Paul, I'm pretty sure any measure of the per-capita environmental impact of Singapore or Hong Kong includes the land and other resources needed to feed, house, clothe, and employ the people in these cities, to import and export goods and move people around, to treat their drinking water and sewage, and so on.
I think your first major point is well taken, though. What is a "better quality of life"? I would definitely want more than 450 sq ft of living space, and I did not consider my quality of life to be high the last time I had so little space. And while I try to drive as little as I can, I'm happier to have the option and to have relatively uncongested roads between me and the grocery store, my relatives, my friends, and so on. Your second major point is also important. We can't have an economy that's sustainable in the very long term without giving up a lot of what we take for granted, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. I don't know just how much we'll have to give up. Positive population growth, certainly, a lot of our cars, and probably the conventional giant beige house on the 5-acre "ranchette" twenty miles away from work, but what if my ideal of a little bungalow on a fifth of an acre a short bus-ride from work is still too much, even if I "green" up the house and yard in every way imaginable? I just don't think you could convince me to give that up and live like your average resident of Hong Kong. How big an economy can we sustain? What kind of quality of life could a steady-state economy support, given our current population size and the amount of growth that's basically going to be inevitable? What would we have to give up, and can people actually be persuaded to live that much more modestly? For now, it seems to be a big enough challenge to do the easy stuff, like making cars more efficient or using cleaner sources of energy, and we haven't even started talking about real sacrifice. Jim Crants On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> wrote: > William Silvert wrote: > > > a stable population with a better quality of life does not > > necessarily mean more resources are needed. > > > some places have achieved high levels of economic > > growth without comparable resource consumption > > by taking advantage of good education and financial innovation, > > notably Hong Kong and Singapore. > > Bill, could you elaborate more specifically about what you > mean by a "better quality of life"? > > In Hong Kong the average size of a home is 450 square feet > (2500 square feet was the average size of a new home in > the USA in 2007 and 984 square feet was the average size > in 1950). So climbing into one's bed from the doorway is a > common occurrence for Hong Kongers. > http://www.tuition.com.hk/hong_kong.htm > > And in 1999, there were only 59 cars per 1000 people > in Hong Kong (vs 474 per 1000 in the USA) > http://tinyurl.com/np36aa > > Likewise in Singapore 90 percent of the population lives in > high-rise public housing and there are only 101 cars per > 1000 people: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=1908 > > Both Hong Kong and Singapore have little arable land and few > natural resources, so they must import most of their food plus > raw materials such as wood and petroleum. So it appears to > me the underlying reasons why the people of Hong Kong and > Singapore are achieving high levels of economic growth > without comparable resource consumption is because they: > > a) don't have to consume land to grow food crops > > b) don't have to consume forests to obtain their building materials > and paper products > > c) don't have to drill for oil or natural gas to obtain > the petroleum the country uses to manufacture the > products they export (e.g. electronics). > > d) are willing to live in extremely small homes and forsake the > routine use of automobiles. > > What bothers me about the push for a steady state economy > is that it's advocates claim no major lifestyle changes need to > be made. So all it really appears to accomplish is to slightly > slow down the the ongoing unsustainable rate of depletion > of land, air and water resources. Worse, I feel it distracts the > public in the USA, Canada, etc., from have to face the reality > that serious sacrifices (in terms of home size, auto size and > use, family size, etc.,) such as those the people of Hong Kong > and Singapore are already making would be necessary to > even start to come close to achieving a sustainable resource > consumption rate. > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
