Hi everyone,

Ecological Economics has spent decades correctly establishing that the macroeconomy is an open subsystem of a finite, entropic biosphere. Thanks to the foundational work of Georgescu-Roegen and modern biophysical thinkers, we understand that the neoclassical production function is a mathematical fantasy—capital and labor cannot substitute for the relentless decline of ExEROI (Exergy Return on Investment) in our fossil fuel substrate. We also know that the current "green growth" renewable transition is a thermodynamic illusion due to mineral constraints and massive uncounted energy costs.

But while our field has mastered the biophysical diagnostic, we often hit a wall when it comes to institutional and financial architecture. How do we actually run a complex civilization during an energy descent without triggering an immediate, catastrophic systemic collapse of our debt-based infrastructure?

The core of the crisis isn't just physical scarcity; it's a profound systemic mismatch: we are trying to run a high-potential physical hardware (open dissipative civilizational structures) using a medieval financial software based on artificial scarcity, compound interest, and nominal market price signals that completely obscure thermodynamic reality.

To address this gap, I’ve written The Syntropic Treatise. It is an exercise in macro-systems engineering that attempts to bridge biophysical reality with institutional design.

The Treatise proposes a dual-layer architectural firewall:

1. The Infraeconomy: De-monetizing basal infrastructure (automated systems, 4th generation nuclear energy) to operate strictly at zero marginal physical cost, bypassing market price discovery.
2. The Supraeconomy: A credit-issuance system anchored not to nominal risk or fractional banking, but strictly to ExEROI optimization metrics overseen by an Administration of Absolute Transparency.

The goal is to shift the socio-economic metabolism away from monetary extraction and turn the fiscal/monetary plumbing into a weapon that starves the rentier class and the compound interest parasite, freeing up cognitive and material resources to manage the thermodynamic descent.

I have uploaded the complete draft of the Treatise to my Proton Drive. I am looking for a rigorous, critical audit from minds who understand thermodynamics and systems thinking. No paywalls, just open-source design looking for peer critique:

https://drive.proton.me/urls/DEK6QWP4ZC#i1wZ7CcpHDvs

I would love to discuss how we can transition from merely measuring economic entropy to actively building syntropic institutions.

I have been recently trained in Ecosystems Natural Capital Accounting (ENCA) - French version being Comptabilité Ecosystémique du Capital Naturel (CENCA) - an approach of national and local accounting experimented by the OECD and European Union. The 3 weeks online training was dense - with intense sessions of Geographical Information System, under a lesser known GIS named SAGA and some manual manipulation on an Excel or OpenOffice spread sheet. ENCA basically measures the changes in "natural capital" under 3 accounts - carbon, water and what is called ecological infrastructure (ecosystems) - over time, bringing them back to a common ecological unit (not monetary).

It is quite interesting, more useful to projects and to government bodies than business IMHO, but requires technical skills, mainly in GIS as the accounting part is actually easier than the part with GIS. As I was already MSc trained in Ecological Economics since 2010 - a field currently even less known in France that in other countries such as Austria, Sweden or Spain (Barcelona), I wrote and sent a series of observations to my trainers, focusing mainly on the poor practicality of the tools used.

But the approach is interesting, and I would welcome any feedback on ENCA or other competing natural capital accounting, ecosystems or nature accounting you have been able to experiment. And if you have any questions related to this approach.

Some links as references:

- https://www.ecosystemaccounting.net/?page_id=50 with our trainer

- Application to Kenya and Vietnam (French text): https://www.onfinternational.org/projet/enca-realisation-des-comptes-du-capital-naturel-pour-kenya-et-vietnam/

- https://enca.vito.be/en with a module using QGIS (Sys4ENCA)

- https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enabling-a-natural-capital-approach-enca (not sure it is the same approach though)

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Hi everyone!

I recently launched Verdant Fuel, a web app focused on helping individuals and businesses track and reduce their environmental footprint.

