Immigration, Population and Environment
Friends of the Earth Australia position paper
   

May 14, 2004

Introduction

Despite ongoing media attention to Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers, and the call from some quarters for discussion on what would constitute a sustainable population level for Australia, the Australian environment movement has been largely absent from these debates.
Debate on asylum seekers has been wide ranging and covered a series of social and political issues. Although peripheral to most discussion, there is an undercurrent of thought which uses ‘concern for the environment’ as the basis for opposing extra immigrants into the country, and particularly as an excuse to stop ‘uncontrolled’ immigration (often defined as being people arriving in Australian waters as asylum seekers). This requires a response from the environment movement.
As a social and environmental justice network with strong internationalist perspective’s, Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) condemns the current Australian governments repressive and isolationist policies of mandatory detention of asylum seekers (see end of this paper for FoEAs position on asylum seekers). FoEA also acknowledges that there are a series of interconnected issues and considerations which should frame any domestic response to the issue of asylum seekers as well as the broader question of what would constitute a ‘sustainable’ population.

Summary of FoEA position

·    The Australian environment is under serious, on-going and cumulative threat from various sources, including existing land use, resource extraction, production and consumption patterns and infrastructure trends.
·    Asylum seekers or migrants in general are not to blame for these problems.
·    Any debate about what may constitute a ‘sustainable population’ is meaningless unless it considers per capita and national consumption and resource extraction rates. Australia is clearly over consuming and possibly under-populated in global fair-share terms.
·    Australia’s treatment of refugees must urgently be altered to respect the human rights of asylum seekers.
·    Australia’s policy on immigration should reflect it’s global responsibilities in terms of acknowledging our ecological and carbon debts, impacts of trade policy and a commitment to tolerant democracy rather than being a product of a spurious application of an environmental analysis.
·    Australia should recognise climate refugees and begin to accept resettlement of people displaced by climate change, as well as greatly increasing assistance for communities impacted by climate change to allow for adaptation to changed conditions.

Specific elements of a progressive population and environment policy would include:

Treatment of asylum seekers

As a starting point, we believe that it is necessary to consider the current Australian governments treatment of asylum seekers. There are legitimate humanitarian concerns about the system of mandatory detention and the way the issue of asylum seekers in general has been so politicised. The Australian governments treatment of asylum seekers is at best misconceived, and is both mean-spirited and degrades Australian politics by fostering a politics of division. This has been highlighted by many commentators. With leadership and action, the solution to this is relatively simple in that it relates to the physical treatment and processing of asylum seekers, with practical solutions (eg, the abolition of mandatory detention, the establishment of community-based systems for processing asylum seekers, as well as speeding up of visa processing).

It is also necessary to separate treatment of asylum seekers from policies on acceptance of asylum seekers and border control issues in general. Current treatment of asylum seekers is inhumane and unnecessary, irregardless of what Australia’s immigration policy is.

Global responsibilities & aid

In considering immigration, there is a secondary issue of why people need to flee their homelands. Given that many asylum seekers are escaping political repression and war, there is an onus on Australia to take a proactive role in opposing human rights abuses (in bilateral relations and international forums) as well as recognising the role of overseas aid in helping to reduce dislocation and enhance the role of civil society/ community organisations in recipient countries.

Australia’s Overseas Direct Aid is at a historical low (0.25% of Australia's GNP) under the current Howard government, and should be increased to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 percent of GNP as a matter of urgency.

There is another question of how aid is applied; in post global warming scenarios, it will be necessary for Australia to review how it delivers aid, especially to communities who are grappling with the impacts of human-induced climate change.

Resource consumption

Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rates of any industrialised nation on the planet, at about 26.7 tonnes per person per year (1). This is twice the average level of other wealthy countries (13.4 tonnes) and 25% higher than emissions per person in the United States (21.2 tonnes). Our energy intensive economy and lifestyle is typical of the developed world, which has been  responsible for over 80% of all GHG emissions from human sources on the planet. Australia, with only 20 million people, produces around 1.1% of global emissions (2). With this many people we should be producing around 0.31 % of global emissions if we were consuming a fair share. If the world’s population were to stabilise at around 7 billion people by the middle of the century (a reasonable time frame for meeting our global commitments), we would need to be producing around 1.7 tonnes per person per year of greenhouse gases. While this may seem impossible given our current emission levels, it should be remembered that other highly industrialised nations believe they can achieve these levels of emissions. For instance, under energy scenarios that use high levels of renewable energy put forward by the Danish government, it would be possible to produce 1.2 tonnes per person by 2100. The Australia Institute suggests that “using available technologies Australia could feasibly cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050”. (3)

Our over production of GHGs means that Australia, like all Northern countries, owes a carbon debt to the rest of the world for overuse of the global commons (the oceans, atmosphere and other natural systems which absorb and offset greenhouse gas emissions).

Beyond greenhouse gases, there is also another aspect of global responsibility, which relates to overall resource consumption. Australia is part of the First World or global North. These countries - Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, comprise around 23% of the world's human population, yet use around 80% of the resources which are consumed. Research (4) indicates that if everyone currently living on the planet were to live at the average consumption levels of those in the First World, we would need to put all arable land into agricultural production, effectively meaning the loss of most biologically diverse conservation reserves. However, we would require another two planets of the same size as the earth to meet everyone's needs. Therefore it is clear that consumption patterns in the North are neither sustainable nor ethical on the basis of the fact that they are not a viable option for all people currently living on the planet. Yet discussion about 'population' usually avoids this issue, focussing on sheer numbers of people (and, increasingly, border protection) rather than per capita and collective resource consumption. FoEA argues that, for a rational discussion on population levels to occur, population must be seen within a deeper context. Even Paul Erhlich, the prominent population theorist, identified that environmental impact is a product of population multiplied by consumption, influenced by the type of technology used (5). In terms of overall impact, it can be argued that the average Australian has more than five times the impact of the average Indonesian based on consumption levels (6). Arguably, the impact of consumption by the one billion most affluent humans on the planet has far more negative environmental consequences than that of the three billion poorest (7).

In order to find ways to decrease our resource consumption to some form of globally equitable level, there are a number of frameworks which may be useful.

A fundamental way of beginning to grapple with these issues is to use the concept of ‘environmental space with equity’; the understanding that all people should have equal rights to the resources necessary for a dignified existence.

To consume a fair share of environmental space would mean:

·    a commitment to living within the Earth's biophysical limits by the middle of the 21st century (allowing time to shift into steady state economic systems; that is, economic systems that do not rely on continuous economic growth in order to remain viable);
·    global equity in terms of access to the Earth's resources by all nations and all peoples. Fundamental to this is the right of local communities to control the nature of trade and development. This would include acknowledging a need to adequately protect a representative portion of the world’s natural ecosystems in conservation reserves;
·    production and consumption should enhance total quality of life within a framework of national/regional, economic and cultural diversity.

FoEA believes that application of this concept provides a far sounder framework for developing an environmentally sustainable and socially just Australia than that which would result from a simplistic population analysis.
'Material Flow' is another useful way of looking at human interaction with the environment and how we can meet our needs sustainably. Material Flow refers to the flow of all the resources we extract, the products and services we provide and consume, and wastes generated. By measuring material flow we can see the connection between resource use, products and wastes, and determine if what we do is an equitable and ecologically sustainable use of resources. For example, the World Resources Institute (WRI) has estimated that one half to three quarters of annual resource inputs to industrialised economies are returned to the environment as waste (often in Southern countries) within a year. The Institute observes that:
"The extraction and use of fossil energy resources dominate output flows in all industrial countries. Modern industrial economies are carbon-based economies. Fossil energy consumption is still rising. Carbon dioxide accounts, on average, for more than 80% by weight of material outflows from economic activity in the five study countries. The atmosphere is by far the biggest dumping ground for industrial wastes."

The WRI concludes that this radical (and inequitable) over-consumption and lack of resource efficiency is not sustainable. A key element of a responsible response to the global issue of population would see industrial nations such as Australia radically decrease per capita resource consumption. (8)

FoEA would caution against seeing technical and market based approaches as the primary solution to the problems of over consumption (for instance, more efficient industrial resource use, ‘dematerialisation’ of industrial processes, etc). While these are necessary components of a required shift in individual and collective consumption, for economic systems to be truly sustainable, political forces must control technological change rather than the other way around.

