Transcript The Prince Edward Island Ecological Footprint

The Prince Edward Island
Ecological Footprint
Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada
Indice de progrès véritable - Atlantique
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
August 14, 2003
Why a Genuine Progress Index
Four hundred leading economists and thinkers,
including Nobel Laureates, said:
“Since the GDP measures only the quantity of
market activity without accounting for the
social and ecological costs involved, it is both
inadequate and misleading as a measure of
true prosperity....New indicators of progress
are urgently needed to guide our
society....The GPI is an important step in this
direction.”
Economic growth statistics:
 Count crime, war, sickness, pollution,
disasters, addiction, stress as contributions
to economic growth and prosperity.
• Count the depletion of our natural resources
as gain. The more trees we cut down, the
more fish we catch, the more fossil fuels we
burn, the faster the economy will grow.
Current Measures:
• Ignore the value of voluntary work and unpaid
household work
• Count longer work hours as contributions to
economic growth and prosperity
• Ignore the value of free time
• Assign no value to health, security, educational
attainment, environmental quality, resource
conservation or strong communities
Indicators are Powerful
What we measure:
 reflects what we value as a society;
 determines what makes it onto the
policy agenda (e.g. volunteer work);
 influences behaviour (e.g students)
In the Genuine Progress Index:
• Natural, human, and social capital valued
• Reductions in GHG emissions, pollution, crime,
poverty, ecological footprint are signs of genuine
progress that make index rise. Unlike GDP-based
measures, "less" is sometimes "better" in the GPI
• Growing equity makes the GPI go up
• Economic valuations key. E.g. voluntary work
worth $53.2 billion; 8.7% loss costs Canadians
$4.7 billion
GPI Atlantic founded 1997
• Independent non-profit research group
• Mandate: Create more accurate, comprehensive
measures of progress, sustainable development
• Nova Scotia pilot project for Canada, close
consultation with Statistics Canada
• Can provide early warning signals for policy
makers, demonstrate cost-effectiveness of
prevention, spotlight soc-econ-envt linkages,
stimulate debate, hold leaders accountable
NS GPI has 22 Components:
• Natural Resource Accounts - forests, fish,
soils, water, energy (NRTEE assistance)
• Measures of Environmental Quality (air, GHG
emissions, solid waste, ecological footprint,
sustainable transportation)
• Time Use (paid + unpaid work, free time)
• Social/Human Capital (health, education,
income distribution, livelihood security, crime,
debt)
The ecological footprint of any
population is:
the biologically productive area of land and water
required to:
– Produce the food, wood, energy and all the other
resources that residents consume
– Provide room for buildings, roads, infrastructure
– Absorb the wastes, carbon dioxide and other
pollutants that result from human activity
(Rees and Wackernagel, UBC)
Ecological Footprint and the
Genuine Progress Index
Essential element of the NS GPI, because
1. Shifts onus for sustainability from solely
producers (NR accounts) to consumers
2. Challenges economic growth paradigm
3. Identifies social/equity component of
sustainability (Brundtland, Stats Canada)
4. Recognizes that local consumption has
global consequences
1. Onus for Sustainability
• Most measures of sustainable development
implicitly place the onus for change on the
producer = “to harvest more sustainably”
• EF addresses the demand side of the
sustainability equation and assesses the
impacts of our consumption patterns on the
environment. EF complements GPI natural
resource accounts that focus on supply side.
2. Challenges the Economic Growth
Paradigm
• Ecological footprint analysis challenges the
assumption that "more" is necessarily
"better“. Suzuki on growth vs balance
• The GPI contains several components in
which "less" is frequently "better," and a
more accurate signal of societal wellbeing
• In the GPI, a smaller footprint is a sign of
genuine progress
3. Equity
is part of
sustainability equation
• Ecological footprint links sustainability clearly
and directly with equity and social justice
• It demonstrates relationship between income,
consumption, and environmental impact.
Higher income groups have larger footprint
• It cuts through illusions that we can improve
the living standards of the poor without also
examining the consumption patterns of the rich
and that we can “maintain” current excess
4. EF
links local consumption patterns
with global consequences
• Local consumption practices may involve
natural resource depletion far away
• We may indulge unsustainably high levels of
consumption in North America, perhaps
even without depleting local resources, but
rather by "appropriating the carrying
capacity" of other countries through trade
Wealthy, industrialized nations
have larger footprints = greater
impact on environment
1999 Ecological footprints of:
• Africa
1.36 ha per capita
• Asia/Pacific region 1.37 ha per capita
• Western Europe
4.97 ha per capita
• North America
9.61 ha per capita
Disparity in Ecological Footprint
Size by Country, 1999
Ecological Footprint By Region, 1999
 The size of each box is proportional to the aggregate footprint of
each region
 The height of each box is proportional to the region's average
footprint/capita
 The width of the box is proportional to the population of the
region
The Ecological Bottom Line
• Productive land and sea on Earth = 11.4 billion ha
• Divided by global population of ~ 6 billion people =
1.9 ha of biologically productive land/sea per person
• However… we share the planet with over 10 million
other species; so we can’t use entire bio-productive
ecological space solely for human consumption
• Brundtland Commission: 12% of bio-productive
space should be set aside for biodiversity protection.
That leaves < 1.7 ha of biologically productive land
and sea per person on Earth
The Ecological Bottom Line
• Sustainable living therefore requires that each global
citizen fulfill all his/her physiological, social, and
economic needs within an area of 1.7 ha
• Current average global ecological footprint (1999) is
2.3 ha per person
• Therefore… humanity already exceeds the
sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth by 35%
• I.e. Human demand exceeds nature's supply.
Humanity consumes more than nature can
regenerate
We are not all equally responsible
• 4 billion people (70% world population) consume
average of just 1.3 ha of bioproductive capacity pp
• Global environmental decline can therefore be
attributed to 30% of world's population – the 1.8
billion people who consume average of 6.5 ha of
productive space per person
• This 30% is responsible for 70% of global
resource consumption and waste generation
Global Distribution Above and Below
Per Capita Global Biocapacity
The Current Human Footprint Exceeds
the Sustainable Capacities of the Earth
• If everyone in the world consumed at
PEI/Canadian levels, we’d need 4.7 planets Earth
to provide the necessary resources + waste
assimilation capacity
• Raising global living standards to current levels in
the wealthy countries would therefore put an
intolerable strain on the Earth's resources.
• = To maintain current consumption patterns in rich
countries we need a billion people to live in
absolute poverty without sufficient resources to
sustain life and health
Global “Ecological Overshoot” is
temporarily possible by:
– depleting reserves of natural capital (e.g.,
natural gas, old growth forests);
– over-harvesting renewable resources to the
brink of collapse (e.g. fish stocks);
– causing irreversible ecological damage (e.g.,
species extinction)
– overloading environment with waste products
(air & water pollution, GHGs - climate change,
ozone depletion, etc.)
Components of the Prince Edward
Island Ecological Footprint
1. Food Footprint: calculated as arable cropland
(used to grow crops for food, animal feed)
+ Grazing land (animals for meat, hides, wool, milk)
+ Fishing grounds (marine and freshwater fishing)
2. Other Crop Footprint: Arable land required to
grow non-food items, including fibre crops (e.g.,
cotton), rubber, oil, tobacco, etc.
[Remember – not PEI land, but for PEI consumers!!]
PEI Footprint includes
3. Forest Footprint: timber for wood, fibre, and fuel,
calculated as natural and plantation forest land
4. Built-Up Footprint: Land used for housing,
transportation, industrial production, hydro-electric
power, and other infrastructure
5. Energy Footprint: calculated as area needed to
sequester enough CO2 emissions to avoid an
increase in atmospheric CO2. The total energy
footprint includes CO2 from fossil fuels, fuel wood,
and nuclear and hydro energy
How Big is the PEI Ecological
Footprint?
Area required to sustain current PEI resource use and
waste production (total ecological footprint)
= 8.98 hectares per person
= 11 football fields pp (Canadian, incl. end zones)
= ~ 10 city blocks pp (@ 100,000 sq. ft./city block)
= 10.2 hectares per person if 12% set-aside of
ecological space for biodiversity is included
• With a land area of 568,439 hectares, population of
137,980, and a footprint of 8.98 ha/capita, Prince
Edward Islanders require the productive output of a
land area 2.2 times larger than the geographical
area of the province to support their current
consumption levels
• Prince Edward Islanders not only use the ecological
capacity from within PEI but appropriate additional
ecological capacity elsewhere on the planet through
trade of goods and services that are derived from
natural capital
PEI’s ecological footprint includes
• Food footprint
= 3.49 ha/capita
• Energy footprint
= 4.3 ha/capita.
• Food + energy
= 87% of total footprint
• Energy footprint includes residential,
commercial, industrial, & transportation energy
consumption
• Transportation is largest contributor (1/3) to
energy footprint = 1.44 ha/capita Residential
energy consumption = 0.73 ha/capita
How Does PEI Compare to
Canada?
• PEI’s ecological footprint of 8.98 ha/capita is 1.6%
larger than Canadian footprint (8.84 ha/cap.)
• Average rural PEI footprint larger than urban
• Charlottetown-Summerside footprint is 8.3
ha/capita, so urban Islanders need the productive
output of a land area 1.1 times larger than PEI, or
6.8 times larger than Charlottetown-Summerside
Ecological Footprints of Prince
Edward Island & Canada
Rich Islanders have bigger footprints
• The typical Prince Edward Islander (median
income) has a footprint of 8.5 ha/capita,
compared to provincial average of 8.98 ha/capita
• Poorest 20% of Islanders have a footprint of 7.6
ha/capita while wealthiest 20% of Islanders have
a footprint of 11.4 ha/capita
• A wealthy Islander has over 1.5 times the impact
on the environment of a low income Islander
Ecological Footprint by Quintile
Ecological Footprint is Growing
• PEI’s ecological footprint grew between 1981 and 2000 by
65%, increasing from 5.79 ha/capita to 9.53 ha/capita
• during the same period the Canadian footprint grew by
100% from 4.59 ha/capita to 9.18 ha/capita
• PEI’s footprint will continue to increase, by an additional
21% to 10.83 hectares per capita between 1999 and 2020
• by 2020 the Canadian footprint is expected to total 10.85
ha/capita, 0.2% higher than the projected PEI footprint
Ecological Footprint Time Series,
Prince Edward Island, 1981-2000
Ecological Footprint Time Series,
Canada, 1981-2000
Ecological Footprint Projections,
Prince Edward Island, 1995-2020
Ecological Footprint Projections,
Canada, 1995-2020
Ecological Footprint & GDP are related
• Canadian and PEI per capita GDP and footprint
growth rates virtually parallel in last 20 years
• Conventionally, GDP growth is primary indicator of
how "well off" we are as society. Higher per capita
GDP -> more consumption -> “greater wellbeing”
• From GPI perspective, smaller ecological footprint
denotes less impact on the environment, genuine
progress, greater long-term wellbeing, sustainability.
• Since GDP and footprint are closely related, GPI
questions “limitless growth” assumption
Ecological Footprint & GDP
Reducing PEI’s Ecological Footprint
1) Transportation
• Drive less, walk & cycle more, use public
transport, car-pool. Switch from 1/car -> 4/car, 3
days/week, reduces commuting footprint by 45%
• Living near place of work reduces dependency
upon cars (91.5% Islanders now drive to work)
• Therefore coordinated land use/transportation
planning is essential to bring about any substantial
shift in transportation patterns
If we drive, we can still reduce our
driving footprint
• Change driving style (service vehicles regularly,
avoid idling, accelerate and brake smoothly, use
air conditioning less frequently, etc.)
• Drive fuel-efficient cars (also reduces fuel costs)
– One SUV has 3 times the impact on the
environment of a small car
– SUVs projected to increase by 46% (19972020) in Canada
Daily awareness is key to reducing
residential energy footprint & saving $$
– switch to time based-programmable thermostat
– turn down the thermostat at night to 17 degrees
– switch to halogen or compact fluorescent bulbs
– install a low flow shower head
– switch to energy efficient appliances
– turn lights & appliances off when not needed
– limit use of air conditioners
– have shorter showers
Reducing PEI’s Food Footprint
• Why is the PEI food footprint so large?
– Overeating - 3119 cals/pp optimal-2500 (m), 1,900 (f);
38% of Islanders are overweight (Canada = 32%)
– Canadian agriculture system is highly energy intensive
• Public policy that supports local agriculture,
organic farming methods, best use of land, and
good nutritional education, will produce greatest
and most effective food footprint reductions
Islanders can reduce food footprint:
– Maintain healthy weight, reduce overeating,
don’t waste food. Eat the amount of daily
calories appropriate for age and level of activity
– Eat locally produced foods & support local
farmers to help reduce high transportation inputs
into food system
– Eat organically grown and sustainably farmed
foods, to help reduce footprint-intensive energy
and synthetic, petroleum-based inputs into
agriculture (e.g. PEI Sustainable Resource
Policy, FoodTrust)
A Good News Story: Prince Edward
Island's Solid Waste Footprint
• 1989-2002, PEI waste diversion rate increased
from 22% to 50% (projected rise to 65% in 2003)
• PEI has already demonstrated ability to act
quickly, decisively and effectively to reduce solid
waste footprint.
• If we can act effectively in one key area to reduce
our impact on the environment without
compromising our quality of life, then we can do
so in energy, transportation, food, and other areas
Prince Edward Island
Waste Diversion, 1989-2003
Treading Lightly: We Can Reduce
our Ecological Footprint
• The ecological footprint is an effective educational
tool to help PEI citizens, businesses, and govt. to
understand and take responsibility for impact of
consumption patterns and policy choices on envt.
• Current PEI ecological footprint of 8.98 ha/ per
person is clearly not sustainable
• Footprint can motivate and measure success of
actions taken to reduce impact on environment & to
move PEI toward a healthy, sustainable community
Treading lightly: An immediate
footprint reduction target
• If Islanders reduced their footprints from 8.98
ha/capita to 7.0 ha/capita, which can easily be
done without compromising quality of life, the
total provincial PEI footprint would shrink by
over one quarter of a million hectares.
A 2005 target date is realistic
• This would be a sign of “genuine progress” in the
GPI. (Premier’s conference a good model)
Longer-term goals
• In the long term, our ecological footprint needs to
be reduced far more dramatically
• As solid waste reduction accomplishment has
shown, clear priorities, targets and decisive action
can achieve substantial successes in a very short
time period
• Ultimately, deep footprint reductions essential to
curbing current overshoot and protecting our
children's future, will require collective rather
than individual action alone
 In a world of limited resources and limited
waste assimilation capacity, excess consumption
by the rich literally requires that others live in
poverty if we are not to exceed the Earth’s
physical carrying capacity.
 Ecological footprint analysis cuts through
the illusion that we can improve the living
standards of the poor without curbing the
excess consumption of the rich.