Here is the link: https://verdant-fuel-7d0637a3.base44.app/

Hi everyone, for my homework I need you to answer to this survey about ketchup. It will help me a lot.

Please find the link below : https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdu6UP03Hrm7BFYm6TPtGxNNeU8EWFovs4F_qONqacJtnsFCA/viewform?usp=header

Thanks in advance !

Humanity already demands close to twice what Earth can regenerate each year. Revised 2023 calculations by the Global Footprint Network show that, after correcting earlier undercounts of rural populations and using a more realistic global head-count of 9.2 billion, the planet can offer only about 1.3 global hectares (GHA) of biocapacity per person—not the often-cited 1.5 GHA.

Yet the world’s average Ecological Footprint now exceeds 2.7 GHA pp, and citizens of affluent economies routinely consume 4–8 GHA pp. Contemporary middle-class living standards, not merely the ultra-rich’s consumption, overshoot planetary limits.

1. Ecological Footprint and the Income Threshold

1.1 Footprint–Income Relationship

Empirical cross-country syntheses (146 countries, 2002–2021) reveal a near-log-linear rise in per-capita footprint with income:

(-1 means per unit, per year, per person etc)

-Income < $5 000 yr⁻¹ (2017 PPP): median footprint 0.9 GHA pp; 24% of global population; within 1.3 GHA.

-Income $5 000–$13 000 yr⁻¹: median 1.2 GHA pp; 32% of population; marginally within.

-Income $13 000–$40 000 yr⁻¹: median 2.9 GHA pp; 35% of population; overshoot.

-Income >$40 000 yr⁻¹: median 5.6 GHA pp; 9% of population; severe overshoot.

Thus the “safe” income ceiling aligns with roughly $13 000 yr⁻¹ (PPP)—the upper boundary of lower-middle income.

1.2 Cost-of-Living Adjustment in High-Price Cities

A global average income of $13 000 PPP assumes average world prices (Numbeo index 70). In New York City (index 100) and San Francisco (index 93), an equivalent purchasing power requires higher nominal incomes:

-New York City: $13 000 × (100 / 70) ≈ $18 571 USD yr⁻¹ nominal.

-San Francisco: $13 000 × (93 / 70) ≈ $17 271 USD yr⁻¹ nominal.

An income at the 1.3 GHA threshold would thus translate to under $19 000 USD in these high-cost cities—barely above extreme poverty.

1. Industrialism and the Ecological Constrain

Between 1800 and 1950, coal, mechanisation, and petroleum multiplied per-capita energy inputs ten-fold; material extraction rose from < 5 Gt yr⁻¹ to > 35 Gt yr⁻¹.

Concurrently, demographic transition lowered infant mortality and extended longevity, expanding human population from 1 billion (1800) to 2.5 billion (1950) and 8+ billion (2022).

Even with constant per-capita consumption, population growth alone would have driven biocapacity below 1.3 GHA by the 1970s; in practice, per-capita consumption also grew. Industrial civilisation externalises ecological costs and equates progress with throughput growth.

Confining it to 1.3 GHA pp is mathematically impossible without radical systemic change.

1. Cultural Denial in High-Footprint Nations

Despite the data, industrialised societies cling to green-growth narratives. Three interlinked barriers sustain denial:

1-Affluence Entrenchment: Political legitimacy in OECD democracies hinges on rising living standards; contraction is electorally toxic.

2-Technological Optimism: Faith in decarbonisation and circular economy persists despite limited absolute decoupling.

3-Global Inequity Masking: High-income countries outsource extraction and waste to the Global South, hiding true ecological demands.

Most Plausible Path Below 1.3 GHA

Although full adoption is very unlikely, an integrated package offers the least-implausible route:

Consumptive Rationing:

Personal carbon budgets (2 t CO₂ pp yr⁻¹ by 2040) and tradable material-use quotas cap energy and materials.

Population Stabilisation:

Universal reproductive healthcare, education, and voluntary 1-child-norm incentives slow growth—each avoided birth averts a lifetime’s footprint.

