The plain truth is that human beings are acquisitive, we always have been. It's fair bet that when we originally crawled out of a cave in prehistory, we went looking for stuff to accumulate. Another pelt, a better home, a sharper weapon: stuff, it's what people like. There is only one place for that stuff to come from: the natural world. This didn't matter all that much when there were only a few acquisitive humans around and when, for most, the natural world was their immediate environment. But since the industrial revolution, we've moved on from being merely acquisitive to being rapacious. For the past two hundred years, we have consumed many of the earth's natural resources, as thought they were infinite. Minerals, water, trees, soil, of course these have formed the basis of what we call civilisation for thousands of years. The question now is whether they will be up to the job. Are we asking too much of the earth?
It would be easy to take an apocalyptic view of the future. I do worry about the world that my children's generation will inherit. I am concerned about the failure of my generation of politicians to grasp the point about sustainability. It's a stupid word I know, but it means what it says. The term sustainable development is inadequate in so many ways, but it does reflect the need both to grow and to sustain.
In darker moments, when I think of the future, I think about the four horsemen of the apocalypse which are heading our way. We can avoid them, but we won't do so by espousing ideas like degrowth. The first of these horsemen is climate change. The meeting between world leaders in Copenhagen last year was a failure. It resulted in no binding deal, no targets for CO2 reduction, no timetable for action. Whatever the sceptics may say, and they say what they want to, loudly and very often, the basic science hasn't gone away. The consequences have to be endured. The international response from politicians has so far been pathetic. Meanwhile, a number of foolish errors in the IPCC database have given the sceptics just the chance they were looking for, and the scientific community has yet to offer a convincing response.
The second of the horsemen is all about natural resources. If everyone on our planet lived like an average European, we would need three planets to live on. If everyone had the lifestyle of an average citizen of the United States, we would need five planets to live on, and as you may have noticed, we've actually only got one. We need to look after the place where we live and we need to remember that we are as much a part of the natural world as any other species. The future of the planet is indivisibly linked to the fate of the bee population upon which we depend for the pollination of so many plants. The future of humanity is dependent on the health of plants as the foundation of all life on earth.
The third big challenge we face is all about security, in particular energy security, food security and water security. The United Kingdom is in an especially bad place in terms of energy security. Nobody will thank any government that lets lights go out or allows continued dependence on old technologies to push the price of energy through the roof.
Food and water security issues are linked to the fourth of the horsemen which is global population growth. I know this is a sensitive issue, but a pay a special tribute to Jonathon Porritt who has braved the attacks from both left and right to make the simple point that we need to find equitable, civilised and democratic ways of coming into terms with the fact that the human population is expected to grow from around six billion to around nine billion in the next forty years. It's not just about numbers, it's about the natural aspirations of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world to live as we do in the West. Where is the water going to come from? Will we be able not to fight over it?
The people who live in the poorest parts of the world don't talk about poverty; they live with it. The notion of poverty is for affluent to worry about, and rightly so. But people who live in real poverty, whether in the deprived cities or rural areas of the developed West or in the developing world, they talk about prosperity. The problem with the idea of degrowth is that it is against human nature. There is therefore a particular irony attached to the propagation of the degrowth agenda by people whose avowed mission is to protect the natural world. Degrowth is not a natural idea. I have been actively involved in politics for over twenty-five years. Believe me, the human race is not ready for degrowth and almost certainly never will be. Our concept of well-being is firmly linked to our inherited notion of economic progress. People like stuff and always will. The degrowth agenda could never be achieved in a democratic context in my view, and the few examples of non-democratic attempts at utopia are hardly encouraging. Fortunately, as well as being a bunch of acquisitive and selfish primates, the human race is also ingenious and inventive. It should be glaringly obvious that we cannot continue with business as usual. Most major companies understand this and many are, perhaps surprisingly, ahead of the politicians and of the public on the question of sustainability. They have to think ahead, make plans, engage in forward thinking. It's what they do if they want to stay competitive and to survive. It may be uncomfortable to recognise this but the power of industry and capital which got us into the present mess over the past two hundred years is the only power which can take us out of it. Industry and capital will never willingly degrow, nor should they be asked to. The problem is not growth itself, the problem is the ways we have historically used natural resources and the challenges to use them more sparingly and intelligently in the future. Of course we will need political structures, regulation, tax, and eventually, I hope, a price for carbon. I am convinced that these will happen. I hope they happen through foresight rather than as a reaction to disastrous events.
1) What information do we have concerning Peter Ainsworth (his public role)? What part in society does he have? (whose voice is he expressing?)
