Decoupling
In a report released today by the Royal Society, People and the Planet, discusses the impact of humans on themselves and the world. Eli would like to discuss two of the major points of the report
The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.Although perhaps subtle, the point here is to decouple well being from consumption, not to decrease the well being of everyone. There are technologies which have improved our lives, modern vs. 1950s electronics of all sorts, which are both more efficient and better by any measure.
The second point the report makes
Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planningIs really the same as the first
The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today.Because fertility and economic well being are strongly inverse. The poorest countries of the world are those with the highest fertility rates, if, for no other reason that having many children is the only way to have any chance of survival (this is a lot harder on women, but in such societies they are often held in contempt as of little value for cultural reasons supported by poverty). If things improve materially, then people are more confident of their futures
World fertility rates are already below replacement in such countries as Algeria (1.8), Iran (1.9) and the US (2.05), and falling to those levels or at them in Latin America. It is only in the poorest countries that high fertility rates remain (Map from Index Mundi, which is interactive there)
- Adaptation to deal with the damage already done
- Amelioration, eliminating harmful effects of our actions
- Conservation with needed and desired but not wasteful usage
- Substitution of sustainable systems for consumptive ones
- Mitigation reversing our thoughtless abuse
Posts
10 comments:
Because fertility and economic well being are strongly inverse. The poorest countries of the world are those with the highest fertility rates, if, for no other reason that having many children is the only way to have any chance of survival (this is a lot harder on women, but in such societies they are often held in contempt as of little value for cultural reasons supported by poverty). If things improve materially, then people are more confident of their futures
Eli is certainly right here, but more specifically it is not just the general standard of living that matters here, but "smart chicks". Nothing kick-starts a society toward progress as much as making girls literate.
Well color me stoopid.
Those that fail to learn the lessons in history, are doomed to repeat them, as the history of the United States has shown from 1776 until 1918.
Martin: " Nothing kick-starts a society toward progress as much as making girls literate."
And that is precisely why it scares traditionalists so much.
Dumping capitalism "as we know it" is critical to any success in slowing our destruction of the system that makes possible the human life so many insist they revere above all else.
That is no easier a feat then achieving success via the proffered "five fold way."
Perhaps success at one is not possible without success at the other.
John Puma
The little Mouse says
We are not mitigating and doing stuff all adapting. So we will do much suffering.
Our capitalist system relies on endless growth. That endless growth is almost over, the age of shopping is done.
We will descend to the days of the cave man? You wish, cave man existed with a fully functioning biosphere. Our descendants will envy the cave man.
Markeymouse says;
Outlaw more than two children. The world would come into balance quickly.
Outlaw more than 2 children? What, for those who reproduce at all, or for the birthrate?
Remember that 30 to 50% of women already have none or only one child. Far more important for the birth rate and the total population to be supported is **when** children are born. There's a huge difference in population outcomes when the average age at first birth increases or decreases.
If you have one town where the average age at first birth is 20 and another is 30, and both have a 2 child average with equal numbers of boys and girls, just look at the result for any single year cohort of say 50 girls born. By the time a single year's cohort is 80 years old, the age 20 start town has to have supported 16000 years of food, shelter, schooling, medical care and the rest for the group and their 4 generation families and the next generation is already in gestation.
Whereas the age 30 town has had to support only 11000 years for the 3 generations involved and the next generation is still 10 years away. The age 30 town could have had 3 children per woman for a total of 13000 years of life - still 3000 years less than the age 20 town.
If you want to reduce total population, there are better ways to do it than to tell lots of children that the world would be a better place if they’d never been born. Far better to say that we want all our children, but we’re happy to wait for them to arrive later.
MinniesMum
Eli.
I hope that your five points are listed in increasing order of importance.
Adaptation is going to be the least successful of any action that humans adopt in order to deal with what's coming. It's no different to chasing bunnies when one has no net, no shoes, and no clue about bunny behaviour.
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
@- Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
"I hope that your five points are listed in increasing order of importance."
A major reason for the controversy that climate science as generated is that those five points are not only listed in increasing order of importance, or effectiveness...
They are also listed in order of political achievability. Easiest first, the nearly impossible last.
"They are also listed in order of political achievability. Easiest first, the nearly impossible last."
Indeed. It's the reason why I concluded several year ago that we're basically toast...
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
Post a Comment