Printer Friendly

G20's dangerous vision.

OVER THE PAST 70 YEARS, nine out of 10 infrastructure projects around the world have had cost overruns and benefit shortfalls. Trillions of dollars worth of megaprojects in the energy, transportation, agriculture and water sectors have destroyed wildlife habitat and fisheries, degraded ecosystems and destabilized the Earth's climate. They have also led to human-rights abuses and are plagued with corruption and financial accountability problems.

Nonetheless, at the 2014 G20 meeting in Brisbane, leaders agreed on even more megaprojects, pledging to boost infrastructure spending by as much as $70-trillion (US) more by 2030.

In the run-up to this November's G20 meeting in Turkey, and December's Climate Summit in Paris, 88 leading international scientists, environmentalists and thought-leaders have written an open letter to the president of the G20. The letter was organized by Foundation Earth, a think tank established by Randy Hayes of the Rainforest Action Network, and counts among its signatories Herman Daly, Paul Ehrlich, Lester R. Brown, The Club of Rome, William Rees, Wade Davis, David Suzuki and Deepak Chopra.

The letter states that, "Corporate-led economic globalization hasn't delivered nearly enough for at least two of the more than seven billion people on Earth.... Developing more infrastructure in support of this failed economic model is doubling down on a dangerous vision."

The letter also ties the framework to catastrophic climate change scenarios, warning that if the G20 commits to the "wrong path" in November, it could nullify any climate agreements potentially made at COP21 in Paris. "We must not lock in problematic technologies for generations to come."

Noting that new scientific findings point to the type of infrastructure required for an ecologically sustainable economic model, the authors offer a set of criteria for evaluating infrastructure projects--including full-cost accounting.

The signatories recommend prioritizing decentralized wind and rooftop solar energy; mass transportation alongside walkability and bikeability; and agriculture that doesn't rely on massive amounts of synthetic fertilizer.

The letter concludes that we're "at a critical moment," faced with a choice between "two strategies to steer future infrastructure." We could choose "smaller-scale ... more flexible systems" that wouldn't damage the Earth's "life-support ecosystems," but the G20's proposed path would promote "unsustainable projects" and "further exceed the earth's carrying capacity."

Download the full letter at ajlinks.ca/g201etter

Bent Flyvbjerg has written extensively on this subject, including the paper Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built-and what we can do about it. ajlinks.ca/unfittest

COPYRIGHT 2015 Alternatives, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:effect of megaprojects by the G20 on the environment
Author:Kimantas, Janet
Publication:Alternatives Journal
Geographic Code:8AUST
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:403
Previous Article:Wasteful space.
Next Article:Your dream green job.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters