PowerSwitch

https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905

Put otherwise, based on my calculations, if the whole world came to look like one of our most successful ecovillages, we would still need one and a half planet’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. Dwell on that for a moment.

I do not share this conclusion to provoke despair, although I admit that it conveys the magnitude of our ecological predicament with disarming clarity. Nor do I share this to criticise the noble and necessary efforts of the ecovillage movement, which clearly is doing far more than most to push the frontiers of environmental practice.

Rather, I share this in the hope of shaking the environmental movement, and the broader public, awake. With our eyes open, let us begin by acknowledging that tinkering around the edges of consumer capitalism is utterly inadequate.

In a full world of seven billion people and counting, a “fair share” ecological footprint means reducing our impacts to a small fraction of what they are today. Such fundamental change to our ways of living is incompatible with a growth-oriented civilisation.

Some people may find this this position too “radical” to digest, but I would argue that this position is merely shaped by an honest review of the evidence.

Unpopular though it is to say, we must also have fewer children, or else our species will grow itself into a catastrophe.

Too radical? Nope. Still not radical enough. Still not quite willing to face the cold, hard reality, still softening the edges, still behind the curve.

Here's the truth: having fewer children still isn't enough. If the whole world is already in overshoot to the tune of 1.5 Earths, and if we presume that all the people currently alive of child-producing age who haven't already had children have just one child, we'd still be looking at 10+ billion humans before the population stops growing.

There is only one possible outcome and that is declines in human population numbers due to an increased death rate resulting from drought, famine, war and disease. That is what is going to happen, and that is what we need to prepare for.

Nice try though.

Do you know what, I am realizing even people like me are behind the curve. I'm catching up though.

Yeah, one time I did a rake of those 'calculate your environmental footprint' thingies on the web - about a dozen!

None of them can possibly make an accurate assessment of an individual's impact but interestingly we came out on average between about .85 of an earth and 2 earths. Even the .85 earths is disappointing but not really surprising for a rich westerner.

If there was a message from these calculations, it's that even reasonably aware people like us are a curse on the planet. What does that make the Trumps of this world?

I'm not too worried by the 1.5 earths requirement of a northern eco village because the resource requirement of a large part of the world and an even larger part of its population would be less than one earth. Those living in a tropical or sub tropical climate require the expenditure of far less energy than those in temperate climes where food has to be stored for winter use. The housing of a tropical clime requires far less energy and resources to build than one which has to survive the rigours of a northern winter.

This all relies, of course, on the complete changing of the aspirations of, not only the developed world, for continuing growth but that of the developing world. There are many cultures, the Amazonian tribes for instance, who want nothing more than to be left alone the enjoy there existing culture. there are many peoples who would like to be able to revert to their old culture but the juggernaut of globalism won't let peoples opt out. In order for globalism to carry on every one is required to jump onto the juggernaut of growth.

And of course climate change will drive many of those low-consuming people north, to become high-consuming people.

No! Because the north will become semi tropical and our energy use will drop!

Another point is that the mass migration northwards we are seeing at the moment is fossil fuel powered. People are crossing the Sahara on trucks which make the journey for large numbers possible. Once the oil is not available they will be reduced to the number that can be supported by camel caravan. That will reduce the flow from the south by a huge margin. The reduction in truck traffic from the east will also reduce numbers to a trickle. Most of those who set out are likely to die of thirst or hunger on the way because the local resources won't cope with large numbers of extra people and they will have no way of paying for food and water because even the mighty dollar will be worthless.

We have to rethink the way we assess the future because we are often assuming that things will be as now when a reduction in the availability of vehicle fuel will change the way we do everything.

Air conditioning.

UndercoverElephant wrote: Still not quite willing to face the cold, hard reality, still softening the edges, still behind the curve.

Have you got any ideas on how to get the message out? The way i see it people won't buy it if TPTB aren't on board, and instead choose a life of denial and the pitter-patter of tiny feet. This sort of topic is only spoken about on message boards to my knowledge, it needs to be school gate talk ASAP. Religion will get in the way to a certain extent too.

mr brightside wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote: Still not quite willing to face the cold, hard reality, still softening the edges, still behind the curve.

Have you got any ideas on how to get the message out?

Sadly, no.

Once the Environmental Transport Agency asked me if I wanted to write a piece about how I saw being green, as a 'readers column' in their magazine. I kept it low key, but I suspect including the bit about not having children tipped it over the edge. I never heard back from them.

emordnilap wrote:Air conditioning.

We won't be able to afford the energy to run it by then.

I read in some detail the report on the Findhorn Foundation cited in the article. The report breaks the Ecological Footprint of the Findhorn residents down by category of use and compares with the average for Scotland, the UK and Inverness. (Inverness is much higher than Scotland and the UK. Scot/UK are much higher than Findhorn)

In terms of basic necessities, such as residence, heating and food, Findhorn residents performed very well compared with the national averages. Unfortunately this was diluted by the travel aspect, and by the addition of apportioned "costs", such as a share of national government footprint. Even so, the Findhorn footprint was a lot lower than the average.

I guess this illustrates the challenges of trying to live in a sustainable way, while the current system still exists around you. In a way the article is based on a false premise, which is that if we all lived in eco-villages, the system around us would continue as now. In fact, if the Findhorn model was replicated throughout the country (continent? planet?), one might see:
- Fewer "pulls"and temptations exerted by the old system, encouraging residents to continue consuming,
- Development of a more localised society, requiring smaller central government with a smaller consequent footprint,
- Less of a need for Findhorn to be a magnet for would-be participants in a sustainable lifestyle, meaning they could concentrate on living their local lives without the (ecological) expense of running the educational establishment they have there.

So, if Findhorn was one of many, within a system geared around this model of living, I'm sure its ecological footprint would be even lower than the survey and report found.