Equity in an age of scarcity

Press, 7 April 1982, Page 20

Equity in an age of scarcity

By Lester Brown, of the Worldwatch Institute Washington. Faced with a reduction in oil supplies, people in some countries are trying to .determine exactly what constitutes a luxury as opposed to an essential. In the midst of a public debate on petrol tax policy, for example, the newspaper, “Frankfurter Rundschau,” recently said in an editorial: “If the future is somehow to be secure from an energy point of view, driving to the bakery to get rolls must be universally viewed as a luxury.'.’ The writer argued that repealing the vehicle tax and boosting the petrol tax would ensure that the person who drove to the bakery would pay a premium for that indulgence. Public debate on issues of this sort, will be heard repeatedly throughout the .world in the years ahead. Over the last decade or so the production of many essential commodities such as timber, seafood, beef, oil, and now possibly grain, has fallen behind population growth. If some of us consume more, others must necessarily consume less. Although this has occurred locally in the past, our generation is the first that must come to grips with global scarcities, since throughout most of our lifetime the over-all production of virtu-, ally all main commodities

always expanded faster than population. As long as national economies were growing steadily, the affluent and powerful could always rationalise that because the economic pie was expanding, everyone would eventually get more. But as the growth in the production of material goods and services slows, or even levels off and declines, the distribution issue must be viewed against a new backdrop. With the economic pie no longer expanding, it becomes' more difficult to dodge the question of how the pie is being distributed. Our efforts to create a sustainable society raise the need to distinguish between basic needs and luxuries. For someone who has a single crust of bread, a second crust of bread is of immeasurable value. Indeed, it may represent the difference between surviving and starving to death. For someone with a loaf of bread an additional crust of bread is of marginal value. In fact, if that person is overweight the additional crust may be detrimental to health. With the changes in store in the global economic prospect, pressure to formulate economic and social policies with basic human needs in mind will no doubt increase. Formulating acceptable policies in' this context is far more complex and politically

difficult than it was under the old “growth” approachwith its underlying theory that a rising tide raised all ships. An economist, Herman Daly, perceptively observes that turning our focus to meeting basic human needs will “make fewer demands on our environmental resources, but much greater demands on our moral resources.” , As well as wrestling with the issue of equity among ourselves, we are also faced with the issue of intergenerational equity. In many ways this is more difficult to deal with because the generations yet to come are not represented in the bargaining over resources. All too many people today have adopted consumption patterns that reflect little concern for future generations. To para- . phrase a United Nations report, we have not inherited the Earth from our fathers;' we are borrowing it from our children. The chance that our generation will consume so much, of the Earth’s resource base that little will be left to sustain our grandchildren is' a matter of growing concern .in scientific and other communities. A National Academy of Sciences study on energy reports that “we are exhausting fossil fuels, ruining soil fertility, unbalancing ecosystems, and distorting human values and institu-

tions m the greatest energyspending spree of all times, at the expense of future generations.” This theme is also taken up by two system analysts, Jorgen Randers and Donella Meadows, who say that, “Western man’s personal and social values evolved in the context of an apparently infinite world where obtaining more of everything today was not inconsistent with having more tomorrow as well. Thus, his ethical system is poorly suited for guiding him in a period when shortterm gains often entail longterm sacrifices and vice versa.” Obviously the same holds true for non-West-erners who have embraced the materialist creed. Some people, like the editorial writer in Frankfurt, have begun to consider the welfare of future generations in daily decision-making. At the same time that concern with the exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves has led to efforts to conserve energy in many industrial societies, ’ China is beginning to consider intergenerational equity in population and childbearing policy. Government documents and public discussions emphasise that ' whereas parents traditionally have had children to ensure their own security in old age, from now on having too many children will undermine the quality of life for

future generations. By projecting man-land ratios over the next generation, Chinese leaders help prospective parents understand the implications of their childbearing decisions for their children and grandchildren. The production of radioactive wastes also poses a serious threat to intergenerational equity. To our children and theirs, for many years to come, the carcinogenic byproducts of our seemingly insatiable appetite for energy will be an economic burden and a threat to health. Whatever the special problems of successive generations turn out to be, they will be in addition to this dark legacy. These issues of intergenerational equity are far more complex than those faced by any preceding generation. People in the past have, in some situations, deprived succeeding generations of forests or soils, but none had our potential to do so on a global scale. Our generation is the.first that can inadvertently alter global climate or create a radioactive wasteland that will affect generations to come. As we work to lay the foundation for a sustainable society, these basic social justice questions — of equity between people today as well as between this and future generations — may be the most difficult issues that we face.