Q&A
Questions from the audience, with responses from David Lin, Chief Science Officer at Global Footprint Network
How would the global footprint be affected if we reached net-zero emissions?
The carbon footprint is a major portion of the global ecological footprint. Reaching net zero emissions would significantly reduce the footprint. However it isn’t as simple as deducting that portion of the footprint, likely other footprint categories would increase as a result.
If we protected 30% or 50% of nature from human exploitation, how many people could we still support on the remaining 50-70%, with a relatively high standard of living?
There are many moving parts to this question to the degree the answer wouldn’t give us a meaningful information point from an accuracy perspective, but also it doesn’t give us a meaningful target to act upon. If a calculation was needed, one approach could be to evaluate countries that meet a minimum standard of living (subjectively determined) and look at which ones have the lowest footprint per capita footprint. The reason this doesn’t work is it doesn’t consider current context (infrastructure and economic resources).
Are the needs of wildlife factored into your calculations?
The numbers we provide are a high-level accounting that do not take into account what would be required to safeguard biodiversity. Scientists have estimated and suggested different values, (E.O. Wilson suggests 50% or half earth should be set aside for Biodiversity). These are also high level estimates. In a more qualitative sense, we know that there is also a degree of intactness or ecosystem integrity needed to maintain biodiversity.
How do we use overshoot to foster justice and equity, both of which are important to sustainability as resource management?
Many if not all efforts to reduce overshoot are in support of justice and equity. Understanding overshoot as context means acknowledging the future where all of humanity still seeks to live well in a world of increased extreme climate events, and resource related disruption. The more quickly we take action now in reducing overshoot, the more we can avoid the loss of human wellbeing in the future. On the resource side, overshoot reduction is benefits those who take action while also providing a benefit to all. On the nature side, recognizing that maintenance of our biocapacity (natural capital) rather than liquidation means that more value will to be given to the production end of economic value chains. Context reinforces that need for greater and more fair compensation to producers and producer countries so they can maintain robust natural resources.
Are there direct consumer impacts regarding food, transportation, etc., that will get people’s attention?
While we forget quickly, global disruptions and price shocks such as those that have occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic and oil (and egg) prices at various times have significantly led people to change their lifestyles out of necessity and recognize our dependence on global supply chains (just-in-time supply/demand management). Though related, these examples are not direct results of overshoot, however understanding the nature of the future should be enough to direct our long-term planning towards efficiency and resilience.
Are there breakdowns within a country, particularly the US? For instance, how does Illinois compare to Iowa? How does Chicago compare to downstate Illinois?
There have not been any recent state-level studies in USA, however there was a 2015 study looking at all states.
Do you think those in deficit (USA) could be shown that those in lower deficit have a higher level of welfare, would that change behaviour or federal/corporate action?
Ecological deficits exist simply as an effect of specialization in society. In accounting we draw circles around things to help with practical decision making. For example, most people who live in an urban environment live in a “deficit”. Their home (or land), which would be their house or apartment, has little to no biocapacity. They trade their time and expertise for money, from which they buy food and other things from outside their house. This phenomenon occurs at national levels, whether it is USA or Switzerland (which also runs a ecological deficit). It isn’t a problem necessarily, until you step back and see the global resource context – we use more than the farm can support at a global level. If you have money but there’s no food at the supermarket, what do you do? This should be reason to ask – how do we minimize this risk?
In one graphic, Australia appeared on the ‘reserve’ side (along with Canada and Finland) rather than the ‘deficit’ side. However, figures show Australians are heavy consumers, on a par with Americans. Could it be misleading to suggest that Australia is ‘doing well’ regarding its footprint?
“Doing well” is subjective. The accounts are just numbers. You can slice it and look at it from different angles, but numbers for Australia and Canada show relatively small populations compared to the size of each respective country. In other words, you could say these countries are large farms with small populations (compared to other countries and their populations). This means the respective farms have enough biocapacity to support the population’s consumption. At the same time, the fact is that they have a relatively high level of consumption (ie. high per-capita ecological footprints). In a purely quantitative sense, you could talk about ecological resources just like monetary resources – saying it this way it is no different than saying someone makes lots of money but also they spend quite a lot to support their current lifestyle.
What have you done, Dr. Lin, to change your lifestyle that could give us some ideas?
The most important thing is to understand context and make decisions that can support your long-term success and wellbeing withing this context. This is different for everyone. For me, I would say that the two biggest things I have benefitted from are choosing to live within walking and biking distance from my daily activities (work/hobbies/school) and choosing to DIY whenever possible. These have provided me with physical and mental health benefits, enabled me to support and feel more connected to my local community and businesses, and given me a greater degree of self sufficiency.
During WWII, people sacrificed for the war effort. Can we consider this a kind of necessary effort for survival to protect biodiversity, for example?
Gathering this kind of societal steam is challenging and takes a special set of circumstances, triggering events, charismatic leaders, etc, to gather a population, or at least a majority, around a unified vision. In that case, I believe there was an immediate threat to our country’s values (and maybe even some economic interests? Just throwing this in because most wars involve some element related to resources).
As your question suggests, we need all hands on board. But the challenge here is different, and we don’t have that alignment. You’ve probably heard the phrase that goes something like.. the Earth will be here.. the question is, how will humanity fare in the future? So how do we align various interests, especially when it comes to our survival? One key to this shifting the mindset and narrative towards this recognition. Please see this blogpost for a longer discussion. It is one of several within the series “Three Decades & Counting: Insights from successes and failures in 30+ years of communicating about sustainability”
