The 59th minute -- by David Suzuki

In his 2009 Legacy lecture, "An elder's vision for our sustainable future", David Suzuki points out that the Earth’s water, food and air are finite. If the Earth were a basketball, the biosphere — our only home -- would be thinner than a layer of varnish on its surface. What orthodox economics and our leaders assume, unlimited growth on a limited planet, is suicide.

Human population doubles every 42 years

Test Tube: this NFB animation asks what you would do "if you could find an extra minute". Just type one word and watch the 3 1/2 m video. Here's a note on how it was made using live Twitter data, constantly growing, as an analogue to the bacteria. And an app for your iPhone.

Suzuki proposes a thought experiment. Suppose we are bacteria in a test tube full of food. It’s huge compared to our tiny size, but still finite. Like humans, our population increases exponentially. 

“At time zero you have one cell; one minute you have two; two minutes you have four; three minutes you have eight; four minutes you have 16. That is exponential growth and at 60 minutes the test tube is completely full of bacteria and there is no food left, a sixty minute cycle. When is the test tube only half full? Well the answer of course is at 59 minutes; but a minute later it is filled. So at 58 minutes it is 25% full; 57 minutes 12½ % full. At 55 minutes of the 60 minute cycle it is only 3% full. 

So, if at 55 minutes one of the bacteria said to its companions that they had a population problem, the other bacteria would be incredulous because 97% of the test tube would be empty and they had been around for 55 minutes. 

Yet they would have only 5 minutes left. At the 58th minute it would only be a quarter full. At the 59th minute, half full, And if just before the hour bacteria scientists invented 3 more test tubes, they would only buy 2 minutes of life: the 60th minute, one test tube full; 61st, two full, 62nd, all four. With no food left, the population crashes. Their technology quadrupled the supply (three more Earths), and bought just TWO MINUTES.

In real life can we add even a fraction of 1% more of air, water, soil or biodiversity? We cannot. The biosphere is fixed and finite -- we are past the 59th minute -- and every biologist I have talked to agrees with me, ”

Back on Earth, right now, we see no shortage. In our air conditioned supermarkets the food is stacked to the ceiling, tap water flows in our kitchens, oxygen supplied by the trees. We are in the 59th minute. Time to change. But rightwing deniers (like this one) insist the scientists must be wrong.

Our blog in 2008 posted a 8 min animation that tells the same story: “Are humans smarter than yeast?” Read the two previous posts on this blog, The line cuts through the heart, and Letting go of honest hope. Listen to all of Suzuki's inspiring Legacy lecture, and read Bill McKibben’s Eaarth to understand what has happened to the biosphere in the last two generations, and what we must do about it.

Population mind map by Jane Genovese

Eco-economics deals with the human impact on the biosphere in the anthropocene era.
The Kaya formula  is


Some what better-known is the Commoner, Ehrlich and Holdren formula:
I=PAT
Human Impact (I) on the environment equals P= Population multiplied by A= Affluence and T= Technology. The Quaker book Right Relationship (p.76+) includes E for ethics, I=PATE, to argue that we must both for scientific and moral reasons adjust our impact, making major changes in PAT to reach a sustainable whole earth economy. “Change the system not the climate,” as the protesters chanted at the 2009 climate negotiations in Copenhagen and later. Humanity is still far from E action. We are robbing our grandchildren of their future.

Update - Suzuki Leap Manifesto in 2015, its signatories, and recent news of the movement.

The History of Climate Change Negotiations in 83 seconds

This Youtube video by CICERO, the Oslo-based Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, is released under a Creative Commons licence. Feel free to share it.

See also Wikipedia's summary of climate negotiations 1992-2012 and NGO reactions to COP-18. Third World Network Doha bulletins, esp. number 23. Canadian NGOs' report.

Veteran observer Michael Dorsey's 8 Dec 2012 email from Doha says, "They're calling it an "EU Bridge"... it's a bridge, for sure, but over the river Styx!

• An extraordinarily weak cock up on climate finance, failing to put money on the table or to ensure a pathway to the $100 billion a year by 2020 target.

• An eight year second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol with loopholes that allow carry-over, use and trading of hot air.. [to save the EU ETS carbon market, with its built-in licenses to pollute - Ed.].

• A call – though not an official ambition ratchet mechanism - for Kyoto Protocol countries to review their emissions reduction target inline with the 25-40% range by 2014 at the latest. 

The only hopeful element, ever so slightly:

• An agreed work program on loss and damage to help victims of climate change will start immediately and a decision “to establish institutional arrangement, such as an international mechanism , at COP19”.[I suspect this is the New Market Mechanism. See my NMM compilation  - Ed] Also Financial Times, Doha talks agree to climate compensation and Reuters Point Carbon,  Key decisions at Doha.

["Hot air" credits in the EU-ETS (shown in yellow in the graph below) were assigned to former Soviet bloc countries that fell below their BAU curve due to political and economic collapse in the 1990s. A boondoggle for carbon brokers and corrupt elites. They do not represent any real emission cuts. -- Ed.]

source: UK Guardian

Consume less -- by Richard Grossman

Reprinted with the author's permission, this article appeared in today's Durango Herald.

There is something you can do that is likely to make you happier, healthier, save money and lessen your impact on the planet. What is it? Consume less by practicing simpler living.

I usually focus on human population growth, but consumption is an issue that affects our impact on the planet just as much.

A child born in a developing country will have only a fraction of the impact that a child would have in the United States. This illustrates that it is not just the numbers of people but also the resources they use (and the pollution they cause) that really matters. Furthermore, consumption is growing faster than population growth. Worldwide our numbers are increasing by 1 % per year while consumption is skyrocketing at 2 to 4 %.

Costa Rica is a good example of a nation that approaches sustainability. We lived in Monteverde for three months recently, giving us personal experience with the differences from the USA.

The income of an average Costa Rican (or “Tico”, to use their nickname) is significantly less than that of an “American”. Our buying power is about $47,000 per person each year, but in Costa Rica it is less than a quarter of that, at $11,000. Obviously Ticos consume less than do norteamericanos.

Yet Ticos appear to be happier than Americans. One measure, the Satisfaction with Life Index, rates Ticos higher (13^th in the world) than Americans (just 23^rd).

