Footprint Network Blog - Ecological Limits
Astronaut Launches Living Planet Report 2012
Humanity is now using nature’s services 52 percent faster than what Earth can renew, according to Global Footprint Network’s latest data, published in the 2012 edition of the Living Planet Report. The biennial report, produced by WWF in collaboration with Global Footprint Network and the Zoological Society of London, was launched today by ESA astronaut André Kuipers from the International Space Station.
Released just weeks before world leaders come together in Rio de Janeiro for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the report shows rising competition among countries for resources and land use.
“We’ve entered the era of the global auction,” said Global Footprint Network President Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D., “where nations are now forced to compete fiercely for more expensive and less abundant resources. It’s in their own self-interest to preserve and restore the natural assets they have within their borders and avoid ecological deficit spending. In a resource constrained world, such spending will become an ever more challenging economic burden.”
Figure 1: Pathways into the future. How long can ecological overshoot be sustained? What are the cost and benefit of each path? Using more than Earth can renew is only possible temporarily – while there are sufficient assets to be liquidated and waste sinks to be filled up. Eventually, overshoot will be eliminated – the question is whether it is eliminated by design or by disaster.
The new figures released for humanity’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity (Earth’s capacity to regenerate resources) show that now, more than ever, countries must manage natural capital as part of their strategy to secure ecological, economic and social success. This holds also true when deploying development strategies that aim at producing lasting progress, for instance for efforts to eliminate hunger and alleviate poverty.
As population and consumption increases, the pressure on the planet continues to grow. Global Footprint Network calculations show that in the past five decades, humanity’s Ecological Footprint has more than doubled. In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, humanity used the equivalent of slightly more than 1.5 planets to support its activities. In other words, nearly 40 years after Earth went into ecological overshoot, it now takes more than a year and six months for Earth to absorb the CO2 emissions and regenerate the renewable resources that people use in one year.
While humanity’s cropland and fishing Footprints have increased, carbon continues to be the largest driver behind humanity’s ecological overshoot. Carbon now accounts for more than half the global Ecological Footprint, at 54 percent. Land used for food production is another major factor in humanity’s increasing Footprint.
While carbon is a major challenge, it must not be addressed in isolation. Moving from fossil fuel due to climate concerns to alternative sources will reduce the carbon portion of the Footprint, but may also significantly increase pressure on other ecosystems. The lack of biocapacity to accommodate the carbon Footprint also indicates that there may not be sufficient biomass available to substitute the current level of fossil fuel use, should that become necessary.
Though the numbers are stark, countries can still reverse trends. Using a Global Footprint Network Scenario Calculator, the 2012 edition of the Living Planet Report offers potential outcomes based on different choices related to resource consumption, demographic trends, land use and productivity.
Comparing the Ecological Footprint of Countries
Examining the Ecological Footprint at the per-person level shows that people living in different countries vary greatly in their demand on Earth’s ecosystems. For example, if everyone in the world lived like the average resident of Qatar, which presently has the world’s highest per capita Footprint, we would need the equivalent of 6.5 planets to regenerate our resources and absorb the CO2 emissions. If everyone lived like a resident of the United States, we would need the resources of 4 planets.
A few countries are now on the verge of turning from ecological creditors to ecological debtors, including Indonesia, Senegal and Ecuador.
Countries that maintain high levels of resource dependence are putting their own economies at risk,” Wackernagel said. “These countries will expose themselves dangerously to the global auction. But those countries that are able to work within both their financial and their ecological budget will not only serve the global interest, they will have the most resilient economies in a resource-constrained world. If our goal is to make progress last and secure well-being for all, then we can no longer afford to ignore biocapacity deficits in the new era of resource constraints.”
You can download the latest results here, or check out your country’s trend on our website, as in the case for Switzerland (Click here to see your country’s Ecological Footprint.)
The top 10 countries with the largest Ecological Footprint per person are Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Denmark, the United States, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, and Ireland. Countries on the other end of the spectrum such as Afghanistan and Bangladesh have per capita Footprints that, in many cases, are too small to provide for basic needs. These countries may well need to increase their access to resources if they are to bring large segments of the population out of poverty.
Who has the greatest natural capital?
Analysis of biocapacity also reveals vast differences between countries. More than 60 percent of the world’s biocapacity is found within the borders of just 10 countries: Brazil, China, the United States, Russia, India, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Argentina and Congo. Biocapacity per person, calculated by dividing national biocapacity by a country’s population, is also not equivalent around the world. In 2008, the country with the highest biocapacity per person in this report was Gabon, followed in decreasing order by Bolivia, Mongolia, Canada and Australia. With pressure on ecological resources escalating, access to biocapacity will be increasingly important to countries’ competitiveness and to their ability to provide a good quality of life for their citizens.
“For lasting competitiveness, countries need a break with the past,” said Wackernagel. “The good news is that addressing resource risks can open up economic opportunities and advance social equity. The solutions lay in better understanding the choices before us. For this, governments need the knowledge and tools to manage their ecological assets as well as their resource demand.”
How to Participate
As Global Footprint Network approaches its 10th anniversary, we remain committed to reversing these trends by working with governments and maintaining and improving our National Footprint Accounts, the gold standard for measuring key aspects of a country’s ecological wealth and vulnerabilities. You can be part of this global effort by promoting our work, becoming a partner or giving a donation.
Categories:
Ecological Limits, Footprint for Business, Footprint for Government, Footprint Standards, Our Partners’ Work, Personal Footprint
Global Footprint Network Named One of World’s Best 100 NGOs
The Global Journal, a Geneva-based publication that covers international politics and leadership, named Global Footprint Network as one of the world’s 100 Best NGOs this week. These leading 100 actors represent the changing dynamics and innovative approaches of the non-profit world, Global Journal said in its January/February 2012 issue.
“We are humbled to be in the company of the many innovative organizations named in the top 100 who are seeking to create systemic change, ” said Susan Burns, Global Footprint Network’s Senior Vice President and co-founder. “The world now finds itself at a defining moment where ecological constraints are ever more critical as we seek to secure people’s well-being.”
The Global Journal used a specific set of metrics (impact, transparency, accountability, innovation and efficiency) as a rough guideline to rank the NGOs.
“There is no science in the measuring,” Global Journal said. “How does one – after all – compare the fundamental societal impact of an organization like the Wikimedia Foundation, with the tangible outputs of a well oiled humanitarian machine?”
Global Journal said its Top 100 list was meant to inform, stimulate debate, inspire and show the incredible dedication that is displayed on a daily basis in and out of the spotlight on a daily basis.
“Recognizing the significant role of NGOs as influential agents of change on a global scale, The Global Journal has sought to move beyond outdated clichés and narrow conceptions about what an NGO is and does,” the Journal said as it announced the Top 100 list. “From humanitarian relief to the environment, public health to education, microfinance to intellectual property, NGOs are increasingly at the forefront of developments shaping the lives of millions of people around the world.”
Other ranking organizations included Wikimedia, Partners in Health, PATH, CARE International, Gram Vikas, Oxfam and TED.
Categories:
Ecological Limits, Footprint for Business, Footprint for Government, Human Development, Our Partners’ Work, Personal Footprint
UNEP FI Project Launch Follow Up
The joint project between the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) and Global Footprint Network to assess the financial materiality of ecological risk was launched at the UN Foundation in Washington DC on 17 October 2011. Opening remarks from Paul Clements-Hunt (Head of UNEP FI) and Susan Burns (Senior Vice President of Global Footprint Network) showed a clear commitment from both organisations to this potentially ground breaking project. Richard Burrett, of Earth Capital Partners, also gave an inspiring presentation detailing not only the importance of this project but also how investors currently perceive the financial relevance of natural resources.
It is clear that the tightening constraints on resources and their potential impacts on national economies are not included within current financial analysis. Yet such factors are thought to have growing implications for the long-term credit risk of many government bonds, especially those with long-dated maturities.
A host of financial institutions were in attendance at the launch and participated in a stimulating discussion around the evidence base to show that ecological risks are becoming material for economies and how key ecological data can be linked to the financial and economic indicators. This project will endeavour to shine a light on such questions to explore the role of natural resource accounting in strengthening risk models for government bonds.
Global Footprint Network and UNEP FI would like to thank all those who participated in the launch event and invite any other institutions who are interested to join the project.
For more information please see the project brochure or contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Categories:
Carbon Footprint, Ecological Limits, Footprint for Government, Footprint Standards, Personal Footprint
Living Well in a World of 7 Billion
Humanity has reached a new milestone as we hit 7 billion. Never before have there been 7 billion people on planet earth, all at the same time. As we welcome the 7th billion global inhabitant, we also acknowledge the challenges we will face due to a burgeoning population explosion, resource depletion, food and water scarcity and overcrowded cities. This is especially true at a time when humanity as a whole is already using the planets regenerative capacity 50 percent faster than it can renew.
Although humanity’s total demand is unsustainable, this consumption is very unevenly distributed among the 7 billion people. A large portion of humanity does not have enough resources to secure even their most basic subsistence needs. This suffering is intolerable. It affects the rest of humanity, too, most visibly through conflict and instability.
Therefore, Global Footprint Network is mapping how much nature we have, how much we use, and who uses what. In a crowded, resource constrained world this information helps decision makers understand our present resource situation and find options for avoiding unpleasant consequences.
Categories:
Carbon Footprint, Ecological Limits, Footprint for Business, Footprint for Government, Human Development, Personal Footprint
Participate in the 2012 Ecological Footprint Standards
Global Footprint Network is the standard setting body for the only Ecological Footprint standards in the world. The Ecological Footprint standards set forth quality criteria for Ecological Footprint studies of sub-national populations, organizations, and products. The goal of the Ecological Footprint Standards is to build consensus among practitioners regarding Ecological Footprint methodology, transparency, and communications. This consensus is important because it helps to establish a forum or a common platform for understanding and communicating about natural resource constraints. To that end, the Ecological Footprint Standards are used as a way of maintaining the scientific credibility and accuracy of Ecological Footprint studies, the policy relevance, and the consistency and appropriateness with which the method is applied and findings communicated.
Global Footprint Network’s Ecological Footprint Standards have been established through a committee-based process that incorporates input from our Partnership Network and Public Comment. The Global Footprint Network Standards Committee is starting the process to review and revise the Ecological Footprint Standards. Participation in the Committee and Procedures for the Committee are outlined in Global Footprint Network Committees Charter. The result of this process will be updates to the 2009 Ecological Footprint Standards to be released towards the end of 2012.
Improving comparability The original goal of the Ecological Footprint Standards is to increase the quality, reliability and consistency of Footprint assessments. As the Ecological Footprint is being adopted by a growing number of government agencies, organizations and communities as a measure of environmental performance, there is an even greater need for quality, consistency, and reliability. This review and revision process for the 2012 Ecological Footprint Standards is a way to maintain this goal of improving comparability.
In addition, as the Ecological Footprint methodology is applied in different circumstances by different practitioners, advances to the methodology and communications strategies are being made. Conducting a review and revision process every three years allows Global Footprint Network to stay on top of advances in Ecological Footprint science and application. By engaging with experts, our Partner Network, and public comment every three years, our Ecological Footprint Standards can allow for a dynamic process that encourages innovation and action.
Global Footprint Network is actively seeking input from our Partner Network and Public Comment We invite interested parties to review our Ecological Footprint Standards and submit comments and recommendations for updates to be considered by the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee will start discussions in November, 2011. If you have suggestions that you would like the Standards Committee to consider, please send your input to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Your feedback is welcome during the entire process! Before the revised Standards are finalized in 2012, there will be two 60-day Public Review periods, one in March – May 2012 and the second in July – September 2012. These are your opportunities to provide more input as the draft develops.
Categories:
Carbon Footprint, Ecological Limits, Footprint for Government, Footprint Standards, Human Development, Our Partners’ Work, Personal Footprint
Including Ecological Risk in Country’s Credit Ratings
UNEP FI project seeks framework for assessing government bonds
Could an abundance of natural wealth be a factor in positively influencing a country’s credit rating and the quality of its bonds? Could a resource-guzzling economy be cause for a downgrade?
The UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) in collaboration with Global Footprint Network and leading financial institutions will endeavor to shine a light on these questions with a groundbreaking project to explore the role of natural resource accounting in strengthening risk models for government bonds. The project seeks to incorporate how much natural wealth countries have – and how much they spend – into assessments of long-term credit risk.
Tightening constraints on resources and their potential impacts on national economies have been largely absent from financial analysis. Yet such factors are thought to have growing implications for the long-term credit risk of many government bonds, especially those with long-dated maturities.
“The global financial crisis has taught us more than anything that some of the core risks that affect the value of debt securities and derivatives can simply run ahead of our ability to understand them,” said Paul Clements-Hunt, Head of UNEP FI. “This is why we must deepen our understanding of the risks posed by climate change, water scarcity and the overuse of natural resources for securities. We should not be caught off-guard again. This project is one of the first that tries to quantitatively and systematically consider the linkages between the use of natural resources and its impact on a country’s core economic indicators that in turn influence the quality of its bonds.”
The bond project was launched yesterday at workshop at a side-event to the UNEP FI Global Roundtable, which is taking place in Washington D.C. this week. The Roundtable draws hundreds of leading financial experts along with high-level government officials seeking to address the link between financial stability and environmental sustainability.
The project has two aims: it will investigate the linkages between ecological risk and country-level risk in sovereign bonds, and develop a methodology to explore how credit rating agencies, investors and financial information providers can integrate ecological data into their respective models. In particular, the analysis will look at the risks to countries whose populations and/or industries require more resources than is domestically available and which are hence reliant on ecological services from abroad.
“As resource constraints tighten globally, countries that depend heavily on ecological services from other nations may find that their resource supply becomes insecure and unreliable. This has economic implications – in particular for countries that depend upon large amounts of ecological assets to power their key industries or to support their consumption patterns and lifestyles,” said Global Footprint Network President Mathis Wackernagel. “Meanwhile, those countries with reserves of valuable natural capital may find themselves in an advantageous position.”
The project will substantiate the business case for financial institutions and ratings agencies to include ecological criteria as a key component of financially material country credit risk analysis. Institutions will thus be enabled to work towards better inclusion of financially-material environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in financial products and services.
Learn More Read the Investment & Pension Europe article: Forests into Fixed Income.
Categories:
Ecological Limits, Footprint for Business, Footprint for Government, Footprint Standards, Human Development, Our Partners’ Work
Fit For the Long Run
How a Carbon Tax Will Help Australia Compete
In recent weeks, opponents of a proposed carbon tax have succeeded in fanning fear that the tax could hurt national competitiveness by denting demand for Australia’s coal and mining sectors. Yet such fears are decidedly misplaced. The Gillard government’s plan to put a levy on the worst contributors to carbon pollution reflects a move toward pricing that is rooted firmly in the ecological realities of the 21st century. It is pricing that promotes forward-looking investment and innovation, rather than subsidizing an outmoded status quo. And it is pricing that will ultimately mean more jobs and better lives for Australian residents, and more stability for the Australian economy.
Coal and mining executives protest that jobs could be lost if importing countries such as China and Japan have a reason to seek out other markets. Such concerns, however, beg a question: If jobs are lost today because of an uptick in the cost of doing business, what will be the impact on the sector as the global marketplace moves to cleaner, greener solutions? In a world facing climate change and growing constraints on resources, the good money is on those industries that lead the way in energy efficiency and clean technology. Australia’s mining sector—in particular its coal industry—is on the other end of that spectrum, topping the list in carbon pollution and environmental demand.
“We really need to stop thinking that this will mean acting out ahead of the world,” GE Capital’s regional chief executive Steve Sargent was quoted as saying in a recent article in Business Day. “We actually have a long way to catch up. Germany has broken the nexus between strong economic growth, strong trade growth, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. With Australia, we have gotten worse.”
The booming profits of the coal and mining sector mask a growing cost to the health of another of Australia’s most important assets: its vast ecological wealth. Australia ranks seventh in the world in biocapacity, the amount of renewable natural resources its ecosystems can provide.
If well-managed, this self-replenishing source of wealth will offer Australia continued advantages, both in supplying the resources the rest of the world needs, and in providing for the needs of its own people. In a world in which the supply of renewable natural resources is shrinking while demand mushrooms, the potential value of this asset is inestimable. But there is a key problem: the principal is eroding.
Between 1961 and 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, Australia’s biocapacity per person fell by more than half, due largely to a similar amount of capacity being divided by a growing number of people. Total biocapacity has declined by about five percent. At the same time, Australia’s Ecological Footprint, the amount of productive land and sea required to produce the resources it consumes and absorb CO2 emissions, is the 12th largest in the world, and the country is one of the world’s highest per-capita emitters of carbon dioxide. This degree of resource-intensity implies significant changes not only to key sectors but to society as a whole if Australia is to keep step with the rest of world.
Analysis by investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, Citi, Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan have put the impact of the tax at less than two percent of earnings for all but a very few Australian companies. These are negligible impacts in a time of soaring profits, and they scarcely approach the true costs of emissions.
