'Overextension: our American way of life is not sustainableWritten by Chris Clugston
Editor's Note: Chris Clugston is the kind of independent researcher and commentator who has the corporate and academic background to put numbers together. Fortunately, it is for the big picture. Few environmentalists are willing to tackle overpopulation, but Clugston actually quantifies it. -JL
Through our relentless pursuit of the American Dream and our blind adherence to our American way of life, we have become overextended -- we have exceeded America’s capacity to sustainably support our existing population at our current standard of living. That is, the natural resources and economic resources required to support our ever-increasing consumption levels by our ever-expanding population are simply not available; nor is the capacity of our habitat sufficient to assimilate the ever-increasing amounts of waste disgorged by our ever-expanding population.
To compound our predicament, we have become "irreversibly" overextended -- we are past the point of "painless" return. We have so consistently and drastically overshot our sustainable consumption and population levels that returning to sustainable levels will necessarily involve significant lifestyle disruptions -- living standard degradation, population level reduction, and the possible loss of sovereignty; there can be no "soft landing."
Note: We are temporarily able to maintain prosperity and growth, despite our overextended condition, because the adverse effects associated with our continuously accumulating ecological and economic indiscretions -- which enable our current prosperity and growth -- have yet to be felt. We are essentially living on borrowed time.
Quantifying American OverextensionIn order to fully appreciate the extent to which America is overextended and to understand why our American way of life is not sustainable, it is necessary to quantify American overextension; that is, to compute the difference between our current consumption and population levels, and the consumption and population levels at which America could subsist sustainably and self-sufficiently going forward into the future.
One method by which these metrics can be determined is through the use of "ecological footprint" data. Ecological Footprint
The Global Footprint Network [GFN] defines ecological footprint as "a resource management tool that measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing technology." Thus, a country’s ecological footprint equals the earth’s surface area required to produce the resources consumed by its population and to assimilate the waste generated by its population, over the course of a year.
For example, by 2003 GFN calculations, Iraq had a per capita ecological footprint of 2.5 acres, China 4.0 acres, India 1.7 acres, UK 13.8 acres, world average 5.4 acres -- and America 24.0 acres.
This means that, on average, approximately 24 acres of planet earth’s surface area are required to produce the resources consumed and to assimilate the waste generated by every American each year. Interestingly, America’s "biocapacity", the domestic US surface area available to produce resources for consumption and to assimilate resulting waste, is only 11.6 acres per capita—leaving an "ecological deficit" of 12.4 acres per capita.
This means that over half of America’s current subsistence -- production of the resources that we consume and assimilation of the waste that we generate -- is enabled through excessive consumption; that is, by "importing biocapacity, liquidating existing stocks of ecological capital, or allowing wastes to accumulate and ecosystems to degrade" [quote from GFN website].
In fact, America has been running increasingly large annual ecological deficits since the 1960sUS Ecological Footprint
The ecological footprint analysis conducted by Redefining Progress [RP], an organization that defines ecological footprint in somewhat broader terms, is even more alarming. RP calculated America’s 2001 per capita ecological footprint to be 267 acres and our per capita biocapacity to be 50 acres, leaving a per capita ecological deficit of 217 acres.
This indicates that over 80% of America’s current subsistence is enabled by excessive consumption!
How does ecological footprint data translate into sustainable US consumption levels and population levels? America’s 2006 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was approximately $13.2 trillion—which can be considered a financial proxy for our "current consumption level". At the end of 2006, America’s population stood at approximately 300 million, which can be considered our "current population level".
To compound our predicament, we have become "irreversibly" overextended -- we are past the point of "painless" return. We have so consistently and drastically overshot our sustainable consumption and population levels that returning to sustainable levels will necessarily involve significant lifestyle disruptions -- living standard degradation, population level reduction, and the possible loss of sovereignty; there can be no "soft landing."
Note: We are temporarily able to maintain prosperity and growth, despite our overextended condition, because the adverse effects associated with our continuously accumulating ecological and economic indiscretions -- which enable our current prosperity and growth -- have yet to be felt. We are essentially living on borrowed time.
Quantifying American OverextensionIn order to fully appreciate the extent to which America is overextended and to understand why our American way of life is not sustainable, it is necessary to quantify American overextension; that is, to compute the difference between our current consumption and population levels, and the consumption and population levels at which America could subsist sustainably and self-sufficiently going forward into the future.
One method by which these metrics can be determined is through the use of "ecological footprint" data. Ecological Footprint
The Global Footprint Network [GFN] defines ecological footprint as "a resource management tool that measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing technology." Thus, a country’s ecological footprint equals the earth’s surface area required to produce the resources consumed by its population and to assimilate the waste generated by its population, over the course of a year.
For example, by 2003 GFN calculations, Iraq had a per capita ecological footprint of 2.5 acres, China 4.0 acres, India 1.7 acres, UK 13.8 acres, world average 5.4 acres -- and America 24.0 acres.
This means that, on average, approximately 24 acres of planet earth’s surface area are required to produce the resources consumed and to assimilate the waste generated by every American each year. Interestingly, America’s "biocapacity", the domestic US surface area available to produce resources for consumption and to assimilate resulting waste, is only 11.6 acres per capita—leaving an "ecological deficit" of 12.4 acres per capita.
This means that over half of America’s current subsistence -- production of the resources that we consume and assimilation of the waste that we generate -- is enabled through excessive consumption; that is, by "importing biocapacity, liquidating existing stocks of ecological capital, or allowing wastes to accumulate and ecosystems to degrade" [quote from GFN website].
In fact, America has been running increasingly large annual ecological deficits since the 1960sUS Ecological Footprint
The ecological footprint analysis conducted by Redefining Progress [RP], an organization that defines ecological footprint in somewhat broader terms, is even more alarming. RP calculated America’s 2001 per capita ecological footprint to be 267 acres and our per capita biocapacity to be 50 acres, leaving a per capita ecological deficit of 217 acres.
This indicates that over 80% of America’s current subsistence is enabled by excessive consumption!
How does ecological footprint data translate into sustainable US consumption levels and population levels? America’s 2006 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was approximately $13.2 trillion—which can be considered a financial proxy for our "current consumption level". At the end of 2006, America’s population stood at approximately 300 million, which can be considered our "current population level".
Using GFN Data
According to the GFN ecological footprint analysis, America’s biocapacity, our domestic surface area available to produce resources for consumption and to assimilate resulting waste, currently provides for only 48% of our actual annual subsistence; 52% of our annual subsistence is enabled by importing biocapacity, drawing down resource reserves, and degrading our habitat.
Therefore, in order to live sustainably and self-sufficiently within the constraints imposed by our domestic US biocapacity, while maintaining an average living standard roughly comparable to that which we enjoy today, we would have to reduce our aggregate annual consumption level and total population level by approximately 52%.'
According to the GFN ecological footprint analysis, America’s biocapacity, our domestic surface area available to produce resources for consumption and to assimilate resulting waste, currently provides for only 48% of our actual annual subsistence; 52% of our annual subsistence is enabled by importing biocapacity, drawing down resource reserves, and degrading our habitat.
Therefore, in order to live sustainably and self-sufficiently within the constraints imposed by our domestic US biocapacity, while maintaining an average living standard roughly comparable to that which we enjoy today, we would have to reduce our aggregate annual consumption level and total population level by approximately 52%.'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten