Jared Diamond, the Pulitzer Prize winning geographer, gets it about right in his 2 January New York Times op-ed piece on the future of Earth.
For decades high-income countries (like the US) have been promising the low-income countries that if they will only institute free markets and honest governments, they will be able to enjoy high-income lifestyles. This promise is a cruel hoax.
Diamond notes a factor of 32 separating lifestyle-related consumption in low- and high-income countries. If just China an India were to overcome the factor of 32 and reach the consumption levels the high-income countries already have, world resource consumption and waste production would triple. If the whole low-income world were to reach high-income consumption levels, world rates would increase eleven fold. It would be the equivalent of world population ballooning from our present 6.5 billion to 72 billion (at current average consumption). While some are hopeful that as many as 9 billion people can be sustained on Earth, nobody is suggesting Earth can support 72 billion. Such a prospect is simply beyond Earth's resource sources and waste sinks.
So, the promise of high-income lifestyles for all is a hoax. It won’t happen. We can’t all live the way the billion richest do. So, what can we expect? What should we do?
Low-income people know their chances of catching up are nil, and many are becoming increasingly angry. Some are becoming terrorists or are “not playing by the rules” by engaging in "asymmetric warfare". With IEDs and explosive vests easy to make, the rich are no longer protected by oceans and high-tech WMDs.
Now security can only be achieved by making consumption and living standards more equitable everywhere. Fortunately, this is possible without destitution because consumption in high-income countries is so unbelievably wasteful and contributes so little to happiness and quality of life.
The obstacle to change has been political will. Even here there is hope as illustrated by a large majority of Australia's voters recently replacing denial-driven politicians with comprehending new ones who support action on climate change and other conservation efforts. Other examples include the growing environmental movements in China and India, and the current of change now sweeping through US politics.
Diamond is cautiously optimistic that we can—and will—solve what he calls the world's "consumption problem". And so am I. Nothing is more important to the future of young people today. Everything is at stake for young people, and they need to have a voice in shaping the future of Earth. This is what Our Task is all about.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Diamond Exposes Global Hoax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I completely agree. This is what Our Task is all about.
I'm also cautiously optimistic because in the United States, we are introduced to standards of living at a young age and where high-income is viewed as the piece de resistance. With the money comes status and that the right, or at least believed as such by most, to consume more. Those with this belief system will be hard to convince the aforementioned equality...not that they would be against it...just difficult to change their ways.-->Just the more reason we are doing what we are doing!
It is restoring my faith to continue to hear about what is changing such as the incident mentioned in Australia.
I would like to extend kudos to Diamond for his op-ed piece! Thank you for sharing it Jerry!
The "consumption problem" can't be solved by merely reducing consumption - though that is a necessary component. The type of consumption we engage in is largely responsible for maintaining the economic injustice that exists in the world. When we buy food, wood and paper products produced in developing countries on land that was created by clearing tropical forests, we are paying poor countries to deplete their own resources. On the other hand, we can buy recycled and reused products, sustainably-grown food and products, and renewable energy. Then we are meeting our own needs but also investing in people and communities who produce the products we consume. But clearly, the limiting factor is knowledge - both consumer and producer must be aware of what processes are sustainable and which are detrimental.
So if we are going to change, we must start with education.
believe that the upper and middle classes in developing countries are already enjoying a consumptive lifestyle comparable to that of the western countries. Here in Indonesia I am witnessing a building spree of such scale unimaginable just twenty or thirty years ago. It appears as if everyone are directing their economic pursuits and development towards the "style" of the developed countries.
There has always been talks of comparative studies and the method of how developing countries can accelerate their development, but what we desperately need right now is how to steer the development of emerging nations towards a sustainable direction. Countries like, say, Indonesia, Philippines, Egypt or Ecuador are still at a stage where a new paradigm of development will lead them to, at most, a prosperous state still equitable according to the sustainable global standard.
Seeing current trends, industries and urban areas in these third world countries still have very limited concerns towards environmental aspects and if they continue to grow at the current rate, 5.5 billion "consumptive" and "polluting" lifestyles would be apocalyptic. I am particularly appalled by the Indonesian government's decision to build a gigantic coal-powered power plant to supply Java's and Bali's rapidly growing demands.
There are lots of very active, and some successful, environmental movements in developed countries where the societies are much more mature and concerned. However, our future also lies very much in these developing nations containing the majority of Earth's population. "Environmentalism" and "sustainability" may well be very differently applied in these places.
Fadi is very close to ground zero in this issue. Is the world going to say to government of Indonesia that Java and Bali can't have a gigantic coal-powered power plant to meet their needs and wants? I doubt that the world is ready to do that or that the government of Indonesia is ready to listen.
Nontheless, young people need to be making clear that we humans already have an ecological footprint larger than Earth (~1.4 Earths), which is overshoot that cannot be sustained. (See http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=footprint_overview).
So at some pont, the world must say, growth is no longer the whole answer. And big powerplants are a part of the growth that has to be questioned. Jess is right that in high-income countries, there are efforts to teach lower levels of consumption, and Angeline is right too that educaion is urgent.
If you want to see an indicator of where world leaders were in 2000 on the growth v. environment issue, look at the Millennium Development Goals, especially the three targets for Goal 7 on Sustainable Development (http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal7.shtml). (1) Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies, (2) provide people safe drinking water and basic sanitation, and (3) improve the lives of slum dwellers. The principles of sustainable development turn out to be largly growth promoting and the water and slum targets hardly begin to address the global envoronmental issues. In short, in 2000, growth weighed much heavier than environment on the scale used by world leaders. Unfortunately, we will not have a chance to ammend the MDGs anytime soon.
Post a Comment