Nicky Chambers, Craig Simmons & Mathis Wackernagel.
This is a review of Nicky Chambers, Craig Simmons & Mathis Wackernagel ‘Sharing Nature’s Interest. Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability’ Earthscan London 2000. This was first published in mm15.
Using Indices, Weightings, Conversion Factors, World Averages, Yield Adjustments, Physical Extensions, Equivalence Factors, etc to Bore the Livestock into Living Sustainably.
A Conflict of Interest.
The concepts of Carbonomics and ecological footprint analyzes (efas or footprinting for short) were invented at roughly the same time - the early 1990s. The history of these two concepts is instructive not merely of the class divide within the so-called green movement but of the ability of supposedly progressive, liberal-minded, greens to censor and ostracize those greens who refuse to conform to their snobbish, conventional, bourgeois values. Footprinting is now such a commonly used term that it appears in the oxford english dictionary. The concept of Carbonomics stands absolutely no chance of being awarded any such an honour. Indeed, as far is known, over the last decade, with the exception of one magazine, there have been only two references to it in the entire literature of the green movement. This disparity of treatment has occurred despite the fact that Carbonomics is a far easier measuring system to understand and use in comparison to what will be shown to be the dreadful complexities of efas. It seems greens prefer to use needlessly obtuse concepts when trying to persuade people to take an interest in green politics and when trying to explain how to adopt a less unsustainable lifestyle. Not surprisingly, given this background, the authors of ‘Sharing Nature’s Interest’ have neglected to outline the Carbonomics analysis even though they have explained a range of other environmental accounting systems.
This reviewer’s conflict of interest in reviewing this book goes beyond the natural competition between different systems for measuring the same phenomena. After i’d discovered the book, purely by accident in the local library, i realized i’d suddenly acquired a personal bias in reviewing this book, because a few months earlier one of its authors had summarily ejected me without warning, explanation, or apology, from a public e-mail group into which i’d stumbled by accident. I was curious to discover just what sort of genius this person must be to believe he could get away with dismissing people in such a contemptuous fashion. I wondered how perfect his ideas must be that they didn’t need to be debated. The reason he could treat someone like this was probably because it had become second nature to him after a decade of trying to pretend that Carbonomics had nothing worthwhile to say about green politics.
This review draws heavily upon a contrast between efas and the Carbonomics system. Whilst this may break academia’s unwritten conventions on book reviews, i’m not an academic - and i don’t see why i should contribute to my own ostracism. This is far too good an opportunity for me to miss leaving some of my size 12 footprints.
Anthropocentrism.
The first point about this book is the authors’ confession that their priority is not the truth, nor accurately measuring the devastation of the Earth’s life support system, but winning public approval, “To secure 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.”[34] It is not as if they surreptitiously slipped this confession into the footnotes at the back of the book. They repeat this statement three times in the main text![35] The authors seem proud to have built this anthropocentric bias into their work. They seem to be suggesting that in order to persuade people they are wrecking the Earth’s life support system, it is necessary to treat them like livestock consumers by underestimating the damage they are doing. There are other examples of the authors’ concern for not stampeding the livestock. Whilst the authors are willing to admit the world is currently in overshoot, they have no interest in pointing out that, on a finite planet with finite resources, a constantly expanding economic system like capitalism is going to have to be abolished. Covering up the devastation of the Earth’s life support system, and condoning the inherently destructive nature of capitalism, seems to suggest these authors are more concerned with selling what they call their intellectual “products” to big business rather than saving the Earth.[36] In this regard they seem a lot like Green Consumer magazine.
The authors’ anthropocentric bias also appears when they argue, “Ecological footprint analysis aims to overcome some of the problems of estimating sustainable capacity by turning the key question on its head. Rather than asking ‘How many people can the Earth support?’, footprinting asks ‘How much land do people require to support themselves?’”[37] However, quite unusually for greens they also stress the need to put aside land for Wildlife. The authors want to confine Wildlife to a mere 12% of the Earth even though it was Wildlife which created the Earth’s habitability? Quite what the authors mean by ‘putting land aside for Wildlife’ is not discussed. Presumably it means 12% of the land in each country around the world? Would it mean that oomano-terrorists would be prevented from trespassing on this land? The authors point out that .. “around 3.5% of global land area is currently ‘totally’ protected. The actual figure may be somewhat less than this, as the ‘protected’ areas often include parks and wildlife reserves where considerable human activity still prevails or pollution impacts on the ecosystems.”[38] Their suspicions about the protection given to Wilderness areas are quite correct - most are little more than game reserves. More and more conservation areas are being turned into game reserves because greens e.g. charles windsor, fred pearce, the goldsmiths, Earth First!, robin page, the goldsmiths, ‘the ecologist’ etc insist that Wildlife ought to be treated as a resource by local communities - what greens euphemistically call ‘living in harmony with Wildlife’. Unfortunately, doubts about the authors’ seemingly impressive commitment to Wildlife begin to surface when they condemn the situation where oomans are prevented from exploiting Wildlife in so-called Wilderness areas .. “such as in the case of some wildlife conservation projects where the development needs of local people are ignored.”[39] Do the authors believe that in these Wilderness areas, Wildlife ought to ‘pay their way’ by offering themselves up to be shot by rich hunters to enable local people to earn enough money to trigger off a local population explosion? People who are attracted by the slogan of local politics ought to appreciate that when some greens use the phrase what they actually mean is that oomans have the right to exploit all the Animals which live around them.
The Nature of the Footprinting Analysis.
Efas are based on the notion of the Earth’s carrying capacity, “The thinking behind ecological footprint analysis builds on the concept of carrying capacity - the ability of the earth to support life.”[40] The authors suggest the Earth’s carrying capacity is determined by the Earth’s renewable resources, “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.”[41] The theoretical basis of efas involves using a quantification of the Earth’s renewable resources as a means of measuring the environmental impact of activities, commodities, individuals, households, regions, countries, and even ooman uncivilization itself. But what do the authors mean by the Earth’s renewable resources? The answer is the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity (including both terrestrial and marine Photosynthesizers), waste absorption, and water recycling, “In essence, the ecological footprint is a simple accounting tool that adds up human impacts (or use of ecological services) in a way that is consistent with thermodynamic and ecological principles. It goes beyond capturing biomass appropriation by also including ecological services such as waste absorption or water. Footprint analysis captures the use of nature in as far as it impacts on the regenerative capacity of the biosphere.”[42] These three different environmental phenomena are then ‘filtrated’ in order to produce a single measure, “It (footprint analysis) expresses these ecological impacts in units of space. In other words, it measures how much nature, expressed in the common unit of ‘bioproductive space with world average productivity’ is used exclusively for producing all the resources a given population consumes and absorbing the waste they produce, using prevailing technology.”[43]
At this point a positive comment needs to be made about this approach to environmental accounting: Efas measure both Carbon emissions and Photosynthetic absorption. When an efa measures the environmental impact of an individual, product, country, etc, any Carbon emissions released can be mathematically converted into the area of land needed to absorb these emissions. Efas are thus an enormous improvement over the nonsense peddled by the global commons institute (gci) whose policies for combating global burning are focused solely on global Carbon emissions. The gci’s preoccupation with Carbon emissions means that its analysis is one of the most scientifically lopsided bits of propaganda to emanate from the so-called green movement in many a long year. At least the footprinting analysis is grounded on both sides of the Carbon spiral.
The Flaws.
There are some fundamental flaws in efas’ theoretical foundations. Firstly, the authors seem to assume that the scale of the Earth’s renewable resources is constant. Take for instance the statement that .. “humanity must learn to live equitably within a footprint of around 2ha (about 4.5 acres). Assuming a population increase to 9.5 billion (by 2050), this figure will drop to just under 1.2 ha (roughly 3 acres).”[44] No mention here that, by 2050, the Earth’s Forests might have disappeared - in which case all footprints would be moving rapidly towards zero i.e. mass extinction. Because of the variability in the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, the footprinters’ attempt to use it as a fixed measure would lead to serious errors when working out particular footprinting impacts.
Secondly, following on from the previous point, the authors fail to appreciate that the changes in the scale of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity result from its mutual interplay with the climate. For example, the scale of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity varies from one extreme, when the Earth is in an ice age, to the other, when it is in an inter-glacial. As a consequence, the foundation stone of any environmental measuring system ought to be the stabilizing of the Earth’s climate, as it is in the Carbonomics system, rather than a variable such as renewable resources, as the footprinting system suggests.
Thirdly, the authors equate the Earth’s renewable resources with the Earth’s carrying capacity. This equation is far from being completely irrelevant but it is nevertheless inadequate. Given that the Earth’s climate is capable of changing the scale of the Earth’s renewable resources then, in effect, the Earth’s climate also determines the Earth’s carrying capacity. In other words, if there was an ice age, the Earth’s renewable resources/carrying capacity would be quite different from what they would be during a period of global burning.[45]
Finally, the authors believe that oomans should use only the interest derived from renewable resources if they want to survive on Earth over the long term. Once again this is a useful measure but it is not an adequate enough guide for surviving on Earth. The more accurate analysis is that oomans have to live off the Earth’s renewable resources at a rate that maintains climatic stability - which means that sometimes it would be necessary to consume more than the interest from renewable resources i.e. consume some of the Photosynthetic capital, whilst at other times the opposite would be true - not all of the interest should be consumed.
Theoretically, what these criticisms mean is firstly, that the goal of green politics is not that oomans must live off the interest of the Earth’s renewable resources, nor that oomans must live within the Earth’s carrying capacity, but that oomans should stabilize the climate - which they could do by altering the scale of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity and its Carbon emissions. Stabilizing the Earth’s climate will achieve exactly the same objectives as is intended by the notions of ‘living off the Earth’s interest’ and ‘living within the Earth’s carrying capacity’. The dangers of these latter two concepts is that they do not help to stabilize the climate. Secondly, the footprinters’ definition of sustainability is inaccurate .. “one of the most helpful and practical definitions of sustainable development is ‘improving the quality of life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems’.”[46] This definition is not sustainable. Greens’ ultimate value should be stabilizing the climate not living within the Earth’s carrying capacity. Oomans cannot stabilize the climate by living within the Earth’s carrying capacity. However, by stabilizing the climate oomans will, in a sense, be living within the Earth’s carrying capacity.
Sheer Mind Boggling, Complexity.
To a certain extent, these theoretical flaws of efas are relatively minor problems. A much greater concern is the authors’ complex, and superfluous, mathematical concepts which are used to calculate efas. The following quote gives a good example of the sort of gobbledygook to which they are resorting, “This table compares the ecological footprint of the canadians to the ecological capacity available in canada and the world. Note that the results of the footprint as well as of the yield equivalent areas are expressed in units of average space with world average productivity. For example, to get the yield adjusted area expressed in these units, the true physical extension is multiplied by the yield factors (the productivity of canadian arable land compared to world average arable land) and by the equivalence factors (the productivity of global average arable land as compared to global average space). Numbers do not add up (you’re telling me! editorial comment) due to rounding.”[47] Just the sort of inspiring message the livestock need if there is to be any hope of a corralling them onto a sustainable planet!
The authors hit you with this conceptual gibberish even before you open the book. The back cover proclaims the pollution/environmental damage resulting from the publication of this particular book is, “Only 0.02 hectare-years per copy.” Uuuuuhhhhhh? It doesn’t exactly provide an instantaneous revelation. It’s not going to hit livestock consumers with the force of a mcdonald’s moniker. So what if the environmental cost of the book is 0.02 hectare-years? What’s the personal limit? What’s the global limit beyond which there would be climate destabilization? Unless the public also knows these two limits then any figure given for the impact of a particular commodity is meaningless. It is necessary to plough through three quarters of the book before finding the authors’ calculation of what the personal limit should be, “If we assume an average sustainable global per capita earthshare of 1.8 ha ..[48] Whatever the objective validity of this statement, the public isn’t going to learn anything from it because they’re likely to be too revolted by “average sustainable global per capita earthshare”.
The primary reason for creating these wacky concepts and wacky conversion processes is because of the authors’ characterization of the Earth’s carrying capacity as a global commons. The footprinting authors have obviously been mingling too much with members of the gci who also treat the Earth in the same way, “If nature’s capital is truly our global commons then some level of redistribution is required. To express this concept, wackernagel and rees introduced the notion of the earthshare - the average amount of ecologically productive land and sea available globally per capita.”[49] In an attempt to ensure that the benefits of the Earth’s carrying capacity are shared equally amongst all eco-terrorists, no matter how ecologically destructive they have been, the authors are forced to change their measuring system from a purely spatial one to .. “hectare years of world average productive space ..”[50] where ‘world average productive space’ is the mathematical expression of the idea of a global commons.
So, having commended the footprinters for distinguishing themselves from the narrow mindedness of the gci’s emissions-only analysis, it is now necessary to criticize them for sharing the gci’s oomano-imperialist assumptions that the Earth is a global commons for oomans’ use and abuse. It is imperative to work towards ecological justice between all countries around the Earth but this doesn’t require transforming the Earth into a global commons. The introduction of the global commons idea not merely enormously complicates the policies needed to create a sustainable planet but, politically, would reward the world’s worst Earth rapists whilst penalizing those who had done the most to protect the Earth’s life sustaining processes. If this lead to a conflict between those who would unjustifiably lose out and those who unjustifiably gain as a result of this system it would destabilize the Earth’s climate. Both the gci and the footprinters’ analyzes are based on achieving equality for each biped - thereby putting both in the tradition of liberal individualism - a tradition which has never been famed for its understanding of the Earth’s life sustaining processes.
National Values.
The authors perform similar mathematical contortions when evaluating each country’s contribution to the Earth’s carrying capacity, “To make the results comparable among different nations, the areas are converted into bioproductive space with world average productivity. Using land corrected for world average productivity also allows for a more meaningful comparison of national data.”[51] This is nuts. It’s computation gone mad. It doesn’t lead to more meaningful comparisons. On the contrary, it’s just creating work for rooms full of computers to churn out vast quantities of meaningless figures that the text-message-loving livestock are never going to understand. What makes it worse is that it’s completely unnecessary. These concepts have been introduced solely to conform to the authors’ own political biases rather than determining what is best for the Earth.
Comparisons with Carbonomics.
Firstly, instead of keeping things simple whereby each country measures its own Carbon imports (the Carbon component of Photosynthesis) and Carbon exports (atmospheric pollution), as is done in the Carbonomics system, the footprinters wander off into the most tortuously convoluted calculations which even einstein would have problems understanding.
Secondly, the authors claim the footprinting system enables them to compare a wide range of disparate phenomena. What they neglect to mention is that they could also achieve this just by measuring Carbon imports/exports as is done in the Carbonomics system.[52]
The simplicity of Carbonomics’s focus on Carbon imports/exports has enormous benefits: firstly, simplifying measurements i.e. the quantity of Carbon; secondly, ease of measurement; and, thirdly, automatically encompassing other regenerative phenomena but without having to measure them e.g. the existence of Photosynthesizers implies the recycling of water and the absorption of waste materials. Thus whilst the Carbonomics system only has to measure weights of Carbon, efas find themselves drowning in absurd mathematical concepts such as ‘bioproductive space with world average productivity’. Yuck. The fact that the Carbonomics system doesn’t have to adopt the efas’ appallingly complex calculations that nobody in society is going to understand is yet another huge advantage of the Carbonomics system over footprinting accountancy.
The Carbonomics system promotes the idea of geophysiological equality between nations. This has similar goals to those advocated by the gci and footprinters, but it avoids turning the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity into a global commons and it prevents rewards being given to the Earth rapists whilst penalizing the Earth-protectors. The reason the authors’ support the perversion of the Earth into a global commons is because they are liberal individualists who believe that all individuals around the world should have the right to go wherever they want around the world to exploit its Wildlife resources. The idea of a global commons is based on the threefold assumption. Firstly, that oomans have the right to travel and live where they want around the Earth. Secondly, that whilst oomans have the right to go and live wherever they want, Wildlife doesn’t. Wildlife has to be confined to 12% of the earth’s surface. This is of course an example of oomano-imperialism. Thirdly, that all Animals are there to be exploited by Animals - however, if Animals should decided to harvest oomans sustainably they will be hunted down and killed mercilessly.
The Green Trinity.
The gci’s exclusive focus on Carbon emissions as a means of combating global burning means firstly, that it recommends global burning policies without needing to know how the Earth works; secondly, that it cannot develop a definition of sustainability - how can it if it deals with only one side of the Earth’s Carbon spiral?; and thirdly, that it cannot outline the nature of a sustainable planet - how can it when the gci doesn’t understand the Earth or have a definition of sustainability?
The failures of the gci’s analysis makes efas seem much better than they really are. Firstly, efas are based on the Earth’s carrying capacity. Secondly, efas have a concept of sustainability. Thirdly, whilst the footprinters could use their understanding of the Earth’s carrying capacity and their concept of sustainability to outline the nature of a sustainable planet, they have not done so.
How the Earth Works.
Efas are based on a limited understanding of how the Earth works, “Also, in order not to exaggerate the severity of the present situation, footprint results underestimate the true overall impact and exaggerate the biocapacity that exists on the planet. In this sense the footprint is not a precise model of how the biosphere works.”[53] They also state, “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.”[54] - as opposed to their mathematical mumbo-jumbo.
The authors’ belief that efas are based on a limited understanding of how the Earth works is a conceit. Firstly, as has been pointed out, they do not mention anything about the changing scale of the Earth’s renewable resources. Secondly, their ignorance of the way in which the Earth works is all too transparent from the following conventional view of Reforestation’s role in combating global burning. Afforestation is .. “a ‘one shot’ solution as only new growth forests are net CO2 absorbers and the amount of land that could reasonably be planted out would offset, it is estimated, only one and a half years worth of anthropogenic emissions.”[55] And, once again, just to make sure that people might have failed to understand their position .. “we can offset the release of CO2 from fossil fuel burning by setting aside land (in perpetuity) for growing trees which reabsorb, or sequester, the carbon emissions. However, at the present time an insignificant forest area is set aside to absorb the pollution arising from our use of fossil fuel. There are signs that this will slowly change with the implementation of the kyoto protocol. As has been noted earlier, sequestering CO2 in this manner is - at best - a short term solution.”[56] What these statements display is a level of geophysiological ignorance that is breathtaking given the authors’ supposedly green credentials. Firstly, nobody disputes that even widescale Reforestation would be incapable of extracting all Carbon emissions released into the atmosphere by the current excessive consumption of fossil fuels. Secondly, to believe that only new growth Forests can remove atmospheric CO2 is plain criminal ignorance. Despite all that Carbonomics has done to draw the authors’ attention to such mistakes they still go on reeling off this nonsense. Forests are Carbon pumps not merely Carbon stores. The only people who benefit from this propaganda is the logging industry! Thirdly, even though the authors appreciate that oomans have devastated 50% of the Earth’s Forests (“Less than half of the planet’s original forest cover remains.”[57]) they are not in the slightest bit interested in restoring the Earth’s Forest cover. What sort of greens are they when they promote the concept of carrying capacity and yet, when this phenomena is dramatically reduced, show no interest in restoring its lost capacity? What sort of theorists are they to pinpoint the Earth’s renewable resources as the foundation stone of their theory and yet remain indifferent when so much of it disappears? And, even worse, they promote the Earth’s renewable resources and then dismiss Reforestation as a means of stabilizing the climate? This is just pathetic.
Ooman Sustainability.
The authors admit a weakness in their work, “The ecological footprint does not measure sustainability as a whole (by which the authors means ecological and quality of life factors). It captures only ecological and distributional aspects of it. It does not inform about people’s quality of life.”[58] Whilst efas can be used to measure oomans’ activities they cannot be used to determine oomans’ quality of life. However, the authors should not berate themselves for this. Theoretically it’s impossible to determine. Oomans’ quality of life depends on individuals own definition of what constitutes their quality of life. If this issue is boiled down to choices about scarce resources - some societies may choose to use their scarce resources to have extra children and tolerate a slightly lower standard of living; some might want more cars rather than more children; and some might want more commodities rather then more kids or more cars, etc. etc.
However, there is an issue here. The Carbonomics system recognizes that because of this indeterminacy over oomans’ quality of life, the best solution for ensuring that individuals attain the quality of life they want, is by creating regional democracies in which they can make democratic decisions about how to use their scarce resources. This might mean for example, that the people in one region might choose to live in an urban area surrounded by a Forest whilst the people in another region might want to create a small number of villages dotted around a Forested region. The people in a third region might want to live in a highly decentralized system of homesteading; or they could even adopt a tribal lifestyle where the entire region was forested and people moved from one part of the Forest to another. In each of these cases, as long as people voted democratically on what they wanted, and relied solely on the resources drawn from that region, they could live any lifestyle they wanted.
Another problem with footprinters is that they support the use of the whole range of alternative energies. This means people in a green society would have far more energy at their disposal than they would do if they lived solely upon resources drawn from regional Forests. This might damage their Photosynthetic resources or tempt them into over-exploiting such resources. The critical point here is that the use of alternative energy requires a bureaucracy to constantly measure the impact of energy use to prevent damage to a region’s carrying capacity whereas this would not be the case when having to rely solely upon Forest resources. It can be concluded, therefore, that in a green world where people confine themselves solely to using wood resources, it would be easy for people to gauge the resources they have available to use and there would be no need for any controlling bureaucracy. However, where people are using all sorts of alternative energies, the only way of keeping them within ecological boundaries is to measure everything they do. The use of alternative energy thus necessitates an ecological bureaucracy whereas if people relied solely on wood resources they would be free from such burdens.
Conclusions.
Footprinters are rooted in the conventional green tradition of malthus and the ehrlichs because of their focus on scarcity and the Earth’s carrying capacity, “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.”[59] This means they have little in common with dippy green cornucopians - except, unfortunately, their appallingly servile, reformist attitudes. Although they’re distinct from the gci, they are not free from its propaganda. The footprinters equate the Earth’s carrying capacity with its renewable resources but fail to realize this is not the key to sustainability or the creation of a sustainable planet.
The biggest disappointment about this work is that it outlines an environmental accounting system but fails to give any impression that the Animal exploitation industry causes more damage to the Earth than any other industry. What is the point in creating an environmental measuring system which is incapable of measuring the greatest source of geophysiological devastation? It ought to be made a criminal offence for greens to write books in which they somehow manage to dodge, evade, or neglect, this crucial geophysiological reality. It has to be asked what on Earth are greens up to when they won’t point the finger of blame at livestock pharmers? Why are they protecting pharmers? Perhaps they’re just organic pharmers who’ve infiltrated green politics to promote an organic pharming agenda.
Apologies.
All around the world there are people trying to construct efas of various commodities, industries, countries. Using slightly different, inadequately measured, factors with slightly different weightings for slightly different global average conditions, they’re all ending up contributing to global confusion. Even worse is that most of these calculations are completely unnecessary. Every one of the figures they proudly present as an insight into the nature of ecological devastation is completely fictious because they’ve all been doctored by various global weighting systems. If footprinters ever created a sustainable planet, which theoretically they stand no chance of doing, they’d need a vast global bureaucracy just to collate, manage, and adjust, their system of global weightings. In contrast it’s relatively easy to estimate the Carbon status of a commodity, person, city, region, industry, country, planet, by examining their Carbon imports/exports. All and sundry could understand simple addition or subtraction calculations which would provide automatic and realistic comparisons with other ecological phenomena - so why are these so-called greens making things far more difficult than they need to be?
When i first started reviewing ‘Sharing Nature’s Interest’ i was somewhat miffed by a decade of greens’ ostracism. At the end of it i’ve realized i was wrong. The footprinting analysis is such a mathematical disaster the authors simply couldn’t bear to publicize a system that is so much more streamlined, accurate, comprehensive, and rooted in the geophysiological realities.
