"Pressures resulting from
unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can
overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt
the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that
growth." — World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, November 18, 1992
(Signed by 1600 senior scientists from 70 countries, including 102 Nobel
Prize laureates)
"It is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve
problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource
consumption and harmful human practices." — U.S. National Academy of
Sciences and Royal Society of London, Joint Statement, 1992
“Prudent and increasingly reliable estimates suggest that the Earth’s
long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined
as an ‘adequate’ to ‘moderately comfortable’ developed-world standard of
living, may not be much greater than 2-3 billion…It is increasingly
apparent that the long-term sustainability of civilization will require
not just a leveling-off of human numbers as projected over the coming
half-century, but a colossal reduction in both population and
consumption.” — J. Kenneth Smail, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology,
Kenyon College
Scientists currently use a
“consumption footprint” (expressed in acres or hectares) to help
citizens understand their impact upon the biosphere. However, to reflect
one’s impact and decisions more comprehensively, we need to use the
Decision Footprint, which is a function of four areas: a person’s
consumption “decisions”, the number of children one “decides” to create,
the country one “decides” to adopt children from, and one’s “decisions”
to enhance our life-support system. For the purpose of this essay, we
will use the following factors to quantify the above areas:
Because it is based on
one’s decisions and a more comprehensive footprint, the Decision
Footprint will provide a much-needed incentive to reduce our population
as well as our consumption. Furthermore, many citizens look at their
consumption rate and think: What’s the point of even trying? The
Decision Footprint will help them to overcome this despair by placing
responsibility where it belongs and rewarding people for making
decisions that restore our life-support system. The following paragraphs
will expand on the four factors and how they are calculated.
How to Calculate the Factors
Consumption-decision Factor
First, determine the
“average” consumption footprint or rate for one’s country using the
Global Footprint Network—for the U.S. it’s 23.5 acres.1 Since a person
does not make the decision to be created or where they are born, this
average will be the starting point for one’s Consumption-decision
Factor. If a person remains at the average for the country they live in,
the factor will be zero. If one consumes more, it will be a plus. If one
consumes less, it will be a minus or a negative number. Of course, in
poor countries, the average will need to be adjusted to reflect a
minimum quality-of-life standard and in wealthy countries one may want
to make an adjustment as well (these issues are discussed in greater
detail later). One can calculate their “personal” consumption footprint
or rate using the calculator provided by Redefining Progress (www.myfootprint.org)
and subsequently determine their Consumption-decision Factor. Another
personal consumption calculator, with slightly different questions, is
provided at
www.mec.ca/Apps/ecoCalc/ecoCalc.jsp (be careful to select metrics or
American as the desired measurement system prior to taking the test).2
Because of these differences and how one may interpret and answer each
question, it’s recommended that the reader accomplish both calculations
and use the lower of the two figures to determine one’s personal
consumption rate. So if a U.S. citizen had a personal consumption rate
of 33.5, their Consumption-decision Factor would be calculated as 33.5
minus 23.5 or 10 acres. On the other hand, if their personal consumption
rate were 13.5, their Consumption-decision factor would be 13.5 minus
23.5 or a “negative” 10 acres.
Child-creation Factor
This factor is applied
where a couple or individual has made the decision to create a child.
This decision can be the traditional method or by using the many methods
associated with fertility clinics and donor material. Since it’s
impossible to determine the future consumption rate of a child, we will
use the average rate for the country where a child is living as the
Child-creation Factor (an adjustment is made for poor countries and
explained later in the essay). In the U.S., the average consumption rate
is 23.5 acres.3 Unfortunately, in areas of the world where contraceptive
services, educational opportunities, and social security are difficult
to obtain, citizens have far less freedom to address this factor and
much work needs to be done to solve this issue—freedom many citizens in
wealthy countries take for granted. In addition, many cultures and
families (even in progressive countries) are still male
dominated—restricting the freedom of women.
Adoption Factor
If one adopts a child from
within their country, the factor remains neutral. However, if one
decides to adopt a child from outside their country the “difference”
between the two countries’ average-consumption rates is used to
establish the factor. So bringing a child from a country with a
modest-consumption rate into a country with a high-consumption rate is
reflected and vice versa. However, it’s important not to unfairly
penalize children from poor countries. Therefore, if the average
consumption rate of a country is less than 12.6 acres, which is the
average consumption rate for Western Europe, the 12.6 figure is used
instead of the actual.4 Why use Western Europe as a standard? Because
it’s reasonable to argue that Western Europe provides a comfortable and
rewarding life to its citizens at a lower consumption rate than others—a
quality of life and consumption rate many citizens, living in rich or
poor countries, would select if they had the option.
Furthermore, given human
history, it’s difficult to believe that the vast majority of humanity
would voluntarily consume at a level lower than 12.6 acres (given
humanity’s current technology selection and use). Of course, society
should strive to lower this rate as much as possible while maintaining
an acceptable quality of life, but this will take time and new thinking.
Therefore, if an American couple adopts a child from a country with an
average consumption rate equal to or lower than 12.6, the Adoption
Factor would be calculated as 23.5 (the average U.S. consumption rate)
minus the 12.6, giving us an Adoption Factor of 10.9 acres. If an
American couple adopted a Swiss child, the Adoption Factor would be 23.5
minus 13.1 (the average consumption rate for Switzerland), resulting in
an Adoption Factor of 10.4 acres.5 However, if a Swiss couple adopted an
American child, their Adoption Factor would be 13.1 minus 23.5, giving
them an Adoption Factor of a “negative” 10.4 acres.
Life-support Protection Factor
This is the number of
acres one protects for wildlife habitat using their purchasing power
and/or time. This factor should not be viewed as a method to offset any
future Child-creation Factors or to justify increased consumption. On a
finite and overstressed planet, creating additional children and
increasing consumption will only make the Life-support Protection Factor
more difficult to maintain as an option for everyone. This factor should
be viewed as a method of helping to restore our life-support system from
past decisions and the decisions of past generations—a gift to
humanity’s future.
The Life-support Protection Factor is a function of many things and can
be difficult to measure. Therefore, it’s an issue for the conscience of
each person calculating his or her Decision Footprint. In most cases it
will be a small figure, perhaps one or two acres for belonging to
environmental or conservation groups (a few hundred or even a few
thousand dollars worth of time, membership fees, hunting and fishing
licenses, and donations can only go so far every year, even with the
synergistic effect taken into account).
Nevertheless, this factor can be significant for some people—especially
people who sacrifice deeply and use or donate large sums of money to
purchase and protect land for biodiversity protection and/or
restoration. This is not the same as maintaining human-use land (such as
farmland, large yards, tree farms, etc.). To obtain an acre-for-acre
credit, one needs to preserve the land to maximize native biodiversity
and the health of our life-support system. However, one could take
partial credit for improving human-use land for native species and
diversity. Again, the Life-support Protection Factor can be difficult to
measure and in most cases would be small. Of course, the reader is
encouraged to reflect upon and increase this factor as much as possible.
Simplifying one’s lifestyle and using or donating the money saved to
purchase land is a powerful method to achieve this goal. Such action
will also decrease one’s Consumption-decision Factor—having a
multiplying effect upon their Decision Footprint.
Boloji.com is owned and managed by
Boloji Media Inc Privacy Policy |
Disclaimer No part of this Internet site may
be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.