Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
A childhood moment on a Canadian farm shaped Bill Rees’s understanding of ecological limits, leading to the development of ecological footprint analysis and decades of warnings about global overshoot.
Like a doctor measuring a patient’s vital signs, environmental scientists use various indicators to assess the health of the global ecosystem.
As we’ve emphasized at CASSE for two decades, “Sustainability is a steady state economy.” It’s time to add, “GDP is the ecological footprint.”
On this episode, Nate is joined by systems ecologist William E. Rees. Professor Rees outlines why most of the challenges facing humanity and the biosphere have a common origin – ecological overshoot.
So how could shared spaces, and shared facilities work in the developed world where we have become accustomed to private spaces, and having ownership of almost everything we use?
The campaign for ‘Footprint Justice’ is gathering momentum with a call for UN member states to investigate the legal implications of enshrining a ‘Fair Earth Share’ as a human right.
We are still so far from Rights for All. We urgently need to stop further degradation of our planet now and to realize Fair Earth Shares. Maybe we need to pursue legal action again, like the case for climate action won by the Dutch foundation Urgenda (although being appealed) and the other lawsuits around the world.
The elements of our lifestyle which we most closely identify with tend to be off-limits to any critical discussion. This is one explanation as to why recent research on the impact of digital technology is missing from the popular ecological debate. But as 96% of British adults have a mobile device{1} the footprint of digital technology can no longer be ignored. From electronic waste to carbon emissions, it’s taking on a life of its own.
As environmental crises and the urgency to create ecological sustainability escalate, so does the importance of ecological economics. This applied, solutions-based field of studies is concerned with sustainability and development, rather than efficiency and growth.
Interest is surging in tiny homes – livable dwelling units that typically measure under 400 square feet. Much of this interest is driven by media coverage that claims that living in tiny homes is good for the planet.
In his article, “The Earth’s Carrying Capacity for Human Life is Not Fixed,” Ted Nordhaus, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, a California-based energy and environment think tank, seeks to enlist readers in his optimistic vision of the future. It’s a future in which there are many more people on the planet and each enjoys a high standard of living, while environmental impacts are reduced. It’s a cheery vision. If only it were plausible.
Our ecological footprint exceeds the Earth’s capacity to regenerate. A number of useful indicators and frameworks have been developed to measure the ecological impact that humanity and its dominant economic system with its patterns of production, consumption and waste-disposal are having on the planet and its ecosystems.
