|
Preparing for Peace The website of the Westmorland General Meeting 'Preparing for Peace' initiative
|
War
and Sustainability
Professor John
Cairns, Jr
Summary
The
purpose of war is to destroy, and, even with precision bombs and missiles, some
collateral damage still occurs. Inevitably, natural capital and other types of
capital are destroyed or impaired. In Vietnam, the foliage of forests was
targeted. In the Gulf War, Iraq released crude oil into the Red Sea, which
damaged marine life, and set Kuwaiti oil fields on fire, which produced both
atmospheric and terrestrial damage. War co-opts natural resources (e.g. natural
capital), destroys societal infrastructure, and interferes with a variety of
natural cycles and ecosystem services. War is incompatible with sustainable use
of the planet since modern technology, including nuclear capabilities, makes war
an unsustainable practice. Instead of protecting resources as they become
increasingly scarce, these wars (usually poorly masked as terrorist, religious,
or cultural conflicts) use natural capital, such as oil, in an attempt to obtain
more than would have been possible by peaceful means. The assumption that more
will be obtained is weak since sabotage is often difficult to stop. Universal
peace and sustainable use of the planet are both utopian visions, but failure to
achieve them deprives posterity of a quality life, and even of life itself. We
must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on
trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not
allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our
position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive
war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel L. Jackson, America’s Senior Representative at
the 1945 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and the Tribunal’s Chief Prosecutor The
Tipping Point
A
tipping point occurs when the forces that create stability are overcome by the
forces that create instability, and the ship, vehicle, or system tips into
disequilibrium. Indications (e.g. continued human population increase, species
extinction, depletion of natural capital, ever increasing human artifacts that
displace natural systems, pollution) are that both natural systems and humankind
may reach a tipping point in the twenty-first century if present unsustainable
practices continue. Cairns (2000) remarks that, in order to achieve
sustainability, humankind must be at peace with natural systems (i.e. cease
destroying them). A general principle of preserving natural systems is that
maintenance is less environmentally costly than rebuilding or new growth. Cities
destroyed by war (e.g. as in World War II) require more resources to rebuild
than would have been used to maintain them. Similarly, a new growth forest
requires more energy for building new biomass than an old growth forest requires
in maintaining itself. Moreover, cultural development occurs primarily when
basic needs (e.g. food, shelter, health care, warmth) have already been met.
Even education suffers when people must use all their energies just to survive.
Social capital (e.g. sense of community) requires time, which is less available
when maintaining basic needs is a struggle. Cultural capital (e.g. museums,
symphony orchestras, art galleries) can be badly damaged or destroyed by wars,
either directly by explosives or indirectly by looters, when the social contract
(e.g. respecting cultural organizations) has broken down. The Athenian statesman
Pericles praised the law that, although unwritten, was obeyed. Today, obeying
such laws is called a social contract. At present, the intent to live
sustainably and leave a habitable planet for posterity is the ultimate social
contract, which encompasses vast spatial dimensions (e.g. Earth) and vast
temporal spans (e.g. indefinite use of the planet). Humankind must reject
short-term economic growth based on unsustainable practices in favour of
sustainable practices, which should produce a habitable planet for posterity and
reduce risks. Risks
If
humankind is worried about risks of terrorism caused death, some comparative
figures from the November/December 2002 issue of World
Watch (p. 40) should be enlightening:
In the United States:
430 700 killed by cigarette smoking, per year, on average 300 000 killed by obesity, per year, on average 110 000 killed by alcohol abuse per year 43 200 killed by motor vehicle accidents, per year, on average 2000 killed by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
In other countries:
2 000 000 in Sudan: killed in the ongoing civil war 1 700 000 in Cambodia: killed by the Khmer Rouge massacre in
