The Equations of Environment Security
19 Jul, 2001 · 525
Col PK Gautam explains the E = PAT equation where E = environmental degradation, P = population, A = affluence, and T = type of technology
Environment security is closely related to availability of natural resources. Resources are either non-renewable like minerals and hydrocarbons or renewable like forests, water, and agricultural produce. The last 300 years have seen exponential population growth and industrial revolution with massive expenditure of resources and improvements in lifestyle. A developed country consumes more resources, both renewable and non-renewable. The highly developed G-7 countries representing 15% of world population of 700 million people are soon to be joined by the G-77 developing group of countries in heavy consumption. Each developing country has aspirations for better economic and social targets. This leads to resource scarcity and conflict, which may become violent.
India
should ever take to industrialisation after the manner of the west… if an entire nation of 30 crores (India’s population in 1928) took to similar exploitation, it would stripe the world-like locusts.” Nobel laureate Paul Enrlich, had expressed the same thought in his famous E = PAT equation where E = environmental degradation, P = population, A = affluence, and T = type of technology used. Today we hear the complaint by the developing countries that the developed countries are only 20% of the world population but consume 80% of the resources. Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde in introducing the new discipline o environmental security have drawn on the equation to show that one billion westerners are enough to tilt the system; around four billion in low income countries would do the same. Edward Wilson of Harvard University has calculated that ecological footprint or the average amount of productive land and sea appropriated by each person for food, water, housing, energy, transport, commerce and waste absorption is 1hectare in the developing World but 10 hectares in the USA by this he means that four more planets like earth may be needed to support the lifestyle of each earth citizen as enjoyed by the US. In another study, if
India
and
China
were to consume oil at current
US
levels, the known reserves of
Saudi Arabia
would be exhausted within three decades. Similarly, were China and India to consume grain fed protein (poultry, beef, farmed fish etc) at current US levels, the world grain harvest would have to be five times higher.
India
and
China
make than one third of mankind may not be able to change over to western efficiencies. The process would be incremental and slow contingent on financial availability.
The capacity of the earth to satisfy human needs is not unlimited. Few generations ago it was erroneously presumed that the earth with its hand land and oceanic resources may be able to support any economic growth. Mahatma Gandhi as an economist said that “God forbid that
The implications of “P” and “A” of the E=PAT equation then are worrisome. Even doubling of population at “current trends” or “business as usual” may require quadrupling of agriculture, sextupling of energy, and eight fold increase in economy if varied and nutritional diet, industrial products, and regular jobs are to be within easy reach of the projected world population which may grow from present six to ten billion. This 2-4-6-8-scenario shows the shape of things to come.
Finally, optimists feel the “T” or Technology of the E=PAT equation may come to the rescue. In developed countries energy efficiency has increased in most of the mechanical devices and industrial processes. The energy intensity for a unit production had dropped due to better equipment, technology and management practices. But from the world level this is not enough.
The equation demands that we should take all possible incentives and measures to control our population. Analysis of Indian states like Kerala show that with literacy and education population growth gets controlled. In affluence, we need to structure our foreign policy with scientific and historic evidence to show that the industrial countries have consumed polluted the resources and environment the most. We may like to leap frog to get the most efficient technologies through Global Environmental Facility and similar mechanism. At the same time we may like to check the “demand” side of the future consumer pattern of rising middle class. Chronic inequality to focus on the poor and be more sensitive to them. With our vegetarian diets and simple life styles we should be able to manage the affluence. Presently strategies of rapid economic growth may clash with environmental problems. Local problems dealing with primary needs of food, shelter, jobs and sanitation will be more important than global ones. Planners need to be aware of it and should be able to weigh the pros and cons in short and long term in a transparent manner. Finally, technologies need innovation and creativity. Our scientists have a challenge ahead of them. They need to deliver us technologies that rescue in material and energy. Industrial ecology with “do more with less” combined with restrict, recycle and reuse are the new mantras
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