2) According to you, what is the main topic of this text?
- the subprime mortgage crisis and its consequences today, together with solutions to boost the economy.
- pollution and its impact on the planet, together with advice to developed countries on how to better protect the environment
- the depletion of natural resources because of man's ineluctable need to consume and the need to work on sustainable development
3) The concept of degrowth means:
- to reduce production and consumption
- to increase production and consumption
1) Right or wrong? Justify by quoting from the text
- Human beings do not try to always have more possessions.
- Ever since prehistory, nature has provided for man's needs.
- Things got worse with the industrial revolution.
- People have always been reasonnable with their consumption of natural resources.
- The future could very well be gloomy.
- Peter Ainsworth is confident in the state of the planet his children will live on.
2) Explain what the author means by: "...since the industrial revolution, we've moved on from being merely acquisitive to being rapacious."
3) Say what the pronoun "they" (l. 11) refers to and explain what is meant by "The question now is whether they will be up to the job."
4) According to Peter Ainsworth, are today's politicians aware of the situation and acting accordingly?
5) Reformulate in your own words the definition the author gives of "sustainable development": "the need both to grow and to sustain."
Focus on paragraph 3
1) In the first sentence of §3, identify the figure of speech used by Peter Ainsworth.
2) Which sentence best conveys the author's feelings:
- at night, when he thinks about the future, he thinks about horse races and the four horses he could bet on.
- when he feels low and thinks about the future, he has some quite pessimistic visions and thinks about some serious issues/ plagues that could hit humanity.
3) According to the author, is "degrowth" the solution to those issues? Jusitfy by quoting from the text.
4) Fill in the chart below:
| Issues listed by |
| Key information given on those issues by the author |
(reformulate with your own words)
|-||- Politicians' attitude? |
- Sceptics' attitude?
- Peter Ainsworth's opinion?
|-||- Average European's attitude? |
- Average American's attitude?
- Peter Ainsworth's opinion?
|-||- Expectations? |
1) Find the synonym of each of the words below:
- avowed: declared - secret - explained
- achieved: accomplished - finished - started
- hardly: with difficulty - scarcely - harshly
- glaringly obvious: clearly evident - completely obscure - hardly visible
- sparingly: parsimoniously - abundantly - reasonably
- foresight: intuition - blindness - hindsight
- conceit: vanity - humility - confidence
- teeming with: proliferating with - grouping together - beaming with
- reluctance: refrain - enthusiasm - hope
2) List all the expressions Peter Ainsworth associates to the notion of "degrowth" in those 2 paragraphs.
3) Judging from the first ten lines of the paragraph, explain the author's reasoning to ground his notion that "degrowth is not a natural idea."
4) "It may be uncomfortable to recognise this but the power of industry and capital which got us into the present mess over the past two hundred years is the only power which can take us out of it."
Fill in the following sentence in order to explain the sentence above:
lies - solution - Although - issues - led - hard - economic power
________ it may be ____ to admit, the only ________ to the environmental _____ the world is facing ____ in the very hands of those who detain the ___________ _______ and who ___ to that situation.
5) Are industries the only "actors" in the process that the author refers to? Justify your answer (who does the pronoun "we" refer to? Who does the determiner "these" refer to?)
6) Among the various examples of innovations given by the author, pick one and explain how it is different from what we usually know and how / why it would be better.
7) What are the conclusions drawn by the author and his advice to the world?
1) Read the following extracts from the text and underline each time the verbal forms together with a temporal marker if possible.
a) ... we always have been [acquisitive]. [...] when we originally crawled out of a cave in prehistory, we went looking for stuff to accumulate.
b) This didn't matter all that much when there were only a few acquisitive humans around and when, for most, the natural world was their immediate environment. But since the industrial revolution, we've moved on from being merely acquisitive to being rapacious. For the past two hundred years, we have consumed many of the earth's natural resources, as though they were infinite... [They] have formed the basis of what we call civilisation for thousands of years.
c) The meeting between world leaders in Copenhagen was a failure. [...] The international response from politicians has so far been pathetic.
d) I have been actively involved in politics for over twenty-five years.
e) The problem is not growth itself, the problem is the ways we have historically used natural resources [...].
2) Say how those verbal structures are formed and the notion conveyed by the temporal markers that accompany them.
3) What conclusion can you draw concerning the use of the present perfect or that of the preterit?
- When we focus on the present and look back towards the past, we use the __________
- When we refer to something that is finished, that was true in the past, we use the __________