Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

[Rajiv]

Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[don]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

Today orthodox economics is reputedly being harnessed to an entirely new end: saving the planet from the ecological destruction wrought by capitalist expansion. It promises to accomplish this through the further expansion of capitalism itself, cleared of its excesses and excrescences. A growing army of self-styled “sustainable developers” argues that there is no contradiction between the unlimited accumulation of capital — the credo of economic liberalism from Adam Smith to the present — and the preservation of the earth. The system can continue to expand by creating a new “sustainable capitalism,” bringing the efficiency of the market to bear on nature and its reproduction. In reality, these visions amount to little more than a renewed strategy for profiting on planetary destruction.

Behind this tragedy-cum-farce is a distorted accounting deeply rooted in the workings of the system that sees wealth entirely in terms of value generated through exchange. In such a system, only commodities for sale on the market really count. External nature — water, air, living species — outside this system of exchange is viewed as a “free gift.” Once such blinders have been put on, it is possible to speak, as the leading U.S. climate economist William Nordhaus has, of the relatively unhindered growth of the economy a century or so from now, under conditions of business as usual — despite the fact that leading climate scientists see following the identical path over the same time span as absolutely catastrophic both for human civilization and life on the planet as a whole.1

Such widely disparate predictions from mainstream economists and natural scientists are due to the fact that, in the normal reckoning of the capitalist system, both nature’s contribution to wealth and the destruction of natural conditions are largely invisible. Insulated in their cocoon, orthodox economists either implicitly deny the existence of nature altogether or assume that it can be completely subordinated to narrow, acquisitive ends.

This fatal flaw of received economics can be traced back to its conceptual foundations. The rise of neoclassical economics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is commonly associated with the rejection of the labor theory of value of classical political economy and its replacement by notions of marginal utility/productivity. What is seldom recognized, however, is that another critical perspective was abandoned at the same time: the distinction between wealth and value (use value and exchange value). With this was lost the possibility of a broader ecological and social conception of wealth. These blinders of orthodox economics, shutting out the larger natural and human world, were challenged by figures inhabiting what John Maynard Keynes called the “underworlds” of economics. This included critics such as James Maitland (Earl of Lauderdale), Karl Marx, Henry George, Thorstein Veblen, and Frederick Soddy. Today, in a time of unlimited environmental destruction, such heterodox views are having a comeback.2

http://monthlyreview.org/091101foster-clark.php

[Starving Steve]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

We could divert the Nile River into the Sahara Desert outside the Nile Valley and farm the desert. Some agricultural land would be lost to saltwater intrusion from the Mediterranian Sea in the Nile Delta, but probably there would be a huge net-gain of agricultural land. In addition to this, a new dam could be built in Sudan to further increase (maybe double) the Nile's fresh water impoundment, not to mention double the hydro-electric energy produced from the current Aswan Dam.

We could de-salinate seawater. We could build atomic power plants. We could de-commission atomic warheads and make fuel for atomic power plants from these warheads.... The bottom-line is that humanity could do just fine with ONE Earth.

Yes, world population should be reduced, but I do not buy into the entire green paradigm that consumption needs to be reduced. We just have to consume in smarter ways, as I have outlined above.

I deeply resent that the Eel River in north-west California is flowing into the Pacific, dumping a vast volume of freshwater away into the sea so that salmon might have habitat. That river should be dammed and diverted south to serve the needs of people; and not a drop of Eel River water should be dumped into the sea.:mad:

One Earth, fully developed and exploited, will be fine for mankind. No-one need take a hit in their standard of living.;)

[MulaMan]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

or 4/5s of humans will be killed off by a combination of disease and war.

The mistake both of you make with your posted arguments is called the "God Problem".

Both believe human beings exist "outside of the earth's natural systems".

Both left wing environmentalists and right wing Ann Randians are nut cases because both have this "We are God" issue.

[don]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

In a FIRE dominated economy, exchange value is everything. EJ pointed this out quite well in his piece on Peak Cheap Oil. Scarcity, with concomitant price increases, will stimulate accelerated extraction, kicking use value once again over the side.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

In a FIRE dominated economy, exchange value is everything. EJ pointed this out quite well in his piece on Peak Cheap Oil. Scarcity, with concomitant price increases, will stimulate accelerated extraction, kicking use value once again over the side.

My view is that government should DRIVE-DOWN resource prices so that growth can occur and peoples' standard-of-living can be raised. This makes me at-odds totally with the green-nuts on the left.

In cities, I would encourage sprawl. I would annex land, and let the city grow. In downtowns, I would demolish blight and let the city grow upward into the sky. All development would be welcomed and encouraged.

To farm deserts, I would build dams, divert water, and also de-salinate seawater.

To solve the energy problem, I would flood the energy market with hydro-electric power, atomic power, and up-graded heavy oil. I would build natural-gas pipelines and promote (subsidize) nat-gas central heating in homes.

One of the huge mistakes of the Obama Administration so far has been to come to power and not have any plan for stimulus money. So we have witnessed idiotic programs like "cash-for-clunkers".

The Democrats should have had a plan to build dams, water projects, power plants, offshore drilling, oil-upgrading facilities, and nat-gas pipelines with stimulus money. Maybe stimulus money could have gone toward building skyscrapers and urban renewal, too.... Instead, the Democrats came to Washington with little more than a green agenda of hope, wishful-thinking, pissing-away money on windmills and solar, cap-'n-trade, cash-for-clunkers, not-to-mention: carbon conferences and photo ops, ridiculous daily news-conferences from the White House, and endless hand-shaking affairs.

And now we have nothing accomplished by the Democrats; nothing at all.

[c1ue]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

This article is more ridiculous Eco-Nazi crap.

1) A scholar in China noted many years ago that it would require the resources of 4 Earths in order for China to enjoy a standard of living equivalent to the West.

http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/ipteh...ions/3_Zhu.pdf

Yet this Footprint organization thinks the entire world only needs 5 earths?

2) The numbers seem unrealistic

The average American has an ecological footprint of nine global hectares (23 acres), or the equivalent of 17 US football fields.

The US has an area of 3.79 million square miles. There are 640 acres in a square mile. This works out to roughly a 34% coverage of the 'ecological footprint'.

So the US is only over-representing its resources by 66%?

This seems ridiculous given that the US consumes 25% of the world's oil despite being less than 5% of the world's population.

[GRG55]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

...This seems ridiculous given that the US consumes 25% of the world's oil despite being less than 5% of the world's population.

Makes more sense to compare oil or energy consumption against output, not population levels.

Not to detract from the point you are making, but in a world where total oil consumption is now fairly flat to slightly down, in the past 4 years the USA has cut its consumption to 22% of the total. Here's the data for 2005 and 2nd Q 2009 [most recent data available]. None of this will be news to iTulipers, but the shift between OECD and non-OECD is quite dramatic given the compressed time frame. The data also put paid to all the experts claiming that global oil demand has "collapsed"...in reality it's hardly changed since mid-decade.

Petroleum (Oil) Demand	2005		% of Total		2ndQ 2009		% of Total		% Change
(millions of barrels per day)
OECD
United States	20.80		24.8%		18.47		22.1%		-11.2%
Other OECD	29.00		34.5%		25.87		30.9%		-10.8%
Total OECD	49.80		59.3%		44.33		53.0%		-11.0%
Non-OECD
China	6.70		8.0%		8.44		10.1%		26.0%
Former U.S.S.R.	4.16		4.9%		4.19		5.0%		0.9%
Other Non-OECD	23.38		27.8%		26.61		31.8%		13.8%
Total Non-OECD	34.24		40.7%		39.25		47.0%		14.6%
Total World Demand	84.04				83.58				-0.5%

[GRG55]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

Makes more sense to compare oil or energy consumption against output, not population levels.

Not to detract from the point you are making, but in a world where total oil consumption is now fairly flat to slightly down, in the past 4 years the USA has cut its consumption to 22% of the total. Here's the data for 2005 and 2nd Q 2009 [most recent data available]. None of this will be news to iTulipers, but the shift between OECD and non-OECD is quite dramatic given the compressed time frame. The data also put paid to all the experts claiming that global oil demand has "collapsed"...in reality it's hardly changed since mid-decade.

Petroleum (Oil) Demand	2005		% of Total		2ndQ 2009		% of Total		% Change
(millions of barrels per day)
OECD
United States	20.80		24.8%		18.47		22.1%		-11.2%
Other OECD	29.00		34.5%		25.87		30.9%		-10.8%
Total OECD	49.80		59.3%		44.33		53.0%		-11.0%
Non-OECD
China	6.70		8.0%		8.44		10.1%		26.0%
Former U.S.S.R.	4.16		4.9%		4.19		5.0%		0.9%
Other Non-OECD	23.38		27.8%		26.61		31.8%		13.8%
Total Non-OECD	34.24		40.7%		39.25		47.0%		14.6%
Total World Demand	84.04				83.58				-0.5%

And on the other side of the coin...

U.S. Crude Oil Production Poised for Biggest Jump Since 1970

Platts

Friday, November 27, 2009

United States crude oil production for 2009 is on target to have its biggest one-year jump since 1970, according to a Platts analysis of industry data...

...If that 5.268 million b/d figure holds through December, this year would show a 6.4% boost from the 4.95 million b/d average of 2008 and rank as the best U.S. oil production year since 2004, when output averaged 5.419 million b/d.

For comparison, in the 40 years since U.S. oil production peaked annual output has jumped only eight times. Seven of those increases were minimal; only in 1978 was there a jump of significant magnitude, an increase of 5.6%, to 8.7 million b/d...

...Projections from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) indicate that the primary driver for this year's U.S. oil production resurgence is actually just getting started. That driver is the Gulf of Mexico, where operators have begun launching a group of new fields, fulfilling what has been a decade-long focus on unlocking the promise of deepwater exploration there...

...Besides growth in the Gulf, those other trends involve further development of the Bakken Shale oil play in North Dakota and success by a group of operators now training their onshore exploration sights toward new oil targets at the expense of natural gas.

The development of the Bakken into a robust, new oil province is well under way, according to data from EIA. Bakken oil output has already elevated North Dakota into fifth place among U.S. states for oil production with average daily output of 202,000 b/d at the end of 2008.

But that number already appears to be old, even though is was 50% more than 2007 figures. For example, in June of this year, production in North Dakota had climbed to 215,000 b/d...

[c1ue]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

Not to detract from the point you are making, but in a world where total oil consumption is now fairly flat to slightly down, in the past 4 years the USA has cut its consumption to 22% of the total. Here's the data for 2005 and 2nd Q 2009 [most recent data available]. None of this will be news to iTulipers, but the shift between OECD and non-OECD is quite dramatic given the compressed time frame. The data also put paid to all the experts claiming that global oil demand has "collapsed"...in reality it's hardly changed since mid-decade.

Not at all - thank you for the update.

I would note, however, that at least a tithe of China's oil consumption (and the ROW's) is due to US consumption - above and beyond any mutual trade.

Thus it is quite possible that actual oil consumption per person in the US hasn't changed - merely morphed from "Burned in USA" to "Burned in China"

[snowman111]

Re: Humanity Needs Five Earths To Maintain Consumption Levels

We could divert the Nile River into the Sahara Desert outside the Nile Valley and farm the desert. Some agricultural land would be lost to saltwater intrusion from the Mediterranian Sea in the Nile Delta, but probably there would be a huge net-gain of agricultural land. In addition to this, a new dam could be built in Sudan to further increase (maybe double) the Nile's fresh water impoundment, not to mention double the hydro-electric energy produced from the current Aswan Dam.

We could de-salinate seawater. We could build atomic power plants. We could de-commission atomic warheads and make fuel for atomic power plants from these warheads.... The bottom-line is that humanity could do just fine with ONE Earth.

Yes, world population should be reduced, but I do not buy into the entire green paradigm that consumption needs to be reduced. We just have to consume in smarter ways, as I have outlined above.

I deeply resent that the Eel River in north-west California is flowing into the Pacific, dumping a vast volume of freshwater away into the sea so that salmon might have habitat. That river should be dammed and diverted south to serve the needs of people; and not a drop of Eel River water should be dumped into the sea.:mad:

One Earth, fully developed and exploited, will be fine for mankind. No-one need take a hit in their standard of living.;)

Nile is already being diverted beyond capacity and is causing irrigation to fail in the Nile delta region. The problem is lack of water not utilization. Desalinization is one possible solution in the future. The problem is desalinization not an economic viable answer today and even less so for developing countries.