The Connection Between Economy, Energy and Environment (EEE)

The purpose of this blog post is to examine and present the relationship of the economy, energy and environment and how the three are interconnected. Most of this blog will be focusing on the presentation made by Dr. Chris Martenson who is a trade research scientist.

Picture 1 Environment, Economy, Ecology (2)

At the first sight, economy, energy and environment doesn’t seem to be related as much. However, if we think more critical, as Dr. Chris Martenson did, we will be surprised how related these terms are and how their interdependence make the world that we know today. In the same manner, Withgott and Brennan argued: “Economic activity uses resources from the environment”[…] “When it comes to the energy, economists tend to do the so called cost-benefit analysis. Estimated costs for a proposed action are totaled up and compared to the sum of benefits estimated to result from the action”.(148,149) In other words, if the amount of energy we use to get the resource is high, the amount of the energy that we get is lower. This is due to the fact the resources are scarce and that we need to go deeper in the ground in order to get them. However, this doesn’t solve our problem with non-renewable resources and we will be getting less and less energy every year. In this sense, as Withgott and Brennan wrote, “We have to be more energy efficient. This will give us the ability to obtain a given result or amount of output while using less energy input.” (555) This is to say the only solution that we can come up with in order to increase the amount of energy we use and delay depletion of particular resource. (1)

Chris Martneson is born in 1962 and he is a former biochemical scientist and an author of trend forecast regarding the economy, energy and environment. Chris obtained his Ph.D. in neurotoxicology from Duke University in 1994. I believe that he has great experience in the field and that he is trust worthy.(2) You can read more about Dr. Chris Martenson here. (3)

Picture 2 Chris Martenson (3)

In addition, one of the most famous presentations given by Dr. Marteneson is “The Crash Course” where he talks about economics, energy and environment. You can watch the full video here . (4) Or read the summary and discussed parts of the video below.

The Crash Course video seeks to provide us with a baseline understanding of the economy so that we can appreciate the risks that we all face. In the first few minutes of the video, Dr. Marteneson is trying to prove to us how economics and environment are connected by referring to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. After making this point he goes on by connecting together all three- energy, economy and environment. As we know economies work based on the energy/resources that we get. If we were not to have energy there will be no economy, as he emphasized. Since we do have the energy that we exploit, environment becomes important factor in this triangle. Throughout the video he is talking about all three E’s and introduces some new terms such as the concept of all the money is loaned into the existence. In the end, Dr. Marteneson makes a reference on our future and possible outcomes if we don’t come up with possible solutions for sustainability problems that we face.

One of the concepts that Dr. Marteneson emphasized is the concept of all the money is borrowed into existence. The figures 1.1 and 1.2 depict how the money system is growing with the population and the difference between actual money and debt. The concept of all money is loaned into the existence means that there is always more debt than money in our economies. For example, only in the US there is 53 trillion dollars of debt, with only 14 trillion of money.  You can watch more about this here

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Furthermore, Dr.Marteneson claims that he can define economy based on the figure 1.3. According to him economy must grow. By must grow he means that economy is really happy when it is growing and pretty unhappy when it is not.

Figure 1.3

What is even more interesting, there is no negative word for the situation when our economy is not growing. In both cases we say that economy is positively or negatively growing and 2% increase or decrease does make a huge difference. Considering the figure above that states that economy must grow, we can say that this is important for functioning of the global society. However, the graph on the right side depicts how much people can be supported under the cap and if we know that number of people on earth is constantly growing we can conclude that there is a big problem with resources that will be available for this number of people.

In addition, the figure 1.4 shows what amount of energy is used to get energy throughout the years. Using up more energy to get new energy, and according to Martenson if a unit of energy is required to take out another unit then there will be no energy. This is a huge problem that we are facing and a good example is the energy that we use to get oil, as depicted on the figure below.

Figure 1.4

As we can see, as we were going through time and as we were using more and more of our non renewable resource, we needed to use more energy to get less. This is to say because there is less and less oil and it is located on the places where it is hard to get. If you are interested in more details, follow the link. (5)

In the video below you can see very interesting anecdote about exponential growth by Dr. Marteneson. Basically, here he is making us imagine that we are hand cuffed in the top row of Wembley Stadium. His question is if you put one drop of water on Wembley Stadium and the drop of water doubles every second how much time do you have before the water comes to you and you drown? The answer is 50 minutes! But the important question is at what point the stadium was 97% empty and the answer is at 45thminute!  He provided this anecdote because he was trying to explain what happened with human population. Until 1960 we had only 3 billion people and by 2011 we have 7 billion people living on earth.

(5)

Consequently, with exponential growth we are using more resources. The figure 1.5 depicts how much resources are we using compared to 1920 and how extinct the species became since then.

Figure 1.5

As we can see on the graph we are using all the resources available more and more. The only question is until when? And this is very important according to Dr. Marteneson . Since our resources are limited we will have to come up with alternative solutions because the consumption of the current ones is very high and we will run out of many of them in near future.

To sum up, Dr.Marteneson made quite a few good points and I believe that he succeeded in the message he was trying to send. As pointed out by him, economy can not exist without energy and energy can not exist without environment. Thus, the three are dependent on each other and we have to do everything we can to preserve all three of them. However, this is not going to be easy considering the ecological footprint that we are imposing on the environment and the depletion of  resources that we use to run our economies. Therefore, it is crucial for us to come up with some sustainable and alternative solution if we want to meet our future needs for our future generations. We are in situation we are and we have to fight for the society if we want to see the future of the world. This is not going to be easy, but if we give our best we won’t be sorry even if we fail.

References

(1) “Chris Martenson, The Crash Course Cape May Forum.” Chris Martenson, The Crash Course Cape May Forum. http://www.capemayforum.org/chris_martenson_2012.html, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012.

(2)“Green Energy Blog.” ‘Green Energy Blog’ N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012.

(3) “Christopher Martenson.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 June 2012. Web. 07 Dec. 2012.

(4)“The Crash Course.” Peak Prosperity. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012.

(5) “Part 2 of 6-UK Crash Course.” YouTube. YouTube, 22 Nov. 2010. Web. 07 Dec. 2012.

The world population growth- should we be worried?

Current number of people and predictions

The study of population size, growth and Earth’s ability to sustain the world population is extremely interesting and it requires critical thinking in terms of alternatives. Withgott and Brennan defined population as a group of individuals of the same species inhabiting a particular area.  In addition, they said that population size may increase, decrease, undergo cyclical change or remain the same over the time. (1)

Considering the table 1.1, we can conclude that the number of people on Earth is increasing. The world today has almost 7,1 billion people and it is estimated that the number will increase even more. By 2045 the Earth will have 9 billion people. (2)

Table 1.1. The depiction of growth of human population (2)

The phenomenon of constant growth can be observed on graph 1.2 where we can see more or less constant population size with not significant increases. This was the case until 1850’s when the industrial revolution started. We can say that technological advances, better health systems and sanitation, and increased food production are the reasons for this population growth. The better living conditions and the more food we can produce lead to a substantial growth in human population.  (2)

Graph 1.2. Growth of population on earth through history(2)

The number of people being born and dying can be followed live here: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Is there enough food for everyone?

Hunger is a term which has three meanings:

• the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food; craving appetite. Also the exhausted condition caused by want of food
• the want or scarcity of food in a country
• a strong desire or craving

The pie chart 1.3 depicts the number of hungry people in 2011. (3)

Chart 1.3. The number of hungry people in 2011 (3) 

However, the fact that a lot of people die every day due to malnutrition and starvation is highly controversial. Many theories say that this is not because we cannot produce enough food, but rather because of poverty, undeveloped economies and unequally distribution of food.  According to the World Hunger web site, we are producing enough food for everyone. (3)

How many people more the Earth can sustain?

This is a highly controversial topic with many different answers. Humans’ greedy urge to reproduce, Malthus argued, would ultimately lead us to overpopulate the planet, eat up all its resources and die in a mass famine. (4) This is a very pessimistic view of the human’s future on Earth.

On the other hand, we can find people with little more optimism and arguments for such opinion. One of them is Joel E. Cohen who states: “It’s very hard to put a number on a quantity that depends on future events, processes we don’t understand, and values that may change over time.” The following video gives us the sense of his position and prediction.

Joel E. Cohen – How Many People Can the Earth Support? (5)

Furthermore, the fact is, nobody really knows exactly how much people the Earth can sustain. Carrying capacity depends on what kind and how many resources are available and how we use them. It also depends on how they are distributed and how much each person uses on average.

Earth’s carrying capacity has recently been estimated to be as low as one billion people – or as high as 44 billion people!

