Be careful when you say things such as, a) don't have to consume land to grow food crops.
They are consuming land for crops, forests for building materials, and obtaining petroleum....they just aren't doing it on their own land and instead are importing the consumption from elsewhere. It's got to come from somewhere... Travis -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 6:56 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on sustainable growth) Not all of the changes that Paul describes are negative. If you live in a well-designed city you don't need a car, while if you live in suburbia or beyond it is an absolute necessity. Apartments are indeed smaller than suburban homes, and are sadly deficient in places to store lawnmowers and similar items. Apartments are so small that there is no room for a septic tank. By the way, how do the sizes of apartments in Hong Kong compare with the sizes of rural homes in China? Or US apartments with US homes? I find Paul's comparisons pretty slanted. Certainly changing one's lifestyle can involve some pretty major changes, some positive, some negative. There are a lot of trade-offs, even if you stay in the same kind of place - for example, Americans seem to like to live in uniformally residential developments with zoning law enforcement, so if you want to go to a café you have to drive. Europe and other areas have much more lax zoning laws, so on one hand your neighbour might be running a business from her home, while on the other there is a nice café across the street. In general it seems that city dwellers have a small footprint than country residents, at least within the same region, but of course their footprint is not zero. I could go on, but much of what I would say was in my early post but not quoted by Paul. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cherubini" <mona...@saber.net> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on sustainable growth) > William Silvert wrote: > >> a stable population with a better quality of life does not >> necessarily mean more resources are needed. > >> some places have achieved high levels of economic growth without >> comparable resource consumption by taking advantage of good education >> and financial innovation, notably Hong Kong and Singapore. > > Bill, could you elaborate more specifically about what you mean by a > "better quality of life"? > > In Hong Kong the average size of a home is 450 square feet (2500 > square feet was the average size of a new home in the USA in 2007 and > 984 square feet was the average size in 1950). So climbing into one's > bed from the doorway is a common occurrence for Hong Kongers. > http://www.tuition.com.hk/hong_kong.htm > > And in 1999, there were only 59 cars per 1000 people in Hong Kong (vs > 474 per 1000 in the USA) http://tinyurl.com/np36aa > > Likewise in Singapore 90 percent of the population lives in high-rise > public housing and there are only 101 cars per 1000 people: > http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=1908 > > Both Hong Kong and Singapore have little arable land and few natural > resources, so they must import most of their food plus > raw materials such as wood and petroleum. So it appears to > me the underlying reasons why the people of Hong Kong and Singapore > are achieving high levels of economic growth without comparable > resource consumption is because they: > > a) don't have to consume land to grow food crops > > b) don't have to consume forests to obtain their building materials > and paper products > > c) don't have to drill for oil or natural gas to obtain the petroleum > the country uses to manufacture the products they export (e.g. > electronics). > > d) are willing to live in extremely small homes and forsake the > routine use of automobiles. > > What bothers me about the push for a steady state economy is that it's > advocates claim no major lifestyle changes need to be made. So all it > really appears to accomplish is to slightly slow down the the ongoing > unsustainable rate of depletion of land, air and water resources. > Worse, I feel it distracts the public in the USA, Canada, etc., from > have to face the reality that serious sacrifices (in terms of home > size, auto size and use, family size, etc.,) such as those the people > of Hong Kong and Singapore are already making would be necessary to > even start to come close to achieving a sustainable resource > consumption rate. > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. >