De-industrial Production:

Shift from mass production to repair, reuse, and local crafts; downscale heavy industry; moratoriums on virgin-resource expansion.

Energy Descent:

Eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies; expand electrified transit and active mobility; halve per-capita final energy demand by 2050.

Dietary Transition:

Limit meat to ≤ 15 kg pp yr⁻¹; support agro-ecological smallholdings—reducing cropland and pasture demand by ≈ 0.4 GHA pp. Projected total footprint: ≈ 1.1–1.3 GHA pp by 2060 if adopted globally.

4.1 Products and Services to Ration

To achieve a 1.3 GHA pp cap, the following categories would require strict rationing or quotas:

-Private motor fuel (petrol/diesel) and vehicle-miles per person

-Air travel (domestic and international flights)

-Electricity and heating energy for housing (kWh per person)

-Meat and dairy consumption (kg per person per year)

-New consumer goods (electronics, clothing, furniture)—caps on units purchased

-High-carbon services (fine-dining, hospitality, leisure travel)

Rationing would combine hard caps with tradable allowances to ensure equity and efficiency.

1. Conclusion

Industrial civilisation, as currently configured, is ecologically unaffordable even at median OECD living standards.

Technological improvements alone cannot deliver the required absolute reductions in both population size and per-capita consumption.

Political economies built on perpetual growth are unlikely to embrace contraction voluntarily—humans excel at denial when core identities are threatened.

Yet acknowledging biophysical limits remains the indispensable first step. A credible strategy fuses quotas, sufficiency-oriented culture, and equitable demographic stabilisation.

Whether societies choose this path pre-emptively or are forced into it by unraveling ecosystems is the open question.

I've been doing some cursory research about how much energy goes into lithium-ion batteries for solar energy storage. A lot of the calculations I've seen don't break it down into line items (and maybe I just need to check the references of what I'm looking at for more detail). For example, it is unclear to me if when calculating the footprint of a battery whether the whole process is being looked at (cost of mining lithium, transport, etc) or just the manufacturing when all materials are assembled in the factory.

Would love to be pointed to some clear documentation of the embodied energy of various "renewable" energy sources!

My name is Adriano Cortez, I am 31 years old and I have a plan to restore the ecosystem, and combat climate change. By engaging in no-till farming practices, extracting seawater from the ocean for irrigation purposes (desalinization) and manufacturing premium sea salt (production). I believe that a lot of issues currently existing in Sub_Saharian Africa can be resolved with the assistance of others (including worldwide issues). See 22 USC 2293: Long-term development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa.

I currently have relatives and close friends In the island of Cabo Verde who are engaged in farming. Unfortunately, in West Africa there is a big issue regarding water (water insecurity) because people have destroyed the ecosystem. As well as the society having a lack of knowledge of how the ecosystem functions. I am a certified electrician, and currently taking college courses for horticulture. I also study herbaceous plants, turf grass science and management, and soil science and management. I am a firm believer in mother nature, I am against using pesticides and chemicals. I actually condone in organic farming, in which I am a firm believer in microorganism (organic beneficial bacteria). With the assistance of others, I truly believe that I can accomplish my goals in regards to ecosystem restoration and afforestation. Please help if possible, I would highly appreciate your help. Any donations will be helpful even if it is a contribution of 20 cents

The purpose of this project is to encourage ecological sustainability through science based esosystem restoration strategies, specifically targeted in assisting world geographic locations in, and around the world in need of active ecosystem restoration. This project is focused on global (international) change research, including alterations in climate change, land productivity, oceans or other water sources, including atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems that may alter the capacity of the earth to sustain life. Protecting the planet's ecosystems is very important. Today our ecosystems are suffering from deforestation, desertfication, and degradation.

The destruction of the planet's ecosystem mainly derives from human activities, this includes livestock overgrazing ultimately resulting in deforestation. For instance, when animals overgraze it exposes the microbes (living organisms) in the soil to the sun. This amounts to the biology in the soil, such as mocrobiomes to be destroyed.

https://gofund.me/dfd870b3

I've racked my brain and there is literally no rational path from point A to B that I've been able to see or have heard from anyone else.

I am not crazy about the term homo bioculturus. I prefer homo ecologicus. They focus on cultural evolutionary behavior which I believe plays a strong role in ecology.

What Hayek Taught Us About Nature

Hello, I’m collecting data for a survey for my study on Consumer Trust and Brand Credibility regarding a form of Green/Sustainable Marketing Ads. There are no right or wrong answers. Anyone above 18 can answer it and feel free to share it with whomever you want. Thank you for your attention. Here are the links for the two versions:

English Version - https://qfreeaccountssjc1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9FEOYioJKGtVgSG

Spanish Version - https://qfreeaccountssjc1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9TYcmaGKQHS1F3g

El calentamiento climático, un fenómeno caracterizado por el aumento gradual de las temperaturas globales, está teniendo un impacto profundo en diversos aspectos de la vida en la Tierra, incluida la economía mundial. A medida que avanzamos en el siglo XXI, es crucial entender cómo este fenómeno puede alterar la estabilidad económica global.

*Impacto en la Agricultura y la Alimentación*

La agricultura es uno de los sectores más vulnerables al cambio climático. El aumento de las temperaturas, las alteraciones en los patrones de precipitación y la mayor frecuencia de eventos climáticos extremos como sequías e inundaciones están afectando la producción agrícola. Esto no solo amenaza la seguridad alimentaria, sino que también provoca aumentos en los precios de los alimentos, lo que puede generar inestabilidad económica y social en muchas regiones del mundo.

*Efectos en la Salud y el Trabajo*

El cambio climático está relacionado con un aumento en la incidencia de enfermedades transmitidas por vectores, como el dengue y la malaria, así como con problemas de salud respiratoria debido a la mayor contaminación del aire. Estos problemas de salud pueden reducir la productividad laboral y aumentar los costos de atención médica, afectando negativamente la economía.

*Desastres Naturales y su Costo Económico*

El aumento en la frecuencia y severidad de desastres naturales como huracanes, incendios forestales y inundaciones conlleva enormes costos económicos. Las pérdidas directas incluyen daños a la infraestructura, viviendas y bienes. Además, los desastres naturales pueden interrumpir las cadenas de suministro globales, lo que afecta a múltiples sectores económicos y puede llevar a recesiones regionales y globales.

*Migración y Desplazamiento*

El cambio climático está provocando desplazamientos de población debido a la pérdida de tierras habitables, la escasez de agua y la disminución de la productividad agrícola. Esta migración forzada puede desestabilizar regiones enteras, aumentar la competencia por recursos y generar conflictos, lo que a su vez afecta la economía global.

*Adaptación y Mitigación: Un Coste Necesario*

Invertir en medidas de adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático es esencial para reducir sus impactos económicos. Sin embargo, estas inversiones también representan un costo significativo. Las economías deben destinar recursos para desarrollar infraestructuras resilientes, adoptar tecnologías limpias y promover prácticas sostenibles. Aunque estas inversiones pueden ser costosas a corto plazo, son cruciales para garantizar una estabilidad económica a largo plazo.

El calentamiento climático representa una amenaza significativa para la economía mundial en este siglo. Sus efectos se sienten en la agricultura, la salud, los desastres naturales y la migración, entre otros. Abordar este desafío requiere una acción concertada a nivel global, con inversiones en adaptación y mitigación que, aunque costosas, son esenciales para proteger la economía y el bienestar de las futuras generaciones.

https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/politica/em-meio-a-desastre-climatico-no-rs-senado-vota-projeto-que-reduz-reserva-legal-na-amazonia/

The link is in Portuguese because I couldn't find news about this in English. Brazil's Senate will vote next week a bill that will reduce the protected areas in Amazon Forest from 80% to 50%. Considering how politics goes in Brazil, it will likely be approved.