The carrying capacity can be reduced by environmental destruction such as deforestation, soil erosion and pollution. However, carrying capacity may also be increased through technology. Fertilizers and hybrid seeds can increase food production. Modern transportation systems allow that food to be moved across oceans. And cheap energy has boosted industrial production tremendously. (6)

In conclusion, we should be worried. The fact is that we are not using our resources appropriately and we are destroying our environment. We should try to limit our consumption and think more about the rest of the people and their future. This does not mean that we should stop eating, but rather use what we have in a smarter way by not wasting non-renewable and reewable resources and by decreasing our “footprint” on the environment.

References:

(1)    Withgott, J. & Brennan, S. (2010). Environment: The science behind the stories. 4^th Ed. San Francisco: Pearson Education

(2)    “World Population Clock: 7 Billion People – Worldometers.” World Population Clock: 7 Billion People – Worldometers. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/>.

(3)    “World Hunger Notes Homepage.” World Hunger Notes Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.worldhunger.org/>.

(4)    “How Many People Can Earth Support?” LifesLittleMysteries.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1824-people-planet-earth-support.html>.

(5)    ECSPWWC. “Joel E. Cohen – How Many People Can the Earth Support?” YouTube. YouTube, 22 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmALGtDTQWo>.

(6)    “The Stutz’s Home Page.” The Stutz’s Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://stutzfamily.com/>.

Ecological Footprint

Defining the terms of Ecological Footprint (EP), Ecological Overshoot, and Carrying Capacity

 

Ecological footprint is a quantity of human demand on Earth’s ecosystem. Ecological footprint is the total area of land and water that is necessary to supply the resources that humans consume and our ability to dispose the waste produced in the process.

(1)

Ecological overshoot refers to the process of depleting renewable resources faster than they are being replenished. When the amount of the resources taken is higher than the amount actually renewed we create deficit or total disappearance of particular resource. This leaves many consequences on the environment and humans are forced to find alternative solutions.

Carrying capacity is a phenomenon which indicates the maximum size of the population or species that a given environment can support for an extended period of time.

The following table shows the number of hectares per person of particular countries, their GDP per capita and the relation between these two with the ecological footprint and GDP per capita.

(2)

Comparing the EF of Bangladesh, Australia and United Arab Emirates

• Bangladesh

The ecological footprint of Bangladesh is 0,6. This is relatively small EF. The reason for having such a small EF can be found in the fact that Bangladesh belongs to the group of the so called ‘Third World Countries’. This means that their GDP per person is small and that their country in not developed. In addition, they don’t have technology or resources that would raise their productivity and standard of living. Consequently, they spend less money than more developed countries, which results in less consumption of resources and producing less waste.

• Australia

In contrast to Bangladesh, Australia has large EF of 8,49. The GDP of Australia is 40,800$. This shows that Australia belongs to the group of developed countries with developed technology and high standard of living. However, high GDP usually means high ecological footprint. Australia is trying to use most of its land for agriculture which results in exhausting this resource. Also, Australia has a high emission of carbon dioxide. High productivity and ecological footprint go one with another.

• United Arab Emirates

UAE ecological footprint is 15,99 and their GDP per capita is 48,800$. This presents a very high EF. Considering the fact that most of the world countries buy oil from UAE we can conclude that this is most probably the reason for this high EF. High salaries bring more waste, and high productivity brings more CO2 emissions and high exploitation of resources.

Relationship between GDP per capita and Ecological Footprint

GDP per capita and Ecological footprints are in linear relation. The higher the GDP is, the higher ecological footprint is. If the country has high productivity, this probably means that the country is using most of its resources; thus, leaving more effects on the environment. In addition, as people have more money to spend, they produce more waste.

(3)

As depicted on the graph above, we can see that biocapacity and EF are measured only from 2005. For most of the other world countries we can find data from 1960 to present. By looking at this graph we can conclude that EF of Serbia is growing, while biocapacity was going up and down in last seven years.

 My personal Ecological Footprint

(4)

My ecological footprint is 1,86, which means that if everyone on this planet would live my lifestyle, we would need 1,86 planets to fulfill our needs. My ecological footprint is lower than my country’s (2,6). In my opinion, Serbian and mine EF are not that high compared to some other countries in the world. Yet, we have to be more careful about recycling and usage of our natural resources in order to decrease our EF.

In comparison, my personal EF (1,86) is much higher than the average of people from Bangladesh (0,6). This is due to better standard of living, more developed industry, and producing more waste that is not properly recycled.

