The Human Footprint

[WeatherRusty]

The conversation in the Global Warming Prediction thread has swayed into an area which probably deserves it's own space. Emissions of CO2 represent 54% of humanities overall footprint on the environment. Climate change is of utmost importance in the determination of human prosperity as we move forward into the future.

What impact are humans having on the overall environment and it's individual ecosystems? Are we living in a way which is sustainable deep into the future? Is the human population already overloading the planet's ability to sustain the resources necessary to maintain environmental health?

The Ecological Footprint and Climate Change

Global climate change is one of humanity’s greatest challenges; addressing it is key to our long-term well-being and the continued vitality of our societies. As we move forward to address this urgent threat, international agreements will be crucial if we are to reverse our perilous course. Yet, it is also key that governments recognize the importance of acting decisively regardless of what others are doing.

As human pressure on resources escalates, those cities, states and countries with the least carbon-intensive, most resource-efficient economies will flourish, while those requiring cheap and plentiful access to ecological services will become extremely vulnerable and will lose out. It is therefore in the interest of any city, state or country that wishes to continue to be competitive and provide for the well-being of its population to act first and act boldly.

When we view carbon within the broader context of the Footprint framework, it becomes clear: aggressive sustainability policies are not a romantic gift to Mother Nature or abstract humanity that come at the expense of citizens’ quality of life. Indeed, they are the only way a high quality of life can be secured.

See here for an in depth look into these question and a whole lot more: Global Footprint Network

[Clifford]

The conversation in the Global Warming Prediction thread has swayed into an area which probably deserves it's own space. Emissions of CO2 represent 54% of humanities overall footprint on the environment. Climate change is of utmost importance in the determination of human prosperity as we move forward into the future.

How could you consider humanities greatest impact being CO₂?

What would the dodo bird say humanity's greatest impact was?

The Wooly mammoth

The American Camel?

200 years ago, wild American Buffalo numbered in the millions. Now... virtually none in the wild.

Forests have been knocked down around the world.

The most fertile bottomland farm-land has been taken for human agricultural production.

Fish have been over-fished.

Invasive Species (plants, animals, insects) have been spread around the world.

And CO₂ outweighs all other environmental impacts COMBINED?

[Vandy]

I agree. While GHG emissions are a significant anthropogenic forcing on the climate system, nothing comes close to the effects of land use change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, and toxic pollution.Really our detrimental effect on the the atmosphere with GHGs and CFCs has a ways to go to catch up with all that we have done at the surface. The sad thing is that it may eventually do just that.

[WeatherRusty]

How could you consider humanities greatest impact being CO₂?

What would the dodo bird say humanity's greatest impact was?

The Wooly mammoth

The American Camel?

200 years ago, wild American Buffalo numbered in the millions. Now... virtually none in the wild.

Forests have been knocked down around the world.

The most fertile bottomland farm-land has been taken for human agricultural production.

Fish have been over-fished.

Invasive Species (plants, animals, insects) have been spread around the world.

And CO₂ outweighs all other environmental impacts COMBINED?

Today, the term “carbon footprint” is often used as shorthand for the amount of carbon (usually in tonnes) being emitted by an activity or organization. The carbon component of the Ecological Footprint takes a slightly differing approach, translating the amount of carbon dioxide into the amount of productive land and sea area required to sequester carbon dioxide emissions. This tells us the demand on the planet that results from burning fossil fuels. Measuring it in this way offers a few key advantages.

The Footprint framework encourages us to address the problem of climate change in a way that will not simply transfer demand from one critical resource to another. It attacks the underlying causes of climate change (and of species loss, deforestation, soil erosion, water shortage and other problems) rather than the symptoms by addressing the expanding human metabolism of nature’s services.

The approach taken by the ecological footprint provides a measure of Earth's carrying capacity. A total of 1.5 Earth's is required to sustain the current burden on the environment by man's activities. Obviously this situation is not sustainable. The carbon emissions alone account for 54% of that burden today. The ability for natural sequestration of carbon is being overwhelmed, and that is why it is building up in our atmosphere and oceans. The carbon cycle is also disrupted by our farming practices and deforestation.

