CEE Jul-Sep-2012

There is plentiful evidence that the present model of demand-based distribution of natural resources is hugely regressive. A 1992 paper titled Population, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity: A framework for estimating population sizes and lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations by Gretchen C. Daily and Paul R. Ehrlich states: 'dividing the rich and poor nations at a per-capita gross national product of $4000 (1990 dollars), each inhabitant of the former does roughly 7.5 times more damage to earth's life-support systems than does and inhabitant of the latter.' The authors point to the lopsided distribution of electricity, "In 1990 1.2 billion rich people were using an average of 7.5 kilowatts per person, for a total energy use of 9.0 terawatts. In contrast, 4.1 billion poor people were using 1KW per person , and 4.1 TW in aggregate." One-third of the human population was consuming three times the electricity of the remaining population. 'A Citizens' Guide to Energy Subsidies in India' by International Institute for Sustainable Development quotes a study by TERI to the effect that nearly 40 per cent of the LPG subsidy is enjoyed by the wealthiest 6.75 per cent of the population . Studies reviewed by the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank found that the bottom 40% of the population ranked by income distribution receives 15% -20% of the fuel subsidies globally. Conclusion is that the present distribution pattern of natural resources is heavily loaded in favour of the rich. The claim by the rich pre-empts the available supply and deprives the poor of their small requirements. The HOI does not increase much because increase in consumption beyond a level does not lead to improvement in the HOI of the rich : on the other hand, deprivation of consumption to the poor, who are at the low levels, lead to a low HOI. In another paper, Ehrlich says the impact of any population can be expressed as a product of three characteristics the population's size, it affluence or per-capita consumption, and the environmental damage inflicted by the technologies used to supply each unit of consumption . The impact can brought down by reducing the size of population, reducing the per-capita consumption, or by using environment-friendly technologies of production. The environment-friendly technologies are typically more expensive. That leads to higher cost of production and thereby lower level of consumption. The two solutions of reducing per-capita consumption and using environment-friendly technologies, therefore, coalesce into one that of reduced consumption by the rich . Control of population is a long term solution. The short-term solution has necessarily be driven by a reduction in consumption by the rich. There is increasing awareness about this problem in global forums. The Preliminary Draft of the report of ECCAP project, 2009 on Energy Equity and Human Security stated, "While making energy accessible and affordable to all to fulfill their basic needs, energy use for luxurious purposes can be reduced without infringing basic human rights. Thus, the ethical demands to meet concerns of equity can also mean restrictions for those who make excessive use of energy, those who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change are often not those who have contributed to global warming the most. Poor and marginalized, as well as future generations have to endure the consequences of the actions of wealthy in the present and the past". The Washington-based World Resources Institute says in a paper Equity, Poverty, and the Environment, "Too often, public policies favour affluent people and regions, enriching a few powerful political and economic elites while passing disproportionately large social and environmental costs on to poor and disenfranchised populations. Poverty reduction especially for the poorest can be greatly enhanced through policies that promote fair distribution of natural resource benefits. In high-inequity, high-poverty countries, equitable access and fair distribution can be more effective than economic growth alone in reducing poverty." The underlying philosophical question is equality of what? Do we establish equality in the right to consume electricity or equality in the right to welfare? Amartya Sen helps us analyze the problem. He says that, when we accept equality in one variable, we necessarily accept inequality in all others. Equality in wealth would imply inequality in income, opportunity, liberty, rights, basic needs, and primary goods; equal incomes can go with significant differences in wealth. Equal wealth can coexit with very unequal happiness. Equal happiness goes with widely divergent fulfillment of needs. Equal fulfillment of needs can be associated with very different freedoms of choice. The equality in right to consume electricity, therefore, necessarily leads to inequality in welfare. Time has come for us to reali ze that unending increases in consumption of electricity by the rich unsustainable, both from the ecological and social standpoint. Increased generation will lead to ecosystem stress; while inequality in consumption 23