In order for the world to be sustainable, in theory anyway, humans would have to reduce consumption of resources by over 33% from current levels. For comparison, we would have to maintain a lifestyle similar to the average person in Turkey or Jordan. And this is assuming zero population growth. If population growth is factored in we would need to live like the average Chinese peasant.
In order for Americans to acheive the level of 2.1 h/cap, we would have to reduce our consumption by 80%. I do not see how by simply being green we can acheive that drastic reduction. I think we delude ourselves when we think we can live sustainably while maintaining our standard of living. Technology alone cannot bridge the gap. Take a look at your own lifestyle and think through what it takes to maintain every aspect of it.
The other drawback to technological innovation is the hidden cost of that development. I would venture to guess that most of the technological devices were are relying on are not sustainable: raw materials, environmental problems around production and disposal, energy for production and transportation, reliance on third-world labor, etc. Just like cheap oil, someone else is paying the price for our gadgets.
For the sake of argument, if humans were able to achieve an average 2.1 hectares per capita consumption, we could in theory live sustainably. We would then consume the equivalent of the average Jordanian. Since we are talking averages, then that assumes some disparity. So, lets say that the less well off would consume the equivalent of the average Egyptian (1.2 h/cap) and the better off would live like the average Brazilian (3.1 h/cap). Seems fair.
My argument is that we cannot eradicate poverty. We have to become impoverished (in a sense) in order to live sustainably. We have to go down and not them up.
I don't see many volunteers for that. The mega-consumers are going to prefer taking what they see as rightfully theirs and the rest be damned -- while the rest of us figure out how we can give up a little but not too much and feel sorry for the poor suckers at the bottom. It won't change until it is forced on us, and then it is everyone for themselves.
Comments
View as Flat
atreyger Posted 3:01 pm
25 Feb 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:03 pm
02 Mar 2006
Interesting article. But there is a basic flaw that many environmentalists make. Which is assigning all consumption to people. It's really neat to figure out how many hectares American society uses then divide that up by population, but it is basically wrong.
Much of consumption in modern society is carried out by those super-individuals, institutions. From companies to churches, universities, government, and every other institution, there is a whole lot of consuming going on!
I have never seen any attempt to break out the figures, but there should be. I don't want my consumption to be averaged with General Motors. Or my local library.
One of the reasons that blaming everything on individuals is wrong, is that it makes things look worse than they are for individuals, and more hopeless. If we made institutions look more carefully at consumption, and then threw in the top 3% of American society, the cuts that others would have to make would be more reasonable.
Stop letting institutions off the hook!! A lot of the choices are not in your or my realm, but in theirs.
Permalink
John2045 Posted 6:55 am
06 Mar 2006
It is the people running the companies and making individual decisions that are responsible, too. If we choose not to make the necessary decisions, they will be made for us.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:20 pm
06 Mar 2006
While it is true that companies are producing for end consumers in some cases, it is not always true.
Many companies produce for other companies. Or for the military, or government, or universities (churches, labor unions, NGOs, I could go on).
It is fine to say individuals should consume less (I have no problem with that), but it doesn't address institutional consumption. It also makes it harder to control consumption.
There has been a "Don't shop day" the Friday after Thanksgiving as long as I can remember. What impact has it had on American consumption? None that I can see. Saying consume less hasn't worked very well.
Saying consume wisely has had limited success, because it works mainly for small companies which are in niche markets, and able to charge high prices for goods.
We can tell producers to produce wisely, but they may or may not listen to us as individuals.
Much of the progress in Europe has been made through government intervention. The government says that producers must reduce waste and pay to responsibly recycle their products, and it happens.
The individual approach of Americans has failed. Why not try to address institutions through other institutions (government being a critical one) and demand they behave?
Patrick
Permalink
juddfranklin Posted 11:41 pm
08 Mar 2006
For us individuals, our whole world happens to be the world. So we need to make it clear that if we play by their rules in their world (the economy) but they have to play by our rules in our world.
--Judd
Permalink
John2045 Posted 6:54 am
13 Mar 2006
It is the worst case of powerlessness to look at them and say they need to change or look to some organization or government to make things right.
Our institutions, corporations, governments, families, and ourselves are all part of and result of a shared human condition. THERE IS NO THEM THERE.
The only chance of making a difference is changing one person at a time beginning with ourselves.
The difficulty there is, who is standing outside the realm of ignorance to know what is right?
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:41 am
17 Mar 2006
Finally, has anyone seen the latest issue of Orion with its cover story on urban slums? It's just devastating; and hard not to fall into despair just reading the articles and looking at the pictures. This is poverty like nothing I've seen in this country.
Permalink
EcoReason Posted 11:40 pm
17 Mar 2006
Mike Davis, the author, has been writing about urban landscape paradox for a couple of decades now, mostly in LA, (City of Quartz, City of Fear, "The Case for Letting Mailbu Burn," etc.). In this piece, Davis discusses the global forces and local geography of poverty by focussing on the "marginalized marginalized," the 1 billion dispossessed living in hand-built slums world wide. "Near-death" is how the condition is refered by participants.
I think instead of creating despair, however, Davis would like us to be indignated by the abuse of power that this inhumanity represents. It's no accident the article is printed in an environmental magazine. Davis shows the intimate connections between the absurd wealth of the wealthy nations and the unfathomable poverty of the dispossessed, and shows how this is an expression of the core problem creating our ecological crisis.
Davis's message is clear: The same wealth and power that is ravaging ecosystems worldwide has also ravaged the human condition worldwide. Policies that support liberal acquisition to and exploitation of global resources, at the same time disempowers local people everywhere. Global economics based on the protection of large, private, multi-national corporate entities is killing us. In other words, Davis does a nice job showing that it is not a question of people versus the environment, but power versus human dignity and environmental concern.
His conclusion reminds us that everyone pays when we allow such structures to perist:
"The conditions creating the slums--greed, inequity, poor planning, and disrespect for human rights--are human forces, but they tend to intensify the Earth's natural forces. Those forces, ecological and biological, don't always behave as predictably as we would like, or stay within their bounds."
Let's get this beast before it gets us.
Peace,
Kip
Permalink