A brilliant student's work on the ecological crisis

Below, I have posted an essay written by one of my media master’s students, Carla Zdanow, for a course in the philosophy of culture. I have placed it unmodified, to give readers of TL the opportunity to see what excellent research work is being done by some students. I have another to post after this one. Apologies for the length — it is an academic essay, though, and those who don’t want to read the full text don’t have to (it would be their loss, however). (I would not be surprised if Carla were offered work or scholarship opportunities on the strength of this!)

‘Issues on the current environmental crisis: Overpopulation, growth, technology and capitalism’.

By Carla Zdanow

Only when the last tree has been cut down,
Only when the last river has been poisoned,
Only when the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.”
— Cree Indian Proverb

Abstract: With environmental and economic uncertainties at an all time high, and the impact of the current capitalist agenda coming under fire, this paper attempts to investigate the present global environmental crisis in relation to the profit-driven economic discourse of capitalism, and examines how, without exception, capital and its overarching economic ideals have had a significant impact on the progression and escalation of global warming, deforestation and a variety of issues related to the existing environmental quandary. Based on the assertion that capitalism views the environment merely as a means to accumulate wealth, this paper goes on to suggest that certain initiatives surrounding legislation and military expenditure may provide some much needed ecological relief.

With climate and environmental change becoming an increasingly popular topic of debate, and the impact of these changes becoming more and more apparent, it is no longer deniable that the world as we know it is in the midst of an environmental and ecological crisis. The occurrence of this year’s (2009) Samoan tsunami, Indonesian earthquake and Philippine typhoon within the space of a few weeks, together with the incidence of flash floods in Kenya, Somalia, Mexico and Turkey, fires in Greece and Australia, insect infestations and Ebola, Cholera and Influenza outbreaks around the world illustrates without reservation the existence of this crisis. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, every second a parcel of rainforest the size of a football field disappears, 21% of mammals, 30% of amphibians, 12% of birds, 28% of reptiles and 70% of plants are currently under threat of extinction and the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions is likely to cause the average world temperature to rise by 2ºC (IUCN 2007). At the same time, as a result of the ever increasing impact of globalisation, the politico-economic discourse of neo-liberal capitalism has begun to penetrate world economics and entrench its profit driven, materialistic ideals into every aspect of human life, including the environment. To this end, the incessant need of humans to consume, at the expense of all else, has become paramount to their social, political and cultural interaction, existence and survival. Focusing on these concerns this paper aims to examine the impact of the capitalist discourse on the current environmental crisis. In doing so, I will explore some of the major issues surrounding the crisis, investigate capitalism’s influence on these issues, expose capitalism’s connection to the current theories on the cause of the crisis and highlight possible solutions to this global problem.

At the forefront of the present environmental and ecological crisis, a variety of issues related to the destruction of the earth’s biosphere can be found. The biosphere, which is responsible for all life on earth, is made up of the earth’s crust, rivers, lakes, oceans and its atmosphere. Through a series of interactions between these elements life on earth as we know it is sustained. The existence of this sustainability is however not guaranteed and with the current depletion and destruction of the biosphere underway, the earth’s ability to survive and flourish may be under threat. Poignant issues surrounding the destruction of the biosphere and the environmental crisis are often divided into four related areas, namely the atmosphere, land, water and plant and animal life. Although the environmental crisis has been linked to numerous incidents of pollution, extinction and destruction, the discussion to follow focuses on some of the most significant cases in point.

The destruction of the atmosphere is the first case in point, with suggestions that since the inception of the industrial age the amount of greenhouse gasses have increased dramatically. By the late 1990s it was determined that the burning of fossil fuels for the production of electricity, heating, industrial activities and transport resulted in “6.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, 70.7 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 28.2 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides and more than 250 million tonnes of ash and dust” being released into the atmosphere (cited in Document of the DSP 1999:23). The global carbon dioxide count, which is responsible for a major part of the earth’s warming, has increased by 36% since the mid 1700s (EPA 2008), and although carbon dioxide plays an important role in the greenhouse effect by allowing sunlight to reach the earth’s surface, it also traps the sun’s heat in the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation. This means that increased carbon dioxide levels lead to an increase in the earth’s surface temperature, and as such, the increase in carbon emissions over the last century (particularly as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation) has led to a global increase in the earth’s temperature of 0.74ºC (+/- 18) (International Governmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Such changes in the earth’s temperature have been held responsible for unforeseen changes in the world’s weather patterns and the increase in occurrence and strength of natural disasters. In this regard, according to the Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, natural disasters killed 235,000 people, affected 214,000,000 people and cost US$190 billion in 2008, with the death toll rising to three times higher than the annual average for the years 2000-2007(Cited in Duncan 2009).

Apart from an increase in global temperatures, changes in the atmosphere and increases in greenhouses gasses have also resulted in the formation of acid rain (which damages rivers, lakes vegetation and buildings) and the destruction of the ozone layer (which has led to an increase in ultra violet radiation). It is believed that acid rain has been responsible for the destruction of approximately 14% of European forestlands and with Asian carbon emissions tripling since the 1980s, the large-scale die-off of forests in China and Japan have also been attributed to acid rain.

The next case in point is the impact of the environmental crisis on the land. Nielsen maintains that as a result of the destruction of trees and vegetation approximately eight million km² of the earth’s forests have disappeared (2006). A 2005 report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural organisation maintains that each year 13 million hectares of the world’s forests are lost due to deforestation (FAO 2005) and according to Philips “deforestation accounts for 1/5th of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all the worlds trains, planes and cars combined” (2009). In this regard, Wilson argues that if significant measures are not taken to prevent further deforestation, the year 2030 will see only 20% of the world’s forests remaining, with half of them existing in a degraded state (2002). Consequently, this means that in just over 20 years 80% of the world’s forests could have vanished, including thousands of irreplaceable plant and animal species with them (Wilson 2002). In terms of the ecological impact of deforestation, a variety of issues pertaining to the clearing and destruction of forests have emerged. One of the most worrying of these issues is the reduction and destruction of biodiversity. Since tropical rainforests consist of approximately 80% of the earth’s biodiversity it is understandable that (www.reuters.com 2008) the destruction of these rainforests will result in massively reduced biodiversity. Desertification, an offshoot of deforestation is another factor of the environmental crisis, with more than one third of the earth’s surface already made up of desert or semi-desert conditions. Instances of overgrazing, over cultivation, water impoundment; increased fires, deforestation and global climate change among others have resulted in the desertification of roughly 6 million hectares of fertile soil per year (Wilson 2001, Document of the DSP 1999:25) and increases in agricultural production as well as the excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides have further contributed to the problem.

The third issue related to the environmental crisis surrounds the often neglected fact that the earth has a finite supply of water. The issue of a water crisis therefore emerges when it becomes evident that the depletion in supply and the unnecessary pollution of this resource may result in severe shortages and restrictions. In relation to this there are currently about 884 million people who do not have adequate access to drinking water (WHO/UNICEF 2008:25), and roughly 2.5 billion people do not have access to water for sanitation and waste disposal (WHO/UNICEF 2008:25). Furthermore, the pollution of rivers, lakes and groundwater has also led to major water shortages, with extreme cases resulting in warfare over the depleting resource . The water crisis along with unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation has resulted in widespread disease with the World Bank confirming that 88% of all diseases are caused by unsafe water, reduced sanitation and poor hygiene (Oliver 2007). In terms of the oceans, a study published in the International Journal of Nature has confirmed that “over 90% of all the large fishes have disappeared from the world’s oceans” (Suurkula 2004). It has also been estimated that the global fish intake “exceeds sustainable yield in 11 of the world’s 15 most important fishing areas” (Document of the DSP 1999:26). Coastlines and coral reefs have also been affected by the environmental crisis with over half of the earth’s coastline and approximately 60% of coral reefs now threatened by human activity (Document of the DSP 1999:26). It has also been estimated that around 2 million tons of human waste are disposed of in water sources every day (UNESCO 2000). These instances of pollution and abuse of the world’s water supplies have had and will continue to have a considerable impact on both the earth’s biodiversity and its environment.

The final case in point is the impact of the environmental crisis on plant and animal life. As mentioned earlier, the widespread occurrence of deforestation and climate change is having an increasing impact on the extinction rate of both plant and animal species. Indeed, it was estimated that the global extinction of species during the 20th century was a thousand times higher than the average rate of extinction during the preceding 65 million years (Surkuula, 2004). Admittedly, the extinction of plant and animal species is a natural process of demise and replacement which has taken place since the beginning of time. Today however, the rate at which new species replace the old ones has been drastically reduced and the impacts of deforestation and pollution on plant and animal life is a growing point of concern. In this regard, Bhattacharya asserts that the introduction and increase in global warming may result in the extinction of one quarter of all land plants and animals by the year 2050 (2004).

