"A suitable total for the number of citizens cannot be fixed without considering the land..." - Plato, Laws, V

Click for animated images

If you would like you may order Ecological Footprint directly from
New Society Publishers
newsociety.com/

"About half the modern world doesn't have the same basic amenities the ancient Romans took for granted." -- Peter Gleick

Click here for larger image.

Adapted from Figure 1.5, Our Ecological Footprint, 1996.

"Our Ecological footprints keep growing while our per capita earthshares continue to shrink." p14., Our Ecological Footprint, 1996.

"Since the beginning of this century, the available ecologically productive land has decreased from over five hectares to less than 1.5 hectares per person in 1995. At the same time, the average North American's footprint has grown to over 4 hectares. These opposing trends are in fundamental conflict: the ecological demands of average citizens in rich countries exceed per capita supply by more than a factor of three. This means that the earth could not support even today's population of 5.8 billion sustainably at North American material standards."

Buddycom note:
By this point in time, who hasn't heard this mantra stated and restated in many forms at least hundreds of times? Who hasn't become inured to it? That's easy. The folks in the poor countries have not yet forgotten the implications.

More information for
Dr. Mathis Wackernagel and Dr. William Rees,
including biography, profile sketch, activities, organizations, publications, contact information..

Living Planet Report 2000
Redefining Progress, the World Wide Fund for Nature (Switzerland), the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UK), and the Centre for Sustainability Studies (Mexico) produced the Living Planet Report 2000 that measures the ecological footprint of over 150 nations.
http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/lpr2000/

Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature Do They Use? -- How Much Nature Do They Have? by Mathis Wackernagel et al.
http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/

Footprints of Nations Study:
This report compares the ecological impact of 150 nations, housing over 99 percent of the world's population. Recently updated with 1996 data.
http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/ef_nations.html

Ecological Footprint Links and Resources
http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/links.html

"Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability" by William Rees, University of British Columbia

"WHY CARRYING CAPACITY?
According to Garrett Hardin (1991), "carrying capacity is the fundamental basis for demographic accounting." On the other hand, conventional economists and planners generally ignore or dismiss the concept when applied to human beings. Their vision of the human economy is one in which "the factors of production are infinitely substitutable for one another" and in which "using any resource more intensely guarantees an increase in output" (Kirchner et al., 1985). As Daly (1986) observes, this vision assumes a world "in which carrying capacity is infinitely expandable" (and therefore irrelevant). Clearly there is great division over the value of carrying capacity concepts in the sustainability debate. This article sides solidly with Hardin. I start from the premise that despite our increasing technological sophistication, humankind remains in a state of "obligate dependence" on the productivity and life support services of the ecosphere (Rees, 1990). Thus, from an ecological perspective, adequate land and associated productive natural capital are fundamental to the prospects for continued civilized existence on Earth. However, at present, both the human population and average consumption are increasing while the total area of productive land and stocks of natural capital are fixed or in decline. These opposing trends demand a revival of carrying capacity analysis in sustainable development planning. The complete rationale is as follows: ......."
http://www.dieoff.com/page110.htm

Also useful :
http://www.aloha.net/~jhanson/page110.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~jhanson/page5.htm

If you would like you may order Ecological Footprint directly from
New Society Publishers
http://newsociety.com/

A sample ecological footprint calculation:

"Free trade does not remove capacity constraints - it just guarantees that nations will hit that constraint more or less simultaneously rather than sequentially. How it would be possible for all countries to be net-exporters of goods and net importers of carrying capacity (Hong Kong, the Netherlands) is not explained". -- Herman Daly

Earthshare image adapted from Figure 2.7, Our Ecological Footprint

"Figure 2.7: A fair Earthshare is the amount of land each person would get if all the ecologically productive land on Earth were divided evenly among the present world population (5.6 billion at the time of printing). If your present Earthshare were a circular island it would have a diameter of just 128 meters. One sixth of your island would be arable land, the rest pasture, forest and wilderness, and built up area. Clearly, as population increases, our earthshares shrink. Also, for each person whose Ecological Footprint exceeds his/her fair earthshare by say, a factor of three as do North Americans', three other people would have to content themselves with only a third of a share for global sustainability. --Any volunteers?"

"Who gives a hoot about habitat?"

Click to animate.

Calculating ecological footprints seems to have an irresistable appeal for many North Americans. This is actually quite natural. This subgroup of human individuals take great pains to filter out reality from their consciousness. That way they don't have to consider species extinctions, the most real, the most inescapable, the most unavoidable and the most irreplaceable consequence of human overpopulation. These folks have an affliction for which there seems to be no cure, no remedy. They have got economics. They don't want to think about the effect on biodiversity of human overpopulation. Instead they fritter away countless hours, days, months and decades with silly calculations. To them it seems reasonable. To them it makes sense. Why? Because they just don't give a hoot about habitat or species extinctions.

Why do you make ecological footprint calculations? To see what tremendous pressure human overpopulation is placing upon the biosphere. What do the calculations show time after time? That humans are living beyond the limits, they consume more than what nature can provide. And by inference that biodiversity is being squeezed out of existence with greater and greater pressure with each passing year.

Most ecology academicians seem to give a hoot about tenure, publishing, and schmoozing at symposiums. We give a hoot about habitat.

What's the bottom line for biodiversity?
More species extinctions, more habitat destruction, for every day frittered away with these silly calculations in order to get some abstract numerical value, and for what? To tell us something which everyone already knows. Ersatz concern for species extinctions at best, this colossal waste of time continues and will continue. Until humans begin to give a hoot about habitat and reduce their populations. Or until there has been so much habitat lost that the point will have become moot -- and that time isn't far away, it's well within the span of your lifetime.

