The scapegoat

Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; over-consumption is. That is what reputed journalist Fred Pearce says in a well-analysed post.

Referring to the famous environmental scientist Garret Hardin who had proposed in the 70s what he called “lifeboat ethics” where, “each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in.” If any were let on board, there would be chaos and all would drown.

Pearce makes a change to Hardin’s metaphor, by noting that ‘each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying ten places, whereas the people in the water only wanted one each’.

He cites Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, who calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. And the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

In ground covered earlier, he talks of the comparative costs of sustaining lifestyles of Americans, Canadians, Britons with the poor brethren. And makes a case for how despite increasing populations, the poor will still be consuming much lesser than their rich equivalent. And emitting much less carbon di-oxide!

Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem — where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is 'inescapable that over-consumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many', Pearce concludes.

Any counter-arguments? What about the rising consumption patterns in some of these developing regions?