urbanfan89
Active Member
Who cares about artificial lines on a map?
What about the per capita environmental footprints? The average Canadian emits 4 times the amount of CO2 as the average, say, Indian.
That's the main issue.
|
|
|
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
Who cares about artificial lines on a map?
What about the per capita environmental footprints? The average Canadian emits 4 times the amount of CO2 as the average, say, Indian.
That's the main issue.
theowne
Active Member
Our 34 million certainly are doing far more damage then a comparison 34 million people in China or India right now.
Because they have a greater population, that somehow gives us a right to criticize them for being energy hogs? Imagine if they lived our lifestyle. You can't talk down to them for causing environmental problems when our lifestyle is 10x worse. You think because Canada has a small population relative to India, that gives us the right to be more wasteful per individual?
Fact is, we've already gone through the process of destroying the planet while developing and modernizing, and now that we've got to the top of the mountain, we can turn back and notice how much animals we killed on the way up. But China and India are still on their way up and you can't have a double standard with them.......the fact is, the modern Western lifestyle is wasteful, the most wasteful lifestyle on the planet. One post ago you were complaining about people discussing the Western lifestyle, but now all of a sudden you're only speaking about Canada. Choose a topic and stick with it.
By the way, the star here is, oddly, Chad. Chad's ratio of GDP to CO2 emissions 35.4, compared to America's 1.9, India's 0.49 and China's 0.45. I wonder what the story behind that is..? The closest countries to Chad are those like Switzerland at a measly (compared to Chad) 9 or so.
afransen
Senior Member
The worrisome part is that the West is starting to realise how insane our car-dependent suburban cities are, yet the Chinese and Indians idealize these types of developments as signs of wealth, and are trying to replicate them there. Not a good idea! We in the West are going to have to go through a fair bit of pain to retrofit these areas into something functional--should not China and India avoid our mistakes?
After all, China and Indian have been able to develop much more quickly using western technology. They are using our learnings to advance, why shouldn't sustainable development be part of that as well?
I think it is entirely fair to criticise the burning of the rainforest to provide a few years of crops before the soil is useless and more needs to be burned. This is not the way to build a strong economy. Unsustainable agriculture is a good part of what has destroyed Africa's economy as well.
After all, China and Indian have been able to develop much more quickly using western technology. They are using our learnings to advance, why shouldn't sustainable development be part of that as well?
I think it is entirely fair to criticise the burning of the rainforest to provide a few years of crops before the soil is useless and more needs to be burned. This is not the way to build a strong economy. Unsustainable agriculture is a good part of what has destroyed Africa's economy as well.
theowne
Active Member
Sure, if the West showed any signs of learning from our mistakes. But the other countries see the way we live and they want to live that way too, and who can blame them? Why should they only allow the West to live that lifestyle? We're sitting here using up resources like no one else and living in our big, modern, wasteful cities and homes, while telling China and India that they need to be more resourceful? When there is some actual concrete and drastic changes imposed on us with the environment in mind ,then perhaps we'll have the moral high ground to talk down to China and India and all the rest.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Afransen, I thought the over-population argument would be raised in response to my domestic population growth argument. I may very well agree with the idea of lowering human population and the limitations and absurdity of continual growth as a strategy. However, we actively set population growth as a societal goal in this country through our immigration rate. So Canadian's on the one hand desire population growth and on the other have created a society that has rendered us unable or unwilling to accomplish this on our own. This could be described as a kind of outsourcing of our primary biological functions and a failure of policy on the face. In Scandinavian countries (which I consider the most progressive in the world by some margin) they have been addressing this issue for some time and the results and cultural shift are tangable on the ground.
afransen
Senior Member
I think Canada is richer through immigration than it would be through trying to keep our birthrate high. It certainly let's us punch above our weight in terms of the world consciousness.
theowne:
This argument strikes me as petulant. 'If you're gonna destroy the planet I wanna destroy the planet, too!'
theowne:
This argument strikes me as petulant. 'If you're gonna destroy the planet I wanna destroy the planet, too!'
theowne
Active Member
In other words, you are looking down on other countries for not having a higher moral ground than we do. Something about that doesn't sound right.
afransen
Senior Member
I think the west recognizes that our lifestyle is unsustainable and that we need to reduce our impact on the environment. There are some very powerful, entrenched interests that will resist any and all change in this direction.
And I suppose that yes, I am looking down on them. How incredibly stupid they are to be building cul-de-sac suburbs. Same feeling I have about us building cul-de-sac suburbs.
And I suppose that yes, I am looking down on them. How incredibly stupid they are to be building cul-de-sac suburbs. Same feeling I have about us building cul-de-sac suburbs.
Glen
Senior Member
Per capita energy use is misleading. Energy consumption to GDP ratio, while not perfect is a better measure. Especially when those measuring are telling the truth.
