Soft Landing – Richard Heinberg responds

SO FAR THE three of us seem to be in general agreement. So let me propose an idea that may be controversial.

I
would suggest that it is time to make a distinction in the equity
discussion. With regard to ecological space (water and land), we should
aim for rough per-capita equity between and within nations, and for a
reduction of human population to fit Earth’s long-term carrying
capacity. With regard to fossil fuels, we should aim for equal rates of
reduction in consumption rather than equal rates of consumption.

The
desire for equity in access to ecological space is ethically
incontrovertible – even if its fulfilment seems remote in today’s
world. But the notion of equal decline rates for fossil-fuel
consumption is more problematic. Among climate activists, there are
strong calls for industrialised nations – which have profited
economically from using fossil fuels – to reduce coal, oil and gas
consumption much faster than less industrialised countries, which have
yet to benefit from fuel-based mechanisation.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Quel est votre indice de consommation?

Façon inédite d’envisager le facteur humain. J’ai quand même un problème avec ce « facteur 32 ». S’agit-il d’un chiffre moyen ou médian? Si c’est une moyenne, est-ce que ce raisonnement ne peut pas être étendu à l’intérieur même des pays développé (et dans ce cas-là, on n’est pas sorti de l’auberge)?

What’s Your Consumption Factor?

by JARED DIAMOND

Published: January 2, 2008

Los Angeles

TO mathematicians, 32 is an interesting number: it’s 2 raised to the
fifth power, 2 times 2 times 2 times 2 times 2. To economists, 32 is
even more special, because it measures the difference in lifestyles
between the first world and the developing world. The average rates at
which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes
like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North
America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the
developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html?ex=1357016400&en=8d884753e0aaba6f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink