The "God Given Rights of first world country residents"

I just finished reading Jared Diamonds book "Collapse". All in all i admire the man's ability to scientifically and logically analyse human populations and their problems. However, one passage regarding China's development reminded me of comments i've read several times in this forum. And while he tries for the most part to remain an impartial observer of the effects, ultimately he fails in my opinion and lets slip his own bias opinion.

Maybe i'm being too harsh but being Chinese born and very proud of the huge improvements in living conditions of the occupants of my home town Shanghai, i can't help but wonder, UNFORTUNATE IN WHO'S EYES?

Certainly not mine, certainly not my family and friends'. If we have one television in each household in Shanghai now and we are contributing more to global warming then maybe all households in the US and Europe should have one fewer to compensate. I won't shed a tear for them. If more Chinese own cars, then perhaps Americans should drive Toyota Yarises instead of Ford F150 trucks seeing as they're so concerned about the environment.

My question is, "who decreed that first world living standards must not suffer?" Do people really view it as their god given right. And if dweller in western first world democracies hold the view that China should stop or slow it's growth to keep the status quo, do you really think we care?

Perhaps it's time to consider that the next generation cannot necessarily get their first car at 17. That maybe more people do have to take the bus or ride a bike. Maybe the family cannot all watch what they want. maybe laundry has to be hung out instead of put in a dryer. Perhaps people have to suffer a few more degrees of heat in summer and cold in winter. We've been doing it for the last few decades, perhaps it's time to join us.

Maybe it's not the developing countries that has to consider the cost of changing their lifestyles. Maybe it's the first world countries that need to consider the cost of maintaining theirs.

 

The quote's completely out of context, but it sounds to me like he's talking not about the consequences for first-world standards of living, but rather the environmental consequences as countries rush to expand without sustainable environmental policies.

 

The issue is a simple matter of available resources and who gets them. Global demand for resources is driven on the one hand by population growth. The needs of the world's poorest people are relatively simple, yet the sheer numbers of them mean that they consume a significant percentage of global resources.

On the other hand, the middle class and wealthy of the industrialized world are fewer in numbers, but consume a much higher per capita share of global resources.

China is experiencing phenomenal economic growth even given the recent slowdown in global economic activity. With economic growth comes individual wealth. While many Chinese are not enjoying much of a benefit, hundreds of millions of urban Chinese are enjoying a consumption boom. They want to enjoy the standard of living enjoyed in the west.

So, if there are close to 500 million relatively well off Europeans (by Chinese standards), 300 million relatively well off Americans, another 125 million relatively well off Japanese... just how many well off Indians and Chinese can available global resources support?

That doesn't mean the Indians and Chinese deserve wealth and consumption less than Europeans and Americans. All it means is that the competition for these resources is stiff and that everyone in the industrialized world may end up with a lower baseline level of wealth than they have come to expect.

 

I think, from a pragmatic viewpoint, as far as resources and pollution go, we can't afford to have developing countries go through the same stages that the U.S. did. To that end, I think the most logical thing to do is to work with developing nations like China and India so that as they develop infrastructure, they develop it so that its clean and efficient.

Example, with very few exceptions, I'm all for helping countries get nuclear power online as thats a far superior option to fossil fuels.

 

I agree but I don't think the developing countries do.
Especially since the current international strategy on fuels is set to slow their growth:

However, one must put things into perspective. As Kishor Mahbubani in his book, "The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East" noted, while China and India are increasing their share of global per capital emissions, theirs are in no way close to the levels of the developed economies.

Mahbubani goes back to 1850 ? China?s total carbon dioxide emissions amounts to eight percent of world emissions, whereas that of the US is 29 percent and western Europe 27 percent. India's per capita greenhouse gas emissions is four percent of those of the US and 12 percent of those of the European Union.

The Stern document recommends the setting of a new target for cutting GHGs by 50 percent by the year 2050 together with binding national targets for emerging economies. Stern does concede that getting fast growing middle income countries to abide by new targets will be politically difficult and it all depends on what developed countries commit to and have achieved so far.

They will have to do it by introducing carbon emission reduction targets using the market or other instruments. Whichever they choose, it will be expensive. What is all more surprising is how little the Stern report, both the past and the present discussion document, takes into account changes in the political economy of the world.

 

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the first poster in that the Chinese and other developing nations are being frowned upon as being "bad" for contributing to pollution, global warming and consumption of resources while our own positions in a first-world country are relatively glossed over as if we play no part.

But I would argue that developing countries have a tendency of using up resources much more quickly and cause a rapid increase in emissions of all types as they develop their industries and infrastructure. Developed nations use alot but pollute less comparatively because the infrastructure is already in place and emissions stay relatively stable.

However, it's interesting to compare the use of oil in China and the US; China is the world's largest consumer seconded very closely with the US, but China uses the vast majority for industry and business whereas Americans use most of their oil to sustain their lifestyles.

It's great that living conditions have been greatly improved for many Chinese citizens, as access to clean air, water, and soil to grow food should be considered a go-given right over the opportunity to drive a massive pickup truck all over town every day.

 

I don't think that would be valid. The per capita pollution from the first world still dwarfs pollution rates for third world countries.

 

I'll have to research it more thoroughly, but the fact remains that emissions levels in first world countries are to be more stable than in developing nations, which leads to perceptions that the third world is more polluting or worse than developed nations. I would argue that the levels of certain types of emissions exceed the first world in developing countries, as their regulations tend to be much less stringent and their rapid development leads to a spike in emissions levels.

 

Well, course they're seeing an increase in levels of pollution, but that's because the standard of living is currently so much lower, and as the countries improve that, the pollution increases.

 

That's true. But if they lived like we do, it would destroy the environment. The concern here is that when they try to do that, it will be calamitous.