So taxation, pricing, design innovations, marketing narratives etc. can all have a major influences but run into major "consumer resistance" if a major adjustment in consumer lifestyle is required. Yes people will accept major changes, especially over time, but that is where politics and education gets much harder. notes from no w here
Thus, a fully sustainable society will have to consume no more than it can grow and will have to recycle non-renewable raw materials. If controlled fusion could ever be made to work then we could exist at a slightly higher level of material wealth, but the need to recycle raw materials would still be an issue. So, a sustainable US society would be about 10-15% of its present size. At this level people would have about the same wealth as those in present Bulgaria. Obviously, a big change from McMansions, but not the end of civilization either. I'll leave to another day discussions of how to achieve this peacefully, what people would do in such a reduced economy and how social services would be financed.
So, a sustainable US society would be about 10-15% of its present size. At this level people would have about the same wealth as those in present Bulgaria. Obviously, a big change from McMansions, but not the end of civilization either.
I'll leave to another day discussions of how to achieve this peacefully, what people would do in such a reduced economy and how social services would be financed.
My figure of 40% above is based on the estimates I've seen that the global ecological footprint is about 2.5 Earths (this, from memory - might be a different number).
So, how "poor" is "sustainable". I claim it need not be poor at all, as long as it's a managed transition. If we get there by means of a war or some other disaster it will be a much poorer place than it needs to be. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
