Ecological Footprint - Ökologischer Fußabdruck

Inhalt

(1) Ökologischer Fußabdruck - Eine clevere Idee - Infos

Too clever by half, but not nearly smart enough    William Rees, May 13, 2021

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnEXEIp5vB8

(2) Through the Eye of a Needle: Vorschläge zur Vermeidung der Apokalypse

An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353488669   Article in Energies · July 2021

Auszug: Seine Vorschläge zur Vermeidung der Apokalypse

(3) Rees: Growth through contraction: Conceiving an eco-economy

(4) Herrington (=Branderhorst), Gaya; 2021; Update to Limits to Growth: 

Comparing the World3 Model with Empirical Data

(5) Study: Which Countries Will Best Survive a Collapse?

(6) More than 1 billion cows on Earth (& 7+ billion human)

(7) Weltbevölkerung: 1 Milliarde um 1800 - demnächst 10 Milliarden - in Zukunft 1 Milliarde?

(8) Zur Psychologie und Ökonomie

(9) Ökonomie-Technik

(10) Eigenen ökologischen Fußabdruck berechnen für Dummies:

(11) Literatur, Links, Dateien

(1) Ecological Footprint - Ökologischer Fußabdruck

Ist mir vor kurzem im Internet über den Weg gelaufen.

Eine ökologisch-biologische Gesamtrechnung, die mir in diesem Umfang bisher nicht bekannt war.

Gibt ne Menge Videos und Literatur dazu, siehe unten.

Eine clevere Idee um den Verbrauch der verschiedensten Güter mit einer einzigen Zahl zu messen:

als in Anspruch genommene Fläche = biologisch produktiver Hektar

mit weltweit durchschnittlicher Produktivität (gha = globaler Hektar).

Aus der weltweit zur Verfügung stehen produktiven Fläche läßt sich errechnen:

Flächenverbrauch pro Mensch, Anzahl der max. möglich zu ernährenden Menschen.

Ebenso wann die Fläche den Verbrauch nicht mehr regenerieren kann.

William Rees, May 13, 2021

Too clever by half, but not nearly smart enough - Bill Rees to the Canadian Club of Rome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnEXEIp5vB8

Eine ökologisch-biologische Gesamtrechnung, die mir in diesem Umfang bisher nicht bekannt war. Rees berücksichtigt folgende Aspekte: (I) physikalisch-biologisch (II) ökonomisch-technisch (III) menschlich-psychologisch Die Frage aller Fragen: Wie bringt man 8 Milliarden Menschen dazu ihre Lebensweise zu ändern? Und zwar innerhalb von 2 - 3 Generationen? (2100, dem angenommenen point of no return und der beginnenden Apokalypse) Dazu bedarf es sicher einer gemeinschaftlichen Anstrengung. Gab es sowas schon einmal in der Geschichte der Menschheit? Welche Mittel und Wege gäbe es? Daraufhin wäre die menschliche Psyche zu untersuchen. Ich hab leider keine Antworten. Aber es gibt eine frohe Botschaft: wir alle werden nicht wissen wie es ausgeht und müssen den unbekannten Ausgang nicht erleben/erleiden. 

(2) Through the Eye of a Needle:

Vorschläge zur Vermeidung der Apokalypse

Rees, July 2021

Through the Eye of a Needle: 

An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353488669

Auszug: Seine Vorschläge zur Vermeidung der Apokalypse:

4. Summary and What Might Actually Salvage Civilization

We have exposed fatal weaknesses in society’s dominant aspirational pathway for combating climate change. The GND illusion paints a picture of “affordable clean energy” that ignores innumerable costs that cannot be afforded by any reasonable measure. It suggests solutions to the climate–energy conundrum that are impossible to deliver with current technologies, and certainly not within the timeframe specified by the IPCC and Paris Agreement.

Not only is the GND technically flawed, but it fails to situate climate disruption within the broader context of ecological overshoot. Anthropogenic climate change is merely one symptom of overshoot and cannot be treated in isolation from the greater disease. The GND offers little more than a green-washed version of the unsustainable growth-based status quo. Even if feasible, its operationalization would only exacerbate human ecological dysfunction.

What, then, might actually salvage a fossil-dependent world in overshoot? The answer is both stunningly simple and wretchedly complex: the world must abandon neoliberal capitalism’s material growth imperative and face head-on that material life after fossil fuels will closely resemble life before fossil fuels. Put another way, we must act on the ecological imperative to achieve one-Earth living. This entails moving on three broad fronts.

4.1. Energy Realism

First, we must relinquish our faith in modern high technology and instead shift our attention to understanding what a genuinely renewable energy landscape will look like. As noted, the so-called RE technologies being advanced as solutions are neither renewable nor possible to construct and implement in the absence of FFs. They are not carbon neutral and will simply increase human dependence on non-renewable resources and cause unacceptable social and environmental harm.

Truly renewable energy sources will be largely based on biomass (especially wood), simple mechanical wind and water generation, passive solar, and animal and human labor. This means society will have to innovate and adapt its way through major reductions in energy supply. The upside is that new variants on old extraction technologies will be more ecologically sophisticated than today’s so-called renewables, closely tuned to essential needs, and cognizant of the conservation imperative. On this latter point, it is important to highlight that approximately 62% of energy flow through the modern economy is wasted through inefficiency [97], and more still is wasted through trivial or at least non-essential uses (think leaf-blowers and recreational ATVs). Globally, per capita energy consumption has increased nine-fold since 1850, though perceived well-being certainly has not. Together, these facts show there is much latitude for painless reductions in energy use.

A reduction in energy means there will be a resurgence in demand for human muscle and draft animals. Denizens of FF-rich societies tend to forget that that industrial energy now does the work that people and animals used to do. How many Americans are conscious of the fact that they have hundreds of “energy slaves”, per capita, in continuous employment to provide them with goods and services they have come to take for granted? According to Hagens and White [98], if we ignore nuclear and hydropower electricity,

“99.5% of ‘labor’ in human economies is done by oil, coal, and natural gas” (for a summary of the energy slave concept and various definitions, see [99]). It is again important to highlight the silver lining accompanying this shift. More human labor will mean more physically active lives in closer contact with each other and Nature, which can restore our shattered sense of well-being and connection to the land. Similarly, a waning focus on material progress will allow for emphasis to shift to progress of the mind and spirit—largely untapped frontiers at present with unlimited potential.

On the draft animal side, the number of working horses and mules in the United States peaked at 26 million around 1915—when the human population was about 100 million— only to be gradually replaced by fossil-powered farm and industrial equipment [100]. Should the United States again become as dependent on animal labor, the country may once more need this many draft animals if the population shrinks to 100 million. If human numbers remain in the vicinity of 2021’s population of 333 million, the required horse/mule population might be as high as 87 million and require around 172 million acres of land for range and fodder production (note that of the five to 10 million horses in the United States today, only about 15% are working farm or ranch animals [100]).

4.2. Population Reduction

The second front in a one-Earth living strategy is a global one-child fertility standard. This is needed to reduce the global population to the one billion or so people that can thrive sustainably in reasonable material comfort within the constraints of a non-fossil energy fu- ture and already much damaged Earth [101,102]. Even a step as seemingly bold as this may be insufficient to avoid widespread suffering, as such a policy implemented within a decade or two would still leave us with about three billion souls by the end of the century [91]. Failure to implement a planned, relatively painless population reduction strategy would guarantee a traumatic population crash imposed by Nature in a climate-ravaged, fossil- energy-devoid world. (A human population crash imposed by a human-compromised environment (not Nature) may already be underway. Controversial studies have docu- mented evidence of falling sperm counts (50%+) and other symptoms of the feminization of males, particularly in western countries, caused by female-hormone-mimicking industrial chemicals; see, for example, [103]).

Concerns over the restriction of procreative freedom, racism, and physical coercion that dominate much of the present discourse on population reduction must be put into perspective. Population is an ecological issue that, if left unchecked, can have catastrophic consequences. The human population growth curve over the past 200 years resembles the

 boom, or “plague”, phase of the kind of population outbreak that occurs in non-human species under unusually favorable ecological conditions (in our case, the resource bounty made available by abundant cheap energy). Plague outbreaks invariably end in collapse under the pressure of social stress or as crucial resources are depleted [104].

Previous cultures have recognized this fact, along with the need for population reg- ulation, for thousands of years [105,106]. A judicious balance between the freedom and well-being of individuals and society involves knowing when to arc nimbly between these poles as circumstances change. There is perhaps no greater rallying cry for the restriction of certain individual freedoms than the imminent threat of global social–ecological collapse.

Though it hardly seems worth stating, a universal one-child policy applied globally is not discriminatory. Moreover, it is entirely justified when the restoration of ecological integrity for the well-being of present and future generations—of humans and non-humans alike—is the motivation. Fortunately, there is a full toolbox of socially just and humane tools for bringing about the necessary population reduction [107,108]. That some inhumane practices have been used in particular circumstances historically is no reason to ignore the gravity of contemporary overshoot and the ample mechanisms available for sustainable population planning. When it comes to both the environmental and social aspects of over- shoot, no other single individual action comes close to being as negatively consequential as having a child [109].

