[GJM] Fw: [globalnetnews-summary] Western excess is the Earth killer

[mary rose]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster at globalcircle.net>
To: <globalnetnews-summary at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:11 AM
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Western excess is the Earth killer



mary rose:  This article points out that there is much we can do as
responsible, conscious, citizens; however the question is: "Will we
do these things?" or do we need the patriachy to force us to do them?
or thirdly, does the patriachy even care enough to be an overseer? or
is it just interested in "making money" regardless of the consequences
because it is "addicted" and doesn't know any better?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD26Dj08.html

Western excess is the Earth killer
By Chan Akya

    I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather.
    Not screaming in the back of a car, like his passengers.

Forgive me this bit of dark humor to start off what is essentially an 
extremely depressing subject, namely the potential for catastrophic man-made 
environmental changes to wreak havoc on humanity in years to come. Today's 
rich countries are the grandfather character above, while backseat 
passengers represent the rest of the world screaming about global warming 
and all that.

>From time to time, be it through last year's summit in Bali or this week's 
observation of Earth Day, we are constantly reminded of how fragile Earth's 
atmosphere has become and the extent of
potential devastation yet to come as changing weather patterns first muck up 
agricultural yields around the world, and soon also threaten large tracts of 
land making them infertile. Think for example of the significant salination 
of ground water being witnessed in various countries ranging from Brazil to 
Indonesia.

With most of the scientists at the forefront of the environmental movement 
being Western rather than Asian, readers could well take up issue with my 
opening salvo blaming Europeans and Americans for environmental degradation. 
The point though is that just as tobacco researchers had to toil for decades 
before any discernible shift in cigarette smoking occurred, environmental 
lobbies have their work cut out for them.

A journalist friend who attended some recent meetings of green and 
environmental lobbyists described a strange scene in the gents toilet. No, 
not anyone adopting an extra-wide stance in the stalls, but rather the 
significant use of paper towels to dry hands. In the middle of a meeting on 
the environment, this behavior struck my friend as particularly stupid, but 
it also highlighted the deep cultural traits that have to be reversed in 
Europe and the US before any meaningful progress can be made.

Think about that for a second: if you pull out five hand paper towels to dry 
your hand every time in the toilet, the "footprint" of a single Westerner 
would be one tree every day. Multiply that by European and American 
populations and suddenly it becomes all too clear why Brazilian rainforests 
disappear at the rate of a few thousand acres every week.

No amount of replanting by Brazil, Indonesia or other countries endowed with 
massive natural resources can replace the trees lost, because nature 
selfishly takes a few years to allow a tree to grow fully. From the example 
above, using hand towels, we can see how much needs to be done here. This is 
a simple product to understand because the alternative has zero 
environmental consequences, namely to shake your hands and let them dry 
naturally within a few minutes. In other words, this is a product where 
consumption changes can lead to very significant positive impact on the 
environment. Let's take that further.

The first step is to cut consumption of wasteful goods, and label all such 
products accordingly. Just as cigarette packs sold in Europe come with 
startling warnings of burnt lungs and throat cancer, products made by 
destroying natural forests must carry similar warnings in their packaging. 
Industrial lobbies will fight this move, especially in the case of 
hypocritical European countries, but labelling is the first step to 
reversing consumption trends.

Secondly, governments across the world can coordinate on useful education of 
today's young by highlighting the carbon footprint of various daily 
products. This involves the use of the Internet and new advertising media to 
ensure that a social stigma becomes stronger on the use of various products.

(mr: Wouldn't the community learning and information centers I've proposed 
by a better alternative than the governement coordinating learning? I mean 
aren't we grown up enough to do this ourselves?)

Good dreams
Unfortunately, I need to stop here and pop your dreams. There is no way I 
see any of the above happening, whether it is on paper towels or cars or any 
other products that typify the higher living standards of European and 
American people.

Instead, I suspect that suppliers of these products, who are situated in 
various countries around the world, will have to bear the brunt of the 
environmental taxes.

This is the point of media headlines of late that scream about China being 
the world's largest polluter. For one thing, with more than 1.3 billion 
people, or four times the population of second ranked polluter United 
States, China certainly has a smaller carbon footprint per capita. 
Additionally, much of Chinese production actually is consumed by the United 
States and European countries, so arguably it is their consumption not 
China's that drives the latter's footprint.

In other words, we can realistically argue that the average Chinese today 
has less than one-fifth the footprint of an average American. Figures for 
the rest of Asia calculated this way are even better, with the average 
Indian coming in at less than one-tenth American equivalents.

There is a move by European and American politicians to create "carbon 
credits" that allow the users to continue consumption by offsetting it with 
green projects elsewhere. A laudable idea, but one that is tinged with 
racist connotations all through. Think of it this way: why should a 
Cambodian maintain his forests so that a German can drive his Porsche at 200 
mph on the Autobahn?

Second-round effects of carbon credits are more negative as the 
inflexibility imposed on land use causes significant declines in food 
production from time to time. The latest rice scare is partly because of 
potentially fertile lands in various rice-producing countries being 
ring-fenced away for environmental projects.

No individual in Asia or Africa should starve so that an American can wipe 
his hands with five paper towels.

The first step, as I laid out above, is to cut consumption of wasteful 
products by Europeans and Americans. The second step is to accelerate 
development of energy technology that can be used to improve energy 
efficiency such as fuel cell stacks for generating electricity, increased 
focus on nuclear reactors for the same purpose and so on. Imposing taxes on 
negative goods such as pollution caused by airlines is also a good idea and 
one that America must adopt right away.

(mr: Why hasn't this guy got the information yet that it takes more energy 
to produce nuclear power than is gained? I've known it for years.)

Taking a single jumbo jet off service provides the equivalent footprint of 
generating electricity using coal for an entire Indian village. This is the 
new math of the world, and one that needs to be considered in environmental 
decisions.