From: Spike (spike66@comcast.net)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 23:14:47 MDT
Many of us have seen those lists of nations
rated by various criteria: freedom, peacefulness,
charitable giving per capita, etc. Many of the
categories are subjective, so the results are
actually a statement of the value system
of those who compile the ratings.
One of these lists recently posted had a category
which caught my attention: the consumption of
natural resources per capita. The west, and
particularly the U.S. generally does poorly,
greedy resource devourers that we are.
Perhaps a better way to evaluate this is to add a
category with positive points given for those
nations which create unnatural resources. For
instance, sand is a natural resource, but from
it is created computer chips, clearly an unnatural
resource. Iron ore is a natural resource, but
from it is created cars, bulldozers, road graders,
office towers, all manner of wonderfully unnatural
resources. Coal and oil are natural resources, but
when they are burned, a new substance is created, CO2,
which is a vital resource from the point of view
of plant life.
A ratio can be calculated: the amount of unnatural
resources created divided by the amount of natural
resources consumed. Calculate it per capita, total
as a nation, it really doesn't matter. If viewed
in this manner, it becomes clear that those nations
which consume the fewest resources per capita produce
*practically nothing* in valuable unnatural resources.
By this criterion, many if not most nations on this
planet score a big fat zero. Japan, on the other
hand, would likely end up on the top, followed closely
by the U.S., Sweden, Germany, Australia, England,
Canada.
What do you suppose the greens would say about
this view of life? How do you suppose the average
green would score in creation of unnatural resources?
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 23:32:58 MDT