individual in the world uses an amount of space
of planet earth. How much, depends upon one's
share of planet earth that does not lead to damage,
so far, is about 1.7 hectares each person. People
in the West obviously have a larger Ecological
Footprint than the average world citizen, the
latter of which is 2.3 ha.
each world citizen to consume as much as (s)he
wants, overconsumption must some way be compensated
to bring the total consumption back in balance
and to make sure that what the earth can bear
is not exceeded. We must also take care that there
will be a healthy planet earth left for feature
inhabitants. Thus, not only the polluter must
pay, but also those who consume too much. It would
even be better if people, who limit their consumption,
If we want to share the earth in a fair manner we must cede those hectares, that do not belong to us. People do not easily cut back on prosperity. It doesn't have to be necessary, but freedom, responsibility and setting limits go together. A growth of conscious and adapting lifestyles need not reduce prosperity. Furthermore, a durable lifestyle is a matter of mental growth. Overconsumption is immature and a moderate lifestyle can be a sign of mental maturity.
As yet, growth in prosperity results in an increase of (energy) consumption and environmental problems. In particular the climate suffers therefrom.
From the book "sharing Nature's Interest" by Nicky Chambers, Craig Simmons and Mathis Wackernagel we show you table 4.1. where you can see how the size of earth's population affects the remaining size for all. Pleace notice that the share of planet earth is calculated to be 1.6 ha with a population of 6 billion which is slightly larger then the current size of over 5 billion people.
In the calculations there is discriminated between two situations: the first where biodiversity is guaranteed maximally at 25% and the second, where 12% of planet earth is reserved for wild animals and plants.
|How about the footprint of Al Gore?||Was he telling the truth?|
|Statistician Nic Marks asks why we measure a nation's success by its productivity -- instead of by the happiness and well-being of its people. He introduces the Happy Planet Index, which tracks national well-being against resource use (because a happy life doesn't have to cost the earth).|