by ralfy » Tue 26 Mar 2024, 21:15:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '&')quot;If everyone lived in an ‘ecovillage’, the Earth would still be in trouble"
https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905Ralphy,
Yes, a good article. Thank you for postingZ
Distressingly the very first sentence in that report is drastically wrong.
From a 10-15 year old interview with Rees Canadians consume about 8 acres of productivity, Americans about 10. Average is round about 1. At this AVERAGE we ares using 2-1/2 times Earths capability to replenish. Move that Average up to 8 and we would he using over 10 the replenishment capacity.
Now suppose we Americans, and all Western society, reduced our consumption to 1 acre, and the excess capacity/resources went to the below average, we would still be using 2-1/2 times replenishment capacity.
To hold our current population and to reduce consumption to below replenishment levels we have to live on less than 1/2 acre per person. Or cut American/Western consumption to 5% if current l usage.
Even if Rees/Walkenburg are wrong by a factor of 10 we would still have to reduce Western consumption by 50%.
Rees/Walkenburg due believe their model is wrong, in that it is too optimistic, making the matter even worse.
I have a friend, really bright lawyer. Named top lawyer in his populace state by the states lawyers association, he has argued a case before the Supreme Court. I have sat in a board with him and he has a very sharp analytical mind. He is a staunch liberal, strong Greenie. When I tried to explain this to him he absolutely COULD NOT believe it. It was many steps too far for him to accept that our situation was that dire. His reaction to my arguments was of disgust, as if I were telling him to literally eat shit. It is an abhorrent concept.
I believe in many ways he is of the same class, attitude, training, and culture as our ruling politicians. The necessary solutions are beyond their comprehension.
I have an even better example I will leave for latter.
I do not know how to deal with that.
I think the article refers to ecological footprint vs. biocapacity.