Picture via Greenpeace/The Price of Oil.
I think one thing it would be helpful to keep in mind is… to get to you, they come through us first. Whether it is laws building up to something like the Patriot Act, or undermining the holy grail of abortion rights, there are usually many steps taken that initially primarily affect poorer people and people of color, but which are eventually felt in some way by the overall population.–Nanette, in the comments to this thread.
This doesn’t just apply to discrimination and Draconian legislation. It also applies to human-influenced natural disasters and climate change. The poorest of the population are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. They are already paying the price. They feel the effects first, then we will.
They are paying the price in India and Bangladesh, with 31 miles of the Sundarban Islands washed out to sea, and 600 families displaced.
Shyamal Mandal lives at the edge of ruin.
In front of his small mud house lies the wreckage of what was once his village on this fragile delta island near the Bay of Bengal. Half of it has sunk into the river.
Only a handful of families still hang on so close to the water, and those that do are surrounded by reminders of inexorable destruction: an abandoned half-broken canoe, a coconut palm teetering on a cliff, the gouged-out remnants of a family’s fish pond.
All that stands between Mr. Mandal’s home and the water is a rudimentary mud embankment, and there is no telling, he confessed, when it, too, may fall away. “What will happen next, we don’t know,� he said, summing up his only certainty.
The sinking of Ghoramara can be attributed to a confluence of disasters, natural and human, not least the rising sea. The rivers that pour down from the Himalayas and empty into the bay have swelled and shifted in recent decades, placing this and the rest of the delicate islands known as the Sundarbans in the mouth of daily danger.
Certainly nature would have forced these islands to shift size and shape, drowning some, giving rise to others. But there is little doubt, scientists say, that human-induced climate change has made them particularly vulnerable.
Low-lying island nations like Tuvalu are disappearing.
Most news on global warming is datelined from places like Washington DC, London, and Tokyo, but if you want to see the frontlines in the battle against climate change, head 400 miles north from Fiji and land on the eroding beaches of Tuvalu. This tiny atoll, just one generation removed from British colonialism, faces the very real likelihood that the rising tide of global climate change will render it uninhabitable before the next generation is grown.
“When you talk about climate change in the Pacific, people often talk about natural disasters, like cyclones and droughts, but for countries like Tuvalu the reality is sea level rise,” explains Angenette Heffernan with Greenpeace Pacific. “The countries of the Pacific are the canaries in the coal mine,” and in Tuvalu at least, the canaries are drowning.
These islands are far away from us, and so who cares, right? The people will relocate, they’ll have to, hey, life isn’t fair, right? Besides, if there are no definitive answers as to what exactly will happen, we shouldn’t worry and we shouldn’t pay any attention to recent climate trends. Oh, no.
Except it’s not just some islands. It’s Asia, and Africa, and Europe, and North America and South America. The poor will really feel the effects first–poor nations don’t have the resources to keep the sea at bay. They don’t have the resources to rebuild after severe storms. They don’t have the resources to buy food when their crops fail. They don’t have the resources to provide relief from the horrific heat during another deadly heat wave.
Industries will be affected–crops are not going to do well. Timber production will plummet since trees, thanks to inhospitable climate conditions or new invasive species, will die off. Water supplies from glacier runoff, reservoirs, and rivers will dry up. Storm surges will damage cities. And people will have to migrate, within their own country’s borders or to other countries.
Granted, the biggest carbon contributors–the wealthiest nations, are more likely to have the resources to shield themselves from the immediate effects of climate change. It won’t be easy, but it won’t be quite as dire for me as it is for someone trying to grow taro on Tuvalu, or someone who’s fleeing the encroaching sea in Bangladesh.
Yes, I know. I’m being one of those activist types who’s all doom! and gloom! and who refuses to see the bright side of climate change. Like the fact that by the time I’m ready for retirement, I’ll probably have oceanfront property.
Well, here’s the thing–we’ve got a Democrat-controlled congress. Kyoto hasn’t been ratified, even though the facts are indisputable now. There is no debate about the existence of climate change. Not within the scientific community. The only “debate” there is takes place between politicians and big business.
I think it’s high time we started twisting some arms, and getting Congress to ratify Kyoto. The US contributes the vast majority of greenhouse gases; considering our relatively low population, that’s screwed up. It’s time we took responsibility and made some sacrifices.
It is not okay that other people will suffer first, that we aren’t getting it because we’ve got a buffer of money to temporarily shield us from this.
So contact your Representatives. Contact your Senators. Tell them that Kyoto must be ratified.
37 Responses to “Canaries in a coal mine”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Thank you for this post — I think Pacific islands tend to get forgotten a lot in political discussions, and a lot of islands are still dealing with changes to their economies imposed by colonialism (and then thrown into upheaval again as colonial powers are trying to pull out from territories that are no longer strategically relevant).
I think however you may have mislabelled your picture. The gentleman in the picture is Pita Meanke, of Betio, in Kiribati, not Shyamal Mandal.
Thanks Sheelzebub hon, for bringing this up … we seriously need MORE global warming posts … much more.
Being from New Zealand, despite being a ‘1st world’ country, we are feeling the effects (islands tend to experience this stuff first). We are seeing more intense storms, trains of icebergs breaking off Antarctica and coming up our way (when we hadn’t seen anything like even 1 of the things in 70 years or so), our glacier and perma-snow fed hydro-power and drinking water lakes are bottoming out, coastal erosion is increasing, prolonged droughts in areas not prone to such previously, not to mention having a virtually non-existant ozone-layer above us, etc, etc, etc …
I wish I could contact my Representative/Senator/etc, but being a foreigner with no voting-rights in this country, I can’t, because they’re really not going to listen to me … but I do encourage strongly the others here that can to listen to Sheelzebub … this issue is bigger than any one country …
As I pack up for a conference for which I have organized a symposium on climate change and health, I have to say “great post”.
I think we scientists and health people should start naming various odious climate-change based phenomena after those very politicians who have done their level best to obstruct efforts to reign in the climate beast. Instead of referring to cities being innundated by storm surges as “Like New Orleans”, we should instead refer to them as having been bushwatered
The more local, the better. China is shitting in it’s own bed, climate-wise, as their own extreme pollution is screwing their own weather. I’m sure there are lots of phenomenon and bureaucrats to go around there.
We can and should push our governments to respond more swiftly to climate change, but I think it’s already too late to stave off the worst effects. By 2035, there will be 8.5 billion of us on this speck of dust, too many of which will be denied their rightful portions of potable water and secure food.
China and India have watched for centuries as Western nations strip the bounty of this world, and these giants will not be stopped in their own efforts to industrialize through reliance on fossil fuels.
They’ll argue that the West, having had its own turn at advancement, is merely trying to deny growth to its developing neighbors.
This is one situation in which the poor have an upper hand over those of us borne to privilege. They have a long and well-documented history of survival under the harshest of conditions. We do not.
They will prevail, some of them, against the worst assaults of nature. We’ll learn to adapt by following their examples.
The only option we have is whether we’ll remain civilized in the face of extreme hardship or not. Most people will choose not to remain civilized, and so will become barbaric in their desire to maintain the illusion that nothing has changed.
Those who do remain civilized, welcoming others and slowly expanding their capacities for survival through sharing innovative technology – they will be persecuted by the mob, but they will outlive the mob.
I’m with Sarah in Chicago.
Do something about climate change here http://stepitup2007.org/
Thanks for the post.
And in the US, we only hear about tornadoes when they demolish something other than a trailer park…
More posts like this, please.
It is undeniable that climate change is occurring.
It is implausible that it is not anthropogenic.
The question is, what can be done about it. Have we already reached the tipping point? Fundamental changes to our society would be needed to significantly reduce our carbon output. If everyone driving an SUV today switched to a hybrid, it would have an insignificant impact on our total pollution. Railroads need to be reinvigorated, our pattern of habitation needs to drastically change. Heating, cooling and powering our homes and businesses needs to be re-thought and abandoned in many cases.
Even if we are successful with these changes, it is not evident that nations like China and India will follow suit.
There is a limited supply of fossil fuel on this planet. It is uncertain if climate catastrophe or the end of the oil age will hit us first. If oil and coal run out, the question of fossil fuel consumption becomes largely moot, but we would still be faced with issues involving energy consumption and production.
Where does that leave us? We need a real plan for how to proceed if we can’t control warming. How do we adapt? What specific issues will we face? What are our priorities?
I think conservation and preparing for the future are important. I think that it is equally important that we not allow society to collapse the way Devil’s Advocate and so many others think that it will. History shows that peaceful, resourceful, tolerant communities do not fare well when civilization collapses. When authority breaks down, ruthlessness and physical power wins the day. With anarchy, civil rights and all sort of progressive drives disappears.
Drastic changes are needed now when we can control them. If we continue to focus on you car’s gas mileage, and not the fundamentals of how our lives our lived, we are fighting the wrong fight.
I could be wrong, but i don’t think the Senate currently has the authority to ratify Kyoto, because the president has not officially submitted the treaty for ratification. It could just be a ceremonial thing, but i don’t think it is…
The poor will undoubtedly be the most affected by global warming. As the glaciers melt, the beaches will be submerged and the oceanfront property will be underwater!
That’s why the beachfront properties are where the poor people live. Land and housing along the beaches is cheap, so the poor live there! This is why the hurricanes and the storm surges and global warming will adversely affect them so disasterously!
Imagine all those of Hispanic origin that are forced to live in beachfront properties because they can’t afford anywhere else. That’s why there are so many living in Florida instead of the safe states like Idaho or Colorado where the mountains provide a defense against rising sealevels. Their little shanties will be under water in just a few decades. They will be left with nothing. Not even their beachfront palm huts! And it is the rich people driving SUVs that did this. With their mountaintop mansions, they don’t care about all the poor people on the beachfront estates!
Shocking!
/sarcasm
Yes. Ratifying Kyoto would solve the problem of global warming!
The fact that 4 bil of the 6 bil people on Earth live in India and China which has ratified Kyoto, but the accords do not require them to live by the restrictions the other 2 bil people have to live by has got nothing to do with global warming! I mean, how much can the two fastest growing and most populous nations on earth add to global warming?
Brazil is doing its part, though. It is cutting doen teh rainforests so that they can produce ethonol for their growing economy which is moving away from fossil based fuels! Burning and clear cutting rainforest doesn’t produce greenhouse gases (I am sure that is true, itsn’t it???? Must be!). Yes, by abiding by Kyoto, the US, the largest economy (OK, third largest. Unless you count the European Union, then it is fourth largest) is the one responsible, and we all know that! (Just ask Gore or Kerry)
Yes. Kyoto is the solution. Ratify it and we can all rest easy! The poor can live on the beachfronts and no longer be afraid of rising sealevels or hurricanes!
/sarcasm
I’m glad you’re writing about this, but there’s no point in ratifying Kyoto, anyway. The reductions outlined in Kyoto will have little to no effect, especially considering that almost all the nations that did ratify have increased their emissions since 1990, rather than cut back. Environmental scientists were complaining that Kyoto was too little, too late at its inception, and the complaints are even louder today. Bill McKibben (whose website/idea is suggested by Nothip) thinks we need to cut emissions 80% by 2050. I think it’s a great goal, but as I look around me, I wonder: who is willing to cut his or her consumption enough to meet this goal? We can have arguments about whether it’s ok to buy from Wal-Mart, but the fact is that EVERY NEW THING you buy is contributing to this problem, no matter where you buy it from. I just don’t see the personal will needed to actually make the necessary cuts. What we need is huge lifestyle changes, like Dwight points out.
One example is people thinking they’ll just go out and buy a hybrid. It sounds like a good idea- you’re publicly showing off your environmentalism and you get a new car, to boot. But when you take into account the cost of producing a new car, the difference between buying a hybrid and buying a Hummer is negligible (in fact, I’ve heard that because of the smaller production line, and the location of factories, that over its lifetime, a hybrid is worse than a Hummer. I don’t have a cite, but it seems plausible). What we need is to revamp our whole way of thinking, and it has to be done on a grander scale, which also means that politicians are going to have to start doing unpopular things.
I’m trying not to be negative, really, but I don’t have a lot of hope. Partly, it’s because of exactly the situation Sheelzebub brings up: we’re not going to be suffering, not really, until long after the poor, brown people have felt the effects. And by then it’ll be too late. You know, Indians and other people have been paying the price for our consumption for many many years (colonialism, anyone?). Most of us don’t care until it directly affects us.
Ok, laughingloudly, what do you think all those factories in China, running on fossil fuels, are producing? Where do you think those burgers, fattened on Brazil’s land, go to? Who is using all the ethanol produced by cutting down the mangrove forests in Asia? Sorry, but it’s you, driving to McDonalds to get the newest HappyMeal. Until China’s per capita consumption level is equal to yours, you should probably be thinking about what YOU are doing.
Do you understand at all that most of the poorer countries in the world are also the most southern, and that where land is scarce, people are densely populating coastal areas? The whole world is not Miami Beach. Even if you can’t think beyond the US, have you missed all the discussion about the problems in New Orleans tied to class and race? The only shocking thing here is your ignorance.
[…] spocko wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhether it is laws building up to something like the Patriot Act, or undermining the holy grail of abortion rights, there are usually many steps taken that initially primarily affect poorer people and people of color, but which are … […]
Shorter Laughingloudly:
“I got mine, so s***w you!”
Drastic changes are needed now when we can control them. If we continue to focus on you car’s gas mileage, and not the fundamentals of how our lives our lived, we are fighting the wrong fight.
It’s too late for picking and choosing. We have to do everything. Triage makes some sense if the big fixes and the little fixes are equally attainable, but when the alternatives are small technofixes and widespread social restructuring, triage means no progress. If an action makes a difference it’s worth doing.
Chris, my thinking is that small changes like hybrid cars and energy-efficient light bulbs are so insignificant that they will have no effect before the end of cheap oil, which will impose major changes whether we like it or not.
Many of our climatologists believe we have already passed the point of no return. If they’re correct, we’re wasting time and energy fighting a losing battle. I don’t know if we’ve passed that point or not - but we need to prepare for the possibility that it has.
laughingloudly: Beachfront property is exactly the same everywhere: big houses with white people in them!11! What little island cultures ? What exactly is this poor person you speak of ??1!! Brown people broke the world and they can fix it!!!11!
/stupidity
India’s population is about 1.1 billion, according to the US government, and China’s population is 1.3 billion. Asia as a whole currently contains over half the world’s people.
Africa contains a fifth of humanity, while everywhere else – Europe, North and South America, Australia and misc. – accounts for the other fourth.
In 1998, 20% of the world’s population – mostly us – was responsible for 83% of global consumption (UN). And this, while poor nations got poorer.
Now China and India want their turn; and it will take a miracle to convince them of our honorable intentions when we say there are no more turns to be had – especially if we ourselves are sacrificing nothing in the face of catastrophe.
“We needn’t honor Kyoto unless those developing nations sacrifice yet again to maintain our standard of living. If they don’t move forward in their industrial development, we needn’t scale back much for at least another couple of generations.�
Maybe, just this once, we of the West can lead the world by example rather than by coercion.
/You’re an idiot.
You are correct that “Climate Change” disproportionately affects the poor, but not in the manner you describe. It is the proposed remedies which do the most damage.
Carbon taxes, whether on gas or coal, are passed on to the end consumer. The poor are the least able to absorb those costs.
The corn diverted for ethanol production could be used to feed millions of people. (Per a St. Louis Post Dispatch Op-Ed today, written by a professor at Washington University, filling up one gas tank with ethanol, uses enough grain to feed one person for an entire year. Converting all motor vehicles to bio fuels would decrease food production such that two billion of the poorest would go hungry.
Carbon Offsets/Cap and Trade are absolute zero sum. If I buy an offset to have back yard cook-out, someone must refrain. What this means is that the poorer nations cannot develope sufficiently to overcome their rampant poverty, if they sell their “excess” carbon credits to more developed nations.
One must question whether the “cure” is worse than the disease.
R.Sherman: Carbon taxes, whether on gas or coal, are passed on to the end consumer. The poor are the least able to absorb those costs.
Agreed, the poor can’t pay for that. But they’re also not the ones creating the problem (or at least the bulk of it.) I suggest the government find a way to lay the problems/pollutions of big business where it belongs, on big business.
Converting all motor vehicles to bio fuels would decrease food production such that two billion of the poorest would go hungry.
So let’s (well, maybe not you and me personally
how about governments, to start) change the economies of struggling nations. Right now many nations rely on cash crops for export- exporting millions of pounds of coffee and tobacco to the west while their own people starve. In this country, we’re paying subsidies for farmers not to farm.
If I buy an offset to have back yard cook-out, someone must refrain.
This is not exactly how carbon offsets work. Carbon offsets might be used to develop a solar power plant in another nation, or convert an existing factory to a more efficient and clean one; which creates jobs and energy for expansion and growth. Carbon offsets can be a fantastic solution for developing places.
Right, laughingloudly. Why, those folks in Tuvalu, in the Sundarban Islands, in Africa, in Latin America, in the Philippines, in Southeast Asia, well, they don’t exist.
Run along and play now. The grownups are talking.
Well, many people are skeptical about ethanol, and for good reason. Corn is considered to be a petroleum based crop, so AFAIK, it’s not helpful to regard ethanol as our salvation.
And I agree with orange–there are larger, more substantive things we can do besides tax the poor. For one thing, we can make large corporations that insist on pushing more and more products on us (often through planned obsolescence) accountable. If they want to make computers obsolete, they have to pay for the recycling. They have to pay for the environmental damage/depletion they cause in creating their products. They have to pay.
They get away without paying too often as it is.
Yeah, why is is cheaper to buy a new anything than have it repaired ? Why are there no replacement parts anymore for items I bought in 2004 ?
Whoever is doing this: tax them. Tax them hard.
Corn is a terrible crop — requires a lot of energy and water to produce — so ethanol, I’m afraid, is not the answer. However, whoever said that using corn to make ethanol will make people starve — do you honestly think it’s a production-limited system? We’re paying subsidies to famers to not grow as much as they can. All that corn, rest assured, sure isn’t making it to the people who need it — it’s going into pig feed and Coca-Cola.
I agree about the point of no return, Dwight. But it’s not a toggle-switch thing. We’ve changed the climate already, and the effects will get worse before they get better, and we have to prepare for it. But we can keep it from becoming even worse than that.
Incidentally, according to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, lighting accounts for 1,775 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, seven percent of the total, and a significantly higher proportion of the CO2 emitted by electrical generating facilities. We can easily cut the US’ lighting energy costs by two-thirds. LED bulbs are coming out that will increase those savings by almost an order of magnitude: think 2-watt bulbes that give out the same light as 40-watt incandescents. It’s not a fix, but it is mitigation, and the result divided by the effort pretty much means we’re nuts if we don’t take that route.
Framing, branding, and everything mentioned here in a nutshell: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=563792007
Auguste debunked the hybrid vs. Hummer thing in a post today (sorry, I was lazy; I should have looked it up before I posted), but I stand by my point that buying a new car, even a happy green car, is not the way to fix the problem.
I think that the sad fact of the matter is people are unwilling to change, especially if they think that changing means giving something up. Oh, they talk a good game about caring about their children’s future. But put their children’s future up against their present and guess which one wins. It ain’t the kids.
Given that, we’ll just have to see how humanity survives in the face of severe climate change and mass extinction (particularly that of teeny-weeny oceanic life).
I’ve long been a proponent of population reduction for just this reason (although, clearly, I came into existence much too late for that to be of any use). I suspect that in the coming centuries that the population will decrease. It’s a shame that it’ll be thousands of years, at least, before that smaller population can live in as comfortable a world as we have now.
None of the above means that I think we shouldn’t do anything. I’m all for CF bulbs - even more for LED now that they’re becoming available - fuel efficient automobiles, renewable energy, etc. Do what you can and what is right despite what everyone else is doing. There is always the possibility that it will catch on. I’m just becoming increasingly pessimistic about the chances of first world countries doing anything meaningful until it is far past too late.
Props to Jake Squid for bringing the conversation to a grinding halt by introducing the number one taboo subject in any environmental debate: human population reduction.
It’s the elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss, but it needs to be talked about. Specifically, because North Americans only comprise about fifteen percent of total global population, but consume about eighty percent of total global resources, it absolutely needs to start with us.
This is not to say that recycling and carpooling and conservation aren’t general social goods. It goes without saying that they are. But their impacts are negligible in the bigger picture. Whereas, when you consider that over the course of its lifetime, one American child consumes as many of the earth’s resources as 56 Chinese children, or 120 Indian children, or 256 Bangladeshi children, then it becomes painfully obvious that all the recycling one human being could do over a lifetime wouldn’t make as much of an impact as if that person decided to STOP BREEDING RIGHT NOW.
Um, Mezosub, the richest countries have the lowest birth rates by far. Most First World countries have had below-replacement birth rates for several decades. And we get along fine because there’s something called immigration. Those damn First Worlders breeding like bunnies is not actually a significant problem. And I say this as a childless person who is determined to remain that way. But I’m damned if I’m going to make my friends and family who have kids (and adore them) feel guilty because they’ve bred.
Slightly veering off-topic:
I don’t know about the majority of people, but I think the reason that so many people turn off when we talk about global warming and its effects and *don’t* contact their state reps is that we want to pretend it’s someone else’s problem, and we’re all scared about it *not* being SEP. We’d like to think that we’re infinite, with infinite resources, and that we’ll live forever, hell or high water. (Ha!) The fact that our actions could drastically decrease the lifespan of our species just by doing normal things like driving is boggling, and I think the Average Joe just wants to escape that.
This whole global warming issue scares me blind. I sometimes think, what if my children are the end? What if this book I’m reading won’t have anyone to read it after my generation? And the way I deal with that is to detach from the issue and not think about it. Not a smart idea, mind you, but I have to stop the worry somehow. Because it’s crippling. And I don’t get things done, and then nations go under. I just don’t know that I, with just worrying to death, am going to get anything substantial done. Which Kyoto passing would help, of course, and also the limitations on recycling and dumping by corporations, but I don’t know that people will get involved in what many want to be SEP or think it’s a lost cause.
(By the way, are there any websites that are very definite about global warming, its causes and effects? I’ve got a conservative friend who thinks that water is the worst greenhouse gas, or something, and that global warming isn’t happening. He also thinks the media is too liberal, if that’s any indication.)
Imus Fired…
Good. Finally, some consequences for spreading misogyny and racism on the radio. I hope this is just the beginning. Update: Link added. Update: Sorry, nobody gets to call me a nappy-headed ho and a racist bitch on a blog where……
What fpfl said about worrying to death vs. living. For those of us scraping by, and using less energy just because we can’t afford to turn on everything, and driving as little as possible though not in the most energy-efficient vehicle - because that would cost too much - but there’s no job within walking or bicycling distance that would pay the mortgage on the modest home - and what orange said about fixing vs new purchase… it’s a skewed system and what the hell can we little folk do?
I know that mindset is what forms the power base for corps / gov’t (is there much of a difference anymore?), but the question remains.
… what the hell can we little folk do?
That’s where the old, “think globally, act locally,” cliche comes in. Us little people can recycle, buy LED or CF bulbs, recycle, repair instead of purchase and so on. Maybe it won’t make a difference in the end, but it can’t hurt. We can also teach our children and friends to do the same. Lead by example and all that. None of us will do everything right, but the more of us who do a lot of things to cut down on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions, the better.
Those damn First Worlders breeding like bunnies is not actually a significant problem.
That’s pretty well established. But those damn First Worlders (USA, especially) not stepping up on family planning options and information for Third Worlders does, I think, pose a significant problem.
From my POV, the ever expanding human population is a problem from the perspective of space they take up (among other things), it’s not only the resources they use up. We just keep reducing and eliminating habitat for non-human life and that is not something we can do indefinitely if we want to survive as a species. Also, the amount of potable water available is a limit that we’ve ignored and is now starting to become a visible problem even in the First World.
Am I going to try to make friends and family feel guilty for breeding? No, but I’m not going to shower my approval on them either. Kinda the same way that I don’t try to make my friends and family feel guilty for eating meat. It goes to what I said about setting an example.
Also, Mezosub didn’t claim that First Worlders are breeding like bunnies. Mezosub said that population reduction needs to start w/ North Americans because of our incredible rate of consumption. I guess Mezosub is right about this being a taboo subject.
I’m totally with you on First Worlders needing to quit hamstringing global family planning efforts etc. And also with you on reduction in consumption. But I’d say reduction in per capita consumption among First Worlders is a far, far bigger priority than telling people not to have babies. Someone who has no children but drives their SUV the three blocks to the corner store to pick up milk is a much bigger problem than someone with three kids who uses a bicycle and public transit.
But I’d say reduction in per capita consumption among First Worlders is a far, far bigger priority than telling people not to have babies.
I’m uncertain about that - I just don’t know enough, so I’ll stick with both of those being high priorities. Realistically, only one of them is even remotely, possibly achievable in our lifetimes, so I tend to work more on consumption reduction. But population decrease is something that I’ll always pipe up on given the opportunity because, without enough folks saying something, it won’t be even remotely possible at any time. I guess that’s what I mean when I say that the little people can just do the best they can to address the problem and hope that enough little rain drops become the flood (to use bad, horrible, inappropriate imagery).
This has been on my mind a lot this past week as last Tuesday I attended the funeral of my close friend’s father who was killed in a tsunami in the Solomon Islands (I’m a New Zealander; he was visiting family and was our country’s sole fatality but there were many other Islanders who died). He leaves behind a large family, his mother also died and his brother’s in hospital; it’s just terrible.
It seems so absurd to be losing people across the world to freaking tsunamis. It always felt like the natural disaster that had died out when I was growing up, and I know that’s never been the case but it just seemed like you never heard about them until the huge one that destroyed Banda Aceh. It’s tragic to know that tsunamis are something that’ll be on the rise in the coming years. Certainly in the Pacific I’m sure we’ll see a lot of devastation (as Sarah’s noted upthread, with regards to the effect on island nations). The poorer countries certainly can’t afford to be hit by them, and their populations are going to suffer long after the actual impact as a result.