Recognizing the herd of elephants in the living room of climate change discourse (original) (raw)

Climate Change and the Elephant in the Living Room (Part #15)

As noted above, it would appear that the most invisible elephant in climate change discourse is population and its continuing increase. The extent to which this elephant is ignored is detailed elsewhere (Institutionalized Shunning of Overpopulation Challenge: incommunicability of fundamentally inconvenient truth, 2008).

Of particular interest in relation to population is the manner in which ecological footprints are calculated, and their presentation as tools for personal footprint assessment on the web. The factors taken into consideration might be said to be well-crafted to avoid exposing people to the embarrassment of more pointed questions. Examples include:

technological dependencies: given the aspirations cultivated by the development process for access to a wide range of technologies (appliances, transport, information, etc), and the resource consequences from increased wealth, footprint calculations typically omit the implications of many such dependencies. This is significant when compared with the concerns cultivated by movements for voluntary simplicity and downsizing lifestyle needs. P. R. Ehrlich and J. P. Holdren (Impact of population growth, Science, 171, 1971, pp. 1212-1217) developed the formula:
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology (I=PAT)
to measure impact. Where: "Affluence" is a measure of "material throughput" or per capita consumption. "Technology" is the environmental impact per unit of energy used to produce material throughput.
family size: given the consequences for its ecological footprint of each new addition to a family, options relating to family size preferences in such calculations tend only to be treated in passing, if at all. Excessive reliance is typically placed on assumptions regarding reduction in average family size as a a consequence of development, notably irrespective of religious beliefs in this regard, even in the most developed countries (see, for example, Jim Davis, Human population and ecology, 2006). Curiously the debate on climate change excludes all consideration of the right to unconstrained procreation -- literally "come hell or high water" -- and the obligation for society to adjust to the consequences..
euthanasia: in a society increasingly concerned with the consequences of longevity, aging populations and sustainable provision of safety nets, no consideration is given to the kinds of factors associated with what might be termed "life planning" preferences, in contrast with the attention increasingly given to articulation of a "living will". The issue is potentially of great significance given the aspirations and expectations for prolonged lifetimes as a result of medical advances in the decades of the immediate future.
abortion: in relation to family size preferences, the highly controversial issue of abortion preferences is typically excluded from footprint calculations -- even though it is perceived by families, and notably women, as one means of controlling their need for resources.
over-eating: whilst care is taken to distinguish between the consequences of meat eating and a vegetarian diet, there is little attention to the volume of food consumed per capita -- even though the question of "food miles" may be considered in relation to food preferences. This is curious in a society which is otherwise extremely concerned with over-eating and diet and their implications for obesity, especially in the young. The issue of the disproportionate quantities consumed in "developed" countries, compared to those aspiring to that condition, is typically not considered. There is perhaps even a case for exploring the extent to which some effectively "embody" the elephant that they otherwise ignore.
flatulence: whereas this is a major factor in the official debate on carbon emissions in New Zealand (where 45 million sheep and 10 million cattle in New Zealand constitute some 90 percent of that country's methane emissions) and to a degree in the EU (EU quota likely for flatulent cows, BBC, 1 March 2000), no consideration of this factor is evident in relation to humans, especially if they switch to a more efficient vegetarian diet. Clearly the challenge is far greater in the case of ruminants -- or elephants (as noted above) -- but it is appropriate to ask how many humans are equivalent to one ruminant with respect to such emissions. Given that methane emission from ruminant livestock is currently estimated to be around 100 million tonnes of methane each year, namely the biggest man-made methane source (after rice agriculture), from a systemic perspective consideration can appropriately be given to the flatulence by domesticated animals per capita of dependent humans. Humans should take ownership of the faltulence for which theor copnsumption is responsible -- even though that faltulence has been "delegated" to another species. Given the degree of individual identification with vehicles, it is also systemically appropriate to extend the notion of flatulence to personal vehicle emissions (Stanley I. Hart and Alvin L. Spivak, The Elephant in the Bedroom -- Automobile Dependence and Denial: impacts on the economy and environment, 1993).

Of particular relevance in relation to ecological footprint calculations is the mindset engendered by the focus on the footprint as computed now (for the present). As a metaphor, "footprint" is typically associated with the visible past, not the hypothetical future. Little consideration is given to the implications of choices made now for any progressive increase in the calculated footprint over time -- notably over decades into the future. This is especially significant in the case of family size preferences since each addition to the family (for which the calculation is made) will gradually increase the family footprint over time as the consumption of resources by the child increases. Naturally, when the child reaches adulthood and engenders further children, the increase in the footprint (as calculated now) may be exponential into the future. Exposure to such information is naturally unwelcome.

It would appear that the focus is on achieving change in superficial patterns of consumption on the assumption that more fundamentally challenging factors can thereby be ignored. This is not to deny efforts by the Global Footprint Network to publicize the fact that, at the current rate humanity is using natural resources and producing waste, it will require the resources of two planets to meet demands by the mid-2030s (Living Planet Report, 2008).