This travel blog photo's source is TravelPod page: Could this trip be any better?

Most Ticos do not own cars, but use their feet or public transportation to travel. When we lived up in Monteverde we walked to do errands. Sometimes we enjoyed the luxury of a taxi if it was pouring or if we had a lot to carry. When we traveled from the Monteverde area we did so by bus. It cost only the equivalent of eight dollars for the four-hour trip to the capital, San José!

Doesn’t relative poverty cause poor health? No! On average, Ticos live a year or two longer than Americans! The emphasis there is on primary and preventative health care. I don’t remember seeing a really obese Tico; people are physically active and fast food is uncommon. Indeed, I lost weight when eating my favorite Costa Rican food, gallo pinto—but that’s another story.

What is the secret of Costa Rica? It is unique in the world in that it emphasizes education and health. It has no military—that’s right, none! Instead it provides free health care to all citizens and free education through high school. In contrast, the USA spends a huge fraction of our finances on the military. Part of our expenditure is to support our extravagant use of petroleum, which largely comes from far away. A large portion of our military might is used to gain and protect sources of petroleum. Furthermore, our military consumes huge amounts of oil.

Contraception is free and available to all Ticos as part of their health care. Funding for family planning in the USA, however, has been shrinking when measured in real dollars, and its very existence has been jeopardized with recent political changes. (Abortion is illegal in Costa Rica, although a few abortions are done surreptitiously.)

The saying “development is the best contraceptive” became popular during Reagan’s presidency. As people get richer, they do tend to have smaller families. Unfortunately, they also consume more and have greater impact. Furthermore, more refined studies have found that really rich people have larger families than moderately rich families.


The Tico lifestyle uses much less of the planet’s resources and adds less pollution to the environment. Costa Rica has also preserved a greater proportion of its land as parks than any other country in the world. Its rain and cloud forests have become a major tourist destination, and a major source of income. Almost all electricity in Costa Rica comes from renewable sources—hydro and wind—but it is affordable for all.

Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve

The Ecological Footprint (an excellent measure of an individual's impact) of the average Tico is 2.8 hectares (6.8 acres). This is close to the average area of productive land available to each person—if we all had this EF we would be using the planet’s resources sustainably.   

We cannot all move to Costa Rica. We here in the USA can, however, endeavor to reduce our consumption. People who choose "simple living" (or a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity) work less, spend less, and enjoy life more. Most important is that they are happier and have less impact on the planet.

Penseurs de la décroissance

Selon Wikipédia, la décroissance est un ensemble d'idées écologistes, anti-productivistes, anti-consuméristes qui appellent à une relocalisation des activités économiques afin de réduire l'empreinte écologique, et à mettre fin à la croissance illimitée sur une terre limitée par une réduction contrôlée ou «décroissance soutenable».

Parmi ses penseurs, le bioéconomiste Georgescu-Roegen, auteur de Demain la décroissance. Entropie, écologie, économie (1979); les anarcho-libertaires Jean-Pierre Tertrais, Du développement à la décroissance: de la nécessité de sortir de l'impasse suicidaire du capitalisme (2007, ci-contre), et Alain de Benoist, Demain la décroissance. Penser l'écologie jusqu'au bout (2008); et les écosocialistes Michel Beaud, Le basculement du monde (1997), et Serge Latouche, Le Pari de la décroissance (2006).

Leurs adeptes s'appellent «Objecteurs de Croissance», prônant des actions telles une journée sans achat, eco-villages, relocalisation, et simplicité volontaire. Leur sympathisants comptent José Bové, Albert Jacquard, et François Schneider du SERI. Même Nicolas Hulot dans l'Impératif écologique (2008) et Hubert Reeves dans Mal de terre (2003) frôlent cette pensée.

Le progrès est ... un des visages, et un visage incertain, du devenir. Il est remarquable que sur la ruine de la providence divine l'humanité laïque, la philosophie des Lumières, l'idéologie de la raison aient pu hypostasier et réifier l'idée de progrès en Loi et Nécessité de l'histoire humaine ; et cette idée a été à ce point désincarnée, détachée de toute réalité physique et biologique, qu'elle a fait ignorer le principe de corruption et de désintégration en oeuvre dans physis, cosmos, bios. Plus aveugle encore fut le mythe techno-bureaucratique du progrès qui régna pendant deux décennies. Il conçut la croissance industrielle comme l'opérateur du progrès humain. Dès lors, la croissance, vouée à progresser indéfiniment, devenait la preuve, la mesure, la promesse d'un progrès généralisé et infini... -- Edgar Morin, 1981

L'humanité court à sa perte, si elle se montre incapable d'infléchir totalement l'évolution de notre société de consommation ; en somme, si elle continue à se révéler irresponsable [...]. Il nous reste peu de temps pour sauver l'honneur et l'espoir d'une humanité en grand danger. -- René Dumont, 1988

cités dans Michel Beaud, Le basculement du monde (1997) p.281; ci-dessous, d'autres extraits tirés de ce livre en ligne :

^{Michel Beaud}

Menaces des temps présents (p.206+)

Disposant d'énormes moyens techniques et financiers, l'Humanité a surmonté bien des craintes et maîtrisé bien des menaces du passé, mais se trouve confrontée aux nouveaux périls nés de sa nouvelle puissance.

Longtemps ce fut la peur de la guerre nucléaire, aujourd'hui lovée quelque part dans les profondeurs de l'inconscience. Aujourd'hui, pour les hommes d'affaires les plus en vue, comme pour des fragments de familles réduits à dormir sous des porches, c'est l'insécurité de tous les instants. Les sociétés riches s'inquiètent de risques pour la santé, même infimes en probabilité, provenant de systèmes d'alimentation ou de soins. Des sociétés pauvres, en cours d'industrialisation et de modernisation, commencent à découvrir les menaces, pour la santé ou la vie, de pollutions ou d'accidents industriels, de malfaçons dans les constructions ou d'usage de matériaux ou de produits dangereux.

Il y a aussi les risques sociétaux, tenant aux effets des guerres et des chaos armés, aux nouveaux comportements des générations des pays riches qui ont été rejetées durablement dans le chômage et la précarité, aux nouveaux comportements des générations des pays pauvres qui ont grandi dans la misère, la lutte pour la vie et la violence ; et aussi les risques tenant aux dégénérescences de la démocratie (engagements non tenus, enrichissement personnel des élus, détournement des moyens publics, corruption)...

