Environmental Studies is a study of how the living portions of the environment interact with one another and the nonliving parts of the environment. There are three principles of sustainability, biodiversity, chemical cycling, and the dependence on solar energy. Biodiversity is the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and ecosystems present in the world. Chemical cycles are the natural methods in which the ecosystem and living organisms have developed to recycle many of the chemicals and other materials required for life back into the ecosystem for reuse. Finally, the dependence on solar energy is the warming of the planet along with the absorption of energy by plants, which can then be converted into nutrients for organisms to consume and use. The earth provides us with plenty of Natural resources that find themselves in three categories, inexhaustible resources, renewable resources, and nonrenewable resources. Using renewable resources at a rate that doesn’t exhaust them is called sustainable yield, and due to many factors, global society has failed to maintain sustainable yield and have overused about 60% of the ecosystem services provided by nature, mostly since 1950” (Miller 2018). Another three additional principles of sustainability come from the societal side of the issue. These principles are Full-Cost Pricing, Win-win Solutions, and Responsibility to Future Generations. These principles deal with the costs, public benefits, and ethics of sustainability.

In 1992 a coalition of the world’s scientists issued a warning to humanity about their abuse of the planet describing it as “irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent” (Union of Concerned Scientists 1992). They listed the parts of the global ecosystem that humanity abuses and what issues or threats these abuses present to humanity. These abuses range from the release of carbon-based gases from fossil fuels and other sources into the atmosphere to the lack of sustainable yield in regards to fisheries. Their warning even states some of the shown effects, such as some fisheries financially collapsing. They believed that our tampering with how the world works could result in changes that will forever alter the way earth supports life as we know it, even going as far as to claim some of these changes are irreversible. The most significant pressure on the planet as of now is that the earth itself is a finite resource. It cannot reasonably support the ever-growing population of humanity. However, unlike the common misconception, both developed and underdeveloped countries have unsustainable practices. The coalition of scientists also provided a list of actions that we must take to improve the prospects for humanity. These actions include bringing environmentally damaging activities under control, managing resources more efficiently and effectively, stabilizing the population, reduce and eventually eliminate poverty, and finally giving women gender equality so that they can decide whether or not to have children.

The Millenium Ecosystem Analysis 2 list many of the current issues we must solve to preserve our ecosystem and life as we know it on earth. Three problems with how humanity manages its ecosystems are listed. The first is that near 60% of the ecosystems on the planet are abused and not meeting the standards for sustainable use. The second is that there are established but incomplete evidence that changes being made in ecosystems are increasing the likelihood of nonlinear changes in ecosystems. Finally, the third is that the harmful degradation of the ecosystem is disproportionately caused by the poor.

Four-point one earths, that’s how many we would require if everyone lived life the way I do, and right now, we only have one. Sure there are likely flaws within the ecological footprint test. However, as I went through the quiz, it made me realize exactly how wasteful I can be. I’m an environmental science major with research under my belt; I consider myself reasonably sustainable. But as I answered the questions like how frequently do I consume meat or the miles per gallon of my car, I felt a gut-wrenching feeling. I’ve known and understood sustainable yield as a concept for a while now; it isn’t a complicated concept, just one you have to be told about to think about. But that quiz gave me a realization that despite my conception of myself I still overly contribute to sustainable yield and that quiz didn’t even ask questions about water usage, or how often my other family members who are much less sustainable.

The figure above shows the varying human ecological footprints around the world. The Majority of Europe and the United States of America are a deep red but this map also supports the third issue that the Millennium Ecosystem analysis was highlighting. Many third world and impoverished areas of the world produce a large ecological footprint.

Looking at the numbers only exacerbates the issue. Currently, we have cleared forests and plowed grasslands to grow food on 40% of the earth’s land. 40% of the earth’s land is dedicated just to provide our population with food, and we still deal with starvation and malnutrition. Not to mention that our use of arable land is not meeting sustainable yield requirements. We currently do not have reasonable alternatives to providing food for farming, and yet we are not making any changes to make our farming process more sustainable.

Just last week, I was talking with Dr. Craig Frank, the head of the Environmental Science department, about how arable land is a finite resource and how people do not understand that is an issue. He specifically mentioned to me, “Now when I talk to the big business suit people about how unsustainable our soil practices are, they don’t care until I explain to them ‘you like to eat no?'”. I found reading the additional three principles of sustainability, particularly humorous because of the principle “Win-win solutions” because of Dr. Frank’s quote. However, those win-win solutions still apply, Dr. Frank’s comedic excerpt is a simplification of the more significant issue. Policies are made by what benefits either most people or greatly benefits those in charge. To make a real change, especially those lined out in the warnings, we must convince those who are making the policies that the changes we want are not only for the benefit of the people but can be profitable as well.

The beginning of the textbook chapter opens with an adhesive tape product that was made by mimicking the adhesive mechanics of a gecko’s toe pads. The natural world around us can potentially provide us with numerous benefits and even potential products. As of right now, we only have a small grasp of everything the ecosystems around the world can give us. We must convince companies that protecting this plethora of natural resources and potential designs and products could provide a significant profit.

Discussion questions:

Are the impoverished areas with high ecological footprints because of their poverty and resource consumption or because of their tendency to have high populations and childbirth rates?

Would increasing environmental awareness and education in impoverished areas have a significant enough impact to help decrease their ecological footprints? Or would their situation demand too much for it to be a reasonable option?

Word Count: 1154

Citations:

-Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

-Miller, George Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 19th ed.

-“How Many Planets Does It Take to Sustain Your Lifestyle?” Ecological Footprint Calculator. Accessed January 26, 2020. https://www.footprintcalculator.org/.

-“1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” Union of Concerned Scientists, July 16, 1992. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanity.

-“Home Page.” Home Page | World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity. Accessed January 26, 2020. https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/.