"The world's footdragging brings many scientists to despair. It exasperates Sherwood Rowland, who sounded the first alarm back in the 1970s. 'After all,' Rowland has said, 'what's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?'"

Jonathan Weiner, The Next One Hundred Years, 1990

Ecological Footprint FAQs:
"Q - What is an Ecological Footprint? A - The Ecological Footprint is the area of biologically productive land and water required to support our lifestyles. Ecological Footprint analysis can be used as a tool to raise awareness about the demands we make on the environment to supply our consumption needs and habits, and reabsorb the wastes generated from our activities. Q - Why should we calculate our Ecological Footprints? A - Each of us can calculate our Ecological Footprint to provide a simple evaluation of the demands that our consumption of energy, food, water and forest products have on the environment. By identifying these demands, opportunities to reduce our individual footprints will become evident. Once our Ecological Footprint is calculated, we will have a benchmark to set our personal footprint reduction goals and to measure our progress when we recalculate it at a later date. Keep in mind that the Ecological Footprint is an underestimation of an individual’s total environmental impact, as it does not does not directly measure impacts (e.g., human health or costs of pollution) resulting from water pollution, smog, global warming, ozone depletion, etc. However, we can be confident that when we shrink our footprint we are also reducing our personal contribution to these impacts and types of pollution. Q - Internationally, how does the average Canadian Footprint compare? A - On average, a Canadian’s Ecological Footprint is 7.8 hectares or approximately the size of 15 football fields. Only the United States and Australia have larger footprints at 10.3 and 9.0 hectares respectively. To compare, the average person in India has a footprint of 0.8 hectares, almost 90% smaller than the average Canadian footprint. In the United Kingdom and Germany, average footprints are 5.2 and 5.3 hectares respectively, or about 32% smaller than ours. Q - But aren’t there plenty of resources to sustain us? A - No. We would need four more planets like earth to meet the world’s consumption habits if everyone consumed resources like the average Canadian. A growing number of people are subscribing to the concept that we are ‘global citizens’ and each deserve a ‘fair share’ of the earth’s resources. By this we mean that each person deserves fair access to acquire material needs and have a high quality of life. Footprint analysts have estimated that our fair earth share of resources amounts to two hectares per person, or a footprint that is 75% smaller than the average Canadian Ecological Footprint. Q - What are the top four things we can do to reduce our footprints? A - Consider the environment during all daily activities. 1) Reduce water and energy consumption and install water- and energy-efficient devices at home and at work. 2) Use alternative modes of transportation (e.g., walking, cycling and public transportation). 3) Buy fresh food that is locally produced. 4) Practice the 3Rs. Reduce consumption by doing more with less. Eliminate unessential purchases and, when necessary, buy durable locally produced products with little or no packaging. Reuse items as much as possible and donate items no longer used to local charitable organizations. When a product is no longer useful in its current form, Recycle it. Consider whether or not the material can be recycled in your local recycling program when making purchasing decisions and remember that recycling alone is not enough. Buy products that are made with the materials that are collected in your recycling program and close the loop by Buying Recycled. Q - What role will technological development play in reducing our footprints? A - Technology can help us reduce our footprints and become more sustainable. Many industries are adopting new practices and developing innovative technologies designed to reduce environmental impacts and increase resource efficiency. Examples include renewable energy (e.g., solar and wind power), energy-efficient electronics, and products that are manufactured to be less toxic and recyclable and/or contain recycled content. As consumers, we can support these initiatives by switching to these products and services. However, we cannot rely on technology alone. Even though products and services are becoming more efficient, our growing global population is consuming increasing quantities of these products and services. Therefore it is important that we as individuals reduce our consumption levels by using only what we really need."
http://www.rco.on.ca/wrw/ecofootprintFAQ.html

"Fun with Footprints"

"SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
The footprint measures human impact on nature. In order to live, people consume what nature offers. So, every one of us has an impact on our planet. This is not bad as long as we don't take more from the Earth than it has to offer. But are we taking more than we should? The Ecological Footprint measures what we consume of nature. It shows how much productive land and water we occupy to produce all the resources we consume and to take in all the waste we make. How big is your footprint? The average American uses 30 acres to support his or her current lifestyle. This corresponds to the size of 30 football fields put together. In comparison, the average Canadian lives on a footprint one third less, and the average Italian on 55 percent less. How much can nature provide? Nature provides an average of 5 acres of bioproductive space for every person in the world."
Complete text:
http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/

There are no secrets about human overpopulation, just denial. Substantially everything humans need to know, they already know. Still, purveyors of the concept of globalization posit that technology is limitless, substitutions can be made infinitely, and all humans can and will achieve North American material standards, no matter how high human population levels reach. If you are going to believe in a fib, you may as well believe in a whopper.

In reality however, you can forget about biodiversity. Depending on how high the average material levels reach and how high the population levels reach, humans will need from two to five extra worlds just to meet carrying capacity limits for human survival.

How many times have we all heard that one, right? Well, guess what jelly bean? It's twew.

Some people are talking about terraforming Mars, which may be possible given enough time, measured in tens of decades, if there are enough halogens, methane or carbon dioxide there. Mars is only one fourth the diameter of earth, but since it has no oceans it's all solid land. Guess what jelly bean? Mars is cold as heck. Mars has no fossil fuels. Mars is high in entropy and low in energy. Since Mars is farther from the Sun, humans will need lots and lots of extra solar panels or lots of nuclear power plants. Humans wouldn't have to be concerned with habitat destruction on Mars because Mars has no habitat. What habitat there would be, humans would have to make.