The Ecological Footprint and Environmental Sustainability - Essay Example

Ecological footprints Introduction: The depletion of the natural resources in the environment with man’s continued exploitation is becoming an increased source of concern, especially because these natural resources are not unlimited. In the race to save the Planet for the survival of future generations, it has become apparent that every individual needs to exercise responsibility and develop ecological citizenship, or a sense of responsibility towards the preservation of Mother Earth and her resources. The concept of the ecological footprint has been developed in order to attempt to control the rate of individual man’s exploitation of natural resources, but the question that arises in this context is: can the ecological footprint support and incorporate corporate citizenship or does it actually undermine it? This study examines whether and to what extent, the ecological footprint can contribute towards environmental sustainability and how far it promotes or undermines a spirit of ecological citizenship. The ecological footprint: The co-creator of the concept of ecological footprint is Mathis Wackermagel, who in an interview, pointed out that there must be some degree of relative parity in the use of Earth’s resources among individuals from different parts of the planet.1 The ecological footprint offers a measurable tool that can determine how much of land and water resources humans need in order to be able to produce the resources they use and to absorb the wastes they generate, and this has been pegged at a footprint of 4.5 acres per person. But in the United States, the average size of this footprint is much larger, i.e, about 24 acres, which suggests that the average American citizen uses up much more than his or her fair share of the resources of the Planet.2 An ecological footprint may be defined as a “measurement of the land area required to sustain a population of any size.”3 Wackernagel, the co-creator of the ecological footprint, has defined it as “the land (and water) area that would be required to support a defined human population and material standard indefinitely.”4 Every individual uses certain basic amenities such as food, electricity and other basic amenities in order to survive and these resources need to be derived within the constraints of nature by using raw natural resources. An ecological footprint thus seeks to determine the amount of both land and water resources that must be used by every individual in order to sustain a population of any size over a future continuous period, with such an assessment being made on the basis of the current consumption levels. Included within the scope of the ecological footprint would be the measurement of other elements such as the usage of water and energy, the usage of land for infrastructure, agriculture, forests as well as other inputs that are necessary to ensure human survival. While the creators of the Ecological Footprint have come up with a figure of 4.5 acres per person as being the optimal level, a study that quantified the ecological footprint at Ohio State University arrived at a figure of 8.66 hectares per capita per year5. The objective of this study was to assess the size of the ecological footprint of the Ohio State University on the basis of its usage of energy and other costs including transportation as well as its waste generation. In calculating the Ecological Footprint of energy, data used included that of electricity, natural gas and oil consumption which were then converted into hectares of arable land. The transportation footprint was calculated on the basis of the number of buses and vehicles plying on the Ohio State University premises over the course of one year, while the waste generation footprint was calculated through a conversion of trash and recyclable output generated to an associated value in terms of hectares of land. Based upon the calculations that were done, this study by Jaclyn found that the Ohio State University produced an ecological footprint of energy, transportation and waste of 8.66 hectares per capita per year, indicating that every individual at the University was using this proportion in terms of hectares of land6. The study also found that a major portion of the footprint was comprised of electricity use which was 20.83% of the total footprint, while cars contributed a sizable extent, i.e, 62.53%. The study concluded that the high figures obtained for the ecological footprint of the extent of excessive usage by the University of natural resources, thereby indicating that including appropriate environmental policies had to become an integral part of the University’s decision making process. Wackernagel also points out that while the optimum size of the individual ecological footprint which would be desirable for sustainability is 4.5 acres, the ever increasing size of the ecological footprints as exemplified in the increasing usage of the earth’s resources, has led to a situation where human beings are in fact consuming about 25% more than what can be restored and regenerated annually.7 He has attributed some of the excessive footprint of Americans to the infrastructure systems existing around them. Cities in European countries are compact and situated close to each other, with excellent systems of transportation between them and shopping and other resources arranged close by. This makes the cities very efficient in terms of how compact they are, as opposed to the United States, characterized by large distances which require the expenditure of higher quantities of energy and a lifestyle that leans towards higher consumption rates to achieve the same quality of life as that which exists in Europe.8 On this basis, Wackernagel has recommended that it is necessary to design infrastructure systems that would enable all individuals to have a high quality of life with an efficient consumption of resources, in order that the individual ecological footprint is reduced. He offers the suggestion that every individual should strive to improve the quality of his or her life by changing their pattern of consumption of resources such that it is not excessive, thereby contributing as barrier to the achievement of that quality. Ecological assets are used differently in different countries, hence the issue that arises is the question of ensuring justice in terms of addressing the ecological defects that exist in some countries. In the rich countries like the United States, this may occur through the importing of extra capacity so that their own ecosystems are not depleted.9 But this may not be possible in the poorer countries, whose ecosystems may consequently be depleted. As a result, the ecological footprint serves as a means to demonstrate to different countries where and to what extent they have depleted their assets or to what extent they have additional capacity when compared to the values that should exist against their ecological footprint. The ecological footprint is thus an important measure of biodiversity and Wackernagel states that it could serve as a recognition of ecological assets, so that their depletion would also be seen to affect economic performance10. Arriving at a standard measure such an ecological footprint would help every country to realize where it stands in terms of its position in so far as biodiversity is concerned, so that maintaining an ecological reserve is recognized as a valuable asset that could enable a country to enjoy a competitive advantage. While it may undoubtedly be argued however that the ecological footprint is a valuable measure of biodiversity, the actual measurement may not be such an easy task and may in fact, be next to impossible. The question that arises is therefore, whether the ecological footprint can serve as a means towards impelling ecological citizenship and a feeling of responsibility and obligation to conserve ecological resources? The scope of ecological citizenship is discussed below, followed by an assessment of how far it could contribute towards ecological citizenship. Ecological citizenship: According to Dobson, the scope of ecological citizenship involves non contractual responsibilities, it extends into both private and public spheres and is specifically non territorial.11 According to Reisenberg12; the basic concept of citizenship has moved through two phases; the first existed from the time of development of the Greek polis up to the French Revolution, while ideas about citizenship which currently exist are formulated around the successive idea of citizenship that developed after the French Revolution. This kind of citizenship has entailed a change from the earlier face to face interactions between citizens that characterized the Greek Polis to a changing form of social organization where most political relationships were impersonal and anonymous. Turner13 in discussing citizenship rights has stated that the individual citizen has changed from the more active citizen participant s/he was earlier to a more passive form of citizenship. Within the scope of this traditional notion of citizenship that has developed, there is also a more active form which has developed, through participation in institutions like trade unions, which is a more revolutionary idea of citizenship. But as Dobson points out, despite the more active forms of citizenship that have produced varying classes of citizenship, Turner’s classification still does not include the notion of virtue based citizenship, whereas the moral qualities associated with virtue may be a vital component fuelling and motivating ecological citizenship. In discussing the concept of ecological citizenship, Dobson points out that the conventional definition of citizenship has been geographically restricted to national boundaries, so that an individual falls either into the ‘liberal’ category of citizenship or that of ‘civic republican’14. Dobson argues that within the context of globalization, there is a need for the emergence of a third kind of post-cosmopolitan citizenship. The underlying ideology for such a citizenship is fashioned upon values relevant to feminism, or a reconsideration of virtue and the need to additionally emphasize the relations between individual citizens rather than restricting the notion of citizenship merely to the sphere of citizen-state relations. According to Dobson15 , the prevailing idea about citizenship as it exists at present has major shortcomings. The practice of citizenship is multidimensional, comprising both its existence as an idea and its practice, but is generally approached from only one perspective. This may offer a distorted picture of citizenship, such as for example by posing a conflict between the idea of citizenship entitling an individual to rights versus citizenship requiring that individuals exercise certain responsibilities to the State as a citizen16. There is also a failure to incorporate the potential for changing conditions in the environment that may change existing notions of citizenship. Dobson suggests that the nature of the debate about the obligations associated with contemporary citizenship can be viewed as four contrasting elements: rights and obligations, territorial and non territorial conceptions of citizenship, public and private arenas as potential sites for citizenship activity and the virtue versus non virtue based ideas of citizenship17. He suggests that actual ecological citizenship may in fact be comprised of a combination of all of these elements. When assessing citizenship, if a strictly ‘liberal’ or ‘republican’ perspective is adopted, the two systems would appear to be disparate because the former focuses on the rights vis a vis duties and the latter focuses on individual versus communitarian distinctions, but when including them within the scope of other contrasts as outlined earlier, then the two systems have a great deal in common with each other. An important aspect that needs to be considered is: which kind of political system is likely to meet the needs of the environment and ensure that the ecological footprint of every individual is limited at a sustainable level? Dobson and Eckersley (2005:71) point out that the ability to provide empowerment in giving rise to systems that are in “solidarity with nature” must form a necessary component of politics if it is to be satisfactory in terms of achieving environmental objectives such as preservation and sustainability18. They argue that while initially, it may appear that liberal democratic political systems would be able to meet this objective, this may not actually be so because in reality, the trend in such cases may be simply to view environmental interests under the category of yet another special interest group. But adopting such a view fails to take into account the “intrinsic value of nature and the fundamental enabling services it provides.” 19 Bearing this in mind, Dobson and Eckersley suggest that if environmental sustainability is to be achieved and ecological citizenship is to be truly advanced, then it becomes necessary to treat nature as a direct stakeholder that can and must have a say in decisions that are made pertaining to it; for example, all decisions to be made about water resources must treat the water source as a direct stakeholder that can also contribute its input into decision making20. It is vital that administrative and government systems must be structured in such a manner that non human needs and contributions must also be taken into account, rather than being subordinated to the needs of human beings alone. Dobson has drawn up a table to show how the two apparently divergent systems – liberal and civic republican – can be integrated to generate a third type of post-cosmopolitan citizenship, which is ecological citizenship21. He articulates the views of Hartley Dean who has highlighted the impact of environmental concern s on citizenship in three different ways. Firstly, environmental concerns have become an integral part of the rights individuals enjoy as citizens. Secondly, the globalization of the world with the increased awareness of ecological issues has produced a broader understanding of the potential scope of citizenship. Lastly, the increased awareness of environmental issues has also produced a heightened debate about the ecological responsibilities associated with citizenship.22 There are rights which every individual enjoys that go hand in hand with citizenship. With the increased global awareness of environmental issues therefore, there is increased attention that is being paid to environmental rights, which have now begun to go hand in hand with civil, social and political rights. Secondly, Dean’s views also raise the issue of whether globalization suggests that the notion of citizenship has to be conceived such that it extends beyond the relationship of an individual with only the State and encompass the rest of the world. Dean’s views about ecological responsibilities also give rise to the question of whether ecological citizenship also carries with it, an implication that an individual not only has environmental rights but also has some responsibility to work towards the promotion of a sustainable society.23 The views of Mark Smith provide a sense of what ecological citizenship is all about; he states that human beings “have obligations to animals, trees, mountains, oceans and other members of the biotic community.” 24 This sense of obligation is also what Dobson views as integral to ecological citizenship, although he does not necessarily agree with Smith that human beings have obligations as wide or as encompassing as those with Smith has suggested above, especially because responsibility and obligations may not necessarily fit the liberal paradigm of citizenship. Dobson also draws on the views of Christoff, who in assessing the context of citizenship points out that citizenship may be based more upon moral responsibility and a participation in the public sphere as opposed to being defined purely within the limitations of the legal relationship of an individual with the State.25 This argument is relevant especially when viewed in the context of environmental issues and globalization, because ecological issues cannot be viewed as localized problems but are in reality, transnational problems. Drawing upon this need to thus view ecological citizenship within a wider context, Dobson builds upon Marshall’s three fold typology of citizenship, involving civil, social and political citizenship and adds a fourth dimension to it; i.e, ecological citizenship through the imbuing of environmental rights in addition to civil, social and political rights.26 On this basis, Dobson argues that ecological citizenship involves the issue of justice; because non human beings must also be regarded as members of the moral community, who must also be the recipients of justice. But Dobson also argues that that this is not necessarily an indication that citizen rights are to be extended to non human beings, because the relationship between humans and non humans is based upon humanitarian grounds rather than on the basis of according citizenship rights to them. On the basis of the above, Dobson has worked from the basic premise of the existing notions of citizenship – i.e, liberal or civil republican, to derive an original, post-cosmopolitan theory about citizenship, which he classifies as ecological citizenship. In articulating what comprises ecological citizenship, the following elements are salient in Dobson’s definition.27 (a) Ecological citizenship involves a sense of obligation to the environment (b) Ecological citizenship may imply a relationship which transcends the purely legal limitations of the individual with the State and may be more global in nature (c) Ecological citizenship is premised upon justice to non human beings, but this would not necessarily mean extending of citizenship rights to non human beings; while they can be considered as stakeholders in decision making by Governments, this is only from the perspective of ensuring that justice is done to non human beings. (d) Ecological citizenship encompasses both private and public spheres, involves the feminist elements of virtue and cannot be limited within the scope of a particular territory. Dobson clarifies that ecological citizenship differs from environmental citizenship, which refers to the claiming of rights within an environmental context. He highlights Hayward’s views that “environmental problems today are such that adequate solutions to them will require large scale cooperation within and between polities” and such cooperated can be best secured by means of constitutional rights.28 Hence, the liberal perspective would apply in this context. But from the perspective of a civic republican perspective, the protection of the environment could fall within the category of an objective that is desirable for the common good. Since many environmental problems are now international in nature, affecting the entire world – such as global warming, ozone depletion or acid rain. This implies that there is a moral dimension to ecological citizenship; however, as Dobson points out, there is an ecological conception of political space which gives rise to obligations that lead to citizenship rather than an adoption of a Good Samaritan attitude.29 Ecological citizens are therefore not merely global or international citizens, but rather part of a common humanity. There is however an important distinction that must be made in terms of humanity as it may be defined under cosmopolitan as opposed to post cosmopolitan citizenship. While cosmopolitan citizenship implies being a member of a common humanity that is not necessarily defined within the limitations of geographical boundaries, ecological citizenship takes into account not only the inherent virtue in protecting and sustaining the environment, but also the historical obligation that is imposed upon individuals to be responsible in this way.30 Ecological Footprint related to ecological citizenship: According to Dobson, since ecological citizenship is derived from an ecological conception of political space which gives rise to obligations, hence the best measure to express these obligations of ecological citizenship is the ecological footprint31. Dobson has analyzed Wackernagel’s definition of the ecological footprint that suggests it is a numerical measure, i.e, the square feet of land and water utilized by humans to indefinitely support a certain standard of living and appreciates the concept, although he has also pointed out that “difficulties of measurement dog the idea of the ecological footprint”.32 It may be noted that Wackernagel states that the ecological footprint analysis “is an accounting tool33 that enables us to estimate the resource consumption and waste assimilation requirements” of the human population in relation to “a corresponding land area.”34 But Dobson points out some of the problems associated with actually measuring the size of this ecological footprint. Firstly, an accurate measurement of the ecological footprint would require a consideration of all environmental impacts, including land, transportation and energy and it may sometimes be difficult to arrive at such a determination which absolutely includes all factors. Secondly, there is an asymmetrical relationship between the actual space inhabited by the human population and the ecological space required to conserve it, which makes calculations even more difficult. Thirdly, ecological space cannot be deemed to be unlimited. When measuring the ecological footprint, one of the underlying premises is that the ecological debt incurred by one country can be balanced by the ecological surplus in another country, but this can hold good only when the ecological footprint is held to be unlimited. But when considered in view of the fact that there may be local, regional or global limits or thresholds, ecological space debt may not be redeemable at all, because it has been completely exhausted.35 Another problem that arises in the context of determining the ecological footprint when the finite nature of ecological resources is considered is the question of determining precisely how much ecological resource we actually have in comparison to how much we actually use. In practice, ecological space cannot be divided equally among all potential recipients; for instance where carbon dioxide emissions are concerned, the distribution is unequally tipped in favour of the wealthier nations. But here again, while it may be possible to determine that one country is occupying a larger ecological footprint than other nations, this in no way, simplifies the process of determining the size of the footprint of individuals within the country. As Dobson argues, when ecological citizenship is at issue, what becomes important is determining the size of the individual footprint because the rights and obligations of citizenship attach to individuals rather than to countries.36 But in the case of carbon dioxide for example, the real question may not even be the point at which atmospheric tolerance for the gas will run out, or the ecological resource depleted; rather there may be other atmospheric changes induced with climate becoming unpredictable and producing a totally different set of circumstances altogether. The ecological sphere is not constant or unchanging, it is a fluid, dynamic entity that is subject to constant change and measuring reserves and the zero tolerance points may itself be impracticable in reality. Goodall suggests that environmental citizenship requires that action is taken at every level, but especially action by individuals at local levels before any significant change is possible.37 This implies that ecological citizenship may be individual in nature, but as Dobson points out, individual action at this level would inevitably give rise to conflicts with established government and political systems and policies which are not environmentally friendly. Therefore the issue that arises in this context is that even if a determination is made about the potential size of the ecological footprint that every individual should aspire to attain, would this even be possible within the limitations and regulatory framework that currently exist in different countries? Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it must be concluded that measuring the ecological footprint poses difficulties because of its indeterminate nature. It may not be possible to accurately measure all the inputs being utilized by every individual man. The very premise that ecological resources are an infinite resource where the excesses by individuals in one country can be balanced by the ecological surplus in another country may itself be flawed, because it is difficult to determine the extent of these resources and at which point they are finite. Moreover, ecological resources are not static but are dynamic, constantly changing entities and it is next to impossible to assess with any level of certainty the levels and the form at which they will subsist. The difficulties in measurement of the ecological footprint do not necessarily mean however, that ecological citizenship is undermined. The ideas behind ecological citizenship involves the application of virtue and a moral perspective, i.e, preservation of the environment is a worthy goal to aspire to because it ultimately works out for the good of all. It is also implies certain obligations and responsibilities that an individual has. Being an ecological citizen would entitle an individual to use of the earth’s resources, but in return the individual would also be expected to demonstrate a commitment and responsibility towards not using more than his or her fair share of ecological resources. It also means taking any steps as necessary in one’s own life, as well as by using one’s political rights to pressure one’s government authorities to formulate responsible policies in reference to the environment. Ecological citizenship involved every individual and implies an individual dimension, but it cannot be restricted only to the individual, it needs to be collective if it is to achieve substantial results. Sustainable development on the Earth can be taught to students at an early age, by educating them on their responsibilities and obligations to the environment and to appreciate their role as ecological citizens.38 Hence, it may not be strictly accurate to arrive at the conclusion that the difficulties in measuring the ecological footprint would undermine individual ecological citizenship. The ecological footprint is at best, only a relative measure of how much of the earth’s resources every individual may safely use without depleting the earth’s resources to crisis levels. It is like a warning to individuals in all countries, and especially in the wealthier nations, that the earth’s resources are not finite and they are being eroded at a very fast pace. It functions as a spur to motivate individuals and governments to take the necessary preventive steps as may be required to move towards sustainability. The ecological footprint highlights for every individual, the importance of preservation of the earth’s resources and the need to streamline individual consumption patterns. It provides a basis for different countries to compare themselves to each other to determine how and why they are using less or more share of the earth’s resources and allows them a competitive advantage on this basis, so that they are motivated to either reform the negative consumption patterns or to continue to sustain and improve upon positive patterns. As suggested by the co-founder of the ecological footprint39, it highlights the importance of bringing about policy and infrastructure changes that may be required in the short term in order to promote a more sustainable, long term future for the environment. It also sheds light on the need to adapt to changes in the ecological system; to understand the patterns of use and the potential impact of disruption. Thus, the ecological footprint is valuable in providing a relative measure of how ecological space must be utilized. But the fact that it is not possible to accurately measure it, cannot be a basis to state that it undermines individual ecological citizenship. Irrespective of whether or not it is possible to accurately measure the footprint, the obligations and responsibilities of individual citizens towards the environment is not diminished. The underlying purpose of the footprint, which is to instigate changes in individual consumption patterns as well as infrastructural changes, would still hold good in a relative sense, irrespective of whether or not it could be accurately measured. Ecological citizenship is something every person must aspire to, it is something every individual needs to assess and be aware of, so that the most optimum usage of the earth’s resources is the result. Ecological citizenship helps an individual to realize his or her place in the continuum of ecological space, to realize that this continuum may not necessarily continue ad infinitum, unless every individual does his or her part. In the achievement of this particular goal, the ecological footprint provides a relative measure of how to orient consumption patterns better and streamline infrastructure better to make optimum use of resources, and is therefore of value in encouraging and reinforcing ecological citizenship. Modifying the infrastructure of American cities or educating and motivating individuals on how they are included in the realm of ecological citizenship with a corresponding obligation to do their part in preservation of the environment would in effect, achieve the general goals of the ecological footprint – to promote sustainability of the environment. As a result, while the ecological footprint does not exist separately from ecological citizenship, its precise measure is not a necessary requirement to promote ecological citizenship. References Dobson, Andrew, 2003. “Citizenship and the environment”, Oxford University Press Dobson, Andrew and Eckersley, Robyn, 2005. “Political theory and the ecological challenge”, Cambridge University Press Grunsell, A, 2004. “Oxfam and education for global citizenship: learning for the future”, The Development Education Journal, 10(2): 12-14 “Interview with Ecological Footprint’s Co-Creator”, April 18, 2006, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00220.htm; Jaclyn, Janis, 2007. “Quantifying the ecological footprint of the Ohio State University”, https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/28365; Smith, Mark, 1008. “Ecologism: Towards ecological citizenship (Concepts in the social sciences), Open University Press “The Ecological footprint: A resource accounting framework for measuring human demand on the biosphere”, http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/Ann1132753060; Wackernagel, Mathis and Rees, William E, 1996. “Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth”, New Society Publishers “What is an ecological footprint?” http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/what-is-ef.html; Read More