Slashdot Mirror
Earth's Resources Used Up at Quickest Rate Ever in 2016 (france24.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In just over seven months, humanity has used up a full year's allotment of natural resources such as water, food and clean air -- the quickest rate yet, according to a new report. The point of "overshoot" will officially be reached on Monday, said environmental group Global Footprint Network -- five days earlier than last year. "We continue to grow our ecological debt," said Pascal Canfin of green group WWF, reacting to the annual update. "From Monday August 8, we will be living on credit because in eight months we would have consumed the natural capital that our planet can renew in a year."
To calculate the date for Earth Overshoot Day, the group crunches UN data on thousands of economic sectors such as fisheries, forestry, transport and energy production.
Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions, it said, are now the fastest-growing contributor to ecological overshoot, making up 60 percent of humanity's demands on nature -- what is called the ecological "footprint".
I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
So, all those solar panels, windmills and Tesla's are not getting much accomplished when you take the big picture view...
How was this measured? Where is the data? Citation?
Is this methodology open so we all can see how this was arrived at?
I have calculated the amount of Carbon Humankind puts in the atmosphere, so I am aware of (generally) how such calculations are arrived at, but this seems to be rather broad and much more full of error than a more simple calculation (like the carbon one I mentioned above)
Without seeing any data or methodology, I am afraid I can't buy this.
Who decides what resources we're allowed to use? This is a bunch of envirowhacos making stuff up, especially because it's extremely difficult to obtain an accurate accounting of resources used. While we need to be careful and reduce wasting resources, this study comes across as nonsense. Focus on things that can be objectively measured like global average temperature, emissions and aerosols in the atmosphere, and things like that.
Well, we had a good run.
Or, maybe like the entire history of mankind and economics, "used up" means there's demand for more production, or alternative production.
More CO2 is resulting in more foliage. Seems nature has it's own kind of "balancing market".
I'll be looking for a better arbitrary wordplay metric of impending doom.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
humanity is a virus on the planet.
Anonymous Coward is pointing his finger at China.........
How can we end up eating all the food meant for the whole year? Who is giving the food for credit then? The Fed? Are the plants doing "Quantitative Easing" of food then?
I'm sure I saw this on my news feed last week sometime as some meme. I miss /.
Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
You can tell from the fact that the are talking about "using up" a year's allotment of clean air. Uhhhh... No. Air doesn't work like that. While we can, and do, pollute the air we don't "use it up." What's more in terms of breathable air, pollutants in it are a local problem, not global. So in given areas there is heavy pollution that causes the air to be poor quality for breathing, however the amount is very small compared to the total amount on the planet and it doesn't cause a decrease in quality globally.
This is another activist group. They aren't doing science, they are pushing a point of view. Science on CO2 is about it causing more thermal retention, leading to a long term increase in average temperatures. It isn't about "using up" a certain amount in a year.
There is an allotment of air and water to use? Well shit me golden Sherlock! Who knew??
We would only need 0.7 earths if every country used resources like India. We would need 5.4 if everyone lived like Australia. As of today, we have used up all the Earth’s resources for 2016. http://qz.com/753603/as-of-today-we-have-used-up-all-the-earths-resources-for-2016/
People are idiots and the way we are going in 100 years there will be not much left but then I will be long gone... just think about this. Every day there is 400.000 people born and in the same day 160.000 die.
Good luck and peace out!
The global population is still growing, especially in the poorer parts of the world, and while our politicians are gratulating themselves in a massive circle jerk for limiting the growth, so not reduction, just not as large a growth as lats year, countries like China are building a new coal plant every other week.
Understandable, everyone want to be as rich as we are in the west, but the problems are simply not being addressed. Not a politician in the world who is willing to do what is required for that.And even if they were, if they would you would see the worlds largest lynch-mob appear in record time. Because everyone needs to give up wealth for the environment, except me, of course.
I call B.S. on this. How do you create an allotment of clean air. Even the water use is suspect. Water that is not used runs to the ocean anyway and is recycled via weather. Sounds like a socialist agenda at work here.
Soon we will have to start mining asteroids. Then the other planets. Then we'll have to start harvesting the dust between the planets.
Unless we develop technology to go through our Alderson point and survive the exit from the other Aldeson point thats in the atmosphere of a star.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
So, uh, what about all the minerals that are on the ocean floor and deeper than current technology makes it economical to mine? Are those resources "used up"?
Eventually we'll run out of oil and gas to burn, but last I checked we have a crapton of unused land for solar and if we really had to there's more thorium and breedable uranium than we know what to do with...
The ecosystem may take a hit from all this increasing activity, sure. But do humans even need it to remain viable as a species? Just how close are we to being able to grow all our food with genetic engineering, and to make all our medicine with genetically engineered organisms in vats?
I'm under the impression that this is basically possible today, it's just a matter of how much money is available to develop the strains you want. Various FUD about genetic engineering has severely curtailed the interest in it.
http://collections.dartmouth.e...
Some of the items are scary spot on (like the amount of carbon dioxide we would see in the atmosphere).
A bunch of MIT types calculated that based on total assets in the earth (not just available to extract), we would hit several "limits to growth" between 2020 and 2100.
For example: We used as much chromium in 2014 as we did from 1900 to 2000 combined.
here's a summary of the 30 year update.
http://www.unice.fr/sg/resourc...
Many of their projections are following.
Food is a little higher- but so is population.
Here's the unavoidable situation they said we would hit.
Using so many resources that we overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth and then permanently lower it as a result. So if 6 billion were what it could carry for a very long time, by going to 12 billion, we might reduce the capacity to 3 billion.
And it projects a very rapid population reduction. 70 years to fall from 12 billion back to 1950s level populations.
The projection is we'll run low on multiple indusrial metals at the same time and prices of those metals will skyrocket.
---
Now the fun bit. It's too late to do anything about it. We passed the point of no return back in the 1990s. It's a genuine "bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" situation.
And the good news... Many of us will be dead by 2040-2050 when it starts to get nasty tho we may see some signs as early as 2035 (I'll be 74 then-- my most likely lifespan is to 2038).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Pascal Canfin of green group WWF, reacting to the annual update. "From Monday August 8, we will be living on credit because in eight months we would have consumed the natural capital that our planet can renew in a year."
How does that work with fossil fuels exactly? I can't say I read TFA. Why would I, it's /. But it sounds like all we need to do is use about 1/3 less oil per year and it somehow becomes a renewable resource? I would have guessed we'd need to use a lot less than that. But Pascal Canfin seem pretty sure. Or is the WWF the one with the "Pro" wrestlers?
We use more resources, but we don't get anywhere.
Sounds like it's time to cut out all the welfare.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
I guess I never got my ration book. Here I'd always thought that my "allotment" was whatever the hell I was willing to pay for.
Fishery depletion.
giving a shit at all about the suatainability of your species and its planet.
Guess that means we'd better hurry up and start mining asteroids. Wouldn't want to use up all the resources too fast.
All that solar is making the sun dimmer! Oh and all that wind power is slowing the rotation of the earth! Senator Joe Bartan (R) said it was true!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Could someone please explain to me how it is possible to use up water? Doesn't it get recycled naturally in the same form? I have never understood the need to "preserve" water.
Have more babies! That'll solve everything you fucking morons.
We need to switch to Soylent green now! Thankfully, consuming Soylent green means humans use less water, clean air and mineral resources. Or, we can eat horses, dogs, cat and rats instead. Which will also affect water, and mineral resources but not as much.
The smartest man in the world said,
and,
and,
You are welcome on my lawn.
The only thing missing is a reference to Malthus. And Peak Oil. My thought is that we're already past the peak of oil (toungue in cheek!) and since we are on the downslope now, this problem will resolve itself, right? Once we run out of oil, it will be much clearer! $400 barrels here we come! (oh wait...)
If we're using up resources to replace inefficient machines that use more resources (fossil fuels) with longer lasting, more efficient, better machines that use less resources per year (energy, materials, clean up) then it's ok to use them up "faster" this year.
Which, to be frank, we are doing. We literally are building solar, wind, hydro, biofuel systems worldwide at record rates. This means we use fewer resources, since most solar, wind, and hydro last far longer.
If we dispose of these materials instead of reusing and recycling them, then it is a bit of a problem, however.
I literally cut my electric bill in half by buying more efficient appliances (fridge,stove,fridge,washer,dryer) - all of these use far less energy and one uses far less water and detergents. I also bought six solar panels. So, when I bought them I "used more resources" that year. Very true.
But this year I use half the resources. Also very true.
Capiche?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
MDSolar, no doubt.
Sounds like him, smells like him.
The sun shines a continuous 175x10^15 watts on the planet, by this number we are undershooting by a few orders of magnitude. If 7.125x10^9 people each used a continuous 24.5 megawatts we could manage to eventually consume all the earths energy resources for people and nothing but people.
Well then I guess the planet had better buck up and start producing faster then, shant it?
Yeah, I believe it fucking shall.
Get to work slacker planet: I got mountains of disposable shiite to buy and discard!
We should all breed more. And faster!!! Maybe someone of those new briht mijds will come up with solution for global warming!!! Breed people, breed. It's our only hope.
My Campbell's soup cans are getting smaller?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
if you have used up your allotment of something that means you won't get any more of it, right?
ok now we have that established, if these "scientists" were right it would mean that any minute now humanity would cease to exist. ...
wait for it
(5 minutes later)
nope. still here.
it's not gonna happen.
clearly, these people have it wrong.
Bill Maher is on overtime in every f*ing show of his.