These environmental issues are just a few examples of the current state of the world’s biosphere and the ecological destruction that it faces. Global warming among other things has been recognised as the root cause of these environmental issues. The cause of global warming has however been subject to mass debate with many parties refusing to admit that human activities have played a role in the planet’s destruction. Despite this however, a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, states that global warming in now “unequivocal” and “almost certainly” a result of human activity (IPCC 2007). With this conformation that the environmental crisis is linked to human activity, questions on why little is being done to prevent further destruction are being raised. It is plausible to suggest that a simple answer to these questions can be related to economics.

According to Davies, “economics describes the way in which humans interact with the environment in the production and reproduction of their lives. As such, he argues that “no environmental issue exists independent of economic relations” (Davies 2006:1). This interconnection can be seen in the common root of the words, with ‘ecology’ as the study of the house we live in (oikos) and ‘economy’ as the management of that house. Consequently, with the environmental crisis in its current state, the role of the economy needs to be brought to attention. Capitalism, the dominant politico-economic discourse of the 21st century is a system based on “private ownership, expropriating unpaid labour through the production and distribution of commodities, with the goal for the maximisation of profit” (Davies 2006:1). This maximisation of profit includes the search for “raw materials and new markets”, the cheapest resources, the cheapest labour and the cheapest way to reduce costs associated with pollution and waste (Davies 2006:1). In order to achieve this profit, growth is needed and as such, previously unused geographic regions are consistently added to the market. To this end, it has been suggested that capitalism ultimately views the environment as little more than a means to accumulate wealth (Lotta 2006:1). As such, with 80% of the world’s natural resources being absorbed by advanced capitalist countries (who make up only 15% of the population) and an ever increasing divide between the rich and the poor, the disrespect and abuse of the environment and its inhabitants seem to be an intrinsic repercussion of capitalist gains (Lotta:2006:1). According to Kovel (2002) capitalism as a means of social production has three main tendencies, these include:
o Capital tends to degrade the conditions of its own production,
o Capital must expand without end in order to survive and
o Capital leads to a chaotic world system increasingly polarized between rich and poor, which cannot adequately address the ecological crisis. (Kovel 2002:38).
Cunningham et al (2005) agree that the root of poverty and the ensuing environmental crisis can be found in the “private ownership of the means of production and the maximization of profit”. They go on to argue that “for those able to consume, the heavy environmental footprint of the consumer is a direct result of the economic system that requires the maximisation of consumption to satisfy the maximisation of profit” (Cunningham et al 2005).

Despite the overwhelmingly apparent link between the environmental crisis and the capitalist agenda, the cause of the crisis is rarely linked to this economic discourse. Rather, issues related to and as a consequence of this economic structure tend to bear the brunt of the censure. In this regard, theories on the causes of the environmental crisis including the phenomena of a human population explosion; overconsumption and too much growth and technological development tend to be the focus of popular attention. It can be argued however that these phenomena are ultimately the by-product of a capitalist system.

According to the US Census Bureau (USCB) as of the 25th of October 2009 the world population had reached 6 792 759 038 (www. http://www.census.gov). This is a vast increase from the 1.6 billion people that occupied the earth at the beginning of the 20th century, and according to further projections by the USCB the year 2040 will see the world population reach 9 billion people. This rapid growth in the world’s population is often accused of being the cause of the present environmental crisis. It has been suggested that the demands placed on scarce resources by an ever-increasing population is the reason for the current degradation of ecosystems and the environment, with the need for the production and distribution of food named as one of the major reasons for environmental damage. Indeed, world hunger is and will become an important issue, especially as the effects of global warming come into play; however, at present the world is producing 17 percent more calories per person than it was 30 years ago. This means that there is presently enough food in the world to feed everyone, even after a 70% increase in population (www.worldhunger.org 2009). It is therefore possible to suggest that hunger and starvation do not occur as a result of a lack of food, but rather due to the fact that food is distributed on the basis of income or buying power. Since levels of food consumption differ between countries and people based on their economic situations, it can be suggested that hunger and food shortages are not necessarily the result of overpopulation but rather as a result of capital and the inequalities between the rich and poor in terms of access to resource and purchasing power. With this in mind, it is plausible to suggest that a focus on the human population explosion as a cause for the environmental crisis helps to filter attention away from the underlying cause of population growth, poverty and environmental degradation, namely, the Western politico-economic discourse of capitalism.

Linked to overpopulation, another diagnosis for the cause of the environmental crisis is overconsumption and high economic growth. Growing awareness of the impact of over- consumption led a group of researchers to conduct a study on overconsumption, economic growth and pollution. From this research, it was argued that “increasing consumption produces economic growth which in turn produces pollution,” and unless the abuse of natural resources is curbed and economic growth is halted, the world was headed for an environmental catastrophe (Meadows et al 1972). This idea of a limiting of growth as a means to reduce consumption and pollution, and as such, reduce environmental risk, neglects to take into consideration that the current economic discourse of neoliberal capitalism insists that you must either ‘grow’ or ‘die’. To this end, consumption and growth form a fundamental part of capitalism and without them the production of profit (the ultimate aim of capitalism) would not be achieved. Understandably, consumption and growth do play a part in the devastation of the environment; however, as expressed by the DSP, this is not due to “the supposed affluence of the great majority of consumers in the industrialised capitalist countries,” but rather “due to the irrational and wasteful ways in which the system forces consumers to meet their needs” (1999).

Technological development is the third area that is often blamed for the ecological and environmental crisis. Although a certain kind of technology has had an impact on the environment in terms of intensifying the production of pollution, it may also be the key to creating opportunities that prevent environmental pollution. Since technology is created by humans, it is the social and economic systems that determine how technology is used and what measures are put in place to limit the damage of these technological processes to the environment. To this end, since capitalism is the dominant economic discourse of our time and since the ultimate goal of capitalism is to increase profits, it is plausible to suggest that only technological processes that advance this capitalist agenda will be used and implemented. For example, capitalist companies have found it more profitable to pollute the air, water and land than to invest in pollution control technologies. In his book, Vanishing Air (1970), John Esposito explains this practice when he writes;
‘The Monsanto Corporation claims to have an invention that will clean sulphur oxides out of waste gases, and is even willing to guarantee its operation… Monsanto itself, whose sulphur dioxide emissions are considerable, refuses to install its own device… The reason is clear. Despite the fact that it sells control devices, Monsanto has made the calculation that it is cheaper to continue to pollute than to expend money for control’ (Esposito 1970, cited in DSP 1999:47)

Therefore although technology does contribute to the growing environmental problem it is not necessarily technological advancement in itself, but rather the capitalistic use of this technology that causes harm to the environment. Attfield explains technology’s link to capitalism when he argues that “capitalism is the cause of increased pollution and the depletion of minerals, as these phenomena are often the unintended by-products of the business methods of the capitalist system” (1983:14).

Based on the above discussion it becomes astoundingly illuminating that although practices such as overpopulation, overconsumption and technology all have an impact on the environment, the source of these problems can be found in the overarching economic discourse of our time. Moreover, these findings allude to the idea that “the capitalist mode of production violates the fundamental principles of environmental sustainability” and “indeed, like an auto immune disease, in which a body’s own defence system attacks healthy tissue, our economy is assaulting the very life-support systems that keep it functioning” (cited in the Document of the DSP 1999:30). Lacan’s discussions on the capitalist discourse rings similar, when he suggests that within the discourse of the capitalist the subject “consumes so well that it consumes itself” (cited Olivier 2009:30). This insight into capitalist consumption clearly illustrates the irony of capitalism in that through its constant consumption, pollution and degradation of the earth’s natural resources it is ultimately consuming, polluting and degrading its own future existence.
Notwithstanding the seemingly all encompassing air of negativity that surrounds the idea of capitalist growth and consumption versus the environment, solutions need to be developed in order to prevent the total collapse of both the ecological and economic systems of our world. In his book The Enemy of Nature, Kovel (2002) argues that although “Green Capitalism” (where the production of surplus value occurs through the production of renewable energy technologies, waste reclamation or ecotourism) may address certain facets of environmental destruction, it still replicates the relations of capitalism globally, and must still function on the basis of the maximisation of profit (cited in Davies 2006:1). He goes on the explain that although a hybrid car is a good thing, “ it does not address urban sprawl and habitat loss, the impoverishment of the workforce, or the resource depletion that goes into the making of the car”. Consequently, Kovel asserts that;

‘While going green makes certain sense within the logic of capitalism, as a toxic environment becomes more of an internal cost, or waste can be commodified and become a new source of profit, such choices do not eliminate wealth polarisation and alienation. And so the broader destructive impact of capitalism on the planet will remain’ (cited in Davies 2006:1).

