Which Country Will Achieve True Sustainability First?

[edpell]

Which country of the world will be the first to reach sustainability?

By this I mean is able to provide its energy from local sources for at least the next 500 years and is able to provide its food from local sources for at least the next 500 years and can provide its industrial inputs from local sources for at least the next 500 years. The use of outer space resources is allowed in this definition but seems more long term.

 

[rootX]

None?

 

[russ_watters]

There will never be any such thing unless/until there is one world government.

 

[rootX]

There will never be any such thing unless/until there is one world government.

Which will never come true ...

 

[edpell]

I do not see why a world government has anything to do with it. If the most advantaged place on Earth can not do it adding in the less advantaged spots will not help.

I wonder if Cuba is already there?

 

[OmCheeto]

Which country of the world will be the first to reach sustainability?

By this I mean is able to provide its energy from local sources for at least the next 500 years and is able to provide its food from local sources for at least the next 500 years and can provide its industrial inputs from local sources for at least the next 500 years. The use of outer space resources is allowed in this definition but seems more long term.

I would say that it would be a nation where the citizens have a lot of spare time on their hands, no cable, and no twittering.

Reducing ones carbon footprint takes much longer than expected when one has to go to work every day, and is interrupted with trivialities on a seemingly constant basis.

I'm going to guess https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tx.html". 60% unemployment, censored media, and 70 godzillion cubic feet of natural gas sitting on their shoreline.

I would go with https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html", with an unemployment rate of 95%, but it just seems to be a mess right now. Man. Can you imagine a place were almost no one has a job?

 

[edpell]

Can you imagine a place were almost no one has a job?

Yes I can.

It depends on two things the population density and the amount of technology and capital that is invested to produce goods and services. So basically four combinations

1) low density, low investment/tech good life looks like 30,000 BCE
2) low density, high investment/tech great life looks like paradise
3) high density, low investment/tech wretched life looks like parts of Haiti
4) high density, high investment/tech salary slavery looks like modern day US much of population unable to reproduce

 

[marcus]

Which country of the world will be the first to reach sustainability?

By this I mean is able to provide its energy from local sources for at least the next 500 years and is able to provide its food from local sources for at least the next 500 years and can provide its industrial inputs from local sources for at least the next 500 years. The use of outer space resources is allowed in this definition but seems more long term.

It is hard to determine what a country is *able* to do.
In an optimistic scenario where many countries reach approximate sustainability, countries would still trade.

So they would not, in practice, be obtaining all food and raw materials from local sources.

There might conceivably be a "club" or "trade block" of sustainable countries (just as there are now clubs of developed nations) and they might preferentially trade among themselves---then one could see more definitely which national economies are operating on a collectively sustainable basis.

But I don't see why, in an optimistic scenario, there would be barriers to trade forcing every economy to run exclusively on local resources.

I was thinking what a better definition might be. How about saying a country's economy is sustainable if they generate all their energy sustainably AND their exports and imports consist completely of sustainably produced/harvested goods AND whatever internal agriculture and manufacturing is done on a sustainable basis.

So then you could imagine a country like Norway that has a lot of hydropower resources (does it?) and a lot of forest and a lot of fish. Suppose it is harvesting timber and fish sustainably. Then it might achieve a sustainable economy even if importing some non-local but sustainably produced vegetables---by for example exporting lumber.

 

[edpell]

Trade and specialization are fine. Let's amend the question to which nation or group of nations will be the first to be sustainable?

 

[edpell]

If it is a group of nations I would explicitly add all the nation must have a net zero trade surplus/deficit. That is if one member is going deeper and deeper into debt that is not sustainable in the long run. A point Keynes made at Brenton Woods and that no one paid attention to.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes I can.

It depends on two things the population density and the amount of technology and capital that is invested to produce goods and services. So basically four combinations

1) low density, low investment/tech good life looks like 30,000 BCE
2) low density, high investment/tech great life looks like paradise
3) high density, low investment/tech wretched life looks like parts of Haiti
4) high density, high investment/tech salary slavery looks like modern day US much of population unable to reproduce

If I've said it once, I've said it before: India.

An acquaintance once described how India was able to sustain such a large population. It made total sense to me: Low tech, low energy. I told him it could be the model for the world. He of course laughed.

I have become quite accustomed to living in one of the least densely populated, moderately comfortable areas on the planet. But if we were to bump our density up to that of India, in a sustainable manner, 90% of us would have to starve to death first. So I'd say, population density is a factor, but not an overly important one, compared to the agricultural capacity of the area.

Your question about sustainability is a good one. It involves everyone, and everything.

But I got fed up with the lip service a few years back.

Hence, my foray into the realms of zcf.

Lead by example.

ps. when in doubt, over punctuate. I'm sure we Americans are all quite capable of reproducing ad absurdum. If that is what you mean.