En outre, depuis plusieurs années, des responsables d'organismes internationaux, des experts laissent percer, en termes choisis, l'inquiétude que leur inspirent de possibles crises sur les marchés monétaires et boursiers. Le spéculateur George Soros, orfèvre en la matière, est plus explicite : « L'histoire a montré qu'il arrive bel et bien que les marchés financiers s'effondrent, entraînant dépression économique et troubles sociaux». Et encore : « Les marchés sont fondamentalement instables, contrairement à ce que prétendent les idéologues du laisser-faire […]. J'affirme que notre système risque de s'effondrer […]. L'effondrement du marché global serait un désastre dont on ne saurait imaginer les conséquences»

Et puis, il y a les risques découlant des nouvelles technologies, du nucléaire aux manipulations génétiques. D'autant que l'on sait maintenant que ces technologies ne restent pas strictement enfermées dans des laboratoires jusqu'au jour où leur maîtrise est parfaitement assurée.

On sait aussi que la raison d'État ignore et l’éthique et le principe de précaution....La logique marchande aussi a ses raisons qui ignorent l'éthique....

Victoires de l'irresponsabilité et de l'acratie (p.212+)

Irresponsabilité : dès lors que le marché pourvoit à tout, c’est au consommateur de faire le bon choix ; dès lors que l'argent est la valeur suprême, ceux qui n'en ont pas sont hors jeu ; dès lors que les marchés, notamment financiers, sont mondiaux, les dirigeants nationaux ont bien des excuses pour « laisser faire ». Firmes, gouvernements, professionnels (de la santé ou de la finance), savants ne lésinent certes pas sur les appels, les déclarations, les codes (de bonne conduite ou d'éthique). Mais, face aux processus en cours qui déstructurent nos sociétés, mettent en péril la Terre, menacent les humains, nul lieu où soit réellement élaborée et mise en oeuvre la stratégie pluridimensionnelle dont nous avons besoin.

Acratie : incapacité des hommes au pouvoir à l'assumer réellement, à affronter les enjeux majeurs, les problèmes les plus graves, à définir et engager les stratégies nécessaires et à imposer les efforts que les choix faits impliquent. Et même ceux dont les discours montrent qu'ils ont bien vu l'essentiel se révèlent incapables de le prendre en charge ou de mettre en oeuvre les processus ou les procédures qui s'imposent.

Des compromis planétaires ? (p.241+)

Au niveau mondial, on peut se réjouir d'une certaine prise de conscience, d'avancées rendues possibles par certaines réunions internationales et de mesures, annoncées ou mises en oeuvre, dans quelques domaines. Mais les efforts ne sont pas à la hauteur des problèmes.

Le montant de l'aide publique du Nord au développement du Sud est tombé à moins de 0,3 % du produit brut des pays du Nord, record historique. Les États-Unis n'ont toujours pas engagé une politique résolue de réduction de leur consommation de pétrole. Le nécessaire codéveloppement Nord-Sud, qui permettrait de faire face aux urgences et des sociétés et de l'environnement demeure à un stade symbolique.

Si l'on prend comme référence le compromis social-démocrate qui a permis à quelques pays du Nord de mettre pendant plusieurs décennies la machinerie capitaliste en conformité avec certains idéaux de société (équité, solidarité, cohérence), deux « compromis » paraissent souhaitables au niveau planétaire. L'un et l'autre doivent viser à mettre la machinerie multinationale/mondiale en conformité avec le choix d'un monde vivable, dans le souci de faire face aux urgences et de répondre aux besoins essentiels sans sacrifier l'avenir.

D'abord un compromis Nord-Sud. Les pays riches du Nord doivent clairement s'engager à réduire leurs atteintes à l'environnement et à soutenir les politiques d'équipement et de modernisation du Sud assurant la sauvegarde de l'environnement. Pour les pays riches du Nord, il s'agit de :

• réorienter résolument leurs économies dans des voies assurant à chacun les moyens d'une vie digne, réalisant économies d'énergie et de matière et limitant les atteintes à l'environnement ;
• soutenir massivement les efforts faits par les pays en cours d'industrialisation pour adopter techniques et équipements visant ces objectifs ;
• soutenir les efforts des pays pauvres pour reconstruire des activités productives qui assurent la subsistance de chacun et sauvegardent les ressources essentielles (sol, eau, espèces végétales et animales).

Placé sous le signe du codéveloppement, un ensemble d'actions coordonnées dans ce sens peut d'ailleurs constituer un soutien à l'activité et à l'emploi, au Nord comme au Sud, et devrait permettre d'empêcher de profondes dégradations, tant sociales qu'environnementales, qui, si on les laissait s'aggraver, se révéleraient inévitablement plus coûteuses dans quelques décennies.

Simultanément, un autre compromis devrait être passé avec les très grandes firmes. Devraient contribuer à ce compromis des États, des organismes internationaux et des forces représentant le mouvement social et la société civile dans différentes régions du monde. Ce compromis devrait viser à :

• orienter vers des priorités, en suscitant et mobilisant des demandes monétaires, une partie de l'activité de la machinerie multinationale/mondiale
• border la fuite en avant technoscientique par une application stricte du principe de précaution
• limiter les périls liés à l'intégration de la technoscience dans les très grandes firmes et au développement des megasystèmes techniques.

^*****

Voir aussi La Déclaration de Tilburg (2008); la 2e Conférence sur la décroissance 2010; R&D Research and Degrowth / Recherche et Décroissance; et une entrevue pessimiste de Michel Beaud, Le Devoir 12 juillet 2010 : À bout de souffle, le capitalisme? Non, il règnera des années encore avec de nouveaux produits à consommer ou à spéculer, et de nouvelles tragédies pour faire basculer le monde.

Grow and die: the growth fetish and the American Dream -- Paul B. Farrell

DowJones/MarketWatch.com 8 Jun 2010, reprinted with Paul B. Farrell's permission.

What do we do now, oh great Zen master? "When you get to a fork in the road, take it," replies the wise one, Yogi Berra, greatest Yankee catcher of all time. His sage advice to economists, politicians and investors everywhere: "The future ain't what it used to be. We made too many wrong mistakes. You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."

Paul B. Farrell

At the crossroads

Growth, capitalism's most sacred commandment -- "Grow or die" -- may itself be on death row. With us since 1776, it's being challenged by a new reality that's flashing relentless warnings of an emerging new command from critics, contrarians and eco-economists: "Grow and die." Yes, you heard right.

• Grow or die. Traditional economists say we need 3% GDP growth to support 100 million new Americans in the 21st century. Drill, baby, drill. New jobs to fuel slow recovery. Worse, exploding growth demands as the rest of the world adds 2.9 billion new humans all chasing their unique American Dream.

• Grow and die. New eco-economists see Big Oil's destruction of our coastal economies, the rape of West Virginia's coal mountains, the unintended consequences of uncontrolled carbon emissions, and they ask: "When will economists, politicians and corporate leaders stop pretending world's resources are infinitely renewable?" Unfortunately, even the new eco-economists fail to factor population growth, the big 800-pound gorilla, into the equation.

eco-economics, from Wikipedia

Yes, we are all at a crossroads, all facing a dilemma, all confronting the ultimate no-win scenario: Growth is essential to support the global population explosion. Growth is also killing our world, wasting our planet's non-renewable natural resources. As a result, the "growth" mantra will eventually destroy civilization.

Put a face on this dilemma: Governor Bobby Jindal. Louisiana's greatest economic and ecological assets -- marshlands, coastal fisheries -- are being destroyed by capitalism run amok, Big Oil's greed. Yet Jindal's already telling the President to forget the oil drilling moratorium, forget new studies, forget regulations, forget restraining the Big Oil greed machine that got us here. Drill baby drill, now!

Yes, we're at the crossroads. This politician's a perfect example of the no-win scenario confronting all politicians, economists and citizens. He's on the horns of a very sharp no-win dilemma: We're damned if we grow. Damned if we don't.

Ultimate sin: Turning a blind eye, failing to seek real solutions

"When you get to a fork in the road ... take it." But which fork? Flip a coin? Same result either way: Heads you lose, tails you lose. A no-win situation. Not just Jindal, Obama and America, but Greece, Brazil and China. All politicians, all economies, all trapped in capitalism's most sacred, rarely challenged, commandment: Growth or die. Growth has achieved biblical reverence, blinding us to its toxic collateral damage.

The difference between the mindset of traditional economists and the new eco-economists is actually simple: Traditional economists think short-term, react short-term, pursue short-term goals. New eco-economists think long-term. Initially this may seem overly simplistic, but it fits perfectly. Here's why:

• Short-term thinkers: Traditional economists are highly-paid employees and consultants in organizations with short-term horizons -- banks, institutional investors, big corporations, think-tanks, government. Quarterly earnings, tax season, election cycles are more important than what happens a decade in the future. If they can't survive the next budget cycle, "long term" is irrelevant.
  

• Long-term thinkers: New eco-economists see, think and plan for the long-term. They understand Yogi: "If you don't know where you're going, you might not get there." They know short-term thinkers are setting America up for more and bigger catastrophes than the gulf oil spill. The hit film Avatar is a perfect metaphor: By 2154, Earth's resources are exhausted, forcing us to invade distant planets searching for new energy resources. Critics warn it'll happen earlier: United Nations and Pentagon studies predict population increases that will create unsustainable new natural resources demands by 2050.

sustainability, from Wikipedia

Your 'growth' test
The decision is yours. So sit back for a few minutes, take this little test. Read each of the following 11 news items from my clip files, edited for length. Several are hot off the press. A couple are from the winter months. The rest from earlier reports about growth, the 800-pound gorilla hiding in every nation's living room in every quarterly economic report, in the expectations that will make-or-break your own retirement plans.

Here's how to keep score
If you think the message of one of these edited news items supports long-term growth, give it three points. Two points if it's neutral. And if it favors short-term growth plus has faith that technology and the American Spirit will take care of the long-term, add one point. Your total score will be between 33 and 11.

- - - - -

1. "Most new jobs temporary ... unemployment high," Peter Morici report, June 2010. "The economy added 431,000 jobs in May but 411,000 were temporary Census jobs. ... Forecasters had expected 540,000 new jobs ... the big challenge is to keep GDP growing at least 3% to pull down unemployment."

2. "OECD raises forecast for economic growth," The Wall Street Journal, May 2010. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based think tank, "cited strong growth in developing economies and the rapid rebound in world trade to predict that the organization's 31 members will see their combined gross domestic product increase 2.7% this year and 2.8% next year. ... U.S. economy is expected to grow 3.2%" in each of those years."

3. "Geithner rallies Europe on growth," Ian Talley, The Wall Street Journal, May 2010. Geithner's "growth" pitch is a fight to minimize change and preserve the status quo for American banks: "We all understand that part of recovery, part of growth, is to make sure that we make clear and credible commitments to restore gravity to our fiscal positions over time ... But we're also working to make sure our economies are growing."

4. "Economic outlook: Slow growth at best," Gary Shilling's Insight Report, June 2010. "Our forecasts of slow U.S. growth through 2011 may prove overly optimistic ... Most investors believe 2008 was simply a bad dream from which they've now awoken. We're returning to the world they knew and loved, with free-spending consumers supporting rapid economic growth, fueled by ample credit and backstopped by governments."

5. "The new normal," Pimco's Bill Gross, InvestmentNews Conference, Dec. 2009. "Investors will never again see the returns and profits of a few years ago. 'New normal' returns are half what we have grown used to over the past 10 to 25 years."

6. "Stiglitz urges end to GDP fetish," Bloomberg News Report, Sept. 2009. "The Nobel Prize-winning economist urged world leaders to drop the obsession with GDP and focus more on broader measures of prosperity." Many things important to individuals are not included in GDP. But will short-term thinkers agree?

7. "Numbers racket," Kevin Phillips, Harper's Magazine, May 2008. "The use of deceptive statistics has played a vital role in convincing many Americans that the U.S. economy is stronger, fairer, more productive, more dominant, and richer with opportunity than it really is." Corruption taints CPI, GDP, unemployment stats. How bad is it? The real numbers are a face full of cold water. "Economic growth since the recession of 2001 has been mediocre, despite a surge in wealth and incomes of the super-rich."

8. "A darker future for us," Robert Samuelson, economist, in Newsweek, Nov. 2008. "We Americans are progress junkies. We think that today should be better than yesterday and that tomorrow should be better than today. Compared with most other peoples, we place more faith in 'opportunity' and 'getting ahead.' We may now be on the cusp of a new era that frustrates these widespread expectations. ... Americans do not have a divine right to rapid economic growth."

9. "How a new jobless era will transform America," Don Peck, The Atlantic, March 2010. "The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar men. It could cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a despair not seen for decades. Ultimately, it is likely to warp our politics, our culture, and the character of our society for years to come."

10. "Faustian economics," Wendell Berry, Harper's Magazine, May 2008. "The general reaction to the apparent end of the era of cheap fossil fuel, as to other readily foreseeable curtailments, has been to delay any sort of reckoning ... The dominant response, in short, is a dogged belief that what we call the American Way of Life will prove somehow indestructible. We will keep on consuming, spending, wasting, and driving, at any cost to anything and everybody but ourselves."

11. "What's so good about growth?" Michael Mandel, BusinessWeek book review, Nov. 2005. Ben Friedman's The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth "has scored a dead-center hit on the critical question: Why do we value economic growth? The usual argument is that a bigger GDP -- more goods and services -- leads to happier, more satisfied citizens ... [But] as the average income in a country goes up, so do expectations. As a result, the level of GDP per person in a country, taken alone, doesn't necessarily say much about the level of happiness. The lack of a direct link between personal satisfaction and the level of GDP per person seems to undercut the purely economic arguments in favor of growth."

- - - - -

Add it up
So what's your total score? Folks in the "grow and die" crowd (long-term thinkers and eco-economists) will score above 22. Anyone in the "grow or die" crowd (short-term thinkers and traditional economists) will score under 22.

Me? I'm still at the plate talking to Yogi about that fork in the road, about Avatar in 2154, about why God let that bad umpire's call kill a perfect game. Yes, still asking the wisest of all Zen masters which way to go. And after he repeats his answer for the umpteenth time, he pauses, then silently shakes his head, turns away and walks off the field and into the dugout. He caught a perfect game, and scored 33 points.

*****

See more Paul B. Farrell articles in MarketWatch, Wikipedia on Ecological Economics; Tom Prugh of Worldwatch, Seven key concepts of Green Economics; Robert Constanza et al., Introduction to Eco-Economics in Encyclopedia of Earth. Many other eco-ecologists are quoted in previous blog posts tagged EE.

Waterprints -- by Hugh Robertson

Copied here with the author's permission, this was first published in the May issue of the Manor Park Chronicle.

Have you ever considered how much water is required to provide you with your morning cup of coffee – excluding the 125 ml in the cup? On average, 140 litres of water is used to grow the coffee, prepare the beans, package and transport them to your kitchen ready to grind. A “water footprint” or “waterprint” is a new technique that measures how much water we each use to sustain our lifestyles – everything from flushing a toilet to buying clothes to drinking a cup of coffee.

Ottawa River: photo Vince Alongi

Our personal or domestic water consumption for cooking, cleaning, washing and flushing is probably only 10 percent of our total waterprint. The food and manufactured products that we buy and the fuel and electricity that we use contain huge quantities of embedded or “virtual water.” Although we may only drink 4 litres of water, we actually “eat” and “consume” another two thousand litres daily.

Our waterprints are composed of 4 major categories:

• Food
• Manufactured products
• Energy generation
• Domestic

Water consumption in Canada breaks down roughly as follows:

• Energy generation 55%
• Manufacturing 15%
• Agriculture 15%
• Municipalities 10%
• Mining 5%

Although it is important to cut our domestic water use, we are deluding ourselves if we believe that residential reductions alone will solve the planet’s water problems. Our waterprints are largely a function of diet, lifestyle and consumption patterns shaped primarily by income and wealth. Per capita, North Americans use more than double the European average and exponentially more than African countries.

Foods -- a major component of our waterprint -- are not all created equal. Crops such as soybeans and rice have a high footprint and, per pound, corn-fed beef uses ten times as much water as poultry production. Eating local produce in season and less meat can dramatically lower your personal waterprint.

Some countries are introducing labels that indicate the level of embedded water in food products. Cultivating fruits and vegetables in Florida and California is water intensive. Importing these products – with their high “virtual water” content -- raises the delicate question of whether we can refuse to sell water to the US in return.

Many consumer products contain high levels of embedded water. For example, manufacturing a cotton t-shirt requires 2,700 litres of water and a pair of leather shoes almost 25,000 litres. Consider applying the various Rs to your lifestyle purchases. Refuse, resist, reject or reduce your shopping impulses and recycle or reuse products, such as clothing by shopping second-hand when possible.

water pollution: scipeeps-com

Various forms of energy, primarily transportation fuels and electricity generation, constitute the largest component of our waterprint. The Tar Sands are notorious for the amount of water used to produce a barrel of oil – excluding the volumes of contaminated water that are flushed into Lake Athabasca after the refining process.

Soy-based biodiesel and corn ethanol use even more water. It is not just the fuel; vehicles are also water hogs. It takes 150,000 litres to manufacture an average sized car. When buying another vehicle, consider a reliable second-hand car. If you buy a new vehicle, drive it until it drops. Properly maintained with lots of TLC should ensure a life of 15-20 years for a quality vehicle. Go small and fuel-efficient.

Coal and nuclear power plants lead in water consumption and their efficiency measured in terms of water use and electricity generated is remarkably low. These disadvantages do not even include carbon emissions, construction and maintenance costs, and radioactive waste. As responsible citizens we should cut our consumption of electricity dramatically to reduce the huge volumes of water wasted in the generating process.

The amount of water on the planet is fixed. For millions of years the hydrologic cycle has been recycling the water supply through a continuous process of evaporation, condensation and precipitation. It is a myth that Canada has endless freshwater. If we consume more than the annual precipitation in the form of rain and snow, water levels will soon drop, as is happening in the Great Lakes.

A domestic water calculator from Go Blue.org

Excessive use of water is one problem but contaminating our scarce water resources is another. In the hydrologic process, water is purified as it passes through the atmosphere and filters through the ground into the deep aquifers.

Not only are we depleting the aquifers by extracting large volumes of pristine water to green golf courses, for example, but we are also poisoning the groundwater by spreading agricultural chemicals, burying our garbage and pumping sewage underground.

Society has adopted an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. The latest “bury our problem” approach – euphemistically called geo-engineering – is to sequester carbon dioxide in aquifers that have been pumped dry and also to store nuclear waste deep below the Canadian Shield. Not even the hydrologic cycle can purify groundwater once it has been contaminated with radioactive toxins and carbonic acid.

We are fouling the rain with the hazardous substances that we pump into the atmosphere. Glaciers, like aquifers, are also important repositories of pure water and they are being polluted with soot and other airborne contaminants that mix with snow. The side effects of our material lifestyles are overwhelming nature’s cleaning capacity.

Green algae, Lake Erie: courtesy NOAA

Our lakes and rivers have become repositories of another kind: we dump mine tailings, radioactive tritium, phosphates and mercury and many other industrial and agricultural chemicals. Lake Erie has a vast oxygen-starved dead zone and blue-green algae is threatening lakes across the country.

Water is a fundamental human and natural right. It has passed from generation to generation since time immemorial, constantly recycling and revitalizing itself. Water is our common heritage. It is our moral responsibility to protect a resource so vital to our own well-being and to the health of the planet and to the security of future generations.

See also Environment Canada's water use calculator,

Gardening for 10% carbon -- by Amanda Soule

From Amanda Soule's blog Fixie's Shelf: she is a dancer, storyteller, puppeteer and gardener, living a low-carbon lifestyle in Melbourne, Australia (when not going round the world).

16 April -- I got this fantastic book, How To Grow More Vegetables, Fruit and Nuts on Less Land Than You Can Imagine. It gives very detailed instructions for how to get the absolute most out of a limited number of garden beds. I'm making some changes to the way I garden and water, based on the ideas in this book.

I love this book because a) it answers so many of my questions about gardening, and b) the entire approach is centred around sustainable principles. So often I've read gardening advice that suggests we bring home tonnes of compost, organic fertiliser, straw for mulch and more, and it all seems so costly. This book focuses on how to get as quickly as possible to a "closed system" where you can recycle all nutrients on the property and not need to bring in more. There is no mention of raised garden beds or special compost bins to be built, because as the author points out, the timber used to build them is probably better put to another use - it's a waste of resources. Indeed, the entire system of gardening is focussed on using minimal resources, including water, for maximum gain.

The only thing lacking in the book, I think, is the use of of the compost pile to compost human waste (I'm talking about poo) - as this would really bring it to a closed system.

I think if you are a beginning gardener and need a way to get started that isn't daunting at all, you'd be better to get One Magic Square, which makes it feel so easy to get started and is very inspiring. But if you already grow vegies and are looking for ways to increase your yield, this book is fantastic.

Here's a few of the key ideas the book presents:

- Do a proper soil test to find out exactly what nutrients your soil really needs, then add the right amount of organic matter to balance out the nutrients (the book tells you what and how much to use). This way you can avoid low yields and yellow leaves and other plant problems, because the soil is perfectly balanced.

- Double dig the soil before every crop to aerate it, and give it a nice layer of compost on top. Be very careful not to compact the soil after digging, as this makes it harder for the plants to extend their roots. The method described loosens the soil without destroying the structure.

- Build a big, proper compost pile, and recycle all your nutrients and garden waste here. If you grow the right plants within your garden bed, they will make enough material to build the amount of compost you need to feed that amount of soil. This is more sustainable than using, say cow manure, where the cow has destroyed a piece of land in order to generate the fertiliser for your garden.

- Plant your vegies exactly the correct distance apart. Each plant has a root ball of a particular size, and by planting them as close as possible but not too close, then you create the right micro-climate beneath the leaves for healthy soil, and the plants don't need to compete for water and nutrients.

- Use a "breakfast-lunch-dinner" concept to raise plants from seed. First you plant the seeds one inch apart in a seed tray, and let them grow there for a specified amount of time, usually two weeks. This is breakfast. Then you transplant into a deeper seed tray, two inches apart, which gives the plants a fresh burst of nutrients and newly airated soil, and they grow there for a certain amount of time. This is lunch. Then finally you transplant them into the growing bed, which again has fresh compost and moist airated soil, which works as dinner for the plants. By doing this you also use less water, than you would if you'd planted directly into the growing bed. It's more work, transplanting everything, but it means you can have other food growing in the bed until the last minute, and it really shortens the time a plant needs to be in your garden bed before it starts producing food.

- Water with a soft shower head, similar to rain. Don't blast the soil with a heavy spray, as this can compact the soil. Water the soil rather than the plants, and make sure you keep all the soil moist, even in beds where nothing is currently growing. When soil dries out it is very hard to re-wet as it repels water rather than absorbing it.

My very favourite part of the book is the plans they have for sustainable gardens. They suggest that 100 square feet is a good starting size (my vegie garden is about 125 square feet of growing beds, plus I have other beds around the house for permanent crops), but to be sustainable you really need 300 square feet per person! Yikes. With the plans the authors tell you exactly what to plant, when to plant it, where to put it in the garden bed, and what to replace it with throughout the growing season. I am a bit surprised you'd get to harvest some of these vegies so quickly, so am interested to test it out for myself.

I've planned my own winter garden, using ideas from all the garden plans offered, and have planted my seeds with the last new moon. They came up beautifully and you can see them in the photo. Then just after the full moon, I transplanted them to their second tray. Fingers crossed this results in a winter full of food. With the next new moon I popped them into the garden bed. I was astonished to see how much they grew each day, compared with the previous lot of beet seedlings I put into a garden bed. I'm not sure which of the many things I'm doing differently is the key, but something's working and my beets are growing like never before.

The results

My spring garden, by the way, did indeed supply food for the summer - we've hardly had to buy vegetables since late December [mid-summer in Australia]. Even though you need more garden space for three people to be self-sufficient, our garden is very much meeting our vegetable needs already, and with a bit more careful planning and hopefully the above techniques, I hope we can continue to do that year-round. My next focus is to try and increase the flow of fruit, because we really could use more, and a more steady supply too.

