I recently came across a new term coined by Dr James Martin, the founder of the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University that brings  together the possibility of improving the quality of our lives without destroying the planet �€“ �€œeco-affluence�€. Perhaps beyond the horizon, this concept will be the one that will save our world from destruction.

The rate at which we are presently consuming is both unsustainable and unnecessary. We are already using up in 12 months what it takes the earth 18 months to replenish. If the current rate of growth continues, we will need two earths by 2030 to sustain us. Unless we are able to colonise a new planet and get our food grown and our wastes released on it, we are going to face a catastrophic future- the adoption and practise of eco-affluence in our everyday lives seems like the only way out. 

Transportation is currently one of the biggest contributors to the global carbon footprint. On an average it is about 23-25 per cent of the total emission of greenhouse gases. It is easy to suggest (and difficult to practise) shifting to riding a bicycle to work or depending only on public transportation. However, eco-affluence has the built in feature of improvement of both lifestyle and the environment, unlike what is normally propagated as eco-friendly. Maybe doing one�€™s weekly shopping once a week is good way of reducing one�€™s carbon footprint and having more time for pursuing other interests.  

The biggest opportunity for improving the quality of life in the years to come will be if we can transform the very phenomenon of global warming and climate change to our advantage. Global warming is expected to make a significant shift in the climatic zones of the world with the polar regions disappearing altogether and the tropics shifting further away from the equator. The downsides of these developments have been discussed in much detail, including in earlier columns on this website. The question is: are there any up-sides and what are they? Can poor nations really leap-frog outdated technologies and provide better living conditions using new and clean technology? Can the rich nations really leave behind environmentally damaging habits and inculcate new ones that enrich not only the environment but their own lives? Are we ready to shift to �€œclimate change cities�€ in regions that were not inhabitable before? And more importantly will these cities be built on new concepts of design that factor in the environment in all its aspects? 

New technology has the capacity to provide the answers for many of these questions. New kinds of energy cells based on fusion reactions or ways of tapping into cosmic radiations could provide cheap energy for all of humanity. New kinds of building materials could be completely recyclable so that we stop mining our mountains for creating dwellings.  New kinds of bacteria could gobble up the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and create it into usable forms of carbon such as starch or sugar or fuel. There are already plants producing �€œnew water�€ or water that is fit for human consumption from treated wastewater and sewage. 

However, the biggest hurdle in our quest for eco-affluence is our own mindset. While the definition of a better quality of life includes all that is bigger, we don�€™t have much hope. The British economist Schumacher said, �€œWisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful.�€ If the goal of our new technology can be based on this thinking, eco-affluence for all will not be far behind.