1975–78 1 700 000 in Congo: killed in the ongoing war 103 000 in Japan: killed by two atomic bombs dropped by US
planes in 1945 20 000 in India: killed by the Bhopal chemical spill of 1985
and its aftermath. The purpose of this information is to show that a better perspective on risks is needed. For example, in the United States, one is far more likely to be killed by cigarette smoking or obesity than by terrorists. If the primary goal is to protect human life, citizens of the United States should concentrate on cigarette smoking and obesity rather than terrorists. A person killed by cigarettes is just as dead as one killed by terrorists. The risks in many other countries are more severe; 2 million were killed in the ongoing civil war in Sudan and 103 000 by two atomic bombs dropped by the United States on Japan in 1945, a one time event. Yet the latter has received far more attention. Even the 20 000 deaths in India caused by the Bhopal chemical spill of 1985 and its aftermath received more attention than the civil war in Sudan. The deaths of all humans killed before their normal life span
ends are horrific, but our efforts to protect humans should bear some
relationship to the actual damage and risks. Reducing these risks and the
consequent strain on natural systems and society can be accomplished by changes
in human behaviour, although they will be most effective if done by large
numbers of people. Preventing human deaths by war and other activities should be
a part of the social contract. War is most destructive when waged by
nation-states, but guerrilla activity can be very destructive as well. One
common deleterious effect is the production of refugees who cause significant
ecological damage to the areas in which they seek refuge. Refugees can also
strain the societal infrastructure of the area in which they take refuge, even
taking it past its maximum long-term carrying capacity. The
Dangerous Concept of Zero Risk
In
the early days of the environmental movement, especially after the first Earth
Day about three decades ago, discussion flourished on the idea of reducing to
zero the risk from potentially toxic chemical substances. The concept of zero
risk was eventually discarded, although some politicians and world leaders still
believe it a reasonable goal. Ironically, this concept was even touted as an
achievable goal in space flight. For example, before the American spaceship
Challenger exploded, officials estimated the probability of malfunction to as
few as 1 in 100 000 flights. This estimation was, in fact, just a euphemism for
the idea of zero risk, i.e. the risk is so small it is essentially zero.
However, few activities in daily life are entirely without risk. The passengers
on the three aircraft highjacked in the terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center buildings in New York or the Pentagon in Washington, DC, did not
anticipate the actual risk to which they were exposed. Actual risk is also not
anticipated by a person driving an automobile who has the misfortune to
encounter another driver filled with ‘road rage’. Absolute security is as
elusive as zero risk. The irrational quest for zero risk and absolute security
are major obstacles to achieving sustainable use of the planet, which should be
humankind’s primary goal. Preventative
War
The outmoded concepts of zero risk and absolute security are being used to justify preemptive military strikes to ‘prevent’ a serious threat (e.g. the war in Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and heighten the war on terrorism). The idea of preventative war replaces the concepts of containment and deterrence, which were the strategies used during the ‘Cold War’ and with Iraq following the Gulf War. The doctrine of preventative war was used by both Germany and Japan in World War II, but not by the nationstates that were attacked. Unilateral action (i.e. preventative war) and, to a lesser extent, measures associated with the war on terrorism represent a rejection of multilateralism, which is essential to the quest for sustainable use of the planet. Furthermore, the uncertainties involved in unilateral action will almost certainly result in larger expenditures for military purposes and more environmental damage, including societal infrastructure, when force is actually used. Reaction to this new orientation (from multilateral to unilateral) will induce countervailing trends in the international system, which became evident in the actions of the United Nations when the twenty-first century war in Iraq was proposed. Sustainable use of the planet requires the normative
legitimacy of a planet ordered by law. Therefore, policy must be altered, even
in powerful nation-states, in order to establish the international order
required to achieve sustainability. Some disturbing indications are that the
American preemptive war strategy is emphasizing the role of nuclear weapons as
battlefield tools rather than as the ultimate taboo weapons (Physicians for
Social Responsibility [PSR], 2003). This possibility is especially troubling in
the case of dual crises, such as North Korea and Iraq, even when preemptive
strikes are theoretical exercises. Even moderate protective efforts, by any
nation, against a preemptive strike would divert resources from efforts to
achieve sustainability. The threat of a preemptive strike does not reduce
proliferation of nuclear weapons. For example, when so threatened, North Korea
withdrew from its Agreed Framework (abandoning nuclear weapons development in
exchange for civilian nuclear power generation) [PSR, 2003]. Sustainability
requires mutual trust at the global level and is hampered, even wrecked, by
mutual suspicion. Consequently, the case for preventative war is weak. The British philosopher Thomas Hobbes loved peace so much that
he was willing to accept absolute monarchy as an alternative to civil war. In an
era of globalization, a strong United Nations may be the only alternative to the
eventual use of weapons of mass destruction, which would end, possibly forever,
the possibility of achieving sustainable use of the planet. Hobbes believed that
all humans had reason, which could be employed to reduce the possibility of
violent death. Peace will not guarantee that humankind will achieve sustainable
use of the planet; but, without it, the probability of doing so is problematic. Environmentally
Benign Wars
Environmentally
benign war is, of course, a hopeless goal. However, environmental harm can be
limited, just as the military attempt to minimize civilian casualties and damage
to the infrastructure (e.g. water supply, sewage treatment, power plants,
hospitals, and other civil services) of the nation-state under attack. The
United Nations is processing more than US$70 billion in claims for environmental
damage in the invasion of Kuwait (the Gulf War). The less damage to
environmental and other resources, the lower the cost will be for recreating
Iraq. In the Gulf War, nearly a quarter of the Kuwaiti desert was encrusted with
oil, which also contaminated aquifers that had produced as much as 40% of the
water supply. Unexploded ordnance abounds. The churning of tank treads and truck
tyres has accelerated erosion so that sand dunes are edging toward Kuwait City.
Environmental damage by oil and oil fires is summarized in Youngquist (1997),
which contains useful references on this topic. Distresss
and Eustress
Distress
is an emotion that can overwhelm and prevent effective functioning. Distress
warns of danger and impels the actions of fight or flight. In today’s world,
fight might merely be a letter to a local newspaper or peaceful picketing.
Instead of running away from a rabid pit bulldog, which directly addresses a
problem, ‘flight’ may manifest itself as limited denial, meditation, music,
and the like. However, ‘flight’ can also mean suicide bombing, road rage, or
actual war. Eustress (the prefix ‘eu’ from the Greek word meaning
‘good’) is the emotion that motivates and gives a sense of accomplishment
when goals have been achieved. The wars of the twenty-first century have not produced the
elation that followed the end of World War II. No heads of nation-states
surrendered and acknowledged defeat. In fact, victory was not announced as it
was at the end of World War II. Instead, words such as ‘cessation of
hostilities’ were used, even though significant portions of the populations of
Afghanistan and Iraq have remained hostile and many indigenous combatants have
merely discarded their uniforms and hidden their weapons, almost certainly with
the intention of using them at the first opportunity. Diplomatic relationships
of long standing have been replaced with suspicion and lack of trust. The United
Nations has, temporarily, ceased to function as intended. Most of humankind is
still feeling distress, and the end of this emotion is not in sight – hardly
an appropriate condition for embarking on a cooperative program to globalize
sustainability, which requires implementation of euthenics (i.e. science
concerned with bettering the condition of human beings through improvement of
their environment). The quest for sustainable use of the planet will be stressful
because the shift from unsustainable to sustainable practices will require
major, initially unpleasant, changes in both individual and societal behaviour.
