While climate change is a serious problem, it is possibly secondary to the much bigger problem of “earth overshoot”.  Simply put, the human species is using its resources more quickly than the earth can replenish. In fact, to replenish the water, soil, and materials used by the current global lifestyle, Global Footprint estimates we would need 1.7 planet earths. 

The Global Footprint Network point outs overshoot occurs because people emit more CO₂ than the biosphere can absorb, use more freshwater than is replenished, harvest more trees than can regrow, fish quicker than stocks replenish, etc. This overuse beyond what nature can renew inevitably depletes Earth’s natural capital. In short, it makes sense that our resources are finite, and with the world’s population increasing, we are using up many resources that cannot always be replaced.

Climate change gets attention because there are investments to help us live more sustainably, and purchasing these investments (solar power, EV’s, heat pumps, etc.) are relatively easy economic choices (budgets permitting).  Finding ways to reduce our consumption to avoid overshoot can be more difficult.

What we buy and where we live affect overshoot. Perhaps the past gives us some perspective as we gaze into the future. One hundred years ago plastic didn’t exist, nor freeways and commercial air travel. Home gardens flourished, and often that produce was preserved for the winter season.  Clothing was pricey so many made their own. Cooking and sewing was actually taught in school classrooms. An average home was around 1000-2000 SF and had a few over 4 inhabitants. Many felt their lifestyle was quite comfortable. And globally, the USA was comparatively well off.

The question is, what do we really need to be comfortable? How is our limited time spent best, and is saving money a priority…and reducing our burden on the earth? We are largely dependent on the market sector to furnish our basic needs, but many are resisting the grasp of commercialism.

Alternatives exists to choose a more self-reliant, less resource-demanding existence. One option is to focus more of our purchasing on the service sector which is not generally as resource intensive as manufactured goods–think educators, gardeners, yoga classes.

Shared resources such as community gardens/kitchens, EV ubers, local microgrids and decentralization in “villages” could reduce reliance on expensive and polluting transportation. Economic and cultural forces are already moving some people in this direction.

Grass Valley and Nevada City each have co-housing developments that are quite popular, where residents have individual units but share in the operation of the “neighborhood”. And in the planning stages is Sol Village which offers a newer twist on co-housing using its custom-built tiny homes.  The homes will be built in Nevada County using non-toxic, environmentally friendly, local material. SOL is planning an introduction session on August 30 at the Nevada City Library www.SolTiny.com

Increasing the development of co-housing and intentional communities could go a long way in conserving resources and providing  affordable housing for the families our aging population will need to support a thriving community—e.g. nurses, teachers, tradespeople, etc.

On the Good news front—the County Board of Supervisors’ has initiated a Resource Resiliency Roadmap. Part of the process is to engage the public in how to adapt to our many environmental challenges (https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/4062/Resource-Resiliency-Roadmap). 

So, the ball is in our court–to participate, think outside the box, and contribute our ideas on how to transition our economy and lifestyle to keep us safe, healthy and in harmony with the resources our planet provides.