THE IDEA OF A GLOBAL FOOTPRINT IS A BIT MIND BLOWING FOR MOST PEOPLE.  It seems like a zero sum game whereby unsustainability = global capacity - population X (consumption + waste).  But all of these things are variable, including global capacity, which is actually being reduced by global warming and the spread of desertification.

Greater equality might even make things worse, because whilst people might just accept the poor being equalised up, they will not accept being equalised with the poor!  Thus the greater the degree of equalisation the greater the increase in consumption and waste.  Thus the rise of China and India help to equalise what were previously very poor countries, but the net effect is to overstep the global footprint even more.

Thus if we assume that it will be very difficult (short of huge devastations by war or famine) to reduce the average per capita level of consumption in the world, there are only two other variables to play with:  

1. Improved efficiency/reduced waste
   
2. Voluntary population reduction

However for so long as Nations/religions compete against each other on the basis of power/numbers/wealth etc. voluntary population reduction policies will be very difficult to implement.

That leaves us with improved efficiency/technology/waste reduction.  Simple economics will enforce this in any case, as energy/commodity prices rise, but nobody seriously believes this will be sufficient in itself as the population rises still further.

Thus Kyoto is only the very beginning.  Next will be Treaties setting population growth limits.  The only alternative is war, and lots of it, as the powerful seek to maintain their control of increasing scarce resources.  I'm glad I'm living now and not in 100 years time.


Index of Frank's Diaries