The Real Feel
November 17th, 2009
I’ve been reading Thomas Friedman’s book Hot, Flat and Crowded. He cites a passage from Jared Diamond New York Times Op Ed piece in 2008 that the industrialized societies have a consumption factor of “32″. Analysts observed that in general most of the developed world consumes 32 times more materials and expels 32 times more waste than do countries in the developing world. So, the United States through its meat-heavy diet, its car culture, its relatively large abodes that require all manner of heating and lighting, use about 32 times more resources than the Bushmen of the Kalahari in Africa. That used to be the case in the ratio between the Western, developed countries and China, at least up until the mid-1990s, when China’s economy kicked into high gear. Diamond cited China in 2007 at 11 on the consumption/waste scale, and rising. The Chinese government and its citizens have their sights set on achieving as American as possible levels of the “good life”, as quickly as they can. And there seems little in the way of lessons learned from the economic rise of the Western nations – environmental and social costs, mostly – that are being observed or are deterring China’s march to realizing its goal of a “universal middle class”.
“”China’s catching up alone would roughly double world consumption rates. Oil consumption would increase by 106 percent, for instance, and world metal consumption by 94 percent.”
Diamond makes the point that if the developing countries were to match the American levels of consumption that it would be like the world supporting 79 billion people; not the 6.5 billion there are today. That stark reality seems in no way to slow the Chinese economic juggernaught (and it seems to have not impinged on American consciousness, either). Since China says all its doing is following the “American Model”, maybe it will follow the leader if the leader acts to dramatically change its consumption habits.



November 19th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
What all of this assumes is that the materials needed to do various things will never change and that all of it will run out. That isn’t entirely true. Biomatter such as oil has much tighter limits, metals do not. While that is not to say that metals are unlimited, the amount of metals in the Earth is so mind bogglingly high that it will take centuries to run out, and even when we do there is always recycling what we have already dug up. We’re currently working on alternative methods to make our cars go, so honestly I’m not too worried about it.
And if we absolutly have to there is always all the metal space, whole planets out there for the taking.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Ah, Outcast;
That sounds terrifically American, no insult intended (as I’m American). Pollyanna-ish, really. Kind of 1950-ish, too. Merely that you miss the most important part of the equation: energy. We’ve picked the low hanging fruit the last hundred years in terms of oil and mineral extraction. Now we are going to have to expend some serious energy to extract all that mineral wealth you have faith is really there … somewhere … deep down. Until we hit on an energy source that packs substantially more wallop than oil (just as coal packs more energy than wood), societies will at best keep running in place with alternative energy sources (albeit at costs of living far higher than we have now, given all the subsidies keeping the world go round); at worst, societies will have to become simpler, less energy-intensive – or, modern societies will have figure out how to maintain their complexity without consuming as much energy. Typically, it takes huge disruptions to societies for their citizens to re-prioritize their values. Ready or not.