The human footprint this year meant we consunmed this years's sustainable resources last weekend, according to the BBC. IE, we've used what we can use without damage or loss of sustainability for this year alreafy. Everything from here on is in the red.
That's actually what occurred to me as well. The planet could probably sustain much more than the six point five billion currently inhabiting it, but not if all consume the way citizens of OECD countries do. As for us gringos, we have about six million square miles and roughly three hundred million people, so that's about eighty persons per square mile. As I recall, there are about 640 acres in a square mile. So each of us would have eight acres to sustain us (assuming, generously, that each US acre is capable of helping to sustain us). I remember taking Sierra Club magazine's global footprint quiz a few years ago, and to my surprise I require about 24 acres per year. I noted that that's about the US average. Surprising, since I turn off lights, recycle, usually bicycle to work. In my case it was all the flights I take that brought my number up to the average. Anyway, so the US average footprint is about three times what our own land would feasibly allow. Assuming we don't mind maintaining large armies to ensure our global hegemony, and assuming we don't mind sustaining large trade deficits, we could indefinitely consume three times as much as we should. Still, something doesn't seem quite right about that. I'm no economist, but something will eventually give. Borrowed wealth and great armies of occupation don't last forever. And all empires eventually crumble, usually under their own weight.
