population is the major driver of consumption. want to save the earth? stop procreating.

every generation uses more energy than the ones before. these so-called cleaner technologies (like hybrid vehicles) are stop gaps and poor ones at that. if you really want to save the world stop making cars until you can manufacture truly significant clean vehicles. the savings in gas consumption these hybrids probably do save probably dont even offset the amount of degradation caused by their own manufacture.

The rich countries were polluters when they were poor because they didn’t know better. Must we follow their path? Now that we have their experience from which we can draw our lessons, we must avoid copying their consumption-driven lifestyle that created the environmental problems we are saddled with right now, so we won’t need so much money to pay for a cleaner, healthier world. Because even if we could afford higher consumption levels with increased incomes, and even if we have technology that can mitigate the environmental impact of heavy consumption, we don’t have an infinite supply of natural resources. Sooner or later, something will have to give. If we can have our cake but we shouldn’t eat it because it costs the earth so much, why bake the cake in the first place?

Mr. Filipino Culture:

As China’s living standards increase, there will be a corresponding snowballing effect in the amount of “greenhouse gases” it contributes to the atmosphere. There is evidence that these gases contribute to “global warming” but the debate rages on.

I do agree that richer countries will have a greater political will and the means to develop (a) cleaner energy sources, (b) more environmentally sound input materials into their manufactured goods, and (c) more efficient and cleaner disposal processes and technologies than poor countries. Perhaps initiatives around those three fields (plus that other thing you mentioned — increased localisation, which I am a big fan of) will result in a per capita reduction in emmissions and waste production. But that won’t change the absolute increase in consumption and commercial activity that prosperity will bring.

Even the most optimistic estimates put reduction of emmissions per capita in developed countries (and that is assuming that initiatives being pushed are 100% successful) at only 25%. Elevation of living standards of Third World people often result in a 100% increase in energy use, and waste production.

So even if we realise a 25% decrease in energy use and waste production and a successful implementation of this in a rapidly developing Third World country, like say China, a parallel improvement in living standards will still raise the environmental impact of that community by 40% in absolute terms (even if population size remains the same).

I’m not sure the facts support your contention that as China’s living standards increase their environment will surely degenerate further. Indeed, it was after the US and the UK had developed a mass consumer base that environmental laws and environmental remediation programs developed (50s to 70s). Who’s to say that won’t happen in China as well? As for “exporting” pollution, that might stem more from globalization (sourcing products where its cheapest) in the interim. In the long term, its not a viable option and many developed countries are realizing that (hence the rise in the “green” movement from materials, to energy sources, to the localization movement). The latter might be moot anyway as more “developed economies” turn to more sustainable and greener technologies and material bases. How many baleen whale clothing items is the US importing now? Exactly

Exactly, Mr. Chino F. When a new process or technology is discovered to reduce the cost of manufacturing something, people at first think “Wow, this is gonna save everyone a lot of money”. What is often not foreseen is how the reduction in the cost of an item results in more of it being consumed.

So it’s like a positive feedback loop. Lower production costs (on a per unit basis) result in increased consumption, and increased consumption results in bigger economies of scale that induce further reductions in production costs which, again, further spurs consumption, and so on and so forth…

That consumption is needed for human life is a given. Humans can’t live without consumption. It’s the level of consumption that is the issue. There are many things driving people to over-consume, such as overproduction and deceptive marketing schemes of some companies. While government has its role in keeping the economy stable, the people have their role in preventing over consumption, such as the need for their to build up their resistance to these deceptive advertising and marketing schemes.

Consider China and its billion plus people Mr. Filipino Culture. As China becomes richer, more of its people will start owning cars and buying appliances that consume electricity (which is generated using fossil fuels for the most part). And as they get more affluent, those appliances’ and cars’ period of use gets shorter and shorter (as the labour cost of repair work gets higher and replacement becomes more economically viable than repair work).

Think of a world where a billion additional people own cars, washing machines, clothes driers, buy Ikea furniture, order takeout food in styrofoam containers, and travel by air more often.

I think your assumption that affluence improves “environmental policies” is valid only within a limited range. Affluent societies save their forests yet import timber and its derivative products from Third World basket cases that hack away at their own woodland like there is no tomorrow just to be able to afford the foreign currency to buy their iPods and Diesel jeans. The U.S.’s prosperity is built upon the premise that there will always be a continuous pipeline of oil from a bunch of unstable desert kingdoms (so much so that they are willing to send their boys and their guns over there to secure that supply).

While I see your point, I think it uses the wrong premises to arrive at its conclusion. Any premise must be supported by historical facts. The key to “saving” the environment IS to get richer. Any cursory review of “developed” countries that went on to enact strict environmental standards and clean up their environment reveals one particularly stable pattern–they were heavy polluters when they were poorer. A nice and clean environment is a luxury, sad to say and just like with any luxuries in life, a society must have the material means to pay for it. So whether it is Victorian era England or Bismarck era Germany or today’s China, as societies become wealthier, their environmental policies improve.

Economic democracy through greater popular access to economic goods made possible by market forces is probably the greatest driving force for uplift the world has seen. It would be a tragedy to see this mangled by well-intentioned theorists who failed to incorporate historical facts and reasonable implications into their analysis.