The newest podcast and radio show today on the Earth & Sky website features Mathis Wackernagel and the ecological footprint. If you haven’t heard of the ecological footprint yet, you should probably start by taking the quiz to find out how many Earths we would need if everyone lived like you (not to point fingers).
The idea of the ecological footprint was originated by William Rees, a professor at the University of British Columbia, where Wackernagel got his Ph.D. And back when Wackernagel was getting started on developing what is now the Global Footprint Network, Rees did a very interesting interview with a small Canadian journal, about the political and moral implications of the footprint.
Rees says that as we get better technology and become more efficient in producing materials and energy, the assumption is that we should eventually be efficient enough to satisfy the needs of everyone on the planet. But that’s not what has been happening. Instead, consumption of materials and energy has steadily increased in the only most advanced countries, with very little being distributed to developing countries.
Thinking that the market alone is going to function to achieve sustainability, I think is a bit naive, particularly when you think that the market treats each individual, to use the economist’s phrase, as self- interested utility maximizers with fixed preferences and unlimited material demands. Well, if everyone on the planet acts like that, then clearly we’re on a path of total destruction.
Total destruction? That sounds rather unpleasant. Rees goes on to say that sustainability is really “a collective enterprise.” That sounds vaguely socialist. But Rees adds a twist:
For the first time in the history of the industrial world, we have the capacity to give people more leisure time, to spend more time with their families, to create community. And yet, because we are caught in this global struggle, this competitive struggle to obtain our share of markets, we are driving ourselves nuts. We are finding the work week is increasing rather than decreasing. There is very little sign of net benefit accruing to many people. I think it really is time to begin to question the morality, the ethics, and the assumptions underneath these models. Wouldn’t it be better to start examining options of changing our behavior patterns?
Socrates (pre-hemlock cocktail) said, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Perhaps Rees is suggesting a modern analogy, on a global scale.
Hi Lindsay,
It is interesting to explore a bit the science behind the ecological footprint — an imperfect metaphor. One piece that is controversial is how to take carbon emissions and translate it into area — no good solution exists, so some people suggest the footprint would be a more scientifically accurate analogy if it didn’t attempt to deal with carbon emissions. Anyhow, worth looking into.
your main point, that we need to examine the impact of our lives on the planet, each other, and our grandchildren, isn’t lessened by the controversy around the ecological footprint. The reality that we are all interconnected and that our well-being is interdependent is an ancient wisdom lost in the dominant ideology of individualism and privatization. There is a collective that needs to care for itself. There are commons that we are jointly responsible for and from which we all benefit. Remembering the commons and teaching the ethic of stewardship — both cherished American values — is an essential part of the work before us.
Thanks for your post!
total destruction? the planet has ample evidence that it has suffered numerous disasters resulting in massive extinction, and climate change, and magnetic pole reversal, along with disease, plague,etc and we think that man alone can make it unfit for life in general?this sounds like you belive that someone should be manning an air raid siren because the end is near.
also your photo appears to be after an earthquake. how may i ask did man cause this?
The issue of what makes human beings truly happy is perhaps the most important issue of our time. Orion has some interesting things to say about this in his recent post on the American ethic of personal responsibility. For example, he links to some research on well-being conducted by the Tellus Institute.
Scientific research on well-being is critically important now. Without that research to help guide us, how can we find the path to a more sustainable way of living?
When I first read this interview, I was uncomfortable that Rees seems to be pushing for a socialist system - he says explicitly that he wants a stronger state and heavier taxes. It doesn’t seem realistic that our society would take seriously the goal of sustainability if it was carried by a system that has failed so miserably, and also made people so miserable.
But since 2000, when this interview was done, I think it’s been shown that sustainability and well-being aren’t exclusive to any government system. It seems more linked to redefining our quality of life. Like this New Yorker article on commuting. The illustration’s caption on the first page sums it up: “People may endure miserable commutes out of an inability to weigh their general well-being against quantifiable material gains.” We aren’t happy commuting three hours a day, but we do it because our quality of life values owning a big house over spending more time with our family and creating community, as Rees says. Like Orion said, remembering the commons. I’m excited to learn more about this research on well-being, but I’m wondering how the value of well-being can be taught when depression is almost considered a rite of passage.
(The photo is from the Johnstown flood of 1889, and illustrates pretty well, I think, what “total destruction” looks like.)
Sam, I read Lindsay’s use of the words “total destruction” to mean the total destruction of our culture’s economic markets … a disruption in our lifestyles …
oh…we all have to accept that economic markets will change,along with our lifestyles. change is bad for some good for others, embrace it when you are the bnifactor because you cant stop change.its part of our evolution of society.i think in our time we focus on ourselves a bit too much. its human nature but our society seems to capitalize on it and work it into our brains that all of our opinions matter.but…i still feel that this focus on total destruction is alarmist and reactionary wailing. we should stick to solving problems rather than only writing that the sky is falling. anyone can run around talking about how horrible it is , we need to try and have some answers on how to fix that which we are afraid of.