5.4 Earths!? Environmental footprint calculator results

[kib]

The idea of frugality killing the economy may be a little too simple an explanation. IDK I'm not an economist. I'm an observer. I observe this.

All of this happens right in plain view of all of us. The advertisers are very crafty at making you believe in their things. To me....when you say well it's easy we need to all just become frugal. Well, if you reduce your footprint....you need to do it because it's how you begin a revolution.

The answer is not looking outward and changing the world. It is looking inward and changing yourself.

What I'm saying (and maybe what you're saying too??) is that there seems to be a very self righteous attitude about growth being essential. That attitude is understandable coming from those at the top, but it's mystifying and, frankly, idiotic coming from those in the middle / bottom who keep giving more than they get. It IS essential for the system we're currently struggling with, but I think it's time to look beyond that system. Which begins with the individual, but at some point if we're going to stop the growth of resource disparity, the world attitude / process needs some change too.

ETA: the reason I eschew the calculators is not that I disagree with personal change, but almost the opposite; because this calculator seems designed to illustrate the idea that personal change is pointless.

[JaneV2.0]

I wouldn't mind stagnant growth at all--if it meant consumer goods built to last, instead of planned obsolescence and downright shoddy construction.

And while I was getting lost this morning on the way to our community recycling event, with styrofoam and oversized slabs of cardboard, I noticed a shiny new Goodwill store. Growth I don't mind if it keeps stuff out of the landfill.

[JaneV2.0]

I like this quote from Catherine's article:

"This vast cognigitve surplus could be better employed, he argues, by using our time creatively rather than consumptively. The creative awakening enabled by the internet is transforming some of us from consumers to producers and sharers of music, video, knowledge and so on."

A maker's revolution sits well with me.

[ApatheticNoMore]

What I'm saying (and maybe what you're saying too??) is that there seems to be a very self righteous attitude about growth being essential. That attitude is understandable coming from those at the top, but it's mystifying and, frankly, idiotic coming from those in the middle / bottom who keep giving more than they get.

who haven't seen any real growth in income in 30-40 years anyway supposedly, but fear they must keep the growth treadmill going to not lose what (little?) they have (and never mind their struggles may be due less to lack of growth than jobs being outsourced etc.).

I guess I tire of the question because it seems that very few asking it are sincerely interested in finding an answer anyway (as opposed to just a knee jerk defense). So I'm supposed to be some grand poobah expert on things I'm not in order to satisfy people for whom it's more a rhetorical question than anything. I mean sure if people wanted to start study groups on a no growth economy or something it would be one thing I guess, I would applaud such sincere interest, but they might hit up against the hard wall that the existing system needs to change radically though.

[bae]

Seems to me that population growth is a driver of economic growth, so you'd probably want to do something about that if you are trying to construct a no-growth economic system. I know my community is issued population growth projections by our state, and required to do our economic, land-use, and infrastructure planning/development to account for that growth.

[catherine]

Seems to me that population growth is a driver of economic growth, so you'd probably want to do something about that if you are trying to construct a no-growth economic system. I know my community is issued population growth projections by our state, and required to do our economic, land-use, and infrastructure planning/development to account for that growth.

Yes, here are several suggested policies for establishing stead-state economies: Population stabilization is #3 on CASSE's list and #9 on Herman Daly's.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Population growth on a local level is immigration (is there even net population growth in this country without it? Of course I suppose people could have even less kids to offset it). Of course population growth on a global level is birth control, empowering women to not just have kid after kid etc..

[JaneV2.0]

We'd have to up-end the profit uber alles system first--the idea that corporations owe nothing to the country that birthed them, nothing to the citizens whose taxes paid for their infrastructure and subsidies, nothing, certainly nothing to the environment we all live in.

Colossal greed is the sticking point, it seems to me.

Immigration may be the only way our economy will grow, but I'm not sure that's important. If people buy fewer "consumer goods" in this country, corporations can always export them elsewhere. As long as the money keeps flowing. It's really a global problem.

[Williamsmith]

The carbon footprint is a useless metric for changing human behavior. In fact, it is counterproductive. Yes, we need to be more mindful of our impact on others and the environment. But yes, we also need to continue growth, meaning research and development of promising technology. We once thought moon exploration was silly. How about colonizing Mars? There is no point in being satisfied with less. None.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The carbon footprint is a useless metric for changing human behavior. In fact, it is counterproductive. Yes, we need to be more mindful of our impact on others and the environment. But yes, we also need to continue growth, meaning research and development of promising technology. We once thought moon exploration was silly. How about colonizing Mars?

I don't think this footprint was purely carbon. Demoralizing if your using 2 or 3 earths no matter what you do, but who knows what changes people's psyches if that's the question (someone may have studied whether these things are motivating). We've got the whole world in our hands?

Mars seems pretty dubious for colonization, but even if humans should colonize another planet, they have to survive to that point first (and meanwhile many other species will die well yea that's the way things are going).

We'd have to up-end the profit uber alles system first--the idea that corporations owe nothing to the country that birthed them, nothing to the citizens whose taxes paid for their infrastructure and subsidies, nothing, certainly nothing to the environment we all live in.

Colossal greed is the sticking point, it seems to me.

yes basically agree. Though sometimes visions of change through vast human transformation are attractive, of everyone deciding to have no or one kid for instance because they're suddenly like "woah the planet is way overpopulated, this is a total disaster, it's never going to work, what were we thinking?"