Ethical Issues in Resource Use - Impacts on the Poor

by Bob Fuller

The impact of the high consumption lifestyle of the rich or over-developed countries on the environment is easy to see. The soil, air and water at many places on the planet are degraded - in some cases severely. Our children face an uncertain future because of our mishandling of their inheritance. But how does our lifestyle impact on the poor, particularly in the so-called "developing" countries?

The most immediate impact of our high consumption lifestyle is that it sets a standard that the rest of the world tries to follow. Our comfortable lifestyle is the envy and aspiration of most developing countries, and it is quite logical that their populations should want to live and consume as we do. It is difficult for us to argue for restraint from wasteful consumption when there is no large-scale evidence that the populations of the rich countries are rejecting unnecessary consumption or even putting limits on their consumption levels.

If there were such evidence, it would offer a more viable and realistic development goal for these countries to consider. We would also be in a much stronger position to argue for similar limits to consumption to be adopted by all countries, just as we argue for the adoption of other basic values like human rights.

But our high consumption levels do have other adverse and more immediate effects on the poor of the world. Like most populations in the rich countries, the ecological footprint of Australians on the planet is much bigger than it should be. It has been estimated [1] that each Australian requires about 6 hectares of productive land when in fact our global share is only 1.3 hectares. Using up productive land in developing countries makes up for much of the deficit. And guess whose land is taken? Why those who have the least means to defend themselves, namely the poor. It is the poor farmers' land that is usually turned over to grow many of the agricultural products we consume.

Energy is also a good indicator of our lifestyle levels. Energy is used in every sector of our society and is the driving force in manufacturing, transportation, agriculture and services. The huge difference in the use of global energy resources between the rich and the poor is a good example of inequity. The richest 20% of the world's population are responsible for 55% of the energy use. An alternative scenario that envisaged global equity and limits to our energy use gives a very different picture.

A 1987 study [2] found that if all the latest efficient energy technologies were made available to developing countries, then everyone in those countries could enjoy the lifestyle we had in the 1970s. However, per capita, they would consume about 20% of the energy we use in today's Australia. But what if we in the rich countries downsized our lifestyle back to the same level? Collectively, the 6 billion of us on the planet would use about half of the energy we use today. Such a saving would also be a big step towards the 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions needed to stabilise the rising carbon dioxide levels.

Some energy analysts [3] are already predicting that oil production will peak in the coming decade and that the era of cheap oil is now over. The rich countries have consumed most of the world's oil over the last 100 years. While the rich countries are able to afford higher oil prices and make the transition to more costly alternatives, the effect on the poor countries of the world is devastating. Large slices of their foreign exchange earnings will be used just to pay the oil bills. This occurred in the 1970s when OPEC pushed up the price to current levels.

The high consumption levels in the rich countries also encourage international companies to build and operate their factories in developing countries. Chasing the best financial returns, global capital is used to fund this kind of "development". Harsh and abusive management practices, low wages and poor conditions are typical, and women workers often bear the brunt of this exploitation [4]. Once again, it is the poor and those least capable of defending themselves that feel the real impact of our unsustainable levels of consumption.

Fuelling the consumption of the rich countries requires resources and capital. A more modest and sustainable lifestyle in rich countries would make some of these resources available to developing countries. Peter Singer [5] reminds us that "to live ethically is to think about things beyond one's own interests". A reduction in our consumption and an equitable sharing of resources is essential for an ethical world.

References

1. "Too Big for Our Boots" by Petroeschevsky and Simpson, Chain Reaction, 81, Summer 1999/2000, p. 15-16.

2. "Energy for a Sustainable World" by Goldemberg, Johansson, Reddy and Williams, World Resources Institute, 1987.

3. "Dry Future" by Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 10^th July 1999, page 49.

4. "Women workers still exploited" by Peter Hancock, Inside Indonesia, No 62, April-June 2000, pages 21-22.

5. "How are we to live - Ethics in an age of self interest" by Peter Singer, Mandarin Books, 1995.