How Many Earths Would We Need?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
A

AndyH

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
6,388
Location
San Antonio
http://www.myfootprint.org

The Apr/May 2011 Home Power magazine opens with the small piece titled "Size 32 Shoe."
We all have heard that Americans have a disproportionately large impact on Earth. We're 5% of the world's population, yet consume 24% of its energy resources. But statistics can be difficult to act on unless you can apply them to your everyday life.

So, the other day, one of our crew (who has not yet installed renewable energy systems at her home) took an online quiz that estimates the size of a household's personal "footprint" on Earth (http://www.myfootprint.org). The results were shocking - her lifestyle was such that if everyone on the planet lived similarly, we would need 2.19 Earths.
Click to expand...
If you think 2.19 Earths is staggering, consider this: The typical American has a footprint that is 3.5 times greater than her family's!
Click to expand...

I had to see where I stood today, and compare with my plans for an off-grid Earthship. I'm in a place that's 100% electric. I buy green power, turn the water heater off most of the day, keep temperatures reasonable, and do most of my travel on my electric motorcycle. This and other energy/water habits should be positive and should result in a pretty reasonable footprint score.

3.34 Earths. Gack. I hate it when reality gets in the way of a comfortable belief system. Neither installing PV nor buying a Leaf will have much affect on that number. :(

Fast forward a few years. I'll be in a passive solar Earthship powered by PV/wind electricity generated on-site. Rainwater collected on the roof fills cisterns and provides the house's water (which is used four times before it goes back to the Earth). I'll be able to grow some food inside in the graywater processing planters and will have a clothesline and garden outside. Electric drives to the store will be less frequent than today. Re-running the footprint quiz results in a new number.

If everyone on the planet became radically sustainable and got back in touch with the planet, we'd only need 0.79 Earths. A better number for sure. Probably not going to happen anytime soon though.

Does anyone know when property on the Moon will be on the market?
 
I recently was linked to a video given by a professor at the University of Colorado in 2002. It is a bit over an hour, but well worth a watch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Not going to happen ever, unless the rate at which the earth's human population is increasing can be reduced to zero in the very near future, because the "everyone on the planet" number is skyrocketing. And that's not going to happen anytime soon either.

(rhetorical question - have you 'greenies' had your vasectomy yet? :) )

AndyH said:
If everyone on the planet became radically sustainable and got back in touch with the planet, we'd only need 0.79 Earths. A better number for sure. Probably not going to happen anytime soon though.
Click to expand...
 
Yodrak said:
Not going to happen ever, unless the rate at which the earth's human population is increasing can be reduced to zero in the very near future, because the "everyone on the planet" number is skyrocketing. And that's not going to happen anytime soon either.

(rhetorical question - have you 'greenies' had your vasectomy yet? :) )

AndyH said:
If everyone on the planet became radically sustainable and got back in touch with the planet, we'd only need 0.79 Earths. A better number for sure. Probably not going to happen anytime soon though.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Birth rates in the 'developed world' continue to fall and appear to be below the 2.1 baby replacement rate. China, India, et al and Sub-Saharan Africa - not so much. I'm at 1.0 and holding (so take that as a rhetorical yes ;))

It's not about birth rate - it's about expected lifestyle and how we handle resources and 'waste.' The planet can support a lot fewer McAmericans than if the planetary average was a bit more sustainable - as the 'planet's' site demonstrates.

One way or another, Yodrak, it MUST happen. We'll either poison ourselves on our own waste more quickly, or we'll pull our heads out of...somewhere. We can do it consciously, or simply stand around and let the planet do it for us.

To estimate the carrying capacity for humans, we must make certain assumptions about our quality of life. Do we assume that everyone in the world should have the same standard of living as average U.S. citizens currently do? If so, then Earth would support a fraction of the humans it could support if everyone in the world had only the barest minimum of food, clothing, and shelter. Also we do not know what future technology might be developed that would completely alter Earth's sustainable population size. We may already have reached or overextended our carrying capacity; of so, the numerous environmental problems we are experiencing will cause the world population increase to come to a halt or even decline precipitously.
Click to expand...
Environment 7th Edition, Raven, P193/194

A 2004 UN population study projected three different population numbers for 2050 based on fertility rates (read - female education and access to birth control). The graphs are bending - we appear to be transitioning from exponential growth to a more flat population number. The estimate is a low of 7.7, a medium of 9.1, and a high of 10.6 billion people.
 
Yes, in some European countries and Japan, the native populations are leveling off and even declining. But, as you say here yourself, in other areas of the world "not so much". Quite an understatement! Some of those countries where the native populations are leveling off are nevertheless still growing in population, due to immigration from the 'not so much' countries.
AndyH said:
Birth rates in the 'developed world' continue to fall and appear to be below the 2.1 baby replacement rate. China, India, et al and Sub-Saharan Africa - not so much. I'm at 1.0 and holding (so take that as a rhetorical yes ;))
Click to expand...

I have to disagree - reducing each person's resource consumption won't do any good if the population increases faster than the consumption decreases.
AndyH said:
It's not about birth rate - it's about expected lifestyle and how we handle resources and 'waste.' The planet can support a lot fewer McAmericans than if the planetary average was a bit more sustainable - as the 'planet's' site demonstrates.
Click to expand...

On this I do agree. Completely.
AndyH said:
One way or another, Yodrak, it MUST happen. We'll either poison ourselves on our own waste more quickly, or we'll pull our heads out of...somewhere. We can do it consciously, or simply stand around and let the planet do it for us.
Click to expand...

Going back to "0.79 earths" figure - where does the earth's population have to level off before we hit 1.0 earths assuming that "everyone on the planet" has become "radically sustainable"? And if only some people become only moderately sustainable?
AndyH said:
To estimate the carrying capacity for humans, we must make certain assumptions about our quality of life. Do we assume that everyone in the world should have the same standard of living as average U.S. citizens currently do? If so, then Earth would support a fraction of the humans it could support if everyone in the world had only the barest minimum of food, clothing, and shelter. Also we do not know what future technology might be developed that would completely alter Earth's sustainable population size. We may already have reached or overextended our carrying capacity; of so, the numerous environmental problems we are experiencing will cause the world population increase to come to a halt or even decline precipitously.
Click to expand...
Environment 7th Edition, Raven, P193/194

A 2004 UN population study projected three different population numbers for 2050 based on fertility rates (read - female education and access to birth control). The graphs are bending - we appear to be transitioning from exponential growth to a more flat population number. The estimate is a low of 7.7, a medium of 9.1, and a high of 10.6 billion people.
Click to expand...
 
Yodrak said:
I have to disagree - reducing each person's resource consumption won't do any good if the population increases faster than the consumption decreases.
AndyH said:
It's not about birth rate - it's about expected lifestyle and how we handle resources and 'waste.' The planet can support a lot fewer McAmericans than if the planetary average was a bit more sustainable - as the 'planet's' site demonstrates.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And yet there are more than two variables in this equation! Things are starting to move in the 'right' (judgement...) direction:

population.JPG

Population is growing but it's showing signs of tapering - and is expected to be flat around 2050.
Energy and transportation are both in early 'revolution' stages - these will help.
Food production/climate change/peak fertilizer/droughts/floods/fires are having 'shake-up' effects.

Look at the Earthship concept again - worldwide applicability, zero need for grid connection, made from local resources, food production.
Look at Amory Lovins' house: http://www.rmi.org/Amory's+Private+Residence http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/Locations_LovinsHome_Visitors_Guide_2007.pdf
And the Passive House concept: http://www.passivehouse.us/passiveHouse/Articles_files/HEM_Climate_kernagis.pdf
Read about permaculture, and then read The Humanure Handbook http://humanurehandbook.com/

We know how to live sustainably on this planet - and some of the population is (and have been for thousands of years) - we just need to remember and then act. And we get to keep the internet, smart phones, cars, and flat-screen TVs. :lol:

edit... I do agree, Yodrak, that we cannot continue exponential growth. I assume (there's that word...) and hope that our population will level off as expected. Because when a species trashes its environment to the point that the planet gets involved in family planning, it's ugly. ;)

crash.JPG

Environment 7th Edition, Raven, P173. Reindeer population study on one of Alaska's Pribilof Islands in the Bearing Sea.

edit 2... Gack... To crash the world's 7 billion people like this would require killing 3000 people (roughly one 9/11) each second for 28 days straight.
 
