This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/24/voracious-consumption-x-rising-population-planetary-crisis
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| (Voracious consumption) x (rising population) = planetary crisis | (Voracious consumption) x (rising population) = planetary crisis |
| (2 months later) | |
| Blaming China for climate change is a clearcut case of “yellow peril” hysteria (Letters, 12 July). On average, a person in China consumes less than half of the emissions of a person in the US (7.2 tonnes per capita annually compared with 16.5 tonnes). So why all the finger-wagging at China? There’s a blatant mistake recurring in carbon politics. Yes, as a nation, China emits the most carbon dioxide, but an astronomical volume of these emissions are to manufacture our goods in the west. Is it fair to maintain a voracious level of consumption in the US and UK while blaming China for producing the goods that we’re consuming? Don’t look at emissions in isolation. Look at them in tandem with consumption, and then we’ll see where to place the burden of blame. Also, China’s investments in renewables have caused the costs to plummet, from which the entire world can now benefit. China invests more than $100bn in domestic renewables every year – more than twice the level of the US, and more than the US and the EU combined.Marcus NieldClimate Change Adaptation Unit, UN Environment, Nairobi, Kenya | Blaming China for climate change is a clearcut case of “yellow peril” hysteria (Letters, 12 July). On average, a person in China consumes less than half of the emissions of a person in the US (7.2 tonnes per capita annually compared with 16.5 tonnes). So why all the finger-wagging at China? There’s a blatant mistake recurring in carbon politics. Yes, as a nation, China emits the most carbon dioxide, but an astronomical volume of these emissions are to manufacture our goods in the west. Is it fair to maintain a voracious level of consumption in the US and UK while blaming China for producing the goods that we’re consuming? Don’t look at emissions in isolation. Look at them in tandem with consumption, and then we’ll see where to place the burden of blame. Also, China’s investments in renewables have caused the costs to plummet, from which the entire world can now benefit. China invests more than $100bn in domestic renewables every year – more than twice the level of the US, and more than the US and the EU combined.Marcus NieldClimate Change Adaptation Unit, UN Environment, Nairobi, Kenya |
| • Your article (23 July) accurately sums up the excellent work done by the Global Footprint Network regarding our depletion of the planet’s ability to support us. What, unlike GFN themselves, the article did not acknowledge is that the number of people consuming those resources is a critical, if not the critical, driver of the unfolding crisis. In 1970, our global population was less than half of the 7.6 billion we have presently. In 1970, Earth Overshoot Day fell on the 29 December: in 2018, on 1 August. Can anyone credibly claim that those two changes are not linked? | • Your article (23 July) accurately sums up the excellent work done by the Global Footprint Network regarding our depletion of the planet’s ability to support us. What, unlike GFN themselves, the article did not acknowledge is that the number of people consuming those resources is a critical, if not the critical, driver of the unfolding crisis. In 1970, our global population was less than half of the 7.6 billion we have presently. In 1970, Earth Overshoot Day fell on the 29 December: in 2018, on 1 August. Can anyone credibly claim that those two changes are not linked? |
| Population is a solvable problem – family planning, lifting people out of poverty, education, empowering women and challenging cultural norms opposing small family size are vital, positive mechanisms to bring our human footprint back in line with with what our only home can sustainably provide. Robin MaynardDirector, Population Matters | Population is a solvable problem – family planning, lifting people out of poverty, education, empowering women and challenging cultural norms opposing small family size are vital, positive mechanisms to bring our human footprint back in line with with what our only home can sustainably provide. Robin MaynardDirector, Population Matters |
| • Would you like to submit a photograph to be printed in the Guardian’s letters spread? If so, you can do so here | • Would you like to submit a photograph to be printed in the Guardian’s letters spread? If so, you can do so here |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Climate change | Climate change |
| Greenhouse gas emissions | Greenhouse gas emissions |
| China | China |
| Population | Population |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |