How Big is Our Ecological Footprint?

The economy may be the major ecological issue of the 21st century. That's the considered opinion of Dr. William Rees, from the University of British Columbia, who spoke in mid-April 1998 at the Montshire Museum of Science.

Dr. Rees began his lecture by announcing that we in the audience were all mistaken in our belief that we could see him. Rather, what we see is some light that is reflected from him. We humans are a visually oriented species, and the images we create are formed by our brain's reconstruction of distortions of light. We then attempt to map these patterns into models of reality that we have learned or constructed for ourselves. Since all that people can ever deal with is models this is, at best, our most direct experience of our reality.

A good model is one that replicates reality. We can rely on it to behave similarly to the real thing. Sadly, most of our environmental models do not. Some are too simple; often mere caricatures of the real world. They fail to consider the environment as an extended entity. Others are completely unrealistic, such as those which assume nature is infinite. Our environmental problems are the result of these poor models. They have led us to deal with symptoms rather than the true causes.

The idea that humans might learn from nature (input) or have a responsibility to restore damage to nature (output) is absent. In fact, humans are regarded as separate from nature altogether. This philosophy dates back to Descartes, the 17th century French mathematician, scientist and philosopher. Descartes introduced the notion of dualism, which said that the world consisted of two entities: mind and matter. He regarded humans as separate from natural systems; science was a means of acquiring mastery over nature for the benefit of mankind.

The planet is in trouble today because the models created by mankind, based on this dualistic viewpoint, have not been working. We distort reality by assuming that nature is not good, and that human beings are isolated and separate from the material world.

There is no better example of this concept today than in mainstream economics, the scientific study of scarce resources among competing groups. Many textbooks present what is called the Circular Flow Model: at one end, households purchase what business produces. Business, in turn, expands: it increases hiring and produces even more goods. The process is self-perpetuating.

And the process can work in reverse! We measure GNP, that prime indicator of economic health, and in our minds it is separate from anything physical. The problem is that GNP measures money flow and ignores the energy and materials involved in production.

The belief that economic growth will solve all environmental problems is common among economists. As recently as 1992, Wilfred Beckerman said "the surest way to improve your environment is to become rich". And in 1994, Robert Solow wrote in On Factor Substitution: "If it is very easy to substitute other factors for natural resources, then the world can in effect get along without natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe."

The concept of substitution is an appealing one; it provides a solution to our ecological woes. By its reckoning, we needn't worry about depleting or corrupting a resource. When this happens, we'll just find (or perhaps invent) another one! Our technological advances, coupled with our ingenuity, give us the ability to create substitutes for virtually any commodity. Thus we are granted complete freedom to exploit the earth, without regard for the consequences. For economists, the substitution concept has another draw: it reinforces the Circular Flow Model. As a result, unfortunately, it has gained wide currency among them.

While Circular Flow is the dominant model in mainstream economics, is not the only one. A competing theory, called the Ecological Worldview, says that we humans are indeed a part of the ecosphere. As such, we are dependent on all ecological processes. Like all living creatures, we extract materials and energy from the natural world, and we discharge our waste products to it. But due to our sheer numbers, we are doing so on a massive and unprecedented scale. Human economic activity now far exceeds the rate of production in nature. The world can no longer regenerate its stocks as fast as we plunder them.

But perhaps a more pressing query is, are all our wastes able to be absorbed? The answer, unlike the skies over our major cities, is clear. Combustion byproducts such as ozone leave a thick gray haze in the air. And the release of greenhouse gases has led to an accumulation of CO2 in our atmosphere. Yes, nature has "sinks" to absorb such gases through the natural process of photosynthesis. However, a large percentage of these gases are not going down the "sink". This is due in part to the destruction of huge forested lands.

Some say increased efficiency will fix these problems: cleaner-burning cars, for example. But this is only a "quick fix" because it ignores the question of increasing consumption. Worse, it even abets that consumption: it can have the effect of making one feel freer to drive. Thus more trips are made and more new cars are sold. While technological solutions may lead to short-term improvements, they ease the way for more consumption.

So which shall it be: the Circular Flow Model or the Ecological Worldview? The Circular Flow misses the point that human beings are a part of the natural world. The Ecological Worldview understands that human beings are ecological entities, intimately connected to the irreversible flow of energy and materials through all of nature.

Culturally held values, facts and assumptions often are not in accord with the way the natural world really operates. Mainstream economists are beginning to admit that our current economic models are inadequate: the global energy throughput has been exceeded; growth and material consumption has reached its limit! We are surviving now by living off capital stocks of future generations.

What are we to do about this dire situation? What we need is a reversal in consumer consciousness. We must construct new models, which will allow us to think in new ways. The basic idea is to reduce consumption of energy and materials, and to replace them with sustainable lifestyles. This transformation will go hand in hand with a more holistic worldview. Values such as a sense of community, the physical health and safety of our environment, and a fulfillment of our spiritual void will become central.

Americans have not yet significantly begun to make changes so as to live in a sustainable manner. A sustainable lifestyle would not diminish the capital stocks of natural resources that belong to future generations.

However, in other parts of the world, small but significant changes are occurring. One example is in the state of Kerala, in southwestern India, where people understand that economic growth and status symbols do not make a better life. Rather than talking about "development", they focus on "progressive betterment"—a concern for the total welfare of individuals. Their small families and low consumption patterns have contributed to their well being and contentment. These factors may be viewed as alternative measures of the "progress" that we so cherish in America.

Did you ever stop to think that everything on your shopping list is related to the land? Land is needed both for production and for assimilation of waste. How much land did it take to grow the materials that your clothing is made from? Your food? Your house? Where did the fuel come from for your transportation? How much land is used to dispose of the waste that you produce in your day to day life?

The total land it takes to support your lifestyle is what Dr. Rees refers to as your ecological footprint. Most of us are living in more congested areas today, so let's consider the footprint of a city dweller. Nothing happens in a city that is true production; it is all consumption. We don't really live in cities in ecological terms. Everything is extracted from the land, made elsewhere and shipped in. One's ecological footprint will not be reduced just because the density of the human population is high and there is less space per capita than in more rural areas. Our speaker refers to cities as the human equivalent of cattle feedlots!

It is becoming increasingly clear that the natural systems in the ecosphere are breaking down, and that the current economic models are antagonistic to reversing this trend. The "footprint" model is much better; it is a good metaphor for our impact on the earth. In order for us to survive, the size of our "footprint" will have to be dramatically reduced.

To learn how ecological footprints are calculated, and to review an outline for reaching and maintaining sustainability, refer to Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth, co-authored by Dr. William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel. This 1996 book is available from New Society Publishers. ISBN 0-86571-312-X

This forum was sponsored by the League of Women Voters of the Upper Valley, the Environmental Studies Program at Dartmouth College and the Montshire Museum of Science.