Some countries are exceeding their biocapacity because they are overpopulated, some because their people are consuming too much per capita and some have both problems. The calculations below will allow you to judge into which category the UK fits.
The calculations below were provided by Bill Dowling of Scientists Warning Europe they are based on the data for the UK from Global Footprint Network data in 2017.
1. We can map a “theoretically sustainable” population for every country on the basis of every country being self sufficient according to its current ecological footprint per capita relative to the country’s total biocapacity. In which case a “theoretically sustainable” UK population would be a much lower number than the present one of ~ 67 million.
UK Biocapacity = 71,787,744.8 Gha
Unsustainable UK ecological footprint per capita = 4.2 GHa
“Theoretically sustainable” UK population = 17,092,320
2. We can map a “theoretically sustainable” population for every country on the basis of every country being self sufficient according to the current global average ecological footprint per capita with a world population of 7.8 billion, which we know is unsustainable. In which case this would be a larger number for the UK, because we are each on average currently overconsuming biocapacity well above the global average.
UK Biocapacity = 71,787,744.8 Gha
Unsustainable global average ecological footprint per capita = 2.72 Gha
“Theoreticaly sustainable” UK population = 26,392,553
3. We can map a “theoretically sustainable” population for every country on the basis of every country being self sufficient according to a “sustainable” global average ecological footprint per capita with a world population of 7.8 billion, on the basis of a 1.73 planet overshoot in 2017. In which case the UK population could be much larger than in 1. and 2, above, because we are each currently consuming far above what is a “sustainable” ecological footprint with a global population of 7.8 billion.
UK Biocapacity = 71,787,744.8 Gha
“Sustainable” global ecological footprint per capita = 1.57 Gha
“Sustainable” UK population = 49,795,397
4. We can map a “theoretically sustainable” population for every country on the basis of every country being self sufficient according to a more comfortable global average ecological footprint per capita, on the basis of assuming a major reduction in the world population in line with the 1.73 planet overshoot . i.e down to 1/1.73 x 7.8 = ~4.5 billion. This would allow the global average ecological footprint to go up to 2.72 Gha again, but this time solely by population reduction instead of ecological footprint reduction.
5. We can map a sustainable population for every country on the basis of every country being self sufficient according to an even more comfortable global average ecological footprint per capita, but on the basis of assuming a 2 x greater reduction in the world population in line with the 1.73 planet overshoot . i.e down to 1/1.73 x 7.8 = ~4.5/2 = 2.25 billion. This would allow the global average ecological footprint to go up to as much as 5.54 Gha, but this time by severe population reduction instead of so much ecological footprint reduction.
6. Or we can adjust both the population and the ecological footprint to various degrees and end up with any “theoretically sustainable” population in any country and for the whole world we want!
7. In the modern world it is ridiculous to do any of these calculations based on each country being self- sufficient because each and every country is using many other countries natural resources that it either doesnt have or doesnt have enough of to varying degrees. That is what world trade is really all about, and it is also what achieving sustainability as a global society is all about – sharing the planets natural resources in a reasonably and fairly equitable manner.
So which is the right answer to the £1m question “What is a sustainable world population and in turn what is a sustainable UK population, and in turn what is a sustainable population for each and every country in the world?
The most important take away point here is this – We are in a gross overshoot situation. We cannot ignore per capita consumption or affluence when suggesting and discussing the need for population growth reduction or population reduction so as to reach a sustainable population in any country or indeed the world.
The I=PxAxT equation proves this.
Indeed, since we passed the point where the Impact on the planet is greater than it can support, which happened 50 years ago, it also states two some simple, undeniable and highly inconvenient truths that we and our leaders are still ignoring!
1. We cant increase anybody’s affluence anywhere on the planet without making matters worse for the planet and our sustainability.
2. We cant increase the population anywhere on the planet without making matters worse for the planet and our sustainability.
Which means that:
(a) If anyone or any sector of the population anywhere on the planet increases their affluence somebody or several people elsewhere need to reduce their affluence to make up for it. Ultimately this means that they will be unable to increase their affluence any further, and a large number of people elsewhere will have to suffer and maybe even die because of their greed and selfishness.
(b) If anyone or any sector of the population increases their population somebody or several people elsewhere need to reduce their affluence to make up for it; or else, on a strict quid pro quo basis, they really ought to reduce the population somewhere else to make up for it.
Ultimately this means that they will be unable to increase their population any further, and a large number of people elsewhere will have to suffer and maybe even die because of their greed and selfishness.
(c) Technology is no help unless it either (i) reduces the population or (ii) reduces affluence or (iii) increases the efficiency in our use of natural resources.
Unfortunately, in most cases technological advances increase our affluence and consumption of resources!
Calculations above were provided by Bill Dowling of Scientists Warning Europe