We should note that the human population at carrying capacity is a manageable variable whose magnitude will depend, in part, on society’s preferred material standard of living. This is a finite planet with limited productive capacity. A constant, sustainable rate of energy and material throughput will obviously support fewer people at a high average material standard than it will at a lower material standard.

We cannot stress enough that a non-fossil energy regime simply cannot support anywhere close to the present human population of nearly eight billion; this urgently necessitates reducing human numbers as rapidly as possible to avoid unprecedented levels of social unrest and human suffering in the coming decades. (This flies in the face of mainstream concerns that the falling fertility rate in many (particularly high-income) countries is cause for alarm; see, for example, [110]).

4.3. Radical Societal Contraction and Transformation

The third major front of a one-Earth sustainability strategy is a fully transformative plan to reshape the social and economic foundations of society while simultaneously managing a systematic contraction of the human enterprise (the latter to be consistent with Global Footprint Network estimates that humanity is in 75% overshoot). This is necessitated, in part, by the need to phase out fossil energy within a set time and carbon budget. (The situation is becoming increasingly urgent; Spratt et al. [111] argue that little or no budget exists to remain even within 2 ◦C). Whatever the identified FF budget, it must be rationed and allocated to: (1) essential uses, such as agriculture and essential bulk transportation; and (2) de-commissioning hazardous fossil-based infrastructure and replacing it with renewable-based infrastructure and supply chains.

Other elements of such a plan would include: (3) economic and political restruc- turing in conformity with the new energy and material realities (e.g., the cessation of interest-bearing debt and possibly even a shift to negative interest; a renewed focus on community building and regional self-reliance; re-localization of essential production and other economic activities; emphasis on economic resilience over mere efficiency; and a down-shifting of control over land and resource use to local self-governing bodies); (4) worker retraining for new forms of work and employment; (5) social planning to ensure a just allocation and distribution of societal resources, as it is inherently unjust for some individuals to appropriate much more than their fair share of the Earth’s limited bounty; (6) planned migrations and resettlement from unsustainable dense urban centers and vulnerable coastlines; and (7) large-scale ecosystem restoration. Restoration would serve the multiple purposes of not only creating meaningful employment but also reclaiming

ecosystem integrity for the benefit of humans and non-humans alike, capturing carbon, increasing social–ecological resilience, and increasing the stock of biomass available for human energy consumption. In many respects, this endeavor will resemble Polanyi’s [112] Great Transformation (about the emergent dominance of neoliberal market economics) in reverse, all contained within an envelope of ecological necessity.

Actions to embark swiftly, judiciously, and systematically on the transformation will be of a far greater scale and level of effort than WWII mobilization and will involve unprecedented levels of global cooperation. In our view, two main conditions must be satisfied concurrently for such an undertaking to have any chance of succeeding. First, we must have politicians in office who care about people and the planet (i.e., who are not beholden to corporate, monied, or otherwise compromised interests) and who are willing to fight fiercely for ecological stability and social justice. This starts with whom we choose to elect (politicians do not magically fall into office—we put them there), holding them relentlessly accountable, and fighting to get money out of politics. Second, history shows that monied and ruling elites do not relinquish their power willingly—their hand must be forced. Virtually no important gain has ever been made by simply asking those in power to do the right thing. Unrelenting pressure must be exerted such that the people and/or systems in question have no choice but to capitulate to specific, well-thought-out demands. We must reacquaint ourselves with the revolutionary change-makers of the past who, at great cost, delivered for us the better world we live in now through intelligent, direct action and risk-taking.

To adopt a biblical metaphor, it may very well be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for humanity to shift its prevailing paradigm and embark on a planned, voluntary descent from a state of overshoot to a steady-state harmonic relationship with the ecosphere—in just a decade or two. On the other hand, history shows that virtually all important achievements have only ever arisen from a dogged pursuit of the seemingly impossible. To contemplate the alternative is unthinkable.

Nix dagegen zu sagen, aber ..

Naiv und blauäugig.

Ich wünsche ihm Glück.

Vollkommen außer Betracht bleibt die gegenwärtige ökonomische Wirtschaftsform und ihr innerer Antrieb:

die endlose, immer schneller sich steigernde, exponentielle Akkumulation von Kapital, also abstraktem Reichtum in Form von Geld als sich (scheinbar) selbst verwertendem Wert, Wertsteigerung aus dem Nichts.

