• Fair Use
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Subscription
  • News Letter
  • Submission Policy
  • About

Social Icons

Countercurrents
  • India
  • World
  • COVID Response Watch
  • Human Rights
  • Arts/Literature
  • Imperialism
  • Climate Change
  • Palestine

Ted Nordhaus Is Wrong: We Are Exceeding Earth’s Carrying Capacity

in Resource Crisis — by Richard Heinberg — 31/07/2018

Share:

Share on WhatsAppShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on TelegramShare on RedditShare on Email

 In his article, “The Earth’s Carrying Capacity for Human Life is Not Fixed,” Ted Nordhaus, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, a California-based energy and environment think tank, seeks to enlist readers in his optimistic vision of the future. It’s a future in which there are many more people on the planet and each enjoys a high standard of living, while environmental impacts are reduced. It’s a cheery vision.

If only it were plausible.

Nordhaus’s argument hinges on dismissing the longstanding biological concept of “carrying capacity” — the number of organisms an environment can support without becoming degraded. “Applied to ecology, the concept [of carrying capacity] is problematic,” Nordhaus writes, arguing in a nutshell that the planet’s ability to support human civilization can be, one presumes, infinitely tweaked through a combination of social and physical engineering.

Few actual ecologists, however, would agree. Indeed, the concept of carrying capacity is useful in instance after instance — including modeling the population dynamics of nonhuman species, and in gauging the health of virtually any ecosystem, be it ocean, river, prairie, desert, or forest. While exact population numbers are sometimes difficult to predict on the basis of the carrying capacity concept, it is nevertheless clear that, wherever habitat is degraded, creatures suffer and their numbers decline.

The controversy deepens in applying the carrying capacity concept to humans. Nordhaus seems to think we are exceptions to the rules. Still, as archaeologists have affirmed, many past human societies consumed resources or polluted environments to the point of collapse. Granted, societies have failed for other reasons as well, including invasion, over-extension of empire, or natural climate change. Yet in cases where societies depleted forests, fisheries, freshwater, or topsoil, the consequences were dire.

But that was then. The core of Nordhaus’ case is that we are now living in a magical society that is immune to the ecological law of gravity. Yes, it is beyond dispute that the modern industrial world has been able to temporarily expand Earth’s carrying capacity for our species. As Nordhaus points out, population has grown dramatically (from less than a billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion today), and so has per capita consumption. No previous society was able to support so many people at such a high level of amenity. If we’ve managed to stretch carrying capacity this much already, why can’t we do so ad infinitum?

To answer the question, it’s first important to understand the basis of our success so far. Science and technology usually glean most of the credit, and they deserve their share. But sheer energy — the bulk of it from fossil fuels — has been at least as important a factor.

word image

With lots of cheap energy, we were able to extract raw materials faster and in greater quantities, transport them further, and transform them through industrial processes into a breathtaking array of goods — including fertilizers, pesticides, and antibiotics, all of which tended to reduce human death rates.

But there was still another essential factor in our success: nature itself. Using science, technology, and cheap energy, we expanded farmlands, chain-sawed forests, exploited fisheries, mined minerals, pumped oil, and flattened mountains for their buried coal. And we did these things in a way that was not remotely sustainable. By harvesting renewable resources faster than they could regrow, by using non-renewable resources that could not be recycled, and by choking environments with industrial wastes, we were borrowing from future generations and from other species.

What warning signs would you expect to see if we humans were pressing at the limits of global carrying capacity? Resource depletion? Check. Pollution? Check. Dying oceans? Check.

Nordhaus writes: “For decades, each increment of economic growth in developed economies has brought lower resource and energy use than the last.” This trend of severing the tie between GDP and energy/materials throughput is called “decoupling.” Many economists make big claims for past decoupling and promise much more of it in the future. But careful analysis of decoupling to date shows that most is attributable to accounting error. And to get the developing world up to the level of an average American’s energy usage would require nearly quadrupling global energy consumption, even assuming advances in efficiency. So, unless we find ways to make decoupling actually happen in the future more reliably and at higher rates, growing the global economy will require us to use more of the Earth’s depleted resources.

It is true that some past warnings about the consequences of overpopulation and overconsumption, framed as forecasts, proved wrong. Thomas Malthus famously thought famine would engulf humanity within decades; it didn’t. He failed to foresee industrial agriculture. Paul Ehrlich thought rapid population growth would lead to catastrophe in the 1980s, but he failed to anticipate the impacts of globalization and debt — which enables us to consume now and pay later. Peak oil analysts didn’t foresee the fracking frenzy. Yet cornucopian economists who perceive no problem in the expectation of endless growth on a finite planet likewise failed to foresee climate change, the exponential increase in extinction rates primarily as a result of human-caused habitat degradation, the collapse of fisheries from overfishing, and much, much more.

How can we judge whether cornucopians, or so-called Malthusians, will be right in the long run? One way would be to keep a running account of key biophysical factors on which the prospering of our species depends. If an alarm bell sounds for any of those key factors, we should sit up and pay attention. After all, Liebig’s Law (another foundation of ecology) tells us that growth limits are set not by total resources available, but by the single scarcest necessary resource.

Fortunately, somebody is keeping those accounts. Indeed, a cottage industry of environmental scientists, led by Johan Rockström of the Stockholm Resilience Center and Will Steffen of the Australian National University, has identified nine planetary boundaries that we transgress at our peril: climate change, ocean acidification, biosphere integrity, biochemical flows, land-system change, freshwater use, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, and the introduction of novel entities into environments.

We are currently exceeding the “safe” marks for four of these boundaries:

 

bounds

Another way of keeping track is the ecological footprint, which measures human demand on nature in terms of the quantity of land and water it takes to support an economy sustainably. The Global Footprint Network calculates that humanity is currently exceeding Earth’s sustainable productivity by 60 percent. We do this, again, by drawing down resources that future generations and other species would otherwise use. So, as a result of our actions, Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for humans is actually declining. Nordhaus is right that it’s not a fixed quantity; the problem is that we’re reducing it rather than adding to it in a way that can be maintained.

DEVISE YOUR own scorecard. What warning signs would you expect to see if we humans were pressing at the limits of global carrying capacity? Resource depletion? Check. Pollution? Check. Dying oceans? Check. Human populations subjected to increasing stress? Double check.

Here’s one more that we probably should be paying more attention to: Wild terrestrial mammals now represent just 4.2 percent of terrestrial mammalian biomass, the balance — 95.8 percent — being livestock and humans. Maybe we could make some inroads on that remaining 4.2 percent, but it’s pretty clear from this single statistic that we humans have already commandeered most of the biosphere.

Optimism is essential; it draws us toward the best possible futures. But when it turns into wishful thinking, it can blind us to the consequences of our present actions. In the worst potential case, the results could be collectively suicidal.

Richard Heinberg is the author of 13 books and a Senior Fellow with the Post Carbon Institute. His essays and articles have appeared in print or online at Nature, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The American Prospect, Public Policy Research, the Quarterly Review, Resilience, The Oil Drum, and Pacific Standard, among other publications. 

Originally published in Undark.org

 

 


Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B. Become a Patron at Patreon Subscribe to our Telegram channel


GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX


Share:

Share on WhatsAppShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on TelegramShare on RedditShare on Email
Author: Richard Heinberg

  • Visit Author:
  • All Posts

Comments are closed.

Join Our Newsletter


Latest

  • Notes on two recent sensations
    Hiren Gohain | 05/06/2023
  • A shocking picture of health apathy…..
    Vikas Parashram Meshram | 05/06/2023
  • Railway accident in Odisha- Are the Railways ready for high-speed trains? Who is to be blamed?
    E A S Sarma | 05/06/2023
  • Teaser of Film on Savarkar: Lies Galore
    Dr Ram Puniyani | 05/06/2023
  • Preserving India’s Heritage: The Power of International Collaboration for Natural and Cultural Conservation
    Dr Fatma Faheem | 05/06/2023
  • Looking for Home in an Overheating World – If Emissions Continue, Will We All Be Migrants Someday?
    Jane Braxton Little | 05/06/2023
  • From Ploughshares to Swords—Sudden Militarism of Those Who Once Stood for Peace
    Bharat Dogra | 05/06/2023
  • Transreality 
    Mark Kirkwood Callingham | 05/06/2023
  • Australia stands to benefit from India only if Indian democracy survives, not from rallies
    Oliver DSouza | 05/06/2023
  • Whether Rhetoric or Serious, Arab Diplomacy Can’t Be Ignored! 
    Nilofar Suhrawardy | 05/06/2023
  • Unleashing the Power of Sports: How Sporting Events Drive Tourism Growth
    Pema Choden Bhutia | 05/06/2023
  • Black Panther and the need to dream for a better world
    Vidyadhar Date | 05/06/2023
  • Mexico’s Zapatistas Warn Chiapas Is on “the Verge of Civil War”
    Alejandro Santos Cid | 04/06/2023
  • Why distress from railway accidents may be much higher than is commonly believed
    Bharat Dogra | 04/06/2023
  • Stop Plastic Pollution as We Commemorate 50th World Environment Day 2023
    A K Merchant | 04/06/2023
  • Modi Regime should be Called to Account for the Deadliest Triple Train Collision at Balasore
    P J James | 04/06/2023
  • Thoughts on World Environment Day
    Bharat Dogra | 04/06/2023
  • Nuclear Fusion: Eternal Energy = Eternal Damnation
    Don Fitz | 04/06/2023
  • Why There Should Be A Treaty Against the Use of Weaponized Drones
    Ann Wright | 04/06/2023
  • Protests in Germany after Anti-fascists sent to five years in prison
    Harsh Thakor | 04/06/2023
  • Women Wrestler’s Protests: Exposing Beti Bachao Slogan
    T Navin | 04/06/2023
  • Inauguration of Parliament Building: Coronation Ceremony?
    Dr Ram Puniyani | 04/06/2023
  • FBI appears to be continuing investigation of Julian Assange
    Oscar Grenfell | 03/06/2023
  •  And We Are Much More Than Our Uterus. (In Solidarity With the protesting wrestlers)
    Moumita Alam | 03/06/2023
  • Strike ends in Belsonika with reinstatement of 10 suspended workers
    Harsh Thakor | 03/06/2023
  • A Man Without a Strategy: How Netanyahu Is Provoking Armed Intifada in the West Bank
    Dr Ramzy Baroud | 03/06/2023
  • The Ancient Patterns of Migration
    Deborah Barsky | 03/06/2023
  • Seven Reasons Why the Present Phase of Imperialism is the Most Dangerous Ever
    Bharat Dogra | 03/06/2023
  • Unmasking Tourism’s Roadblocks
    Pema Choden Bhutia | 03/06/2023
  • Metro authorities humiliating ordinary commuters
    Vidyadhar Date | 03/06/2023
  • PLI Scheme- Do subsidies to profit-earning private manufacturers yield commensurate societal benefits?
    E A S Sarma | 02/06/2023
  • World Environment Day in India: Doing Justice with the Day 
    Mohd Ziyaullah Khan | 02/06/2023
  • Ben Roberts-Smith: The Breaking of a Plaster Saint
    Dr Binoy Kampmark | 02/06/2023
  • Do we All need Religion? An Introspection
    Santosh Kumar Mamgain | 02/06/2023
  • Obama, Kissinger and the Nobel Peace Prize
    Bharat Dogra | 02/06/2023
  • The Politics of Erdogan and Western Anxieties
    Neha Tuheen | 02/06/2023
  • The Compulsion to Intervene – Why Washington Underwrites Violence in Ukraine
    Andrew Bacevich | 02/06/2023
  • Just War and Just War Theory
    Dr VladislavB Sotirovic | 02/06/2023
  • Stolen Heirloom or poppycock
    Hiren Gohain | 01/06/2023
  • ‘Simply Inconceivable’ to Dump Fukushima Water in Pacific, Critics Say After Latest IAEA Report
    Brett Wilkins | 01/06/2023

Editor’s Picks

Farewell to Sasi etta, brother K.P. Sasi

Farewell to Sasi etta, brother K.P. Sasi

27/12/2022 — Satya Sagar

Share:Share on WhatsAppShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on TelegramShare on RedditShare on Email Our beloved K.P.Sasi is no more. Filmmaker, cartoonist, writer, mentor, friend and above all tireless activist championing the cause of every underdog, Sasi breathed his last, mid-afternoon this Christmas day –  after battling a medical condition for months. I remember the last time I met him, almost[Read More…]

  • Floods  in South Asia and Climate Change

    Floods  in South Asia and Climate Change

    11/09/2022 — Dr. Soma Marla
  • Is There Enough Metal to Replace Oil?

    Is There Enough Metal to Replace Oil?

    24/08/2022 — Robert Hunziker

Archives

  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • November 2015

Tags

Afghanistan American Imperialism Bhima Koregaon Black Lives Matter Book Review Capitalism Citizenship Amendment Act Climate Change Coronavirus Counter Solutions COVID19 COVID Response Watch COVID Vaccine CRW Reportage Dakota Access Pipeline Demonetisation Donald Trump Education Environment Farmers Agitation Farm Reform Laws Film Review Global Warming Health Hindutva Human Rights Iran Israel Julian Assange Kashmir Life Nuclear War Palestine Poetry RSS Sri Lanka Sri Lankan Tamils Standing Rock Sioux Protest Syria The Commons Ukraine US Election 2020 US Elections 2016 Venezuela Yemen
Copyright © 2023 — Countercurrents. All Rights Reserved. optimized by Anivar