Does WWF blame Hungarians with the blindfolds on?

(The playful panda BOCS corrects WWF)A WWF vakon hibáztatja a magyarokat?

If everyone would truly live like the Hungarians, then humanity would have already came out of the ecological crisis. If everyone on the planet lived like the average Hungarian, which also means that the human population would have changed like it has in Hungary, then we would require less than 1 Earth – stated the BOCS Foundation, contradicting the WWF’s communique that talks about 2,2 Earths.[1]

Does WWF blame Hungarians with the blindfolds on? | BOCS Foundation1.
How could the reader decide who’s right? Well, it’s pretty simple. If lifestyle includes how many kids one has, if the expression „if everyone lived like” includes the population explosion or population equilibrium, for that matter, then the calculation of BOCS is correct. Since the first factor of ecological footprint calculation is population, any calculation that treats population as a taboo is obviously unscientific and incorrect. The misleading term WWF uses already suggests this: WWF deceptively refers to the ecological overshoot as „overconsumption”, ignoring the population factor. (Note that even per capita ecological footprint includes efficiency besides consumption.)

Why should the Hungarians (or any other nation with a stable or decreasing population) live ever more poorly, just because several countries oppress women, do not send girls to school, and oppose contraception, so their population is exploding? In 1961, global per capita biocapacity was 3.12 gha, but today it’s just 1.63 (almost halved)[2] because of those who force reproduction, and end up with population explosion.

If everyone lived like the Hungarians (whom have stopped increasing their population back in 1980), then less than half as many people would live on planet Earth than now (!)[3] and we would’ve come out of the global ecological crisis by 2000! Ecological footprint data is being calculated since 1961 (retroactively), after which date the Hungarians’ ecological burden on Earth has initially increased, but since 1980 it has decreased a lot.[4] Since then, population has declined by 10%, and per capita ecological footprint has decreased by 30%.[2] According to the calculations of the BOCS Foundation, if humanity would have followed the example set by the Hungarians, then global per capita biocapacity would be above 4 gha, which could easily accomodate the recent Hungarian per capita ecological footprint of 3.6 gha.

So if since 1961, everyone would have truly lived like the Hungarians, including population, then we would’ve already come out of global ecological crisis, contrary to the claims of WWF about overburdening the Earth more than twice. So Hungarians shouldn’t be blamed (due to having population in the blindspot), but should be presented to the world as a promising example on how to solve the ecological crisis!

But even if we set aside the global population, the overshoot date of June 14 is still a misdirected blaming of the Hungarians from WWF’s part. It would only be September 12, as Hungary’s ecological footprint is only 144% that of its biocapacity.[2] It is absolutely meaningless to compare the ecological footprint of a country to anything other than its own biocapacity, which they can manage and have to adapt to. Not to mention that from the perspective of the health of ecosystems, the global average is irrelevant. At best, the ratio of global ecological footprint to biocapacity is only interesting from the perspective of climate change, but even then, whether a country contributes to it or not depends on whether it overburdens its own biocapacity (because of its carbon footprint).

Why should a country with stable or decreasing population live more poorly because other countries overburden the Earth ever more? Indias per capita ecological footprint, for example is only one-third of Hungary’s, at 1.2 gha, but in the last 13 years, it has increased by 50%, while its population grew by 20%![2]

The WW compliments Bangladesh for being so poor that if humanity would live like that, it wouldn’t use up the natural resources available for each year. But does this pointless calculation of WWF (compliment or blame) has anything meaningful to say? Even in such a high level of deprivation, Bangladesh overburdens its biocapacity by 200%,[2] and India by 300%[2] (more than twice as heavily than Hungary). Does WWF suggest that 800 million Indians should migrate out from the country? Or should they import water from Canada for 800 million Indians? There’s no answer until the human right of contraception is treated as a taboo.

Of course, Hungary has a lot to do:
– firstly, to support the human right of contraception and the girls’ education (as this is the most effective and most humane thing to do) in poor countries, as part of its Official Development Aid strategy,
– and to make contraceptives free in Hungary as well, and provide the education of contraception competence, so that teenage birthrates would fall.

WWF, you must not bring shame to your past! The BOCS Foundation, which helps to prepare for global issues since 1975, still stands up for women’s rights, education opportunities for girls, and the human right of contraception (UN, 1968)!

For this reason, the playful panda (BOCS) will regularly correct the WWF’s statements about countries, based on its erroneous calculation method. Breaking the taboo of contraception is key to being able to come out of poverty, for women’s equality, for the happiness of coming generations, and last but not least, for humanity being able to end the ongoing humanitarian and ecological crisis.

[3] (3.073 billion in 1961, decreased by 3% would be 2.988 billion – according to Hungarian population changes)

About BOCS:
The BOCS Foundation is a member of multiple Hungarian and international networks focusing on green issues, peace, and reproductive health, has been awarded by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Hungarian Scientific Association of Ecologists), and the first CEE member of ICBL (which campaign won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize). Its logo is a playful panda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *