OPINION

Believe not in Cassandra, but in Al Gore

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 10/19/2007 11:14 AM | Opinion

A|A|A|
Akhmad Fauzi, Bogor, West Java
Every one knows Al Gore, but perhaps only a few know Cassandra. The decision to award the Nobel Peace Price to Gore
and the IPCC for their crusade on climate change reminds us of the princess from Greek mythology.
""Cassandra's dilemma"" is a term coined to describe the human problem of acting with good intentions but not being
believed. Cassandra was the beautiful young daughter of Priam, the last king of Troy. Apollo fell in love with her. When she
refused him, he placed a strange curse upon her: although she could see the future, no one would believe her prophecies.
Since Malthus, there have been many Cassandras who have warned of the heavy costs of economic development, including
climate change and depletion of natural resources: William Vogt, author of Road to Survival; Fairfield Osborn, author of Our
Plundered Planet; and Rachel Carson author of Silent Spring.
A peace award for work on climate change is overdue. Al Gore would be a modern-day Cassandra -- except that some listen
to him. The skeptics include Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Many experts, however, believe the Nobel committee made the
right decision.
Modern-day conflicts and poverty are no longer triggered by geopolitical issues alone. Recent Human Development Report
figures reveal that, of 17 bloody conflicts occurring from 1990 to 2002, all can be attributed to mismanagement of natural
resources and the environment. In addition, prominent economist Sir Partha Dasgupta has a strong theory linking economic
development, environmental degradation, poverty and social conflicts.
Fifteen years ago, climate change issues were still an esoteric topic for politicians and scientists. Things have changed a lot
and this matter now tops agendas everywhere. It is thus not a surprise that the UN General Assembly last September made
climate change a top priority.
The prize-winning link between climate change and peace is very significant for a developing country like Indonesia. Why?
Because Indonesia is an agrarian country where millions of people depend on the environment for their livelihood. Climate
change will affect everyone -- directly or indirectly -- through agriculture.
Indonesia has already been named the third-largest emitter of carbon to the atmosphere, for burning and in other ways
destroying forests. Yet agriculture -- including the forestry sector -- remains the principal economic engine driving rural
development.
A drop in agricultural output could have a dramatic impact on jobs, security and prosperity for rural people. Failure to
address this issue could lead to social tension and conflicts over resources.
The awarding of the Peace Prize for work on climate change and environment is actually a third wake-up call to decisionmakers in developing countries; they need to pay more attention to the impact of economic development on the
environment.
Classical economists such as John Stuart Mills, David Ricardo, Stanley Jevons and Thomas Malthus are considered
pioneers in this field. However, their views on the environment were largely overlooked.
Ronald Wright's 2004 book A Short History of Progress -- a second alarm -- was mocked as an environmental scare. Wright
argues that modern civilization will be caught in a ""progress trap"", where continuing pursuit of high economic growth will
cause us to exhaust our natural resources. In the end there is no room to raise production and no cushion against
environmental shocks. To survive, society accepts a loan from nature in the form of fossil fuels. The result is global warming,
crop failure, famine and disease.
Climate change is no longer controversial; it has been become a scientific fact through the global consensus of researchers
and policy-makers. The award of a peace prize for raising awareness about climate change proves that we can no longer
take it for granted.
As a developing country we need to ask whether our development strategies are centered around natural resources and the
environment -- ""evolutionable development"", to use Keiner's term. Jeffrey Sach's proposal runs in the same vein: to escape
the poverty trap, developing countries must reinvest in the natural infrastructure, he says.
It is also important to note that, as reported by IPCC, increasing fuel consumption, deforestation and land use conversion
are reinforcing climate change. Therefore, redesigning economic and environmental policy is imperative. Growth is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for sustainable development.
Rethinking economic development also requires rethinking education. In his book, The Design of Nature, David Orr argues
that secondary and higher education curricula should be brought into alignment with current thinking on sustainable
development, as our generation faces an entirely different state of nature from that existing 100 years ago. We now face
what Edward Wilson called the economic and environmental ""bottleneck"".

Finally, the decision to make this prestigious award to Al Gore and IPCC should assure us that, if we are unable to prevent
environmental catastrophe, we risk poverty and war. The international climate conference to be held in Bali next month
could be the ""big push"" toward a new direction in our economic development and we should take this event seriously.
The writer is professor and head of the Department of Resources and Environmental Economics at Bogor Institute of
Agriculture. He can be reached at fauzisy@indo.net.id