has anyone stopped to think for a second that the nations with the fastest population growth are NOT the ones with the hungriest uptake of the worlds resources and energy?

before we start pointing the finger at developing nations population growth being the root cause of all of our environmental degredation, some of the wilfully ignorant posters above might want to brush up on some facts, in that its the developed world using more than their fair share of resources and energy, and subsequently damaging the environment of developed nations (with less environmental protection legislation) in feeding this relentless hunger.

For example: the US with 5% of the worlds population, consumes approx 25% of the worlds resources and omits roughly 25% of the worlds CO2. China, with about 20% of the worlds population, uses less than the US. Australia, with 0.5% of the world population omits 2% of the worlds emissions. Europe, although nearly twice as efficient as the US/Aust for emissions, also consumes far more that its fair share, and thus what is left to go round in the poorer nations is sweet FA.

to even hint that concern for the state of the environment is a root cause of world poverty is either utter stupidity in the extreme, or a deliberate obfuscation with a vested interest in mind, and i cant but wonder which of these can best be leved at the author of this rubbish economic/sociology piece.

i'll ignore the author’s deeply offensive and gratuitous remarks about abortion rates in australia and instead comment only on the points relevant to his discussion.

how he could not see the connection between environmental degradation and poverty is incomprehensible. we can point to countless examples throughout history where (generally profit driven) environmental damage has directly driven communities that had previously been subsisting into profound poverty. the ‘green revolution’ of the 70s is a good example.

but climate change is a much more powerful one. countries relying on primary production are FAR more vulnerable to climate change than we in richer countries, where services and manufacturing make up a higher proportion of our GDP.

bagaric’s point that the extreme poverty of the majority of the world is a scandal is absolutely true. but to think that downplaying the significance of climate change is any way to address this absurd.

people who are already suffering stand to lose even more when droughts and floods render agriculture unviable.
when ocean acidification wipes out fisheries providing the staple diet of millions.
when disease rates shift and increase as we know malaria will.
when impoverished island states and coastal communities become climate refugees, reliant on other countries to take them in – as is ALREADY happening now in neighbouring pacific islands, due to sea level rise combining with more severe coastal storms and the like destroying infrastructure beyond repair.

environmentalists continually acknowledge that developing countries must increase their standard of living before they can possibly be expected to share environmental concerns of richer nations. it is the very premise in the kyoto protocol that has caused our own govt to reject it. a small amount of research by the author would uncover work such as friends of the earth’s climate justice campaign – which specifically looks at how climate change will affect the world’s poorest, and says that we have a moral imperative to address this. if the author is genuine, he will join the call for our govt to recognise such refugees and take responsibility for our role in their plight.

Mirko. Thanks again, but I really can't see the sense of your tying green action to third world problems. Nevertheless, your article has my synapsis overloaded with traffic.

Global warming, the current water shortages and all the dire warnings have probably alerted people that, to quote, Rancitas: "The third world is just around the corner" or "There but for the grace of God (and some serious policy changes) go I."

I think the publicity will give even the dullest person more a sense of the dire circumstances which these third world folks try to exist under. Then we may not feel so resistant to making a few changes. If we make these changes, then maybe there will be less harm done to the already struggling countries.

You seem to think that because the third world is in such a situation that it can't get worse. The third world is part of this world and will be affected by global warming even though it can't afford to contribute to the warming. Certainly not fair that they should further suffer because of our mismanagement of the environment. But this is something the greens have reminded us of for yonks.

The Australian Greenhouse office lists the greenhouse emissions
from the average Aussie home as

Travel 34%
Water Heating 16%
Electronic appliances 15%
Fridge freezer 9%
Home heating/cooling
Lights 5%
Waste 5%
Cooking 3%
Clothes washing/dishwasher 2%

I question why the powers-that-be are targeting the emissions from power stations (because their mates in the establishment stand to make a fortune from nuclear?) while not hardly mentioning a major contributor - the motor car and air flights.

That the government has allowed and continues to allow this industry to go on producing cars (even though there are thousands of good vehicles stored in used car lots) and has apparently become dependant on its continuation shows how poorly the economy and future is managed.

It’s as dumb as the Chinese Government’s population control combined with the male-dominated households’ insistence of having male babys. There are some areas where there are (eight boys to one girl).

is there nothing on this earth this man does not venture an opinion on?

That certain utilitarians are usually selective in who endures the consequences to reach an end never ceases to amaze me.

Militarism and warfare contribute to global warming. Here Mirko targets householders for having life-enhancing products and necessities while not mentioning the billions wasted on militarism.

The USA thinks utilitarian when it comes to Iraq but its utilitarian thinking means the consequences must be endured by the Iraqi people caught in the conflict; the USA’s population (especially the poor) whose resources are being redirected to impose “democracy” and service its military campaign; and the environment suffers because resources could be redirected in to more positive ventures and yet all this waste is based on very doubtful ends –stopping terrorism. This thinking is a bit like a publican poking a big black dog for few years with a walking stick and then let it off the leash in the bar on pensioners’ day. Why not let Iraq sort it themselves? The savings could be redirected into other positive things and you’d still have enough left over to build a hospital, on every street corner in Iraq.

Or downsize the US military to a truly defensive force? Oh wait a minute the US economy is driven by all this killing and militarism. What thinking let USA’s economy get into to that dire situation? (Having said that I think that if Bush doesn’t withdraw he must send troops to support the others already there - anything else would be a betrayal of those soldiers .)

Also what about the third world within the first world? In Atlanta there are streets one block from the USA’s two great blacks - where Martin Luther King lived and near the first Coca Cola factory - where people set up house. A mate dashed into a public toilet and was told: “Knock before you come into my house. …” Yes the population has developed a coping strategy, or rationalisation, for this, “They need to get off their ass etc.” “They’re jus’ losers.” If these human beings get sick - they die. Just like in the third world.

Re Julowi,

1) “Its the developed world using more than their fair share of
resources and energy”

I LOVE this argument:
The US/Aust/The-West-generally are often said to be using more than their ‘fair share’.
But how do they determine what is anyone’s ‘fair share’.
They divide POPULATION NUMBERS by known resources.

The reckoning being - if you have more children - you are in FAIRNESS entitled to a greater share of the worlds resources.
( After that you can understand why many of the poorer countries are going at hammer & tongs trying to increase their numbers!)

And there is a kindred argument which is often trotted out as well, which goes like this :
Too many resources are being spent extending the life of elderly westerns - the money could be better spent tending to the worlds poor. ( This is mind you, despite the fact that most medical funding, research & discoveries are by the west!) .

2) “climate change will affect the world’s poorest”
Climate change is likely to affects the poorest most – not because they are unfairly single-out – but because they have over populated their living space.

To try & cope with the demand of their burgeoning populations the poorer nations have expanded into marginal lands which will be the first & worst to suffer in any downturn .

Even western nations have such marginal zones or danger zones –
But most western nations either don’t develop them, or if they do, do not expect the rest of the world come & bail them out, each time there’s a disaster/collapse .