Mankind using Earth's resources faster than replenished
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Humanity would need five Earths to produce the resources needed if everyone lived as profligately as Americans, according to a report issued Tuesday.
As it is, humanity each year uses resources equivalent to nearly one-and-a-half Earths to meet its needs, said the report by Global Footprint Network, an international think tank.
"We are demanding nature's services - using resources and creating CO2 emissions - at a rate 44 percent faster than what nature can regenerate and reabsorb," the document said.
"That means it takes the Earth just under 18 months to produce the ecological services humanity needs in one year," it said.
And if humankind continues to use natural resources and produce waste at the current rate, "we will require the resources of two planets to meet our demands by the early 2030s," a gluttonous level of ecological spending that may cause major ecosystem collapse, the report said.
Global Footprint Network calculated the ecological footprint - the amount of land and sea needed to produce the resources a population consumes and absorb its carbon dioxide emissions - of more than 100 countries and of the entire globe.
The think-tank worked out how many resources the planet has, how much humans use, and who is using what.
Back in 1961, the entire planet used just over slightly more than half of Earth's biocapacity.
Today, 80 percent of countries use more biocapacity than is available within their borders. They import resources from abroad, deplete their own stocks and fill "waste sinks," such as the atmosphere and ocean, with carbon dioxide.
The average American has an ecological footprint of nine global hectares (23 acres), or the equivalent of 17 US football fields.
The average European's footprint is half that size, but still too big to be sustainable in the long term.
At the other end of the scale are impoverished countries like Malawi, Haiti, Nepal or Bangladesh, where the footprints are around half a global hectare, or 1.25 acres - often not even enough to provide for basic food, shelter and sanitation, the report said.
But there are relatively easy measures that can be taken to slow the rot.
"In most high-income, industrialized countries like the US and European countries, the biggest part of the ecological footprint is the carbon footprint," Nicole Freeling, a spokeswoman for the Global Footprint Network, told AFP.
"One of the biggest things such a country can do to reduce its ecological footprint is to manage energy more efficiently and effectively - for example, by investing in renewable energy and clean tech on the one hand, and resource-efficient infrastructure and compact urban development on the other," she said.
Changing consumption habits can also reduce the global footprint.
"While people living at or below subsistence levels may need to increase their consumption to move out of poverty, more affluent people can reduce consumption and still improve their quality of life," Freeling said.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Have a look at, 'Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air' available free as a pdf file (just Google the title). This just looks at energy but the same goes for many other things which underpin our life-style.
It must be wonderful being so grossly ignorant of EROEI: you can live in a dreamworld, thinking everything is just fine.
On the other hand, 2010-11 will deliver some very nasty surprises to all those who do not know the first thing about energy, resources and the environment.
The thing I don't get is what is wrong with renewables + energy saving?
At the moment we only convert about 20% of the electricity we produce into useful work. So there has got to be scope there. Also wind IS part of the answer. Wind turbines on average give 80 times more energy than is used to produce and install them over a 20 year lifetime. They are currently 25-40% efficient at turning wind into electricity. This is a similar figure to the efficiency of coal-fired power stations (Fuel into electricity) EXCEPT, of course, they don't need ANY fuel! 'Clean coal might work but there is the big question about how much of the power produced will be required to liquefy and sequester the CO2? However, the future is not all bleak - tidal, wave and geothermal also offer real and exciting possibilities.
In the meantime, believing in myths obviously provides you with some comfort.
Never forget that everything in mainstream is now totally Orwellian. Orwell's 'war is peace', 'ignorance is strength' have morphed into 'sustainable development, 'clean burning coal', carbon sequestration', alternative energy' etc.
Particularly amusing (or sinister) is the way that which is about to fall over is described as 'perpetual', and that which converts the general populace into mindless morons is described as 'vibrant' or 'promoting the well-being of the community'.
It's all very, very clever. And most people haven't got a clue. Even worse, when it's pointed out to them, they don;t belive the truth.
Interesting times.
Gold went up another 1% overnight, (70% for the year)indicating collapse of fiat currencies is well underway.
The sun alone can produce more than easily enough energy for the entire world. A 256x256 km large area filled with CSP plants would suffice for the world. 110x110 km would be enough for Europe. Yes, this is still a lot, but look at the map. It's a tiny spot.
It would create huge numbers of new jobs. It would also create jobs and development possibilities on a continent that desperately needs it.
At the same time when producing energy, you can desalinate seawater to produce desperately needed fresh water. And between the CSP plants you can have agriculture.
Germany has made a start with a pilot project in Algeria. IF all the European countries had had the wisdom to support this initiative, we could produce easily 30% of Europe's energy in the Sahara by 2050. (And if we really wanted, even more)
It is the most humane way of developing energy production.
