The Global Footprint Network site offers a reality check on whether consumption by the (relatively) rich is the main problem, as Squeers says. Environmental footprint calculations convert consumption to notional hectares of land. The method is rough, but allows comparisons to be made. From their figures, roughly 1.0 billion people live in high income countries with an average per capita footprint of 6.1 hectares (6.8 in Australia and 8.0 in the US). 4.3 billion live in middle income countries with an average footprint of 2.0 hectares (2.2 hectares in China). The rest live in low income countries on an average of 1.2 hectares. The global average footprint is 2.7 hectares, about the standard of living of Turkey or Argentina.

Now lets suppose that all of the top billion people just disappear, and their consumption is divided among the low and middle income countries. When you do the calculation, it only raises the global average to 2.93 hectares, a standard of living about equal to the average in Ukraine. If, instead, we let the top billion live, but cut their consumption to the current global average of 2.7 hectares, the new global average consumption would be 1.94 hectares.

It ought to be obvious that while overconsumption is certainly an issue, the main problem is lots and lots of poor people, even if each only consumes a little. As Paul Ehrlich once remarked, "It doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low, if there are a hell of a lot of caputs."

So far as the main argument is concerned, if we want to survive, our economic system will have to adapt to biophysical reality, just as it had to adapt to the need to win World War II.

A good analysis that must have taken a while, Divergence, and a useful link that I wasn't aware of. I agree completely that population is a major issue, though I'm hesitant to say "the" major issue. I would put overpopulation and conspicuous consumption on par. Though regardless of equations I can't see how the division of resources is ethically sustainable. This is the reason the Enlightenment movement dethroned the aristocracy, and today's disparities between rich and poor are just as outrageous and indefensible--perhaps more so.
To answer Yabby's question: <are you going to ban more then 2 [kids per household]>, in the west there should certainly be disincentives to breed, though this is incongruously assuming a capitalist system that depends on population growth.
It's a global problem, though it was created by "enlightened" industrialised nations, and should be dealt with equitably.
The real issue here though is ethical. We cannot go on hiding behind national borders, as if they are a valid pretext for the gross disparities we maintain between rich and poor in the world.
No matter which way you spin it, first world lifestyles (and consumption of oil) and third world poverty cannot, or should not, be condoned simultaneously.

*The real issue here though is ethical. We cannot go on hiding behind national borders, as if they are a valid pretext for the gross disparities we maintain between rich and poor in the world.*

I just love you Sqeers :)

Perhaps you should travel a bit. Now lets say I lived in Africa.
I would buy a wife, they pay in cows, if she is young and pretty
it will take extra cows. She'll do most of the work in the fields,
as I sit around my hut and smoke my pipe with other blokes. If
I do well, I can buy another wife, even a third one. Between
working, they will be popping out kids regularly. I could land
up with 20-30 kids from the three wives. Now given that we lead
a pretty basic lifestyle in your worldview, you will work hard
in Australia and send me lots of money, to feed all the little
darlings. Sheesh, at this rate, I can afford a few more cows and
get me a fourth wife!

Africa just loves people like you. They dangle a starving baby
in front of Western TV cameras and lo and behold, over the horizon
come boatloads of food. It works like a charm.

Interesting comments, Yabby, from one who reclines ever so ungraciously in the arms of of the fortunate West.

In relation to your disparaging remarks on the African experience - and let's not omit the five hundred years of western exploitation and oppression from the equation - Noam Chomsky made an observation which I believe aptly describes your quaint colonial attitude:
"There has always been racism. But it developed in the context of colonialism. That's understandable. When you have your boot on someone's throat, you have to justify it. The justification has to be their depravity."

Interesting discussion. But what really matters in Australia is how we might address the issue. That is; population growth, per-capita consumption, peak oil and various other factors that currently add up to a grossly unsustainable future.

I recently asked this question in a new general thread….and it just bombed! http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4118

I think that if we had a political force that concentrated on sustainability, it would gain a great deal of support from the general public and would really start to swing the pendulum away from manic continuous growth.

Why on Earth the Greens haven’t taken this up is just beyond me to understand.

It seems that perhaps the overriding problem here is the lack of independence of government. Governments at all levels are just far too close to vested-interest big business and far too willing to give them just what they want.

Anyone willing to posit a solution?

Ludwig,
The problem is lack of awareness of the implications of the
various changes taking place. I had reason to speak to one of the
senior managers in the local council last night along this line.
I asked how far ahead they plan.

"20 years" was the reply. Now you and I and the gatepost know that
planning that far ahead is impossible in our current circumstances.
No one but no one has any firm idea of our energy and financial
parameters beyond the next five years.

This is the mindset that has to be changed. After the meeting, during
which I had made comments to the effect that we are entering zero
growth and that business as usual is ending, I was approached by
several people who agreed with my comments. Now that was encouraging
as in the past no one would have even understood what I said.

So perhaps there is hope for us all.