Overdraft

It takes about 1.5 earths to support our earth.

It takes about 3.3 United Kingdoms to support the UK. 

In eight months, we have used up 100% of the resources the earth can sustainably provide us for this year, with the ability to replenish them for future generations. 

Quite frankly, we are in overdraft. And our debt continues to grow.  

Thursday 13th August: A Level Results Day. This was widely publicised (certainly if you, like me, were one of the nervous sixth formers up at the early hours of the morning anticipating the update from UCAS at 8am), and I'm sure most people, if not everyone, in the UK is aware of the significance of such a day. Why? Because it concerns our not-so-distant futures; our education, or employment, or the paths that we take; our dreams and ambitions. Our future. 

Thursday 13th August: Earth Overshoot Day. This was not so widely publicised, and I myself was only aware that it fell upon this date through a post upon someone's social media. I'm sure most people in the UK are not aware of the significance, or even generally of, this day. Why? Because it concerns not our future, but the future of generations not yet existing, and species other than ourselves. It has nothing to do with our education, or employment, or the paths that we take; our dreams and ambitions; our futures. 

Really? 

Earth Overshoot Day marks the day, annually, by which we have used up all of the earth's resources which can sustainably be replenished for future generations and the environment itself. Since the 1970s, human consumption has accelerated past the natural replenishment of the earth. According to the Global Footprint Network's data, our consumption requires the equivalent of 1.5 earth's to support it - and by the mid-20th century, this is expected to reach 2 earth's. Do the maths: we live on one planet, yet our consumption requires twice that amount. Sustainable? It sounds like something out of a dystopian YA novel. Perhaps the pessimistic projections of Malthus were onto something. 

Our warning notice, clad in bold red letters, pointing out our overdraft is quite evident too - in climate change and the implications of global warming. 

I'm writing because things like this need to be publicised more widely, and acknowledged by a wider audience. It might not be news of the latest fashion item, or political fiasco, or celebrity gossip, but surely things like this deserve, nay require, front-page-bold-lettered-exclamation-marked publication. 

The implicated division between the environment and humanity is something which frustrates me, given the so obvious interdependent reality. There is information out there in this cyber-world we now inhabit, often in ignorance of the one surrounding us, and there are many advocates and organisations dedicated to this relationship; the fact that this day has a name, and is recognised, is evidence enough. 

It's easy for me to sit here on my laptop and write this, blaming the egoism of the world and condemning its superficiality. And for you to read it, think 'ah', and then go about your day as normal. We might acknowledge it, which is better than ignorance, but if we don't act and are not encouraged to act, we might as well be ignorant. 

Simple things, bottom-up approaches, are perhaps the most accessible actions to take, until national and international policies and pledges are changed: walking where we would take the bus, taking the bus where we would drive, turning off the lights and opening the curtains when it's bright outside, reducing our meat consumption, supporting local as well as sustainable methods of farming. I was asked in a university interview last December, how the UK should address global warming. I began by responding that it perhaps would have to be gradual in implementation, only to be reminded of the paradox of my own statement a few minutes earlier - that there's little time left and action needs to be immediate. Laws, fines, pledges, rewards: these can only be implemented from the top. Hearing that from tomorrow those (businesses, enterprises etc.) producing over a certain cap of C02 or something quantifiable would be fined, would perhaps not be met agreeably but quite awkwardly. I know a few years ago the UK government encouraged local authorities to fine households producing more waste for landfill than the average and reward those recycling more, but this was met with widespread disagreement and so not implemented. Clearly, money gets attention. It's certainly an incentive - across Ghana, the government has introduced a 'Polluter Pays' principle by which the person littering and throwing away materials is fined, and the money spent within national waste management schemes. I can't remember the exact figure, but it increased recycling by a sizeable percentage within a few years. It might not be the long term solution, but proven methods like this are perhaps the most effective way right now to simultaneously raise awareness and act upon the matter. 

Are the next 4 months of 2015 stolen or borrowed from the future? 

C