the woodstove test

Throughout this discussion, I take it as a given that we want a world in which the standard of living is that of middle-class people in the ‘advanced’ countries. In other words, most people will be polluting a lot more than people in indigenous cultures. Therefore, we’ll need to have a lot fewer people than we have now. My guess is that this ultimate human population would be only a fraction of what it is now, maybe a quarter or a third; so we’re talking about 2-3 billion people.

It’s been estimated that for everybody on Earth to have a sustainable American-style standard of living would require the resources of four or five planet Earths (or two or three Earths for a similar European standard). [verify] Thus, if we want to extend that standard of living to all of humanity, we’ll need far fewer people on this planet than we have now.

It would be wrong to try to set a specific target like this, though. The main point is that we should have a population low enough to sustain a population that pollutes at first-world levels. We should always be seeking ways to pollute less, of course, but not by lowering our standard of living.

I have a personal rule of thumb on this: I’d like to be able to use a woodstove to heat my house. Although it should be as efficient and ‘clean’ as possible, any woodstove is going to produce more carbon emissions than heating with solar power or even natural gas. It would be nice, though, to live on a planet with a population low enough that I could use a woodstove without feeling guilty about it. (And, of course, there’s always the possibility of planting enough trees or buying carbon offsets to assuage my guilt.)