How do we get out of this mess? We a world of 7 billion, but we are not all dealt the same hand in life. Some live in areas with an abundance of resources and for others, it is hard to access basic needs.
A simplified equation for this is the IPAT identity.
I=PAT: This identity says the emissions (Impact) is a function of Population (P – number of people), Affluence (A – level of economic development as measured by Gross Domestic Product per capita) and Technology (T – the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar of GDP).
When dissecting this equation for my ENVR410 class, Impact = Population*Affluence*Technology, I came to a few realizations.
For one, I think it is unrealistic to believe that international agreements in each area (even if we, somehow, agree on a set of rules and standards that can apply equally to everyone in order to solve this energy crisis) can be ratified without enforcement.
So who holds governments accountable? Certainly not the UN or other governments. The power, I believe, is held by citizens and immense social pressure. The policies and governance around population, income inequality and technology will apply to each nation and community differently.
A few more reflections of each element, and my thoughts on how to lower our collective impact on the world’s resources:
Population: Population growth is a product of culture and place. As child mortality decreased, Western cultures on average had less children and population growth declined. In rapidly developing countries, where child mortality rates are on the decline – it is up in the air whether or not there will be a similar cultural shift as experienced in the past. As a supporter of universal rights, especially a woman’s right to their own body, I definitely don’t think limiting population growth should be considered. If anything, the answer to lowering population growth may be education for girls and women. Research has shown that educated women tend to have children later in life, have less children and raise healthier children. It begins with government recognition of global issues, not just the environmental imperative but also a social imperative as well.
Affluence: I enjoy the assumption that conservation has to come at the cost of economic growth. I don’t think that is true. What I do think is true is that our consumption is affected not only by the amount of money we all have, but also the environment we are born into. Tokyo, New York, Munich – all have rapid transit systems that likely lower consumption from many individuals. This is likely better than in other cities such as Los Angeles where individuals on average commute longer distances each day by car. Are people worse or better off because of these transit systems? Do people live a lower quality of life? We could argue it could raise overall benefits for each city, allowing lower income households to access widespread areas. Our consumption, I believe, is affected by how our lives are designed and the interventions we put on ourselves to change the ways in which we consume – without losing benefits.
Technology: Technology and efficiency will likely play a huge role in designing our future. The largest problem is that our demand for energy is growing now, and the energy decisions we make today will affect energy decisions for decades to come. In this case, I think decision makers should be looking the the lesser of all evils. For example, I would much rather the Site-C Dam be created than Enbridge Pipelines. Harnessing energy always comes at a cost. Even if we lower CO2 emissions per unit of energy, we’ll likely just consumer more energy. The question when it comes to technology is whether or not governments will correctly incentivize these “lesser evil” options. Can policy be utilized to ensure that these options are economically feasibility, publicly affordable and accessible to even the most remote.
In other words, I don’t think there is any one area society should focus it’s efforts. I think as citizens, we should focus on creating a cultural imperative to hold our governments accountable to the global issue of climate change. By doing so, perhaps governments can ensure the policy changes necessary to rapidly develop cleaner energy systems. This can buy us time to develop greater technological advances, efficiencies and designs that can shape our energy future.