these plans will actually play out in reality is yet to be seen, but bold targets have been set – and this is a positive and necessary start, especially in light of the fact that Hawai‘i currently utilizes approximately 90 percent of its energy from imported fossil fuel.

There seems to be a growing interest in ecological economics as the interdependence between the economy and environment becomes more apparent. The likes of Sir Nicholas Stern, Al Gore, Van Jones and a cadre of others constitute a growing consensus who believe that the solutions to the global economic crisis and the global climate crisis may be one in the same. If the concern over money broadens the way for greater ecological awareness, then in the years ahead, islands may indeed become more valuable to the world by providing critical lessons about climate change adaptability, as well as the testing grounds for sustainable and innovative solutions.

Many islanders – most out of sheer necessity – are utilizing their competitive advantages to “punch above their weight” and develop sustainable measures for their island homes. It seems that the world is also realizing that islands are the proverbial canary in the coal mine with regard to climate change, and in so acknowledging this have created organizations such as the United Nations Office of the High Representative for LDCs, LLDCs and Small Island Developing States(SIDS) and others.

While still in its infancy, another good example of international collaboration is the partnership signed between the US and Aotearoa New Zealand in July 2008: Energy Development in Island Nations (EDIN). “The initiative signals the commitment of the two countries to cooperate to enhance global energy security and address global climate change through the promotion of clean, renewable, sustainable energy technologies. The goal of EDIN is to achieve deployment of the maximum amount of renewable energy and energy efficiency possible for specific, measurable clean energy targets”[5] in island nations and territories.

So, why should we look to islands for models of sustainability? AtKisson answered simply: “Islands can help show us the way. If islands cannot be made sustainable, nothing can. If islands can, then everything can. And islands can.”

Whether seeking a new place to call home for its people, or leading the way in a near-zero-carbon economy, island nations are forced to be first-adaptors and innovators in order to survive. If non-islanders can learn from the successes as well as missed opportunities, then perhaps we all have a better chance of ensuring that “island earth” does not follow a similar path to that of Rapa Nui.

Quoted Sources:

[1] Ponting, Clive (2007). A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations, Penguin Books, p. 2.

[2] The six nations signed up to a UN-backed plan to become zero net emitters are the Maldives, Costa Rica, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand and Monaco. “Maldives Aims to Become First Carbon-Neutral Country.” The Independent. March 14 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/maldives-aims-to-become-first-carbonneutral-country-1644907.html

[3] “Funding for Caribbean Climate Change Project.” University of Oxford press release. March 20 2009. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090320_1html.html

[4] (PDF)“Hawai‘i-DOE Clean Energy Initiative: Strategic Vision and Implementation” presentation. March 2008, p. 3. http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/hcei/HCEI-summary-2008mar.pdf

[5] “U.S. and New Zealand Take Steps to Launch International Partnership to Further the Development of Clean Energy on Island Nations.” US Department of Energy press release. July 24 2008. http://www.energy.gov/print/6429.htm; see also “New Zealand Joins New Clean Energy Partnership.” New Zealand government press release. July 25 2008. http://beehive.govt.nz/release/new+zealand+joins+new+clean+energy+partnership