Nuclear energy is NOT clean, and is a degenerative form of energy production. The infrastructure needed to supply Europe with nuclear energy would have catastrofal consequences for our use of resources. Not to speak of the fact that we will be stuck with increasingly large parts of infrastructure that will remain standing for centuries to decontaminate, or would need huge storage underground spaces for storing all radioactively contaminated materials (fuel + anything having been in contact with it).
It is not rational and it is NOT necessary.
And no, not everything is fine. Everything is getting VERY serious and mankind would be smart to read and understand this article, and adapt it's life style accordingly.
I bought some tiny screws today. The blister contained an amount of plastic exceeding the weight of the screws and addition there was this little paper (good quality print!) explaining that the item inside the blister were screws. Those are the things we can all start with. Refuse to buy this nonsense. (I had no option, I need to finish a project for a museum.) But there are thousands of way we can start saving resources.
Time is running out! We either need some spectacular scientific revolutions, or we are sure to be headed straight to our demise if we don't change our behaviour. I am pessimistic. You saw what happened after those hackers leaked the correspondance of a few insane (?) climate scientists. Suddenly everybody cried out that AGW was a scam. Now it was sure. The fact that thousands of other climatologists have come to the same conclusions didn't count anymore. Many people are inherently stupid, many lack the basic education to even start weighing such difficult issues as yes-or-no AGW.
And this guy who started complaining of anti US propaganda. Figures don't lie, why deny what anyone can see for himself when visiting the US. The information about resource use is available on the internet. Stop complaining and start doing something positive for this planet. If not for yourself, do it for your children.
If one accepts that, then surely the population of the world is too high; what's more it's getting higher at what appears to be an ever increasing rate.
Maybe we should start a serious discussion about that!
A list of peoples typical possessions (especially electrical goods) for each decade of the 20th and 21st century would be a sobering one. Add to that things like changes in transport and frequency of use and it is even more so.
All the usual suspects including David Suzuki, Lester Brown, Norman Myers, long time doom-mongers indeed, but their ranks are swelled by Michael Meacher and Rhodri Morgan. Rhodri of course has just retired as Labour leader in Wales and needs a nice little earner to top his index-linked gold-plated public office pension. Famous for visiting Australia on offical business when Wales happened to be playing the Wallabies.
1. I am scientifically trained, and can follow the scientific debate about CO2-AGW.
2. I have serious doubts about the scientific truth of CO2-AGW, and the competence, honesty and motives of those who are promoting it.
3. I am not 'capitalist sponsored', and have no selfish, financial interest in CO2-AGW being proved wrong.
And there are many others like me.
How would you explain that, lefalcon? Doesn't fit in with your neat, Marxist (?) anti-capitalist analysis, does it?
Have a nice day.
I have serious doubts about CO2-emissions, not only because of AGW, but because of a number of other considerations.
If you understand that CO2 is a biologically active gas, you might also understand that all CO2 we are adding to the naturally present levels, will become part of biological ecosystems. That is nice for crops, but also for any kind of micro-organism, from virusses, bacteria and up...
What people of you propose, is that to add a potent fertilizer to evolution is a clever thing to do. I don't think so. I call that gambling with the health of this planet. It's obviously you don't know much of biology.
Next point is the fact that carbon will be the building material of the future. Much stronger and lighter than steel. We will be able to build houses, offices, bridges, roads, cars, planes etc of carbon. But that will require sufficiently large reserves. So why burn up the stuff now? So, in addition, you don't understand much of technology either.
Another point is, that as long as the going is good, it will be rather easy to convert to renewables. It will be much harder to convert when the going gets tough. I doubt you know much about economy.
A last point here is that in general, fossil fuels will have a much highe fuel when used to produce high-value products. I already mentioned how coal can be used to produce nanotechnologically manipulated carbon. But also gass and oil can be used for more profitable products. Think about plastics, but especially proteins. It is no big trick to convert oil into proteins that can replace fish and meat. Consumption of fish and meat is a serious threath to the health of this planet.
My conclusion is that your comment is completely out of place. You don't know anything about the gravity of the current situation. You just shout out loud, without using the grey matter.
You are just one of the many superficial minds that don't see or understand the big picture.
Of course, it should have been "A last point here is that in general, fossil fuels will have a much higher value when used to produce high-value products.".
Bed time...
..And here we are again, increased taxes/prices(& profits) all in the name of our lovely geen planet.
The planet will never be free of pollution & waste, while ever there is money to be made, and taxes to be charged. Its NOT me & you who eat up resources, or waste them. Its not the poor peoples fault, nor is it the average consumers fault. Its the greedy few at the top, that profit from it being this way.
(Remember the electric car EV1, roadworthy over 10 years ago, recalled by the oil industry and the US government, despite massive public demand & protest ???)
Nothing changes.