There are various versions of this World Wildlife Fund chart showing the capacity of the Earth’s natural environment (soil, air, water, forests, minerals, energy resources, etc.) to support human life. They all tell a similar story. 
Before WWII, humans were using about half the Earth’s available natural resources (the “biocapacity” of the planet) to support our various activities. Just 30 years on, we were consuming our full planet's worth of resources and had achieved a sort of breakeven steady state with respect to the Earth’s carrying capacity. In accounting terms there was no profit (gain) and no loss of biocapacity.
Since the 1970s, our consumption has continued to increase and we now require more than 1.5 times the Earth’s biocapacity to support our human activities. Our planet’s biocapacity income statement is operating in deficit and we are depleting the Earth’s natural asset’s savings account to fund our lifestyle.
Even more alarming is that fact that if all economies were placing the same burden on natural assets as the US economy, we would need the equivalent of 5 times the Earth’s biocapacity to be at steady state. China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and other developing countries are successfully emulating the economic success of North America and Europe, and as they do, the depletion of Earth’s biocapacity will accelerate.
My career has been about trying to reduce the human ecological footprint by focusing on three of the biggest causes of biocapacity depletion: industrial food systems, energy from non-renewable sources and failure to recycle waste as resources. I now know that efforts like mine will fail unless we create a new economic system that recognizes the cost to natural assets of the current non-sustainable economic system. This is the reason I joined the board of the New Economics Institute. NEI believes:
“We are at a turning point in history. Rising temperatures are now recognized as a sign of our planet in crisis. Inequities between rich and poor, North and South, grow ever deeper. The global economy has failed in its promise to produce and deliver basic goods in an efficient manner for an expanding population, leaving increasing numbers in abject poverty. The environmental crisis, the equity crisis, and the crisis of distributed production all have their roots in the current economic system, with implications for our culture, for our society, and for our health and well-being. What would an economy built on principles of fairness and sustainability look like? How do we model it; where is it emerging; how do we collectively strategize to fully implement it? These are the pressing questions of our time.”
On June 8-10, the New Economics Institute is hosting a conference entitled "Strategies for a New Economy," at Bard College on the Hudson River in New York State. Our purpose is to bring together what are often diverse and scattered efforts to reshape our economic system, place them under one tent, and raise the flag to announce that transitioning to a new economy will mean engaging politicians, researchers, media, educators, citizen activists, business leaders, financial experts, scientists, union workers, cultural leaders, advocates for the disenfranchised, and youth—all working together to achieve a common goal.
And speaking of youth, this article by Andrew Revkin for the New York Times describes some of the reasons young people are calling for a new economy.
In recent decades, the watershed of the Nandamojo River, on Costa Rica’s northern Pacific coast, has undergone radical environmental change. Seasonal flooding has intensified, and riverbeds that used to flow year-round are now dry for several months each year. Plus, with climate change, intense rain events are projected to increase while total rainfall in the 6-month wet season is expected to decrease by 25%.
Initial agroforestry belts will be planted in the Nandamojo valley during the 2012 rainy season (June-December). After installation, ROW will monitor and evaluate the effects on soil erosion, surface runoff, and biodiversity. ROW will also provide outreach and educational support to help landowners and other local residents understand the multiple benefits of these reforestation belts.
When I first began working on food issues, it was the early 1980s. At that time our worries were primarily environmental (loss of top soil, contaminated aquifers from agricultural chemicals, monoculture desertification of the Great American prairie) and economic (a growing reliance on industrial agriculture and the loss of family farms to a USDA policy of “get big or get dead”).
bout .1% of the calories we consumed. We are now approaching 5%, a 50 times increase, and there’s a 
Mi Tierra and Restoring Our Watershed recently established a new 
It’s not milk or maple syrup. It’s not apples or honey. Vermont farmers are learning that one of the best ways to generate on-farm profit is by “growing” electricity.
