Human Ecological Footprint

1
Human Ecological Footprint Competitive
Exclusion Tracking economic steps toward
sustainability and biodiversity
conservationTuesday, July 15th 2007 Symposium
by Working Group for Ecological Economics
Sustainability Science,Society of Conservation
Biology, Annual Meeting, Chattanooga, TN

• Mansi Grover
• Assistant Professor
• Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic
  Institute and State University
• William E. Rees
• School of Community and Regional Planning, The
  University of British Columbia
• David L. Trauger
• Interim Associate Dean for the Graduate School
• Director of Natural Resources Programs, Virginia
  Polytechnic Institute and State University

2
Background The End of the Wild

• Over the next 100 years or so as many as half of
  the Earths species, representing a quarter of
  the planets genetic stock, will functionally if
  not completely disappear.
• Nothing ---not national or international laws,
  global bioreserves, local sustainability schemes,
  or even wildlands fantasies ---can change the
  current course.
• ---Stephen N. Meyers, 2006

3
The State of the World

• Global Environmental Outlook, the final wake-up
  call to the international community. (October
  2007) UNEP.
• The human population is now so large that the
  amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds
  what is available at current consumption
  patterns (Achim Steiner , UNEP Exec Director).
• The Age of Consequences (November 2007).
  Washington, Center for Strategic and
  International Studies
• We predict an inevitable scenario in which
  people and nations are threatened by massive food
  and water shortages, devastating natural
  disasters and deadly disease outbreaks (John
  Podesta, contributing author).

4
Background

• widespread implicit belief conservation of
  natural resources and economic growth objectives
  can be universally reconciled
• human economic development associated with
  declines in biodiversity due to the ecological
  principle of competitive exclusion
• two species that compete for the exact same
  resources cannot stably coexist.
• there is a fundamental conflict
  between economic growth and wildlife conservation

5
All economic activity represents degradation

• From the biophysical perspective, every act of
  economic production is mainly a consumptive
  process.
• Economic goods and services are a small part of
  the output.
• The major product is degraded energy/matter, an
  increase in global entropy.

Nickel Tailings 32 Edward Burtynsky
6
The Ultimate Limiting Factor The Second Law of
Thermodynamics

• Any spontaneous change in an isolated system
  reduces its potential and increases its entropy
  (randomness, disorder) the system moves closer
  to equilibrium, a state of zero potential in
  which nothing further can happen.
• The same basic forces of entropic decay apply
  also to open systems including ecosystems and the
  economy.

7
Economic Growth

• Economic Growth
• an increase in the production and consumption of
  goods and services
• typically expressed in terms of GDP
• facilitated by increasing
• human population
• per capita consumption

8
The ecological footprint is

• The biologically productive area of land and
  water required to
• Produce the food, wood, energy, water, metals,
  minerals and all the other resources that people
  consume
• Provide room for buildings, roads,
  infrastructure
• Absorb the wastes, carbon dioxide, and other
  pollutants that result from human activity.

9
Earths Biocapacity

• Productive land and sea on Earth 11.4 billion
  gha (global hectares)
• Divided by global population of 6 billion
  people 1.8 gha of biologically productive
  land/sea per person
• However we share the planet with over 10 million
  other species so we cant use entire
  bio-productive ecological space exclusively for
  human consumption

10
How Much Biodiversity

• Brundtland Commission (1987) 12 of
  bio-productive space should be set aside for
  biodiversity protection (politically courageous
  but ecologically inadequate)
• This leaves lt 1.8 gha of biologically productive
  land and sea per person on Earth at current
  population levels
• Sanjayan and Soul (1997) Brundtland Report
  recommended that protected areas needed to be at
  least tripled by year 2000 and for North America,
  this can range from 12 to 24.3
• Ede (2003) recommends that 25-75 bio-productive
  resources need to be set aside for biodiversity.

11
Earths Biocapacity

• Sustainable living therefore requires that each
  global citizen fulfill all his/her physiological,
  social, and economic needs within an area of 1.8
  gha.
• Average global ecological footprint in 2003 was
  2.2 gha per person.
• Therefore humanity already exceeds the
  sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth by 35
  - we are in a global ecological overshoot.

12
Wealthy, industrialized nations have larger
ecological footprints

• 2003 Data
• Region Footprint
  GDP per capita
• Africa 1.1 gha per capita
  1,847
• Asia/Pacific region 1.3 gha per capita
  5,115
• Europe 4.8 gha per capita 19,316
• North America 9.6 gha per capita
  37,500

13
All countries that run eco-deficits are
dependent on surplus biocapacity (exergy)
imported from low density countries (like Canada)
and the global commons.
14
Methods

• Thomas Dietz, Eugene A Rosa, and Richard York.
  2007. "Driving the human ecological footprint"
  Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 5(1)
  13-18.http//www.stirpat.org/frontiers_article.ht
  ml

15
Data Sets

• GDP 2003
• 2006 World Development Indicators , The World
  Bank. 2006. Washington, DC
• Ecological Footprint 2003
• www.footprintnetwork.org
• Population 2003
• 2006 World Development Indicators , The World
  Bank. 2006. Washington, DC
• Land Area per capita
• 2006 World Development Indicators , The World
  Bank. 2006. Washington, DC

16
Methods

• Ordinary Least Square Regression
• Regression Equation
• Log(EFP) a ßLog(Pop) ?Log(GDP)
  ?(Log(GDP))2 dLog(LA)
• Where,
• EFP Ecological Footprint
• Pop Population
• GDP Gross Domestic Product per capita
• LA Land Area

17
Methods

• Used SAS to estimate the regression equation
  using data for 135 nations
• Used the equation to estimate approximate time
  frame for reducing USAs Ecological Footprint to
  accommodate biodiversity conservation

18
Results

• Estimated Regression Equation
• Log(EFP)0.120.98Log(Pop)(-0.39)Log(GDP)
  0.13(Log(GDP))20.076Log(LA)
• N 135
• R2 0.9589
• Interpreting the coefficients for a log-log
  regression model 1 increase in population
  will lead to a 0.98 increase in Ecological
  Footprint (EP).

19
Projections
20
Decline in GDP for US

• 5 Annual decline in US GDP per capita from 2003
  level (population is constant at 2003 level)

Total US Bio-capacity 1382 million global
hectares
21
Decline in Population for US

• 3 Annual decline in US population from 2003
  level (GDP is constant at 2003 level)

Total US Bio-capacity 1382 million global
hectares
22

• 3 Annual decline in US population from 2003 level

• 5 Annual decline in US GDP per capita

Total US Bio-capacity 1382 million global
hectares
23
What do we Gain from GDP Growth in Rich
Countries?
(Siegel 2006)
24
Wasted Wealth Diminishing Returns from Health
Care Expenditures
(Siegel 2006)
25
Essential Criteria for Sustainability

• Economic An economy is sustainable if it does
  not need to grow continuously to avoid collapse.
• Biophysical A society is sustainable only if it
  does not
• consume resources faster than nature produces.
• produce wastes faster than nature assimilates.
• Social A lifestyle is sustainable only if it
  could be extended to the entire human family
  without degrading the ecosphere and overloading
  global life-support systems.
• Question Can the already wealthy be persuaded to
  live on smaller footprints so the poor may live
  at all?

26
Conclusions

• We need to reduce United States population and
  GDP (production and consumption) to sustainable
  levels
• to maintain habitat for wildlife and
  biodiversity
• We need to be intellectually honest and
  objectively realistic about the consequences and
  implications of our social actions and collective
  ecological impacts.
• We need to achieve sustainable levels of
  population and per capita consumption sooner
  rather than latter

27
Conclusions

• We need to seize the rapidly emerging economic
  opportunity.
• We need a national goal to establish a
  Sustainable Steady State Economy
• of approximately 18,500 GDP
• per capita at a stable US population
• of approximately 200,000,000 in 2020.