The elephant in the room, we keep saying, is population. It is the biggest factor in every calculation of energy, climate, food, water, ecology, infrastructure, and your odds of hitting the Lotto.
Here is a simple diary to point the head toward one's consumptive patterns, give a look to the population debate and then make a moderately impossible proposal that nevertheless may insert a meme, a cultural packet. Namely, taxing the wasteful rich and rewarding those who live modestly and thoughtfully.
Since I happen to be low income and not own a car nor eat crappy food, nor have I produced offspring, my proposal is entirely self-interested. But have a look.
There's over-population
It took the human population thousands of years to reach 1 billion in 1804. However, it took only 123 years for us to double to 2 billion in 1927. The population hit 4 billion in 1974 (only 47 years), and if we continue at our current rate, the human population will reach 8 billion in 2028. Doubling from our present count of 6.6 billion to 13.2 billion will have a much greater impact than our last couple doublings combined.
energy consumption
The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total use, using 100 quadrillion BTU (105 exajoules, or 29000 TWh) in 2005, equivalent to an (average) consumption rate of 3.3 TW. The U.S. ranks seventh in energy consumption per-capita after Canada and a number of small countries. The majority of this energy is derived from fossil fuels: in 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. The remaining 14% was supplied by nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and miscellaneous renewable energy sources.
personal water consumption
The daily water average given at this site is 135 gallons.
Beef much?
To date, probably the most reliable and widely-accepted water estimate to produce a pound of beef is the figure of 2,500 gallons/pound. Newsweek once put it another way: "the water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a destroyer."
Calculate your annual CO2 tonnage
The US average per capita is 7.5 tons per year.
Another calculator will give a much different result, for me anyway (from 1/3 ton to 2.5 tons).
But the Freepers are having none of it.
Having fewer people can wreak havoc on an economy, creating both a labor shortage and a shortage of buyers. A government with a shrinking population faces a smaller military and fewer taxpayers. Dwindling populations have always signaled cultural decline, with less creativity, energy, and vitality on every level of society.
They think the global leveling of population is due to abortion, and that's bad, because we need more armies to kill more people, more shit to sell to people, and more people to buy the shit. And so it goes, because the
pro-population crowd doesn't know where the hell we are--on a spaceship that has limited resources-- in decline in every area, and warming up to make the next few centuries a hot, crowded joint with shitty food, no water to wash it down, and bad air. I could go on.
Fact is, population growth is slowing
Census Bureau projections show this slow-down in population growth continuing into the foreseeable future," stated the Bureau's brief on the findings. "Census Bureau projections suggest that the level of fertility in many countries will drop below replacement level before 2050... In 1990 the world's women, on average, were giving birth to 3.3 children over their lifetimes. By 2002 the average was 2.6." Of course, this value still ensures the continuing rapid growth of the human population as a whole, even if some regions may decline.
For us in the developed world with declining populations, here's the kicker:
Sometimes the term underpopulation is applied in the context of a specific economic system. It does not relate to carrying capacity, and is not a term in opposition to overpopulation, which deals with the total possible population that can be sustained by available food, water, sanitation and other infrastructure. "Underpopulation" is usually defined as a state in which a country's population has declined too much to support its current economic system. Thus the term has nothing to do with the biological aspects of carrying capacity, but is an artificial term employed to imply that the transfer payment schemes of some developed countries might fail once the population declines to a certain point. An example would be if retirees were supported through a social security system which does not invest savings, and then a large emigration movement occurred. In this case, the younger generation may not be able to support the older generation.
The younger generation needs to contribute taxes to float the olders one's retirements. And so the vicious cycle goes on. Who will hold up their hands to volunteer for less retirement? This point gets attention across the political spectrum.
Taxing the Rich as Cap and Trade
The rich usually have more stuff, use more energy, wander around in their yuppie castles, fly to Florence, have pizzas flown from Chicago to Santa Fe (seen that), and generally help to run the global thermostat higher. The poor consume less, (although their eating habits tend toward beef and crapola, and they tend to have more children), but if there was a humane calculus to evaluate one's carbon/water/fertility footprint and reward folks for living right, then incentives to live consciously would be concrete. Tongue half in cheek here, given political realities, but it's a way to start thinking of how good planetary behavior can and should be rewarded, with positive consequences for all.
Simply tax the heck out of the profligate rich (unless they're doing Good Work). Don't worry, when their ponzi schemes crash, they're well cushioned, and hey, should it all go to hell for them, then this cap and trade idea will guarantee their basic survival. I know, tax structures have tended toward this idea for decades, but here is a notion that we take care of the less consumptive (assuming their cooperation in lifestyle changes), not because we feel sorry for them, but because they aren't driving us toward planetary meltdown. Heroes.
Let's turn the American Dream frontier ethos BS on its ear, by rewarding the true conservatives.