2.2Consumption+and+Population

 The **ecological footprint** is a measure of human demand on the Earth's [|ecosystems]. It compares human demand with planet [|Earth] 's[|ecological] capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human [|population] consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the [|Earth] (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them. Every year, this number is recalculated — with a three year lag due to the time it takes for the UN to collect and publish all the underlying statistics.

 While the term //ecological footprint// is widely used, methods of measurement vary. However, calculation standards are now emerging to make results more comparable and consistent.

** What is an Ecological Footprint? ** It is an attempt to give a conservative measure of the degree of overshoot occurring in a particular society or bioregion, under the conditions of present technology and social organization. The amount of land that would be required to support the civilization in a sustainable manner is calculated and compared to the amount of land that is available. When the required amount is greater than the total area where the people live, the carrying capacity has been exceeded. When this occurs on a global scale, it means that either miracles such as changing water into gasoline will have to happen, or that people will have to learn to use much less or become fewer in numbers. It is just a matter of past actions catching up to the present. Most adults with their absolute faith in technological human cleverness are making the not-in-my-lifetime bet, which makes it all the more probable that it will be a rougher yes-in-your-lifetime-buddy —'cause you got in at the end of the line leading to the hog trough. Furthermore, Christian folks tend to believe that they don't have to worry too much about the future seeing as how everything's doomed to end with all hell breaking loose anyway and they're going to float off to harp land just because they thumped on their bible. Course they have been saying that for almost two thousand years now, and tomorrow just keeps on coming around. Are they going to be surprised when they learn that nope, [|no harp land], but, going right back to the end of the line. ¿What else would be fair? Remember, we're in this universe for the learning, and that includes getting ourselves learned if that's what it takes. And it's all too obvious that we're coming up dumb in lots of aspects. There are two ways to calculate an ecological footprint. One is to base it on the average productivity of the Earth because trade is expanding and extra carrying capacity can be imported from another nation that has some to spare. Much carrying capacity comes from the ancient past through the contribution of the sunlight then in terms of dinosaur blood, coal, and gas. It has been called "Ghost" acreage. Pollution of all types as well as leaving the cleaning up of nuclear reactors to others are methods of taking carrying capacity from the future.

**Over-consumption ** is a situation where resource-use has outpaced the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to inevitable environmental degradation and the eventual loss of resource bases. Generally the discussion of overconsumption parallels that of overpopulation; that is the more people, the more consumption of raw materials to sustain their lives. Currently, the developed nations of the world consume at a rate of 32, while the rest of the developing worlds’ 5.5 billion people consume at a rate closer to

The theory was coined to augment the discussion of [|overpopulation], which reflects issues of [|carrying capacity] without taking into account per capita consumption, by which developing nations are evaluated to consume more than their land can support. [|Green parties] and the [|ecology movement] often argue that consumption per person, or [|ecological footprint], is typically lower in poor than in rich nations.

<span style="border: initial none initial; padding-bottom: 2pt; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;"> <span style="border-bottom-style: none; border-color: initial; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-width: initial; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.1in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in; text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">Effects

<span style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">A fundamental effect of over-consumption is a reduction in the planet's [|carrying capacity]. Excessive unsustainable consumption will exceed the long term carrying capacity of its environment ( [|ecological overshoot] ) and subsequent [|resource depletion], [|environmental degradation] and reduced [|ecological health].

<span style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">The scale of modern life's over-consumption has enabled an [|overclass] to exist, displaying [|affluenza] and [|obesity]. However once again both of these claims are controversial with the latter being correlated to other factors more so than over-consumption.

<span style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">In the long term these effects can lead to increased conflict over dwindling resources and in the worst case a [|Malthusian catastrophe].

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">Economic growth **

<span style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">The [|Worldwatch Institute] said China and India, with their booming economies, along with the United States, are the three planetary forces that are shaping the global [|biosphere]. [|[3]] The [|State of the World] 2006 report said the two countries' high [|economic growth] exposed the reality of severe pollution. The report states:

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">The world's ecological capacity is simply insufficient to satisfy the ambitions of China, India, Japan, Europe and the United States as well as the aspirations of the rest of the world in a sustainable way,

<span style="border: initial none initial; padding-bottom: 2pt; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;"> <span style="border-bottom-style: none; border-color: initial; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-width: initial; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.1in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">Footprint

<span style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">The idea of overconsumption is also strongly tied to the idea of an ecological footprint. The term “ecological footprint” refers to the “resource accounting framework for measuring human demand on the biosphere.” A recent study by Mathis Wackernagel has shown that the global ecological footprint was in overshoot by .4 global hectares per person, or roughly 23%. Of these developing countries, China presents the largest threat. Currently, China is roughly 11 times lower in per capita footprint, however they have a population that is more than 4 times the size of the USA. It is estimated that if China developed to the level of the United States that world consumption rates would roughly double.

<span style="border: initial none initial; padding-bottom: 2pt; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;"> <span style="border-bottom-style: none; border-color: initial; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-width: initial; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.1in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">Counteractions

<span style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">The most obvious solution to the issue of overconsumption is to simply slow the rate at which materials are becoming depleted. To consume less is to watch these economies suffer. Instead, countries must look to curb consumption rates while allowing for new industries, such as renewable energy and recycling technologies, to flourish and deflect some of the economic burden. A fundamental shift in the global economy may be necessary in order to account for the current change that is taking place or that will need to take place. Movements related to stopping overconsumption include: anti-consumerism, freeganism, green economics, ecological economics, and degrowth