Introduction.

The majority of humans that reside on this Earth thousand years before and until now have as a basic source of living the natural resources. People use natural raw material to cover their needs and activities. However limitation of these sources pushed humans to set a measurement of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystem. This measurement named ecological footprint. The specific measurement “represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle.” (1)

 

(4)

 

So as it is obvious Ecological Footprint has a vital role in the sustainability of natural resources. But there are two important factors that influence EF, and these are the population size and the overpopulation. The size of a population that a specific environment can sustain, named Carrying capacity and is granted as an ecological term. “The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment. In population biology, carrying capacity is defined as the environment’s maximal load.” (1). Furthermore when the results of the carrying capacity are negative and there is no limited control of the population growth, then there is an issue of overpopulation that in ecology called overshoot. “Overshoot occurs when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment” (3).

Ecological Footprint information per Country.

Ecological Footprint information per Country.

 

Analysing briefly the impact of Economy on Earth.

On the above table there is depiction of Ecological Footprint of various countries according to the Global Virtual University (GVU) research. The measurement of a country EF is based on the hectares per person. Then the measurement extended to the World Average and world area available proportion in connection to the GDP per Capital. As it is presented from the research, the EF of Bangladesh is the smallest in comparison with the others. Bangladesh despite the huge population rate that is 164.4 million is granted as developing nation with annual GDP per capital around 1700 with little affluence and little technology that depict a not completely developed nation. On the other side the UAE has the biggest EF despite it has much smaller population than Bangladesh. This happened because of the huge economic wealth that has as a nation, with a GDP per capital to 18,250. This means that there are much more possibilities for citizen of UAE to consume more natural resources that the citizens of Bangladesh, so as the consumption increases the impact on nature increases. The same thing happens to the Australia example.

Australia has also a high GDP and a  bigger EF from Bangladesh but lower than UAR, this affected by the fewer natural resources that Australia has in contrast to the fertile land of UAR. As it is obvious the economical wealth of a nation has tremendous impact on earth resources cause of the over-consumption of products. The loudest example is the United States of America that have one of the biggest EF in the world in extend of a capitalist society that based on materialism.

 

Man's expanding waistline matches increased ecological footprint

Man's expanding waistline matches increased ecological footprint

(5)

 

My Ecological Footprint.

If everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle, we would need:

My personal impact on the “Earth consumption” according to the http://myfootprint.org seems to be huge in contrast to my country’s average which is 5.40. My EF proved 41.28, a tremendous percentage which I think  it must be wrong or used another kind of measurement. Cause as we see in the next picture my general statistics in the three categories of  carbon footprint ,Good and Services footprint and Housing footprint are much lower than my country’s average footprint. The totally negative category is my food footprint which is above the average. However  the choice of my food can’t have more negative impact than a carbon footprint so i find this measurement contradictory. (6)

 


Conclusion.

To sum up, according to the above briefly research we can conclude that Earth face a big ecological problem. Most of the people, including me, don’t care so much about the impact of human living in nature cause the results will influence the living of the future generations. The over-consumption of natural products and energy disincline the sustainability of earth sources. The measurements of national EF disclose that countries with higher GDP are responsible for the biggest ecological abuse of nature.

A problem like this can controlled by stricter governmental or even better  transnational ecological policies that will impose large corporations to be friendly with the environment. So the issue of sustainable policies is aimed basically to the wealth  nations and not to the developing. However in my opinion, all these wealth nations should first provide a welfare state policies to their own citizens, cause as it is usually the wealth of states are on the hands of  privilege people and then should provide ecological imposes to their citizens. Cause an ecological disaster first will harm the poorest people of a country or even another poor county.

 

Sources :

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_%28ecology%29

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZmGHkqQbU&feature=related

5)https://zone.artizans.com/product.htm?pid=321760

Image Number: RPET868

Date: 2010-01-04

Artist: Roy Peterson

6) http://myfootprint.org

 

 


Advertisements