Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Interview With Ecological Footprint's Co-Creator

Between the Lines Q&A
A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints
on national and international issues
under-reported in mainstream media
for release April 18, 2006
http://www.btlonline.org

The Ecological Footprint Offers a Tool to Measure Human Consumption of Resources

Interview with Mathis Wackernagel, co-creator of the Ecological Footprint, conducted by Melinda Tuhus

Listen in RealAudio:
http://www.btlonline.org/wackernagel042106.ram

Worldwide human population is on the rise, and the demand for resources is increasing even faster. In the current situation, a tool called the Ecological Footprint is one way to measure how much land and water humans need to produce the resources they use and to absorb the waste they create. Using internationally accepted measurement tools, it's been determined that humans need an average of 4.5 acres -- or footprint -- per person to meet those needs. But in the U.S., the average footprint is 24 acres. Thus, it would take five Earth-size planets to meet humanity's resource needs if everyone consumed as much as the average American.

Ever-larger footprints have led to a situation in which humans are consuming almost 25 percent more resources each year than can be regenerated annually. And that doesn't even take into account what resources non-human life forms require. Between The Lines' Melinda Tuhus spoke with Mathis Wackernagel, the co-creator of the Ecological Footprint. A Swiss citizen now living in Oakland, Calif., Wackernagel recently visited Yale University in New Haven, Conn., where he gave speeches and workshops on how to utilize the tool. He maintains the method provides objective measurements, which then can be used by governments or non-governmental organizations to evaluate the impact of city, region or country on the world's resources.

MATHIS WACKERNAGEL: The footprint is not about how bad things are or how bad you are. It’s just a statement of where we’re at and what we can do about things. So, it’s interesting to know for yourself where you’re at. But obviously, it’s not just about you, but it’s about also the systems you have built around you. The wealthiest Americans, with very large footprints; they love to go to Italy. And in Italy, the footprint per person is about 2.5 times smaller than the U.S. average, and not because they are particularly virtuous, ecologically speaking; (but) just because they have inherited cities that are very efficient in terms of being compact. People walk around, they eat more local food because it’s available in compact cities, they have markets, etc. So all these things, structurally, without anybody’s intentions, allow everybody to have a very high quality of life at much lower resource consumption, or footprint, as we say.

So, I think the first attention really needs to go towards, how can we build infrastructures that will support efficient, high-quality lifestyles at low footprints. People often ask me, What can we do to reduce our ecological footprints? And I think they expect me to say, "Drive less, eat less meat, don’t eat chocolate!" I don’t know…things like that. And what I tend to say is, "Just maximize your quality of life, because if you really think about quality of life, what does it take to use your budget on this planet best?" The budget is probably, for an individual, it’s time, really. It’s how many hours do you have on this amazing planet? How do you want to use your hours? Do you want to use it to maximize your income? Then you cannot even spend it because you don’t have time to spend it.

Or is it to fulfill your dreams? And then you can find other ways. Perhaps money is not the limiting factor. It’s really time. And people if they really start to think about quality of life and what’s the purpose of their life and when they’re most happy in their life, most people will come to the conclusion to change their life in a way that, at the same time, also reduces the footprint. So quality of life can be a driver, and most often you’ll find that resource consumption you depend on is a barrier to a high quality of life, not an enabler.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Can you say more about how this approach could be useful in promoting environmental justice within a country and around the world?

MATHIS WACKERNAGEL: I think what we do first is provide analysis and say, "That’s the way it is." So we have a basis for decision-making. And what we’ll see is that ecological assets are very differently used in different countries, and very differently available. For example, the Dutch have a very dense population in a small country, so they have little biological capacity per person. That’s the way historically it developed. That’s where they’re at right now. They still use significantly more than what they have, so they run a relatively significant ecological deficit, meaning they depend on either importing extra capacity or depleting their own assets. They are wealthy enough that they’re able to import a big part of that difference, so they’re able to not degrade their own ecological ecosystems.

Now, other countries like Rwanda, they don’t have the economic means to import more than what they have available locally, so has to start to use more, and leads to liquidation, like for example, deforestation or erosion of agricultural capacity, or whatever form it may take. So, we just help to show where countries are at, and I think that helps strengthen more fruitful dialogue between countries. What we’ve seen, for example, is that in the last round of the Biodiversity Convention, which brings together most countries in the world -- the U.S. is not part of it, the Russian, and Brazilian and Colombian -- all countries with significant ecological capacity, and that doesn’t mean they use that ecological capacity very effectively or sustainably; they just have a lot. They recognize that the footprint is actually an important asset for them to point out that they have assets and it puts them in a much stronger position in international negotiations than, let’s say, Switzerland, that doesn’t have much available.

And so, they have proposed the ecological footprint as a measure of biodiversity, to recognize ecological assets, and I think they get more valued on both sides; those who see their deficits as a liability or risk factor in their economic performance, but also those who recognize perhaps that gobbling up their reserve may be the stupidest thing they could do. Having it in reserve is one of their biggest assets that separates them from the crowd and gives them a competitive advantage in the future. So I think for both sides, it leads us in the right direction of saying ecological assets matter, we need to preserve them, we depend on them.

Contact the Ecological Footprint network by calling (510) 839-8879 or visit their website at www.footprintnetwork.org. Visit www.ecofoot.org to take the ecological footprint quiz and see how many planets your lifestyle requires.

Related links at http://www.btlonline.org/btl042106.html#3hed

*************

Melinda Tuhus is a producer of Between The Lines, which can be heard on more than 40 radio stations and in RealAudio and MP3 on our website at http://www.btlonline.org. This interview excerpt was featured on the award-winning, syndicated weekly radio newsmagazine, Between The Lines for the week ending April 21, 2006. This Between The Lines Q&A was compiled by Melinda Tuhus and Anna Manzo.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>

ALSO:

Buildup:

Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>

ALSO:

Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>

ALSO:


Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news