Patterns in Resource Consumption Flashcards
what is the ecological footprint and what does it take into account
the theoretical measurement of the amount of land and water a population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its waste, under prevailing technology, taking into account:
- arable land (for crops),
- pasture land (for animals),
- forests (for fuel, furniture and buildings, climate stability, erosion prevention),
- oceans (for fish),
- infrastructure (transportation, factories and housing),
- energy costs (land required for absorbing CO2 emissions and other energy wastes)
— species extinction and toxic pollution of air, water and land are not yet taking in account
biocapacity of one person and what we actually use today (global average)
1.9 hectares it the maximum biocapacity earth can sustain
2.2 hectares per person is our current status
- living beyond the earth’s biocapacity causes failing natural ecosystems and climate change
- western consumption rates are the highest (we would need five planets)
- The global ecological footprint has grown from about 70% of the planet’s biocapacity in 1961 to about 120% in 1999. Future projections show that humanity’s footprint is likely to grow to about 180-220% of the earth’s biocapacity by the year 2050.
Living Planet Index
- measures trends in the earth’s biodiversity
- biodiversity has declined more than a third since 1970; China and US being largest contributors, 21% each
- people are running up an ecological debt of $4-4.5 trillion - “ecological credit crunch” as 30% more resources are used than can be replenished each year, leading to deforestation and more
- problem getting worse; more consumption through improved tech. and bigger populations.
Theories of population and resources
Thomas Malthus ’s theory of population — 1798
- finite optimum population size in relation to resources and level of technology (food supply is the ultimate population check)
- if exceeded, then decrease in standard of living (war, famine, disease)
- population grows exponentially (or geometric), while food supply increases only at an arithmetic rate
Criticism
Malthus’s principles used potential and not actual growth figures for population and food production
preventive (e.g. abstinence of sex, time of marriage) and positive (lack of food, disease, war) checks do not affect population growth considerably
during industrial revolution, agricultural production grew at a greater rate than arithmetics, exceeding population growth rates (due to intensification of labour and capital) and extensification of land —> food production has changed drastically since Malthus’s time
Theories of population and resources
Ester Boserup’s theory of population — 1965
the greatest resource is knowledge and technology: when a need arises someone will find a solution — this view is widely applicable to modern societies
people have the resources to increase food production — anti-Malthusian view. Population growth enables agricultural development because as the population is stimulated to produce more and innovate. An increase in the intensity of productivity by the adoption of new techniques would be unlikely unless population increased.
The theory is based on the idea that people knew the technique required by a more intensive system, and adopted them when the population grew. If knowledge were not available then the agricultural system would regulate the population size in a given area.
Theories of population and resources
Emile Durkheim ’s theory of population — 1893
(only) increased population density leads to greater division of labour, which allows greater productivity to be attained
Theories of population and resources
Club of Rome model — 1970
five basic factors that determine and therefore ultimately limit growth on the planet:
- population (exponential rate)
- agricultural production (exponential rate)
- natural resources (slow down industrial growth)
- industrial production (technological innovation is arithmetic)
- pollution
because of this exponential characteristic there is only a short period of time within which to take corrective action (we are in that period right now!)
Limits of growth
- physical necessities that support all physiological and industrial activity (e.g. food, raw materials)
- social necessities (e.g. peace, stability, education)
Conclusion of model
There will not be great changes in human values in the future and, therefore, the limits of growth would be reached in the next 100 years. This result would probably be sudden and uncontrollable decline in population and industrial capabilities. Nevertheless, it is possible to alter these growth trends and establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable. Much of this is reminiscent of Malthus’s predictions.
Criticism
- It does no distinguish between different parts of the world.
- It ignores the spatial distribution of population and resources, of agricultural and industrial activity, and pollution. People and resources do not always coincide (occur simultaneously).
- The model emphasises exponential growth and not the rate of discovery of new resources or of new users of resources.
carrying capacity (population ceiling)
A saturation level where population equals the carrying capacity of the local enviroment. There are three models:
- The rate of increase may be unchanged until the ceiling is reached, at which point the increase drops to zero. This highly unlikely situation is unsupported by evidence from either human or animal populations.
- Here the population increase begins to taper off as the carrying capacity is approached, and then to level off when the ceiling is reached. It is claimed that populations that are large in size, with long lives and low fertility rates, conform to this S-curve pattern.
- The rapid rise in population overshoots the carrying capacity, resulting in a sudden check, e.g. famine, birth control; after this the population recovers and fluctuates, eventually settling down at the carrying capacity. This j-shape curve appears more applicable to small populations with short lives and higher fertility (although it seems most realist to me).
Optimum population (and standard of living)
the number of people who, when working with all the available resources, will produce the highest per-capita economic return —> highest standard of living and quality of life.
If the population de- or increases, then he standard of living will fall. This concept is dynamic and changes with time as techniques improve, as population totals and structures change and as new materials are discovered.
Standards of living are a result of the interactions between physical and human resources:
standard of living = (natural resources x technology) / population
Overpopulation and Underpopulation
- Overpopulation* occurs when there are too many people, relative to the resources and technology locally available, to maintain an adequate standard of living.
- Bangladesh and Somalia are examples; Somalia with only 12 people/km2 is also considered to be overpopulated.
- Underpopulation* occurs when there are far more resources in an area (such as food, energy and minerals) than can be used by the local people. Exportation is therefore common and with growing globalisation an increasingly more meaningless concept (e.g. Canada).
oil and LEDCs
Oil weakens the bonds between governments and people by flooding public coffers with money, removing the need for wise spending. And it makes societies vulnerable to civil war.
Oil can create wealth but not jobs, which is what LEDCs need the most. Once wells or refineries are built, they take few men to run them. So the money just pours out of the ground, and into the hands either of foreign oil companies or of greedy and corrupt regimes. Oil has damaged the countries, with its capacity to generate large-scale environmental and social problems. It fills the streams in Ecuador where Chevron, an oil concessionaire, is accused of dumping its wastewater during a long period of drilling. Natural gas flares around the Niger Delta, with local populations such as the Ogoni fighting Shell, the biggest oil company in the region. Is oil a curse or a blessing? It’s both, being a essential building block in our development but now the time is over. How should it be managed?
oil production
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2012 over 64% of world oil production came from the top ten countries: Russia, Saudi Arabia, United States, China, Iran, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Kuwait and Iraq. Total oil production was 4,142 Mt, up 3% from 4,011 Mt the previous year. Oil production is marginal or non-existent in a large number of countries.
oil consumption
In 2010 the global demand for oil was about 86 million barrels per day. Seven countries — the USA, China, Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and France — accounted for over 50%.
A country’s oil demand is roughly a function of population and level of development, and also the state of the world’s economy.
Many countries became dependent on it and as oil prices rose, they had to reassess their energy policy.
At present rates of production and consumption, reserves could last for another 40 years.
geopolitical impactions of Middle East oil
The Middle East is a critical supplier of oil (e.g. involvement in the Gulf War 1991, invasion of Iraq by US and UK).
Countries that are dependent on the Middle East for oil (partly due to the OPEC) need to:
- help ensure political stability in the Middle East
- maintain good political links with the Middle East
- involve the Middle East in economic cooperation
this acts as an incentive (motivation) to increase energy conservation (be less wasteful) and alternative energy
definition of peak oil and energy security
peak oil production — the year in which the world or an individual oil-producing country reaches its highest level of production, with production declining thereafter. It’s hard to tell when peak oil exists because new technologies enable new oil production…
energy security — a country’s ability to secure all its energy needs