Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

  My Profile  Log In   Register Free Now   
Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet Planet Thoughts Advanced       Click to see one of our videos, chosen at random from the database, along with its PlanetThought
 Try a video
Home   About   Books&Media   Resources   Contact  
   News   Quote   Review   Story   Tip   All   Blogs   News   Quotes   Reviews   Stories   Tips
Get Email or Web Quotes
or use our RSS feeds:
New Feed:  Fossil Fuel
 Full  Blog  News
Read & Comment:
A Solar Community In Isr...
'Let's You And Him Fight...
Paul Krugman's Errors An...
Why Climate Change Is An...




Most recent comments:
From Farm To Fork
A Simple List: Things We...
Can the affluent rest at...

Actions:
Bookmark the site
Contribute $
Easy link from your site
Visit Second Life
Visit SU Blog




A fairly common belief among Western environmental activists is that "overpopulation is causing our ecological overshoot". It's a simple idea to present, as it just requires people to accept that more people cause more environmental damage.

Unfortunately this simple idea has a number of problems.  The main one is the old conundrum of who bears the responsibility for bringing the situation back into balance.  Should rich countries whose population growth is already slowing cut their consumption, or should poor countries that are not overconsuming cut their populations?

I used to believe that population was "the" ecological problem of the world.  I've recently changed my mind, as the result of a variety of investigations into the Ecological Footprint.

I'm currently using the EF as my standard for measuring relative amounts of ecological damage both nationally and globally.  According to The Footprint Network the world has about 1.8 Global hectares (Gha) of biocapacity per person, and we use, on average, over 2.6 Gha of biocapacity per person.  The difference is called the ecological debt.  It measures overshoot – the rate at which we are drawing down the earth's natural resources to support our population in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

I'm not totally satisfied with this method of calculating overshoot. I think it misses some important ecological factors such as ocean acidification and the loss of biodiversity through species extinctions.  It is also a steady state model, and can't take into account the effects of hitting tipping points in areas like ice loss or methane production from melting hydrates and permafrost.  Such effects would have to be incorporated into the model by estimating their impact on biocapacity, which is an error-prone exercise.  Still, EF is the best we have right now, and given the amount of work being done with Ecological Footprints it makes sense to examine our situation using this tool.

The first thing I discovered was that a country's Ecological Footprint correlates much better to its GDP than it does to its population density:



This implies that countries with high population densities can still have relatively small ecological footprints, whereas those with high consumption are much more likely to have large footprints.  By extension, a world with a high population can still have a relatively low EF, while a world with high overall consumption rates is less likely to achieve that result.

The Ecological Impact of Food Production

The one aspect of ecological damage that I believe is most directly tied to population levels is the damage attributable to food production.  This is because people need an irreducible minimum number of calories to live, and unless food production practices change over time, a rising population will cause more ecological damage because more food must be produced.  I wanted to see if Ecological Footprint data supported this theory.

The Footprint Network provides a data table (XLS) in which the national ecological footprints are broken out for every nation for the year 2006.  For each country the table lists the footprint requirements in a number of areas, including Carbon, Cropland, Grazing land, Forest land, Fishing ground and Built-up land.

To get the amount of the ecological footprint associated with food production I summed the entries for Cropland, Grazing land and Fishing ground.  The table has also conveniently aggregated the numbers into three categories by income (low, medium and high).  I was able to quickly determine how much of our Ecological Footprint comes from food production, and how much from non-food consumption.  Here is what I found:


World food production requires an average of EF of 0.9 Gha, with a range of +60% to -44%.  The range of EF needed for food production between the high income group and the low income group was about 3:1.

Non-food production requires an average of 1.7 Gha, with a range of  +175% to -70%.  The range of EF needed for non-food production between the high income group and the low income group was about 9:1

The difference in the two ranges for food production (3:1) and non-food production (9:1) is striking.  This implies to me that food production has a more direct relationship with population than other forms of consumption.  If it were a fully direct relationship the range would be 1:1 (i.e. food production would have the same EF in poor countries as in rich ones).  The fact that it isn't points to higher-impact farming practices in rich countries, differences in diet (less meat consumption in poor countries) and possibly to lower caloric intake in low-income countries.

The real message, though, is in that 9:1 range for non-food production.  It says that if we want to reduce our impact on the planet, we MUST reduce our consumption.

Sustainable Standards of Living

Following on from this, I thought it would be interesting to see how many people our battered little planet could sustainably support at various levels of consumption.

