Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Learning from China...Just to think and rethink about our "developed" style of life...

Why the Western Economic Model Will not Work for the World...?
Could the American dream in China become a nightmare for the world?
For Chinas 1.3 billion people, the American dream is fast becoming the Chinese dream. Already millions of Chinese are living like Americans—eating more meat, driving cars, traveling abroad, and otherwise spending their fast-rising incomes much as Americans do. Although these U.S.-style consumers are only a small fraction of the population, Chinas claims on the earths resources are already becoming highly visible.
In an Eco-Economy Update released in February, we pointed out that China has replaced the United States as the worlds leading consumer of most basic commodities, like grain, coal, and steel. Now the question is, What if consumption per person of these resources in China one day reaches the current U.S. level? And, closely related, how long will it take for Chinas annual income per person of $5,300 to reach the 2004 U.S. figure of $38,000?
During the 26 years since the far-reaching economic reforms of 1978, Chinas economy has been growing at a breakneck pace of 9.5 percent a year. If it were now to grow at 8 percent per year, doubling every nine years, income per person in 2031 for Chinas projected population of 1.45 billion would reach $38,000. (At a more conservative 6 percent annual growth rate, the economy would double every 12 years, overtaking the current U.S. income per person in 2040.)
For this exercise we will assume an 8 percent annual economic growth rate. If the Chinese consume resources in 2031 as voraciously as Americans do now, grain consumption per person there would climb from 291 kilograms today to the 935 kilograms needed to sustain a U.S.-style diet rich in meat, milk, and eggs. In 2031China would consume 1,352 million tons of grain, far above the 382 million tons used in 2004. This is equal to two thirds of the entire 2004 world grain harvest of just over 2 billion tons. (See data.)
Given the limited potential for further raising the productivity of the worlds existing cropland, producing an additional 1 billion tons of grain for consumption in China would require converting a large part of Brazils remaining rainforests to grain production. This assumes, of course, that once they are cleared these soils could sustain crop production.
To reach the U.S. 2004 meat intake of 125 kilograms per person, Chinas meat consumption would rise from the current 64 million tons to 181 million tons in 2031, or roughly four fifths of current world meat production of 239 million tons.
With energy, the numbers are even more startling. If the Chinese use oil at the same rate as Americans now do, by 2031 China would need 99 million barrels of oil a day. The world currently produces 79 million barrels per day and may never produce much more than that.
Similarly with coal. If Chinas coal burning were to reach the current U.S. level of nearly 2 tons per person, the country would use 2.8 billion tons annually—more than the current world production of 2.5 billion tons. Apart from the unbreathable air that such coal burning would create, carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning in China alone would rival those of the entire world today. Climate change could spiral out of control, undermining food security and inundating coastal cities.
If steel consumption per person in China were to climb to the U.S. level, it would mean that Chinas aggregate steel use would jump from 258 million tons today to 511 million tons, more than the current consumption of the entire Western industrialized world.
Or consider the use of paper, another hallmark of modernization. If Chinas meager annual consumption of 27 kilograms of paper per person were to rise in 2031 to the current U.S. level of 210 kilograms, China would need 303 million tons of paper, roughly double the current world production of 157 million tons. There go the worlds forests.
And what about cars? If automobile ownership in China were to reach the U.S. level of 0.77 cars per person (three cars for every four people), China would have a fleet of 1.1 billion cars in 2031—well beyond the current world fleet of 795 million. The paving of land for roads, highways, and parking lots for such a fleet would approach the area now planted to rice in China. The competition between automobile owners and farmers for productive cropland would be intense.
The point of this exercise of projections is not to blame China for consuming so much, but rather to learn what happens when a large segment of humanity moves quickly up the global economic ladder. What we learn is that the economic model that evolved in the West—the fossil-fuel-based, auto-centered, throwaway economy—will not work for China simply because there are not enough resources.
If it does not work for China, it will not work for India, which has an economy growing at 7 percent per year and a population projected to surpass China’s in 2030. Nor will it work for the other 3 billion people in the developing world who also want to consume like Americans. Perhaps most important, in an increasingly integrated global economy where all countries are competing for the same dwindling resources it will not continue to work for the 1.2 billion who currently live in the affluent industrial societies either.
The sooner we recognize that our existing economic model cannot sustain economic progress, the better it will be for the entire world. The claims on the earth by the existing model at current consumption levels are such that we are fast depleting the energy and mineral resources on which our modern industrial economy depends. We are also consuming beyond the sustainable yield of the earth’s natural systems. As we overcut, overplow, overpump, overgraze, and overfish, we are consuming not only the interest from our natural endowment, we are devouring the endowment itself. In ecology, as in economics, this leads to bankruptcy.
China is teaching us that we need a new economic model, one that is based not on fossil fuels but that instead harnesses renewable sources of energy, including wind power, hydropower, geothermal energy, solar cells, solar thermal power plants, and biofuels. In the search for new energy, wind meteorologists will replace petroleum geologists. Energy architects will be centrally involved in the design of buildings.
In the new economy, the transport system will be designed to maximize mobility rather than automobile use. This new economy comprehensively reuses and recycles materials of all kinds. The goal in designing industrial processes and products is zero emissions and zero waste. Plan A, business as usual, is no longer a viable option. We need to turn quickly to Plan B before the geopolitics of oil, grain, and raw material scarcity lead to political conflict and disruption of the social order on which economic progress depends.
Convinced?? Of course, that this is just a "projection" but it sure makes sense..so lets meditate to uplift Human Conscience and Consciousness!...

