World Population Awareness

News Digest

October 22, 2016

What's the EROI of Solar?

June 4, 2015, Ramez Naam   By: Ramez Naam

EROI is Energy Return On Investment - how much energy we get back for each unit of energy spent. For solar this tells us how much more energy a solar panel generates in its lifetime than is used to create it.

A Weissbach et al, study finds an EROI of 4 for solar and 16 for wind, without storage, or 1.6 and 3.9, respectively, with storage. That is to say, for every unit of energy used to build solar panels, society ultimately gets back 4 units of energy.

Weissbach also claims that an EROI of 7 is required to support a society like Europe, a number higher than the author finds implausible.

Looking at the bulk of the research, it's more likely that solar panels, over their lifetime, generate 10-15 times as much energy as it takes to produce them and their associated hardware. That number may be as high as 25. And it's rising over time.

The most comprehensive review of solar EROI (reviewing 232 papers from 2000-2013) to date is a Bhandari study which found that for poly-silicon (the predominant solar technology today), the mean estimate of EROI was 11.6, ranging from 6 to 16. That EROI includes the system components (the inverter, the framing, etc..

Looking at the estimates of the "energy payback time" , the mean energy payback time found is 3.1 years. But if we look at just the studies from after 2010, we'd find a mean of around 2 years, or 1.5x better EROI than the overall data set. And the latest study, from 2013, finds an energy payback time of just 1.2 years. This substantiates my claim that the EROI of solar panels being made in 2013 is quite a bit higher than of solar panels made in 2000. That should be obvious - increasing efficiency and lower energy costs per watt make it so. If we used only the estimates from 2010 on, we'd find an EROI for poly-Si solar of around 15. If we used only the 2013 estimate, we'd find an EROI of around 25.

Why is Weissbach's number so low?

1. Weissbach assumes that half of all solar power is thrown away. There may be a day in the future when we overbuild solar and throw away some of the energy, but if so, it will come after solar panels are more efficient and less energy intensive to make.

2. Weissbach uses an outdated estimate of silicon use and energy cost. Grams of silicon per watt of solar have dropped since then, as has the energy intensity of creating silicon wafers.

3. Weissbach assumes Germany, while Bhandari assumes a sunny place. Germany has, until now, been the solar capital of the world. But solar installation is now happening first and foremost in China, then the US. The average sunlight in those areas is much closer to the assumptions in Bhandari than the very low-sunlight model of Germany.

4. Weissbach assumes 10 days of storage. More plausibly, in the next decade or two, most stored energy produced by PV will be consumed within a matter of hours, shifting solar's availability from middle-of the day to the early evening to meet the post-sunset portion of the peak.

A more realistic estimate of poly-Si solar EROI today is somewhere above 10, and probably above 15. And it's rising. Solar panels generate many times more energy over their lifetimes than is used to construct them and their associated hardware. doclink

Karen Gaia says: if EROI of solar panels is 15, then why aren't we making solar panels using the energy of solar panels? The EROI of conventitonal oil and gas is around 12; coal is 80, but we rarely use coal for transportation.

The Coming Collapse of U.S. Net Worth Will Wipe Out Millions of Americans

October 8, 2016, Zero Hedge   By: Srsrocco

Because they are mislead by mainstream media and internet alternative media, Americans have no idea just how bad the U.S. financial system has become. The stock, bond and real estate markets, where 99% of Americans are invested, continue to be propped up.

The Federal Reserve claims U.S. net worth increased from $57.9 trillion Q2 2010, to $89 trillion Q2 2016. That's a staggering $31 trillion in the past six years. However, that $31 trillion in additional wealth is a nothing more than a hot air and lots of smoke and mirror accounting.

For wealth to grow, more energy must be burned and positive economic activity** must be generated. This is the foundation of all economic principles.The total U.S. energy consumption has been relatively flat for the past six years, fluctuating only a little bit, and will likely turn out to be less than it was in 2010.

Then where did this extra $31 trillion in U.S. net worth come from? In the past, U.S. GDP increased as total energy consumption increased.

The Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury have figured out a nifty way to increase our net worth and GDP for the past six years while energy consumption remained flat - a giant Ponzi scheme.

Mainstream media and internet alternative media have promised us a a rosy future but have overlooked the key factor... energy.

A group of engineers headed by Bedford Hill of the Hills Group spent over 10,000 hours in designing their Thermodynamic Oil Collapse model. The results were so shocking, they didn't publish it for two years.

The rapidly falling EROI -- Energy Returned On Invested*** -- is gutting the entire U.S. oil industry and economy. Instead of the United States enjoying real fundamental growth based on increased energy consumption, we have turned to inflating electronic digits as an indication of our wealth.

While the Fed and Central Banks will continue to prop up the markets by printing money and buying bonds and stocks, they can't print barrels of oil or energy BTU's. doclink

Karen Gaia says: You may wonder if the author has neglected renewable energy. The thing is: renewable energy has so far made only a small dent in meeting total energy needs. 85% of energy still comes from fossil fuels.

Even if you don't believe in human-caused climate change, we still need to conserve and leave as much as we can in the ground.

** Our GDP is made up of both positive and negative economic activity.

*** The ERO! of oil 100 years ago was 100. In 2007 oil imports to the U.S. were around 12. Coal EROI is 80. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested. Estimates of the EROI needed to maintain civilization are around 7-9.

Extreme Wildlife Declines and Concurrent Increase in Livestock Numbers in Kenya: What Are the Causes?

September 27, 2016, PLOS ONE   By: Joseph O. Ogutu , Hans-peter Piepho, Mohamed Y. Said, Gordon O. Ojwang, Lucy W. Njino, Shem C. Kifugo, Patrick W. Wargute

Extreme wildlife losses have recently been documented for large parts of Africa, including Western, Central and Eastern Africa.

Considerable effort and resources have been invested in monitoring wildlife, livestock and their environment in Kenya's rangelands since 1977. However, relatively little effort and resources have been invested in analyzing and interpreting the status and trends in wildlife and livestock numbers or their environmental and anthropogenic drivers.

A study using aerial monitoring survey data collected in rangelands that collectively cover 88% of Kenya's land surface, it was shown that wildlife numbers declined on average by 68% between 1977 and 2016.

Warthog, lesser kudu, Thomson's gazelle, eland, oryx, topi, hartebeest, impala, Grevy's zebra and waterbuck showed the highest decline (72-88%).

Cattle numbers decreased (25.2%) but numbers of sheep and goats (76.3%), camels (13.1%) and donkeys (6.7%) evidently increased in the same period.

Livestock biomass was 8.1 times greater than that of wildlife in 2011-2013 compared to 3.5 times in 1977-1980.

The declines occur both inside and outside protected areas.

These declines have been variously attributed to rapid human population growth, land use and cover changes, land fragmentation, infrastructural development, poaching for trophy and bushmeat, climate change and variability, outbreaks of infectious diseases, proliferation of firearms, weak law enforcement, poor governance, competition with livestock for space, water and pasture, poverty and inequality.

Rapid human population growth is driving wildlife population declines in Africa through its influence on expansion of agriculture, settlements and development of infrastructure. Deterioration in wildlife and livestock habitats caused by major land use and cover changes is exacerbated by climate change and variability, piling enormous pressures on pastoralism, ranching and wildlife conservation in African rangelands and protected areas .

The authors have suggested policy, institutional and management interventions likely to succeed in reducing the declines and restoring rangeland health, most notably through strengthening and investing in community and private wildlife conservancies in the rangelands.

The rangelands are currently home to 32.6% of the Kenyan population, principally pastoral communities.

More than half of the Kenyan livestock populations are found on these rangelands. The livestock are raised mainly for meat and milk. Over 70% of the protected wildlife reserves and parks occur in the rangelands. Also, about 65-70% of the national terrestrial wildlife populations occur in the human-modified rangelands outside the protected areas. About 10-12% of Kenya is officially designated for biodiversity conservation, with protected wildlife areas covering only 8%.

Tourism based on wildlife viewing and photography ranks among the leading industries in Kenya, contributing about 13.7% of the gross domestic product and over 10% of the national formal sector employment. For example, in 2011 wildlife-based safaris contributed about US$ 1.16 billion to the national revenue of Kenya . doclink

US Drives Rainforest Destruction by Importing Amazon Oil, Study Finds

California, despite its green reputation, is refining the majority of crude oil - with one facility accounting for 24% of the US total
September 28, 2016, Guardian   By: Oliver Milman

A study, conducted by environmental group Amazon Watch, found that American refineries processed 230,293 barrels of Amazon crude oil a day last year and found that planned oil drilling poses "one of the most serious threats" to the western region of the Amazon, with most of the oil originating from Ecuador, Peru and Colombia.

In California, the Chevron facility in El Segundo refines about 24% of the US total of of Amazon crude. California's clean energy policies discriminate against the heavy grade oil produced by countries such as Canada, and so it uses more oil from the Amazon. Also, an explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, California, in February 2015 caused the state to increase its gasoline imports to more than 10 times the typical level.

Environmental groups have had some success against Chevron's Amazon ambitions, other players from countries such as China have moved in. Proposed oil and gas fields now cover 283,172 sq miles of the Amazon - an area larger than Texas.

Not only are there the carbon emissions from felled trees and from the transport and burning of oil, indigenous communities and the Amazon's vast trove of biodiversity are also at risk.

Ecuador's state oil company is now drilling close to the Yasuni national park, one of the most biologically rich places on Earth, with 655 endemic tree species - more than the US and Canada combined - as well as two of the last tribes in the world living in voluntary isolation.

These indigenous people are at risk from pollution, displacement and deadly illnesses due to a lack of acquired immunity.

"Breaking free from oil dependence and keeping remaining fossil fuels in the ground is an urgent, collective endeavor, and the life-giving Amazon rainforest must be one of the first places we start," said Leila Salazar-López, executive director of Amazon Watch.

Adam Zuckerman, a California-based campaigner for Amazon Watch, said "virtually every company, city and university in California and around the country contributes to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest."

It was not known whether new laws were being considered to reduce Amazon crude imports, although the administration has taken "nation-leading action to fight climate change, decarbonize our economy and end our dangerous addiction to foreign oil”, according to Governor Brown's office. doclink

Refilling the Carbon Sink: Biochar's Potential and Pitfalls

The idea of creating biochar by burning organic waste in oxygen-free chambers - and then burying it - is being touted as a way to cool the planet. But while it already is being produced on a small scale, biochar's proponents and detractors are divided over whether it can help slow global warming
December 9, 2010, Yale Environment 360   By: Dave Levitan

If we raised CO2 levels by burning coal, maybe we can reverse the problem by putting the carbon back into the ground. Dozens of companies are already selling biochar on a small scale. While advocates tout biochar as a planet-saving climate change mitigation strategy, others have ridiculed the concept.

Biochar is made by a process called pyrolysis. Burning organic waste such as wood chips, agricultural byproducts or switchgrass in chambers with little or no oxygen produces a type of oil, a synthetic gas, and charcoal. Slow pyrolysis yields more biochar and less oil and gas. A faster method that takes seconds rather than hours or days, produces less biochar and more oil/gas. In some systems, the synthetic gas and oil fuels the pyrolysis process with no added fuel.

Biochar stores carbon in a stable form (potentially for hundreds or even thousands of years). This prevents the carbon from leaking into the atmosphere and fueling climate change. Proponents claim that the pyrolysis burning process releases less net carbon to the atmosphere than if the organic matter decayed naturally. Biochar enriches soil and can improve crop yields by improving water retention and moderating the soil's pH. However, the details on these benefits are still being researched.

James Lovelock, founder of Gaia theory, claims that biochar can save the planet. This type of hype has elicited a predictable backlash in columns by The Guardian's resident environmentalist George Monbiot and warnings from organizations like the UK's BiofuelWatch.

On the other side, a research group led by Johannes Lehmann at Cornell University recently showed that 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions could be offset with biochar produced from "sustainably obtained" biomass and organic waste that doesn't affect food production. That could produce a net reduction of about 1.8 gigatons of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases from the atmosphere each year. Over a century, Lehmann estimates the total offset at 130 gigatons, which would help reduce CO2 concentrations and slow the world's rising temperatures and sea levels.

Research by Darko Matovic, a professor of mechanical engineering at Queens University in Ontario, drew an even more optimistic conclusion. Matovic contends that, after factoring out the man-made carbon that nature removes via the carbon cycle, burning and burying 10% of the world's biomass waste would sequester more than the net 4.1 gigatons of carbon that human activity adds to the atmosphere each year. Of course, the logistics of actually converting over 10% of the world's organic waste into biochar would require enough industrial-sized pyrolysis plants to offset all the fossil-fuel burning activities on earth - a daunting objective.

Conducting experiments on a planetary scale may have unforeseen consequences, so a lot more research is needed to discover and resolve the unforeseen consequences. Some biochar skeptics say that if biochar is promoted in carbon trading schemes on a large scale, If not properly regulated, companies might displace food crops with switchgrass or even plant forests solely for biochar production - a problem that has turned many in the environmental movement against corn ethanol production. But even some skeptics agree that the process could be beneficial if done right.

After reviewing the pros and cons, NASA's Jim Hansen concluded that biochar is far from a "miracle cure" but could add some benefit to a range of climate mitigation strategies. UN officials have also argued for its potential, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change included it in recent documents as a potential sequestration tool. Also, a recent Natural Resources Defense Council report, though cautious in touting biochar's benefits, calls for up to $150 million over eight years to start commercial-scale pilot projects. doclink

Karen Gaia says: there is a big caveat concerning biochar and forests. The temptation is to cut down trees to make biochar when forest areas are thick with fuel brush and trees and also dry and prone to fire. We must remember that trees are an excellent carbon sink in themselves and cutting mature trees to make biochar would speed up climate change just when we need carbon sinks the most. Also, it usually takes GHG-emitting fuel to make biochar, so the total GHG emissions must be taken into account. And in forests, GHG-emitting fossil fuel energy must be used to go into the forest, cut and haul out the trees, and also to deliver the biochar and bury it.

Art says: During a PBS story on biochar, a spokesman said that his company's soil amendment could produce a net CO2 reduction. Since the process of producing biochar requires heating wood or other biomass material enough to make charcoal, that claim seemed dubious. This article suggests that the concept is feasible, but the scale of operation required to make significant gains in offsetting the effects of global greenhouse gas emissions would be enormous.

Where Are We Going to Put the Next Billion People?

October 4, 2016, Ecowatch   By: Kristin Falzon

By 2030, with 1.1 billion more people, demographers expect Earth's population to be about 8.5 billion. The Journal Nature report focused on how this will affect natural vegetation, agricultural land, clean water, jobs, housing, transport and communities.

To stop the increasingly heavy ecological footprint of current growth, authors Richard Forman of Harvard and Jianguo Wu of Arizona State, call for increased planning. They say "It will require international and national policies for environmental protection, urban development and human migration. And each city must develop an urban regional plan. ... Society must think globally, plan regionally, then act locally."

As far as where people can go, they see people moving from rural districts to the cities. To provide space for sustainable communities with minimum destruction of natural habitats, they want metropolitan regions to encourage (with incentives) and/or for cities to develop compact communities -- like ones found outside Portland, Oregon and Canberra, Australia. They say that city planning should focus on building structures around valuable natural resources, not on top of them. And they see promise in large areas in the Americas, central Africa and Asia as well as pockets of Oceania due to its warm and moist climates suitable for growing crops such as cacao, coffee, palm oil, rice and corn. doclink

Arte says: The county where I live is struggling to implement a similar plan, but with lots of resistance from developers and people wanting new homes on large tracts. The authors' objectives are good, but in the developing world, where population growth is fastest, getting people to implement this strategy may prove as difficult as getting them on board with family planning.

Karen Gaia says: Family planning should be mentioned as part of the solution. I know of regions where women would welcome family planning, but it is difficult to overcome barriers such as distance to the nearest family planning clinic and husbands who don't approve. If clinics were closer, women can get their family planning without their husbands knowledge.

What Did Pope Francis Actually Say About Contraception?

February 18, 2016, Catholic News Agency

During a press conference on the way back from Mexico, a reporter asked Pope Francis about proposals involving abortion or avoiding pregnancy in areas where Zika virus is prevalent. The Pope responded by emphatically stating that abortion is "a crime" and "absolute evil" that cannot be justified. On avoiding pregnancy he said, "Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape." Seven sentences later he added, "Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil.

