David Suzuki is a well-known geneticist and has been host of CBC's "The Nature of Things" for a long time.Science Matters by David Suzuki
Science Matters is published weekly in newspapers across Canada.
Going into debt a risky proposition
October 20, 2006
Most of us are all too aware of what it's like to live in financial debt, but what about ecological debt?
On October 9th, according to the Global Footprint Network, humanity went into ecological debt for the year, where demand for resources and the production of waste outpaced the planet's capacity to produce new resources and absorb those wastes. In other words, we ceased to live off the ecological services provided by the planet and started consuming the ecosystems themselves.
The date is merely symbolic, as in reality human consumption of resources and production of waste is highly varied across the planet. In some areas, we're already going into debt at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Day. Other areas, however, are far less exploited and we may never reach those particular ecosystems' ecological limits during the year.
So ecological debt is more of a global average, based on the 'ecological footprint' concept, conceived by Bill Rees and Mathis Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia. The footprint concept is easy to visualize and helps us understand and compare our rate of resource consumption. Canadians' ecological footprint, for example, is huge. If everyone on Earth consumed as many resources and generated as much waste as Canadians do, we?d need the equivalent of nearly five more planets!
Ecological debt is similar, as it also helps us understand how human activities are affecting the planet and the services it provides to us. The concept requires us to look at these services as if they are sorts of paycheques. If we live off our income, we're doing fine that's sustainability. But when we start living beyond our means, just as we would with our finances, we go into debt and we may end up in trouble. Global warming is one example of that kind of trouble.
The Global Footprint Network calculates that the first ecological debt day occurred in 1987, on approximately December 19. But every year since it has been getting earlier and earlier, as our rate of consumption has increased. What happens if we break the bank? Well, it certainly would be problematic for our species, as the planet could simply no longer provide all the services we need and absorb all the wastes we create. Our population would then have to shrink down to a level that was sustainable with whatever functioning ecosystems we had left.
Although we often talk as though we should reduce our impact on the planet to protect nature, it?s actually much more about protecting ourselves. As pointed out in an excellent recent article in New Scientist magazine (available free online), nature would get along quite well without us. If humans were to go ecologically bankrupt and die off as a species, nature would no doubt spring back.
Human beings may have permanently altered some ecosystems, but life on Earth is remarkably tenacious. Without people around, wooden structures in our cities would start to decay almost immediately, and plants pushing their way into cracks would gradually overtake concrete, turning sprawling suburbs into forests and prairies once again. Over-fished seas would rebound with life. Many species currently on the brink would flourish. Our oceans would gradually absorb the carbon dioxide we've pumped into the atmosphere. Even nuclear waste would gradually decay. As the author points out, alien visitors to Earth 100,000 years after our demise would see no obvious signs of what we once were.
It's sad to think that all we have created on Earth could, in evolutionary terms, disappear in the blink of an eye. Life would go on, but the remarkable story of a unique bipedal species would come to an end. A humbling thought, and a compelling reason to stay out of debt.
Ecological Debt
Ecological Debt
I can't find the thread in which Jnyusa brought up some of these ideas, but I swiped this article from TORC (posted there by Ivriniel) and thought it might spark some discussion here:
Dig deeper.
The ecological footprint has become a popular measure.
In the US we went into debt long before 1987 of course.
There would probably be some debate from ecologist as to what actually constitutes debt as well, since our understanding of the interdependence of species is really quite meager. Beginning mid-20th ce, we embarked on the third mass extinction in our planet's history. E.O. Wilson estimates that it would take about 20 million years for evolution to replace the biodiversity we've destroyed. Some of that stuff appears to us to be too low on the food chain to matter, but since we don't really know the ramifications of wiping out all the fungus in a region or a particular species of insect, for example, we really don't know if there will be an ultimate cost in soil productivity, plant resistance to disease, pollination, and other things that might affect our food supply.
Jn
In the US we went into debt long before 1987 of course.
There would probably be some debate from ecologist as to what actually constitutes debt as well, since our understanding of the interdependence of species is really quite meager. Beginning mid-20th ce, we embarked on the third mass extinction in our planet's history. E.O. Wilson estimates that it would take about 20 million years for evolution to replace the biodiversity we've destroyed. Some of that stuff appears to us to be too low on the food chain to matter, but since we don't really know the ramifications of wiping out all the fungus in a region or a particular species of insect, for example, we really don't know if there will be an ultimate cost in soil productivity, plant resistance to disease, pollination, and other things that might affect our food supply.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Yes, there is such a thing as ecological debt, the question is will you hinder progress for the sake of the enviroment? I'm pretty sure people would say they will rather sacrifice progress because it's the "right thing" to do but would they actually sacrifice this so called "progress" (for example, Wal-mart) to pay this debt. I don't think so. 
We live in a world where you have to be better than everybody else or you will not get ahead. How would the enviroment become a priority when most people don't even have enough money in their pockets. Plus the fact, our concept of debt is in the monetary sense, how can you explain debt eviromentally, is it one tree for every person or something like that. Most people can't even grasp economics, how can you explain something like this to the majority who sees the enviroment as something that's always been there, unlike money, in which it actually dissappears right before your eyes.
We live in a world where you have to be better than everybody else or you will not get ahead. How would the enviroment become a priority when most people don't even have enough money in their pockets. Plus the fact, our concept of debt is in the monetary sense, how can you explain debt eviromentally, is it one tree for every person or something like that. Most people can't even grasp economics, how can you explain something like this to the majority who sees the enviroment as something that's always been there, unlike money, in which it actually dissappears right before your eyes.
“Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.” - Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
I subscribe to Globe and Mail because of the Report on Business Magazine. I haven't read the papers this week and I just found one of the magazine inserts was Corporate Knights: The Canadian Magazine for Responsible Business, honestly, this is the first time I've seen this magazine and I might subscribe to this. It's an interesting reading esp. their special report on a survey entitled "The Water Toxic 50." It has the top 5 increasers and decreasers in toxicity (2003-2005). I'll read some more, maybe I could add something to this discussion.
“Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.” - Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
Lurker, I'm really pleased that you are interested in this topic from an investment point of view. I think that is what will turn our technologies around in the long run.
There's also a population cap that has to be considered vis-a-vis the earth's carrying capacity, but as far as I know, even pushing seven billion people, we're not really up against that cap in terms of subsistence calories available for everyone. The problem is one of distribution, and overconsumption of non-renewable energy by a small segment of the total population.
Jn
The question is whether the market will provide incentive for technologies that improve the environment instead of destroying it.the question is will you hinder progress for the sake of the enviroment?
The ecological footprint is measured by physically weighing the resources used in production and the waste created. The resources we use have natural regeneration rates. Sustainability means not depleting the resource faster than it can regenerate and not creating more waste within a given period of time than the earth can naturally biodegrade in that same period of time.Plus the fact, our concept of debt is in the monetary sense, how can you explain debt eviromentally, is it one tree for every person or something like that.
There's also a population cap that has to be considered vis-a-vis the earth's carrying capacity, but as far as I know, even pushing seven billion people, we're not really up against that cap in terms of subsistence calories available for everyone. The problem is one of distribution, and overconsumption of non-renewable energy by a small segment of the total population.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
??
Don't know why it wouldn't. Just tried it again and it was fine.
It is interesting and fun.
Oh, and this time I came out at 5.7 planets!!! Ick.
The Canadian average is 8.8 so I am marginally better than some.
eta: no, no, that was 5.7 hectares, not planets!
And I forgot to notice how many planets.
Don't know why it wouldn't. Just tried it again and it was fine.
It is interesting and fun.
Oh, and this time I came out at 5.7 planets!!! Ick.
The Canadian average is 8.8 so I am marginally better than some.
eta: no, no, that was 5.7 hectares, not planets!
And I forgot to notice how many planets.
Last edited by vison on Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dig deeper.
Vison, I got 3.5 planets.
My footprint is 6.5.
I don't know if it's good or bad. Here in Calgary, I never used my car to go to work. I walk often, takes me about 30 mins., then I hitch a ride home for lunch since most of the employees live in my area which is only a 5-10 ride from the office/factory. If I could get a ride home for lunch why bring my car, eh!
I only use the car to go to the grocery store or the doctor's office. We even walk to church (three blocks away) but with my wife's condition, the car is better. Now, I just need to change our dietary habits not drastically but by buying locally I guess.
Jn, yes, I invest ethically.
My footprint is 6.5.
I don't know if it's good or bad. Here in Calgary, I never used my car to go to work. I walk often, takes me about 30 mins., then I hitch a ride home for lunch since most of the employees live in my area which is only a 5-10 ride from the office/factory. If I could get a ride home for lunch why bring my car, eh!
I only use the car to go to the grocery store or the doctor's office. We even walk to church (three blocks away) but with my wife's condition, the car is better. Now, I just need to change our dietary habits not drastically but by buying locally I guess. Jn, yes, I invest ethically.
“Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.” - Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
2.5 Planets for me, living in the USA like I do now.
For comparison, living in RSA required 2.1 planets ( after I cut out my daily 60 mile commute by moving to a job within driving distance from home ) and 3.6 planets with that commute factored in.
As far as sacrificing for progress goes - I'd give up on processed convenience food in a flash. I don't need instant noodles, I don't need chicken broth in a can, I don't need individually packed cookies. I don't need overprocessed, sugary food. I don't need pancake or cake mix - is it that hard to mix up some flour, salt, eggs, milk and maybe a bit of butter? I don't need a Happy Meal with a plastic-wrapped toy. It is only me, of course 
but that is how I feel about it.
Would I give up on progress like medical care advances? No. The consumer-driven, creature-comfort, mass-production-profit-first-health-and-environment-last style of WalMart-y living? Sure. ( Especially now while I still remember what less extravagant South Africa felt like )
For comparison, living in RSA required 2.1 planets ( after I cut out my daily 60 mile commute by moving to a job within driving distance from home ) and 3.6 planets with that commute factored in.
As far as sacrificing for progress goes - I'd give up on processed convenience food in a flash. I don't need instant noodles, I don't need chicken broth in a can, I don't need individually packed cookies. I don't need overprocessed, sugary food. I don't need pancake or cake mix - is it that hard to mix up some flour, salt, eggs, milk and maybe a bit of butter?
I don't need a Happy Meal with a plastic-wrapped toy. It is only me, of course but that is how I feel about it.Would I give up on progress like medical care advances? No. The consumer-driven, creature-comfort, mass-production-profit-first-health-and-environment-last style of WalMart-y living? Sure. ( Especially now while I still remember what less extravagant South Africa felt like
)Princess and I seldom eat processed food unless we are stuck somewhere and the only place to eat during long drives is a fast food chain. I must admit that I'm a sucker whenever McDonalds come out with their "hockey happy meals", you know, the puck, the mini-jerseys, the cards etc... I'm a huge hockey fan, can't help it! 
(Remembers the mini- zamboni collection I bought that Princess hasn't found out yet in a plastic bag under the bed. ) We don't buy frozen dinner, canned soup/broth, pastries/cookies (Princess learned how to bake) and breaded fish in boxes. I always cook from scratch unless I'm really tired I buy from a restuarant.
I know the definition of ecological debt, Jn. Thanks anyways, cause unlike you and me, most people don't know the definition that's why it's difficult to explain cause like I said it's something that doesn't affect a lot of people directly unlike monetary debt.
I used to work for an Advertising Agency as a creative director and our problem was how to change the consumers notion that a small box of say "Ultra Detergent" is enviromentally friendlier than the regular one. We conducted a survey and we found out consumers can't relate to this. They buy the ultra detergent because it's supposed to clean the clothes better than the regular one not because it's enviromentally friendly. The problem was they use the same amount of detergent even if we place smaller scoopers in the box. For example, you just need one scoop for the Ultra, and 2 scoops for the regular. Well, the consumers still use 2 scoops of Ultra and they get frustrated because its in a smaller package and start complaining about it. Duh! So they revert back to the regular, that's why we still have regular and ultra detergent. We're used to the concept of bigger (or more) is better that's why. You can see it even with cars, people think the SUV is safer than the smaller energy efficient cars. When in fact, the smaller cars coming out now are better because engineers have used ergodynamics and whatever you call it in Physics to make it more fuel efficient and safe as well.
Add to the problem of other countries with weak or no enviromental laws, let's say Company A's factory in North America is energy efficient and enviromentally friendly yet Company A's factory in a third world country is wrecking havoc to the enviroment there. They promise the third world country's goverment, jobs and infrastracture in exchange of turning the blind eye on toxic waste being dumped in their rivers or depleting their resources.
(Remembers the mini- zamboni collection I bought that Princess hasn't found out yet in a plastic bag under the bed. ) We don't buy frozen dinner, canned soup/broth, pastries/cookies (Princess learned how to bake) and breaded fish in boxes. I always cook from scratch unless I'm really tired I buy from a restuarant. I know the definition of ecological debt, Jn.
Thanks anyways, cause unlike you and me, most people don't know the definition that's why it's difficult to explain cause like I said it's something that doesn't affect a lot of people directly unlike monetary debt. I used to work for an Advertising Agency as a creative director and our problem was how to change the consumers notion that a small box of say "Ultra Detergent" is enviromentally friendlier than the regular one. We conducted a survey and we found out consumers can't relate to this. They buy the ultra detergent because it's supposed to clean the clothes better than the regular one not because it's enviromentally friendly. The problem was they use the same amount of detergent even if we place smaller scoopers in the box. For example, you just need one scoop for the Ultra, and 2 scoops for the regular. Well, the consumers still use 2 scoops of Ultra and they get frustrated because its in a smaller package and start complaining about it. Duh! So they revert back to the regular, that's why we still have regular and ultra detergent.
We're used to the concept of bigger (or more) is better that's why. You can see it even with cars, people think the SUV is safer than the smaller energy efficient cars. When in fact, the smaller cars coming out now are better because engineers have used ergodynamics and whatever you call it in Physics to make it more fuel efficient and safe as well. I guess so. The real problem is would these new technologies that would improve the enviroment require less people in the workplace. I bet you the goverment won't give incentives to companies that comply with enviromental laws while reducing half their workforce. I remember Princess was telling me a story that when she passed the P.Eng exams and got a job in a factory as a supervisor she complained to her manager that she saw that the company was using too much manpower and energy. She laid out a plan on how the company could save money by reducing utility costs and manpower, next thing she knew after a month or so, she got a notice that she didn't pass her probationary period or something stupid like that. She filed a complaint with the Labour Dept. (illegal dismissal) but gave up on it cause she was afraid she might get blacklisted or something like that, plus the fact, she got a job after two months. (Mind you, I've heard the same stories from other engineers as well, that's why it's better for them to just shut up and keep their ideas to themselves.) Anyways, the bottom line is laying off people because the company found a more efficient way to manufacture is not the way to go. These workers are unionized and can cripple your production, companies don't want that. No wonder the goverment are bailing out a lot of companies they deemed could pull the entire economy down.The question is whether the market will provide incentive for technologies that improve the environment instead of destroying it.
Add to the problem of other countries with weak or no enviromental laws, let's say Company A's factory in North America is energy efficient and enviromentally friendly yet Company A's factory in a third world country is wrecking havoc to the enviroment there. They promise the third world country's goverment, jobs and infrastracture in exchange of turning the blind eye on toxic waste being dumped in their rivers or depleting their resources.
“Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.” - Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7264
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
This argument has been made with regard to every innovation ever introduced to the marketplace. Technology does change the nature of the jobs that are needed, but has always resulted in a net increase in employment in the long run.Lurker wrote:I bet you the goverment won't give incentives to companies that comply with enviromental laws while reducing half their workforce.
However, you've put your thumb on the center of the problem, Lurker, by asking what technologies government would be willing to support. The government currently does not support fossil fuel alternatives not because fossil fuels provide more employment but because the administration comes from an oil industry background and has to return to it afterwards. Every candidate gets money from the oil industry, and the military industry, and the computer industry, etc. in exchange for voting in ways favorable to their donors. It is a fact of life in America that our government is exceedingly corrupt in this department and has so far evaded every citizen effort to limit special interest funding.
The Kyoto Treaty was one of the best business opportunities ever made available to our country - certainly the best since WWII. We thumbed our noses at it, and England has grabbed the opportunity in our stead. Why? Because the market opportunity it afforded was not one in which our PTB were interested. No profits in it for them. Hence, no profits in it for anyone.
I seriously wonder how close to terracide and extinction we will have to get before the average citizen wakes up and realizes how many opportunities for better human health have been eschewed because there was no profit in it for someone in Washington? How many kids will have to die of cancer? How many shoreline cities will have to suffer property damage in the billions? How many asthmatics will have to strangle in open air? How many people will suffer infertility? How many genetic abnormalities will we bury stillborn? How many communities will routinely lose electricity and waste disposal and watch sludge come out of their faucets as our infrastructure deteriorates and "there is no profit" in fixing it for anyone in Washington?
John Galbraith, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to the President during the Kennedy admininistration said something very interesting ... it was during the Reagan administration, I guess. He said that it has always been the case that wealthy people went into government to acquire power. But recently we are seeing a new phenomenon where powerful people go into government to acquire wealth. And, he added, he very much preferred the former over the latter.
So do I.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.