Ecological Footprint of Humanity

This forum contains all archives from the SD Mailing list (go to http://www.systemdynamics.org/forum/ for more information). This is here as a read-only resource, please post any SD related questions to the SD Discussion forum.
Locked
Matthew Gray
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ecological Footprint of Humanity

Post by Matthew Gray »

Howdy Bill,

For a review of Lomborgs book go to
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/book ... 121201.asp
Ten authors line up to refute Lomborgs claims/analysis.

I actually dont know what the other paper is that you had recommended.

cheers

matt
From: Matthew Gray <Matthew.Gray@une.edu.au>
John Sterman
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ecological Footprint of Humanity

Post by John Sterman »

I highly recommend the paper described below for all system dynamics
folks. The paper provides an estimate of the extent to which
humanity is living beyond the sustainable capacity of the earth. The
lead author, Mathis Wackernagel, has long been a member of the
Balaton group founded by Dana Meadows and Dennis Meadows; one of the
other authors is Jørgen Randers. Its quite a nice paper, with scary
results (the human ecological footprint is estimated to be 1.2 times
greater than the area available, even if we appropriate leave nothing
for other species or as reserve/insurance. While it doesnt employ a
formal SD type model, it is grounded in important dynamic concepts
and takes a big step towards empirically measuring key concepts in
the sustainability and Limits to Growth literatures.

John Sterman
From: John Sterman <jsterman@mit.edu>

Abstract: Sustainability requires living within the regenerative
capacity of the biosphere. In an attempt to measure the extent to
which humanity satisfies this requirement, we use existing data to
translate human demand on the environment into the area required for
the production of food and other goods, together with the absorption
of wastes. Our accounts indicate that human demand may well have
exceeded the biospheres regenerative capacity since the 1980s.
According to this preliminary and exploratory assessment, humanitys
load corresponded to 70% of the capacity of the global biosphere in
1961, and grew to 120% in 1999.

<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 6>Tracking The
Ecological Overshoot Of The Human Economy, Mathis Wackernagel, Niels
B. Schulz, Diana Deumling, Alejandro, Callejas Linares, Martin
Jenkins, Valerie Kapos, Chad Monfreda, Jonathan Loh, Norman Myers,
Richard Norgaard, Jorgen Randers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002
July 9; 99(14): p. 9266-9271
Bill Harris
Senior Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ecological Footprint of Humanity

Post by Bill Harris »

Some time ago, John Sterman wrote:
> I highly recommend the paper described below for all system dynamics
> folks. The paper provides an estimate of the extent to which

I read that and did indeed find it interesting; thanks.

Im also about a third of the way through Lomborgs The Skeptical
Environmentalist (
http://www.lomborg.com/), and it appears to draw
seemingly different conclusions.

Any comments on the two and whether they do disagree in their
conclusions? Any insights on the two in general?

Both seem like they could provide excellent starting points for SD
thinking: the PNAS paper seems to address the state of the world, while
the Lomborg paper seems a bit more focused on the derivative of the
state (although it addresses state issues, as well).

Bill
From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
--
Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541
"George Backus"
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ecological Footprint of Humanity

Post by "George Backus" »

In responding to Bill Harris: Lomborg argues that most of the reports
excess "ecological footprint" is energy. The energy intensity is declining
robustly in industrial nations. Substitution can allow renewable energy
forms as markets allow it and as service economies become more dominant.
Thus, the energy footprint is not necessarily an indicator of true
overshoot, but rather a transient condition. It is a condition that needs
to be taken seriously, but is also readily reversed prior to its causing a
true overshoot trauma. (This conclusion does entail the dubious assumption
that humans are intelligent.)

I think Climate Change dynamics do need to enter into this discussion in
that they may affect (or minimally redistribute) the carrying capacity of
the globe. The dynamics of then redistributing the population do not have an
optimistic history. Studies to-date are still agnostic as to the extent of
the human contribution to climate change, but its reality is largely
accepted -- even if just as a "routine" geophysical process. The ability
for humankind to coordinate an adequate reduction of greenhouse gas seems
highly improbable and possibly counterproductive. Global leadership is yet
to address the implications of climate change on societal and international
conditions. Addressing the inevitable climate change demographic and
infrastructure transient would seem uniquely suited to system dynamics
analysis.



George

George Backus, D.Engr., President
Policy Assessment Corporation
14602 West 62nd Place
Arvada, CO 80004
Bus: 303-467-3566
Fax: 303-467-3576
Mobile: 303-807-8579
Email:
George_Backus@ENERGY2020.com
Bill Harris
Senior Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ecological Footprint of Humanity

Post by Bill Harris »

Ive been asked which paper I referenced in my note about the paper John
Sterman recommended and how it fits with the Skeptical Environmentalist;
its

<
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 6>Tracking The
Ecological Overshoot Of The Human Economy, Mathis Wackernagel,
Niels
B. Schulz, Diana Deumling, Alejandro, Callejas Linares, Martin
Jenkins, Valerie Kapos, Chad Monfreda, Jonathan Loh, Norman Myers,
Richard Norgaard, Jorgen Randers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002
July 9; 99(14): p. 9266-9271

Bill
From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
--
Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541
John Sterman
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ecological Footprint of Humanity

Post by John Sterman »

Bill Harris and some other recent notes mention Lomborgs book.
Since it argues that things are pretty good environmentally and
getting better all the time, and that environmentalists are
pessimistic doomcryers, it has been embraced by the right and
criticized by the left. Leaving such ideologically motivated attacks
aside, those interested in more reasoned, scientific critiques might
look at SOME REALISM ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL SKEPTICISM, by Douglas A.
Kysar, a working paper available through the social science research
network. Also, the reviews of Lomborg in Nature and Science, both by
highly regarded scientists, were consistent in pointing out many
errors of fact and methodology, selective use of evidence, and other
problems in the book.

John Sterman
From: John Sterman <jsterman@MIT.EDU>
Tom Fiddaman
Senior Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ecological Footprint of Humanity

Post by Tom Fiddaman »

Im generally open to the idea that humans are intelligent, but otherwise
Im a little more pessimistic than George Backus:

At 08:56 AM 11/17/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>In responding to Bill Harris: Lomborg argues that most of the reports
>excess "ecological footprint" is energy. The energy intensity is declining
>robustly in industrial nations.

Declining energy intensity is the Bush administration "plan" for combatting
climate change. As long as economic growth outstrips the decline in energy
intensity (gigajoules/$) - which has been true globally - the footprint
will grow. I havent watched regional numbers but Id be interested to hear
any speculation on whether some of the decline in industrial nations is
associated with the IT productivity blip, and whether it is relaxing to a
slower rate.

The ecological footprint about half energy - eyeballing the graphs in the
report at http://www.panda.org/downloads/general/LPR_2002.pdf its 7 out of
13 billion hectares. This number is somewhat tricky - 90% of the energy
footprint is the forest area you would need to plant to offset enough
fossil CO2 emissions to maintain a constant atmospheric CO2 concentration.
This approach is hard to maintain as the stock of fossil carbon is 5-10x
the current biomass. The footprint assumes that 35% of emissions will be
absorbed by the oceans, which also cannot be sustained in the long run. If
no one plants the trees, and climate change occurs (as it will to some
degree due to our accumulated carbon debt, also neglected in the
footprint), its unclear how to assess the resulting "footprint" of various
kinds of climate damages.

Even if CO2 turns out to be a non issue, the energy picture is not
completely rosy. The footprint neglects other aspects of energy use - space
occupied by capital (except reservoirs), non-carbon pollutants (acid rain)
and feedback effects (such as an increase in the crop footprint due to
lowering of yields by pollution - or for that matter a decrease in the crop
footprint due to raising of yields by capital/energy intensive production
and CO2 fertilization). I have a hard time getting my head around the
footprint of the military implications of oil depletion.

>Substitution can allow renewable energy
>forms as markets allow it and as service economies become more dominant.
>Thus, the energy footprint is not necessarily an indicator of true
>overshoot, but rather a transient condition. It is a condition that needs
>to be taken seriously, but is also readily reversed prior to its causing a
>true overshoot trauma.

I agree that renewables and conservation could substitute away the energy
footprint, but I dont believe that "readily" describes the ease with which
the transition could be accomplished. Energy production and consumption is
a capital intensive business, and many of the capital stocks involved have
long lifetimes (dams, homes, cars, infrastructure, ...). Some have high
embodied energy, so that wed need a big up-front investment of energy to
reach a lower-intensity steady state. Many of the technologies concerned
need refinement before expanding out of their current niches. I suspect
that the process of getting agreement on the need for change, shifting
lifestyles and settlement patterns, abandoning existing capital, ramping up
new industries, and installing new capital would be about like preparing
for a world war if you had to do it in a hurry.

All attempts to reduce the globe to a single index yield some absurdities,
so I take the footprint with a grain of salt. But given that Id prefer to
live in a low-footprint world I dont find it encouraging.

Tom

****************************************************
Thomas Fiddaman, Ph.D.
Ventana Systems http://www.vensim.com
8105 SE Nelson Road Tel (253) 851-0124
Olalla, WA 98359 Fax (253) 851-0125
Tom@Vensim.com http://home.earthlink.net/~tomfid
****************************************************
Locked