Are our Earth’s resource finite, or not?
That’s the crux of the question answered by the Planetary Boundaries work done by the Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Their answer is: yes. There are Nine Planetary Boundaries. These limits describe how much we can use, destroy, eat and drink of our planet’s resources until we run the risk of running out. Ruining it for future generations.
This research isn’t comforting to think about. It raises all sort of uncomfortable discussions about fair-shares.
So it’s no wonder that there is a correspondingly robust controversy the role of this science in formulating policy.
Two examples, first one con and then one pro:
This conversation reminds me of climate change denialism tactics that try to win the argument on semantics over sense.
Since we don’t–and can’t–know for sure that the science is all correct, then we shouldn’t use it to make decisions?
That’s like going after a lion by the tail. Sure, it might look like the easiest place to grab, but you won’t be happy with the results once you’ve got it. Far better to go after the whole lion, if that’s your ultimate game.
“We cannot risk our kids’ futures on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong.” That’s the sentiment in yesterday’s Climate Declaration announcement.
Besides, what’s the harm if the scientists aren’t entirely right? We’ll have a cleaner, more energy-efficient world?
With the fate of the planet potentially at risk, we can’t waste time on inches and tails. We need to go for the whole lion.