Our staff has been busy this past month spreading the word about the Ecological Footprint at conferences and engagements around the world. Click locations below to learn more about our work.
Our staff has been busy this past month spreading the word about the Ecological Footprint at conferences and engagements around the world. Click locations below to learn more about our work.
Last month, David Lin, a lead scientist at Global Footprint Network, traveled to India to provide support to Pragyan Bharati, our India director, on our new pilot project there called Sustainable Development Return on Investment. The project aims to empower local villagers to have a more informed voice in shaping development in their communities. Here is a short travelogue by David on his experience meeting villagers with our partners International Development Enterprises-India (IDEI) and Gram Vikas (of India).
When my plane from Delhi landed in Bhubaneswar, the capital of Odisha, I immediately noticed the change in environment. Odisha, located in East India, is a region covered by a dry tropical and deciduous forest, evident even in the most urban areas of the town. The tribal communities we visited were located near the town of Phulbani, about 5 hours by car from Bhubaneswar. The trip was a beautiful one, passing through oceans of green rice fields and tall forests, punctuated by many small towns and villages.
The spectacular 40 percent crash in oil prices that began in July and accelerated in October has focused the world’s attention once again on the "master commodity" and its far-reaching effects on the global economy. Unfortunately, much of the media coverage has revolved around nationalistic narratives that have little bearing on the facts.
Given oil’s significant role in today’s economies and its interplay with both biocapacity and Ecological Footprint pressures, we wanted to share our view on:
• why oil prices are down;
• when and why might they go back up; and
• who gets hurt and who wins.
Meet 10 year-old Daigo Toubaru of Okinawa, Japan, who recently calculated his Ecological Footprint for the first time. This short Q&A is part of our CrowdRise Campaign to raise funds for a Footprint calculator mobile application and help preserve our natural resources for future generations!
The average Japanese Footprint is 2.26 Earths – If everyone in the world lived like the average person in Japan, we would need 2.6 Earths. How do you feel about your Footprint results?
I think 1.9 Earths is too big, so I want to rethink my lifestyle!
How can you reduce your Footprint? I want to choose more local food and more natural food. I want to eat less processed and packaged food items too. Oh, sometimes I have leftover food that goes to waste, I can reduce that!
Do you have any messages to your friends in the world? Let’s work together, friends. Let’s try not to use Earth-san too much because we only have one Earth. Okinawan culture has an animism point of view where everything including inanimate objects has soul. Here Daigo refers to Earth-san as a living thing.
This is a series of videos in Global Footprint Network’s crowdfunding campaign for a Footprint calculator mobile app. Learn more at www.bit.ly/ecofootprintapp.
Meet Rob Gotto of Oakland, California and learn how he harnesses the sun to reduce his Footprint – and the Footprint of Kaiser Permanente!
Statement by Mathis Wackernagel, President, Global Footprint Network
The landmark U.S.-China climate change agreement announced this week is a game changer for our energy future because it represents strong recognition of the need to wind down fossil fuel use to zero within a few decades. What had been a physical necessity but a political taboo is now being acknowledged by the two countries with the largest CO2 emissions.
Other countries have been waiting on the sidelines for the United States and China to act on climate change. So President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy adoption by 2025 and 2030 respectively—just 10 and 15 years away—sends a promising signal to the world community on the path to the Paris climate summit at the end of next year.
The new goals would keep the United States on the trajectory to achieve deep economy-wide carbon emission reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050, according to the White House. China, meanwhile, has targeted total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources to around 20 percent by 2030. Both actions will happen well within the lifetimes of many people today.
These targets represent a significant shift in political momentum and suggest that moving out of fossil fuels may finally have won mainstream acceptance.
Susan Burns, co-founder and CEO of Global Footprint Network, will be honored today at the International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP) Conference in Denver, Colo., as both she and co-founder Mathis Wackernagel are inducted into the ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame. She has taken this opportunity to share insights from her journey.
How did you "fall" into a career as a sustainability professional?
As a child I loved nature, and I somehow knew there was a problem with pollution and the extinction of species, even though during my suburban upbringing it wasn’t exactly kitchen table conversation.
After earning a degree in environmental engineering, I started working in the consulting industry. I like to joke with my younger colleagues that I was working in this field before “sustainability” was even a word! I started the pollution prevention practice at ERM West. Then I met Ernest Lowe and Gil Friend, some of the early thinkers around the idea of industrial ecology and how the waste of one industrial process can be used as the input for another industrial process. The idea is to mimic nature where production and “waste” are all incorporated into one closed loop, and everything is utilized. I ended up starting a small consulting firm, Natural Strategies, with Adam Davis and the late Charles McGlashan, two brilliant men. Our vision was to help global corporations adopt sustainability as a source of competitive advantage even though the business world was very skeptical at the time.
What if doing the « right » thing for the planet—like recycling or buying sustainably sourced items such as organic-cotton garments—earned you money? As an individual, would you be more inclined to take that extra step toward a more sustainable lifestyle, one behavior, one purchase at a time? As a business owner, would you adopt a more sustainable supply-chain strategy?
This is the big bet that environmentalist David French went for when he founded My Drop in the Oceans, a global currency platform designed to "empower people to value nature" through partnerships with businesses and local authorities. Launched last month in Switzerland, My Drop in the Oceans rewards participants for actions that improve sustainable living, including measuring their Ecological Footprint with Global Footprint Network’s Swiss online calculator.
For the first time, Global Footprint Network is partnering with other NGOs to support both sustainable and human development at the community level in India. While Global Footprint Network projects often target decision-makers at the national, sub-national, and city levels, this new pilot in India aims to give local villagers a more informed voice in shaping development in their communities. The project, titled "Sustainable Development Return on Investment: Empowering Communities and Measuring Investment Effectiveness," or SDRoI, is a partnership with International Development Enterprises-India, Gram Vikas (of India) and Fundación Escuela Nueva (of Colombia).
Pragyan Bharati (right), Global Footprint Network’s India director, is leading the 18-month project. She holds a doctorate in sociology and is a social development specialist with experience in leading various water and sanitation projects with ONE DROP, UNICEF, and the government of Odisha’s Ministry of Rural Development.
We asked Pragyan a few questions about the new project.
Northern California’s Folsom Lake on January 16, 2014. The reservoir, 25 miles northeast of Sacramento, has shrunk from 97 percent capacity in 2011, to 17 percent capacity in this past January, according to a news release from the California Department of Water Resources.
California is waking up to the value of the Commons. State lawmakers have acknowledged the need for the responsible management of its natural capital.
This major cultural shift occurred last week when Governor Jerry Brown signed three bills stipulating that the state will manage groundwater if local water agencies and irrigation districts don’t. The move officially put an end to the gold-digger mentality that had prevailed until now, allowing large landowners to deplete a vital natural resource at the expense of their neighbors. It took three years of exceptional drought for this awakening to take place.
The Golden State stipulated a long time ago that anything that belongs to your land, above or below, belongs to you. And so it is that anyone with a well on his or her property could pump groundwater unfettered.
Charged up by activists mobilizing for the UN Climate Summit in New York next week, we delved into our carbon Footprint data to see if we could shed light on the very intractable debates swirling around nations’ responsibilities for reducing emissions. In the first graph below, our intrepid research analyst David Zimmerman found while EU countries toot their horns about declining emissions (as represented by the blue line below), the picture is not so simple.
Here’s what David discovered after creating an index starting at 1993: EU emissions are actually increasing (except for a 2009 recession dip) when you account for all emissions resulting from consumption by EU residents (as shown in the red line). The measurement includes goods produced outside the EU but ultimately consumed inside its borders, and excludes goods produced within the EU that are consumed outside its borders.
In a second graphic, David compared carbon emissions within a nation’s borders (domestic carbon emissions) to carbon emissions embodied in national consumption, which includes carbon associated with the production of goods outside the nation that were ultimately consumed inside the nation’s borders.
Given that Swiss residents consume four times more than Swiss ecosystems can regenerate, what should the nation do to stay competitive?
That was the question that Global Footprint Network and partner BAKBASEL was charged with addressing in a new report that launched Sept. 16.
The objective of the study, commissioned by Switzerland’s Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) and four other ministries, was to establish the impact on Swiss competitiveness of current resource trends.
The report's findings were unveiled Sept. 16 in Bern to spark debate at the fifth public town hall event of Dialog Nachhaltige Entwicklung Schweiz ("Dialogue on Sustainable Development in Switzerland"), a program sponsored by ARE.
