The concept of the ecological footprint was a great invention, providing a comparative measure of ecological sustainability. Unfortunately the inventors of the original concept took it upon themselves to improve upon it. The goal was admirable. But in my view the academics responsible merely succeeded in butchering the original idea. The result, Footprint 2, is likely to do real harm and sends out the wrong message.
Footprint 1 was better described as a food footprint. It focused on unsustainable agriculture as the primary threat to the world's eco-systems. It may not have been academically perfect but it was a very useful measure. Footprint 2 expanded the base from a defined biologically productive area (about a third of the world's total surface) to the whole of the world's surface. No problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with other relatively minor changes, like the inclusion of a space allocation for other species. My issue comes with the introduction of a carbon footprint component. This new component massively dwarfs all the others.
I have no issue with a carbon footprint as a separate and distinct ecological measure. But attempting to roll the food and carbon footprints together is logically flawed and highly misleading. The flaw lies in the method chosen to convert units of energy into units of land. It equates carbon output with the area of forest which would be required to absorb that amount of CO2. This premise is scientifically indefensible. There are numerous alternative ways of reducing atmospheric carbon that have minimal implications in terms of land area. In the real world, it is also wrong to equate a negative on one side of the equation with a positive on the other.
Here's an example of the math. With Footprint 1 you could reduce your footprint from about 5 acres to less than 3 acres by switching from a diet high in animal foods to a vegetarian or vegan diet. That is a 30-40% reduction. With Footprint 2 the saving is still about 2 acres, but out of a total average global footprint of about 54 acres. Minimal. You could make the same savings by things like growing your own food, living closer to work, or riding a bicycle or taking a bus rather than driving. All very commendable. But here's the lie of it. The only thing you reduce is the need for more forest, to absorb all that CO2. In terms of actual forest nothing changes, unless you can achieve reductions of the order of 80%. Indeed, if you chose to continue eating meat you must continue to hasten the destruction of real rainforest.
Reducing the need for a second or third earth is meaningless if you continue to gobble up the real one. That is what Footprint 2 encourages. It completely plays down the importance of diet, the one thing people can change to really make a difference (see my post for April 2007 in my Archives). It must also increase people's sense of hopelessness. Because most of the things which contribute to our carbon footprint are beyond our personal control. The size and structure of our cities, with their dependence on the car. The climatic zone in which we live. The ability to live closer to our work. And how can we grow more of our own food, and live in a smaller house on a smaller block at the same time?
This is the way we should be approaching it. We face two catastrophic ecological challenges. One has to do with climate change. The other has to do with the biologically productive capacity of the land and the sea. The two are inter-related but each calls for its own separate set of policy solutions.
Fossil fuels will eventually run out. Before that happens they will become prohibitively expensive. By introducing a carbon tax today we can accelerate this inhibitory process. We can increase our efficiency of carbon use and develop viable alternatives including nuclear and solar. The limits on the supply of productive land are more absolute. With the notable exception of becoming vegetarian, there are few options left for increasing efficiency. And no alternative sources. Once we destroy the last rainforest and overfish the sea we face mass extinctions, land degradation on an incomprehensible scale, and seas in which only jellyfish survive.
Keep the math real and let common sense prevail.
No comments:
Post a Comment