27 March 2010 -- To avert the worst of climate change and peak oil, we need to change how we live. Riot for Austerity is a 90% reduction project - in joining this I am aiming to cut my emissions and use of resources to 10% of what the average American uses. This is the amount deemed necessary to leave our children and grandchildren a decent world. Care to join me?

I've been participating in the Riot4Austerity for 6 months now - with the aim of reducing my use of resources to 10% of the average. Mostly I'm using US averages since I don't know Australian averages. I can't believe half a year has gone by. I can see now as the months pass the new habits I've been trying to create have settled in and are becoming more routine - much of what I'm doing doesn't feel like a big deal any more. I've averaged my use of everything over the last 6 months and here's the results:

Target is 10% of the US national average for each category, or less.

Transportation fuel - 8%
Electricity - 14%
Gas/Kero - 7%
Rubbish - 4%
Water - 16% til 1 March then 0%
Consumer Goods - 12%
Food - I'm aiming for 75% local sustainable/homegrown produce, and we're on 73%.

*****

More posts on low impact / low carbon living are to come - Ed.

How we reduced our footprint -- by Hugh and Jo-Ann Robertson

Canada has the third highest ecofootprint in the world after the United Arab Emirates and the US. The ecofootprint is the amount of land and water that we require for consumption and subsequent waste disposal. We require 7.5 hectares per person (4 times the earth's biocapacity per person). Switzerland requires 5 hectares, China is presently at 1.8, and Bangladesh only requires 1 ha/pp. If every person on the planet lived at our level of material consumption, we would need four planets. See how you rate with this UBC calculator and tips from the Suzuki Foundation.

Carbon footprint (CO2 tonnes per person) - Wikipedia

A carbon footprint, on the other hand, measures the volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Like our ecofootprint, Canada also has the third highest carbon footprint in the world: 24 tonnes per person. By comparison, the UK is 11 t/pp while China is far behind at 2 tonnes per person. Per year. A more comprehensive carbon footprint not only measures immediate emissions, but the life cycle of a product. Instead of measuring only the electricity that we use to prepare our food, an extended carbon footprint would also include the energy used in the production of the food and its delivery to market. The earth's ability to absorb carbon is fast declining. Scientists estimate we have already overshot it by 30%. The oceans are close to saturation; forest cover is decreasing and fertile soils are eroding. Our lifestyle exceeds the sustainable limits of the biosphere. Our ecological debt is surging. We are no longer living off nature’s interest; we eating up our scarce biological capital.

In September 2005, the (now cancelled) One-Tonne Challenge program assessed our home carbon footprint at 3.4 tonnes of greenhouse gases per individual occupant, just over half the national average and well below the Kyoto target of 4.5. After the changes we describe below, using the same carbon calculator, it came in at about 2.5 - a reduction of more than 25%. Our home's ecological footprint in September, 2005, was 4.3 hectares per person. The latest calculation puts us at 3.5 hectares per person, slightly less than half the national average - a 20% reduction.

We have passed global peak productions in oil, fish and food and we have reached the physical limits of fertile land, freshwater and clean air. We are also close to a tipping point in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and face irreversible climate change.

Furthermore, statistical footprints cannot measure some of the less discernible damage we are inflicting on natural ecosystems. We are choking the oceans with plastic, poisoning our lakes and rivers with chemical toxins, and contaminating the subterranean water table with leachate from our garbage dumps. The extinction of countless species is unraveling the complex web of life underpinning human survival.

Curbing Consumption: The First Step Towards Sustainable Living

"Be the change that you wish to see," said Gandhi. There are no technofixes that will reduce our environmental footprint while keeping our consumer lifestyle. Changing our behaviour is far less expensive, (though more difficult) the only approach that will ensure a sustainable future for the planet, just as conservation is far cheaper than consumption. It is time for the real conservatives to stand up.

For the past 4 years, I and my wife have been engaged in a personal quest to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, to demonstrate that the targets in the Kyoto Protocol and in the (sadly defunct) One-Tonne Challenge are attainable without sacrificing quality of life.

We live in Ottawa (a cold city) in a 19 year old, 1800 square foot townhouse. We started with an energy audit of the house, which gave us a mere 66% energy efficiency rating. Most of the loss is through windows, doors and roof. Other hard-to-find exterior heat losses, such as faulty wall insulation, were located with an infrared scan. The audit took baseline readings of utilities' energy consumption, for post-refit comparison. Our home was one of the first in Ottawa to install a digital smart meter, which allows us to check how each step reduced consumption.

Armed with baseline readings, energy audit, and recommendations for improvement, we were ready to start. Focussing on low tech energy conservation, we:

• replaced bulbs with compact fluorescents
• installed rain barrels
• installed low-flow showerheads and toilets
• sealed air leaks
• gradually replaced old windows
• put in a wrought iron front door
• awnings on south facing windows (we do not use air conditioning)
• overhead ceiling fans
• an indoor drying rack in stairwell (Dumbarton air dryer, see photo)
  
• reshingled the roof with light shingles, and
• reinsulated and ventilated attic space.

Food consumption: we try to buy produce from a 100 mile radius by shopping at local organic markets and by tending our own vegetable garden in the summer. We reduced our consumption of meat. A locavore vegetarian diet could cut our eco-footprint by as much as 30%.

In addition to energy-saving, we reduced our ecological footprint by almost eliminating garbage disposal -- by minimizing all purchases, recycling and composting biodegradable material. We are down to one small bag every 6 months. We also shop second-hand when possible. All products contain embedded energy (carbon emissions, processed water-- a cotton shirt, for example, has a water footprint of 2,00 litres!). Second-hand shopping is a good way to practise an important environmental R, “re-use.”

The next step

We also bought an inexpensive watt meter to measure individual appliances. Appliances using 220 volts that are wired directly into the panel require a more advanced meter, such as “The Energy Detective” which must be installed by an electrician. All appliances contain embedded energy used in the manufacturing process -- so simply replacing a relatively new fridge, for example, might not be a wise decision, financially or environmentally. Another decision involved the cost of new appliances. Bill Kemp, a renowned Ottawa area energy efficiency specialist, explains the concept of life cycle cost, which he calls “true cost” as opposed to “first cost” (or initial cost) in his book Smart Power: An Urban Guide to Renewable Energy and Efficiency. He argues that basing the purchase of appliances on their energy efficiency and buying quality (and, often, more expensive) products when upgrading will actually outperform the stock market in the long run. We have tried to apply the concept of life cycle costs to all our purchases. Already we can see a return on investment as resource and energy prices continue to rise.

Pursuing these principles, we gradually replaced our major appliances and car with:

• a high efficiency natural gas furnace.
• efficient dish and clothes washers.
• a small 25-gallon electric hot water heater
• a natural gas cooktop
• a small electric convection oven.
• an energy recovery ventilator
• an airtight woodstove
• a smaller barbeque, and
• a Toyoto Prius.

Jo-Ann and Hugh with their airtight woodstove

In order to monitor our energy costs more closely, we ended "equalized utility billing" that gives you the same monthly bill in all seasons. We now know exactly what our natural gas, electricity and water cost. It requires a small amount of extra effort -- reading a meter and phoning in the reading, to correct the company's estimate. We continue to use automatic bank deductions. Equalized billing is supposed to eliminate spikes for winter heating and summer air conditioning. But our new appliances mitigated any major spikes. In fact, with a personal effort to minimize energy use, we have reduced our bills dramatically.

Four years later

Our electricity consumption is now only 375 kilowatt hours per month, compared to the Ontario average of 750-1,000 kwh/m (varying with number of occupants, and use of electricity for space and water heating -- we use lower-cost natural gas). Because our electrical water heater is small, set at 49 degrees C and our showers and appliances are low-flow, power demand is not quite low. For two people, we use half the provincial average.

We need no air conditioning in summer. A screened wrought iron door allows cool night air to circulate through the house; fans and awnings keep the house comfortable during the day. We cook outdoors on a small barbecue or a two-burner hotplate to minimize indoor heat buildup. On smoggy days, we eat cold plates and salads because coal-fired electricity and barbecues both contribute to particulate emissions. Replacing energy-hog dryers, we use an outdoor drying rack for clothes in the summer, and the indoor rack during the winter.

To trim our carbon emissions even further, the Robertsons have signed on to renewable energy from wind and low-impact hydro at marginally higher prices from Bullfrog Power. Because so much of Ontario’s electricity is still coal-fired, this substantially reduces our carbon footprint.

In winter, our home is heated by a high efficiency natural gas furnace, complemented by a low emission airtight wood stove. We also use a gas-fired cooktop in the kitchen. Together with improved insulation, reduced air leaks, our consumption of natural gas 900 cubic meters/year and dropping steadily. The Ontario household average is 3,000 cubic meters for water and space heating alone!

Our water footprint is down to 80 litres per person per day because of rain barrels, efficient appliances and low flush toilets. The daily Ottawa consumption is 250 litres per person; the national average is about 300. More than half the City’s operating budget is spent on electricity charges to pump, clean and distribute water and then remove and treat wastewater and sewage. Imagine how happy citizens would be if their city taxes were cut by one-third!

Three years back, we replaced our 13 year old Volvo with a hybrid Prius. Our gasoline consumption has dropped by two-thirds. This and no repairs have saved us at least $3000 per year, helping to offset the capital costs of the Prius. The initial cost of $30,000 is more expensive than many cars in the family sedan category. But based on life cycle expenses, Consumer Reports recently rated the Prius “least expensive” car in this category.

Driving is still the largest part of the our carbon emissions. They are not proud of the fact that they average 25,000 kilometres per year, slightly more than the national average. The high mileage is partly for family reasons (“love miles” in the words of George Monbiot, author of Heat) and partly because they avoid flying for environmental reasons. We are all too aware that driving accounts for half of the carbon footprint of Canadians who own a vehicle.

Our first energy audit rated our house at 65 out of 100. Minor refits improved it to 72. Further improvements have now pushed its rating to 79, qualifying us for Energy Star status. We came within a whisker of the R2000 level of 80. If our 18 year old townhouse can be transformed into virtually an R2000 home, why are we as a society not demanding construction of energy efficient houses? Retrofitting is a more expensive way of improving efficiency and fighting global warming than new-build. Approximately half the greenhouse gases created by each Canadian are generated in the home.

Return on investment - sunlightelectric.com

Costs and gains

How cost effective are retrofits and renovations? What is the cost recovery period? These are legitimate questions for homeowners. Our improvements were done gradually, as regular maintenance, upgrading substandard workmanship, or replacing worn out appliances or. We had no major capital projects, such as installing solar panels. Over the past 4 years we have spent about $30,000, partly financed by government rebates and dramatically lower utility bills. We have established our own carbon fund to offset the emissions of the Prius. We use these “carbon dollars” for our energy-saving projects. Real estate consultants advise homeowners to set aside 5% of the value of the house per year for maintenance -- such as Energy Star doors and windows, and energy efficiency. Last year we had to replace the roof shingles. We chose a light colour, to reflect sunlight during the summer, thereby reducing heat build up in the attic and keep the house cooler. Our roof shines out clearly on Google Earth. At least we are safe from a heat seeking missile!

A recent CMHC study shows most home renovations are undertaken for cosmetic reasons. These may no longer enhance the resale price of a house, as resources become scarce. In the UK, the law will soon require that home sellers get an energy audit. Energy efficiency rather than cosmetics may soon determine home prices. So retrofit and energy-conserving appliances make both economic and ecological sense. Improvements will increase the value of a house, both short and long-term. Monthly utility costs, paid in after-tax dollars, are reduced and generally our homes are healthier and more comfortable. Unlike other possessions, homes are free of capital gains taxes when sold.

Our upgrading costs over the past 4 years were $30,000 for home improvements and $30,000 for a Prius. Neither of these expenditures is excessive by current standards for renovations and vehicles. We estimated the cost recovery periods home, appliances and car at between 3 and 12 years. But rising energy and resource prices may well shorten these periods. For us, money was not the main motive – moderating climate change by reducing our footprints may be the most rewarding result.

We do not live like ascetics. In winter, our thermostat is set at 20 degrees during the day and 17 at night. We also run an Energy Recovery Ventilator which circulates fresh air but recaptures the heat from the outgoing air. Our energy and carbon savings have not imposed a dramatic change in quality of life. So it is doable, by ordinary people. We can live more sustainably at no great cost or inconvenience. Individuals can make a difference in the battle against climate change.