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering assessed that, for every megawatt hour produced by brown coal, a cost of $50 in greenhouse gas pollution and health impacts accrues to society. Such costs are paid for by citizens or borrowed against Australia’s future in ways such as depleted ecosystems and lost agricultural productivity.
The Gillard government’s plan to institute a carbon tax recognizes a key reality: If we continue to build our success on using ever more resources, we are preparing for our demise. If instead, we invest in building environmental capital and reducing ecological demand, we can adjust more comfortably, and even profitably, to a changing world. Mechanisms that help us do so are anything but uncompetitive. They are a strategy for managing our economy with an eye to the future rather than the past.
Categories:
Carbon Footprint, Ecological Limits
What would it take to make Hong Kong sustainable?
Hong Kong residents are living beyond the Earth’s means, according to a report released Sunday by Global Footprint Network and WWF.
As a society that relies extensively on resources from abroad, Hong Kong is particularly vulnerable to growing global constraints on resources, the report says. But in spite of its unsustainable consumption, there are a number of readily available measures that would enable Hong Kong to reduce its pressure on ecological services, and enable it to achieve a one-planet Ecological Footprint.
The Hong Kong Ecological Footprint Report, issued every two years, aims to provide a benchmark to track Hong Kong residents’ shifts in consumption, from which trends can be identified and actions proposed.
The 2010 report reveals that if everyone in the world lived a similar lifestyle to that of Hong Kong residents, we would need the equivalent of 2.2 Earths. In 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, Hong Kong residents had an average per person Ecological Footprint of 4.0 global hectares (hectares with world-average productivity). This level of demand is more than double the 1.8 gha that was available per person globally in 2007 to produce renewable resources and absorb CO2.
“Unsustainable demand on a global scale means that countries and regions such as Hong Kong will find it increasingly harder to meet their resource needs simply by relying on ecological services from abroad,” said Dr. Wackernagel. “The more it can provide a high quality of life for its residents on a smaller Ecological Footprint, Hong Kong will not only address global risks, but more directly, it will make its economy more resilient facing the future.”
The largest portion of Hong Kong’s Ecological Footprint—60 percent—comes from carbon dioxide emissions. Hong Kong’s carbon Footprint per person has grown 24-fold since 1962. While 26 percent of its carbon Footprint comes from CO2 emitted from within Hong Kong itself (for example, from vehicles and electricity use), the majority, 74 percent is embodied in goods and services produced abroad. Some 58 million tonnes of CO2 are emitted elsewhere to supply imports to Hong Kong.
Other major drivers of Hong Kong’s Footprint are consumption of seafood and timber products, which are mostly from unsustainable sources.
But there are reasons for optimism. In contrast to the rest of China, Hong Kong’s Ecological Footprint per person has declined 25 percent and leveled off since it peaked in the late 1990s. While it is no doubt benefiting from some increased efficiencies in the city, the decline appears largely due to vagaries in the trade of the embodied carbon of goods and natural resources, and of cropland products. It is mostly not the result of sustainable development policies.
 |
|
 |
|
One key way Hong Kong could reduce its Footprint is by boosting the market for sustainable goods. “Consumers can demand that the seafood and timber products we consume are produced sustainably,” notes Dr Andy Cornish, Director, Conservation at WWF-Hong Kong. “In this way we can leverage Hong Kong’s buying power and act as a regional catalyst to drive natural resource producers towards sustainability. In turn, this will create an increased and reliable supply of sustainable products for Hong Kong.”
With 70 percent of the average carbon Footprint coming from household consumption (as opposed to businesses or public infrastructure and services), individual choices have a key role to play. The report calls on Hong Kong to reduce excessive, inefficient and wasteful consumption. It also calls for transforming its modest agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries industries to minimize their impact to the environment.
“Solutions are readily available, and Hong Kong is a city used to reinventing itself,” the report concludes. “Reducing Hong Kong’s Ecological Footprint per person by half would approximate the biocapacity that is available globally and, therefore, make it a logical and sustainable objective.”
Read the Hong Kong Ecological Footprint Report 2010
Categories:
Carbon Footprint, Ecological Limits, Footprint for Government
Vancouver Footprint Video
Categories:
Carbon Footprint, Ecological Limits, Our Partners’ Work
How Can We Stay Out of Ecological Debt?
Mathis Wackernagel talks about Ecological Debt Day, how to slow our appetite for resources, and what we can do to better manage our natural assets on Earth & Sky Radio. Listen here.
Categories:
Ecological Limits
