Categories
Population

Overshoot

Image: Global Footprint Network, www.footprintnetwork.org The top of the blue columns indicates the day overshoot started. The red indicates the duration of overshoot.

            I was driving up Main Avenue, listening to a book and glancing to the left to find the eye doctor where I had an appointment. I looked at the clock and realized that I was almost late—then I realized that I had overshot my destination and made a “U” turn.

Not all types of overshoot are so easily corrected with a “U” turn. We are in ecological overshoot, which is much more complex than driving past that office. Ecological overshoot occurs when the demands made on a natural ecosystem exceed its regenerative capacity. We have exceeded our planet’s ability to support us by about 80%. To put it simply, we are using more of the planet’s resources than are available.

Ecological overshoot is a little like overspending your credit card. You can get away with overspending for a while, and many people do. The average per capita debt in the USA is over $100,000, and more than $6,000 of that debt is owed to credit cards. You can be assured that the card company or the bank will eventually get their money, however. Unfortunately, it is our progeny who will need to pay for our ecological overshoot. We have overpopulated the planet, and are consuming too much “stuff”.

How can global overshoot be measured? You must know the resources of the planet, and how much of those resources we, humanity, are using. The Global Footprint Network, www.footprintnetwork.org, does those complicated measurements on a routine basis. It is relatively easy for them to calculate our excess use of resources. They have an interesting way of expressing overshoot.

One might think of measuring overshoot as megatons of carbon emissions or perhaps global debt; however, both of these concepts are difficult to understand intuitively. Instead, they use information from every country to determine nature’s “budget”, what our planet can supply. Then they estimate the day when we have used up all of that budget. Back in the early 1970s, we fit in that budget. There were enough resources to supply all human needs, although they were distributed very inequitably. Since then, however, we have increasingly overspent that budget. Global population has more than doubled, and consumption has quadrupled, plus. We are too many people, consuming too much.

This year Earth Overshoot Day came the earliest ever—on July 24th. That marks the date when humanity has exhausted nature’s budget for the year. It was August 1st last year, and next year will probably be earlier in July. We are overshooting nature’s budget as fast as we’re racking up our national debt!

There are ways to decrease, and perhaps eventually reverse, overshoot. I’m sure you are aware of some; but let’s look at what the experts are saying. The Footprint Network people took advantage of the work done by Project Drawdown and came up with a list of solutions for overshoot. If we took full advantage of all 76 items on the list, we could move Overshoot Day more than a month later. Two of the most effective solutions, “Educating Girls” and “Family Planning”, are similar in the way they have their effect—by reducing population growth. Their combined effect is far greater than any other solution.

Voluntary family planning is probably the most effective, least expensive and most humane way to slow population growth. Although World Contraception Day was on September 26th, let’s keep this year’s theme in mind: “Breaking Barriers, Building Bridges—Contraceptive Access for All”!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2025

Categories
Population

Degrowth

 

Recently I wrote about 2 words that have negative implications to many people, “population” and “overpopulation”. I’m introducing a word that will be new to many people so, fortunately, it has few adverse meanings.

What does “degrowth” mean? Being new, it has been used in a variety of ways. Wikipedia defines it as “…critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development”. The website degrowth.info writes: “Degrowth critiques the global capitalist system which pursues economic growth at all costs, causing human exploitation and environmental destruction.” To me, the most important aspect of degrowth is decreasing human population voluntarily. Unfortunately, one source seems to have another idea.

I have subscribed to Matt Orsagh’s blog “Degrowth is the Answer” for months, so when he published “By Disaster or Design”, I read it and found it rich in economic discussion—an area where I am poor. I was surprised to find little support for slowing population growth. Here is a quote from that white paper; “Degrowth is focused on living within planetary boundaries, using policy, cultural changes, and green energy to get there…. Population control is not a goal of degrowth.”

I agree about population control. I believe that the only way that population should and can be reduced humanely is by removing barriers to access of voluntary, effective family planning. The control must be by the individual, not any outside or governmental entity.

We do agree wholeheartedly on one point—humanity needs to stop living beyond our planet’s means. To illustrate how we are abusing our planet’s resources, Orsagh uses the planetary boundaries model generated by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. It shows that humanity has already pushed through six of the nine planetary boundaries. Unfortunately, the Stockholm group does not focus on slowing population growth, but rather on actions such as wealth redistribution and degrowth.

Although the majority of economists assume that growth is beneficial and will continue indefinitely, a few are more rational. The Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) has been around longer than proponents of degrowth, with a more modest goal—to arrest our economy’s growth. CASSE aims for a stable population, and stable consumption of energy and materials at sustainable levels. With these stabilized, we would be much closer to sustainability.

Both CASSE and Orsagh seem to rely on fear for motivation. They warn us what will happen if we don’t slow growth. Furthermore, I feel that neither has a realistic path to stop growth. How can we persuade politicians to support policies to slow expanding the economy, when they are getting rich from the status quo?

Growthbusters, on the other hand, relies on humor as well as thoughtful concern about our current pro-growth economy. It recognizes the importance of contracting both our economy and our population. Its originator, Dave Gardner, also has a serious side that includes running for city council and co-hosting a series of podcasts. Please check out his short videos on YouTube for some laughs.

For a sobering view of out future without degrowth, I suggest the recent article “Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries”. The first sentence of its abstract reads: “There are increasing concerns that continued economic growth in high-income countries might not be environmentally sustainable, socially beneficial, or economically achievable.”

How do we achieve degrowth? Orsagh wrote: “Degrowth is not going to come from the top. It will have to come from the grassroots, and that means people sharing these ideas, talking to other people, and slowly, over time building to a critical mass that those in power can’t ignore.” I believe that the best way to promote degrowth is by taking away barriers to voluntary family planning.

©Richard Grossman MD, 2025