MUST WORK TOGETHER
THERE have been many ways of dividing up the world. We have gone through the developed and developing; the East and West; the West and the Rest; the North and the South; and some time ago, the Civilised and the Backward.

I propose a new arrangement, namely High Carbon Countries and Regions (HCCRs) and the Low Carbon Countries and Regions (LCCRs).

In this article, I will show that HCCRs engage in fantastic rates of consumption compared to LCCRs.

I also call for the HCCRs to take responsibility for their consumption practices by working with LCCRs on such issues as Avoided Deforestation, and more broadly LCDSs.

As we move into the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, it might be useful to take stock of some consumptions issues.

Of particular importance here are the great differences in consumption within and among different regions of the world.

Broadly speaking, the industrialised High Carbon Countries consume significantly more than developing Low Carbon Countries. In some sense, that is obvious and to be expected. At the same time, the high consumption countries are using up disproportionate amounts of world resources and are causing more than their fair share of environmental damage. The HCCs should take responsibility for their consumption-oriented ways of life.

As noted above, there are huge variations in consumption within geographical ‘regions’ and/or categories of countries. Table I below demonstrates this in convincing fashion. The first and obvious thing to note is that the United States is the six hundred pound gorilla at the dining table. It is a major carbon dioxide emitter and a water and electricity hog. In fairness, the size of the U.S. economy does offer some measure of recompense for its magnitudes of consumption.

The table also shows great variations in consumption of electricity, and of water and carbon dioxide emissions.

Table I. Source: The Measure of America. New York: Columbia University, Press, 2008, p. 198.

The variations noted above are actually significantly greater when we compare different regions of the world. This is demonstrated in Table II below.
TABLE TWO: Per Capita Energy Consumption

Table II. Source: J. Goldstein and J.C. Pevehouse, International Relations. New York: Longman2007, p. 432.

The figures above speak for themselves with regards to energy consumption. North America consumes about 5.5 times the world average and Western Europe about twice as much. The U.S. and Canada combined also consume twenty-five times the electricity as do states in Africa.

Energy consumption is not an ‘inert’ activity. On the contrary, energy consumption is one of the leading causes of greenhouse emissions. At the user end, cars and other motorized vehicles produce a significant amount of carbon dioxide. At the production end the retrieval and processing of fossil fuels have multiple negative impacts on the environment. High energy consumption therefore is a major contributor to global environmental destruction.

If we use the new conceptual arrangement of HCCRs and LCCRs we can represent the data in table two as follows.

TABLE III. Source: R.B. Persaud based on data from Goldstein, 2007.

Employment of the new categories HCCRs and LCCRs has now allowed us to recalculate energy consumption in a way that amplify the differences between those countries and regions that are net contributors to global environmental degradation and countries/regions that, on a per capita basis, are not exerting as much pressures on global resources.

In fact, many of the LCCs are net suppliers of environmental ‘goods’. We see, therefore, that the HCCRs have a combined per capita energy consumption rate of 210 million BTU; while the LCCRs have a rate of 45.

There are other interesting facts about consumption that may be noted. These include:

1. While North America and Western Europe make up only 12% of the world’s population they account for 60% of global private consumption.

2. In 1950, one in every 50 persons in the world had a car; today it is one in every twelve persons.

3. In 1950, Americans U.S. per capita meat consumption was 144 pounds; today it is 222 pounds. To grow a pound of meat requires between 650 and 1300 gallons of water.

4. In North America, the per capita gas consumption is about 1,593 liters; in the developing countries it is 59.2 liters.

5. In 1958, atmospheric carbon dioxide per person in North America was 313.34 parts per million; it is now (2009) 387.41 parts per million.

6. “Industrialised nations, representing only 20% of the world’s population, consume 87 percent of the world’s printing and writing papers…”

7. “The average American buys 53 times as many products as someone in China and one American’s consumption of resources is equivalent to that of 35 Indians.”

8. “Between 2000 and 2005 around 10 million acres of forests were lost per year in South America…” alone. (Source: www.greenlivingtips.com).

The data and facts presented above should make it clear that there is considerable inter and intra regional variation in consumption patterns. These variations are not natural. They are made and more importantly, they are the products of culture. By culture here I mean a way of life.

It is abundantly clear that the cultural practices of some parts of the world are exerting huge burdens on global resources. While cultural variation is something to be protected, cultures based on conspicuous consumption must find ways of changing. Moreover, the rich HCCRs that engage in unsustainable levels of consumption must find economically viable ways of working with LCCRs so that the latter may better leverage their natural resources in combating climate change and other environmental ills.