paul phillips wrote [offlist]:
Leigh,
I ran the test as you suggested. Being Canadian, the results came back
in hectares. The problem was that I live in the Okanagan and the
closest cities were Vancouver and Edmonton. So I ran the results with
both giving footprints of 8.3 hectares (Edmonton) and 7.6 hectares
(Vancouver) -- 17 to18 in acres -- while the Canadian average was 8.8
hectares or
19-20 acres. I think I was somewhat overly conservative in that we
have upgraded the windows, heating and insulation in the house (though
I did not list it as green), we have virtually completely eliminated
all lawn and replaced it with xeriscaped garden, we grow much of our
own organic vegetables in season, we buy as much as we can from
farmers markets for vegetables and for organic beef, bison, lamb and
chicken (all grown mostly locally), car-pool as much as we can to
skiing, golf, entertainment etc. where there is no public transport,
etc. etc. When I look at footprint website suggestions of individual
actions to counter enironmental footprints, there was virtually
nothing that we haven't done that was suggested. (e.g. packaging -- we
take cloth bags to stores, refuse containers, etc. to the extent that
we can). The one area that we don't conform to is the bias to vegan
food consumption. We eat animal protein daily (including fish which
is not animal, though only wild fish). I think this is one area where
the environmentalists by pushing vegetarianism are creating a major
tactical error, and promoting an unhealthy trend. We know that
without omega 3 fats peoples brains deteriorate and that omega 3 fats
from vegetable sources are not absorbed by the body very readily.
Thus omega 3 from fish and (on this I am not so sure) from vegetarian
eggs are required for brain development. Opposing the consumption of
fish and eggs, as the site does, is not only counterproductive but
also harmful. Also, opposing the consumption of meet from bison and
other wild animal species is also counterproductive since only those
animals can convert the native grasses to protein. But this leads
me to my main point. Your footprint -- at an American "subsistence
level" -- was 5 acres. Mine, at a below average consumption level for
Canada, was 17 acres. Yet the redefining progress site gives the
biologically productive average global availability at 1.8 hectares or
4 acres per capita. What does this tell us?
What it tells me is that the world is overpopulated by whatever
measure you want to use. There is no future in trying to reduce
consumption to everybody at the $1.00/2.00 a day subsistence level.
Not only would it not work, but it would also produce a culture of
genocide around the world. As economists, we have made fun of
Malthus for the last century. Now he is having the last laugh. On
this point Marx (or at least his followers) was totally wrong -- it is
_not_ just an issue of distribution. It is a matter of sustainability
of total production. And that is determined by the total
availability oif "biologically productive global hectares per
person." We just have too many persons.
I have not sent this to the list because it was in response to your
private email to me. Feel free, if you wish, share it with the list
if you think it would add to the debate.
Paul P
.
Paul,
The survey is obviously aimed at the middle +- class of industrialized
society, and may not accurately reflect on people who are outside the
curve, even if only a question or two is a 'shoehorn' (I had to fudge
'green' housing for squatter/camper in my case, as you had to fudge the
dietary issue).
One of the problems I see with attempts at population control, as with
global warming, is the people neccesary to make the largest impact, the
residents of industrialized nations, are the ones that will do nothing.
The lights are on, but no one's answering the door....
To tell an African living in the bush, or a self-sustaining/subsistence
farmer, reliant on large families ('extended' as well) for day to day
life in a hunter-gatherer/agrarian society, that they need to have less
children and curb the methane output of their cattle, while the
developed countries procrastinate, rationalize and deny, would be a
non-functional solution.
But that's the way it works... "THEY" have to do it, while I, who causes
X times more impact on the planet go about my merrilly destructive way.
There's an underlying socio-psychological selfishness in the
accumulative/obsessive-compulsive industrial world that tends to
sabotage the best efforts of the rest of humanity.
Leigh
http://leighm.net/
"The crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism.
Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated
competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to
worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." --
Albert Einstein.