Dr. Jennie Moore,
Director, Sustainable Development and Environment Stewardship
British Columbia Institute of Technology
School of Construction and the Environment
In 2006, the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) became the first post-secondary educational institution to join Global Footprint Network’s partner network, which now numbers 76 institutions applying the Ecological Footprint methodology around the world. Dr. Jennie Moore, director of sustainable development and environmental stewardship at BCIT’s School of Construction and the Environment, has led the charge, applying Footprint science to make real policy changes for the Vancouver city government.
Japan Footprint Exposes Risks to Food Security
Global Footprint Network presentation in Tokyo focuses on ASEAN reliance
The ASEAN region is one of the fastest growing areas in the world, with a population of approximately 600 million people and a combined GDP that would make it the planet’s eighth largest economy. Despite these gains, the region faces myriad challenges: Large numbers of the population remain in poverty, while its member states are among the most vulnerable to climate change, deforestation, depletion of fisheries and other ecological pressures. These resource constraints pose threats to the region’s energy and food supplies.
But what does this mean for Japan?
That question was the focus of a recent presentation in Tokyo given by Global Footprint Network Research Economist Katsunori Iha, and Asia Regional Director Pati Poblete hosted by the Keidanren Nature Conservation Fund.
Media outlets around the world helped share the news of Earth Overshoot Day this year, and thanks to countless partners and supporters, a conversation about our planet’s ecological deficit also took off on social media.
Earth Overshoot Day is an annual observance meant to bring attention to the risks of humanity’s growing ecological deficit. This year, August 19 marked the date when humanity exhausted nature’s budget for the entire year.
Highlights of Earth Overshoot Day 2014 media coverage included articles in Le Monde in France, El Mundo in Spain, and the Brasil Post in Brazil. Earth Overshoot Day also made the front page of La Stampa in Italy for the second year in a row. An online article in The Guardian in the UK generated 92 comments. In Switzerland, a Q&A with Bruno Oberle, director of the Swiss Ministry of Environment, was featured on the ministry’s website.
Did you know the Chinese province of Guizhou in southwest China bears some striking resemblance to Switzerland? I confess I didn't, until I was invited to Guizhou last month to speak at Eco-Forum Global. Since 2009, this annual conference gathers participants from around the world to share knowledge about policies regarding green economic transformation and ecological security. This year I spoke on a finance panel led by the chief economist of Bank of China, Ma Jun, and a panel organized by the Sino-Swiss Dialogue.
Just like Switzerland, Guizhou is landlocked and boasts a mountainous landscape. It is one of two provinces in China that President Xi Jinping declared to be testing grounds for China’s new focus on "eco-civilization" and the "China dream."
May and June this year were the hottest ever since record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report. 2014 could go down as the warmest year yet, exceeding the previous records set in 2003 and 2013.
There’s no question that the Earth is warming, ancient ice is melting and sea levels are rising. Friends of Global Footprint Network are well aware of many of the risks that anthropogenic climate change poses, particularly to the world’s poorest regions.
A risk that remains under-appreciated, however, is the impact that water availability will have on energy, and that constrained energy supply will have on water.
After food production, electricity generation is the second-largest consumer of water globally. Thermal power plants – those powered by coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear – consume vast amounts of water in their cooling cycles. A single nuclear reactor can consume over 15 million gallons of water per day. Power generation accounts for 41 percent of freshwater withdrawals and about three percent of freshwater consumption (3.3 billion gallons of water per day) in the United States.
In a first for the Ecological Footprint and a native group in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada supported the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s title over 1,900 square kilometers in British Columbia as part of a landmark decision announced in June.
The historic ruling came about a decade after Tsilhqot’in Nation’s lawyers called Global Footprint Network to provide an expert study for the case, which centered on clear-cut logging permits granted by the British Columbia government without consulting the native community living on the affected land.
The government defended the so-called terra-nullis ("nobody's land") hypothesis—the assumption that pre-European Canada was a vast and empty land—and argued that the First Nation's title claimed was "too large."
The challenge that the Tsilhqot'in Nation posed to Global Footprint Network: provide a scientifically sound evaluation of the capacity of the land to support the native group around 1800, prior to European influence and trade.
