Jared Diamond has a great Op-Ed in the New York Times today comparing consumption between the developed and developing world. Thirty-two times. That's how many more resources we consume (the one billion people in developed countries) than the 5.5 billion people in developing nations. Gross, huh? But Diamond says giving some stuff up (and a lot of it is just nondescript stuff) shouldn't make us nervous.
Real sacrifice wouldn't be required, however, because living standards are not tightly coupled to consumption rates. Much American consumption is wasteful and contributes little or nothing to quality of life. For example, per capita oil consumption in Western Europe is about half of ours, yet Western Europe's standard of living is higher by any reasonable criterion, including life expectancy, health, infant mortality, access to medical care, financial security after retirement, vacation time, quality of public schools and support for the arts. Ask yourself whether Americans' wasteful use of gasoline contributes positively to any of those measures.
And then--and this is SO COOL--Diamond gives a shout out to global fisheries:
Other aspects of our consumption are wasteful, too. Most of the world's fisheries are still operated non-sustainably, and many have already collapsed or fallen to low yields -- even though we know how to manage them in such a way as to preserve the environment and the fish supply. If we were to operate all fisheries sustainably, we could extract fish from the oceans at maximum historical rates and carry on indefinitely.
Read Diamond's full piece here.
Environment
Comments
It is so refreshing to hear someone examine a problem and point out positive solutions. I especailly like the idea that consuming less materially may in fact fill us more emotionally.
Posted by: blings | January 2, 2008 8:41 PM
If we were to operate all fisheries sustainably, we could extract fish from the oceans at maximum historical rates and carry on indefinitely.
I wonder what part fish farms will actually play in the future? I have seen mixed results that seem to indicate it may not be a big answer. Of course, I hope I am wrong! Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | January 3, 2008 1:53 PM