(3) Rees: Growth through contraction: Conceiving an eco-economy

(GrowthThroughContractionRWERRees2021.pdf)

(Dies ist ein Text analog zu den Videos von 2021)

(4) Herrington (=Branderhorst), Gaya; 2021; Update to Limits to Growth: Comparing the World3 Model with Empirical Data

Herrington (=Branderhorst)(Sustainability and Dynamic System Analysis Lead at KPMG)

https://advisory.kpmg.us/articles/2021/limits-to-growth.html

yale-publication.pdf

Branderhorst (=Herrington), Gaya; 2020; Update to Limits to Growth: Comparing the World3 Model With Empirical Data

https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37364868

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37364868/BRANDERHORST-DOCUMENT-2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

BRANDERHORST-DOCUMENT-2020.pdf

Resumee: Alle läuft immer noch in die Richtung wie vor 30 Jahren vorhergesagt.

Tom Waits - Earth Died Screaming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whPzJbntlnY

(5) Study: Which Countries Will Best Survive a Collapse?

https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/08/03/2039248/study-which-countries-will-best-survive-a-collapse

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @11:30PM from the advantages-of-islands dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times:

Will civilization as we know it end in the next 100 years? Will there be any functioning places left? These questions might sound like the stuff of dystopian fiction. But if recent headlines about extreme weather, climate change, the ongoing pandemic and faltering global supply chains have you asking them, you're not alone. Now two British academics, Aled Jones, director of the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England, and his co-author, Nick King, think they have some answers. Their analysis, published in July in the journal Sustainability, aims to identify places that are best positioned to carry on when or if others fall apart. They call these lucky places "nodes of persisting complexity."

The winner, tech billionaires who already own bunkers there will be pleased to know, is New Zealand. The runners-up are Tasmania, Ireland, Iceland, Britain, the United States and Canada. The findings were greeted with skepticism by other academics who study topics like climate change and the collapse of civilization. Some flat-out disagreed with the list, saying it placed too much emphasis on the advantages of islands and failed to properly account for variables like military power. And some said the entire exercise was misguided: If climate change is allowed to disrupt civilization to this degree, no countries will have cause to celebrate.

"For his study, he built on the University of Notre Dame's Global Adaptation Initiative, which ranks 181 countries annually on their readiness to successfully adapt to climate change," the NYT adds. "He then added three additional measures: whether the country has enough land to grow food for its people; whether it has the energy capacity to 'keep the lights on,' as he put it in an interview; and whether the country is sufficiently isolated to keep other people from walking across its borders, as its neighbors are collapsing."

"New Zealand comes out on top in Professor Jones's analysis because it appears to be ready for changes in the weather created by climate change. It has plenty of renewable energy capacity, it can produce its own food and it's an island, meaning it scores well on the isolation factor, he said."

An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/htm

sustainability-13-08161.pdf

Will These Places Survive a Collapse_ Don’t Bet on It, Skeptics Say.pdf

(6) More than 1 billion cows on Earth (& 7+ billion human)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/
Kommen die armen Schweine hinzu.
Mal abgesehen von Massenhaltung in Ställen oder auf engstem Raum mit zertrampelter Erde ist auch eine “schöne Weide” kein Paradies.
So einen Boden habe ich mir mal selbst durchs  Mikroskop angesehen:
Rinder-Weide.pdf:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vdztqwxdg2yhFmOPhx0NS5Ih691ePZ5N/view?usp=sharing

Es ist einfach ein Stück Erde, das nicht mehr atmen kann und weit entfernt ist vom harmonischen Ausgleich zwischen allen Bodenmikroorganismen (Francé-Harrar: Idealer Boden), die nur noch Grasbollen hervorbringt und in einem halb-faulem Zustand auf ewig verharrt. Existieren können da nur noch Gräser und Pflanzen die an diesen einförmigen Boden angepaßt sind. Humusvermehrung laß alle Hoffnung fahren.

Es gibt Leute (“tonangebende” Landwirte/Farmer, besonders in USA), die so ein Stück Land in den Himmel loben als Rettung für den Menschen, der gesunde artgerechte Kühe ernährt und für den Boden, der Humus durch festgetrampelten Rinderkot & Gülle hervorbringt.

Die chemiefixierten Schlaumeier jubeln über den darin fixierten/sequestrierten Kohlenstoff/CO2.

Wenn jemand fixieren und sequestrieren darf, dann sind es die Pflanzen/Bäume/Wälder mit ihren assoziierten Bodenmikroorganismen.

