Posted on 1-12-2002
The
Human, Race
by Alan Marston
Human economic practises are putting increasing pressure on
global
ecosystems, with consumption exceeding the Earth's biological
capacity by
20 percent, according to a new report from the Sustainability
Program of
Redefining Progress, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy
organization.
The biosphere needs about one year and three months to renew
what humanity
consumes in a year, the report found. The organization's latest
"Ecological
Footprint of Nations" report analyzes the ecological impact
of 146 of the
world's nations, demonstrating to what extent a nation can support
its
resource consumption with its available ecological capacity.
Generalisations about humans, humanity and the world hide dramatic
differences in the particular. Cutting through the `global speak'
exposes
the breaking points and also the future targets of opportunism.
The
Redefining Progress report expresses ecological footprint in
terms of
global acres. Each global acre, the report explains, corresponds
to one
acre of biologically productive space with world average productivity.
The
"Ecological Footprint" measures the biologically productive
area required
to produce the food and wood people consume, to supply space
for
infrastructure, and to absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
emitted
from burning fossil fuels. The global ecological footprint in
1999 was 5.6
global acres per capita, while the Earth's biocapacity was 4.7
global
acres. In metric terms, these measurements are 2.3 global hectares
per
capita and 1.9 global hectares per capita. According to the
report, "The
bottom line for sustainability thus becomes - how can each person
have a
satisfying life within the average of 4.7 global acres per person
or less?
This is the most significant challenge for humanity, the race
we need to win."
The United States recorded an ecological footprint of 24.0 global
acres
(9.7 hectares) per capita, nearly doubling its national biocapacity
of 13.0
global acres (5.3 hectares) per capita. The U.S. deficit of
10.9 global
acres (4.4 hectares) per capita is among the highest, only exceeded
by
Belgium and Luxembourg taken as a unit, which has a deficit
of 14 global
acres (5.6 hectares) per capita. It's no coincidence that economic
wealth
defined in human terms, money, is inversely proportional to
ecological
health, right there is the achilles heal of the human race.
New Zealand had by far the largest surplus at 35 global acres
(14 hectares)
per capita, with Australia second on the list with a surplus
at 17 global
acres (7 hectares)per capita. Message in that, expect those
who pollute
their own nest to attempt to buy a flight to a clean one - and
inevitably
pollute that one too.
Assuming on further ecological degradation, the amount of biologically
available space will drop to 2.8 global acres (1.1 hectares)
per capita
once the world population reaches its predicted 10 billion.
If current
growth trends continue, this will happen in about 30 years.
Sustainability
talk is meaningless unless it is backed up by specific measurable
commitments and timetables for implementation. Sustainability
(of life, not
profit) is a situation when every person can lead a satisfying
life within
the Earth's biological capacity - you won't find many businesses
with that
on their portfolios.
The value of the ecological footprint is to hold individuals,
organizations, businesses, and governments accountable for their
sustainability performance - their ecological sustainability.
The authors
say the footprint calculations are conservative measures. The
report
underestimates human impact and overestimates the available
biological
capacity in several ways, its authors wrote.
First, it counts each area only once, even if the area provides
two or more
ecological services. In addition, the authors choose the conservative
estimates when in doubt and include current agricultural practices
as if
current industrial yields would not caused any significant long
term damage
to soil productivity.
Some human activities for which the authors have insufficient
data are left
out, and they have excluded activities that systemically erode
nature's
capacity to regenerate, such as plutonium, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)
and other materials for which the Earth has no significant assimilation
capacity.
Nonrenewable resources from the Earth's crust are included in
these
accounts only to the extent that their use damages the biosphere,
such as
through mining and burning of fossil fuels. These assets appear
in the
carbon dioxide component of the ecological footprint accounts.
Neither
fresh water nor the release of solid, liquid and gaseous waste
other than
carbon dioxide are included in the accounts.
The calculations include six types of bioproductive areas used
to support
the human economy - cropland, grazing land, forests for harvesting
timber
and fuelwood, fisheries, built up areas for accommodating human
infrastructure, and forests to sequester carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels
or to replace fossil fuels with biomass.
Improvements have been made to their measuring techniques, the
authors
said, largely thanks to better data and databases. In earlier
accounts,
agricultural production statistics were separate from trade
statistics.
Units for production, generally measured in metric tons, were
difficult to
equate with trade figures reported in dollars. The United Nations
Food and
Agriculture Organization now has all of its statistics available
in tons.
"These accounts show the importance of addressing the current
population
dynamic to avoid future human suffering," the report says. "If
the lack of
affordable, safe, and effective family planning leads to a human
population
of 10 billion people, we implicitly condemn large segments of
future
generations to harsh lives."
New Zealanders, to the borders, real sustainability depends
on it.
|