Scientific Alliance

Ecological footprints
The euractiv.com website this week carried an interview with Mathis Wackernagel, director of the Global Footprint Network, which is an organisation "committed to fostering a world where all people have the opportunity to live satisfying lives within the means of Earth's ecological capacity". Their message is simple and superficially scary: we are using effectively more than the resources of one world, and have to change our ways if we are not to become "ecologically bankrupt". 

Others have been here before, of course. The theory is that it is possible to measure the Earth's capacity of both finite and renewable resources, compare these with the rate at which we are consuming them, and arrive at a sort of balance-sheet. And, by this reckoning, things don't look too good. Europe is using two and a half times what is actually available within its boundaries, it is said. Others have estimated that, if everyone in the world lived a lifestyle with the same level of consumption as Americans, the resources of six planets would be needed. Only by bringing consumption back into line with resource availability will the future truly be sustainable.

In Wackernagel's view, technology can be useful in creating greater productivity, but these gains are being outstripped by the growth in the world population and the increasing prosperity (and hence level of consumption) of that population. The answer, he suggests, lies in a mixture of infrastructure improvement and shrinking the population. He quotes the example of the enormous investment in new building in the United Arab Emirates, where glass-clad developments absorb huge amounts of solar energy and then have to be cooled using energy from fossil fuels. It does, indeed, seem eminently sensible to think differently about how to build homes and offices which minimise the need to use energy either to heat or cool them, and many countries are making important strides in this direction. 

He also talks of the decline in birth rates which occur as people become richer and women in developing countries are educated and able to take more control of their lives. Again, few would argue that reduced population pressure would have advantages, at least at a personal level. The economic implications may be less positive, but undoubtedly humankind would adjust to whatever demographic changes occurred. When asked about demographics, Wakernagel says "At this point we don't have to have a Draconian intervention" (our italics). The implication is that, for the sake of a sustainable future, some such intervention might be necessary at some stage. Some far-reaching plan might be needed.

The essential issue here is how much can we (or should we) seek to control not just the path of future development, but the number of people on the planet and how they are able to lead their lives. This is not to suggest that some control is not necessary. Various forms of centralised government have evolved, of which democracy, to paraphrase Churchill, seems to be the least bad. Governments are entrusted with coordinating and carrying out a whole range of activities which it is simply beyond the capability of individuals or even large communities to provide for themselves. But they govern with the consent of the electorate, assuming that the democracy is functional.

Governments can push the boundaries of what they do, but they can only go so far before they lose legitimacy. The concept of some workable global governance is simply beyond the realms of current possibility. The EU represents a radical attempt to re-shape the European continent's balance of power. To an extent, it has achieved its basic goal of reducing nationalistic rivalries (or rather, containing them so that they do not constitute a danger). But a truly open market for goods, services and people is still some considerable way from becoming reality and, despite the concerns of Euro-sceptics, progress towards any meaningful integration is snail-like. At a broader level, the United Nations is ineffectual and, at times downright perverse, and there seems no chance of radical reform. There seems little hope at present (if hope is the appropriate word) of effective world government which could actually put controls on our ecological footprint.

We then come back to the question of what action actually needs to be taken. Like all such exercises, the output of the Global Footprint Network's analysis depends on the assumptions made. The exercise is well-meaning but intrinsically flawed. Estimating consumption (of food, fuel etc) is relatively straightforward, as is measuring actual output of coal, oil, crops or other resources. The difficulty comes in knowing what the real limits on production or extraction are.

There are those who claim that "peak oil" is here or shortly will be, that further increased extraction will simply not be possible. They point to the fact that oil prices are historically high and look set to remain so, and yet production has not surged in response to the price signal. Of course, it's not as simple as that. Proven reserves continue to increase, particularly as higher prices change the economics, but bringing more reserves on stream is not just a question of turning a tap: more wells must be drilled and enormous investment in extraction and distribution networks is needed. Given more time, oil supplies will ease.

Equally, there are currently real concerns about food security because of large price rises of basic commodities. But the challenges of the 1970s were met, and billions of extra mouths fed without expanding the area of arable land. Supply crises concentrate minds, and solutions are found.

The difficulty lies in defining the realistic ultimate productivity of the Earth. The limiting factor ultimately is the amount of solar energy which reaches the surface and which can potentially be captured. There are lower limits, of course: land is finite, and crop productivity cannot be increased beyond a certain point. But we are well below that point at present. And, overriding all other arguments is the simple fact that development does not continue on some straight line or smooth curve. Technologies change, new energy sources are found, and the whole paradigm on which the ecological footprint is based becomes invalid.

So, we do need to be reminded to be aware of our environmental impact. We do need to be conscious that many resources are, in practical terms, finite. But we should not allow a concept such as the ecological footprint to blinker our vision.

The Scientific Alliance
St John's Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242


Please pass this newsletter on to your own networks and encourage other people to subscribe. Simply send us an email request, and your name will be added to the list.