While many news outlets suggested that the Pope was introducing a change - or at least a softening the church's position, Dr. Melissa Moschella, a philosophy professor at The Catholic University of America, says those statements do not necessarily reflect any change or softening in the Church's stance on contraception. The Pope may have referred to Natural Family Planning rather than contraceptive use. Natural Family Planning involves abstaining from sexual activity during a woman's fertile periods. Moschella also explained that the African case Pope Francis referenced was "not really an exception if you understand the rule." The Vatican had granted a dispensation for religious sisters in the Belgian Congo who were in danger of rape to use oral contraceptives. From the moral perspective - a victim does not consent to a sexual act.

To understand the distinction, the professor continued, one must first understand the purpose of human sexuality and why the church opposes contraception. From the Catholic perspective, sex is a relationship that is fulfilled by having and bearing children together; so birth control is immoral because it violates the very nature of sex - trying to engage in sex without the natural possibility of pregnancy. "But that doesn't happen in the case of rape,” Moschella stressed. "In the case of rape, there has been no voluntary sex act on the part of the woman.” Thus, the use of spermicide or attempts to delay ovulation may be acceptable after a rape, so long as there is no risk of killing a human embryo. But since the Zika virus case does not involve involuntary sex, couples can just stop having sex. doclink

Karen Gaia says: In an article summarized a few days age, "Catholic Scholars' Statement on the Ethics of Using Contraceptives", The vast majority of acts of sexual intercourse do not have the biological "capacity" for procreation, and therefore they cannot have procreation as their "finality” or "significance.” and As agents of reason, human beings have a unique capacity to intentionally alter the schedule of probabilities inherent in the physical, chemical and biological laws of nature. This is a reality of daily life: for instance, any sort of medical intervention, from something as insignificant as taking pain-killers to something as consequential as performing cardiovascular surgery, affects probabilities - of healing, survival, death, etc.

Drop In Teen Pregnancies Is Due To More Contraceptives, Not Less Sex

August 31, 2016, National Public Radio   By: Julie Rovner

Increased, and increasingly effective, use of contraceptives is the reason teen pregnancy has dropped 36% and pregnancies fell by 25% from 2007 to 2011, according to federal data and a study by the Guttmacher Institute and Columbia University

The amount of sex being had by teenagers during that time period was largely unchanged, says the study, which was published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health. Abortion, too, has been declining among all age groups, and particularly among teenagers.

Teen were found to be using contraceptives more often, combining methods more often, and using more effective methods, such as the birth control pill, IUDs and implants.

Also, the use of any contraceptive at all makes a big difference, said lead author and a Guttmacher researcher Lindberg. "If a teen uses no method they have an 85 percent chance of getting pregnant [within a year]. Using anything is way more effective than that 85 percent risk."

Teen birth rates dropped by 57% between 1991 and 2013, corresponding with the 66 to 86% increase in contraceptive use from 1995 to 2012. .

Valerie Huber, president and CEO of Ascend, a group that promotes abstinence education, advocates for programs that urge teens to wait to have sex rather than provide information about contraception, says the study is biased toward birth control.

Two recent policy changes could help drop the teen pregnancy rate even more: the Affordable Care Act requirement that boosted insurance coverage for contraception, and the recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics that sexually active teenagers be offered "long-acting reversible contraception" methods such as implants and intrauterine devices, which are highly effective and do not require any additional action, such as remembering to take a daily pill. doclink

Offshore Wind Farms See Promise in Platforms That Float

September 29, 2016, New York Times   By: Diane Cardwell

Almost all offshore wind farms currently use fixed platforms built into the seafloor. While they are increasingly common in Europe, they are just starting in the US, partly due to public opposition. The first such farm is set to begin operation by November near Rhode Island.

Enabling wind farms to float over fixed anchors would impact marine life less and add flexibility in where the platforms could be placed. Proponents say that floating platforms could help overcome some of the obstacles that offshore wind farms face. Developers might receive less opposition from on-shore people if they can locate the farms farther out at sea where they would not be visible from the land. Also their anchoring mechanisms have smaller, more flexible footprints than those of conventional wind turbines, and that could result in less environmental disturbance.

The Obama administration's latest offshore wind strategy paper identifies floating structures as important in fighting climate change. More than half of our offshore wind capacity - more than what the entire nation can now produce - is in deeper waters, said José Zayas, who directs the Wind Energy Technologies Office at the federal Department of Energy. He predicts that floating platforms may come to outnumber fixed-foundation installations.

Energy companies, researchers and government officials are planning floating farms adapted from deep-water oil and gas drilling rigs, which use tethers and anchors to moor platforms to the seabed. That could make deeper waters - like those off the Pacific Coast, around the Hawaiian Islands and in the Great Lakes - accessible for wind-energy development. Statoil, the Norwegian oil and gas giant, is developing what could become the first commercial-scale floating wind farm, off the coast of Scotland, and Seattle-based Trident Winds is pursuing a federal lease to install about 100 turbines more than 30 miles out from Morro Bay on the central California coast.

Despite multimillion-dollar grants from the federal government, cost remains an obstacle. Ocean wind power cannot yet compete with large-scale solar or natural gas. Floating farms are more expensive to build than land-based ones, and for now, at least, they cost more than fixed offshore installations.

But design advances could drop costs lower than conventional systems. Fixed-foundation turbines require highly specialized equipment, vessels and installation procedures. Each must be customized to its location, said Irene Rummelhoff, executive vice president for new energy solutions at Statoil. "With the floating concept, you can use the same turbine everywhere, so you can see the potential for mass production."

Various types of floating wind platforms are in the works, but two are closest to commercial availability. Statoil's design, known as Hywind, attaches the turbine to a steel buoy filled with water and rocks as ballast that extends over 300 feet below the surface. Principle Power's design uses a three-column system called WindFloat. The company planned a demonstration project based on a $47 million DOE grant, but it could not produce the power cheap enough to secure a power purchase agreement. However, Principle Power is pursuing projects elsewhere in the U.S, France, Portugal, Japan and other European and Asian markets, said Joao Metelo, the company's CEO.

University of Maine's researchers, working in partnership with private companies, have grants from the Energy Department totaling about $22.700,000. In May, if their Aqua Ventus demonstration prototype is deemed eligible, they will receive an added $39.900,000. Aqua Ventus is similar to the WindFloat but with modifications that could make it cheaper to produce. It floats because the concrete contains air. Project leader, Dr. Dagher, said that, if all goes well, his team could have two full-scale turbines pumping electricity into the Maine grid in 2019 and larger commercial farms starting construction in the Gulf of Maine by the mid 2020s. "The beauty of this," he said, is every 20 years - which is typically when the turbine reaches the end of its life - you can tow this back to shore, put a new turbine on and take it back.

But the project has stirred controversy on Monhegan Island, less than three miles from the planned site, where a year-round population of about 70 swells into the thousands over the summer, and its beauty has long made it an artists' haven. Supporters point to the potential for cheaper electricity and better internet service through an underwater cable connection from the wind farm to the island. (The local electric company has tried for years to build a reliable, independent system to bring renewable energy to the island.) But opponents fear that the turbines would disrupt the pristine views and lobster fishing operations. Some residents distrust the Aqua Ventus farm because it is a test project with a potentially short life and many uncertainties, and some have even talked of suing to stop it. doclink

Art says: This article does not explain how the electricity gets to the grid from miles out to sea. I expect that is a major cost factor.

Korea Footprint

September 3, 2016, Global Footprint Network

The Ecological Footprint shows how great is human demand for and the ecosystems' supply of natural resources and services such as food, wood, cotton for clothing, space for cities and roads, and carbon dioxide sequestration. This demand is met both domestically and by distant locations around the world.

On average, Korean residents have an Ecological Footprint eight times larger than what their country's ecosystems can provide (biocapacity).

Fisheries are the largest component of Korea's biocapacity.

Korea's carbon footprint makes up 73% of its Ecological Footprint, larger than the world average of 60%. Transitioning to renewable energy is one of the most powerful ways for Korea to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and Ecological Footprint.

Korea's top trade partners are running ecological deficits or have high and growing Ecological Footprints (United States, Japan, Australia, Canada and Russia).

Food; personal transportation; and household energy (electricity, gas and other fuels) are the three top contributors to Korea's Ecological Footprint and are the areas where individuals, governments, and businesses can make the most difference.

Resource security is becoming increasingly important for the world, and for Korea. As one of the most innovative countries, Korea is well positioned to build a resource efficient economy that provides for a thriving society within the means of nature. WWF's One Planet Perspective suggests a way to such a sustainable future. doclink