Ecological footprint analysis is another way of understanding the impacts of individual choices of lifestyle and allows comparison between different lifestyles. The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed by a given population on nature. It represents the land area necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption and waste discharge by that population.

Consumption is, of course, not just about disparities between the North and the South. It is also about gaps between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' in industrialised societies. Studies indicate that the average ecological footprint of a Canadian person is about 4.7 hectares per person. However, the poorest 20% of the Canadian population have an ecological footprint of less than 3 hectares, while the richest 20% consume over 12 hectares per person (9). This issue of domestic social justice and the link between lifestyle and environmental impact is usually absent from debates about population and immigration, yet is fundamental to finding equitable solutions.

Climate change & environmental refugees

Over consumption in the North is driving global climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, which, it seems, is reflected in, amongst other effects, rising sea levels and changing weather patterns. This, in turn, is leading to increased destructive weather related events (floods, cyclones, droughts, changing fire regimes, etc). It is the people of the South, those who are least responsible for climate change, who are bearing the brunt of these extreme weather events (10). Many of these communities lack the infrastructure to cope with these events. Hence, while extreme weather events in Australia may impact in the short term on particular communities, a similar event elsewhere may devastate whole countries, causing massive loss of life, and forcing mass movement of people. As a result, growing numbers of people are forced to leave their homes, forming a new category of displaced person: that of environmental, or specifically, climate refugees.

In 1999, the World Disasters Report, an annual global survey of humanitarian trends, said that in 1998, the previous year’s natural disasters were the worst on record. More than 25 million environmental refugees were forced to flee from drought, flood, deforestation and eroded land, outnumbering those displaced by war for the first time. (11) In late 2001, it was reported that Munich Re, a major insurance re-investor, had estimated that 25,000 people had died of natural disasters in that year. This was more than double the figure from 2000. (12) In October 2003, a study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine stated that about 160,000 people die every year from side-effects of global warming, ranging from malaria to malnutrition and that the numbers could almost double by 2020 (13). While it is impossible to say that any individual weather event is related to climate change (and some of those killed died in earthquakes or volcanic eruptions), there is clear evidence that climate change is rapidly becoming a reality and already causing substantial human impacts. (14)
In our own region, rising sea levels, and other manifestations of global warming will be a significant issue over the coming century. Recently the leaders of Tuvalu - a tiny island country in the Pacific Ocean midway between Hawaii and Australia – announced that they will have to abandon their homeland because of rising sea levels. New Zealand has agreed to accept all 11,000 citizens of Tuvalu, with migration beginning in 2002. This was announced at about the same time that the Australian government had approached Tuvalu about that nation accepting asylum seekers for processing; part of the Howard governments so-called ‘Pacific solution’.

The issue of environmental, and in particular, climate refugees will continue to grow in coming decades, and Australia will not avoid the issue by denying its existence.

Therefore, the Australian government and community should acknowledge that:

1.    there are large (and growing) numbers of environmental, and in particular, climate refugees.
2.    climate refugees result from genuine ecological disruption, changed weather patterns and extreme weather events.
3.    the global North bears a significant responsibility for this disruption through our over production of greenhouse gases.
4.    The North must make reparations; in practical terms, this means we must make room for environmental refugees through the creation of a specific intake program (15), as well as changing policies that contribute to the creation of more refugees. It will also need to fund projects which will enable affected communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Environmental Refugees are currently not recognised under UN structures. Therefore:
5.    Australia should advocate for UN recognition and make such recognition unilaterally.

Ecological debt

One way of understanding the obligations that Northern countries have to the rest of the world is to think in terms of the ecological debt. This is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the political (and resulting economic) systems of the last 500 years have created patterns of resource extraction and material flow which unfairly benefit Northern countries at the expense of other nations.
Ecological Debt refers to the cumulative responsibility of industrialised countries for the gradual destruction of the environmental and social conditions needed for survival in other parts of the world. This is largely the result of production and consumption patterns. The living standards of the industrialised North owes a great deal to the massive flow of natural resources and work (either as sweatshop, slave or underpaid labour) of the countries which make up the South. In effect, the impoverished countries of the South have, and continue to, subsidise the lifestyles and economies of the countries of the North through the provision of raw materials, commodities and labour. This makes the demands of western nations for the South to ‘pay up’ on their external debts ludicrous. The current economic situation entrenches exploitation through mechanisms such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organisation (WTO) which dictate global economic policies that maintain these systems of dominance through the mechanisms which have become well documented through the campaign to cancel the external debt.

There are growing demands by movements in the South for recognition of the ecological debt. People living in countries like Australia can educate themselves about these issues and understand our international obligations in light of the ecological debt. It would not be difficult to develop a basic understanding of Australia’s ecological debt and to whom this is owed. (16) Having forcibly occupied Australia, and then lived extremely extravagant lifestyles for two centuries and thus degraded much of the Australian continent, it would be the height of hypocrisy for Australia to now demand an end to, or reduction in immigration in order to stabilise or reduce population levels and hence reduce demands on the environment. A truly international response to the issue of population would involve an assessment of the role of the Australian government in advocating for further trade liberalisation and the resulting social and environmental impacts of these policies, and the actions of Australian-based corporations on human communities and the natural environment outside Australia. ‘Free trade’ continues to entrench patterns of inequity in and between nations, thereby increasing the ecological debt owed by the North to the global South. It facilitates the flow of resources and hence wealth from the South to the North. While wealth is able to flow (in fact is drawn out of) Southern nations – for instance, through the destruction of tropical rainforests for First world consumers - increasingly people from the South are not  able to follow it. FoEA therefore argues that it is inappropriate to encourage further trade liberalisation until there has been a thorough social and environmental audit of the free trade agreements already in place.

It is the concentration and disparity of wealth within and between nations that largely creates the need to control the movement of people. Given current global economic structures, the desire to immigrate from the South to the North is legitimate and, for many, inevitable.

Again, there is a danger in neglecting to acknowledge the human rights and political dimensions behind why people are forced to leave their homes. An analysis that neglects these factors and instead concentrates on a population analysis alone is unlikely to develop responses which are based on principles of human rights or justice, and hence be justifiable in the medium or long term.

The greening of hate?

At various times, single-issue, misguided, right wing, or overtly racist organisations have used environmental arguments as the basis for opposing further immigration (17). Even though these organisations are using arguments about environmental sustainability and hence ‘muddy the water’ on population issues, the mainstream environment movement has been, by and large, fairly silent on the issue (although some do have progressive policies on population and immigration). Because this type of argument uses the same type of concern expressed by environmentalists, FoEA believes that there is an onus on environmental organisations to respond to and directly oppose the inappropriate use of environmental concerns. Beyond a silence on the issue, there have also been some disappointing interventions by some green groups (18). Progressive environmentalists should be extremely cautious about arguing against further immigration, as any green support for limitations on entry can be used by racist organisations for their own political agendas.

An argument often used by well meaning environmentalists in expressing concern about immigration is based on the legitimate concern that we, as a nation, are irreparably damaging the natural ecosystems of this continent. All the existing evidence, including the most recent State of the Environment report, published by the federal Environment Department, Environment Australia (19), confirms that this is the case. Loss of biodiversity, land clearing, destruction of ecosystems, and widespread salinity are all indications that something is dramatically wrong. But who is to blame for this? Asylum seekers who are escaping repressive regimes or natural disasters? Clearly not.

There is the possibility that in a significant number of bioregions across Australia we have already moved into ecological drawdown, where natural systems have been over-taxed and degraded to the point that long term ecological collapse is becoming likely, if not inevitable. Again, this would be because of pre-existing landuse and other patterns set by 215 years of European settlement, and is not the fault of new or potential arrivals.

If Australians are serious about environmental protection and long term sustainability, then we will need to make fundamental changes to the way we live on this continent: how we generate energy, how we farm, how we build our cities, how we use forests, water and other natural resources. We will need to move to modern and efficient industrial systems for production, and apply serious sanctions against those who pollute. We will need to develop agricultural systems appropriate to the constraints and opportunities presented by our unique patterns of weather, soil and water availability, and place integrated, sustainable, organic production at the centre of our agricultural systems. We will need to radically re-think how we manage our cities, including halting urban sprawl, and plan for proximity rather than mobility. We will need to assess the long term impacts of having an economy based largely on the export of commodities and investigate options for import replacement (including the re-development of a thriving manufacturing sector). In terms of development of human settlement, we will need to halt the steady encroachment of low density housing in coastal and other high conservation areas. In short, we will need to take our ecological responsibilities seriously and start living in Australia as if we intend to be here indefinitely. It is clear that current patterns of consumption and development are not sustainable. Rather than being fearful of the possible impacts of migrants, we should embrace the possibilities inherent in developing a truly Australian concept and practise of sustainability;­ one that is responsive to, and celebrates, the unique attributes of the Australian continent. In making the necessary changes, we will reduce our environmental impacts, both individually and collectively, and, as a result be able to support a larger human population with a net benefit for the environment.

In current public and political debate, racism has been used to generate concern about asylum seekers and other potential immigrants. This is based partly on fear of change, including those changes created by corporate-defined globalisation, which often leads to job loss. This fear, which stems from a very real experience of labour surplus and interchangability, is often blamed on immigrants. However, any rational assessment of job loss shows that migrants are not to blame, and that corporate cost cutting (which is on the rise in the current process of corporate-defined globalisation) is a key factor. The current federal government has entirely avoided its responsibility to deal with this issue by neglecting to educate the Australian community about asylum seekers, why they need to flee their homelands, and what the real economic costs (or benefits) are as a result of immigration. There is also an equally vague fear about possible links between some migrants and terrorism.

Carrying capacity and population

Carrying capacity is usually defined as the maximum population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without permanently impairing the productivity of that habitat. (19) As environmentalists, we understand that we need to allow other species to continue to flourish on this planet. In practical terms, this means the allocation of significant areas of all representative ecosystems as national parks or equivalent reserves. (21).

In terms of social justice, we must also ask how we can create the situation where all people have access to the resources needed for a dignified existence. The pivotal question is how can we do this without living beyond the world’s carrying capacity?

There is no doubt that there will be a limit to the number of people that the Australian continent can sustain into the indefinite future. However, it is premature to talk about ‘carrying capacity’ or placing limitations on population growth without first considering the more fundamental issues of resource consumption, equity between and within nations, and the ownership of the infrastructure that drives consumption. Given the integration of local economies into global markets, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine what the carrying capacity of a single country might be. The concept of carrying capacity must therefore be re-considered, so that it takes into the account resource flows in the global economy.

Clearly population growth can cause substantial ecological costs and under the current high consumption, low density models used in Australia, more people does mean more impact. One example commonly used by those seeking a stabilisation of population is that of South East Queensland [SEQ], where low density urban sprawl is destroying remnant vegetation, coastal environments and previously productive agricultural lands. It should be remembered that much of this growth is driven by internal migrations from southern states rather than new arrivals to the country. In addition, a significant cause of ecological destruction is also occurring through the trend towards households with fewer people, rather than population growth itself. This is a common problem throughout Australia. (22) But perhaps the most significant issue in SEQ is that we, as a nation, still allow low density, high resource consuming urban sprawl of this nature to continue. While many see population growth as being the key issue in situations like this, a holistic approach would recognise that this influx of people is occurring in an ecologically unsustainable manner – that is, impacts arise largely from the nature of the development, not simply because of the arrival of these people. This is essentially a political and economic rather than an ecological issue, covering all levels of government, control over capital and style of development, and is driven by property developers, local and state governments who benefit from rates and other income generated by urban sprawl, and a general lack of environmental responsibility. It is possible to radically reduce our impacts with true ecological design of urban infrastructure and appropriate control of developers. This will require hard political decisions, not through pointing at ‘population growth’ as the problem.

Economic migrants

FoEA does not have a policy on economic migrants, those people who seek to live in Australia and are not refugees. However, in calling for a specific program for environmental refugees, FoEA believes that this new intake program should not be at the expense of current intakes of either ‘traditional’ refugees or economic migrants.

Population and economy

In addressing environmental impact, it also needs to be acknowledged that much of the resources extracted in Australia (whether it be through farming, logging or mining) are exported overseas and hence are effectively independent of population levels. For instance, Australia is the world's fourth largest coal producer and by far the world's largest exporter of coal (23).

In summary

It is exceedingly dangerous to support the idea that asylum seekers or immigrants in general threaten the Australian environment. The key environmental trends driving environmental deterioration revolve around resource extraction and consumption (and patterns of consumption) and not simply the size of the human population on this continent. Once we accept this fact, and acknowledge the global responsibilities that have accrued as a result of our carbon and environmental debts, it becomes clear that there is an imperative for Australia to accept more refugees and asylum seekers. It also highlights the fact that the current environmental problems confronting Australia are local in origin and hence the solution rests with local action, not in scapegoating asylum seekers, or, more broadly, migrants.

Notes and references:

1)    Turton, H & Hamilton, C (1999); Population Growth and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sources, trends and Projections in Australia. The Australia Institute. Discussion paper 26. http://www.tai.org.au
2)    http://www.wri.org/climate/contributions_map.html
3)    Turton, H, Ma, J, Sadler, H & Hamilton, C (2002); Long term greenhouse gas scenarios. A pilot study of how Australia can achieve deep cuts in emissions. The Australia Institute, discussion paper 48. http://www.tai.org.au
4)    Issues of consumption are covered by many excellent resources created by FoE groups. See for example, Sharing the World; Sustainable Living & Global Equity in the 21st Century, M Carley & P Spapens, Earthscan, 1998.
5)    IPAT. Environmental impact = population x affluence (resource use) x technology
6)    Working on estimates of ecological footprints developed by Redefining Progress. Eco footprint (expressed as hectares per capita): Australia = 8.5 ha, Indonesia (1.5 ha).
7)    http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/sustainable-economy/international/population-policy.shtml
8)    http://www.wri.org/
9)    Wackernagel, M & Rees, W (1995); Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Catalyst Bioregional Series/ New Society Publishers. See also the Redefining Progress website: http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/
10)    See, for instance, Gathering storm: the human cost of climate change. Available at: http://www.foei.org/publications/climate/Gatheringstorm.pdf
11)    These ecologically displaced people form an estimated 58% of all displaced people on the planet. See also Red Cross/ Red Crescent Society (2001); World Disasters Report 2001. http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2001/
12)    More die in disasters. The Age, 30/12/01
13)    http://www.enn.com/news/2003-10-01/s_8976.asp
14)    See for instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists ‘Global warming is real and underway’. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm?pageID=27or the NASA global change master directory: http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/
15)    One suggestion made by the Australian Democrats in 2002 was that Australia should commit to accepting the percentage of all global climate refugees equivalent to the % of global warming we are responsible for. At present this would be around 1.1%.
16)    Further information: http://www.foe.org.au/nc/index.htm and http://www.foei.org/ecodebt/index.html
17)    FoEA does not suggest that environmental groups advocating for population stabilisation are racist, and notes the progressive social policies of organisations like Sustainable Population Australia on issues like overseas aid.
18)    for instance, when the Australia Institute released a report which suggested that the government could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by restricting immigration into Australia until 2012 (December 1999) http://www.tai.org.au
19)     http://www.ea.gov.au/soe/
20)    http://dieoff.org/page110.htm
21)     While FoEA does not have a position on what percentage of each bioregion should be protected in this manner, it notes that the Australian federal government used a 15% target for each forest type in its Regional Forest Agreements, and that most, if not all, ecologists working in this field argue for higher targets. It should also be noted that many have moved away from this approach because the figure has no particular scientific credibility or basis. The point remains that humans must leave space for other species to flourish and evolve.
22)    New Scientist, 18 January 2003
23)    See, for instance: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_aus.htm


Definitions
Environmental space: the total amount of energy, non-renewable resources, land, water and other resources which can be used without environmental damage and without impinging on the rights of future generations.

‘Environmental space with equity’: the understanding that all people should have equal rights to the resources necessary for a dignified existence.

North/ South: The North constitutes the richest countries of the world (often called the First World or Developed World in the past): North America, Western Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. The South or Majority world is used as preferred terms to Third or Developing world.

Ecological debt: The cumulative responsibility of industrialised countries for the destruction caused by their production and consumption patterns is called the 'ecological debt'. Natural wealth extracted by the North at the expense of southern people has contaminated their natural heritage and sources of sustenance. The ecological debt also includes the illegitimate appropriation of the atmosphere and the planet's absorption capacity by the industrialised world.

Carrying capacity: The number of people that an area can support given the quality of the natural environment and the level of technology of the population. There are a large number of definitions: do a search for define + carrying capacity for some others.