Lotta agrees that “capitalism cannot deal with the environment in a sustainable and economically viable way” (2006:1). He maintains that the inability of capitalism to assist in the prevention of further ecological and environmental destruction is a result of three underlying reasons. Firstly, he explains that capital’s logic of “expand or die” reduces the environment to a means to accumulate wealth. Secondly, he argues that capitalism’s objective of attaining short-term results without taking the long term repercussions of the objectives into account, means that capitalism is not willing to acknowledge the possible consequences of its actions 10, 20, 30 years down the line. Thirdly, he maintains that the private nature of capitalist production limits environmental concerns. Lotta explains the impact of this private ownership as follows;
‘The economy is broken up into competing units of capitalist control and ownership over the means of production. And each unit is fundamentally concerned with [itself] and [its] expansion and [its] profit. The economy, the constructed and natural environment, and society cannot be dealt with as a social whole under capitalism. It’s all fragmented into private parts. And each part looks at what lies outside itself as a “free ride.” An individual capitalist can open a steel mill and be concerned with the cost of that steel mill. But what they do to the air is not ‘their cost,’ because it’s not part of their sphere of ownership’ (Lotto 2006:2).

Jim MacNeill, architect of Our Common Future concurs that the capitalist market economy

‘…cannot take into account the external environmental costs associated with producing, consuming and disposing of goods and services. The market treats the resources of the atmosphere, the oceans and the other commons as free goods. It externalises, or transfers to the broader community, the costs of air, water, and noise pollution and of resource depletion. The broader community shoulders the costs in the form of damage to health, property and ecosystems’ (cited in the Document of the DSP 1999:58).
Based on his rejection of capitalism as a means to reduce current environmental disintegration, Lotta among others maintains that in order to reduce the impact of human activity on the environment, a sustainable socialist economic system needs to be introduced . Similarly, Cunningham et al (2005) point out that the solution to the environmental problems lies in the “re-ordering of economic priorities to suit favourable development. Indeed, although a change in capitalism’s priorities may assist in the challenge of environmental degradation, an economic system cannot be re-ordered without its ultimate destruction. In this regard, capitalism that reduces consumerism and limits growth is no longer capitalism, and as such, the rejection of capitalism may not be a realistic option. Instead, one of the major arguments for environmental protection, at present, suggests that new legislation may help to reduce carbon emissions, diminish pollution and limit the amount of natural resources made available for capital gains. The World Wildlife Fund asserts that the introduction of a universal carbon tax will help to reduce the current environmental and ecological degradation (Salgado 2008). The implementation of taxes on the use of natural resources and the production of pollution is a possible option. The enforcement of strict ‘carbon’ taxes may encourage corporations to introduce environmentally friendly technologies and pollution reducing activities as a means to ensure the maximisation of profit. If the taxes or fines that can be imposed on industries as a result of not adhering to environmental guidelines outweighs the costs of installing ‘environmentally friendly process’, then surely, in the pursuit of the maximisation of profit, corporations will be obliged to implement these protective measures?

Another possibility which has been suggested, is to devote a part of the money currently used for military purposes to that of social development. Even a fraction of the resources used by the military would be more than adequate to help solve some of the most pressing problems of the escalating ecological crisis. For example, in a recent report, the UN has estimated that between $22 billion and 36 billion dollars of global investment by 2015 could cut global deforestation rates by one quarter (Leber 2009:2). At the same time, the 2008 global military expenditure reached the amount of $1.464 billion (Shah 2009). If one compares the amount of military expenditure over one year, to the amount needed over six years to save the rainforests, it almost seems incomprehensible that the environment has been allowed to deteriorate to such a catastrophic state.

Despite a variety of other recommendations for the reduction in carbon emissions and the limiting of environmental damage, capitalist expansion and growth is still underway, the demand for fossil fuels is still growing and no clear plan for dealing with the ensuing environmental crisis has been set. The earth’s natural environment is in a state of disarray. The recent economic recession has had global reach, and people around the world are feeling both the economic and environmental pressure. With capitalism and environmentalism seemingly pushing in two opposing directions, it almost seems impossible for the one to exist in harmony with the other. Amory Lovins puts this predicament perfectly when he says, “Today we have a temporary aberration called “industrial capitalism” which is inadvertently liquidating its two most important sources of capital: the natural world and properly functioning societies. [Surely] no sensible capitalist would do that?”

