CHARLES PONZI is unfairly blamed for the Ponzi scheme, a scam in which you rob Peter to pay Paul. It鈥檚 yet another gender bias in history, because fraudster Sarah Howe predated Ponzi by at least 40 years, swindling Boston ladies.
Later, Bernie Madoff took the Ponzi crown 鈥� he relied on new investments to provide 鈥渞eturns鈥� to earlier investors, taking from the future to pay for the present.
Advertisement
In fact, even Madoff has been outdone: our current economies are running the largest Ponzi scheme ever. We are using Earth鈥檚 future resources to power present activities. Currently, humanity consumes the planet鈥檚 natural resources more quickly than Earth can replenish them. Debt balloons will eventually burst. Our ecological debt shows up as carbon in the atmosphere, collapsing fish stocks, shrinking forests, eroding soils and drying up groundwater.
鈥淲e are running the largest Ponzi scheme ever, using Earth鈥檚 future resources to power present activities鈥�
Let me be more precise and give you the numbers. That is what ecological footprint accounting was designed for. These accounts are the most pedestrian science you can imagine. For objectivity, they use UN data.
They build on the premise that Earth鈥檚 ability to renew its resources is the most limiting material factor for the human economy. The accounts add up demands for biologically productive space, given our needs for food, timber, carbon sequestration and room for infrastructure. The sum of this demand is humanity鈥檚 鈥渆cological footprint鈥�, now 20.9 billion hectares. But those surfaces of our planet that can provide for this 鈥渂iocapacity鈥� amount to 12.2 billion hectares. In other words, we are 9 billion hectares short.
This means that humanity is currently using nature 1.7 times faster than ecosystems replenish, akin to using 1.7 Earths. This excessive demand can be turned into a date, Earth Overshoot Day. Essentially, it is the date humanity has used as much as the planet鈥檚 ecosystems can handle without going into the red. In 2018, it falls on 1 August, the earliest so far.
Currently, carbon emissions are 60 per cent of our footprint. About 150 years ago, that part was negligible. If we want to live up to the Paris Agreement, the carbon footprint should be zero again before 2050.
While our planet is finite, human possibilities are not. The transformation to a sustainable, carbon-neutral world will succeed if we apply our greatest strengths: foresight and innovation. This is not only technologically possible, it is also economically beneficial and our best chance for a prosperous future. If we moved back Earth Overshoot Day by five days every year, we would shift from 1.7 Earths to below 1 before 2050. It is not that hard. Ponzi schemes are bound to come to an end; the question is whether by design or disaster. I prefer design. But it requires honest accounting. And resolve. Most countries say Ponzi schemes are illegal. So what are we waiting for?听Mathis Wackernagel
听
听
WELCOME to Earth Overshoot Day 鈥� the date when humanity exceeds the resources our planet can provide in a year. For the next five months, we are in eco-debt.
Well, kind of. There is no problem with the assertion that we are trashing the planet. We surely are. But I contend that the science behind overshoot day is not a good measure of our use of the planet鈥檚 resources. It is a dysfunctional proxy.
The analysis sets out to compare our consumption of resources with nature鈥檚 ability to renew them, its 鈥渂io-capacity鈥�. But the central problem lies in trying to measure our ecological footprint in terms of the size of the planet.
The analysis assesses bio-capacity at around 12 billion hectares. But it finds that we will use that up by 1 August. In 2018 we will need the biocapacity of 1.7 planets. Rather obviously we don鈥檛 actually have 1.7 planets. So, the logic goes, we are drawing down the natural capital of the one we do have.
But individual parts of the analysis are troublesome. We can calculate whether we fell more trees than nature can regrow. It uses UN data, which finds that forest growth outstrips loss.
How about cropland and pasture? These are harvested, not consumed. The question is whether we over-harvest, creating deserts or eroding soils. Global Footprint Network (GFN), which does the calculation, admits that no collection of data on annual soil loss exists. So its estimate of cropland and pasture 鈥渦se鈥� is just a measure of the hectares of such land 鈥� essentially identical to the biocapacity. Again, no overshoot. It is not GFN鈥檚 fault, but this surely negates what people think the analysis is intended to do.
Even so, we have an overshoot overall. How come? The answer lies in the final part of the calculation: climate change. This cannot be measured in hectares, so the metric is a proxy 鈥� hectares of forests needed to soak up the carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere. GFN puts this at around 8 billion, or a bit over half Earth鈥檚 land surface. These virtual forests don鈥檛 exist, which is why the climate is changing. But without them, the analysis would give a 30 per cent undershoot.
None of my criticisms deny the importance of climate change. Nor the poor state of ecosystems. In many respects, things are far worse than the overshoot analysis suggests. Soils are being eroded fast; biodiversity is suffering; mismanagement of water is emptying lakes and rivers and polluting oceans. The trouble is none of these can be measured in hectares 鈥� and none are in the overshoot analysis. Which, I suggest, is not fit for purpose.听Fred Pearce
- Mathis Wackernagel is president of Global Footprint Network, a research organisation based in California.听Fred Pearce is a consultant for New Scientist. You can calculate your own personal Overshoot Day at
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淒ay of reckoning鈥�
