That is the question which environmentalists have been trying to answer by looking at the ecological footprint of human society.

This footprint measures the impact that society has on the ecosystem relative to our consumption patterns and the amount of productive land necessary to maintain those levels of consumption. Included in this footprint is also the assimilation of waste produced in this consumption1. The per capita ecofootprint has been estimated at 2.8 hectares and the number of hectares available per capita has been estimated at only 2 hectares. This means human society has exceeded the earths carrying capacity by around 40%2. If this is the case, and we have overwhelmed Mother Earth and her natural capacity to reproduce, what is to be done about it? The main culprit for this precarious situation is our consumption. Our overuse of natural resources is especially seen as responsible for this environmental degradation. So do we just stop consuming or do we just become more responsible consumers? Michael Maniates sees the idea of responsible consumerism as being a faade. This idea, according to Maniates, is called the individualization of responsibility. This is where individuals are led to believe that they can make a difference by changing their personal consumption practices3. The belief is reinforced by states and transnational corporations, which have the most to gain by people continuing their consuming ways4. So the solution, according to Maniates, is to change the institutions that encourage us to consume as we do. Is this

Have we overshot the earths human carrying capacity?

feasible? Is too much emphasis being placed on consumption as the problem? This essay will argue that the problem is not so much that we over-consume but that we are presently consuming the wrong things. We are consuming non-renewable resources that are also polluting the environment and most likely helping to speed up the warming process that the earth is presently undergoing. The efficiency of our economic system however, demands consumption. The focus, then, must change from merely stating that we over-consume to focusing more on alternative consumables that can keep the economy growing and allow those in developing countries the prosperity that we currently enjoy. To go about this any other way would do more harm than good. The economy can continue to grow and we can keep our current system relatively intact if we focus on reducing the impact of our consumption. This task, though, will require a concerted and cooperative effort at all levels whether it be individual, local, national or, most importantly, international. We, as North Americans, have chosen the economic system of capitalism to manage our daily lives. This system requires us to consume and it requires continuous expansion to remain healthy. Some scholars, such as eco-Marxists, consider this to be capitalisms inescapable failing5. They see this need to grow as being cancerous and once this growth exhausts the earths resources both the system and the earth will inevitably collapse6. Capitalism is therefore considered by eco-Marxists to be the overwhelming source of all ills7. Is it feasible or even desirable to change the system we have in place now? While capitalism is not perfect, neither are we, and as long as humans are not perfect, any system we design to manage our affairs will also not be perfect. So to blame the system is misguided when the system is just what we make of it. At the same time, as a democratic and liberal society, we have the ability to adjust the system as necessary to confront new

challenges. To change the system at such a late stage, with its institutions and infrastructure so economically and socially ingrained, would most likely cause unnecessary social and economic costs. Martin Lewis also feels that the capitalist economy has the capacity to develop a technologically sophisticated, ecologically sustainable global economy. He rightly believes, though, that this economy cannot be given free reign8. So if capitalism stays then so must consumption: they inseparably go hand in hand. The focus must be on changing what we consume, not on reducing consumption in general. Sustainable development is seen as the solution for environmental degradation while still allowing for the possibility of growth and development. The idea first gained mainstream acceptance after the Brundtland commission in 19879. Ann Dale, in her book, At the Edge, sees sustainable development as the human imperative of the 21st century10. She acknowledges that there needs to be substantial change in terms of what we produce and how we produce it. Ann Dale also believes, though, that to achieve sustainable development we need to decouple human progress from the idea that growth can improve the human plight11. According to Dale, growth is a negative force imbedded in our system due to the belief that we will always be able to find a substitute for the resources we use. This is called the law of infinite substitutability, which Dales sees as a false law12. Dale rejects the view held by many economists that human innovation and technology can indefinitely substitute the resources we use without putting limits on our

economic growth13. I would argue that there is no reason why our technological wherewithal cannot take us to a stage of sustainable consumption where continued growth is compatible with ecological harmonization. One just needs to stop presuming that this growth has to be fueled by non renewable natural resources. The growth of the economy does not necessarily need to be held in check by the earths carrying capacity14. Economic growth will still be possible if it goes with the flow of the biospheres ways and means and not against them. This idea is stated well by Ann Dale. She is right in the fact that we see ourselves as distinct from nature and that this view should change. Where she is wrong is in her notion that we have rejected the idea of biospheric limits15. Human society, for the most part, realizes that limits exist but what we dont accept is a common goal on how to stay within them. This essay will not pretend to have all the answers to exactly how we can change what we consume in a manner that will not disrupt economic growth. What the essay will argue, though, is that the required technology and ingenuity are definitely available to make it happen. Environmentally friendly consumer responses such as the United States EPA slogan of reduce, reuse and recycle need to be expanded and more convenient options must be offered16. As well, our consumption of meat needs to be reduced and replaced with a more energyefficient source of protein17. Cleaner and less exploitative energy resources also need to be developed to replace oil and coal. Solar energy is one example of a very feasible and nearly inexhaustible source of energy18. Wind and nuclear energy are also cleaner options that need to be further examined. Until these sources can be developed to a stage where they are economically feasible then natural gas should be used more extensively, given its lower carbon dioxide emissions19. Considering the progress we have made since our primal roots, there is no reason why we cannot