War itself is an unsustainable practice if humankind intends to leave a
habitable planet for posterity. Humankind is already pushing the limits of
environmental carrying capacity in food, water, fossil fuels, toxic chemical
substances, radioactive wastes with a long half-life, and rate of climate
change. For example, world production of petroleum will soon begin to decline
(e.g. Deffeyes, 2001; Duncan, 2001). The activities of humankind have placed nitrogen, potassium, and phosphates into the environment at a rate greater than that of natural systems. These chemicals degrade all types of water ecosystems, e.g. there is a ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico and brown slime in the Adriatic. The consequences of these activities are uncertain but, at present, they cannot be stopped because without commercial fertilizers billions of humans would die (e.g. Smil, 1991). The era of rising irrigation has ended (Postel, 1999), and even water rich areas of the United States have had to begin importing water by truck for growing populations (Grant, 2003). Such environmental crises could lead to resource wars if the
human population continues to grow. However, if the human population was
stabilized at present levels, or reduced, the funds that are being used to
reduce these crises temporarily could be used to develop long-term sustainable
practices. This more desirable state requires reexamination of war and growth,
both demographic and economic, and the ethical relationships within human
society and with the 30+ million other species with which humans share the
planet. A
Future without Humans
On
May 18, 2003, the television channel Discovery aired the program ‘Future is
Wild’. Scientists envisioned a future world in which humans are extinct and
bizarre creatures inhabit the world. Many people would dismiss a world without
humans as science fiction or fantasy. ‘Future is Wild’ illustrated climatic
and geological changes that, if even partially accurate, will drive most extant
species, probably including Homo
sapiens, to extinction over the next 10 to 100 million years. If
sustainable use of the planet truly means working toward human use of the planet
indefinitely, humankind needs to demonstrate the capability of living
sustainably under the present comparatively benign conditions. If this goal is
not possible, sustainability is a denial of reality and a more suitable word to
describe human activities should be selected. One obvious beginning point of working toward sustainability is with energy (defined as the capacity to do work). Heniberg (2003) argues that global oil output will peak in 3–12 years. If an aggressive shift toward new energy sources, such as wind, solar, or fuel cells in the mix, is not achieved in the 3–12 year time period, there will be severe, even grim, consequences, such as economic collapse, resource wars, famine, disease, and despotism. If humankind reduces energy consumption, the transition period can be lengthened, but the basic problem must be addressed. Heniberg (2003) stresses that a high growth rate in oil thirsty nation-states, such as China or India, increases the probability of calamity by increasing competition among nations for oil. Such a situation also increases the need for a decisive shift to alternatives. An era of dwindling oil energy supplies, resource wars, economic collapse, and fragmentation of globalization is shocking. The global human population is expected to double in 50 years, and the population of the largest energy consumer, the United States, is expected to double in 70 years. All societal activities require energy, so a combination of conservation plus development of sustainable energy sources is essential. The societal consequences of lower energy availability could be devastating – food shortages, reduced and more expensive transportation, and less heating, cooling, and lighting. Energy efficiency should help on a short-term basis, but improving efficiency yields ever diminishing returns (i.e. vigorous and perpetual growth). Efficiency will not prevent long-term shortages. Unless alternative sustainable energy sources are developed, future resource wars are quite likely, which will further reduce energy available for civilian use. The wars of the twentieth century occurred during a period of
expanding resource extraction, and, thus, more resources were available for
civilian use than will probably be true for the twenty-first century, which will
be an era of declining resource availability and extraction. Replacing
unsustainable practices with sustainable practices, if carried out with
sufficient rapidity, should reduce the number and intensity of resource wars,
but is unlikely to eliminate them. Dramatic energy conservation, giving high
priority to developing alternative sustainable energy sources, population
stabilization, and protection of natural capital and ecosystem services, will
lessen the impact of downturns due to resource depletion. A planet with fewer
people might make sustainability possible and improve the quality of life if
resources are not diverted to war. Sustainability
and Security
The
ultimate security problem is sustainable use of the planet. Without ecological
and technological life-support systems and the services they provide, human
society as presently known is doomed, even possibly threatened with extinction.
The beginning of the twenty-first century has provided persuasive evidence that
neither war nor terrorism brings security, but diminishes both ecological and
societal stability and integrity. Chief security officers (CSOs) and senior security executives
are concerned that the United States could be on its way to becoming a police
state (according to a poll released May 12, 2003, by CSO magazine [www.cio.com]).
Thirty-six percent of the American public does not believe that changing
Hussein’s regime in Iraq will ultimately improve American national security,
and 40% of CSOs do not believe the terror threat information provided by the U.
