Resource depletion is a matter governments, in a global context,
have been disinclined to heed. The push for Agenda 21(the ‘Rio
Declaration’ summary given in the Appendix to chapter 5) is
viewed as either ‘helpful’ or ‘helpless’ as suits the perception of
the researcher; yet forceful, as a policy instrument, it is not.The
pessimistic scenario has it that because essential life-support
resources are either finite (as with fossil fuels) or largely irre-
placeable (as with soils), the potential for a globally improved
lifestyle, overall, is negative. The situation now is that the
resource frontiers have either been reached or are well under-
stood. Over the course of future time shortage-induced adjust-
ments will arise, particularly in the overall consumption of fossil
fuel. This, combined with the increasing presence of irreducible
toxins in the biosphere, and a continuing reduction in biodiver-
sity, erodes the overall quality of ‘modern’ human life.
A global objective, were it practical to call into being a global
resource policy, would involve the adoption of global controls, in
effect regulating lifestyles in a way which coped with the regres-
sive Entropy Laws, and applied the principles of sustainability. In
reality most nations remain aloof on policy, and adrift with regu-
latory practice. With little more than glimmerings of pious hope
for effective global enforcement, the actuality is that international councils have
only coordinated someendangered species protection, and have been largely
unsuccessful with the control of toxins and harmful gas releases. Meyer (1993)
makes the point that while ‘the treaty text signed at the Earth Summit in Rio put
out a legally binding commitment to strong and sustainable economic growth its
commitment to the environment, a principal objective, outlined a weak non-
binding option to limit CO 2 emissions to no more than 1990 levels’. He (Meyer)
goes on to then establish not only a correlation between GDP, CO 2 and tempera-
ture rises, but also that all three are increasing along with increasing world population
growth. In short, international protocols are proving impotent with regard to non-
renewable fossil-fuel conservation, the limitation of Third World population
growth, the control of pollution discharge, and the maintenance of bio-diversity:
four significant counter-actions poleaxed by growth-and-discard practices. Even
more sinister, the international agencies – global ‘watchdogs’ and ‘whistle-
blowers’ – remain confused and ineffective in regard to controls over nuclear
power generation, the dumping of nuclear wastes, and the disposal or contain-
ment of most toxins.
On a positive, selective, note: for some nations of the ‘North’ the record of
attainment for environmentally progressive outcomes is partially better than the
OECD average. This arises because some are well placed(for example Australasia’s
geographical isolation and low density of human population), or because they
are well poised (an affordable North American environmental awareness). These
placements and positionings enable these countries to pursue effective pro-
grammes to assist environmental conservation and hold to their current levels
of human population.^22 This may be achieved: firstthrough an elaboration of the
Charter for Conservation with Development 95Raymond Kopp (1992)
explores the relationship
between the use of finite
(‘inventory’ to Kopp)
resource uptake and
renewable resource use,
on the basis of these
being partly private,
quasi-public or pure-
public in nature. ‘Private
goods (such as
agricultural commodities)
are exchanged in markets... where one individual’s
enjoyment of them
precludes all others’
enjoyment. Quasi-public
goods (such as water for
irrigation) may or may
not be traded in
markets. Pure-public
goods (such as aesthetic
appeal) are not
exchanged in [or
protected by] markets.’