get to a point where everything we consume is organic and renewable. James Speth agrees that technology can be the answer to our ecological dilemma. To Speth, investment in the energy sector is the key and should be the top priority. He points out the progress already made from the years 1990-1998, with only a 2% rate of growth in the use of oil and natural gas, no growth in the use of coal, and 22% and 16% growth rates in the use of wind and solar photovoltaic powers, respectively20. The increasing use of product certification and eco-labeling are also seen as hopeful signs by Speth. It is argued, though, that these energy sources are too expensive and, in the case of nuclear energy, too dangerous21. The reason they are expensive, however, is because the necessary finances have not been invested to reduce their price. This investment will happen once the real demand for these cleaner and more environmentally friendly sources is there. Then, accordingly, the prices will decrease and these energy sources will be more than feasible for mass consumption. To make the changes in our consumption happen as fast as possible, there will need to be increased government intervention: the public cannot do it alone. We will need the coercive and supportive forces of the government to guide and speed up this process. Frances Cairncross sees state intervention as crucial in such environmental affairs. The reason this intervention is necessary is because the free market does not align the interests of the individual or the individual company with those of the society at large22. This state intervention should be in the form of

increased regulations. These regulations will push development of innovative technologies so that companies can then comply23. Governments must also invest more in research and development. This research can be used to help plan a path for sustainable development but also can be used to educate citizens on alternative consumption choices. On the other hand, Cairncross raises a good point when he discusses the pitfalls of government regulation. There will be some companies that will cut jobs or even possibly move abroad to locations where there are less regulations and thusly lower production costs24. This problem will have to be solved by cooperation amongst nation-states so that regulations are universally adopted and enforced.

In this world a reversion to the narrow concepts of national interests that have proven so destructive in the past would be tragic. The only realistic and durable concept of our international community must be one based on cooperation and sharing between equal partners which see their relationship as mutually beneficial and necessary to their common survival and well being25 This quote by Maurice Strong shows what may ultimately be one of the biggest challenges in ensuring that the necessary changes happen sooner rather than

later. Regulations imposed by governments will not fully solve the problem unless these regulations are universal, thereby stopping corporations from simply moving to where unsound practices would be tolerated. That is why the Kyoto protocol is so important. It is a small yet important step towards having international standards. Another problem, which the international community must face, is the prospect of growing mass consumerism in developing nations. The majority of industrial growth in the future will take place in these developing countries where overpopulation, hunger, and ecological decline are already major concerns26. The prospect of the developing world reaching the same level of industrialization as the developed world seems daunting. So how do the developing countries attain the level of prosperity we enjoy without furthering the biospheres degradation? Do we limit their ability to reach this level or do we help them out? Obviously, any notion that may prevent them from developing cannot be permitted morally27. At the same time, as Saresh Prabu states in his essay, Green Growth, nation-states have the responsibility first and foremost of ensuring the well-being of their citizens. They cannot be held responsible for any environmental degradation as long as their people are starving. That means the international community must be there to aid in this regard. There is no point in us becoming completely sustainable and environmentally friendly if there are billions of people in the developing world repeating the process we just

went through. This means aid, in the form of technology transfers, is necessary. Without this aid, the natural environments of nations such as India will suffer immensely28. Some argue that third-world development needs to happen as quickly as possible. This development, though, must be followed by an equally quick decrease in natural resource use29. I would argue that the speed of the development is not the issue. What is more important is that the developed countries get their environmental act together as soon as possible. We can then pass on our new renewable and, by that point, affordable technologies to these struggling nation states. It can be done if the international consensus is there. That leaves us with what I will argue is the most important factor in ensuring that both governments and corporations do what is necessary to maintain the global environment and achieve sustainable development while at the same time permitting our economies to grow and prosper. There needs to be a strengthened environmental consensus built amongst the general public. This consensus must not only exist locally or nationally, it must exist internationally. As John Baden and Garrett Hardin state in their preface to Managing the Commons, there is no point in changing the laws of the system if the norms underlying the system remain the same30. The masses cannot just be coerced into believing they must change what they consume, they must come to feel that it is in their best interests. As consumers, we can demand that the governments take away the nonrenewable resources we do not need and make it easier for corporations to give us the sustainable alternatives that we do need.

So how does this consensus come to be? Governments cannot be wholly relied upon to make this happen. There is also a role for nongovernmental organizations. These organizations need more government funding to help them reach more people. They also need to focus on working within the consumer mindset. The power that we have as consumers needs to be harnessed and linked with thinking green about everything we buy. Ken Conca does not agree with this manner of looking at the problem though. The exact problem, according to him, is that nongovernmental organizations are engaged in a commodification of nature. He uses the example of the Sierra Club and their fundraising promotion which involved the offer of a free backpack to encourage people to join the club31. This commodification of nature, according to Conca, is ignoring the fact that consumption and consumerism are the roots of the problem and need to be addressed as such. Instead, environmental organizations prefer to channel their energies into regulatory and technological strategies of environmental protection. Conca feels that environmental organizations should be working at changing the consumer mindset instead of grudgingly accepting it32. Ken Conca, like Michael Maniates, believes that consumption, and thus capitalism, are to blame for our environmental dilemma. They both promote radical change to the system. This manner of confronting the general public on environmental issues can only do more harm than good. The public will most likely

tune out any extreme ideas concerning changing our economic system. There is a reason why we have accepted capitalism. This system best suits our self-interested nature and there is a reason why groups such as the Sierra Club focus their appeals to our consumer ways. They realize that this method is the only way of effectively addressing the problem. Ken Conca does make a good point when he worries about the sustaining middle becoming full-blown consumers33. However, as I argued earlier, we can ease their transition to consumerism by developing the technology now that will reduce our environmental impact as well as theirs. This path to sustainability can be sped up by a joint effort involving non-governmental organizations, governments, corporations and individual consumers to build a strong international environmental consensus. Sustainable developmentit is not primarily about economic growth, social well-being, environmental protection or security; it is not about one objective at the expense of others; it is about achieving them all.34 How can this be done? How can we ensure that all these aspects get weighted evenly in any solution? Disposing of our ingrained capitalistic system would not suffice due to the havoc it would wreak socially. Nor would it suffice to focus solely on local and individual issues, and we certainly cannot count on free

markets alone to ensure that these changes are made. What is needed is a concerted effort by all levels of society, especially on the international scene. An international consensus needs to be created and then translated into legitimate and effective institutions that can regulate the global commons and ensure we are all on the same page. We must identify ourselves beyond our narrow national borders to that of an international community. Once that is managed, our problems of sustainability will not be so daunting. Not only can growth and sustainability go hand in hand, they must if human society is to continue flourishing. It is as simple as that. Notes
William E. Rees, Globalization and Sustainability: Conflict or Convergence?, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 22 no. 4 (2002) p: 262. 2 Ibid. p. 263. 3 Michael F. Maniates, Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?, Global Environmental Politics 1 no.3 (2001) p: 33. 4 Maniates, p: 44. 5 Martin W. Lewis, Green Delusions (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1992), p: 156. 6 Ibid. p: 156. 7 Ibid. p: 150. 8 Ibid. p: 19. 9 Ann Dale, At the Edge: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001) p: 3. 10 Ibid. p: x. 11 Ibid. p: 73. 12 Ibid. p: 29. 13 Ibid. p: 76. 14 Ibid. p: 76. 15 Ibid. p: 77. 15 Stuart Oskamp, Psychological Contributions to Achieving a Ecologically Sustainable Future for Humanity, Journal of Social Sciences 56 no. 3 (2000) p: 375. 16 Lewis, p: 145. 17 Ibid. p: 130. 18 Julio S. Friedmann, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Out of the Energy Box, Foreign Affairs 83 no. 6 (2004) p: 72. 19 James G. Speth, A New Green Regime, Environment 44 no. 7 (2002) p: 16. 20 Friedmann and Homer-Dixon p: 72.
1

Frances Cairncross, Costing the Earth: The Challenges for Governments, the Opportunities for Business. (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992) p: 89. 22 Ibid. p: 25. 23 Ibid. p: 26. 24 Maurice F. Strong, The United Nations and the Environment, World Eco-crisis: International Organizations in Response ed. David A. Kay and Eugene B. Skolnikoff (Madison, Wisconsin: University of
21