Now if you are one to believe this is all inconsequential, then I suppose we should continue chewing through the Earth's resources and polluting with reckless abandon. If we believe global warming will not occur or not be seriously damaging to the Earth's biodiversity and mankind's prosperity despite what science is tell us, then all of this is moot.

Species extinctions taking place many years ago occurred when the human carbon footprint was very much less than today, so man's carbon footprint was not so instrumental in its influence. The extinction rate today is many times greater than in the past several 10's of millions of years. Some estimates lie between 100 to 1000 times the normal background rate.

[Clifford]

This "Footprint" is just a measurement of the change to the atmosphere.

It has nothing to do with the ultimate effects of such a change.

If our fossil fuel usage was stopped today (or in a decade), what would be the long-term negative consequences to the planet.

Probably very little.

The only way to tease out true consequences is to project the current changes out a few centuries.

Land Use changes are REAL.

Species extinctions taking place many years ago occurred when the human carbon footprint was very much less than today, so man's carbon footprint was not so instrumental in its influence. The extinction rate today is many times greater than in the past several 10's of millions of years. Some estimates lie between 100 to 1000 times the normal background rate.

Human caused species extinctions, especially the large top of the food chain species is unacceptable.

However, you also need to keep the biodiversity in perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Evolution

If the conclusion is that humanity's burden on Earth is equivalent to 1.5 Earths.

The solution isn't just building more dams and erecting more wind turbines.

The Human Population needs to be reduced.

With growing industrialization, the goal should be to reduce the global human population by about half over the next few centuries.

Yet, it is so much easier for politicians to discuss a concept such as CO₂, rather than family sizes.

[WeatherRusty]

This "Footprint" is just a measurement of the change to the atmosphere.

It has nothing to do with the ultimate effects of such a change.

If our fossil fuel usage was stopped today (or in a decade), what would be the long-term negative consequences to the planet.

Probably very little.

The only way to tease out true consequences is to project the current changes out a few centuries.

Land Use changes are REAL.

Human caused species extinctions, especially the large top of the food chain species is unacceptable.

However, you also need to keep the biodiversity in perspective.

http://en.wikipedia....rsity#Evolution

If the conclusion is that humanity's burden on Earth is equivalent to 1.5 Earths.

The solution isn't just building more dams and erecting more wind turbines.

The Human Population needs to be reduced.

With growing industrialization, the goal should be to reduce the global human population by about half over the next few centuries.

Yet, it is so much easier for politicians to discuss a concept such as CO₂, rather than family sizes.

If our fossil fuel usage was stopped today global temperature would continue to rise to eventually (a few decades) reach about 0.6C warmer than today before beginning a slow decline. That is the amount of warming needed to erase the 0.9W/m^2 TOA imbalance.

Agreed about the population. However, if it is difficult to convince people and governances that we need to radially change our consumption to be in balance with what the Earth can in a sustainable way supply without overshoot, then how difficult will it be in free societies to dramatically reduce population growth and simultaneously reduce our demand on resources?

Remember, economic advantage reduces population growth, but increases demand for resources in the process. Enriching the worlds population to bring about population control will only exacerbate the problem. Forcing limits on family size won't go over big either!

[Clifford]

If our fossil fuel usage was stopped today global temperature would continue to rise to eventually (a few decades) reach about 0.6C warmer than today before beginning a slow decline. That is the amount of warming needed to erase the 0.9W/m^2 TOA imbalance.

Agreed about the population. However, if it is difficult to convince people and governances that we need to radially change our consumption to be in balance with what the Earth can in a sustainable way supply without overshoot, then how difficult will it be in free societies to dramatically reduce population growth and simultaneously reduce our demand on resources?

Remember, economic advantage reduces population growth, but increases demand for resources in the process. Enriching the worlds population to bring about population control will only exacerbate the problem. Forcing limits on family size won't go over big either!

I agree that forcing population limits won't be popular.

But, there is absolutely no reason to have a tax structure so that the more children one has, the less taxes one pays.

Set it up so that ...

1 child per person, 2 per couple gets the standard deduction.

For future children (can't change those that have already been born).

Additional children mean negative deductions.

1 child --> 1 deduction

2 children --> 2 deductions

3 children --> 1 deduction

4 children --> 0 deductions

5 children --> ADDITIONAL TAXES.

We need to get rid of the folly about birth control.

All children should be wanted.

Work to reduce teenage pregnancy.

It is tricky, but those people receiving family public assistance (with more than 2 children) should also be required to have long-term birth control.

And international aid should also include family planning.

The areas of Africa that are anticipated to have the worst food and resource shortages are those that have a population growth out of control.

[LakeEffectKing]

I agree that forcing population limits won't be popular.

But, there is absolutely no reason to have a tax structure so that the more children one has, the less taxes one pays.

Set it up so that ...

1 child per person, 2 per couple gets the standard deduction.

For future children (can't change those that have already been born).

Additional children mean negative deductions.

1 child --> 1 deduction

2 children --> 2 deductions

3 children --> 1 deduction

4 children --> 0 deductions

5 children --> ADDITIONAL TAXES.

We need to get rid of the folly about birth control.

All children should be wanted.

Work to reduce teenage pregnancy.

It is tricky, but those people receiving family public assistance (with more than 2 children) should also be required to have long-term birth control.

And international aid should also include family planning.

The areas of Africa that are anticipated to have the worst food and resource shortages are those that have a population growth out of control.

One thing that is not being discussed is that the population, due to lack of basic resources, would be naturally held in check, if left on it's own. ie....if a society is immersed in an area where there are limited resources, and there is no outside "help" then there would be a natural culling of the population that would reach an equilibrium with the available resources to sustain life for that specific population of people....Just look at the history of population growth....it was flat for hundreds of thousands of years! (with no condems either!)

Not necessarily supporting such a way to limit growth, but it should be addressed in such a discussion.

[superjames1992]

I agree that forcing population limits won't be popular.

But, there is absolutely no reason to have a tax structure so that the more children one has, the less taxes one pays.

Set it up so that ...

1 child per person, 2 per couple gets the standard deduction.

For future children (can't change those that have already been born).

Additional children mean negative deductions.

1 child --> 1 deduction

2 children --> 2 deductions

3 children --> 1 deduction

4 children --> 0 deductions

5 children --> ADDITIONAL TAXES.

We need to get rid of the folly about birth control.

All children should be wanted.

Work to reduce teenage pregnancy.

It is tricky, but those people receiving family public assistance (with more than 2 children) should also be required to have long-term birth control.

And international aid should also include family planning.

The areas of Africa that are anticipated to have the worst food and resource shortages are those that have a population growth out of control.

Population is not a problem in the United States, so there is no need to do anything about it. China, India, the developing world, and the third-world are the trouble makers in relation to population growth.

Humanity will naturally reach the carrying capacity eventually, anyways, barring some massive technological advancement.

[Clifford]

Population is not a problem in the United States, so there is no need to do anything about it. China, India, the developing world, and the third-world are the trouble makers in relation to population growth.

Humanity will naturally reach the carrying capacity eventually, anyways, barring some massive technological advancement.

Population is a global problem INCLUDING THE USA.

In the USA, we can still feed the population, but only with very intense agriculture.

Ocean fish stocks are being depleted globally, including along the US shores.

We are unable to provide adequate oil, and other resources to the USA, and must import about half our oil.

As one of the most resource intense nations in the world, we use oil and coal like there is no tomorrow.

Many things depend on oil including fertilizer and plastics... when it is gone, we'll be hurting.

We have serious urban/suburban sprawl problems with cities gobbling up vital agriculture.

While biodiesel and ethanol might be a solution to our oil addiction, we don't have adequate resources to grow our own fuels.

And it will get worse.

As a single species, we consider 100% of the valleys as ours. 100% of the "cropland" as ours. What is left for every other species on the planet?

One thing that is not being discussed is that the population, due to lack of basic resources, would be naturally held in check, if left on it's own. ie....if a society is immersed in an area where there are limited resources, and there is no outside "help" then there would be a natural culling of the population that would reach an equilibrium with the available resources to sustain life for that specific population of people....Just look at the history of population growth....it was flat for hundreds of thousands of years! (with no condems either!)

Not necessarily supporting such a way to limit growth, but it should be addressed in such a discussion.

Yes.

There will be (and currently is) natural population limitations.

Which will tend to keep some nations in extreme poverty.

One of the natural controls is infant & adolescent survival rate. And, as we improve medicine, the survival rate improves.

AIDS is taking its toll on Africa, but it is also a huge tragedy.

As population pressures increases in some countries, the pressures to emigrate from those countries also increases and it becomes a global issue.

Whether or not you can truly quantify it, this topic began with the premise that we are using approximately the resources of 1.5 earths. In some senses, we're using the resources of 100 "earths".

Certainly some materials like iron are common, and will get re-used. And, I have no doubt that we will eventually actively mine our own garbage dumps.

Right now we can only plan for a century or so in the future. "Modern Humanity" has been on earth... for 200 years? 2000 years? 10K years (The Holocene)? 200K years (Homo Sapiens), 7 Million Years (Hominids). Predictions are that Earth will end in about 5 billion years. That is a lot of future. What will be left of earth at that time?

At this point, we don't fully understand what has driven previous Ice Ages. Solar Irradiation? Milankovitch Cycles? Feedback Systems? All of the above? If global temperatures were to drop by 8-10°C, then the whole world will suffer. Any agricultural surpluses would be GONE.

Our goal should be 0% Population Growth GLOBALLY.

Or, perhaps a very slow population decline (limiting the birth rate to 1 per person, 2 per couple would actually create a slow population decline as not everyone would have their 1 or 2 children).

[Vandy]

Overpopulation is a problem in any country than cannot sustain itself without foreign imports. The US is in the same boat as India and China in that regard, just with energy instead of food being the lacking resource.

On the other hand, I don't support any Malthusian policies in order to cull growth. Just proper education... and realistically the human population is going to hit a wall sooner or later and there will be a crash. Hopefully not though global warfare.

[Mencken_Fan]

The "overpopulation question" is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.

Does a society wait until it can no longer feed all before deciding it's "overpopulated?" I would suggest "overpopulation" occurs long before that; there's more to humanity than just eating.

Consider this small-scale example:

Fifty years ago the Delmarva coast was carpeted with wetlands, among which small coastal towns were nestled. The back bays (or "sounds" if one prefers) were filled with clean, clear water; teeming with fish, crabs, and clams. Fishing with a "flounder rig" it was not terribly difficult to get two nice keepers at once; so abundant was the bounty. With a length of string and a chicken leg, one could soon capture enough blue crab to make a feast for the family. Strangers would gather on the beach at night, collect driftwood and make small bonfires to cook hot dogs and marshmallows on a stick while meeting each other.

But today? One would be lucky to see 6 inches through the murky water; and sustaining a family on nature's bounty would be a full-time job. The 2-lane main road is now a mega-highway; and much of the old wetlands is now condos and hotels. Bonfires are illegal; and driftwood (often entangled with seaweed, mussels and clams) is not even seen anymore - thanks to the giant machines that sweep the sands clear of "nature" while removing trash the masses leave behind.

If wildlife could talk, they'd darned well tell you the area is "overpopulated" and has long since been so. But from a human perspective? I guess it depends on one's age/experience, and what one considers a "quality life."

The population of the U.S. has doubled in my lifetime. Is that an improvement? Not in my view. I'd say we already have too many people despite those who claim we could easily "accommodate" hundreds of millions more. Those who fanatically oppose birth control are doing no favor to those of us already here, much less those who will come in the future.