CGM
Active Member
On a per capita basis Canadian are amongst the worst enviromental offenders... Which is one reason I welcome Dion's plan... but we're going off topic... Immigration is a good thing, and we must do our part to make sure our share does not go to other provinces
PukeGreen
Active Member
The Earth's climate does not care how rich the person emitting CO2 is. A pound of CO2 is a pound of CO2 whether it spews from a Canadian McMansion or a bonfire in the Sahara. This is why environmentalists constantly scream in deaf ears that cuts must be absolute, not relative to population or GDP or any other factor. Even if we are making more efficient use of our energy, populations and economies eventually grow and wipe out any relative improvements. Since the goal of every country is to grow its GDP, making emissions relative to that measure is essentially planning that emissions will grow over time -- which may be honest, but it shouldn't be presented as a solution to climate change.
Glen
Senior Member
This is why I distrust the motives of such groups. The lower per GDP figure is a direct result of the 'west' being far more industrialized. I am not willing to entertain a solution that is predicated on turning Canada into a present day China or India, with a large majority living in rural poverty. Furthermore, under current WTO rules, if we rely on absolute numbers, what continues is what is currently happening. Namely, the west pollutes by proxy. The current climate in such issues makes being 'clean' (in all types of pollution) prohibitively expensive. While not to do with CO2, Taiwan became a world leader in printed circuit boards because companies could dump the heavy metal waste down the drain. As far as I can tell, during their rise to prominence in the area, the negative effects did little to slow the use of PCs and the like. The west lost jobs and the world suffered.
Dichotomy
Banned
The West is learning. By some accounts, the U.S. energy consumption was 14% of GDP in 1980; now it is estimated to be 8%. This could be misleading, as a lot of energy intensive manufacturing has been 'offshored' in the past 15 years or so, but any study that I have seen has clearly indicated that we are doing more with less energy than a generation ago. Even energy hog SUVs that get 24 mpg today, would only have got 15 mpg 30 years ago. Home insulation, more intensive farming and other technological advances are decreasing the amount of energy (and resources) that are required to make and do things.
No intelligent person would deny the emerging markets their human 'right' to climb the ladder along with us, but to say we all need to go back to living in caves is outrageous. Where do we draw the line? No more vacations on an airline - critical travel only? No personal automobile use EVER? No more cancer research because the 'harm' it causes to the environment? No more satellite launches because of the hydrocarbons burned on the launch pad?
Every human advance has come at a price. It is what price we as a society are willing to pay is the point being debated. One person may be content to walk to work, while another may give up their 'right' to having children.
If birth control is not on the table, then what is? Or is this another case where the West should feel guilty because our advances (particularly in medical research) are the principle reason the emerging markets are emerging?
Maybe if 50% of the babies in Africa and Asia died at birth, like they did only a couple generations ago, we would not have to worry about competing with those same countries for future diminishing resources.
Clearly, no one is advocating that, so then why are we expected to go back to the 1800s in terms of resource usage - to set an example? Do you think Communist China gives a damn what we do? They are too busy propping up every crackpot dictatorship in East Africa to secure their resources!
No intelligent person would deny the emerging markets their human 'right' to climb the ladder along with us, but to say we all need to go back to living in caves is outrageous. Where do we draw the line? No more vacations on an airline - critical travel only? No personal automobile use EVER? No more cancer research because the 'harm' it causes to the environment? No more satellite launches because of the hydrocarbons burned on the launch pad?
Every human advance has come at a price. It is what price we as a society are willing to pay is the point being debated. One person may be content to walk to work, while another may give up their 'right' to having children.
If birth control is not on the table, then what is? Or is this another case where the West should feel guilty because our advances (particularly in medical research) are the principle reason the emerging markets are emerging?
Maybe if 50% of the babies in Africa and Asia died at birth, like they did only a couple generations ago, we would not have to worry about competing with those same countries for future diminishing resources.
Clearly, no one is advocating that, so then why are we expected to go back to the 1800s in terms of resource usage - to set an example? Do you think Communist China gives a damn what we do? They are too busy propping up every crackpot dictatorship in East Africa to secure their resources!
Glen
Senior Member
This is where I have a big problem with those who seem to excuse the developing worlds contribution to the problem. The argument that we did it so they should be able to do it also is a straw man. When the west was industrialized, it was done so primarily for its own. We weren't polluting in order to make goods for China. The post war(s) expansions in the west were for the west. A large part of Chinese and Indian economic expansion has been done so to serve the west. Current trade laws even promote this. Producers can easily circumvent pollution, labour laws, intellectual property tights, etc. , at home by simply moving abroad. Even when there are laws in place, the dismal enforcement and latency involved make them academic, thus of no useful force and effect.