The problem is not carbon per se, but our increasing use of fossil carbon that was formed over millions of years. Today the world burns 400 years' worth of this accumulated biological matter every year, three to four times more than in 1956. While plants are a renewable resource, fossil carbon for our purposes is not. It will take millions of years to renew the earth's supply of coal and oil.
Before the industrial revolution, there were 580 billions tons of carbon in the atmosphere. Today there are 750 billion tons. That accumulation, the result of burning fossil fuels, is causing the climate change crisis. Humanity needs to solve this problem if we are to survive. It is the other carbon economy, the renewable carbon embodied in biodiversity, that offers the solution.
Our dependence on fossil fuels has broken us out of nature's renewable carbon 20 cycle. Our dependence on fossii fuels has fossilized our thinking.
Biodiversity is the alternative to fossil carbon. Everything that we derive from the petrochemical industry has an alternative in the realm of biodiversity. The synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, the chemical dyes, the sources of mobility and energy, all of these have sustainable alternatives in the plant and animal world. In place of nitrogen fertilizers, we have nitrogen-fixing leguminous crops and biomass recycled by earthworms (vermi-compost) or microorganisms (compost). In place of synthetic dyes, we have vegetable dyes. In place of the automobile, we have the camel, the horse, the bullock, the donkey, the elephant, and the bicycle.
Climate change is a consequence of the transition from biodiversity based on renewable carbon economies to a fossil fuel-based non-renewable carbon economy. This was the transition called the industrial revolution.
While climate change, combined with peak oil and the end of cheap oil, is creating an ecological imperative for a post-oil, post-fossil fuel, postindustrial economy, the industrial paradigm is still the guiding force for the search for a transition pathway beyond oil.
That's because industrialization has also become a cultural paradigm for measuring human progress. We want a post-oil world but do not have the courage to envisage a postindustrial world. As a result, we cling to the infrastructure of the energy-intensive fossil fuel economy and try and run it on substitutes such as nuclear power and biofuels. Dirty nuclear power is being redefined as "clean energy." Non-sustainable production of biodiesel and biofuel is being welcomed as a "green" option.
Humanity is playing these tricks with itself and the planet because we are locked 25 into the industrial paradigm. Our ideas of the good life are based on production and consumption patterns that the use of fossil fuels gave rise to. We cling to these patterns without reflecting on the fact that they have become a human addiction only over the past 50 years and that maintaining this short term, non-sustainable pattern of living for another 50 years comes at the risk of wiping out millions of species and destroying the very conditions for human survival on the planet. We think of well- being only in terms of human beings, and more accurately, only in terms of human beings over the next 50 years. We are sacrificing the rights of other species and the welfare of future generations.
To move beyond oil, we must move beyond our addiction to a certain model of human progress and human well-being. To move beyond oil, we must reestablish partnerships with other species. To move beyond oil, we must reestablish the other carbon economy, a renewable economy based on biodiversity.
Renewable carbon and biodiversity redefine progress. They redefine development. They redefine "developed," "developing," and "underdeveloped." In the fossil fuel paradigm, to be developed is to be industrialized—to have industrialized food and clothing, shelter and mobility, ignoring the social costs of displacing people from work and the ecological costs of polluting the atmosphere and destabilizing the climate. In the fossil fuel paradigm, to be under-developed is to have non-industrial, fossil-free systems of producing our food and clothing, of providing our shelter and mobility.
In the biodiversity paradigm, to be developed is to be able to leave ecological space for other species, for all people and future generations of humans. To be underdeveloped is to usurp the ecological space of other species and communities, to pollute the atmosphere, and to threaten the planet.
We need to change our mind before we can change our world. This cultural transition is at the heart of making an energy transition to an age beyond oil. What blocks the transition is a cultural paradigm that perceives industrialization as progress combined with false ideas of productivity and efficiency. We have been made to believe that industrialization of agriculture is necessary to produce more food. This is not at all true. Biodiverse ecological farming produces more and better food than the most energy- and chemical-intensive agriculture. We have been made to falsely believe that cities designed for automobiles provide more effective mobility to meet our daily needs than cities designed for pedestrians and cyclists.
Vested interests who gain from the sale of fertilizers and diesel, cars and trucks, 30 have brainwashed us to believe that chemical fertilizers and cars mean progress. We have been reduced to buyers of their non-sustainable products rather than creators of sustainable, cooperative partnerships—both within human society and with other species and the earth as a whole.
The biodiversity economy is the sustainable alternative to the fossil fuel economy. The shift from fossil fuel-driven to biodiversity-supported systems reduces greenhouse gas emissions by emitting less and absorbing more CO2. Above all, because the impacts of atmospheric pollution will continue even if we do reduce emissions, we need to create biodiverse ecosystems and economies because only they offer the potential to adapt to an unpredictable climate. And only biodiverse systems provide alternatives that everyone can afford. We need to return to the renewable carbon cycle of biodiversity. We need to create a carbon democracy so that all beings have their just share of useful carbon, and no one is burdened with carrying an unjust share of climate impacts due to carbon pollution.
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
What does Shiva call the "real problem" in the world today? What are some of the other problems that are symptoms, or consequences, of this problem?
What does "dharma" mean? How does Shiva use this ancient Indian concept to talk about different ways of life and patterns of consumption?
Why does Shiva believe it is important to respect the lifestyle choices of those who live in rural communities, forestlands, and small farms?
How does Shiva define "Earth Democracy"? Is Earth Democracy compatible with political democracy?
What are the two kinds of carbon that Shiva discusses? Why is one kind more suited to human consumption than the other?
6. What solutions does Shiva see for the world's ecological problems? What has to happen before these solutions can be effective?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
How does Shiva's view of ecology compare with that of Barry Commoner (p. 344)? Can you see Commoner's "Four Laws of Ecology" in her arguments?
Compare Shiva's view of democracy with Aung San Suu Kyi's in "In Quest of Democracy" (p. 442). How are their definitions similar? How are they different?
Compare Shiva's view of industrialization with Gandhi's view of "economic progress" (p. 560). What assumptions are shared by these two thinkers writing almost a hundred years apart?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Analyze the way that Shiva uses strategic definitions of terms like "industrialization," "equity," and "democracy" in her argument. To what extent does she define these terms as others do?
Compare the efforts of Wangari Maathai in Kenya (p. 363) and Vandana Shiva in India to create sustainable communities. What role do you think gender plays in their vision?