AndyH said:
Look at the Earthship concept again - worldwide applicability, zero need for grid connection, made from local resources, food production.
Look at Amory Lovins' house: http://www.rmi.org/Amory's+Private+Residence http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/Locations_LovinsHome_Visitors_Guide_2007.pdf
And the Passive House concept: http://www.passivehouse.us/passiveHouse/Articles_files/HEM_Climate_kernagis.pdf
Read about permaculture, and then read The Humanure Handbook http://humanurehandbook.com/

We know how to live sustainably on this planet - and some of the population is (and have been for thousands of years) - we just need to remember and then act. And we get to keep the internet, smart phones, cars, and flat-screen TVs. :lol:
Click to expand...

My wife and I are currently looking into this. We want to build a new home and the Earthship concept is very appealing. Finding a suitable location and getting permits may be the biggest challenge.

It's interesting that both of you are hitting on points from the lecture, but no comments directly regarding it. I thought it was fascinating and frightening at the same time.
 
palmermd said:
My wife and I are currently looking into this. We want to build a new home and the Earthship concept is very appealing. Finding a suitable location and getting permits may be the biggest challenge.

It's interesting that both of you are hitting on points from the lecture, but no comments directly regarding it. I thought it was fascinating and frightening at the same time.
Click to expand...
Earthships are VERY labor intensive. There are other passive solar designs and methods that use more 'conventional' materials that would get one to a very similar destination (see Lovins' place, for example). Permits aren't usually a problem as long as one stays in the 'county' where most areas only require a septic permit. Yes - getting permits for sustainable housing within a city limit can be a problem. The folks at Earthship had to get a bill thru the NM legislature to establish a 'sustainable housing research zone' (see "Garbage Warrior" for history/background, as well as this multi-part webinar with Michael Reynolds).

The entire housing/permitting system is based on a wooden-box mentality (to really oversimplify things ;)). For example, NM would not allow Reynolds to use only harvested rainwater - code required they drill wells or connect to municipal water - because they say it doesn't rain enough north of Taos to provide enough water for 'conventional housing' - they simply couldn't wrap their minds around a house that isn't conventional and uses less than 1/4 of a 'standard' amount of water. :lol: Septic systems that meet code are SEVERELY oversized for an Earthship.

Thanks! I'm a fan of 'wonderingmind42' and have seen this videos. They're excellent!
 
Thank you for sharing the links. Yes, long. But, the hour was well spent.

palmermd said:
I recently was linked to a video given by a professor at the University of Colorado in 2002. It is a bit over an hour, but well worth a watch.
Click to expand...
Dr. Albert A. Bartlett's "Arithmetic, Population and Energy".

The Great Challenge:
"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
Click to expand...
palmermd said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D
Click to expand...
 
dday said:
...as far as overpopulation goes this is good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Click to expand...
Sorry - there appears to be a clash between science and political propaganda here. :(

Founded in 1989, the Population Research Institute is a non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to objectively presenting the truth about population-related issues, and to reversing the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries.
Click to expand...
http://www.pop.org/
 
Indeed!

AndyH said:
Sorry - there appears to be a clash between science and political propaganda here. :(

Founded in 1989, the Population Research Institute is a non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to objectively presenting the truth about population-related issues, and to reversing the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries.
Click to expand...
http://www.pop.org/
Click to expand...
 
So yeah - I'm at nearly 3 earths according to this... but then I though, given the results I'm seeing here, I just want to try...
So I tried to max it out.

Temperate zone & moderate home (note that these selections don't impact the total if you select 100% renewable electric as your energy source)
using only electricity from 100% renewable sources
No travel miles listed (since all travel falls into the above)
Every energy saving feature and habit selected
inner city (or rural, same total)
carbon credits purchased
vegan
farmers markets
organic most of the time
one large meal only
25,000 sqft garden
large apt building
recycled building materials
almost all second hand/recycled
all water saving features/habits
biodegradeable cleaning most of the time
frugal spender
replace only when needed
less than 1 garbage bin
almost all recycling
almost always recycled clothing/paper


So as far as I can tell,that's maxing out everything.