S. Department of Homeland Security is timely and accurate
(information provided by P. Ehrlich, personal communication, May 18,
2003). Only 3% believe another major physical attack on American soil by a
terrorist organization or nation-state will ever happen. The United States fought five major wars during the twentieth
century: World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the 1991 Persian
Gulf War. Four of these five wars gave the political party in the American White
House victories and rejoicing when armistice peace was declared. However,
situations deteriorated in the 1–5 years following these because of unwise
peace terms, post-war stresses, broken promises, diplomatic disappointments, and
war-related scandals (Phillips, 2003). Much uncertainty still exists in the
world, despite the cost of these wars in money and lives. A popular definition
of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a
different result. War and the
Stock Market
The
American stock market is commonly disturbed by uncertainty, and unsettled
political conditions nationally and internationally have not inspired renewed
investor confidence. Various fears, such as terrorism and SARS, have complicated
the relatively simple process of attendance at major public events, decreased
travel to once popular destinations, and even introduced fear into boarding an
airplane. The increased resistance to power (e.g. North This situation offers a superb opportunity for a new global alliance, which would not be favorable to multi-national corporations or free trade. The effect on the stock markets of the world could be devastating, enough to cause global economic stagnation. Uncertainty would be heightened while new regional economic systems develop, which undoubtedly lead to new trade preferences and increased competition for the remaining resources in resource-poor areas. Worse yet, the vision of sustainable use of the planet may well be replaced by increased nationalism, even tribalism. The vision of sustainability based on universal peace and a new relationship with natural systems would fade. Any centrism based on a nation-state is unsustainable,
especially with the emergence of a global Internet, but some alternatives to the
nation-state, such as Bilderberg (1), are a cause for concern. Tucker and Bollyn
(2003) reported that, until last year’s meeting in the Washington, DC, suburb
of Chantilly, Virginia, Bilderberg had a tradition of congeniality. Tucker and
Bollyn (2003) assert that Bilderberg remains united on the common goal of
establishing a world government under the United Nations while retaining control
of the planet’s wealth and all inhabitants. Tucker and Bollyn (2003) find that
the remarkable concentration of wealth and power in Bilderberg is completely
dissociated from its guesses of how globalization benefits 6.2 billion people.
As the global population approaches or reaches 10 billion and fewer resources
are available per capita, this disparity in wealth and power will become an even
greater issue. As Durant and Durant (1968) caution, history shows that
concentration of wealth is natural and inevitable and is periodically alleviated
by violent or political partial redistribution. Violence is increasingly the preferred solution to wealth
concentration, but war damages both natural and human capital, limiting the
global resources per capita. Sustainable use of the planet, including decreasing
the disparity in ecological footprint size, appears to be the most promising
alternative in achieving a fair and equitable distribution of resources,
including the share needed to keep and increase the store of natural capital and
the maintenance of ecosystem services. War and Economics
Wars
appear to stimulate a nation-state’s economy, but even the winner suffers a
longterm ecological deficit. War, which damages both technological and
ecological resources and uses additional resources in the process, is
incompatible with steady-state economics. Daly (2003) The most probable cause of this curious position is
humankind’s obsession with growth. On a finite planet with finite resources,
continued growth induces scarcity. Then, scarcity leads to resource wars, mass
migration, political instability and, arguably most importantly, competition for
increasingly scarce resources (e.g. oil). Equitable and fair sharing of
resources, including those needed to maintain the planet’s ecological
lifesupport system, will require both sharing and population control. Humankind
is rapidly approaching the time when it will be attempting to manage the entire
planet for sustainability. Half the world’s human population is living marginally or
worse, and yet Renner (2003a) reports that military expenditures are on the
rise. In 2001, a conservative estimate of world military expenditures was US$839
billion, of which the United States spends 36% and those states considered
hostile to the United States spend 3% (Renner, 2003a). Even so, expenditures for
the military are expected to continue rising (Stevenson and Bumiller, 2002; Dao,
2002). Even 25% of these funds would provide a much needed programme to develop
alternative energy sources, which would also diminish the perceived need for
resource wars. Renner and Sheehan (2003) state that approximately 25% of the
50 wars and armed conflicts of recent years were triggered or exacerbated by
resource exploitation. Hussein persisted as a political leader by using resource
money (in this case, oil) to maintain power by a variety of methods, including
murder. The use of resource funds to maintain power is all too common (e.g. Le
Billon, 2001). Ending such misuse of power and the resultant conflicts has
proven impossible because it is difficult to displace the power elite (e.g.
