('eco-debt') Mankind is using up global resources faster than ever

[kpete]

Source: Telegraph UK

Mankind is using up global resources faster than ever
The growing world population and increasing consumption has pushed the world into ‘eco-debt’ a month earlier this year, according to the latest statistics on global resources.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 6:45AM BST 16 Aug 2010

Think tank the New Economics Foundation (NEF) look at how much food, fuel and other resources are consumed by humans every year. They then compare it to how much the world can provide without threatening the ability of important ecosystems like oceans and rainforests to recover.

This year the moment we start eating into nature's capital or ‘Earth Overshoot Day’ will fall on 21st August, a full month earlier than last year, when resources were used up by 23rd September.

Andrew Simms, Policy Director at NEF, blamed increased consumption.

He said people in developing countries like China are consuming more meat and demanding cars and other energy-intensive goods. Even with green developments and energy efficiency, rich countries are also consuming more as individuals demand the latest technology, food fad or car.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7946613/Mankind-is-using-up-global-resources-faster-than-ever.html

[bhikkhu]

1. From the grand beginnings of another major extinction event...

...this is what I think of every time someone calls for "renewed economic growth". If you look at emissions, recession is the only condition that has offered any hope.

I know - jobs are a big problem - but to continue living on this planet in any kind of health we need to learn to live with what we have, to use less, to end the continual exponential growth.

[villager]

2. That's exactly the corner we've painted ourselves into... "Jobs are #1!,"

...and yet, the more people work and consume, the faster we lurch toward extinction.

Not that either of the "two" parties is going to do much about either issue...

[glitch]

3. You are correct. We need a new economy.

I read David Korten, he seems to offer the most promise.

edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8954578

[Delphinus]

19. Yes,

we must stop looking at unfettered growth as a great thing. It is not.

Edit to add: I am so impressed by what David Korten says. Saw him on Bill Moyers and went to the library to get his first book, written in the late seventies or early eighties. He is so astute.

[The Stranger]

4. The most important post on the board.

The most important issue in the world.

Quite literally.

[caraher]

6. And not even on the list of 14 issues on the last dem fundraising "survey" I got

The closest they came was "energy independence," but striving for that in some folks' eyes means "Drill, baby, drill!"

Heads in the sand... if we close our eyes it will go away, right?

[Lorien]

14. Sadly the Dems have almost completely abandoned this issue

even on DU most DUers don't include "the environment", biodiversity loss or climate change among their priorities. If earth can't sustain human life (and it won't with too much biodiversity loss) how much will their top 14 issues matter?

[Lorien]

15. +1000. nt

[The2ndWheel]

5. Opportunity cost of growth

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53806

"Economics is about counting costs, and the cost to be counted is “opportunity cost,” arguably the most basic concept in economics. It is defined as the next best alternative to the one chosen, in other words, as the best of the sacrificed alternatives. You chose the best alternative, the opportunity cost is the second best, the alternative that you would choose if the best were unavailable. If there were no scarcity, choice would not be necessary, there would be no opportunity cost, and economics would not exist. More of everything means opportunity cost is zero, and is essentially the denial of economics. Yet “more of everything” is the goal of so-called “growth economics.” When the whole economy grows, the growth economists say that we get more of everything. Is there an opportunity cost to the growth of the whole macroeconomy? Not in the view of mainstream macroeconomists. In their view the economy is the Whole and nature (mines wells, grasslands, fisheries, forests…) are Parts of the economy. Used up parts can be substituted by new parts; natural parts can be substituted by manmade parts; natural resources can be substituted by capital. The whole macroeconomy is not itself seen as a subsystem or part of a larger but finite ecosystem, into which the macroeconomy grows and encroaches. These economists imagine that the macroeconomy grows into the void, not into the constraining biophysical envelope of the ecosystem. Since macroeconomic growth is held to incur no opportunity cost (the displaced void is worthless!), one must conclude that “growth economics” is really not economics – it is almost the negation of economics!

Almost – there is one remaining bit of scarcity. Growth economists recognize that we can’t have more of everything instantaneously. To get more of everything we must invest and wait. The opportunity cost of investment is forgone present consumption. But it is a temporary cost. Later we will have more of everything, and after that still more of everything, etc. Is there no end to this? Not for the standard macroeconomists. In their view it might be possible to grow too fast, but never to get too big. That is, the opportunity cost of investment needed for rapid growth might be too high in terms of forgone present consumption. But that misallocation is temporary and will soon be washed away by growth itself that will give us more of everything in the future – more consumption and more investment. That is the growth economist’s theory."

[Karenina]

7. And THAT is the mentality of a cancer cell. n/t

[Gregorian]

8. I come out of 6 months of self imposed banning to thank you for posting this. Most important subject

There is no single issue greater than this.