And according to this site, those selections barely squeezed under sustainamble (0.94 earths)

Baloney :)
 
defiancecp said:
...Baloney :)
Click to expand...
If only!

The original article in HomePower magazine said:

The results were shocking - her lifestyle was such that if everyone on the planet lived similarly, we would need 2.19 Earths. If you think 2.19 Earths is staggering, consider this: The typical American has a footprint that is 3.5 times greater than her family's!
Click to expand...
In other words, if everyone lived like a typical American, we'd need 7.7 Earths.

Staying with the USA 'status quo' and simply adding an EV, PV, and farmer's market is putting lipstick on a pig. :lol:

Humbling, isn't it?
 
defiancecp said:
Baloney :)
Click to expand...

I second that.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for conservation and sustainable living, but these tests completely ignore another important factor:
Most people can simply not afford a lifestyle like ours (and I am saying that without any smugness) and thus this "if everyone lived your lifestyle we would need 4+x earths" is
completely hypothetical.
We live at the tail end of the global wealth distribution and therefore, averaged over everyone, 1.0 earths will just do fine for a while.
We should spend a friendly thought on all the people living on 0.1 earths, but ultimately the reasons for that distribution are complex.
I am quite optimistic, that by the time the global average reaches 1.0 earths, we have found a technological solution...in fact electric cars and renewable energy are already part of that solution!
We had this situation a while ago (in the 60s we already were at the 1.0 limit food-wise), but the "green" agricultural revolution has made more people on the planet possible (without widespread famines). I am certain we can do it again and live comfortable at the same time.
 
klapauzius said:
...We live at the tail end of the global wealth distribution and therefore, averaged over everyone, 1.0 earths will just do fine for a while.
We should spend a friendly thought on all the people living on 0.1 earths, but ultimately the reasons for that distribution are complex.
I am quite optimistic, that by the time the global average reaches 1.0 earths, we have found a technological solution...in fact electric cars and renewable energy are already part of that solution!...
Click to expand...
Any more signs of tech solutions, Amigo? Because I hate to bring it up in this amazingly polite company ;) but we've already gone over the 1.0 Earth threshold.

Earth_Overshoot.jpg


The Living Planet Report 2008, produced by scientists at the Global Footprint Network, World Wildlife Fund, and Zoological Society of London, calculated that Earth has about 11.4 billion hectares (28.2 billion acres) pf productive land and water. If we divide this area by the global human population, we see that each person is allotted about 1.8 hectares (4.4 acres). However, the average global ecological footprint is currently about 2.7 hectares (6.7 acres) per person, which means we humans have an ecological overshoot - we have depleted our allotment. We can see the short-term results around us - forest destruction, degradation of croplands, loss of biological diversity, declining ocean fisheries, local water shortages, and increasing pollution. The long-term outlook, if we do not seriously address our consumption of natural resources, is potentially disastrous.
Click to expand...
Environment Seventh Edition, Raven, page 7

Yes - we're financially well-off compared to much of the world. And here's how it looks in numbers:
Highly developed countries account for:
- 86% of aluminum used
- 76% of timber harvested
- 68% of energy produced
- 61% of meat eaten
- 42% of fresh water consumed
- 75% of the world's pollution and waste
 
Just to keep up the optimism:

-Forests in North America and Europe are already sustainably managed.
-Energy is plenty and will be harvested sustainably in our life time
-Fusion power will be available eventually too (yes, I know its always 20 years away, but the pressure to make it work mounts)

Once we have transitioned to sustainable energy, things will
look much better....after all, materials can be recycled, if only enough energy is around.
Food is also not a big problem it seems, we just need to eat less meat (and that is healthier as
added benefit).

Except for the climate, it wont be too bad...
 

Similar threads

K
What if... this time we got smart, just for one day?
Replies
4
Views
2K
DaveinOlyWA
D
E
Do we NEED TO dismantle the grid in the rural west?
Replies
10
Views
9K
edatoakrun
E

Latest posts

Back
Top