Click on a question to be taken to the answer:

Question 1 – What is the advantage of aggregating different environmental impacts into one indicator?

Question 2 – Isn’t the footprint just another arbitrary sustainability index?

Question 3 – Isn’t the footprint a bit too simplistic?

Question 4 – What’s the advantage of simplifying so much?

Question 5 – Does the footprint provide a precise estimate of human impact?

Question 6 – If not, don’t we need a more accurate policy tool?

Question 7 – Ecological footprinting seems to be very ‘two dimensional’. It talks about land areas but what about height and depth.

Question 8 – Why have the footprint numbers changed?

Question 9 – Ecological footprinting deals only with measuring the ‘means of nature.’ this seems to ignore factors such as human health

Question 10 – Isn’t sustainability about the triple bottom-line: environment, society and economy? You seem to ignore the economy.

Question 11 – Isn’t there more to social needs than merely ‘quality lives for all’?

Question 12 – We are using up many of our material resources such as copper and tin. How does ecological footprinting measure this resource depletion?

Question 13 – Why do you give so much attention to the renewable resources? Aren’t they sustainable already?

Question 14 – How does ecological footprinting deal with pollution such as sulphur dioxide?

Question 15 – What has ecological footprinting got to do with local agenda 21?

Question 16 – Ecological footprinting implies that trade is bad. How are highly populous countries or communities meant to survive?

Question 17 – The ecological footprint does not appear to recognize that as technology improves we can cope with more people and less land per capita. For example, we have adapted our agricultural systems to produce more food per hectare. Why can’t this continue?

Question 18 – A big part of any footprint appears to be due to energy use. If we switch to energy sources, such as solar energy, that do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, won’t this dramatically reduce our footprint to the point that the concept is meaningless?

Question 19 – What about nuclear power?

Question 20 – What can ecological footprint analysis tell us about the future of the planet? Are we all doomed?

Question 1 – What is the advantage of aggregating different environmental impacts into one indicator?

With an aggregate indicator, such as the ecological footprint, it is easier to explore the connection between various ecological functions and how the various pressures on nature, such as biodiversity loss, erosion, water scarcity, CO2 accumulation interact. Alleviating the pressure on one ecosystem can merely shift the strain to another or, worse still, one impact may start to exacerbate another one.

[ back to the top ]

Question 2 – Isn’t the footprint just another arbitrary sustainability index?

Far from it. The ecological footprint is based on the measurement of nature’s interest– the resources that nature can renewably generate and the pollution that it can cope with. EFA recognizes the finite capacity of the planet and gives a clear indication of the amount of nature that we have and how much we are currently using.

[ back to the top ]

Question 3 – Isn’t the footprint a bit too simplistic?

For sure, it would be ideal to model the total complexities of the world’s ecological systems, but this would require another planet! Some level of abstraction is not only inevitable but perfectly adequate for many applications. The ecological footprint is certainly one of the simpler models that describe human use of nature but one which serves a well defined purpose. Essentially, the ecological footprint is a planning tool to help people understand and deal more effectively with ecological limits. To be an effective planning tool, it is not necessary to have a sophisticated model of how nature works, but rather one which is easy to grasp. In this respect it acts as a ‘least common denominator’ model of nature’s function.

[ back to the top ]

Question 4 – What’s the advantage of simplifying so much?

Such a model encourages a more productive communication between opposing world views. In the authors’ experience the simple premises behind the ecological footprint are accepted by a wide variety of people and thus provide a good common starting point for debate. It speaks to those who believe in human dependence on nature and the necessity to preserve ecological capacities to secure human survival. It also resonates with those who believe that economic activities are the origin of wealth and that only continued economic growth can ensure social peace. In other words, the footprint is a communal gathering point to encourage a diversity of people on a shared journey. Also, although the concept and representation of the footprint is essentially simplistic, the method and calculations used to derive those footprints can be as detailed as the data and human endeavour allow it to be.

[ back to the top ]

Question 5 – Does the footprint provide a precise estimate of human impact?

To secure wide public acceptance, footprints do not exaggerate the severity of the ecological situation. Rather, they offer an underestimate of the true human impact on the earth. Still, in spite of their systematic underestimates of the human impact on the planet, the ecological footprint calculations show that humanity uses more than the biosphere can regenerate. Also, in most footprint assessments, we use official data – and not because they are the most reliable. This is to illustrate that, once these official statistics are interpreted from an ecological perspective, significant new conclusions emerge. (See also Question 14 on the possibilities for including more impacts into future ecological footprint analyses).

[ back to the top ]

Question 6 – If not, don’t we need a more accurate policy tool?

Greater accuracy is always desirable but, more often than not, the data is lacking. The authors challenge governments and other agencies to collect the data that would be required to support more detailed ecological footprint analyses. Yet the authors also realize the dangers of‘analysis paralysis’ – there is no need to delay action by working out our impacts to the fifth decimal place if we already know that we have a problem.

[ back to the top ]

Question 7 – Ecological footprinting seems to be very ‘two dimensional’. It talks about land areas but what about height and depth.

Couldn’t our economy continue to expand by building upwards or downwards? Areas are used as measurement units, since most life processes depend on surface area. This surface area is ultimately bounded by the size of the globe. There are life supporting functions happening under the earth and in the atmosphere. If possible, the authors’ assign them to the surface under or over which they occur (though many processes we cannot yet account for since no reliable data exist). To avoid counting areas twice, the footprint method only accounts for the dominant function. In other words, we only include uses of nature that mutually exclude each other on the same plot of the planet’s surface. An example of how footprinting could be expanded to take into account ‘shadow’, overlapping land areas is given in the section on water. In essence, the planet’s limited surface serves as a proxy measure of the limited capacity of nature. It frames the core question for sustainability more precisely: How can people secure their quality of life within the two hectares, or so, of bioproductive space that exist for each one on this planet?

[ back to the top ]

Question 8 – Why have the footprint numbers changed?

The footprint sizes reported here are in many cases larger than the ones given in Our Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel and Rees,1996) and in some other papers written by the authors. Rather than increased consumption, these figures have changed due to significant advances in the accounting methodology. Now we include sea space; consumption is documented more completely; and pasture and forest yields as well as CO2 absorption are based on more realistic assessments.

[ back to the top ]

Question 9 – Ecological footprinting deals only with measuring the ‘means of nature.’ this seems to ignore factors such as human health

and the well-being of society. Aren’t these important? The ecological footprint does not measure sustainability as a whole. It captures only ecological and distributional aspects of it. It does not inform about people’s quality of life. Sustainability requires satisfying lives for all, within the means of nature. To measure to what extent people are satisfied with their lives, the think-tank Redefining Progress is now venturing a ‘satisfaction barometer’ that can complement the ecological footprint.

[ back to the top ]

Question 10 – Isn’t sustainability about the triple bottom-line: environment, society and economy? You seem to ignore the economy.

Focusing on the tension between maintaining ecological integrity and securing satisfying lives is, the authors believe, more effective in capturing the sustainability dilemma than the often used three interlocking circles approach, for various reasons:
• Economy is not an end but a means. It is a means to secure quality of life and should be organized in a way so as not to exceed the means of nature. So yes, a healthy economy is important, but the authors do not believe that it should be treated as an end in itself.
• The underlying struggle is between people wanting to live well (an important and absolutely legitimate claim) and the need to live within the means of nature (a thermodynamic necessity in order to maintain themselves). The problem is that living well is currently secured through continually increasing supplies, but the ecological capacity to provide these supplies is limited. Also, without the integrity of the ecological capacity, the provision for human life is put at risk.
• Environment, society and economy are not three equal concepts. Functionally, the economy is part of society which is part of the biosphere – in other words, rather than three interlocking circles, they should be portrayed as three concentric circles. Having three simultaneous aims is hard to communicate. Think of soccer: if three teams play against each other, it becomes confusing. Two teams make a far better soccer game. It is more exciting and easier to follow. One team on the soccer field makes for no game at all. So having a clear tension between two competing goals, both of which we need to achieve, more accurately reflects the tradeoffs we are facing. Even though the interlocking circle model sounds convincing and comprehensive in the beginning, it does not illuminate the underlying sustainability conflicts in the end. Neither does it help to explore the relationships between the different elements of sustainability. It diffuses the discussion and makes it unnecessarily complex. A lack of clarity tends to protect ‘business as usual’.

[ back to the top ]

Question 11 – Isn’t there more to social needs than merely ‘quality lives for all’?

‘Quality lives for all’ is a shorthand for good institutions, equity and fairness, safety and security, excitement and opportunities, material and mental well-being. It requires, no doubt, a healthy economy that makes sure we can live well on nature’s interest and that supports people’s aspirations for satisfying lives (but, by definition, this cannot be a conventional growth-based economy).

[ back to the top ]

Question 12 – We are using up many of our material resources such as copper and tin. How does ecological footprinting measure this resource depletion?

In the environmental debate of the 1970s, most attention was given to the non-renewable parts of the world’s natural capital. The prime reason was the concern that the finite stocks of fossil fuel, minerals and ores, all essential ingredients of industrial processes, will eventually be exhausted. Only recently has it dawned on society that the renewable parts of natural capital, including its many life-support services, are even more critical and likely to be the first victims of an ecological collapse. Resource such as copper and tin are accounted for through the mechanical impacts and energy use of extracting and processing the ores. In our current accounts, the energy requirements for the ores are included and more recently we have also included an estimate of the direct disruption caused by mining.

[ back to the top ]

Question 13 – Why do you give so much attention to the renewable resources? Aren’t they sustainable already?

It is the renewable natural capital that is a non-negotiable condition for life. In spite of their misleading name, renewable resources can be depleted if overused or misused. If we draw upon them more rapidly than they can regenerate,or exceed their capacity in some other way they will be diminished. Renewable resources are only sustainable if we do not overuse them. Therefore, it is the biosphere’s potential to renew itself that becomes the limiting factor for maintaining long-term human well-being.

[ back to the top ]

Question 14 – How does ecological footprinting deal with pollution such as sulphur dioxide?

The ecological footprint only addresses human uses of nature that can potentially be sustainable. In other words, there is no ecological footprint for plutonium or other accumulating toxic materials. It is reasonable to say that these substances are fundamentally at odds with sustainability and must be phased out. Since the footprint does not (and cannot) include them, they need to be monitored separately. Renewable materials, on the other hand, do have a footprint. Some of these footprints are not included in current calculations due to lack of data. In theory it is possible to calculate the loss of bioproductivity from pollutants such as SO2. A certain amount of acidity may be tolerated or absorbed by soils. More may lead to a loss of bioproductivity (which would add to the footprint). Too much SO2 may start to accumulate and leave soils damaged. As the relationship between pollution and damage is subject to geographical differences and not always linear, generic assumptions about pollution and footprints are data intensive and therefore difficult to make.

[ back to the top ]

Question 15 – What has ecological footprinting got to do with local agenda 21?

Many Local Agenda 21 initiatives have used the ecological footprint as a framework for their ecological thinking. It provides the context in which people’s quality of life needs to be defined, and the ecological boundaries within which people’s quality of life needs to be achieved. With more advanced footprint tools the authors have been able to assist municipalities in developing more detailed accounts for their ecological impacts and demands.

[ back to the top ]

Question 16 – Ecological footprinting implies that trade is bad. How are highly populous countries or communities meant to survive?

The ecological footprint does not condemn trade. It merely makes ecological trade imbalances visible. We believe that the world is more likely to be a sustainable place if every region lives within its own carrying capacity. This does not mean that it must live only on local products, but that the footprint of its imports should be similar to the footprint of its exports. If we can only consume up to the capacity of the region, there is much more direct and immediate feedback to the scale of our economy. Otherwise it becomes easy to put the cost on ‘distant elsewheres’. Kirkpatrick Sale compared this view with the icemaking tray. Without the divisions in the tray, carrying water becomes hazardous – with the tray, the water is more stable. Similarly, if we have to live within our ecological capacity (and still can have ecologically balanced trade with other regions) the overall effect would be global stability.

[ back to the top ]

Question 17 – The ecological footprint does not appear to recognize that as technology improves we can cope with more people and less land per capita. For example, we have adapted our agricultural systems to produce more food per hectare. Why can’t this continue?

There is no assumption in the footprint about what technology can or cannot do. It accounts for the use of nature and compares it to the capacity of nature. And indeed, some technologies help to produce more per unit of land (in some cases, however, permanently damaging the soils or biodiversity). The more threatening issue that the ecological footprint tries to articulate is ‘overshoot’, which means that ecological capacity can be used beyond its regenerative capacity. While some technologies exist to reduce human impact, most technology has been used to gain access to limited resources at a faster rate and with more ease. In other words, whilst we have the technological capacity for a sustainable world, we seem to choose technologies that increase our overall footprint and increase human overshoot. The ecological footprint only monitors how successful we are in applying the technology that helps us live within the means of nature.

[ back to the top ]

Question 18 – A big part of any footprint appears to be due to energy use. If we switch to energy sources, such as solar energy, that do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, won’t this dramatically reduce our footprint to the point that the concept is meaningless?

True, in industrial countries, fossil fuel use accounts for about half of the footprint. In countries that rely more on traditional fuels, the percentage is much smaller. Still, the non-fossil footprint of some industrial countries remains larger than their own ecological capacity and their per capita consumption is higher than the average earthshare. Moving to some non-fossil energy systems such as wind and solar energy (and the ‘fifth fuel’ of energy conservation) does have a great potential to reduce our footprints. However, the energy footprint will not become zero since it still requires space (and possibly also requires the use of fossil fuels in their production and installation). An extreme case is ethanol produced from biomass. Production may actually lead to a larger footprint per unit than the area necessary to absorb the CO2 of the fossil fuel equivalent.

[ back to the top ]

Question 19 – What about nuclear power?

Nuclear power, the authors believe, has at least as large an ecological impact as fossil fuel if we consider the risk of long-term damage. Assessments of future risk are not, however, part of the current footprint methodology – apart from anything else the data is subject to much controversy. However, the losses through Chernobyl alone suggest a footprint per nuclear energy unit larger than that of fossil fuel. Life cycle studies of nuclear energy also reveal the fact that a substantial amount of pollution is produced in the production and processing of nuclear materials and the construction of power stations. That is why we normally assume the nuclear footprint as equal to the fossil fuel footprint (rather than assuming it to be zero). There is every danger of the fossil fuel or nuclear power debate turning into a paper cup versus plastic cup confrontation which avoids the real issue – they are both as bad as each other.

[ back to the top ]

Question 20 – What can ecological footprint analysis tell us about the future of the planet? Are we all doomed?

The footprint is not about how bad things are. It just makes our ecological reality visible. It helps us to react and avoid unnecessary destruction and suffering. In the past, new thinking about the world has helped humanity become more enlightened. Now too, we need different tools to react to new challenges. Ecological scarcity is a reality; it is not a product of the footprint calculation, but merely a conclusion. The footprint helps us to decide more wisely how to live in an age of scarcity. Footprint analysis also helps us see the good news. There are many examples in the world of people, groups and even societies who have been able to secure a high quality of life on impressively small footprints. They prove that it is possible to live well within nature’s interest.

[ back to the top ]