Post
Happy Earth Overshoot Day!
Let us all rejoice: yesterday it was Earth Overshoot Day!
What is Earth Overshoot Day?
You may be asking what it it. The Global Footprint Network will help me elucidate this concept. Also called "Ecological Debt Day", it marks an unfortunate milestone: the day when humanity begins living beyond its ecological means. Beyond that day, we move into the ecological equivalent of deficit spending, utilising resources at a rate faster than what the planet can regenerate in a calendar year.
Globally, we now require the equivalent of 1.4 planets to support our lifestyles. Put another way, in less than 10 months, humanity used ecological services it takes 12 months for the Earth to regenerate.

Of course, we only have one Earth. The fact that we are using (or “spending” natural capital) faster than it can replenish is similar to having expenditures that continually exceed income. In planetary terms, the results of our ecological overspending are becoming more clear by the day. Climate change – a result of carbon being emitted faster than it can be reabsorbed by the forests and seas – is the most obvious and arguably pressing result. But there are others as well: shrinking forests, species loss, fisheries collapse and freshwater stress to name a few.
What is Overshoot?
Just like any company, nature has a budget -- it can only produce so many resources and absorb so much waste every year. The problem is, our demand for nature's services is exceeding what it can provide.
In 2009, humanity is projected to use about 40 percent more than nature can regenerate this year. This problem -- using resources faster than they can regenerate and creating waste such as CO2 faster than it can be absorbed -- is called ecological overshoot.
We currently maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet’s natural resources. For example we can cut trees faster than they re-grow, and catch fish at a rate faster than they repopulate. While this can be done for a short while, overshoot ultimately leads to the depletion of resources on which our economy depends.

Humanity first went into overshoot in 1986; before that time the global community consumed resources and produced carbon dioxide at a rate consistent with what the planet could produce and reabsorb. By 1996, however, humanity was using 15 percent more resources in a year than the planet could supply, with Earth Overshoot Day falling in November. This year, more than two decades since we first went into overshoot, because we are now demanding resources at a rate of 40 percent faster than the planet can produce them.
In 2008, Earth Overshoot Day was reached on September 23.
How is Earth Overshoot Day Calculated?
[ world biocapacity / world Ecological Footprint ] x 365 = Earth Overshoot Day Day
Put simply, Earth Overshoot Day shows the day on which our total Ecological Footprint (measured in global hectares) is equal to the biocapacity (also measured in global hectares) that nature can regenerate in that year. For the rest of the year, we are accumulating debt by depleting our natural capital and letting waste accumulate.
The day of the year on which humanity enters into overshoot and begins adding to our ecological debt is calculated by calculating the ratio of global available biocapacity to global Ecological Footprint and multiplying by 365. From this, we find the number of days of demand that the biosphere could supply, and the number of days we operate in overshoot.
This ratio shows that in 2009, in just 268 days, we demanded the biosphere’s entire capacity for the year. The 267th day of the year is September 25.
A word from the expert
Here's a skype interview made by Beppe Grillo with Mathis Wackernagel, a Swiss-born sustainability advocate, currently Executive Director for Global Footprint Network, an Oakland, California-based non-profit that focuses on developing and promoting metrics for sustainability. He created the concept ecological footprint concept and this video he speaks his mind, presenting the problems from a general overview and then bringing us real world examples o follow. What he advocates... I don't know, it just makes a lot of sense. Please take a look.
Call for action to all blogger: it's time to act!
Right, let's get moving! First, I need to know what my ecological footprint is (roughly). Let's take test at the footprint calculator and find out (Switzerland should be close enough to Italy, as Wackernagel suggests). Here we go:
According to the 2008 data table of the Global Footprint Network, in order to support my lifestyle, it takes about 4 global hectares of the Earth's productive area. Switzerland's ecological footprint per capita is 5, Italy's 4.7, The United States of America top the list with 9.4 and Haiti is at the bottom with 0.5. Even though I'm living much below the national average, and my impact on climate could be compared to the typical Polish, Turkmen, or Belarusian person, if everyone consumed like me, we would still need 1.9 planet Earths.

That is indeed a bit disappointing, especially when considering that I try to live the most environmentally protective and sustainable life I can: buy local food, avoid useless junk that I would throw away immediately, don't buy newspapers, move by bicycle and bus, do car sharing whenever possible, don't waste energy in the house, eat less meat and (most of) all that.
It's not easy to be environmentally friendly, that is, be coherent with what I advocate and still live my life (a dedicated post is on the way).
What can you do to help (short version)
Even though the future does not look very bright, it's not a good reason to avoid taking action and do whatever we can. What matters the most is our will to change things for the better, and while trying to be more effective as possible, things will eventually change. Technology improves, and human ingenuity is the greatest resource that we have on our side. If we really focus on this issue, our collective intelligence and efforts may actually be able to make the difference. If not, then in means we were bound to fail, ad the human species deserves to be wiped out of the species, as a malevolent parasite. Or maybe not. Either way, I think it's worth trying.
I'm building an (almost) comprehensive list of tips to follow when trying to be more effective on limiting climate change. He's a very general list, just to start off:
- Cut down on driving. Bicycles, walking, or using public transportation are good alternatives.
- Reduce energy consumption. This can include, but is not limited to:
- Turning off lights in rooms you are not occupying.
- Unplug unused electronics and appliances.
- Whenever possible, try to substitute goods that use energy derived from fossil fuel-based production, for goods produced from cleaner sources of energy, such as solar or wind.
- Consider both the long-term and short-term consequences of purchasing a product. Though the short-term consequences of purchasing and using that product may be minor, justifying the purchase of the product, the long-term, such as length of time for that item to decompose, may be severe, outweighing the benefits of such a purchase.
- Incorporate the natural environment with your home environment. Many architectural methods now exist that take advantage of benefits created by the environment while preserving it as well. While, the short-term costs of implementing these methods are currently generally higher than implementing environmentally-damaging ones, the long-term benefits typically balance or exceed the costs. As technology in the field of environmental studies progresses, such “environmentally-friendly” construction methods are expected to become cheaper.
- Help restore the environment. In your free time, help plant a tree or volunteer to help clean up a watershed area. Earth’s environment is composed of complex relationships, many not fully understood by ecologists and biologists. One of the best ways to reduce our Ecological Debt is to help restore the Earth’s biocapacity as much as possible.
p.s. This article was crossposted on my blog.


Comments
Thank you for that! Amazing article!
However I find the 4. suggestion you give for living a sustainable life a bit abstract. Could you maybe post an example of what in specific long-term consequences are?
@davis
Sure. Imagine you need to either buy an expensive piece of technological equipment. Is it better to buy something that will cost less, but that you’d probably have to dump in less then two years due to its obsolescence, or it better to buy something that will likely remain in your possession for a long time, because you will find some use to it, maybe because it can be easily upgraded.
Think of all the long term purchases you can make. Cheap windows in your house or a good but a little pricey insulation system? Same goes for everyday goods. Use and reuse *before* even thinking of recycling.
Hope than answers your question.
Ooops, I got carried away and left the sentence in the middle.
It was either [...] or a well designed durable product.
Yes, this answers my question, thanks
No problem David
This is a short list afterall, I almost finished a new post with a more comprehensive and personalised list.
It will be up in a few days.
To the admins:
Can we do something about the SPAM that we got lately?
Thanks,
What a great post. What an inspiration for everyone who is asking ‘Where is all this stuff I’ve asked for?’ and getting frustrated. I am in love the way you express yourself, and I thank you for doing it with such passion and honest reflection.
car search
the human species deserves to be wiped out of the species, as a malevolent parasite.
This is what environuts actually believe.
I took your little footprint test, and it is compeletely rigged.
Pay attention everyone, this is what the environuts want you and everyone on the planet to live like:
No fish
No beef
No lamb
No pork
No poultry
No eggs/milk/dairy
No packaged foods
All locally grown
No clothes
No furnishings
No appliances
No entertainment/computer equipment
No electrical gadgets or tools
No books or newspapers
Recycle everything
Buy only recycled goods
Green-design residence
No electricity or gas
7 or more people living in one house
House smaller than 50 square metres
House made out of mud brick
House powered entirely by renewable energy
No heating
No cooling
Poisonous CFL lights only
No cars
No motorbikes
No planes
No buses
No rail
And even if you managed to achieve all of this, guess what:
IT’S STILL NOT ENOUGH!
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/9812/footprintn.png
Just cut the fucking bullshit admit you want to depopulate the planet.
Just cut the fucking bullshit admit you want to depopulate the planet.
Oh yes, right. The overpopulation population myth.
Instead of giving responsibility to people and to the countries responsible for polluting and destroying the ecosystems, let’s pretend that nothing is happening under the false pretext of some eugenics conspiracy hypothesis.
The truth is, we need to deal with the carrying capacity of the Earth in respect with the population, figuring out a way to live in harmony with nature, recognizing the fact that we are part of a bigger organism.
There can be no competition inside an organism. Suppose your brain say “I’m the most important organ, and the liver say “I am, and I want to go a free-enterprise system. You’ll dry away in a month if every organ of your body went out for itself.
Amazing how you made the logical leap from overpopulation to free-enterpise. Amazing how you ignore everything else in my previous post except for that one line.
“Carrying capacity” is just a euphemism for overpopulation, so stop denying it.
What conspiracy? I’m talking about what you, personally, are saying with your own words.
It is obvious that you, personally, want there to be less people on this planet, and that you, personally, want there to be a regulatory world government to control every aspect of people’s lives.
And you can not deny that there is an agenda to depopulate the planet, by whatever means. You can try to play down the significance of that agenda, but you cannot deny that the agenda itself, exists.
OK Mike, let’s analyse what you said and asked rationally.
Amazing how you made the logical leap from overpopulation to free-enterpise.
Logical leap?
Amazing how you ignore everything else in my previous post except for that one line.
You mean a nonsensical list that supposedly applies to a non-existent group of people that you call “the environuts”?
“Carrying capacity” is just a euphemism for overpopulation, so stop denying it.
If that’s what you want, then that’s what you mean. I don’t want to kill anybody, so to me it doesn’t mean overpopulation. That’s just a way of avoiding the issue.
Even if we were only 1 billion people, if our ecological footprint was 14 global hectares per capita we wouldn’t be able to survive.
The carrying capacity is not an opinion and has nothing to do with humans. It’s a measurement of the Earth’s resources. You are thinking too much egocentrically.
What conspiracy? I’m talking about what you, personally, are saying with your own words.
Really? Please provide quote.
It is obvious that you, personally, want there to be less people on this planet, and that you, personally, want there to be a regulatory world government to control every aspect of people’s lives.
Since you always bring this up, it seems obvious to me that that if what you are looking for, or at least that is you obsession. I never said that, nor have a ever though that it would be a good idea to exterminate some people so that others can live a good life.
If I recall correctly, that is the essence of any monetary system, the one you are advocating. By supporting a system which keeps 90% of the World’s wealth in the hands of the top 10%, it’s exactly what you are doing, and I think it’s a disgrace.
And you can not deny that there is an agenda to depopulate the planet, by whatever means.
By who? Maybe by some of your friends or people you know, it’s certainly not my agenda, nor the agenda of anybody I consider a decent human being.
You can try to play down the significance of that agenda, but you cannot deny that the agenda itself, exists.
Again, see above.
I don’t know the reason why Mike dropped out of the discussion, right where it started to get interesting…
I’d hardly call this a discussion. You use a rigged footprint test to push your point that the world cannot sustain humanity. You cannot account for human innovation and pretend that the world is static and limited to some arbitrary fixed biocapacity, when humanity increases it.
You use a rigged footprint test
The single-person footprint test mere the most irrelevant part of the article. What mattered was the study made by The Global Footprint Network on the global carrying capacity of the Earth, which is the most accurate survey we have today.
to push your point that the world cannot sustain humanity.
Ehm… no. Just to illustrate the pure scientific facts: that humanity, as it is NOW, is using up more resources than the planet can regenerate. It doesn’t say that humanity cannot live in this planet, instead, it encourages to use better technologies and smart processes in order to fit right into it.
You cannot account for human innovation and pretend that the world is static and limited to some arbitrary fixed biocapacity,
It’s not fixed at all, it changes every year. And, it’s not arbitrary, it’s the result of observation and scientific studies.
when humanity increases it.
Actually, we are decreasing it every year, by using more than what can be regenerated.