“We’re richer, and richer, and richer, and yet, no happier.”

shows that, over time, persistent increases in gas prices are changing driving behaviour. It just takes a while for people to realize that higher prices are permanent (or at least long-term), and for them to make the lifestyle choices that allow for lower consumption.

Here's a recent, very instructive article on the issue from Fred Meyerson, Assistant Professor of Demography, Ecology, and Environmental Policy at the University of Rhode Island:

"Rising carbon emissions call for a population policy

Human population continues to grow by more than 75 million people annually. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, global population and annual carbon dioxide emissions have both increased by about 70 percent. As a result, per capita emission rates remain steady at about 1.2 metric tons (mt) of carbon per person per year."

Read the rest...

John Feeney

http://growthmadness.org/

In order to minimise consumption, one should obtain in other ways the things that are nowadays achieved via consumption. The nation or culture with less consumption should not drop away from the international competition about the level of technology, economical wealth and military safety. So one should influence the ways of living toward healthier and more natural so that the understanding and work efficiency of the people in the culture would increase. One should also invest more to communication in order to retain the unique cultural heritage and a peaceful environment. Otherwise the culture might just be bypassed and those with consumption based culture would come to dominate culturally also there.

A healthy one works better than a broken one and really healthy is also happy. Applying this to the whole world one gets the result: it is the healthy world with happy ways of living which wins in competiton! So the future should be brighter.
www.paradisewins.net

With due respect, I'd like to make a couple of quick clarifications about some of Gary's comments about population.

Gary says, "[I]n many parts of the world population has stabilized or is falling." I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration. It's true if you're talking about fertility rates, but with regard to population growth itself, only a few countries (e.g., some in Eastern Europe) are seeing shrinking population, and they've generally not seen it for long enough for us to say much yet about what it may suggest for the future. By the way, many countries often cited as examples of population decline are, in fact, still growing. Italy is an example.

Gary says, "But . . . in no part of the world is consumption falling." It sounds like a dismissal of the role of population in determining resource use or environmental degradation. It seems an odd thing to be doing on the heels of Worldwatch's recent drive to raise money to publicize the population issue.

I'm not sure it's completely accurate, either, depending on what consumption Gary's referring to. Take Hungary, for example. It's population has fallen a bit in the last few years, as has it's oil consumption. But if he's talking about total resource consumption he may be right. But it may depend on what measure you're using. For instance, this looks like a downtrend in per capita consumption for Poland, another country which has seen a modest fall in population in recent years.

It must nevertheless be pointed out that any country whose population has fallen in recent years would be seeing considerably greater total resource consumption were that not the case.

It's a simple equation: Total resource consumption = per capita consumption x population size. And solid research has shown population to be very much as important a factor in ecological degradation as per person consumption. So sure, it's crucial to reduce per capita consumption. But it's every bit as crucial to address population. Per person consumption gets loads of attention these days. So come on Gary, why sound as though you're minimizing the importance of population at a time when it's been largely ignored for a couple of decades or so anyway? Wouldn't it be better to try to bring it some renewed attention?

John Feeney

http://growthmadness.org/