If water is scarce enough, people will war over it.
Well, it sounds like it's time to invest in asteroid mining. Yep. There's gold in them there rocks.
A large comet or asteroid will likely be the game changer. For the truly paranoid there's always Zombies, AI and angry aliens thrown into the mix.
I think one of humanity's largest blunders will be not creating products that can be easily reused or recycled. There is going to come a point in time where there are no more resources that can be extracted out of the ground and all of our existing resources will randomly scattered in high entropy landfills with no easy way to extract them.
Aluminum should never be thrown in the trash, it takes 95% more energy to make new aluminum using the bayer process then it does to recycle existing aluminum. It also take less energy to recycle glass then it does to make new glass.
Oh my God! We are all going to suffocate, die of thirst and of starvation--in that order.
These idiots can go sit with the flat earthers, birthers and other fanatics.
This is an easy one: there's too many people on earth. Fix that, fix earth.
But they will now that we've run out of air and water and food and there won't be any more until next year.
Because, he says, we are going to win until we can't stand winning any more. Vote Donald Trump and ignore this nonsense.
First of all, how China is considered a "developing nation" is beyond me. They are one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet and have the largest economy of any nation. There is no reason to let China have a pass on environmental standards.
Same goes for India. India is not a poor country. It has a large number of poor citizens but India has every means at its disposal to change that. It just chooses not to because it currently has no incentive. I would also not call India a "developing nation."
China and India are the two most polluting nations on the planet (and no, don't you dare play the "CO2 is a pollutant" card. It's not). It is time to hold them to meaningful account for the wanton destruction of the environment they are causing.
They just made sh*** up with this report.
This is an interesting point. However, when most people say "population growth", what they really mean is GEOMETRIC growth -- meaning that the population is growing by an exponential function.
The late, great Professor Al Bartlett's arguments in Arithmetic, Population and Energy -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?... -- are assuming that population grows at an exponential rate, not something slower.
If it could be shown that the population was growing linearly, or even polynomially, over a long period of time, we would have significantly less cause for concern. However, if the population growth's fastest term is still exponential, it doesn't matter whether it's "decelerating", we still have the problem.
Consider three different population growth functions where each whole number of `x` is 1 year:
C = 100000 (starting pool of people = 100,000)
L(x) = 1000x + C // Linear growth
Q(x) = 400x^2 + C // Quadratic growth
E(x) = C*(1 + 0.0113)^x // Exponential growth -- let's set r = 0.0113, the current estimated world population growth rate, 1.13% per year
So if x = 1 (10 years from now):
L(1) = 1000 + 100000 = 101000.
Q(1) = 400 + 100000 = 100400.
E(1) = 100000 * 1.0113 = 101130.
So far these are relatively close, but let's look at 50 years...
x = 50:
L(50) = 50000 + 100000 = 150000.
Q(50) = 1000000 + 100000 = 1,100,000.
E(50) = 100000 * (1.0113)^50 = 175388.
Quadratic jumps way ahead here, but even though I set a fairly aggressive coefficient for the quadratic, the exponential wins out in the end...
Let's say x = 500...
L(500) = 500000 + 100000 = 600000.
Q(500) = 100,000,000 + 100000 = 100,100,000.
E(500) = 100000 * (1.0113)^500 = 27,542,516.
Nope, quadratic still wins.
x = 1000?
L(1000) = 1,000,000 + 100000 = 1,100,000.
Q(1000) = 400,000,000 + 100000 = 400,100,000.
E(1000) = 100000 * (1.0113)^1000 = 7,585,902,222.
So yeah, after just 1000 years of a very slow exponential growth, it completely trounces the extremely fast-growing quadratic.
So we need to stop looking at population figures in terms of derivatives and acceleration in the traditional sense, because historically the growth has always best been described by an exponential function, not by a polynomial. Unless we have somehow fundamentally changed our ways to stop the exponential growth, everything Al Bartlett says in his video is 100% true, even if the rate, r, in the growth function is decreasing (hint: it's not decreasing fast enough to matter).
re: the second quote--using examples of record freezing in some areas as am AGW argument--despite far more examples of heat records broken elsewhere, and on average for the world--sounds pretty fucking dumb to me. It was rebranded to "climate change" to alleviate confusion for people like this.
Global warming means the surface of the planet is overall warming up. It causes climate change, which can have freaky local effects, including cooling things down because we're mucking with how heat is transferred around the planetary surface.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The USA has been impossibly over budget for decades - the national debt for $$$! Now we can ad outliving our time!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
I forgot to add that I believe that all of this including the god-thing are all machines. I have also looked at mistakes and find it hardly likely that the mistakes were due to freedom, but due to overrestraint. The big mistake that I see and make the biggest attempt to rail against and draw attention to currently is the position of the Hobbesian/Hamiltonians who generally believe in the absolute power of the state to limit the freedom of man.