Most of the people I know, even if they have some issues with American capitalism, think is seems to work pretty great at "creating wealth" (these are all middle-class white folks, fwiw). They look at their relatively spacious houses, abundance of cheap consumer goods, two cars, etc and think yeah, this is all pretty great, thank you capitalism.
What I've tried to impress on them is a.) this wealth is due in no small part to exploiting workers in the global south, and b.) this wealth is also do to unsustainable exploitation of the environment.
So assume that this data is accurate - that we are using up the equivalent of 5 times the resources of earth. Current US annual GDP per capita is about $65k. Does this data mean that about 80% of this GDP or $52k is based on unsustainable exploitation of the environment? That what they attribute to the miracle of capitalism is really just ripping everything we can out of the planet? I get that GDP /= consumption, but I feel on a national level is near enough to make no difference. And even if 5X is high... say it's only 2X after making various adjustments. That still means HALF of what we attribute to capitalist wealth creation isn't about capitalism at all, just unsustainable greed (which is, of course, definitely capitalism)?
This is very confusing. The world is equivalent to 1.75 times the world? What?
Basically, we need 1.75 worlds for the global level of consumption to be sustainable.
It's saying we, as a planet, are currently consuming resources at 175% of the rate that earth can sustain.
How do they define "sustain"? It's so weird.
Sustain as in, not add more co2 to the atmosphere/contribute to climate change.
EDIT: it's actually more complicated than that , but is a complicated calculation of how much natural resources can be produced per hectare of land per person indefinitely at our level of technology.