I = P * A * T
where I is the impact (of any city, or province, or nation or of the planet), P is the population size, A is the per capita affluence (measured by the per capita rate of consumption) and T is a measure of the damage done by the technologies that are used in supplying the consumption. Estimates vary but, in general, approximately 20% of the wealthiest individuals consume approximately 80% of world resources while approximately the poorest third consume approximately 5% of world resources.
For the purpose of this assignment you will make three assumptions. First, you will assume that the earth has a finite carrying capacity and that we are nearing, at, or over that carrying capacity. Second, you will assume that you are a politician of a first-world city and you need to implement a solution to this problem. Third, you will assume that this problem has only two possible solutions:
· The first solution is “de-growth” (or décroissance). De-growth advocates an extensive downscaling of
production and consumption.
· The second solution is technological such as that presented by that presented by “Tangye New Town”
the City of Edmonton’s “Way We Green”.
In this paper you will make a clear decision of the path you want your city to move towards. IN this essay you
must do the following:
· frame the problem. That is, explain how you understand I = P * A * T
· explain how your solution addresses this simple formula.
· you must critically evaluate and weigh both possibilities and discuss long and short term consequences as well as small and large scale consequences of your decision.
You have a limited amount of space to convince the reader of your position so be sure to use your space wisely. You need to let the reader know that you understand the issue, that you understand the position of those opposed to yours and that you know how to defeat the main arguments that may be used against your position. A few short well argued points supporting your position are much better than a large number of poorly argued points which support your position. The presentation of a
couple of the stronger arguments presented by an opponent is better than the presentation of weak arguments.