Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Key concepts in political
ecology
Environmental Communication
Miklos Sukosd
Week 5
1
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Sustainable development
• SD: Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable
-- to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without
comprimising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (Brundtland report,1987:8).
• Origins: Report by Brundtland Commission (World Commission
on Environment and Development, 1987)
• UN report to concile environmental and development issues
(environmental damage, population, peace and security, social
justice both within and across generations) that had been
competitive or antagonistic
2
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong

In essence, SD is a process of change in which
exploitation of resources, the direction of investment, the
orientation of technological development, and industrial
change are all in harmony and enhance both current and
future potential to meet human needs and aspirations”
(1987:46).

Deeper history: resource management concept in
maximum sustainable yield (fishery, forest, game
animals that can be sustained indefinitely)

Intelligent operation of natural systems and human
systems in combination
3
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
What are the needs of future
generations? Problems with the
concept of SD






Elasticity of concept: different meanings and
interpretations
Environmentalists: intrinsic notions of nature are missing
Developing countries: stress on global redistribution
Western countries: developing countries cannot follow
same path of industrialization
Business: sustained economic growth + ”green-painting”
Contestation over essence of SD
4
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Sustainability: summary

Central concept in environmental discourses +
bandwagon effect

Actors: many agents at many levels, international (IGO +
global civil society) and subnational (NGO)

SD never an accomplished fact, except in small huntergatherer and agricultural societies with low level of
economic and technological development
5
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong

Discourse: no limits to growth, capitalist economy
(competition de-emphasized though), anthropocentric,
”think globally, act locally”, self-conscious improvement,
open-ended learning of humankind (like lifetime
learning), progress in the environmental era

Real life results? Small compared to liberalization of
global trade and capital
6
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Ecological footprint: concept




EF measures human demand on the Earth's ecosystems
Compares human demand with the Earth’s ecological
capacity to regenerate
Calculates the amount of biologically productive land and
sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human
population consumes, and to absorb waste and make it
harmless
EF make possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or
how many Earths) it would take to support humanity with
a given consumption rate
7
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong





For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was
estimated at 1.4 planet Earths
Humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as
Earth can renew them
EF calculated every year (long lag due to availability of
statistics)
Methods of measurement differ
Calculation standards are emerging to make results
more comparable and consistent
8
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Ecological footprint: origins





Originator of academic concept of EF: William Rees
(environmental policy/sustainability expert, University of
British Columbia, Canada), 1992
Co-developer of EF concept and calculation method
Mathis Wackernagel (currently President of Global
Footprint Network)
Rees first formulation: "appropriated carrying capacity"
Rees: term EF "inspired by a computer technician who
praised his new computer's small footprint on the desk”
Wackernagel and Rees book Our Ecological Footprint:
Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.1996
9
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong






EF compares human demand on nature with the
biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide
services
New EF: the methods are converging
Footprint 2.0 (2003 by a team of researchers)
Footprint 2.0 theoretical and methodological improvements
to the standard EF approach
Include the entire surface of the Earth in biocapacity
estimates; allocate space for other (non-human) species;
change the basis of equivalence factors from agricultural
land to net primary productivity (NPP); and change the
carbon component of the footprint, based on global carbon
models
Well received by teachers, researchers, and advocacy
organizations
10
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Ecological footprint: methods




EF assesses biologically productive land and marine
area required to produce the resources a population
consumes, and absorb the corresponding waste, using
present technology
Biological capacity or biocapacity: capacity of
ecosystems to produce useful biological materials and to
absorb waste materials generated by humans, using
current technologies. Biocapacity is usually expressed in
units of global hectares
Global hectare: the average productivity of biologically
productive land and water in a given year
A global hectare of cropland, would occupy a smaller
physical area than the much less productive marshland
11
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong




Biologically productive land and water: the land and water
(both marine and inland waters) area that supports
photosynthetic activity and biomass accumulation used by
humans. Non-productive areas not included. Biomass not of
use to humans is also not included.
The total biologically productive area on land and water
was approximately 13.4 billion hectares in 2005 on the planet
Biological capacity available per person: There were 13.4
billion hectares of biologically productive area on land and
water in 2005. Dividing by the number of people alive in that
year, 6.5 billion, gives 2.1 global hectares per person . This
assumes no land is set aside for other species that consume
the same biological material as humans.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/gloss
ary/ - biologicallyproductivelandandwater
12
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Ecological footprint: uses




Per capita EF is a means of comparing consumption and
lifestyles
Checking this against nature's ability to provide for this
consumption
Goal: altering personal behavior
EF informs the public and policy makers by examining to
what extent a nation uses more or less than is available
within its territory
13
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong





EF can educate people about carrying capacity and
over-consumption
Can also be applied to an activity such as manufacturing
a product or driving of a car
To what extent the nation's lifestyle could be replicable
worldwide?
EF in Hong Kong, China, US?
EF/carbon footprint within HKU?
14
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Global inequalities vs.
environmental justice







EF: current lifestyles are not sustainable
Global comparison: inequalities of resource use on the
planet
In 2006, average biologically productive area per person
worldwide cca. 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita.
US footprint per capita was 9.0 gha
Switzerland 5.6 gha per person
China 1.8 gha per person
WWF claims EF has exceeded the biocapacity (the
available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 40%.
15
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
EF measures and sustainability





EF widely used around the globe as an indicator of
environmental sustainability
NGO websites allow estimation of one's EF
EF to explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles,
goods and services, organizations, industry sectors,
neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations
Since 2006, EF standards exist that detail calculation
procedures
Ecological Footprint Standards 2009, Global Footprint
Network www.footprintstandards.org
16
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong



EF accounting method at the national level is described
in the Living Planet Report (WWF and GFN)
Differences in the methodology used by various EF
studies
Examples: how sea area should be counted, how to
account for fossil fuels, how to account for nuclear power
(many studies simply consider it to have the same
ecological footprint as fossil fuels), which data sources
used, how space for biodiversity should be included, and
how imports/exports should be accounted for
17
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
EF review

Complete review commissioned by the
Directorate-General for the Environment
(European Commission) in June 2008
provides most updated independent
assessment of the method
18
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Criticism 1: Parasitic cities?




Calculating EF for densely populated areas, such as a
city or small country with a comparatively large
population — e.g. New York and Singapore respectively
—perception as "parasitic"
These communities have little intrinsic biocapacity
Critics: dubious characterization since mechanized rural
farmers in developed nations may easily consume more
resources than urban inhabitants, due to transportation
Meaningful unit of analysis?
19
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Criticism 2: Trade issues



EF an argument for autarchy?
EF denies the benefits of trade?
How/where to calculate
production/consumption? EF can only be
applied globally?
20
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Criticism 3: Pro-Monocultures?



Replacing woodlands or tropical forests with
monoculture forests or plantations may improve
EF
EF rewards the replacement of original
ecosystems with high-productivity agricultural
monocultures by assigning a higher biocapacity
to such regions?
If organic farming yields lower than those with
conventional methods larger EF
21
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Criticism 4: Nuclear power




Nuclear power: pre-2008 treated same
manner as coal power
Carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced
power differs
Problems of nuclear vs. fossil fuel waste?
How to calculate nuclear waste?
22
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong



Fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to
hurricanes, flooding, and other weather changes
WHO: “3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air
pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions,
and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel." (BBC report
2004) Alex Kirby (13 December 2004,). "Pollution: A life and
death issue". BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4086809.stm.
Last accessed 2010 09 18.
Coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a
nuclear power plant of the same wattage. Alex Gabbard.
"Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev2634/text/colmain.html. Last accessed 2010 09 18.
23
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Counter-arguments





Limits of EF exist, yet heuristic instrument
Don’t use EF as only metric
Complement with other indicators, e.g., on biodiversity
Living Planet Report complements the biennial Footprint
calculations with the Living Planet Index of biodiversity
Modified EF that takes biodiversity into account in
Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
- cite_note-26 (Manfred Lenzen and Shauna Murray)
24
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
EF calculators

Personal calculators


http://www.earthday.net/footprint/flash.html
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/personal_fo
otprint
http://www.ecologicalfootprint.com/
http://www.myfootprint.org/

Personal, school and event calculators

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/default.asp

Interactive site with global rankings and listings

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?840

Calculator for kids

http://www.zerofootprintkids.com/kids_home.aspx


25
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Overuse of resources vs.
"rights of future generations"





http://www.cousteau.org/about-us/futuregen
http://www.intergenerationaljustice.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Fut
ure_generations
http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/orfg.htm
http://www.sehn.org/pdf/Model_Provisions_M
od1E7275.pdf
26
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
The Tragedy of Commons

Concept by Garrett Hardin 1968

Many rational individuals want to use available commons
and maximize their private interests

This leads to overuse and tragedy of commons

In the long run, this is no one’s interest

Tension between individual self-interest and community
interest
27
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
The Tragedy of Commons: examples







Pastureland and herdsmen
Herdsmen: as many animals as possible
Rational individual calculation: personal gain
maximization
ALL THINK THIS WAY
Community loss: each animal degrades the common
land
Result: less grass, no grass, erosion, weed domination
National parks: overuse by visitors vs. limitation of entry
28
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
The Tragedy of Commons:
applications





Pollution of the commons (soil, sea,
rivers/lakes/groundwater, air): sewage, chemicals,
radioactive, heat
Individual rationality to let out pollutants as cleaning is
expensive
Result: the common land, water, air is polluted
In the long run, no one’s interest
Public policy solutions: regulation (law, positive
incentives and negative taxes)
29