Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Against the Grain: the Ecological Footprint

Against the Grain. Posted February 7, 2006.


In this episode of Against the Grain, we look at whether humans have stretched the carrying capacity of the Earth too far.
Listen

Download
Advertisement

[Editor's Note: This is a partial transcript of Against the Grain, a radio show hosted and co-produced by C.S. Soong and produced by Sasha Lilley. Against the Grain airs Monday through Wednesday on Pacifica Radio station KPFA 94.1 in Berkeley, Calif. This show originally aired on February 1, 2006, and is available as a podcast from KPFA.org.]

C.S. Soong: Humans make demands on the planet. Our planet has a certain carrying capacity. So you might wonder how our demands on the planet's resources compare with the planet's capacity to provide those resources? Have humans gone beyond the Earth's bio-productivity, and if so, with what consequences?

Today we'll address those pressing questions and tell you about something called the ecological footprint, which can be calculated for societies, economies, and yes, individuals. Joining me in the studio is Justin Kitzes, he is a research associate at the Global Footprint Network, which promotes ecological social and economic sustainability by advancing this so-called ecological footprint.

The Global Footprint Network also puts out reports on the footprint of various global regions. We'll be talking among other thigns about their latest report on the Asia-Pacific Region, Justin, welcome to against the grain.

Justin Kitzes: Thank you, C.S. my pleasure to be here.

CS: I want to start with this notion of the carrying capacity of the earth; what does that mean?

JK: well carrying capacity is actually an interesting term. The word that we use in the ecological footprint calculations is actually bio-capacity, and so what that refers to is the amount of productivity the amount of resources the amount of waste absorption that the earth can provide for humanity in any given year. And so, to start looking at these issues of carrying capacity, we can look at the whole Earth and say how much biologically productive land is available at the global level. And what we find is there are about 11.2 billion hectares, which is pretty large number, except that of course that it's shared by about 6.5billion of us. And so if you do the math there, you find that there's about 1.8 global hectares available per person to support all of their activities each year. And a hectare is about two and a half football fields, just for a sense of scale.

It's more than just providing resources as you said, it's this land would provide natural resources in terms of food and energy sources and all this other stuff, but also as you said absorb waste, that's a key part of what we're expecting at least, nature to do.

Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Choose 1
Posted by: metahope on Feb 8, 2006 2:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every women should choose to have just one child to reduce our global population and save the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Choose
Posted by: metahope on Feb 8, 2006 2:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Choose to drive a smaller car. Choose to drive less. Choose to eat less. Choose to consume less. And for those who have no choice, demand choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Choose another....
Posted by: John Rice on Feb 8, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
political paradigm because the present choices have lead us to this point in time.
The metahope-suggested choices are all great, and if there is hope for the future of our planet, should be incorporated in our collective sense of social responsibility.

But if what has lead us to this point, no matter whether called Republican or Democrat, is not changed, will the ultimate outcome be any different than our present destructive direction? Or is it our wish to self-destruct?

The second question is most important—is that the direction we want to go as a nation? Which can then lead to other interesting questions: Are we “live and let live” or “live as we direct”? Do we favor rights for the individual over the rights of the state? Are we really for freedom and justice for all, or only under conditions favoring our ultimate exploitive control? Eventually it boils down to “are we imperialists or are we not”? If we are about others’ conquest as a national strategy, we ought to be forthright about it and admit to being imperialistic. If we are against our nation’s imperialism, we must choose a different way of expressing it than either branch of the Republocrats offer.

We need a different uniting not dividing strategy, with different goals based upon the majority’s mutually desired results. This is what the Neither Party movement is about--because it is evident to many of us that the present model clearly isn’t working.

Go to www.neitherparty.org and help make the movement truly transformative by transcending the politics of division, with your ideas and support.

When the then-third-party Republicans were first formed, it took them eight years to put Lincoln into the White House. Today it could easily take even less time with the right message at the right time.

Regards,,,John
( john_rice@www.neitherparty.org )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how about this..
Posted by: rage on Feb 9, 2006 1:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of those are really great ideas to help, but I wonder how much good it would really do? Aren't we beyond all those little steps?

Sustainable living is the only way to make sure we really ARE going to be okay.. wikipedia or google the term to find out more. Also, for anyone who wants a new perspective on humans and the earths reaction to us, I recommend a book called Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. It talks about human culture being the perpetrator behind everything, not just politics, or science.. it really is the very fabric of our society that lives stupidly. But I digress. 've done that ecological footprint. mine used to be lower, but that was when I lived off the land more, when I still could.

http://ishmael.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]