Pareto principle - solution to the environmental crisis?

Dr Gary Robertshaw

The Pareto Principle is named after the economist Vilfredo Pareto. In its broadest sense it states that 80% of consequences come from 20% of the causes. It's also commonly known as the 80/20 rule. For example, in a business context, 80% of sales coming from 20% of a company's customers. The precise split may change and the 80/20 rule is not always exact, but in essence the principle makes the point that there is an unequal relationship between inputs and outputs. 'Not all customers are equal'.

Pareto also has wider applications in areas such as biology and problem solving. It's very often the case that small changes to one specific area can cause significant overall changes. In an environmental setting, take bees as an example. Whilst only one insect amongst the huge number of different insect species, if bees were to go extinct then it would have quite profound consequences for food production.

Likewise, it could be argued that a relatively small number of changes could have a significant impact on the planet. Two such changes are beef consumption and family planning.

1. Replacement of beef with viable plant-based substitutes

Beef production requires massive amounts of land, energy, and water, and is fuelling destruction of the rainforests – the lungs of the Earth. Globally, animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all the world’s transportation systems combined! As well as deforestation, it also takes 48 times as much water to produce beef compared to vegetables.

2. Greater education and empowerment of girls

The human population is growing unsustainably and putting huge pressure on natural resources, which are being consumed faster than being replaced. Where girls are better educated as children, and treated as equal to men in adulthood, with freedom of choice in marriage and access to freely available contraception then birth rates tend to decline. There are many good examples of this correlation.

Currently, there is a lack of political will and investment to address point 1, which is why we are rapidly losing the rainforests as they are cleared for rearing cattle. In tandem, there is religious resistance to point 2. Many patriarchal societies sadly prefer the status quo.

Taken in combination, these two changes alone would have a dramatic impact on the well-being of the planet. Of course, other positive actions also play a part such as eliminating plastics, tree planting, protecting endangered species, renewable energy and cutting carbon emissions, and many other laudable initiatives.

The point though, is to move away from the erroneous notion that saving the planet is too difficult and that many complex changes are needed. In fact, a few small changes in order of priority, following the Pareto Principle, would make a major difference.

Kenya’s forests and the legacy of Wangari Maathai

Dr Gary Robertshaw

Over the last 30 years, vast swathes of Kenya’s forests have been ruthlessly felled for fuel wood, building materials and other uses. Abusing nature in this way always results in a payback. In Kenya’s case it has been rising temperatures, increased droughts and persistent water crises.

 

The situation faced in Kenya mirrors that seen in countries such as Sudan. Population growth and expansion of human activity into previously untouched areas also play a part. John Michuki, minister for the environment, says: “Serious droughts have occurred in the last four years, major rivers show reduced volume, and many seasonal ones completely dry up. The consequent crop failures in 2009 placed an estimated 10 million Kenyans, or one in four of the population, at risk of malnutrition.”

 

There is, however, some hope that the bleak situation facing Kenya can be reversed or at least halted. The hope comes in the form of the legacy of the late Wangari Maathai, the Nobel prize-winning founder of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya. This movement has now secured government support to plant 450m trees each year. There are grand ambitions. The movement wants to enlist the help of thousands of schools, women’s groups and youth organisations to plant tree nurseries and hep to reverse the effects of illegal logging.

 

It is clear that the Kenyan government must act fast if it is to avert ecological disaster. Its main priority now is to protect the country's five great forests – the upland areas of Mount Kenya, the Aberdares, Mount Elgon, the Mau Forest and the Cherangani Hills. Together, these areas provide over 90% of Kenya’s water and electricity, storing rain in the wet seasons and pumping it out via the rivers during the dry months.

 

"We are vastly affected by climate change. The trends are now extreme. We are seeing adverse effects everywhere. When no crops grow, we have to seek aid. Our economy is greatly affected, so adaptation is our priority," says Moses Omedi, an official in the environment department.

 

It is to be hoped that Kenya’s efforts pay dividends and that the country can serve as an example to other African countries facing similar problems. In this respect, Wangari Maathai's legacy lives on.

The environmental cost of technology

Computers, tablets, mobile devices and hybrid car batteries. They all contain rare earth metals. By extension, everyday life in the Western world relies on these rare earth metals. But why should this pose a concern for the environment? Well, there are substantial environmental costs associated with the use of rare earth metals. In the first place the metals have to be extracted by mining and then purified. Mining can be a dirty business creating topsoil loss and pollution of waterways, requiring road building infrastructures and causing degradation of natural environments. Often, miners have to work under dangerous conditions for minimal pay with scant regard to health and safety. Then there is the disposal of technological machines and gadgets. Today, people tend not to repair older electronic equipment. Instead they discard it and buy the newest model. How many people keep their current mobile phone more than a few years? Discarded electronics typically end up in landfill sites, where they create their own pollution problems as rare earth metals and toxins gradually seep out into surrounding soil. True, some electronics do go to recycling facilities. However, there are many unscrupulous operators in the third world where workers are paid a pittance and exposed to hazardous elements as they strip down these electronics for re-use. The whole process inevitably creates pollution and makes people sick. The solution? Repair or at least retain, rather than replace. Ethically sourced supplies should be made more readily available, and the industry should be subject to more intense oversight. Eco-friendly replacements for rare earth metals do exist but that would entail cost increases for consumers. A price worth paying? Companies that outsource or import labour to exploit people should be publicly shamed for what they do, whether that labour is in mines or recycling centres.

Indian mines company accused of unlawful deforestation

According to the BBC, a subsidiary of the Vedanta mining group in India, Sterlite Industries, has cleared forest land in violation of Supreme Court orders. The trees were cut down while constructing a new power plant in Chhattisgarh state. Two government reports - dated October 2010 - said that trees were cut down in an area owned by the state government which is officially designated as forest land in government records.

Kenya’s forests and the legacy of Wangari Maathai

Over the last 30 years, vast swathes of Kenya’s forests have been ruthlessly felled for fuel wood, building materials and other uses. Abusing nature in this way always results in a payback. In Kenya’s case it has been rising temperatures, increased droughts and persistent water crises...[read more]

Is it any wonder that people don’t trust politicians?

It seems many politicians these days believe that they can act with total impunity. Its all the more galling when directories such as ours are trying to encourage more people to buy from sustainable and fair trade sources, yet at the same time being undermined by a combination of immorality and arrogance.

We recently wrote about some supermarkets refusing to label products they sell that contain palm oil, which is fuelling deforestation, methane release and wiping out large populations of orang-utans. Then we hear about Stephen Byers, the ex-Labour minister, telling an undercover reporter that for a large fee he can influence government policy on behalf of supermarkets, such as delaying and amending proposed food labelling regulation.