World overshoot day: October 9, 2006
An interesting perspective:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=overshoot
Says humanity now (2006) requires 1.3 "earths" to meet our collective needs and represents that ratio by a calendar date when 1.0 earth has been used for the year.
It seems a somewhat obscure idea, first how can we use more than one earth? I can answer that one - by borrowing from the past and reducing our inheritence (i.e. fossil fuels). However even if we can REDUCE our "footprint" to 1.0 earths, we're still in trouble assuming we actually want nonhuman life to have a place.
Now things start to get messy - can two species "share" the earth and get more out than either by using the wastes of the other - yes of course. I imagine "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull", and the flock dining at the human garbage dumps. SO species that can take advantage of our wasted resources can perhaps do well in a human-dominated world.
Still for me the nagging question is what fraction of the earth can we really afford to take for ourselves versus allow other species a life without just cleaning up our table scraps. It is a curious question, actually counter to apparent reality as we look at all the open spaces and think there's plenty of space out there. And the question is obscured by our consumption of fossil fuels for our energy needs.
I've long suspected our current energy use can never be replaced by renewable sources, stored solar energy, at least not through plants which can only capture a small fraction of the solar energy received. And there's always "hope" for nuclear fission to expand again, and nuclear fussion perhaps someday, but who can say how to count those in our footprint?
It's a romantic thought that we can "live off the land", live from the free fruits given to us by mother nature, and a little bit of work each day to collect these gifts. Perhaps its a different sort of passion that drives humans to harness energies directly from earth and sun and build complex systems that allow us to continually expand our expectations of what our place ought to be and assumptions of how long it can last.
The first dream gets knocked down easily, as some bad weather can change feast to famine, and there may yet be global disasters that will make our controlled environments more attractive - like a 500 year cold-spell after a good volcanic eruption, or whatever.
But all-in-all, I know we're on a doomed path with fossil fuels, sooner or later we'll have to live without them as we've know them, and our successes will be sorely challenged.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=overshoot
Says humanity now (2006) requires 1.3 "earths" to meet our collective needs and represents that ratio by a calendar date when 1.0 earth has been used for the year.
It seems a somewhat obscure idea, first how can we use more than one earth? I can answer that one - by borrowing from the past and reducing our inheritence (i.e. fossil fuels). However even if we can REDUCE our "footprint" to 1.0 earths, we're still in trouble assuming we actually want nonhuman life to have a place.
Now things start to get messy - can two species "share" the earth and get more out than either by using the wastes of the other - yes of course. I imagine "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull", and the flock dining at the human garbage dumps. SO species that can take advantage of our wasted resources can perhaps do well in a human-dominated world.
Still for me the nagging question is what fraction of the earth can we really afford to take for ourselves versus allow other species a life without just cleaning up our table scraps. It is a curious question, actually counter to apparent reality as we look at all the open spaces and think there's plenty of space out there. And the question is obscured by our consumption of fossil fuels for our energy needs.
I've long suspected our current energy use can never be replaced by renewable sources, stored solar energy, at least not through plants which can only capture a small fraction of the solar energy received. And there's always "hope" for nuclear fission to expand again, and nuclear fussion perhaps someday, but who can say how to count those in our footprint?
It's a romantic thought that we can "live off the land", live from the free fruits given to us by mother nature, and a little bit of work each day to collect these gifts. Perhaps its a different sort of passion that drives humans to harness energies directly from earth and sun and build complex systems that allow us to continually expand our expectations of what our place ought to be and assumptions of how long it can last.
The first dream gets knocked down easily, as some bad weather can change feast to famine, and there may yet be global disasters that will make our controlled environments more attractive - like a 500 year cold-spell after a good volcanic eruption, or whatever.
But all-in-all, I know we're on a doomed path with fossil fuels, sooner or later we'll have to live without them as we've know them, and our successes will be sorely challenged.
posted by Ares Olympus at 12:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home