A Dollar a Day Good for the Environment

Poverty has been blamed for environmental degradation since the United National Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio de Jenairo in 1992. The clock has since turned full circle; it is now acknowledged that the greatest threat to the environment is unsustainable production and consumption patterns. The tragedy of the 20th Century was in conceptualizing and gloryfying materialism. The more energy and food one consumed, in other words the more affluent they were, the better. This became the index for development. Not even the Limits to Growth thesis would deter the proponents of this accumulative culture. But alas, climate change has now come knocking and threatens to disrupt "our way of life". So, who is wiser? Is it the 65 percent of the world population who chose to fratinize with the environment by withdrawing minimally from it, or the 35 percent who pulled all stops and went for the gravy train to gratify unholy greed? Who has been more environmentally accountable? If all humanity had been rapacious to accumulate till their storehouses were full to the brim wouldn't ecosystems have collapsed decades ago? As the dash to the bottom gathers steam it is important to pause and reflect on whether the poor are environmentally smatter or not. If they ain't then the affluent must bare full responsibility of deprivation and the consequences of a changing climate. Period. If they are, have always been, then they have invested in our future and the rest of the world owes them infinite compensation.