United Nations Security Council, 2002). The
Ultimate Security
The recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified on the grounds of reducing terrorism and eliminating weapons of mass destruction. However, in the first half of the twenty-first century, humankind will probably find it essential to choose between war and a transition from unsustainable to sustainable practices. The pivotal issue is how to provide the 2 billion or more people who are living marginally with an opportunity to improve their quality of life without destroying the planet’s ecological lifesupport system. Wars (particularly in Third World countries) exacerbate poverty, economic collapse, and damage to public health systems. On the positive side, the number of armed conflicts declined
slightly in 2002 because the number of conflicts ending surpassed those newly
erupting. Additionally, there were 17 armed conflicts not sufficiently severe to
qualify as war (Renner, 2003b). It seems likely that many wars and conflicts
over resources are attributed to other causes, such as terrorism, ethnicity,
weapons of mass destruction, and the like. As the population and material
affluence increase per capita but resources do not, resource wars, however
labeled, are likely to increase. Security
as a Defining Moment
The quest for sustainability will be one of humankind’s defining moments, comparable to the agricultural and industrial revolutions. A defining moment is one that shapes our lives, even though, initially, it often appears to be insignificant. Both individuals and human society can have defining moments. The agricultural revolution began with a few plants and
domesticated animals. Seemingly unimportant when it began, it shaped human
society for generations and continues to do so. The same is true for the
industrial revolution. The modest world stage appearance of sustainable
development (United Nations World Commission on Environmental Development, 1987)
initially made only a few ripples on the ‘global pond’. My copy of the
report, a thoughtful gift from a colleague, sat on my desk for over a week
before I got around to reading it. Even when I read it, I did not recognize the
enormous impact it would have on my life. Eventually, years later, I realized
that reading that report had been a defining moment for both my professional and
personal life. I realized that, on a finite planet, exponential growth of
population and use of resources was unsustainable, even though some economists
(e.g. Simon, 1981) asserted that humans are not limited by resources as are
other species. Simon’s book was a defining moment in the quest for
sustainability because, if resources are not limiting, sustainable use had
already been achieved. Daly (1985) has pointed out the fallacies in Simon’s
reasoning, but the controversy remains. Whenever one side prevails, it will be a
defining moment. Undoubtedly, there will be many defining moments on the path
to sustainable use of the planet. Arguably, the most important is to accept that
war and sustainability are incompatible, not only because of resource waste but
because sustainable use of the planet requires the strong support of nearly all
persons. A small number of non-violent dissidents can probably be tolerated, but
terrorist destruction of resources cannot. If the planet is at full carrying
capacity, this would mean falling below subsistence levels for some people. If
not, then the quality of life would still be impaired. War disrupts the
beneficial flow of matter through a closed system essential to sustainability.
War is a false goal because, on a finite planet that is approaching or is
already at carrying capacity, it wastes resources. Individuals cannot control
defining moments, such as being born. Humankind cannot yet control earthquakes,
hurricanes, and other episodic events, but it can make a significant difference
about engaging in war, especially preemptive war. Another positive defining event on the path to sustainability
will be the recognition that the ‘free lunch’ at the expense of natural
systems is over. Sustainable use of the planet requires stewardship of natural
capital and ecosystem services, not exploitation. Positive, defining moments are
those that result in long-term benefits. Negative, defining moments are those
that result in long-term problems. War is definitely in this latter category. Conclusions
War is an unsustainable practice on a finite planet with finite resources. Natural capital is diminishing at an unprecedented rate at a time when it is most needed. This reduction means the loss or reduction of the ecosystem services that natural capital provides. Arguably, loss of or damage to the planet’s ecological life-support system is the greatest security threat of all time to humans. To provide a habitable planet for future generations, the ecological life-support system must be cherished and its health and integrity preserved. War is an unsustainable practice, which, if continued, will deplete natural capital to the point that famine, disease, and other factors will have an even greater effect on humankind. Sustainable practices defend humankind from these scourges to the degree that the human species stays within the planet’s carrying capacity. 1. Depending on the ideological perspective, Bilderberg may
be viewed as a club of an ultra-VIP lobby of the power elite of Europe and
America capable of steering international policy from behind closed doors, or a
harmless discussion group of politicians, academics, and Professor John
Cairns, Jr
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to Karen Cairns for putting the handwritten draft on the word processor and for doing so for changes in subsequent drafts. Darla Donald provided skilled editorial services. Correspondence with Professor J. N. R. Jeffers stimulated the production of this manuscript. REFERENCES Cairns,
J. Jr. (2000). World peace and global sustainability. International
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 8,
185–9 Daly, H.E. (1985). Ultimate confusion: the economics of Julian
Simon. Futures, 17,
5; reprinted in The Social
Contract, XIII,
194–7 Daly, H.E. (2003). Steady-state economics: concepts,
questions, policies. The
Social Contract, XII,
163–70 Dao, J. (2002). Bush sees big rise in military budget for the
next five years. New York
Times, 2 February Deffeyes, K.L. (2001). Hubbert’s
Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press) Duncan, R.C. (2001). World energy production, population
growth, and the road to Olduvai Gorge. Population
and Environment, May, 503–22 Durant, W. and Durant, A. (1968). The
Lessons of History. (New York: MJF Books) Escobar, P. (2003). The roving eye. Asia
Times Online Co. Ltd., 21 May, 1–4 Grant, L. (2003). Diverging demography, converging destinies:
Growth, Interdependence, migration and world instabilities. Negative
Population Growth Forum, January, 1–12 Heniberg, R. (2003). The
Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies. (Gabriola
Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers) LeBillon, P. (2001). The political ecology of war: natural
resources and armed conflict. Political
Geography, 20,
561–84 Phillips, K. (2003). Postwar chaos: Bush’s undoing? The
Los Angeles Times, 18 May Physicians for Social Responsibility. (2003). Preemptive war
doctrine will lead to disastrous results. PSR
Reports, 25(2),
1–2 Postel, S. (1999). Pillars
of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last? (New York: W.W. Norton) Renner, M. (2003a). Military expenditures on the rise. In Vital
Signs 2003, pp. 118–19. (New York: W.W. Norton) Renner, M. (2003b). Violent conflicts continue to decline. In Vital
Signs 2003, pp 17–75. (New York: W.W. Norton) Renner, M. and Sheehan, M.O. (2003). Overview: poverty and
inequality block progress. In Vital
Signs 2003, pp.17–24. (New York: W.W. Norton) Simon, J. (1981). The
Ultimate Resource. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) Smil, V. (1991). Population growth and nitrogen: an
exploration of a critical experiment. Population
and Development Review, Dec, 569–601 Stevenson, R.W. and Bumiller, E. (2002). President to seek 48
billion more for the military. New
York Times, 24 Jan Tucker, J.P., Jr. and Bollyn, C. (2003). Bilderberg meets: major topics include EU army, profiting from the Iraq war. American Free Press, III, 1 and 3 United National World Commission on Environment and
Development. (1987). Our
Common Future. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press) United Nations Security Council. (2002). Final
Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources
and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo. (New
York: United Nations Press) Youngquist, W.L. (1997). GeoDestinies.
(Portland, OR: National Book Company) First published in the “International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology”. Re-printed here by kind permission of editor Prof. John Jeffers and the Pantheon publishing Company.
|