To start with I accepted that an EF of 1.8 Gha represents sustainability.  I did this with grave misgivings for the reasons I gave above, but for illustrative purposes it will do.  Then I used the global average figure of 0.9 Gha for food production, and kept that constant (that means each person always requires 0.9 Gha for their food supply).

Since the population in 2006 when the figures were calculated was about 6.5 billion, the Earth has about 11.7 billion Gha of total biocapacity.  This needs to be split between food needs (0.9 Gha per person) and non-food needs (all the rest up to 11.7 billion Gha). The non-food uses give us what we think of as our "standard of living".

I calculated the following results:

If the world population was:

The average EF available for non-food consumption would be:

Giving an average standard of living equivalent to:

1,000,000,000

10.8

Higher than the USA

2,000,000,000

5.0

Denmark, Britain

3,000,000,000

3.0

Germany, Poland, Japan

4,000,000,000

2.0

Hungary, Botswana, Costa Rica

5,000,000,000

1.5

Chile, South Africa

6,000,000,000

1.1

Guatemala, Jordan, Cuba

7,000,000,000

0.8

Liberia, Armenia, Colombia

(We are here now)

8,000,000,000

0.6

Kyrgyzstan, Peru

9,000,000,000

0.4

Zimbabwe, Cameroon

(We will be here by 2050)

10,000,000,000

0.3

Angola, Tadjikistan

11,000,000,000

0.2

Haiti

12,000,000,000

0.1

Lower than Haiti

If the Ecological Footprint concept is correct, our population cannot continue to grow much more without resulting in significant global impoverishment, along with the social instability that implies.

Conclusion

This assessment says nothing about how we might get to a sustainable situation with a reasonable standard of living.  Most people are not in favour of limits to either their child-bearing or their consumption, at least if the limits are imposed by policy and legislation.  Given that, we are reduced to nibbling around the edges of the problem.

It seems to me as though this nibbling must consist of improving our food production practices, decarbonizing our economies, improving the energy intensity of our economies, promoting lower fertility rates whenever and however we can, but above all promoting drastically lower-consumption lifestyles in the rich nations.

The numbers are clear – the limits to growth in both consumption and population seem to be here.

Source: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Footprints_of_consumption.html  
Related PlanetThoughts.org reading:
  The Nightmare After Christmas (Feb-1-2014)
  Learning From China: Why The Existing Economic M... (Sep-20-2011)
  "And the day came when the risk it took to remain..." (Jun-26-2011)
  IT-Enabled Green Solutions (Jan-16-2011)
  Our Interactive Ecological Predicament (Jan-11-2011)
  I=PAT (Oct-12-2010)
  It'll Be Tough Enough Without The Hair-Shirts (Sep-15-2010)
  "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of..." (Aug-27-2010)
  Uncivilization And The Dark Mountain Project (Jun-25-2010)
  Imagine ... A World Without Advertising. (Feb-1-2010)

Click one tag to see readings related specifically to that tag; click "Tags" to see all related readings
  
^ top
Add a comment    
  Follow the comments made here? 
  (Please log in or register free to follow comments)
Comment by: TraceyFortin (Tracey Fortin) (Jan-8-2010)   
the info here is good. and thoughtful. but it does fall, unintentionally i hope, into classic population-fear rhetoric when it quotes the 2050 date without putting it in its proper context - that is that after 2050 the numbers will curve downward.
a few other thoughts: notice that even while we may currently be a Liberia-level world we concurrently have a few Haitis (and have for decades). in addition to simpler and yet more thoughtful farming practices we also need to better manage distribution and access differently which i believe is why we have both Haiti and obesity. perhaps there should be no such thing as multinational businesses and no food or water related patents. etc.
the use of the word 'sustainable' is also needs to be avoided - too conventional lefty wish-wash, too prone to lead to Fed-style regulation. could say that everythings been sustainable so far. there must be a better word that indicates flexibility and flux in things like climate and population numbers.
i love all the irony in these conundrums. like the old knowledge that the less you eat the longer you live. and that the Creative Force will continue creating us.
  
