That sounds bad. Do you have a modest proposal for fixing this issue?
To the degree that this is true at all, it’s way more than offset by low personal consumption. Look at China - per capita energy use is extremely low compared to the US - 2.5 kW (ok, I know, I’m starting to get sloppy with words here. 2.5 kW is their per-capita power use.) Lower even than the UK, and they’re developing like crazy. Developing countries won’t need developed-world levels of energy per-capita until they are developed, and at that point, European countries are probably a better guide to where they’ll plateau out. Which is not to say they’ll plateau in the late 21st century at early-21st-century European levels. They’ll plateau out at late-21st-century European levels, which are likely to be lower.
I’ve mostly ignored this, because it doesn’t really mean much. The standard measurement of ecological footprint, done by these guys, is basically a measurement of how much additional land area we’d need to sop up surplus CO2 emissions. That’s all it means. CO2 is a problem, of course, we all know it’s a problem. But “how many earths” isn’t a meaningful or useful way to measure the problem.
If that’s for electricity, then I think power consumption for China as of 2014 was almost 4 kWh per capita vs. 5 for the UK, and appears to be doubling every decade:
As for ecological footprint, I think the reason why it’s misleading is that it’s underestimating overuse:
Hence, we have countries like Indonesia which only has an EF per capita of around 1.7 but has high deforestation rates. That’s why the abstract of the study you shared states that it can’t measure unsustainability.
The implication is that we have to look at not only energy use but also soil degradation, water pollution, and other aspects of ecosystem services. As I don’t want to discuss each one, I’d rather use a shortcut, which is the EF.
I think the solution will have to be the opposite of modest. That is, all countries will have to work together to cut down on consumption such that they will meet only basic needs, i.e., what will allow for optimal health. But given modern history, where we’ve seen countries fighting with each other, especially given a multi-fold increase in arms production and deployment worldwide, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Agreed - the coming (well, present) climate crisis can really only be solved at the policy level. This idea that we can have individual communities, states, and nation-states behaving as independent laboratories that can come up with novel solutions to climate change is doomed to fail. We need international cooperation, and unfortunately, political trends of the past 10 years, and particularly the last 5, suggest that we’re moving away from the era of international cooperation and into an era of competition among international power, which always leads to deadly conflict.
We are heading toward a massive economic shock - one that will have far reaching economic and political consequences. It’ll happen before we’re ready to deal with it. The consequences will be extreme.
Modest, in this case, would involve eco-villages, permaculture, etc., but they are reactions to predicaments rather than solutions.
Lake Tahoe, this fire is coming for you. There’s a very real chance this fire could completely destroy the lake as we know it. It’ll obviously still be there, but its color may not be, and its identity as a tourist spot will be scarred for ages. This is an unbelievable moment right now. This is also California’s future.
Evacuating the Nevada side of Tahoe area. We’re distracted by the Taliban and COVID, but this is potentially a major, major event.
I agree, And this is coupled with the draught. It’s a self-repeating cycle of hotter/evaporation/drier over and over.
Responding to the thread title, Iran-Iraq could be a potential climate hot spot.
As the rivers dry up, the countries downstream from dams are under increasing water stress. The Nile, Tigris/Euphrates, etc.
Oh yeah, and what about what happened in Capetown, South Africa in 2018 when “Day Zero” happened? It’s almost like the rest of the world forgot and now it’s like “Shit! It’s happening everywhere now!”
Madagascar is on the verge of a serious famine due to crop failure:
Crop yields out West are not good, either.
I don’t study this stuff for a living but I just hazard a wild guess that we’re probably a matter of just a few years away from seeing some really alarming shocks in terms of food and water prices. We’re not just suffering from droughts; we’re suffering from droughts while still over-consuming. And that’s the kind of problem we should be getting ahead of, but I doubt we are.
@MrDibble would be the right person to answer that question. My recollection is that Day Zero didn’t quite happen because rains came in time.
What happened is we got our water consumption down to less than 50l/person/day. Yes, eventually it rained, but it was reducing water consumption that kept us away from Day Zero.
Are people sticking to that quota?
Not at the moment, as the dams are refilled and there are no current restrictions in place. I think it’s around 100-120ℓ at the moment as an average. But that’s with the understanding that some use a lot more now, whereas others never ever used 50ℓ (it’s hard to, when you have to carry it by bucket from the communal tap you share with 9 other shacks)
Although, to that, I am “people” and we are mostly sticking to it in our house. But then, we have a greywater system, rainwater tanks, and drinking water condenser, so we’re way better equipped than the standard Capetonian.
But overall, as a city, we halved our water usage and that hasn’t crept back up much. We went from total consumption of 1.2 Gℓ in 2015 to 500 Mℓ in 2018 around DZ, and that’s only crept up to 696Mℓ currently (with our dams literally more than 100% full.)
Just curious, roughly how many people does that volume service? (If I use yours 100l / person, I’d get around 7M, which is higher than wikipedia has the total population at, so just doing the checksum…)