Squeers,

I checked the link and it worked. Try this link without the page view option (you can choose it later)

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

or do a search on Global Footprint Network and find the atlas on their site. This is a more reliable source than Wikipedia. Look at the About Us and their methodology. You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low if there are a great many people. Those poor people, in aggregate, are in fact doing most of the world's consumption. Nor do I condone wasteful consumption in developed countries or the way it is encouraged. Both are problems. The truth is, though, that the 'wretches' on their own are capable of wrecking the planet even if all the developed countries disappear. China is now the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, and according to a recent newspaper report, is still the biggest even if you exclude consumption for export.

It is actually the folk on the Left who are racist towards the poor brown people by denying them agency and responsibility for their decisions, just as we are responsible for ours. Succeeding has nothing to do with colour. Barbados, a black country, is on the high human development list.

Divergence,

I've noted that people who direct blame away from high levels of development, consumption and industialisation and toward the impact of "brown/black" people in their hordes, seem to include China as proof of their argument - as if that country isn't massively industrialised in the cause of supplying the West's fix of a never-ending river of stuff.

Poirot,

I agree that the current method of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions is unfair. All emissions should be attributed to the final consumer. However, the newspaper article I referred to was talking about a calculation that did exclude greenhouse gas emissions in the cause of production for export. Average consumption per person is still low in China, although they have been very good at improving living standards and lifting people out of poverty. Multiplying quite a modest number by more than a billion gives you a very large number. Why is this so difficult for you and Squeers to understand?

Nature only cares about the total impact, not about per capita. I have referred you (and Squeers) to the Global Footprint Network Atlas, which shows that 38% of the consumption is collectively contributed by the top billion people in the richest countries (23% not counting the US), i.e. 62% of the consumption takes place in the poorer countries. This is stated as a fact, within a reasonable uncertainty, not just someone's opinion or assertion. Statements of fact can only be true or false. You haven't made any attempt to show that it is false.

Frankly, I am more interested in the truth than in being politically correct. Our current model of capitalism is very destructive, but people have been outbreeding their resources, overexploiting their environment, and trying to drive off or kill their neighbours to take what they have since long before capitalism was ever thought of. I recommend the books "War Before Civilization" by Prof. Lawrence Keeley (Archaeology, University of Chicago) and "Constant Battles" by Prof. Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard). Admitting that human numbers are the biggest problem doesn't mean ignoring consumerism and the harm done by our capitalist model. Heart disease kills more people than cancer, but cancer is still a terrible problem.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

If we want to fix appalling poverty and our environmental problems, we can't just ignore the issue of numbers. It is racist (classist) to give people a free pass in terms of immunity from criticism just because they are poor or non-white (take your pick). It is saying that nothing better can be expected of them. If Squeers remonstrated with an Australian suburbanite who had a "Toorak Tractor" (without having any need for it) and was told that big four-wheel drives were part of Australian culture, I doubt if Squeers would be impressed. Why would a similar excuse be acceptable if a poor Rwandan has hordes of children that he can't feed properly, despite the availability of family planning and better child survival through a responsible government?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/rwanda-malnutrition-children?INTCMP=SRCH

Divergence,

I admire your persistence but I fear that no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to sway the old firm of Squeers,Poirot & one or two absent others.

How many times have you presented the evidence to Poirot without it even denting her mindset!

And this is what worries me, Divergence, they are your allies in the AGW debate --holly molly!
Boy I am glad that I am sitting on the other side of the table with all of the open-minded, goodnatured skeptics.

Divergence,

you seem to think you've said something original and we don't get it; I imagine like me Poirot is well versed on our parlous population and progress. This discussion has gone way off topic and ought to be resumed in a dedicated thread. However, one more time. Overpopulation is not the problem that needs to be addressed, our economic system is; indeed our economic system is not viable without population growth and/or material development. Profit is fundamental and does not stick at environmental issues or even doomsday scenarios. I've written about all this before. Population stabilisation should be concomitant with cuts in consumption. Foreign aid should be conditional on population stabalisation/reduction commitments. Lifestyles cuts in the West should inversely match increases elsewhere until parity is reached and all are doing their bit to address the global ecological footprint.
However this is all pie in the sky; if these measures were enacted the world economy would collapse--which might be for the best in the long term.
Whatever nature "cares" about total impact, it is ethically deplorable to defend the West and attack the third world. You think it's defensible that 38% of the world's footprint is made by 12% of the worlds population--and that doesn't take everything into account and the inequity is far greater and more tangible on the ground.
Of course I agree unsustainable population growth has to be stopped! But so does unsustainable consumption, and it's hypocritical expecting action from the third world while we do "nothing" to reduce our footprint, which is global.
Beyond that I've argued that our system is dependent on economic growth, which is dependant on consumption. The world is threatened by and advanced and virulent economic cancer.
Again, show me one prosperous Western country that's not manic for economic growth and doesn't derive it's wealth from material growth/development/consumption "somewhere".
The argument is academic and the plunder goes on while the dreamers dream.