Comment by:  chefurka (Bodhisantra (Paul) Chefurka) (Jan-6-2010)   Web site

Cultural Creatives, yes. The growing movement has also been documented from a different perspective by Paul Hawken in his book "Blessed Unrest". Two million small local environmental, social justice, indigenous rights and spiritual groups world wide, growing at 40% a year. It's enough to make a person positively giddy in the face of doom :-)
  
Comment by: Eleanor Stoneham (Jan-6-2010)   Web site

However much the powers that be make legislation and regulation, I believe that any real and tangible change has to be promoted from the bottom up - from ourselves - we all have to really want that change in our hearts and souls whereas of course most of us seem reluctant to curb our profligate lifestyle, and simplify our lives in any meaningful way. Our addictions reflect our wounds and I feel sure we have to heal ourselves before we can heal the earth - perhaps with an encouraging nudge or two from our legislators, but we all know laws are widely flouted, witness the banned use of cell phones in cars.
All sounds like doom and gloom but I see hope in the new wave of spiritual consciousness that is emerging - viz. e.g. the Cultural Creatives phenomenon described by sociologist Paul Ray et al.
  
Comment by: City Worker (Jan-5-2010)   

There were graphs or something on this site, I believe, which showed that in many poor countries, there is much hunger. If the populations there keep growing, doesn’t that mean less and less food per person for groups of people who are already hungry? (I am not saying that the big consumers should not reduce their consumption. I think that's another issue.)
  
Comment by:  Wavehunter (William Coffin) (Jan-4-2010)   Web site

Great article. I became a little confused with the early graphs, but realised later they represented Gha per person rather than the combined Gha of a country's total population.

I agree completely with your conclusions. We can go some way to solving our problem by doing what we do in a more efficient manner, but to beat climate change we need to reduce consumption. Reducing population is one way to reduce consumption, but there are more obvious ways.
  
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Dec-31-2009)   Web site

A beautiful presentation of the interplay of population and consumption rates. Along the way, with charts and analysis, we do find out some of the underlying numbers that are useful for setting up successful incentive and regulatory policies, and public education. If negotiators would focus on benefit to the planet, and use numbers such as these, we might all be able to agree on effective changes, instead of squabbling over population vs consumption and rich vs poor as has happened up to now.

  
^ top 
About author/contributor Member: chefurka (Bodhisantra (Paul) Chefurka) chefurka (Bodhisantra (Paul) Chefurka)
   Web site: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/

Member: chefurka (Bodhisantra (Paul) Chefurka) I am a Canadian ecologist with a passionate interest in outside the box responses to the converging crisis of industrial civilization.

The crisis of civilization is not simply a convergence of technical, environmental and organizational problems.  These are symptoms that are themselves being driven by a philosophical and perceptual disconnection so deep that it is best understood as a spiritual breakdown.  The disconnection goes by the name of Separation.

Our sense of separation is what allows us to see ourselves as different from and superior to the rest of the apparently non-rational universe we live in.  In this worldview the complex mutual interdependence of all the elements of the universe is replaced by a simple dualistic categorization:  there are human beings, and everything else in the universe—without exception—is a resource for us to use.

The only way to keep this planet, our one and only home in the universe, from being ultimately ravaged and devastated is to change our worldview and heal our sense of separateness.  Unless we can manage that breathtaking feat all the careful application of technology, all the well-intentioned regulations, all the unbridled cleverness of which we are so proud will do little to delay the final outcome, and nothing whatever to prevent it.

My desire is to find ways to heal that sense of separation, with the goal of helping us prepare for ecological adulthood.

Visit Green Wave Email Marketing
Email Marketing for You and Your Planet


We won a Gotham Green Award for 2010, on Earth Day! Thank you Gotham Networking for this award.

See the attractive event brochure.

Recommended Sites

  Member of:
GOtham Green networking
Green Collar Economy
New York Academy of Sciences
Shades of Green Network

  PlanetThoughts
     Members/Affiliates *

Approaching the Limits
    to Growth
EcoEarth.Info
Environmental News Network
EESI.org
GreenBiz.com
GreenHomeBuilding.com
Heroin and Cornflakes
NewScientist
ScienceDaily


* Members of PlanetThoughts      
  communities on SU or MBL,      
  and blog article affiliates      

  Other Favorite Blogs
21st Century Citizen
Center for Bio. Diversity
Easy Ways to Go Green
EcoGeek
Good Bags
Opposing Views


Valid my RSS feeds


We Do Follow

ClickBlog.org



  Volunteer      Terms of Use      Privacy Policy  

Copyright © 2020 PlanetThoughts.org. All Rights Reserved.
Except for blog items by David Alexander: Some Rights Reserved.