If we are in overshoot, as many suggest, then
...there really should be more evidence than mere suggestion.
If Jesus is returning imminently, as many suggest, then we should all repent our sins. If aliens are visiting Earth and abducting humans for anal probing, as many suggest, then we should all wear tinfoil hats. If the Earth is flat, as many suggest, then we should fund the construction of a safety fence to stop people from falling off the edge.
We need more than "many suggest" before we take a putative threat as being worthy of action. Or even unworthy of ridicule.
I am a little surprised you would think my short comment that "many suggest" is equivalent to "mere suggestion". After all, you and I have discussed this many times on this thread. I have linked to multiple sites that are concerned about overshoot, and have mentioned the reasons for their concern. You have said my links are inadequate to support my claim, and I have said they are. We left it at that.
So no, I am not saying that "mere suggestion" is the same as doing science.
A more accurate statement of the problem, as I see it, is that we are in
ecological overshoot. The global footprint network has been doing detailed analysis of this, and has determined that it would take 1.75 Earths to sustainably support the current population at the current level of affluence and human activity.
As I mentioned in
another post, the impact on the planet can be expressed by the formula I=PAT, where the impact is based on the population, average affluence, and the factor T, which is a measure of the impact per unit of personal affluence. That gives us three levers we could possibly tweak to bring the impact on the Earth down to more reasonable levels.
I find the number and calculation methods given by the global footprint network to be credible, that we are in overshoot and are impacting the planet 1.75 more than what would be sustainable. Do you agree? If not, what number would you give as a better estimate of the impact we are making on the planet divided by the impact that would be sustainable?
If you think the number is higher than 1, would you suggest we do something about it? What? I see you support increased use of technological solutions that would lower our impact without reducing affluence. I agree, but I think we will do no better than reduce our impact 80% per unit of affluence in the next 30 years. What do you think it will be?
Regarding affluence, I see no way anybody will agree with limiting affluence. Poor nations want to become rich, and rich nations want to become richer. I suggested we should assume the value of
A 30 years from now will be at least 125% higher than today unless disaster prevents that from happening. What value do you think we should use?
Finally, we come to population. The United Nations predicts the population 30 years from now will be about 125% of today's factor. Do you agree? I think we should seek
fair and effective policies that bring this down to 90% or lower. What number do you think we should seek?
In summary, what do you suggest we use to predict our impact on the planet 30 years from now. My estimates are in red. Please feel free to write back with the numbers you think are better.
Impact today --
175% of Earth's capacity
Future T factor/current --
80%
Future Affluence/current --
125%
Future population/current --
90%
For my calculations, the net impact on the environment 30 years from now is 175% * 80% * 125% * 90% = 157% . We come down from requiring 1.75 planets for humans to 1.57. That is far from adequate, but at least we tried. That's where I am at.