> The nowcast produced the following estimates:
• The biocapacity for the world in 2023 is estimated at 1.5 global
hectares per person.
• Humanity’s Ecological Footprint is 2.6 global hectares per person,
of which 60% is carbon Footprint.

The "of which 60% is carbon footprint" is an important line here. To be very frank, I think the use of some standardized unit like "global hectares" is misleading for a problem like carbon emissions. My distaste for this is that using a land-area-like unit implies that the total resource is fixed. There are many technologies in various stages of development that will increase our ability to sequester carbon, though at large cost, and many that allow generation of clean energy, sidestepping the need for this resource entirely. To this groups credit, they do state clearly that transitioning to clean energy moves their date significantly. A single variable representing "resources" might be a useful rhetorical tool, but you can't use it to understand a problem in a meaningful way.

I'll speculate a bit more that this type of limited-resource framing is intentional and plays into their pro population control stance. I was surprised (and disgusted) to see the population section of their site quote Paul Ehrlich uncritically.

[Paul Ehrlich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich) is notable as author of the 1968 book [The population Bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb). This book warned about population growth and opened with the quote:

> The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

Of course, none of this came true, but Ehrlich stood by the book. I will quote a section of this book that when I first saw quoted, I had to look up to believe it was real:

> While we are working toward setting up a world program of the general sort outlined above, the United States could take effective unilateral action in many cases. A good example of how might have acted can be built around the Chandrasekhar incident I mentioned earlier. When he suggested sterilizing all Indian males with three or more children, we should have applied pressure on the Indian government to go ahead with the plan. We should have volunteered logistic support in the form of helicopters, vehicles, and surgical instruments. We should have sent doctors to aid in the program by setting up centers for training para-medical personnel to do vasectomies. Coercion? Perhaps, but coercion a good cause. I am sometimes astounded at the attitudes of Americans who are horrified at the prospect of our government insisting on population control as the price of food aid. All too often the very same people are fully in support of applying military force against those who disagree with our form of government or our foreign policy. We must be relentless in pushing for population control around the world. I wish I could offer you some sugar coated solutions, but I'm afraid the time for them is long gone. A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance of survival.

I consider myself to be a committed environmentalist. I sincerely believe that good stewardship of the natural environment is critical to human well-being and that our society needs to get its act together with regards to unsustainable practices. However, as long as so-called respectable environmental groups continue associating with people like this, I will remain skeptical and keep myself at arms length.