2019-11-05 s555555555 35215
原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯:s555555555 轉載請注明出處

It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.


Tilford cites a litany of sobering statistics showing just how profligate Americans have been in using and abusing natural resources. For example, between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17. “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.”


Overall, National Geographic’s Greendex found that American consumers rank last of 17 countries surveyed in regard to sustainable behavior. Furthermore, the study found that U.S. consumers are among the least likely to feel guilty about the impact they have on the environment, yet they are near to top of the list in believing that individual choices could make a difference.


Paradoxically, those with the lightest environmental footprint are also the most likely to feel both guilty and disempowered. “In what may be a major disconnect between perception and behavior, the study also shows that consumers who feel the guiltiest about their impact—those in China, India and Brazil—actually lead the pack in sustainable consumer choices,” says National Geographic’s Terry Garcia, who coordinates the annual Greendex study. “That’s despite Chinese and Indian consumers also being among the least confident that individual action can help the environment.”


On average, one American consumes as much energy as


o 2 Japanese 日本人的2倍
o 6 Mexicans 墨西哥人的6倍
o 13 Chinese 中國人的13倍
o 31 Indians 印度人的31倍
o 128 Bangladeshis 孟加拉人的128倍
o 307 Tanzanians 坦桑尼亞人的307倍
o 370 Ethiopians 埃塞俄比亞人的370倍

The average American individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world''''s population lives on 25 gallons.


How much energy does the average American consume? Well, if you list the countries of the world in order by their population , the U.S. comes in third... but the combined energy consumption of the other five largest added together doesn''''t match U.S. energy consumption! In other words, the 5% of the world''''s population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries.


Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she''''d have to have more than 20 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child. And an immigrant who moves to the U.S. is likely to consume far more energy just by moving here. Even if he scrimps and saves energy at home, every thing he buys will increase consumption of energy and other resources.

原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯:s555555555 轉載請注明出處

Yes exactly. Also while we have a huge energy resource footprint, developed nations also have infrastructure and a functioning educated society governed by laws, where we could begin forcing efficiency.
Many countries do not, and people only have a smaller footprint because they aren''''t able to get more resources by any means. I am pretty sure these stats are not very well thought out in any case. A couple small examples. What about dynamite fishing, or dumping toxins into the ground Those happen daily all over the planet where people are impoverished. That doesn''''t happen much at all in a developed nation. That kind of damage is not just inefficiency it''''s permanent destruction. That kind of thing isn''''t accounted for, there''''s just no comparison.


so instead of counting heads count ecological footprint. Great. We''''re still massively overpopulated.


The Western standard of living isn’t wrong; it’s the Western style of living that creates the problems. Nothing wrong with wanting enough food, good healthcare and a decent education. Plenty wrong with a disposable trash lifestyle which derives its wealth by robbing future generations.
Generally speaking as people’s standard of living increases, birth rates decline. This is a good thing. We should be having kids out of love, not as a retirement plan.


There''''s a difference between "we should all pollute less by doing xyz as suggested by the UN" and "America doesn''''t have to cut its emissions until those billions of Indians stop existing." The latter is seen all over reddit, even here, as well as in the mainstream media. And that is racist. Suggesting that an entire culture is responsible for a global crisis, and that oddly enough, the millions of Americans driving SUVS and eating beef three times a day is a drop in the bucket, is racist. And racism is the fundamental base for fascism, and since we''''re all worried about the rise of eco-fascism in its many forms, we should be trying to discredit this shit whenever we see it.

評論暫時關閉, 后進行查看
5分PK10-首页 极速快乐十分-首页 幸运快乐8-官网 快3复式投注-首页 越南时时彩-首页 大发二分彩-首页