As early as the 1970s, authors of the Club of Rome – an informal organization of intellectuals and business leaders whose goal is critical debate on pressing global issues – were drawing attention to the limits of growth and the impossibility of infinite growth in a world where growth is infinite. with limited resources. Fifty years later, the exceeding of six of the nine planetary limits forces us to change trajectory, and therefore our economic model.

However, one of the obstacles to this necessary transformative change is that it is still seen by many as a return to life in caves.

But what would this cave actually look like? Julia Steinberger, professor of ecological economics at the University of Lausanne and expert with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), addressed this issue.

His team’s model demonstrated that each person could live in a home that could be heated or cooled to 20°C in summer and winter, and have a refrigerator, oven and dishwasher. Every individual could have Wi-Fi and a cell phone with data. A household could acquire the equivalent of 4 kg of clothing per year and people in rural areas could travel 15,000 km per year.

Consumption of materials in Canada is among the highest in the world per capita (35 tonnes extracted per capita per year, compared to 19 in Europe and 12.5 in the world). How can we make a change?

This is the question we asked with the Call to Montreal initiative during COP15 on biodiversity, held in Montreal in 2022. We intend to ask this question again to COP16 in Colombia in October.

Systemic changes are needed to combat biodiversity loss

THE findings and recommendations of scientists from the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) are clear. We must not only address the direct causes of biodiversity loss, such as habitat loss and pollution, but also the political, economic and social factors that push our societies to overexploit nature.

The underlying causes identified by scientists include the extraction and processing of natural resources, the expansion of international trade, as well as growing per capita consumption and technological innovation.

How should we change our economies to keep them within planetary limits? What values ​​of our society are compatible with the conservation of biodiversity?

The Montreal Call is an invitation to discuss these questions. It is supported by the City of Montreal, the governments of Quebec, Canada and the Cree Nation, as well as dozens of other organizations.

Possible solutions to stop destroying nature

• Ban advertisements for products harmful to the environment

Advertising associates purchasing with pleasure and happiness and is a powerful economic engine intended to continually increase supply and demand. However, this model ignores the limits of our planet’s resources by encouraging excessive consumption. The Canadians alone would need five Land must sustain its resource consumption each year.

Advertisements for firearms and tobacco are prohibited. If we take biodiversity and the climate crisis seriously, shouldn’t we ban advertisements for other products that are harmful to the environment?

In Europe, the city of Utrecht, Netherlands, recently banned advertisements for meat, dairy and air travel. In Lyon, France, new regulations ban digital advertising screens in public spaces.

• Building alliances with other species

The United States Fish & Wildlife Service recently released a beaver restoration guide titled: Working with Beaver to restore streams, wetlands and floodplains.

Beavers help maintain better groundwater levels because their dams slow the flow of water and trap sediment. The presence of beavers reduces the risk of flooding, improves water quality and promotes greater diversity of fauna and flora.

There are now dozens of beaver restoration projects across the United States, which include restoring beaver populations to river valleys and replicating techniques used by beavers.

New technologies can help improve human well-being, but we must not forget that they increase the consumption of materials, which increases pressure on ecosystems and generates immense quantities of electronic waste.

Born in response to technological solutionism, the low-tech approach is not a refusal to use technology but rather an invitation to use it consciously. Examples of low-tech solutions range from solar ovens to compressed air energy storage systems and passive solar greenhouses. But the low-tech approach goes beyond DIY projects and can make a difference in the way we live in our communities.

As the logistics industry waits to see if drone delivery will take off, delivery by electric and non-electric cargo bikes is progressing and has major effects on urban logistics. In Montreal, various pilot projects are underway to add urban warehouses (mini-hubs) and to intensify efforts to clear snow from cycle paths during the winter. In short, low-tech makes it possible to imagine cities that are both intelligent and more energy efficient.

Many solutions already exist, such as laws promoting the rights of nature, complementary local currencies and wellness budgets – they just need to be implemented.

From Montreal to Cali

COP16 will be held in Cali, Colombia, at the end of October. This will be the first COP to implement the new global framework for biodiversityand all countries will be invited to present their action plans to achieve the 2030 goals.

A good foundation is an essential step in bringing dialogue on solutions to the underlying causes of biodiversity loss to the highest level. All stakeholders must commit to transformative change.

We hope to see many responses to the call from Montreal, from Ottawa to Cali.

Alain Branchaud is a biologist and general director of SNAP Québec.
Alice de Swarte is a strategic advisor at SNAP Quebec, promoting the Montreal Call to bring about transformative change for biodiversity.