Rees - To clever by half 2021 2.jpg

Der Mensch und seine Kulturtiere lassen keinen Raum mehr für die ursprünglichen tierischen Bewohner der Erde und reduzieren gewaltig die Biodiversität.

Rees - To clever by half 2021 3.jpg

Eine schier nicht vorstellbare Entwicklung.

(7) Weltbevölkerung:

1 Milliarde um 1800 - demnächst 10 Milliarden - in Zukunft 1 Milliarde?

William Rees, May 13, 2021

Too clever by half, but not nearly smart enough - Bill Rees to the Canadian Club of Rome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnEXEIp5vB8

In dem Videovortrag kommt der Gute auf 1 Milliarde Menschen, die die Erde verträgt.

Ich hab ihn nach seiner Berechnung der Zahl gefragt,

aber er wird mir 1 / 8-milliardstem Menschen sicher nicht antworten. Siehe auch: https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index.php?topic=41691.0

Nun, eine Antwort habe ich nicht bekommen, auch nicht von weiteren Institutionen, die mit ihm verbunden sind. Es ist immer dasselbe, eine riesige “blink-blink” Website an der Designer verdienen, aber keine detaillierten Inhalte und keine Rückmeldungen, obwohl es immer heißt, wir freuen uns über Ihr Interesse einschließlich Kontakt Email

Aus dem obigen Video-Vortrag herausgegriffen: 1 Milliarde Menschen gab es um 1800. Welchen ökologischen Fußabdruck die hatten, kann man herausfinden, sicherlich klein. Heute mit 1 Milliarde Menschen wäre der ökologischen Fußabdruck wohl auch klein plus 200 Jahre Wissens- und Technikentwicklung (auf Kosten von Umweltverbrauch), diesmal aber bessere Lebensverhältnisse durch hoffentlich verständige Anwendung des vererbten Wissens.

Bild: Weltbevölkerung.jpg

Wackernagel; 2016 

Footprint: Die Welt neu vermessen 2016 (Der Kollege von Rees, beide Erfinder des Footprint)

Daraus:

Meine total vereinfachte “Kleine 1x1 Rechnung” die ich noch zu leisten imstande bin:

Stand heute:

10 Mia (Milliarde) gha produktive Fläche der Welt + 30 Mio ha nicht nutzbar für den Menschen 

= 40 Mia (Milliarde) ha Planet

10 Mia (Milliarde) Menschen

= 1 gha je Mensch

Für eine sinnvolle Zukunft mal angedacht:

1 Mia (Milliarde) Menschen > 1 gha / Mensch (schlage ich mal vor)

davon 50% Natur zur Selbstentwicklung/ Diversität (schlagen manche mal vor) 

bleiben 0,5 gha / Mensch

Meine unmaßgebliche Schätzung, die u.a. von den Francé beeinflußt ist: 

(darin: Berücksichtigung der evolutionär entwickelten physischen und psychischen Bedürfnisse)

90 % Natur Diversität, 10% Mensch : 0,1 gha / Mensch

Das sollte erforderlich/ausreichend sein, um die Natur als bestimmenden Faktor in der planetaren Entwicklung zu erhalten.

Das ist aber kein Rückfall in ein Leben als Neandertaler, da jetzt die Basis von > 100.00 Jahren an wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis und Technik vorhanden ist, die zur Entwicklung eines wirklich menschlichen Lebens genutzt werden kann (inklusive einer dramatischen Reduktion bisher entwickelter “unmenschlicher” Bedürfnisse).

Mehr gibt mein bald 80-jähriges Hirn für einen Blick in die Zukunft nicht her.

Erleben oder erleiden werde ich diese zum Glück sowieso nicht mehr.

Primärproduktion

Menge organischen Materials, die von autotrophen Organismen mit Sonnenenergie fixiert wird

Netto-Primärproduktion

Für heterotrophe Organismen zur Verfügung nach Abzug des Eigenbedarfs der autotrophen Organismen

Menschen nutzen derzeit  1 / 4 davon, gewaltig für nur eine einzelne Spezies

von Milliarden weiterer Spezies und Abertrillionen von Einzelindividuen.

Pfeifenträume eines Lehnstuhlphilosophen

nach: Pipedream of a armchair philosopher

-

Update 2022:

<1-2 Milliarden : Dennis Meadows

https://youtu.be/Dbo6uvJBtZg?t=209

2017, Dennis Meadows, co-author of The Limits to Growth (1972) 

Alle Fragen nach den Grenzen des Wachstums kondensieren letztendlich in diesem Punkt.

Meadows reist noch immer durch die Welt, auch öfter in Deutschland.

Er kennt auch William Rees mit seinem Ecological Footprint, der ebenfalls auf 

<1-2 Milliarden kommt.

Wie berechnet man auf diese Zahl?

Da die Herren (Rees und Meadows) mir nicht geantwortet haben hier meine eigene Milchmädchenrechnung:

Die USA haben einen Footprint von 5 Erden, bei demnächst 10 Milliarden mit ähnlichem Footprint: 10 / 5 = 2 Milliarden Menschen, die die Erde regenerativ ernähren kann.

Was noch keineswegs der ästhetische Garten Eden ist sondern immer noch der verwüstete Planet wenn keine Transformation in einen “besseren” Zustand erfolgt - sofern überhaupt noch möglich.

Für mich wäre der oberste Maßstab:

Die Natur bestimmt überwiegend die Entwicklung und der Mensch beschränkt sich entsprechend seiner Naturerkenntnis und seiner daraus folgenden Lebensweise. Das mag auf einen Anteil von <10% hinauslaufen.

Ist natürlich illusorisch, wo heutzutage vom gesamten Planeten das Unterste zuoberst und das Oberste zuunterst gekehrt wurde und es faktisch keinen Ort mehr gibt, der nicht vom Menschen “gestaltet” d.h. vernichtet wurde.

Meadows 2012 Perspectives on the Limits of Growth: It is too late for sustainable development 48m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oyU0RusiA

Meadows 2014 Strategies for Success in a World with Limits 5:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQThrCBfv3M

Meadows 2014 Feeling a bit uneasy? Limits to Growth 22:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B9HXDtIZrU

Meadows 2017 Interview p1/4 ( Limits to Growth, Climate Change, Population Growth) 11m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B9HXDtIZrUm

Meadows 2017 Interview p2/4 (Science & Heart to Heart Communication) 11m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B9HXDtIZrU

Meadows 2017 Interview p3/4 (Economics, Globalisation, Responsibilities, Personal Fear) 9m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AShHb9ME1x8

Meadows 2017 Interview p4/4 (1-2 Billion people 3:40 - A 'peaceful collapse' & many revolutions...) 10m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg

Meadows 2017 Why didn't we learn? 12:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa5-t6kA7L0

Meadows 2019 Limits to Growth After 45 Years - Dennis Meadows at Ulm University 57m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRXb4bJhSSw

Meadows 2020 Limits to Growth Revisited: What kind of regeneration is possible? 1:15:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVpRJeGjhMQ

Meadows Donella 1977 Systems: Overshoot and Collapse 1:00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9g4-5-GKBc

(“Ghostwriter” = Hauptautor of Limits to Growth and wife of Dennis Meadows - sagt er selber)

-

Literatur

Mathis Wackernagel and Bert Beyers 2019

Ecological Footprint Managing Our Biocapacity Budget

Wackernagel Ecological Footprint 2019.jpg

(Englische Übersetzung der deutschen Ausgabe 2016)

https://newsociety.ca/books/e/ecological-footprint?_ga=2.15147316.364878291.1630407311-38402029.1630407311&sitedomain=ca

Mathis Wackernagel and Bert Beyers

Footprint: Die Welt neu vermessen. 2016

Wackernagel Footprint- Die Welt neu vermessen 2016.jpg

Erstausgabe in Deutsch

https://www.amazon.de/Footprint-vermessen-Neuausgabe-aktuellen-Kommentaren-ebook/dp/B08FRJTJN1

Anmerkung

Alle verständigen Menschen seit Francé sind der Überzeugung, daß das Ökosystem natürlicher Wald die Grundlage für die Erhaltung des Lebens ist und die Mikroorganismen des Erdbodens den Humus produzieren, der letztendlich für die Erhaltung allen Lebens sorgt. Wald produziert mehr Humus als er selbst verbraucht. Diese Humusvorräte wurden durch die Waldabholzung verringert und stehen z.B.  nicht mehr für die Kulturpflanzen z.B. auf Ackerböden zur Verfügung, da die Kulturpflanzen nicht in der Lage sind, den zur eigenen Reproduktion benötigten Humus zu produzieren, geschweige denn, den Humus darüber hinaus zu vermehren. Die Humusverringerung bedeutet auch eine Verringerung der Anzahl der Bodenmikroorganismen sowie ihrer Vielfalt. Der Humus bestimmt im Wesentlichen die biologische Grundproduktivität einer Fläche, wie sie in die Berechnung des Footprint eingeht.

(8) Zur Psychologie und Ökonomie:

(9) Ökonomie-Technik

(10) Eigenen ökologischen Fußabdruck berechnen für Dummies

(11) Literatur, Links, Dateien

Wer sich sein Gehirn weiter zermartern möchte findet hier Material:

Literatur, Links, Dateien:

Google Drive, Docs :

Meine Ablage > Wissenschaft > Biologie > Rees

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sgEIoyzCqlCq-JaZQ6_yxfmwvuYlcGo6?usp=sharing

xxx

A Hunger For Carbon ? - NO! - For Humus!!

The planned second edition of the book "Die letzte Chance. Für eine Zukunft ohne Not." (The last chance. For a future without need." by Annie Francé-Harrar should have the new title

Hunger nach HUMUS - A HUNGER for HUMUS

And Raoul Francé emphasized everywhere the essential role of NITROGEN.

There is no lack or shortage of Carbon in Nature - if we don't interfere and let the microorganisms thrive.

Original-Manuskript-Fragmente, warten noch auf Transskription ..

A Hunger For Carbon ? (but not charcoal, fortunately)

Die Alchemisten des Humus:

Ingham

 

The Global Carbon Bankers- Aerobic Fungi

By Dr. Elaine Ingham, Soil Food Web Testing Laboratories

No one organism, no one species or no one group does it all. There are many things that the right set of organisms will provide. The following interactions and functions are the basic, underlying principles of why sustainable agriculture works.

Build soil structure and aggregate the clay colloids to open up passageways, but aggregate sand to slow water movement. The consequences of doing this are staggering, although people don’t really think about all the potential problems that will be ameliorated if compaction is ended in their soil. To stop soil compaction from occurring, the right sets of organisms need to be present and not destroyed. Structure is only built by the organisms. Growing, living sets of organisms are needed to constantly repair any damage.

It’s important to prevent erosion and loss of nutrients from the soil. Leaching losses as well as gaseous losses must be prevented.

Cycle into plant-available forms. Aerobic organism interactions convert plant unavailable nutrients into plant available nutrients, mostly around plant roots, and mostly when plants are growing and need nutrients. Aerobic organisms also compete with, inhibit and consume disease-causing organisms (pathogens) as well as pests.

Bacteria eat simple foods like sugar: very easy-to-use straight chains of carbon. They can’t use anything tough or difficult to break up, nor complex side chains because their enzymes can only attack the outside layer of foods. If the food is complex—highly folded and wrapped around itself—bacteria will be limited in growth because they can only work on the outside layer.

 
Aerobic Fungi growing on wood and paint. 
A Hunger For Carbon

Fungi eat the more complex foods, because they make enzymes that can attack the outside layer and inside layers of complex, folded, gnarly, nasty, wide C:N ratio materials.

As the bacteria eat, they have to find all the other nutrients that aren’t in the food resource to be able to use that food. That means for every five carbon (C) they consume, one nitrogen (N) has to be eaten as well. For every 50 C, one phosphorous (P) must be brought into the body, typically as phosphate (PO4). Calcium, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, iron, and all the normal components of living tissue have to be in close vicinity for a bacterium so they can grow and produce new individuals of bacteria. All life requires the proper balance of nutrients in order to increase in size, or in numbers.

But bacteria are small. If the balance of nutrients isn’t right in the few micrometers around the bacterium, it will stop growing. So bacteria need to be in places where there is movement of nutrients going by for the bacterium to grab, or in a place where there are many available nutrients.

With this need for constant supply of the right balance, it is easy to see that any individual bacterium isn’t often going to be active and growing because the specific set of conditions where it’s happy will rarely be met. Thus, we need to have thousands of species of bacteria in each tiny bit of soil to be able to have some set of bacteria awake and functioning regardless of the conditions. There has to be a constant influx of bacterial foods as well.

Fast-Food Feeding Frenzey

Because of their growth requirements, bacteria are excellent at waking up rapidly, growing for short times, then going back to sleep rapidly. They wake up, grab the nutrient passing by and go back to sleep. Bacteria can’t be beat in terms of their ability to grab—but only when they are awake. If there is a large pool of leachable nutrients in the soil, wake the bacteria up, or send in new bacteria, to grab them, sequester them, and hold those nutrients in the soil. This is the practical way to prevent leaching of nutrients.

Another consideration is that because most of the food that bacteria consume contains much more carbon (C) than any other nutrient, bacteria need to get rid of the “excess C" and grab absolutely every bit of N it can possibly find. That means bacteria, in general, release a great deal of the carbon in the plant material they are consuming as carbon dioxide.

As a result, having only bacteria active in the soil means that a great deal of the carbon in organic matter will be “blown off" as carbon dioxide.

Thus, bacteria are great holders of any nutrient, except carbon. If the soil is disturbed a great deal, and the nutrients in the soil are mixed with high carbon plant litter material, then most of the soil carbon will be lost as bacteria blow off the carbon as CO2.

Fungi, on the other hand, don’t do this—and I mean beneficial fungi not disease causing fungi, which are a whole different group of outlaws and certainly should be regarded as one set of “bad guys" in the plant world—have much wider C:N ratios in their bodies.

Thus fungi grow on foods that bacteria can’t grow on.

Fungi grow as long threads, and so they can reach anyplace in the soil and bring back nutrients from anyplace they can reach to support their growth. Not just mycorrhizal fungi, which get their sugar (carbon) from the plant, but all beneficial fungi send out threads to access all the different nutrients needed to grow, even when growing on the nastiest, lowest N, P, K, etc., foods you want to talk about.

Laying the Carbon Pipeline

Because fungi grow as long pipes that turn increasingly into carbon pipes as the fungal strands (hyphae) get older and older, a major function of fungi are to make carbon storage forms and increase the soil organic matter content.

If you want to build the carbon content of soil and build some really long-term storage forms in soil, fungal growth and biomass is required.

Could we solve the elevation of carbon in the atmosphere in a short time? Absolutely. This happens when people stop growing bacteria and start growing fungi in their soils. Or even if they would stop destroying fungal biomass in soil, no further elevation in global carbon in the atmosphere would occur.

Page Updated: January 11, 2013

Related:

Where Is All The Carbon?

In 2001, the Soil Science Society of America drafted a position paper that included this statement: “Worldwide, the top 1 meter of soil comprises about 3/4 of the earth’s terrestrial carbon; nevertheless, there is tremendous potential to sequester additional clearing and tillage. Such conventional farming practices ‘burn’ soils organic carbon just as we burn fossil fuels today. However, in the case of soil's organic carbon this historical decline can be reversed, which is not the case for fossil fuel reserves." www.soils.org/ (.pdf)

Carbon Structure of Simple Foods

Think of enzymes as being like teeth. If you only have incisors to grab things, you can’t really chew your food. The food has to be simple fluids. But if you have molars, cutting teeth and incisors, then you are equipped to grab hold, cut, and grind, which makes more foods available to you.

In the examples below, the symbol means a bond where the material at either end of the bar have combined, sort of like two people hugging each other. Carbon, or C, is a special material because it can “hug" four different things at the same time. To reduce the amount of business in the following examples, remember that each C has two hydrogens (H) associated with it in most cases, so that the C is hugging four things, two of which are usually H. (There are no or few branches in the carbon chain, few kinds of links and the structure is very linear, which means only a couple of enzymes are needed to chew this food up.)

Simple and linear (with no branches) sugars or proteins

CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-OH
(Leaving out the H from now on)

C – C – C – C –NH2
A bit more complex (with branches)

C –C – C –C – C –C
C
C

These are bacterial foods, and almost strictly bacterial foods. Only a very few species of fungi could even begin to compete with bacteria for these foods, if bacteria are present.

Some folks have made the mistake of saying that fungi use simple foods when the testing did not include any of the normal sets of bacteria. If these bacteria are present, fungi will always lose, because bacterial enzymes are faster at grabbing these simple foods, use less energy to break these simples [sic] linkages down into component parts for the bacteria to consume and turn into new bacterial biomass.

Increasingly More Complex

Link 100 of the more complex carbon chains together in a long chain, end to end, with a few linking through the branched side chain.

Link 100 of the more complex chains together, but link them in ANY position, not just end to end.

Link 1000 of those groups of 100 together [sic], and let any free end loop around and link to any other C that can drop an H and hug another carbon.

World Fertilizer Prices Soar

World fertilizer prices, especially, rose sharply in 2007 then skyrocketed — off the chart — from January to April 2008 according to a report by the International Center for Soil Fertility and Agriculture. For example, the price of Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) increased by five times over the past 15 months from about US$252 per metric ton in January 2007 to about $1,230 per ton over the past three months by May of 2008. DAP is a common fertilizer containing 18 pounds of nitrogen and 46 pounds of phosphate per 100 pounds of fertilizer product. Source: EurekAlert

 

http://heartspring.net/carbon_sequestration_fungi.html

  

xxx