There are approximately one billion people in the developed world, with the other 5.5 billion still living within far less modern and less environmentally taxing means. That is, those of us in the industrialized, advanced or "civilized" societies are using up the world's resources far quicker. From oil to water, to lumber to fish to rubber, metal, you name it - each of us living the modern lifestyle is buzzing through all of these resources at 32 times the rate of a person living in a undeveloped area.

As the world's largest nation and a population four times ours at 1.3 billion, the Chinese see the high-tech lifestyle and want it for themselves. Their demand for energy is expected to make quick gains on ours, creating explosive increases in the price of energy such as gasoline or home heating oil. Right behind China is India, with a population of about 1 billion, also expecting a place at the table, so they too can feast on consumption pie.

As just one indicator, India's cell phone industry grew at staggering rates in 2007, expected to exceed US subscriptions early in 2008 to become #2 behind China. Malaysia, Kenya, Mexico and the rest of the developing world are rapidly discovering this same communication superhighway, expected to greatly increase access to information. In fact, multibillionaire Bill Gates just took a back seat to the new "richest man in the world", Mexican cell phone tycoon Carlos Slim Helú.

How long can the West expect people in all these nations to tolerate this imbalance? Already experts believe the support of terrorism around the world is a product of increasing frustration with those that consume 32 times as much as they do.

With China's per capita consumption rates about 11 times below ours, their rise to our rates of consumption would mean the world would double it's current consumption of oil and metal. If India followed as well, consumption rates would triple.

Americans may feel China's growth is a problem, yet they are only mimicking us - adopting our "Westernized" culture. We have no right to tell them they are not entitled to this, yet this is what we do.

For example, recent efforts to unite the world's pollution standards failed when US leaders refused to cut Greenhouse gas emissions. At the G8 Summit earlier this year in Germany, 10,000 protesters overran barricades in outrage when Bush personally refused to cooperate with the new international standard.

China, originally poised to cooperate despite their incredibly surging growth backed out after Bush's filibuster. Australia, formerly the only other hold-out to the Kyoto Environmental Protocols among developed nations recently threw their Bush-friendly President out and immediately signed on to Kyoto, leaving the US alone as the biggest emitter unwilling to improve (although over 225 US cities including NY, LA and Chicago have voluntarily signed on anyway).

But whether Americans are ready to reduce consumption or not, whether we want to or not, whether we care about being perceived as the consumption "pigs" of the world or not, Americans will have to reduce consumption anyway. Simply put, present rates are unsustainable. China knows this, already producing greener cars then us and forging alliances that acknowledge their consumption.

Ironically, much American consumption is unnecessary - it is the product of corporate consumerism, sold to us through psychological manipulation or preoccupation with image. Entire office buildings burn their lights all night long because of the "architectural majesty" of the exterior aesthetic.

But SUV's are perhaps the most glaring example of this. We have more efficient transportation, but most SUV buyers prioritize other considerations: their image, their safety, their comfort, their cargo room. These misprioritizations have proven fatal for the US auto industry - in fact GM's auto workers union, whose pension fund profits have exceeded manufacturing profits even considered suing GM executives for corporate malpractice - making too many SUVs resulted in years of losses, and demolished the US export market while Asian carmakers' profits soared, racing years ahead in production of more fuel efficient cars in demand worldwide.

Laughably, it's part of a merry-go-round with auto and oil industry lobbyists buying favorable legislation, producing inefficient, uncompetitive vehicles and then using fantastical advertising to market these boats to consumers, playing on their lost inner child in search of toys for self-gratification (one such ad actually portrayed an SUV in a toy store to the amazed delight of the shopper).

A more mature, practical look at safety shows SUVs are not so safe - perhaps there is a perception of safety for the occupant - but SUVs are mowing down the rest of the world, contributing to an overall rise in auto accidents. Traffic fatalities fell 64% between 1972 and 1992 when cars got smaller and safer, but rose almost 10% since then as SUVs accounted for about half the vehicles on the road.

 1  |  2