Reference and reading list
1. Shah, A.(2009).Global Military Spending. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009): http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
2. Unknown. (2008). U.N. calls on Asian nations to end deforestation. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009):http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSMAN18800220080620
3. Attfield, R. (1983). The Ethics of Environmental Concern. England: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited.
4. Bhattacharya, S.(2004). Global warming threatens millions of species. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://www.newscientist.com/article/ dn4545-global-warming-threatens-millions-of-species.html>.
5. Cunningham, W., Cunningham, M. and Saigo, B. (2005). Environmental science: a global concern. Boston:McGraw Hill
6. Davies, J. (2006).Capitalism as an environmental issue. URL (consulted on27 October 2009): http://www.gocatgo.com/texts/capenv.html
7. Document of the DSP. (1999).Environment, capitalism and socialism. Resistance Books
8. Duncan, K. (2009). Disaster Management 2009: Post Conference Report. International Conference on Disaster Management and Human Health Risk. (25 – 25 September 2009). New Forest. UK. URL (consulted on 25 October 2009): http://www.wessex.ac.uk/09-conferences/disaster-management-2009.html
9. EPA. (2008). “Recent Climate Change: Atmosphere Changes”. Climate Change Science Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
10. FAO. (2005).Deforestation continues at an alarming rate. URL (consulted on 15 November 2009): http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/1000127/index.html
11. International Union for Conservation of Nature.(2009). Extinction crisis continues apace. URL (cited on 10 November2009): http://www.iucn.org/media/materials/releases/?4143/Extinction-crisis-continues-apace
12. IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf.
13. Kovel, J. (2002). The enemy of nature: The end of capitalism or the end of the world? London: Zed Books.
14. Leber, J. (2009). A Plan to Save Rainforests Gains International Momentum (24 September).The New York Times. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/24/24climatewire-a-plan-to-save-rainforests-gains-internationa-9230.html
15. Lotta, R. (2006). Capitalism, the Environment, and Ecology under Socialism. Revolution. Vol 52
16. Meadows, D. H., Randers, D. L. and Behrens, J. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.
17. Nielsen, R. (2006). The Little Green Handbook: Seven Trends Shaping the Future of Our Planet. Picador: New York.
18. Oliver, R. (2007). All About: Water and Health. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009): http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/17/eco.about.water/
19. Olivier, B. (2009). Lacan on the discourse of capitalism; Critical prospects. Phronimon: Journal of the South African Society for Greek Philosophy and the Humanities, Vol. 10 (1) pp. 25-42
20. Phillips, A. (2009) Greenpeace reports progress on Amazon deforestation process. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009): http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/10/30/greenpeace-reports-progress-on-amazon-deforestation-practices/
21. Salgado, I. (2008).Green moves by big money. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://http.persfin.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=590&fArticleId=4214795
22. Shah, A. (2009). World Military Spending. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
23. Suurkula, J. (2004). World-Wide cooperation required to prevent global crisis: Part one – the problem. Physicians and Scientists for responsible Application of Science and Technology. URL (consulted on 7 November 2009): http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions#MassiveExtinctionsFromHumanActivity
24. UNOCHA. (2007). Burkina Faso: Innovation and education needed to head off water war. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.irinnews.org/PrintReport.aspx?ReportId=74308
25. US Census Bureau. (2009). World Popclock Projection. URL (consulted on 25 October 2009): http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html

26. US Census Bureau. 2009. World population growth rates: 1950 – 2050. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009):http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.php
27. WHO/UNICEF. (2008).Progress in Drinking-water and Sanitation: special focus on sanitation. Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitataion
28. Wilson, E, O. ( 2002). The Future of Life
29. World Hunger Education Service.(2009). World Hunger Facts 2009. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
30. Yakubu, A. (2008). Water vendors protest at Nyanya. Daily Trust (Abuja). URL (consulted on 09 November 2009): http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200803040513.html
31. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2000). World Water Assessment programme. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009):http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/facts_figures/protecting_ecosystems.shtml – united nations educational, scientific and cultural organisation. –