In addition, my EF of 1,86 is much lower than it is in Australia and UAE. The reason is more than obvious, since my standard of living cannot be compared with theirs. These countries are among most riches in the world because the use their natural resources up to the maximum. By using most of your resources, you generate high GDP per person, thus creating more waste. This leaves consequences on the environment and it increases EF to the great extent.

Conclusion

Using the information presented above we can conclude that people are overusing the environment. If everyone keeps living like this, we would need three planets to support our needs. Our planet is limited, and this is something people should have in mind. We have to start using our resources appropriately, or we are going to disappear together with our planet. It is good to have high standard of living, but at what price? My ecological footprint showed me that even I have to work on my habits in order to save the planet Earth. When we all do this, I believe that our precious planet will have bright future.

References

(1)“Comenius ::: Roots and Wings.” Comenius ::: Roots and Wings. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.<http://www.roots-and-wings.eu/Roots_and_Wings/Italy/Ecological_Footprint_Activity.php&gt;.

(2) Globalis. Retrieved October 23, 2012 from http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu.

(3)“World Footprint.” World Footprint. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/&gt;.

(4)“Los Angeles Post CarbonEducating Our Los Angeles Communities on the Issue of Peak Oil and Taking Steps to Prepare Ourselves for the Post Carbon Age.” What Is an Ecological Footprint? N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.lapostcarbon.org/footprint.htm&gt;.

(5) “Central Intelligence Agency.” CIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/&gt;.

(6)Progress, Redefining. “Ecological Footprint Statistics – Countries Compared – Nation Master.”NationMaster.com. NationMaster, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_eco_foo-environment-ecological-footprint&gt;.

(7)“Ecological Footprint.” Quiz by Center for Sustainable Economy. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://myfootprint.org/&gt;.

I am studying International Relations and Diplomacy and this is my third year in college. The purpose of this blog is to reflect on the material from my Ecology class and to express my view on global environmental issues in the 21^st century. I am very interested in issues of pollution and alternative sources of energy. I like to think critically and in terms of alternatives to various global issues and this is one of the reasons I believe that this class will be interesting. The most recent environmental issue that I heard of is the issue of Food Security for 9 billion people. It is estimated that by 2050 there will be 9 billion people on Earth and that Food Security is a very important global issue for which scientists must start finding solutions today.

I come from Serbia, a central Balkan country with very nice and interesting environment. I was born in the southern part of Serbia, in Prishtina. Central and south part of Serbia has a lot of mountains, rivers and lakes. The highest mountain top is on Kosovo and Metohy mountain Prokletije (Djeravica 2656m). One of the most interesting rivers in Serbia is Nerodimka river which is near my home town. This river is known for special condition- bifurcation. Bifurcation occurs when a river flowing in a single stream separates into two or more streams.

However, despite the fact that Serbia benefits a lot from its rivers, people are still polluting them. This pollution of the rivers is causing dying of fishes and less water that we can use for drinking. Furthermore, my home gets water from the Lake Gracanica which is only a few kilometers away from my village. However, the future of this lake is jeopardized because people are throwing garbage and factory waste in it. Something needs to be done in the near future, or the survival of Serbians in this area will be questionable.

What is the tragedy of the commons? Explain how this concept might apply to an unregulated industry that is the source of water pollution.

The term the Tragedy of the Commons is very important for understanding the negative effects that humans have on the environment. This term was first used by Garrett Hardin in one of his Science articles in 1968. If a resource is held in common for use by all, eventually that resource will be destroyed due to overuse or due to negative effects of human actions. Considering the fact that most of the resources are limited, we can conclude that overuse can lead to the depletion of certain resource. This is why people should be aware of these limitations and governments should seek to prevent overuse by imposing restrictions that will be binding for everybody.  The Tragedy of Commons can be avoided if humans change the way they live and find alternative resources.

The good example of this phenomenon is an unregulated industry that is the source of water pollution. For example, an automobile factory discharges toxic waste into a local river directly. This activity can result in creating unsafe drinking water and it can restrict some activities such as swimming or fishing. The governments should take care of this problem by checking where the local factories are disposing their toxic waste and in which way. If the industry is not regulated by the government there is a good chance that there are a lot of irregularities in their work. The most critical is most certainly the one that has to do with toxic waste that can jeopardize environment and in that way affect lives of many people. When the pollution takes place people even might look to move from certain area in order to prevent their families from using of this toxic water that can be harmful.

Hi!

This is my first Blog post! 🙂