PDA

View Full Version : Ecological Debt Day: October 6, 2007


abdulhakeem
17-11-07, 10:38 AM
Ecological Debt Day Comes and Goes in the Blink of an Eye

By Joshua S Hill • October 11, 2007

You know, I really tried! My editor asked me to make sure that I wasn’t too negative or pessimistic, and I tried for a whole week. But it all come crashing down on me this past Saturday, and there is nothing to do at the moment then to revert to my natural disposition.

Ecological Debt Day

But there is due cause as well, and not just a trend of over 15 years of such negativity driving this position. On Saturday, the 6th of October, we passed our Ecological Debt Day.

Now I didn’t know what Ecological Debt Day was either, until today, so let me share.

Each year, our planet needs to provide a certain amount of resources for us to consume. In theory, we should not go through all of that in a year, but we do. In fact, ever since we started living beyond our means back in the 1980s, the time at which we use up our natural resources has come ever earlier.

So, as you will have guessed, Ecological Debt Day is the day on which we use up the resources for one year, and start eating into the next year’s… literally. It’s the day we start living beyond our ecological means.

The calculations made by the Global Footprint Network are relatively easily explained, but I’ll let them do it:

Each year Global Footprint Network calculates humanity’s Ecological Footprint (its demand on cropland, pasture, forests and fisheries) and compares it with global biocapacity (the ability of these ecosystems to generate resources and absorb wastes). Ecological Footprint accounting can be used to determine the exact date we, as a global community, go into ecological overshoot, using more than the planet can regenerate in a year. On Ecological Debt Day, we go into global overshoot for a given year and begin contributing to our global ecological debt, which has been accumulating since we first went into overshoot in the 1980s.

Ecological Overshoot

The "Overshoot" they mention is the demand placed upon the earth to reproduce more than it can. Such an overshoot leads to the depletion of Earth’s life-supporting natural capacity, and a subsequent build-up of waste.

As of this year, we are currently demanding of our planet what we should be demanding of 1.3 planet earths. The overshoot stat is similar, showing that we use 30% more than nature can regularly regenerate in the same year. In simpler terms, it would take 1 year and 3 months for the Earth to regenerate what is being used in one year.

The "how" is relatively easy to guess as well: deforestation, overfishing, etc.

Chinadependance

Some truly terrifying stats emerge when we look at individual countries’ own ecological debts. For example, if every country on Earth had the same consumption rates as the United States, it would take 5.3 planet earths to support them; similarly, it is 3.1 for France and Britain, 3.0 for Spain, 2.5 for Germany and 2.4 for Japan.

So why is it that countries like China get the brunt of our anger when it comes to the failing ecosystem we call home? Why is it that, when countries like the US are consuming our resources as if they were candy, we would use .9 of a planet if we were to match China’s standard rate of consumption, instead of 5.3?

In reality, per person, China’s greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of what they are in Europe and the United States. Another point to consider is that China’s greenhouse emissions would not be nearly so high if it weren’t for the fact that industrialized Western nations continually demand an increase in the output of China’s factories.

This is known as Chinadependance, and the name describes it perfectly.

Responsibility

We are doubly responsible then, not only for our own lax attitude and consumption, but for also creating an untenable situation for countries like China. And the blame settles heavier on our shoulders by the year, with rising imports from China increasing not only the economic impact, but the environmental impact as well. I’ll explain.

Consider the fact that the more we demand of China to supply us, the more they have to produce, and the heavier the shipments. This pushes up the emissions of those ships and planes that deliver the goods. We are triply responsible, then, for the ever weakening state of our environment; there is no way we can look away from that.

But the simple fact is that humans are causing damage to the environment. That our Ecological Debt Day continues to inch forward is simple proof of that, and not up for debate. Just as the melting Arctic ice is not up for debate: it has happened, and all the bickering and shouting in the world will not change that fact.

You, Me, and the Next-Door Neighbor

So I’ll end this with an attempt to swing back in line with my editor Jeff’s request for me to make this relevant to all of us.

I know that it is hard to see our input as meaning much to the larger equation. Spinning composts, ‘No Trash Weeks’ and the good old "Speak to your congressman/councilman/etc" are all good and well, but what do they really add in the long run?

It is the long run that we are talking about.

Sadly, it is unlikely that you or I will see any real results in our lifetimes. The saddest bit about that is that I’m only 23, and I’m very well aware that it is my kids, and my kids’ kids that we are doing this for.

Compost everything in sight, and make sure your cat has a bell on so there are no unfortunate accidents. Minimize your own trash, and get your friends, family and neighbors to do the same thing. Speak to your politicians: let them know that you want them to do something meaningful.

There are, of course, bigger things that we can all do, too. The Billion Trees initiative started by the UN, Greenpeace, WWF and other environmental groups all want your help. Whether you are young or old, an administrator or a lawyer, you can help somewhere. And slowly, ever so slowly, we’re going to win this battle, because there are people like us who want to help fix the world.

Who knows — maybe we will see change in our lifetimes. Maybe in a decade or two, our Ecological Debt Day will be pushed back, rather than forward.

http://joshuashill.greenoptions.com/2007/10/11/ecological-debt-day-comes-and-goes-in-the-blink-of-an-eye/

abdulhakeem
17-11-07, 10:40 AM
As of Oct.6, we're in 'ecological debt'

Program #5359 of the Earth & Sky Radio Series
with hosts DEBORAH BYRD, JOEL BLOCK,
LINDSAY PATTERSON and JORGE SALAZAR

By early October, we humans had already consumed all the resources Earth will produce for 2007.

That’s the basis of Ecological Debt Day, announced by Mathis Wackernagel of the Global Footprint Network.

To find the Ecological Debt Day for each year, the Global Footprint Network calculates the ratio of the planet’s available biocapacity to the global demand on nature in that year. Then they multiply this ratio by 365 to get the date on which we humans have consumed all the resources Earth will produce in a year.

Currently, humanity uses 30% more in one year than nature can regenerate. In 2007, Ecological Debt Day fell on October 6, and each year it slides up the calendar by about three days as population grows, demand and consumption increases, and biocapacity decreases.

Wackernagel said the most effective way to slow down our use of resources is to focus on making infrastructure, like cities or power plants, resource efficient, and address trends that move slowly, like demographic growth, early on. He calls these “slow changing stocks.”

Mathis Wackernagel: They will determine for decades to come to what extent we consume resources or not. So to what extent we are building ourselves traps, or opportunities.

Mathis Wackernagel also said, “Ecological assets are the most significant assets we depend on, because that’s where all the wealth comes from.”

http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/51916/were-past-ecological-debt-day

abdulhakeem
17-11-07, 10:41 AM
How we can stay out of 'ecological debt'

You may not have heard of Ecological Debt Day before, but it happens every year. It’s the one day that divides the part of the year where we have enough natural resources to meet people’s demands on the Earth, and the part of the year that we don’t – that is, we’re in ecological debt.

Earth & Sky’s Lindsay Patterson spoke to Mathis Wackernagel, executive director of the Global Footprint Network, about the idea of Ecological Debt Day, how to slow our appetite for resources, and what we can do to better manage our natural assets.

http://www.earthsky.org/clear-voices/51930/mathis-wackernagel-eco-debt

abdulhakeem
17-11-07, 10:44 AM
Ecological Footprints

November 9, 2007

A new study by Global Footprint Network compares the ecological footprints of 93 nations across the globe- and finds that Cuba is the only one developing sustainably. Global Footprint Network Director Mathis Wackernagel tells host Bruce Gellerman why Cuba tops the list.

TRANSCRIPT

GELLERMAN: Sustainable development is one of the Holy Grails of the environmental movement, even though there's no general agreement on what the term actually means. But there's a new definition of sustainable development, devised by researchers at Global Footprint Network. That's an international nonprofit organization dedicated to creating tools for sustainable living. In a paper published in Ecological Economics, they've identified which countries are measuring up. And the results may surprise you.
Mathis Wackernagel is the executive director of Global Footprint Network. Welcome to Living on Earth.

WACKERNAGEL: It's wonderful to be with you.

GELLERMAN: So what is sustainable development?

WACKERNAGEL: Sustainable development, we would say, is one of the most specific policy concepts around. Essentially it has two parts; one is development, the other one is the sustainable. Let's start with the development. Development can be measured with the United Nations human development index, which summarizes three key components that make good lives possible. One is to have long lives. The other one is to have access to education and literacy. And the third one is to have access to some minimum income. However, we call it sustainable development because there's only one planet. So we have to provide this development within the means of one planet. And that's what we can measure with the ecological footprint.

GELLERMAN: So as we advance we can't be eating our seed corn because future generations won't be able to advance?

WACKERNAGEL: That's exactly right. So, essentially we claim let's live on the income rather than dipping into our assets.

GELLERMAN: So you looked at what—93 countries on the sustainable development index. How many countries are measuring up?

WACKERNAGEL: Among all the 90 countries we looked at, we only found one country that meets both minimum criteria, which doesn't mean that they are necessarily sustainable but they are providing long lives and high education and minimum income without using more than what is available globally worldwide per person. And this country is called Cuba.

GELLERMAN: Cuba? That's a surprise.

WACKERNAGEL: To be totally honest, Cuba would probably like to have a larger footprint; it would like to have access to more resources. They were forced to be much more resource efficient than they probably would like to be because of the trade embargo they're under and so their footprint has shrunk a little bit since, in particular the Soviet Union collapsed back in the early 90s. However, they have still been able to maintain high human development in terms of still increasing longevity and maintaining very high access to educational success.

GELLERMAN: I was in Cuba soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and things were terrible there. I mean, people were really suffering. There was no gas for cars. People were pulling cars down the street with horses. I went back a few years ago and things had dramatically improved. One of the things that I found was that they were doing sustainable agriculture. They weren't using inputs like pesticides and chemicals because they couldn't afford them. And other things had improved but they had suffered mightily.

WACKERNAGEL: Yes. If we say Cuba meets the sustainable development criteria, we don't say that's the nirvana, the most beautiful life you could imagine. I mean, actually, I have quite a large footprint and that makes my life quite comfortable as it is. But it's a contradiction I totally acknowledge, but if everybody lived like me, it would take about five planets. We don't have five planets. So, it's like a budget question. We have to be creative and find out how can we have the best outcomes recognizing there's a budget limitation?

GELLERMAN: What country was number two behind Cuba?

WACKERNAGEL: Many of the Caribbean nations and Latin American nations are pretty close to the quotient—the sustainability quotient, which is defined by low footprint and high human development.

GELLERMAN: What about the United States?

WACKERNAGEL: The United States may be one of the countries furthest away from the box. The United States has one of the largest footprints per person worldwide and it would take about six planets like Planet Earth to support the world population if everybody assumed current American consumption patterns.

GELLERMAN: If Cuba is the only nation that measures up according to your sustainability development index, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the planet.

WACKERNAGEL: The sustainable development challenge probably is the defining challenge of the 21st century: will we be able to provide well-being within the means of one Planet Earth, or not? If not, we'll be seeing more and more collapses around the world. We have seen them now in, let's say Haiti, with very severe resource constraints and extreme social misery implications. What we saw in Rwanda and Darfur right now is a kind of manifestation of the resource crunch leading to quite tragic human breakdowns. However, there's another path and I believe, a much more attractive one, which the World Wildlife Fund calls 'one planet living.' And the idea is: how can we live well within one planet?

GELLERMAN: What about my life? Can I live an American lifestyle and yet have a sustainable lifestyle? Or are the two incompatible?

WACKERNAGEL: Right now, infrastructure how it's built in the United States makes it very hard to live very low-footprint lifestyles. We can dramatically reduce our individual footprints. Can we get to one-planet living on our own and still kind of participate in mainstream society? Probably, that's still a bit of a challenge. But there are big decisions that you make in our life. We call that 'slow things first.' We should look at the stocks that we invest in—are they putting us in a better place or are they traps? These big decisions that we make in our lives—how many offspring we have, for example, what kind of housing we buy into, and what kind of cars we buy if we depend on car transportation—majorly determine resource consumption for the next decades to come. It just shows that building infrastructure right and making sure we have attractive, well-functioning, resource-efficient, high-performing cities is really the key to the future.

GELLERMAN: Well Mr. Wackernagel, thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time.

WACKERNAGEL: It's wonderful being with you. Thank you.

GELLERMAN: Mathis Wackernagel is executive director of Global Footprint Network.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00045&segmentID=2

abdulhakeem
17-11-07, 10:45 AM
Global Footprint Website (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=overshoot)

zay_1982
17-11-07, 10:59 AM
lolz ... so much going on out there hard to imajine whats going to happen next whats a carbon foot print and another this theres another thing i keep hearing on the new i dont get is about - carbon amissions and etc what do they meen and how caan someone go green?

i mean only the uk seems to be trying but what about the world?what are they doing?

think about the war and all the things they use/ aint they damaging our environment ?

do these people think?

zay_1982
17-11-07, 11:00 AM
im really sorry for sounding so think please do forgive me inshallah