I'm weary of being in some kind of invisible minority of people who can see the insanity of what is going on.

There is nothing I can say. I've written and deleted several comments in an attempt. The moment I try to get specific, I'm stepping on someone's freedom to live how they want. We're headed into a corner.


By the way, I left because of the lack of this topic on DU. And the resistance to even discussing it. They can't even find it in their heart to give us a population forum. So off I go...

[Nihil]

20. *Psst*

Glad to see you are still around - you've been missed. :pals:

> The moment I try to get specific, I'm stepping on someone's freedom to live
> how they want.

Don't worry about that.

The planet will be doing a damn sight more than talking about mythical "freedoms"
soon enough so the more people that can wake up in the meantime - and start doing
the right thing now - the more prepared we will be and the less pain will be felt
when the inevitable starts to cut in.

[ProudDad]

9. K&R

This is more important the the deficit or debt...

Or whether a republican or democrat gets to preside over the end of the Earth as a livable habitat for mammals...

This is the product of human greed, ignorance and the end-stage capitalism that humans use to feed this rape...

A few squiggly light bulbs and hybrid cars ain't gonna fix this...

A crash program to power-down, educate and spread and enforce GLOBAL BIRTH CONTROL is the only solution that will work...

I don't believe that humans in the aggregate are that smart though...alas.

[ProudDad]

10. This bears repeating!

He explained that the earlier humans use up Earth’s resources, the more strain is put on resources, forcing up fuel prices and driving climate change. Ultimately ecosystems like fisheries and even the Earth’s climate system will suffer and future generations will experience food shortages and rising global temperatures.

Mr Simms called for a transition to a more sustainable way of living to prevent poverty and starvation in the future.

"The banking crisis taught us the danger of a system that goads us to live beyond our means financially,” he said. “A greater danger comes from a consumer culture and economic policy that pushes us to live beyond our means ecologically."

[hatrack]

11. Uh, yeah . . .

The only surprise here is that it's from the Torygraph.

[GliderGuider]

12. I=PAT

The more people there are, the more active they are, and the higher their technology, the more impact they have on the planet.

What this story describes is similar to a family living beyond their means and trying to make up the income shortfall by dipping into their trust fund savings account each month.

How much do we replenish the global savings account of minerals, flora and fauna? Do we ever replenish it at all? Do we ever replace any of the "money" the human family takes out of its ecological savings account?

How well does such a lifestyle work for a family? How well do we think it's going to work for the human family?

As others have said, this is the most important post on the board.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. Zager and Evans nailed it back in 1969

"In the year 9595
I'm kind of wondering, is man still gonna be alive?
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing, wo wo"

Although at the rate we're going, I doubt if we'll even make it to 2525, much less 9595.

[wordpix]

13. one phrase to stop the madness: Use Birth Control!!!

[Duppers]

16. agreed.

post that in the lounge and see who jumps on you.

:evilgrin:

[KakistocracyHater]

18. "The Colony" series on Discover channel

is about a group of people brought together in a simulation scenario, post-modern world.......they had a guy that said building a smokehouse would ennable them to keep meat without immediate refrigeration. I think that making local farms, even inner-city gardens, would help offset the depletion of global resources........local smokehouses would create jobs too. There are refrigerators that run on propane, chest freezers too. I would rather we move now, voluntarily, to better ways of doing thingz.

The magazine German Life had an issue out that mentioned local farms that have been making schnapps from cherries, apples, pears-for centuries; we in America should rethink & emulate this. We also need to stop the crazy Franken-food madness; make wheat more drought-tolerant, that I can understand. But putting fish genes into tomatos?=crazy! Cranberries yes, but they seem hellbent on taking the worst path.

If we begin transitioning now, we have more power, more money-but they're trying to break us. Restaraunts should recycle their oils into biodiesel electric generators, the blackouts that hit NYC a few years ago showed how dependent eateries are on electric power. Buying propane powered freezers would also help restaraunts-no need to shut down in blackouts anymore.

Human waste being burned at power plants to generate electricity would be a big help, it would redirect sewage pipes & remove the constant taint of sewage spills from our water. Breaking up unused paved lots would help rain replenish our aquifers; I also think rain-caching on houses should be a building code norm. 18th Century-style windows should also be a normal building code, on all sides of a house/apartment, except the street side, it would reduce lighting bills. Skylights on all north-facing rooms would also help.

Removing "clamshell" packaging would reduce oil packages, substitute wax paper, go back to that for food; the recent recall of a bunch of cereal revealed a shocking blindspot in our food supply.

Republicans bankrupted America & cities are shutting off streetlights as a consequence-go solar powered. Tax above $250,000 for Social Security & payroll taxes, if it isn't already being done.