-Jan2013.jpg)
Sustainability satisfied
There’s a choice between quality of life and environmental degradation
As
the World future Energy Summit came to a close last week I was again reminded
about the sustainability debate. This past year, more attention has been paid
to China’s increasingly important position in the world economy. It was also
noted that our planet’s population surpassed the seven billion mark. A good
guess is that this person was from China or India and among the great many that
will be entering its exponentially growing middle class, a euphemism for
getting a car and starting to eat significantly more meat and fried foods.
It
is a contradiction that the most significant lifestyle changes resulting from higher
income and living standards are the same that cause the greatest damage to
perceived quality of life: time spent in traffic, environmental pollution and
obesity-related illnesses. Combustible engines and farming of livestock are the
most environmentally-destructive practices our species engages in.
The
issues of farming and increased motor traffic in developing nations have
significantly greater impact on global sustainability than all the world’s
combined feel-good campaigns for making token gestures such as switching off
our lights.
Put
simply, sustainability is a sheer matter of dividing resources between people
and nations. It is dictated by demographics. The size of a nation’s population
and its GDP growth determines the increase in its energy consumption.
It
is politically insensitive to suggest that billions of people in developing
nations should be denied ‘development’ for the sake of our planet’s greater
good. Yet, looking favourably on a growing middle class in developing nations
is nonetheless starkly incongruent with being against environmental
catastrophe.
Irrespective
of our lofty morals, it is clear that our objections to benefit our own welfare
at the expense of other people rarely go much beyond our urge for the new
iPhone. As long as the factories are not in our own countries or with workers
that look too similar to ourselves we will not give it much thought.
Pretending
or believing that we have solidarity with all people equally is dangerous if
not outright counterproductive. It obstructs us from seeing, and much less
dealing with, the bigger problem at hand.
Leaps
in technological innovation for more efficient use and generation of energy
will not solve our energy problems. Coal makes up 70% of China’s power
generation and is its fastest-growing source for energy in real terms.
Comparatively, increasing the efficiency of these coal plants is more critical
than all PV panels in the world. Yet, to make a coal plant even slightly more
efficient in the next decades would be a major improvement.
Ultimately,
we need to find a way for the absolute majority of the world’s population to
settle with the little they have and not expect more. Inequality is nothing new,
and mankind was not designed for voluntary self-sacrifice. Though we shun from
admitting the reality of these intrinsic qualities in ourselves, dealing with
them is the key for our long-term survival. This needs to include a degree of
inequality between nations and people. Negotiating this order and dividing
resources, peacefully or otherwise, is what civilisation has always been about.
The
correlation between global trade and increased industrialism cannot be argued
against. It is also obvious how reversing and oppressing the trend of economic
expansion would be the most effective environmental initiative. Imagine a
counter-industrial revolution where the pursuit of consumption is not the main
measure of success. Can we radically redefine our universal model for social
and economic success to slow down industrial activity and economic expansion?
It is possible that this is inevitable and will occur regardless of any
conscious actions we take for or against it. My guess is that this will not be
voluntary or in our lifetimes. People only tend to change when left with no
other option. Then we adapt.
