The reliability of these data, given the sample size and number of countries is not strong. Perhaps the trends can be explained generationally. Older generations may have rued the loss of social structures after the War and seen the increased wealth as insufficient compensation for this loss. Perhaps younger generations growing up in the 1970s and 1980s are better adjusted to modern social structures and are more content with their lifestyles, enabling them to enjoy the benefits of greater wealth?
ExxonMobil’s primary role—and most important benefit to society—is to safely provide reliable and affordable supplies of energy to people around the world. Doing this well is essential to improving standards of living, and we are committed to doing so in a financially, environmentally, and socially responsible manner. [p3]
Economic expansion is a desire for billions of people around the world, and providing the energy necessary for growth is imperative. [p13]
The foundation of this statement is the assumption that increasing living standards is fundamentally and unarguably desirable. My question is whether there is a point where diminishing marginal returns to increasing living standards will set in. If so, the basis for their core role of providing affordable energy and thus increasing living standards is undermined. Indeed, whether providing affordable energy is even increasing living standards is equally questionable given the damage from most energy production.
Define Living Standards
To clear things up, we need to know what living standards actually means and in particular, what Exxon-Mobil mean when they use it in such a statement.
The simplest measure of living standards is GDP per person. A more complex and useful measure uses something like the Human Development Index which includes wealth but also includes longevity and education. Further measures can include political freedom, wider health measures and even happiness measures. Clearly these become less objective as the elements are less well defined and/or harder to measure.
So the counter to my diminishing returns to living standards argument is that if living standards are defined with a wider measure and effectively analogous with happiness, we cannot possibly argue that more happiness can make us worse off. However, it is not difficult to argue that more wealth can make us worse off (in terms of happiness) - it is not the countries with the highest GDP per person that top the UN HDI.
An idea that has been emerging to me over the last month or so is that of a zero-growth society. This launches the global paradigm shifts series - I have a few more up my sleeve!
The Concept
We have assumed that economic growth is an essential component to a successful society and increasing living standards. But in a society where people are more and more focused on seeking happiness over simply wealth, surely we are reaching a stage where we can begin to accept stable living standards that don't increase every year but are simply enough and so stay the same year on year. I'm not pretending to specify a full picture and the complications are vast but I find the concept somewhat compelling.
With much of the world bemoaning rising prices and much of the complaint being about the price of fuel, this is bad news indeed. But for the environment, surely, it's the best news. Certainly for those of us who avoid driving it means much less or does it?
Better or Worse?
Bus travel is not particularly cheap in this country. I pay £3.60 for a single 45 minute journey to Oxford! The issue is demand - the buses are full perhaps twice a day. Most of the rest of the day they have perhaps 5 paying customers per trip. The high prices are required to pay for a regular service which not many people use. Higher oil prices should push more people onto buses and reduce prices. Although, of course, the cost of running the service will increase too!
I wrote last week about the positive steps being taken by the Marine Stewardship Council to ensure sustainable fishing practices. Today I saw this article reporting on a study clearly linking declining fish stocks to algal blooms (so-called 'toxic tides'). For me this situation drives home three things about sustainability.
Impact
Issues of sustainability lead through to real impact on people. We may talk about a single marine ecosystem, but in reality there are no isolated ecosystems. While it is tempting to do so, it is always erroneous to disconnect activity from the impact it will have on us.
I have to admit to a fascination with the current US election campaigns. As the world's largest economy, we all have a stake in what happens on the 4th November 2008. Sadly, news this week has put further weight behind my personal fear that economic difficulties will shunt environmental issues to the sidelines.
"Clinton pushes gas tax holiday"
Widely reported this week (here) is the curious concept of a tax holiday. I cannot help but observe that in the UK a gallon of petrol is fast approaching £5 - that's $10. In the US the average seems to be around $3.50! This really proves my point, incomes in Europe and the US aren't too different, yet we Europeans cope with higher petrol prices. How? It is clear to me that in the US they are stuck in a vicious circle. They have got away with having huge, inefficient cars for decades, but now the cost of that inefficiency is beginning to be felt where it hurts.
In less than 20 years, the Grand Banks - a marine region off the coast of Canada - went from one of the richest fishing grounds in the world to a marine wasteland as overfishing destroyed the natural abundance (more).
Fishing is certainly one of the starkest examples of humanity's extraordinary proficiency at extracting what it wants from its habitat. Where no vested interest exists to hold us back, we simply know no limits.
Marine Stewardship Council
I have recently heard about the MSC who are working towards reversing the trend and following the now quite familiar route of certifying products through regular audit and stringent standards. It is somewhat inspiring to see that the very same characteristic that allows us to overfish - an ability to take control of and affect our situation - will allow us to solve the problem we created.
Another week, another cringing episode of the Apprentice and another slightly pointless task for the devotees. This week, they were asked to create a greetings card and a reason to send it. It is hard to express quite how tragic this episode became as the pit became ever deeper and wider.
The Hypocrite and the Ignoramus
I don't know who was worse. The team leader - Kevin - seemed only to love himself more than his sports car. He told one of the buyers that if they didn't buy the cards, they would somehow be ostracised as environmental enemies. Meanwhile the ginger one who came up with the idea told Clinton cards confidently that she actually buys fewer cards herself because of her concern for the environment but that was a reason to buy this card?! They even managed to re-invent Earth Day as "Love your Planet Day".
I'm making a point of staying out of non-environmental issues on this blog. But when the collision is so close, I can't help but comment. This morning I heard about a knock-on effect of the closure of power stations in the Gaza strip.
Untreated Sewage
The reporter spoke from a beach next to an outlet pipe from a sewage plant. Under normal conditions, the plant would treat the sewage before ejecting it - whether this is acceptable is another question! The reporter made a point of highlighting the look - a grey discolouration in the water - and the smell - overpowering and evident. Further unfortunate and telling evidence of our priorities as a race.
On this evidence, it seems we still cannot rise above our differences and tackle the collective threat. I still believe, though, that the environment can be a unifying issue. It is still one of the few areas where the global incentive is the same, whatever country you belong to.
Over the last week, I've been adding a large new shop to griinu Compare - this means around 2000 new products! A particular minefield is the plethora of cosmetic and health products. Ingredients are the greatest concern at this point. But we also want to consider place of manufacture, method of manufacture, working conditions, packaging and social contribution.
What are they really using?
Trust is a big issue in the modern world and a trusted brand name brings a lot of weight. Even so, a product described as organic may contain a few organic ingredients but not 100%. Equally, a product described as natural could contain, well almost anything! To enhance trust, we try to use certifications as a measure. But does that limit the scope of the products available too much? Certainly the number of manufacturers with certifications is low compared to the number selling organic or naturally 'branded' products.
Register For Extra FeaturesRegistering gives you access to extra features, offers and promotions, newsletters and interactive elements of the site!
Free LightbulbWe are giving away energy saving lightbulbs when you register! We even pay for the postage!
Subscribe to The Green GingerThe Green Ginger blog gives you a regular taste of unreserved opinion and different ideas on all things green and environmental!
Become a Fan on FacebookIf you're a member of Facebook, you can get to know us better and find out the latest about us on Facebook!
Add or View Comments
