written 25
June 2018
published 30 June 2018
It may be difficult to understand
how we can exceed planetary capacity. When
financial capital is invested well, it generates interest as an annual return. Spending only the interest is sustainable
because the capital remains intact, to generate more interest the next
year. In the short term, it is possible
to consume more than your annual interest income by spending some of your capital. This leads to a smaller interest income the
next year, requiring even more capital consumption to stay even. This unsustainable consumption pattern
eventually exhausts your entire capital, leaving you bankrupt. Living
systems have similar sustainability limits.
If a herd of 100 beef cows gives birth to 100 calves every year, it is
sustainable to slaughter 100 cows a year.
It is possible to slaughter more cows per year, but the breeding herd
starts to diminish, producing fewer calves every year, and eventually there are
no more cows. The productive capacity of
the herd has been exceeded and system collapse is the result.
When trees are harvested faster than
the rate of growth, timberland productivity declines. When fish are caught faster than they grow,
the fisheries decline. If the topsoil
lost during cultivation is greater than the amount of topsoil produced each
year, the soil becomes sterile and unproductive. Our ever-growing economy of consumption extracts
value faster than nature can replenish.
The planet is bountiful, but eventually the system will collapse.
Our culture tells us that the price
of things includes all the costs, so if we can afford it, we think the planet
can afford it. This is capitalist
fiction. The destruction of natural
resources happens out of sight, and the warning signs go unheeded. The huge oceanic gyres of plastic trash occur
far from land. Coral dies unnoticed
underwater. The people who actually fish
know the fishing industry is declining, while the rest of us just notice when
prices go up, or some varieties fall off the menu. Nobody notices the water table dropping until
the well suddenly runs dry.
This is just the human impact. When ecosystems are destroyed, all species
that depend on that system die. In 2000,
it was estimated that human cropland and pasture occupy 1/3 of ice-free land
area on Earth. If we add logging and
forest management, the least productive half of land is left for other species.
And even that tragedy is an incomplete
picture, for human consumption is not distributed equally. If all 7.5 billion humans consumed like
Americans, it would take the productivity of five planets to support us all. Long before this happens, some part of the
system will surely collapse. If we can agree
that everyone, including other species, have a right to life on this planet, we
need to make some changes.
Annie Leonard's "Story Of Stuff
Project" has been examining the details of our economy for decades. 99% of all natural resources extracted ends up
as garbage in 6 months. This means that
our consumptive economy is only 1% efficient!
That is like setting the house on fire to cook dinner. We can do better than that.
In order to give basic material
comfort to every human, and leave half the planet viable for other species, we
need to reduce consumption and increase our efficiency of production. We are learning that stuff doesn't make us
happy. The growth in storage lockers is
proof that we have more than we need, and it costs to keep that extra stuff. If we cut consumption by a half, and increase
efficiency of production to 5%, everyone could thrive.
A friend said that he is reluctant
to give up some of what he has. I asked
if he would rather give up some stuff voluntarily, or have it all lost to
system collapse, as that seems to be our choice. Nature knows how to deal with ecological
overshoot. Unsustainable consumption is,
well, unsustainable.