Global Footprint Network researchers approached the problem from several angles. One was to study the Ecological Footprint of the current population of bears living on the territory. The theory was that the findings about these omnivorous animals that compete for the same food niche as humans could be used to extrapolate the Ecological Footprint of a human group living off the same land.
As the final World Cup match quickly approaches, we couldn’t help but kick around some Ecological Footprint numbers describing the diverse nations competing in this year’s games.
The eight nations who made it to the quarter-finals represent vastly different lifestyles. If all people on Earth lived like residents of those countries, how many Earths would it take? If we all lived like the Argentineans, it would take us 1.6 Earths. In contrast, living like the Belgians would require us to juggle 4.3 planets – not a small feat. The Colombian lifestyle would lead us to juggle the fewest Earths – just slightly more than one.
Do Big Footprints Give Teams a Leg Up in Football?
Do big Footprints produce big World Cup wins? After all, big Footprints may mean big budgets. Big budgets can buy more expensive players. But are they really better? When comparing the number of goals scored before the round of 16 (which evens the playing field because all teams competed in three games), the number of goals does not seem to correlate with a country’s Footprint size, as revealed on our soccer field below:
The U.S. and Belgium, for instance, have the largest Footprints per person, but their teams racked up only four goals – the same as the country with the lowest Footprint, Côte d’Ivoire. And the two countries that nailed the most goals have vastly different Footprints: Colombia, with 9 goals, has a Footprint of less than 2 global hectares per person, while the Netherlands with 10 goals has a Footprint of more than 6 global hectares per person.
World Cup football is exciting – nearly as exciting as the global sustainability game. The rules are similar. In both, the players strive to play their best within a given field. For soccer, the field is roughly 1 hectare for 22 players. For sustainability we have about 1.7 global hectares for each citizen of the planet. Can we all live well within that field? Imagine the cheers if we can! The Colombians are closer to winning that game than the Belgians. And if the Germans played the U.S. team in terms of energy transition, it may look as ugly for the U.S. as it did for the Brazilians on the soccer field earlier this week.
If we had to choose our favorite of the two finalists who face off on Sunday based on how little demand they place on nature, we would have to root for Argentina over Germany. GOOOOOLLLLLL!
Curious about the Footprints of individual countries? Visit this page and select a country from the dropdown menu: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/countrytrends.
“Climate Change Is A Global Mega-Trend For Sovereign Risk.” That's not me talking. It’s the title of the latest report published by credit rating agency Standard & Poor's. While climate risk is not yet officially included in the agency’s credit rating model, it's the first time that a major rating agency has specifically recognized an environmental issue in its forecast of countries' economic health and their ability to honor their sovereign debt.
This report is a huge development as far as the financial sector is concerned. It is a clear signal that the message about the critical need for countries to incorporate environmental risk into their development strategies, economic plans and public policies is finally beginning to hit home. As such, it is great news.
S&P’s climate risk report is just the starting point of a much bigger conversation. The sovereign bond market has been a long overlooked portion of the financial system, even though it represents 41 trillion USD of total capital flows. Because a government's cost of borrowing is strongly related to its credit rating by agencies such as S&P, governments are powerfully motivated to manage issues that could harm their credit rating. Recent analysis has shown that environmental risks do impact national economic health, and by extension default risk, but are not currently incorporated into most country risk models. Incorporating environmental risks across the finance industry would undoubtedly cause nations to pay attention to ecological risk like never before, especially due to the potential for some governments to be downgraded (and others upgraded), thereby affecting their borrowing costs.
The S&P report looks at the economic impacts of climate change, such as changing rainfall patterns that could affect agricultural yields. But climate change isn’t the whole story. Our research has shown that resource constraints (limited supply of fossil fuels, metals and minerals, food and fiber) coupled with rising global demand also have a profound effect on the balance sheets of nations.
Taken together, the conclusion is clear: For countries to protect themselves from the erosion of economic performance due to climate change and growing resource scarcity they will need to redesign their economies in order to be ‘fit for the future.’ They will need to minimize their liabilities and optimize their opportunities. They will need to be resilient in the face of climate change but will also be compelled to view their natural resources as a source of wealth for their nations, rather than assets to liquidate on their way to economic growth.
Approximately 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries that are in ecological deficit. In other words, their populations demand more resources and ecological services than can be supplied on a net basis by their own ecosystems. Deficit risks play out in three ways. Here goes, briefly:
1. Trade-related risks: countries that compensate for ecological deficits through imports are exposed to trade related risks such as commodity-price volatility and possible supply disruption.
2. Degradation of natural capital: soil, fisheries and forests that are overused or mismanaged can suffer from reduced yield, affecting production and possibly increasing countries’ reliance on imports.
3. Stranded assets risks: Many nations have invested in carbon-intensive infrastructure and industrial processes. Countries are unequally exposed in terms of the scale and impact of needed reforms as governments around the world respond to climate change.
Now, the good news is that governments do have options. The management of resources and fossil fuel dependence, to name but two aspects, belong in the realm of political choice.
We believe we're providing a very important lens for credit risk perspective. And so we're about to launch the second round of E-RISC (Environmental Risk Integration in Sovereign Risk Credit) research with seven partners from the financial industry: S&P, HSBC, European Investment Bank, Caisse des Dépôts in France, Colonial First State in Australia, KFW in Germany and Kempen in the Netherlands. Some 18 months after we launched the initiative, our focus is now on testing and refining the methodology to make it robust and useable in investment decisions.
Why is this important? Because getting the finance industry to incorporate environmental risks is one of the best ways to help governments pay attention. Ultimately, our goal is to see the implementation of policies at the national and regional level that address those risks.
The challenge is on.
Footprint for Finance
Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist, asserts in his April 26, 2014 Wall Street Journal opinion piece that human ingenuity has broken through resource barriers over and over again.
The reality is that sometimes innovation has overcome ecological limits (such as photovoltaics, fertilizers, LED lamps and glass fiber replacing copper) and sometimes it has not (such as ecological collapse in Mayan civilization, Easter Island and Haiti). Technology can enable higher resource dependence (as it has with airplanes) or reduce overall demand (as it has with recycling factories). The question is which of the two is gaining the upper hand.
That’s why Global Footprint Network provides ecological resource accounting to document human demand against the planet’s regenerative capacity. Both demand and regeneration change annually. We do not assume fixed ecological limits, contrary to Ridley’s claim.
Our accounting builds on simple principles. Human demand competes for biologically productive surfaces. Therefore human demand can be added up and compared against the productive surfaces available.
We encourage others to test whether our numbers hold up to scrutiny. More than 10 countries and international agencies have reviewed the National Footprint Accounts. Their reports are available on our website.
Global Footprint Network is not proposing that humanity has to fail. On the contrary. We do our work because we believe that humanity can live within nature’s budget. But just as with money, overspending is easy without accounting. Bankruptcy is an option both financially and ecologically. We offer ecological resource accounting tools to make ecological bankruptcy less likely. And just like financial management, resource management does not happen on its own. It requires accurate accounting that can inform prudent choices.
As rational optimists, we believe we can overcome ecological overshoot.
Newly published Global Footprint Network data show that high-income countries’ average demands on nature dropped sharply at the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008. In 2010 the per person Footprint started to grow again only in a few high-income countries as governments began spending billions of dollars to stimulate their economies.
Changes in the Ecological Footprint per person in high-, middle- and low-income countries between 1961 and 2010. China (a middle-income country) is shown separately. The green line represents world biocapacity per person. Biocapacity per person has been declining because the world population has grown more quickly than biocapacity productivity (Global Footprint Network, 2014 NFA edition).
Globally, humanity’s per person Ecological Footprint decreased 3 percent between 2008 and 2009, due mostly to a decline in demand for fossil fuel and hence a decreasing carbon Footprint. Low-income countries, typically characterized by less elasticity in their standard of living, contributed little to the decrease in humanity’s per person Footprint.
Every year, Global Footprint Network updates its National Footprint Accounts, which compare more than 220 nations’ demands for ecological resources and services (their Footprints) against the amount available within their borders (biocapacity). Each country’s performance varies year to year, but one overarching trend has persisted for decades: Global ecological overshoot continues to grow. Ecological overshoot now stands at 54 percent above the planet’s biocapacity. Humanity demands more than 1.5 times more biocapacity than what our planet can renew.
This year’s National Footprint Accounts cover five decades. They track nations’ Ecological Footprints and biocapacity from 1961 to 2010, the most recent year for which complete data sets are available. With the latest data, Global Footprint Network can now show the resource implications of the recent global financial crisis.