 

[Evo]

If I've said it once, I've said it before: India.

An acquaintance once described how India was able to sustain such a large population. It made total sense to me: Low tech, low energy. I told him it could be the model for the world. He of course laughed.

India has 1/3rd of the world population of people living below the International poverty line of $1.25 a day.

Poverty estimates

The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (42% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). This means that a third of the global poor now reside in India. However, this also represents a significant decline in poverty from 60 percent in 1981 to 42 percent in 2005, although the rupee has decreased in value since then, while the official standard of 538/356 rupees per month has remained the same.[5][6] Income inequality in India (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 1999- 2000)[7] is increasing. On the other hand, the Planning Commission of India uses its own criteria and has estimated that 27.5% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005, down from 51.3% in 1977–1978, and 36% in 1993-1994[1]. The source for this was the 61st round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) and the criterion used was monthly per capita consumption expenditure below Rs. 356.35 for rural areas and Rs. 538.60 for urban areas. 75% of the poor are in rural areas, most of them are daily wagers, self-employed householders and landless labourers.

Although Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas.[3] Between 1999 and 2008, the annualized growth rates for Gujarat (8.8%), Haryana (8.7%), or Delhi (7.4%) were much higher than for Bihar (5.1%), Uttar Pradesh (4.4%), or Madhya Pradesh (3.5%).[8] Poverty rates in rural Orissa (43%) and rural Bihar (41%) are among the world's most extreme.[9]


The India State Hunger Index 2008 by the International Food Policy Research Institute. Punjab has the best nutritional situation, whereas malnutrition in Madhya Pradesh is worse than in Ethiopia or Sudan.India has a higher rate of malnutrition among children under the age of three (46% in year 2007) than any other country in the world.[3][10]

Despite significant economic progress, 1/4 of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of 12 rupees per day (approximately USD $0.25). Official figures estimate that 27.5%[11] of Indians lived below the national poverty line in 2004-2005.[12] A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees (approximately USD $0.50 nominal; $2 PPP) per day.[13]

As per the 2001 census, 35.5% of Indian households availed of banking services, 35.1% owned a radio or transistor, 31.6% a television, 9.1% a phone, 43.7% a bicycle, 11.7% a scooter, motorcycle or a moped, and 2.5% a car, jeep or van; 34.5% of the households had none of these assets. [14] According to Department of Telecommunications of India the phone density has reached 33.23% by Dec 2008 and has an annual growth of 40%. [15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

 

[OmCheeto]

India has 1/3rd of the world population of people living below the International poverty line of $1.25 a day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

That is probably why my acquaintance laughed at my statement.

But I was most impressed that a nation with over 1/6 of the worlds population can sustain itself in an area 1/3 the size of the US. That's the equivalent of 76,000,000 people living in the state of Kansas. And India is able to keep most of them alive.

Perhaps we should add to the equation of sustainability: And provide a comfortable environment were one does not have to worry about starving to death tomorrow.

Wait! What's this I've just googled?

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?663772"

Hmm... That's 1,200 per year out of 1,100,000,000.

Compare that to wiki knowledge:

On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates)

So the starvation score is:

1 : 1,000,000 for India
vs.
1 : 170 for the rest of the world.​

This is why I like India's model. It's one thing to be poor, but it sure beats being dead.


My continued use of India as a model should not be construed as an indicator of how I would want live, nor see my fellow humans live, but as an indicator of the carrying capacity of a region to keep people alive.

 

[MotoH]

Romania.

Why?

Because soon enough all the gypsies will have left to the western European countries because they accept them with open arms (I am looking at you GB.) and then Romania will just be the hardcore Romanians (about 12 people currently) and they will live long and prosper.

 

[rootX]

India has 1/3rd of the world population of people living below the International poverty line of $1.25 a day.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

It does not rely much on exports currently.

 

[Evo]

Wait! What's this I've just googled?

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?663772"

Hmm... That's 1,200 per year out of 1,100,000,000.

I'm sure most of the deaths from starvation are in Africa were a lot of the problem is political, on top of the fact that they live in a area that can't sustain them to begin with.

India has improved greatly, but they can't provide adequately for their population. Near starvation and no medical help are not situations to be envied.

 

[russ_watters]

I do not see why a world government has anything to do with it. If the most advantaged place on Earth can not do it adding in the less advantaged spots will not help.

It has nothing to do with "advantaged" or "less advantaged". No country, no matter how "advantaged" is ever going to be self-sufficient. The economies of the countries of the world are far too intertwined for total self sufficiency to be possible, much less desirable.

 

[Proton Soup]

Which country of the world will be the first to reach sustainability?

By this I mean is able to provide its energy from local sources for at least the next 500 years and is able to provide its food from local sources for at least the next 500 years and can provide its industrial inputs from local sources for at least the next 500 years. The use of outer space resources is allowed in this definition but seems more long term.

the US could do it now, but it's more profitable to import

 

[edpell]

the US could do it now, but it's more profitable to import

The US could be energy independent now?

 

[MotoH]

The US could be energy independent now?

The Soylent Corporation has taken care of the food and fuel shortages.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The Soylent Corporation has taken care of the food and fuel shortages.

At 1000 Calories per pound, that's just 3 months per person.

 

[Al68]

Which country of the world will be the first to reach sustainability?

By this I mean is able to provide its energy from local sources for at least the next 500 years and is able to provide its food from local sources for at least the next 500 years and can provide its industrial inputs from local sources for at least the next 500 years. The use of outer space resources is allowed in this definition but seems more long term.

Many nations, including the U.S., are "able" to do this now, but don't due to government regulation. The U.S. has, for practical purposes, an unlimited supply of Uranium for power production, and can easily grow enough food using only a small fraction of its land resources.

Both are currently limited by government, not nature.

 

[Proton Soup]

The US could be energy independent now?

we have a huge amount of coal, in addition to the uranium mentioned. we would likely have to retool our transportation system and get by with less, but we could certainly survive on our own.

 

[hamster143]

But I was most impressed that a nation with over 1/6 of the worlds population can sustain itself in an area 1/3 the size of the US. That's the equivalent of 76,000,000 people living in the state of Kansas. And India is able to keep most of them alive.

If you're impressed by India, you should be impressed by the United States. The U.S. grows enough corn to feed one billion people (with a "b"), on less than 5% of its area. Strangely enough, Americans don't even like corn all that much, so most of it is used as cattle feed or converted into bio-ethanol, and about a quarter is exported.

Of course, the reason is that the U.S. is an advanced country with tractors and agronomists, and Indians haven't completely gotten out of the Iron Age.

 

[hamster143]

Many nations, including the U.S., are "able" to do this now, but don't due to government regulation. The U.S. has, for practical purposes, an unlimited supply of Uranium for power production, and can easily grow enough food using only a small fraction of its land resources.

Both are currently limited by government, not nature.

They are limited by neither government nor nature, but by free market forces. There's no real need for new nuclear power plants or new farms, because existing plants and farms produce enough cheap energy and food, and there are many third-world countries with vast reserves of cheap fossil fuels they have no need for. Government could _force_ the country to be "sustainable", but right now the market does not see the need to be such.

 

[hamster143]

Trade and specialization are fine. Let's amend the question to which nation or group of nations will be the first to be sustainable?

There's no reason to be sustainable if you can be unsustainable.

It's always going to be cheaper to have an economy that mixes solar and coal energy, than to be 100% solar, as long as there's still coal laying around.

The only way any country or a group of countries can become truly sustainable is through extensive government intervention with an explicit objective to "cut emissions" and "save non-renewable resources".

 

[rootX]

There's no reason to be sustainable if you can be unsustainable.

It's always going to be cheaper to have an economy that mixes solar and coal energy, than to be 100% solar, as long as there's still coal laying around.

I would say something like ...
There's no reason to be sustainable if you cannot justify the sustainable growth.

The only way any country or a group of countries can become truly sustainable is through extensive government intervention with an explicit objective to "cut emissions" and "save non-renewable resources".

I hope green people don't read this

 

[edpell]

There's no reason to be sustainable if you can be unsustainable.

It's always going to be cheaper to have an economy that mixes solar and coal energy, than to be 100% solar, as long as there's still coal laying around.

I agree people will take the path of least resistance. Doing work now because it will be easier than doing the work later will not motivate. We will just have to wait until the coal, oil are gone and then build a new system (without having the advantage of cheap energy to do so). Oh well.

 

[mgb_phys]

the US could do it now, but it's more profitable to import

Canada has a better chance, lots of oil, gas, water, uranium, coal.
Pretty much all metals you want, lots of forests and more wheat than you can fly over.
It's also (unlike the US) self sufficient in TV comedians.

Main problem is coffee It has all the ingredients for donuts but needs to import double-doubles.

 

[hamster143]

I agree people will take the path of least resistance. Doing work now because it will be easier than doing the work later will not motivate. We will just have to wait until the coal, oil are gone and then build a new system (without having the advantage of cheap energy to do so). Oh well.

Coal and oil are not going to disappear overnight. Should we forego such an abundant and cheap source of energy, and force "sustainability" onto ourselves, by switching to expensive energy sources (solar and wind), and by switching from convenient gasoline vehicles ($10,000, 300 mile range, 5 minute recharge) to inconvenient and expensive electric vehicles ($30,000, 60-80 mile range, 1+ hour recharge), simply because we're afraid that we might eventually run out of oil? (Or to save polar bears?)

Is there reason to think that our government is better able to predict future supply of coal and oil than the market?