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Did you Know?...

Many of the worlds poorest countries are locked in a tragic vicious circle where poverty causes conflict and conflict causes poverty. Eighty percent of the worlds 20 poorest countries have suffered a major war in the past 15 years. On average, countries coming out of war face a 44 percent chance of relapsing in the first five years of peace. Even with rapid progress after peace, it can take a generation or more just to return to pre-war living standards. Jose Parreira Http://archive.aiesec.ws/joseparreira.aiesec.ws/

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Millstone or Milestone? What rich countries must do in Paris to make aid work for poor people...

At the start of March, international development ministers from the worlds richest countries will gather round the table in Paris to identify the actions needed to make aid work for one billion people living in extreme poverty.
Two years ago in Rome, these same countries made a series of commitments to reform the aid system, and transform it into an effective instrument of change. But instead of celebrating progress, they will be confronted by the results of two years of inaction.
This is a sorry tale of muddle and hypocrisy, dithering and stalling, with the worlds poor cast unwittingly in the role of fall guy.
4 examples: Less than half of aid gets spent in the poorest countries, and only 10% gets spent on basic services that are critical to achieving the Millennium Development Goals; 40% of aid continues to be tied to overpriced goods and services from the donors; own countries 80 official agencies are responsible for 35,000 aid transactions a year that are imposing a massive administrative burden on some of the poorest countries.
Aid conditions continue to impose donor blueprints, such as trade liberalisation and privatisation of essential services, with often devastating results for poor people
The lack of progress since Rome raises fundamental questions about the commitment of rich countries to the 2015 Millennium Development Goals. Without aid reform, these goals will not be met, and the ambitions of major donor countries to use 2005 as a turning point in international development will be jeopardised.
Yet the script can read differently. In Paris, the donor agencies have the opportunity to make the OECD-DAC High Level Forum a milestone in international efforts to eradicate poverty, rather than a millstone for the world??s poor.
To make aid an instrument of deep and lasting change, donors must agree to do some simple things to improve its efficiency and accountability.
First and foremost, they need to spend aid where it is needed, on poverty reduction, rather than channel it to their own consultancy and infrastructure industries, and geopolitical allies. Cutting the red tape and intrusive conditions that accompany aid, using countries?? own systems and procedures, delivering what??s promised on time, and practising what is preached about transparency would together transform the impact of aid on poverty. The need for these changes is well understood. So far, it is political commitment rather than analysis that has been in short supply.
To deliver these changes, ActionAid and Oxfam are urging the donors agencies gathered in Paris to act on the following three key recommendations:
1. Make Aid accountable Adopt ambitious targets for improving aid quality Hold an annual international meeting of donors and recipients to review these targets Create an independent UN commission on aid effectiveness
2. Make Aid Effective Untie all aid, including food aid and technical assistance Use countries?? own systems and systems to build capacity End intrusive policy conditions
3. Reform the Aid Architecture Allocate aid according to poverty reduction criteria Cut transaction costs by harmonising procedures Identify structural reforms to aid The public response around the world to the Indian Ocean Tsunami demonstrated that people care, and believe aid can make a positive difference to poor countries?? development prospects.
However, the Tsunami response has also cast a spotlight on the effectiveness of that aid, and raised critical questions about whether it is benefiting poor people on the ground.
At Paris and through 2005, this will be the test against which rich countries?? development commitments are measured, not least by poor people themselves.
If the international development goals are going to become a reality, donor half measures and excuses need to stop, and action needs to begin.
See the complete Report in: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/ what_we_do/issues/debt_aid/downloads/aid_millstone.pdf