We the richest fifth of the world's population already consume more than our fair share of the world's resources.
It is important to bear in mind that this elite does not simply consist of the super-rich strata with incomes of above half a Million pounds a year. It includes the majority of the citizens of these countries. As well as the isolated pockets of rich elites from traditionally poor nations such as India Ecuador Kenya etc.: in other words, the world's consumer class. This same 20% does not exclusively grow, supply or create all of these resources - they are the product of the whole world's labor: and although we may receive the benefits of using these resources, and have control over their distribution, they are not necessarily ours to consume in the first place. In fact, in order for the elite to live at the standard it does, the majority have to go without... and this is one of the major (if not the major) causes of world poverty, albeit one that is largely ignored, unknown or denied.
Perhaps a more graphic example is that of the lowly quarterpound hamburger. To produce just one requires 1.2 pounds of grain to feed the cattle, and 100 gallons of water part of the hidden cost consumers never see.
The simple example of the car illustrates this point. Less than an eighth of the world's adult population own a car. This many cars (450 million vehicles) is already responsible for 13% of the global carbon emissions from the burning off fossil fuels, and a larger share of the production of acid rain. If every adult or family in the world owned a car, these emission levels would be beyond any technological solution. Some future fuel efficiency technology might possibly double or treble how far a car can travel on a gallon of fuel, but this would not be enough to bring the emission levels within safe limits. A fuel efficiency increase of twenty times the present rate would be needed to cope with a world wide car density similar to our own, and this is only to keep Pollution levels at the same rate as they are now, let alone reducing them . And a twenty- fold increase in petrol efficiency is beyond the laws of thermodynamics.
Since the same mathematics applies to almost all other pollution producing consumer goods or practices, we are in effect faced with a simple choice.
A: We continue to have a high standard of living and deny the rest of the rest of the world the opportunity to do the same. We then use green technology to bring the pollution we produce down to a level the biosphere can absorb without sustaining long-term damage,
or B: We 'allow' the majority to develop, and lower our standard of living, with every individual then living a lifestyle that produces no more than their 'share' of a sustainable global rate of pollution.
Option B is not compatible with our consumer culture, as long as that culture continues to tell us, 'More is always better.'
http://articles.cnn.com
www.enough.org.uk
It is important to bear in mind that this elite does not simply consist of the super-rich strata with incomes of above half a Million pounds a year. It includes the majority of the citizens of these countries. As well as the isolated pockets of rich elites from traditionally poor nations such as India Ecuador Kenya etc.: in other words, the world's consumer class. This same 20% does not exclusively grow, supply or create all of these resources - they are the product of the whole world's labor: and although we may receive the benefits of using these resources, and have control over their distribution, they are not necessarily ours to consume in the first place. In fact, in order for the elite to live at the standard it does, the majority have to go without... and this is one of the major (if not the major) causes of world poverty, albeit one that is largely ignored, unknown or denied.
Perhaps a more graphic example is that of the lowly quarterpound hamburger. To produce just one requires 1.2 pounds of grain to feed the cattle, and 100 gallons of water part of the hidden cost consumers never see.
The simple example of the car illustrates this point. Less than an eighth of the world's adult population own a car. This many cars (450 million vehicles) is already responsible for 13% of the global carbon emissions from the burning off fossil fuels, and a larger share of the production of acid rain. If every adult or family in the world owned a car, these emission levels would be beyond any technological solution. Some future fuel efficiency technology might possibly double or treble how far a car can travel on a gallon of fuel, but this would not be enough to bring the emission levels within safe limits. A fuel efficiency increase of twenty times the present rate would be needed to cope with a world wide car density similar to our own, and this is only to keep Pollution levels at the same rate as they are now, let alone reducing them . And a twenty- fold increase in petrol efficiency is beyond the laws of thermodynamics.
Since the same mathematics applies to almost all other pollution producing consumer goods or practices, we are in effect faced with a simple choice.
A: We continue to have a high standard of living and deny the rest of the rest of the world the opportunity to do the same. We then use green technology to bring the pollution we produce down to a level the biosphere can absorb without sustaining long-term damage,
or B: We 'allow' the majority to develop, and lower our standard of living, with every individual then living a lifestyle that produces no more than their 'share' of a sustainable global rate of pollution.
Option B is not compatible with our consumer culture, as long as that culture continues to tell us, 'More is always better.'
Help Save The Earth, There Is No Life Elsewhere
Source:http://articles.cnn.com
www.enough.org.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment