In the build up to Copenhagen and global efforst to consolidate existing hegemonies and avoid sacrifice work towards a fair deal on avoiding climate change, how best to negotiate a fair solution on the issue is all over the news.

One elements of this has caught my eye, and it’s been articulated by Monbiot in the Guardian today. That is, lobbyists and others seem to be either reccomending population control or constraining the development of emerging economies as the solution.

Well, we certainly can’t have a global climate deal without China, India and the rest. But we do a great diservice to ourselves when we demonise the poor as the probllem, precisely because they may, one day, replicate our levels of consumption and really cause carbon emissions to skyrocket.

I was at a Fairtrade talk last year where a coffee farmer from Kenya was asked to justify the carbon footpring of flying his coffee beans in from kenya to the UK for roasting and sale.

He took a minute to calm down.

He then explained that on his farm, he shared one Landrover with three other farmers. His house consisted of two rooms, one with a light and one plug socket. He doesn’t really holiday. He doesn’t have a DVD player, Laptop, Hi Fi, Fridge, PC, Toaster, or Kettle. In short his carbon footprint is about 18 times less than that of the person asking the question; and you’re worrying about the FOOD MILES?

 As George says, population growth among those who consume the least is not the problem for carbon emissions; how much electricity does a street kid use, exactly? Population growth and poverty are massive and important problems, but you won’t get a way from the fact that us in the West will certainly have to make lifestyle changes before we can ‘preach’ to the developing world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich