Ecological Debts and Rights

Hello Reader,

Tonight I was reading about the concept of an ecological footprint on the Happy Planet Index (HPI) website. Where I ran across the following statement:

Dividing this [the total amount of productive hectares available on the planet] by the world’s total population, we can calculate a global [ecological footprint] per capita figure on the basis that everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources.

Now I understand the concept of equity, and I generally agree with it, but I would like to take the time to question this particular concept of equity. Please note that this posting will primarily be my own academic musing, so I would appreciate hearing other arguments for or against anything I may say.

Definitions

Ecological Footprint:"a measure of the amount of land required to provide for all [of an individual's or a nation population's or the world population's] resource requirements plus the amount of vegetated land required to sequester (absorb) all their CO2 emissions and the CO2 emissions embodied in the products they consume." from HPI website

Ecological Debt: "The sum of annual ecological deficits." from Global Footprint Network website

Ecological Debt Day: Assuming that a nation or the world begins using an ecological footprint the size of its geographic footprint on January 1st, it will have used its entire ecological footprint by this day of the year, and it will start accumulating an ecological debt for the remainder of the year. from class notes of my Sustainable Consumption course.


My Concern

First, I must point out that I generally agree with HPI's definition of an ecological footprint; however, I would be inclined to consider all pollution emissions in the portion about land required for sequestration rather than simply minding CO2 emissions. Furthermore, to be particularly rigorous, I think it would also be appropriate to add other effects, such as the water that is embedded in the production of goods and the growth of food (or in the case of bottled water the water in the bottle) since this can significantly deplete aquifers and/or exacerbate drought situations. Of course, their particular definition of ecological footprint is not my primary concern.

My primary concern is the assumption at the end of the quote at the top of this post:

"...everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources."

In basic principle this seems to read essentially as a definition of social equity. But is it? If you are an environmentalist or have picked up the international section of a news paper any time in the last decade or so, there is a decent chance that you may have stumbled upon an article about international climate change policy. If so, there is also a decent chance that you have seen a comment or factoid or tidbit aimed at vilifying the USA for taking more than their fair share of oil or polluting more than they ought to. You have probably also seen a statistic along the lines of the US population only being 5% of the world population but consuming 20-30% (up to 50% really) of this, that or the other thing.

While I completely believe that such vilification is warranted in many cases, I have to ask why is so much emphasis placed on per capita figures? Clearly per capita figures are important, but why does this seem to be the pre-eminent concern? Now, at this point, you may expect me to go on about how China has (or will soon) overtake the US on an overall basis of carbon emissions. However, this is not my concern.

Instead, my interest is in how ecological footprints are calculated. That is, as the term footprint implies, they are based on a measure of geographic region. More specifically, they are based on the "total amount of productive hectares". This focus raises some interesting considerations.


Alternative Accounting

If the ecological footprint is based upon geographic area, shouldn't countries be judged primarily upon their utilization of their geographic footprint (i.e. compare ecological footprint to geographic footprint)? Trained as a physicist, I might even desire to keep my units accurate and choose to only compare the ecological footprint to the "productive" geographic footprint. In either of these cases, the US is still not keeping its ecological footprint within its on borders; however, it is doing a significantly better job than many other countries including Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

One way to measure this sort of comparison is through considering ecological debt days. According to my class notes some examples (I assume from 2008) are:

Japan: March 3rd
United Kingdom: April 16th
Germany: May 29th
United States: June 24th
France: July 27th
World: October 23rd

For a slightly different explanation and current world figures, check out the Global Footprint Network website, but note that it uses the terminology overshoot day rather than ecological debt day.

I am particularly amused by this particular measurement, because the day that this was discussed in class was perhaps one of the first times I saw non-Americans become defensive regarding consumption issues. In particular, the several British MBA students were initially confused by how it would be possible for the UK to have its ecological debt day earlier in the year than the US.

While this does not eliminate the need for the US to take immediate action to address the plethora of environmental issues it is creating, it does raise some questions regarding the brunt of the criticism. Also, it is important to note every country that has an ecological debt date is overconsuming its resources and should not be let off the hook!

Rather than get defensive (or offensive), I would like to think through some of the merits of this alternative method of ecological accounting.


National Stewardship

The main merit that is immediately obvious to me is most evident in a current practice, which I will term national stewardship. That is, given the current political structure of the world (i.e. being primarily divided into sovereign nation-states), it seems reasonable to expect a functioning national government to responsibly care for (be a steward of) the human resources (i.e. population) and the natural resources (i.e. environment) within its own borders. (I am considering current frameworks in an attempt to be pragmatic and avoid dealing with potential global ideological shifts in this post.) Unfortunately, this expectation is not being met by a large number of governments, and the matter is further confounded by oceanic issues and multinational corporations. Thus, the extent to which governments succeed or fail to put national stewardship into practice can be considered a measure of how successful the government is.

Also, it seems reasonable for a nation to fairly trade its resources with another nation without impeding the other nation's sovereignty and for a nation could consume beyond its means for a period of time by going into ecological debt, similar to the way that they do by going into financial debt. Additionally, it should be perceived as hostile to encroach upon another nation's footprint (geographic or ecological) without mutually agreed upon compensation. Finally, it is important to note that nations are currently defined by their geographic boundaries and not by the size of their population.

Since in the national stewardship model the government of one nation, for example the United Kingdom, is not expected to utilize its resources to maintain the resources of another nation, for example the United States, why should the first nation expect to reap the benefits of the resources of the second nation? Thus, if a nation can keep its ecological footprint within the confines of its own geographic footprint (i.e. it's not being 'hostile') by managing its human resources (labor, economy, social structures, etc.), it should be considered sustainable regardless of population size and should thereby be entitled to reap the benefits of its management skills. Of course, in the case where a nation cannot keep its ecological footprint under control, it should be expected to compensate other nations inflicted by the damaged caused by its poor management skills.

Therefore, without radically altering the global political structure, current national stewardship expectations dictate that nations should be judged (primarily, if not solely) upon a comparison of their ecological and geographic footprints. Although I do see that this could almost be as much of an argument against the current global political structure as an argument for national stewardship, I have a feeling that embracing national stewardship would be much less violent process (or at least no more violent than typical global affairs).

Reproductive Responsibility


I understand that people are not able to choose the nation into which they are born any more than they are able to pick the family into which they are born. However, conversely people do have some measure of choice of where they decide to live and how many children they have. (Please note that I am aware of a large number of socio-economic, political, cultural, and feminist reasons why this is choice is limited and/or considered invalid, but just bare with me here for argument's sake, and assume that these issues do not apply to everyone and/or could be overcome/avoided in many cases.) So I must question the assumption that "everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources".

I can only assume that I am only responsible for protecting the environment in which I live and/or has been included in my ecological footprint, a responsibility which would be delegated to the government in the case of national stewardship. I can also only assume that along with all of the other responsibilities of parenthood, parents are also responsible for their child's ecological footprint at least until the child is legally independent. To be plain, would I be considered irresponsible if I, as a potential parent, decide to have a number of children that can be accommodated by the natural resources available in the country or region in which I choose to live (or removing that choice, the country in which I already live)? This would mean that my family would have no ecological debt day! I would argue that this would mean that I am being responsible and sustainable. Conversely, given all of the same assumptions, if I decided to have more children than my nation's ecological footprint allows, am I not acting unsustainably?

Again, while I am not dismissing the issues with over-consumption, I am asking why irresponsible over-populating is being given a free pass by assuming that every person is entitled to the same amount of natural resources when in all practicality, no rational parent should have that expectation. This is especially true for areas or countries that have high population density and/or intense resource scarcity. For example, if I decide to live in the middle of the Sahara Dessert, should I be entitled to the same amount of resources as someone who decides to live close to a river surrounded by land that is suitable for cultivating crops? All of this being considered, it makes me wonder: to what extent is reproduction considered a right? (A tricky subject with a lot of possible implications which I will not go into.)

Well, I have left you with a bit of a bomb shell to consider. I hope you enjoyed my musings, and I look forward to any debate points on this subject. I feel that an entire research paper could be written on this topic (in fact I'm fairly certain several have been already).

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond