Our Ecological Footprint

2.83/2.813T.G. Gutowski

FebruaryFebruaryFebruaryFebruary Monday Monday Monday Monday WednesdayWednesdayWednesdayWednesday6. Introduction

11. Eco-Footprint 13. Scale, Flow and Cycles(Tues) 19. Sustainability? 20. Intro to LCA

25. Energy/Exergy 27. End-of-lifeMarchMarchMarchMarch

3. Visitor 5. Remanufacturing10. Recycling 12. “Coal” discussion17. Discussion 19. Quiz 124. (Spring Break) 26. (Spring Break)31. LCA

AprilAprilAprilApril 2. Scale and Efficiency7. Materials Production 9. Manufacturing14. Manufacturing 16. Manufacturing21. Patriots Day 23. Visitor28. Visitor 30. Presentations

MayMayMayMay 5. Presentations 7. Field Trip12. Review 14. Quiz 2

Outline:Outline:Outline:Outline:

� IPAT Eq� Ecological Footprint� Carbon Accounting� Environmental Life Style Analysis (ELSA)

Partitioning the ProblemPartitioning the ProblemPartitioning the ProblemPartitioning the Problem

Production Consumption

Earth

General Motors You

Readings from Webpage� Eco-Footprint� a) link for the footprint quiz: http://www.rprogress.org/� b) Wackernagel, M., N. B. Schulz, D. Deumling, A. C. Linares, M. Jenkins,

V. Kapos, C. Monfreda, J. Lohl, N. Myers, R. Norgaard, and J. Randers. 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. July 9, 2002, vol. 99, no.14 pp 9266 � 9271, Washington, DC. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/14/9266

� If the above link does not work go the PNAS home page, then archives etc. http://www.pnas.org/

c) review Ch 1 & 2 Smil� Additional Readings:

i) I.C. Pentice, IPCC Report, The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (click here for PDF)

� ii) Stuart Pimm, A Scientist Audits the Earth (handout on request)� iii) York, Rosa, Dietz, The Ecological Footprint Intensity of National

Economies, J. Ind. Ecology, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp 139-154, 2005. (Use VERA)

Please Do YourEcological Footprinthttp://www.rprogress.org/

�Overhead�

Wackernagel�s paper and worksheet

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/14/9266http://www.pnas.org/content/vol0/issue2002/imag

es/data/142033699/DC1/0336DataSet.xls

Table 1. Summary of equivalence factors,

humanity's area demands, and earth's biological capacity in 1999 (per capita)

Average global area demand (per capita)

Existing global biocapacity (per capita)

Area Equivalence

factor, gha/ha Total demand, ha (per capita)

Equivalent total, gha (per capita)

World area, ha (per capita)

Equivalent total, gha (per capita)

Growing crops 2.1 0.25 0.53 0.25 0.53 Grazing animals 0.5 0.21 0.10 0.58 0.27 Harvesting timber 1.3 0.22 0.29 0.65 0.87 Fishing 0.4 0.40 0.14 0.39 0.14 Accommodating infrastructure 2.2 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 Fossil fuel and nuclear energy 1.3 0.86 1.16 0.00 0.00 Total 2.33 1.91 1.91

To make aggregation reflect differences in bioproductivity, areas are expressed in standardized global hectares (gha), which correspond to hectares with world average bioproductivity.

Wackernagel�s Results

Copyright ©2002 by the National Academy of Sciences

Wackernagel, Mathis et al. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 9266-9271

No Caption Found

Copyright ©2002 by the National Academy of Sciences

Wackernagel, Mathis et al. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 9266-9271

No Caption Found

OutlineOutlineOutlineOutline

� How much land is there?� What do we do with this land?� The production of biomass, NPP� The sequestration of carbon, NEP� Lifestyle and Product footprints� National accounts

2R

R ≈ 6370 kmSurface area =4πR2 = 510 X 106 km2

71% Oceans29% Land = 148 Mkm2 = 14.8Gha(one hectare = 100mX100mone hectare = 2.47 acres)

There are 13.1 Gha not covered by water or ice.

13.1/6.5 = 2 ha per person on earth

(5 acres per person)

How much room is there?

Is there anybody else hereon earth besides us?

What do we do with this land?

deserts crops

wetlandsforests

grass land and cows

wilderness and built-up

Albers Projection (equal area)showing croplands and cities

in Pimm, 2001

Net Primary Productivity

NPP = GPP � Ra

GPP = Gross Primary Productivity(Photosynthesis)

Ra = autotrophic respiration

2612622 666 OOHCOHCO +→+

2612622 666 OOHCOHCO +←+

The Carbon Cycle

CO2 concentration in the atm

How do you measure NPP?

� buckets in the woods

� students with clippers

� satellites, see e.g. http://asnerlab.stanford.edu/index.shtml

1kg/m2

dry mass

after Pimm

Area, biomass, productivity

from John Harte

estimate of NPP

from John Harte

Note, Pimm�s crude estimate would give(1kg/m2 =0.45kgC/m2=4.5tC/ha) x 13.1Gha = 59 GtC

Earth Land Accounts (excluding Antartica) Ref. Pimm 2004

Note: Pimm uses (2.2:1) dry mass to carbonthis gives NPP = 52 Gt(C)

52115131Totals

.922004Other

1.94.220021�too dry�

--8�too cold�

1.22.613002Wet lands

5.712.550025Grass lands

11.625.5170015Corp lands

2044100044Other forests

10.924200012Rain forests

NPPGt C

NPPGt (dry mass)

Productivityton (dry mass)/km2

Area106 km2

Land Classiciation(after Olson)

Carbon sequestration

NPP � Rh

Rh = heterotrophic respiration

� see websites at Oak Ridge National Labs� http://csite.ornl.gov/

� http://cdiac.ornl.gov/home.html

Details of Canada�s Carbon

Carbon budget of Canada's forestsfrom 1895 to 1996. Also included isthe record of Canada's green-housegas carbon emission rate.

Integrated Terrestrial EcosystemC-budget model

http://ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/optic/coarse/beps/nep_e.php

World carbon emissions = C

Wackernagel�s Energy Area

Note: there are some small differences in worksheet Vs paper

Anthropogenic carbon = 6.3 GtC (1999)

Nuclear (7% of world) add 0.5GtC

Carbon sequestration/yr Giga � �global� hectares

∴

GhaGhahatC

landtoGtC 6.634.19.495.0

69.08.6 =×=×

Equivalence Factor for Forests

Wackernagel�s result

Table 1. Summary of equivalence factors,

humanity's area demands, and earth's biological capacity in 1999 (per capita)

Average global area demand (per capita)

Existing global biocapacity (per capita)

Area Equivalence

factor, gha/ha Total demand, ha (per capita)

Equivalent total, gha (per capita)

World area, ha (per capita)

Equivalent total, gha (per capita)

Growing crops 2.1 0.25 0.53 0.25 0.53 Grazing animals 0.5 0.21 0.10 0.58 0.27 Harvesting timber 1.3 0.22 0.29 0.65 0.87 Fishing 0.4 0.40 0.14 0.39 0.14 Accommodating infrastructure 2.2 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 Fossil fuel and nuclear energy 1.3 0.86 1.16 0.00 0.00 Total 2.33 1.91 1.91

To make aggregation reflect differences in bioproductivity, areas are expressed in standardized global hectares (gha), which correspond to hectares with world average bioproductivity.

Wackernagel�s Results

Alternative Diets

� According to Pimm, the biomass from cropland for human food is about ½ of what is used for animals. Furthermore the average diet calories come 5/6 from crops and 1/5 from animal. Since animals also use grazing land this makes meat about 3 times more land intensive in terms of global hectares (even more so for actual hectares).

Alternative Diets (using global hectares)

1 Gha (crops) for food + [2 Gha (crops) + 0.6 Gha(grazing)] to feed animals = 3.6 Gha

average diet affluent diet85% plants 65% plant15% animals 35% animals2250 kcal 3250 kcal3.6Gha Vs 10Gha1.2Gha (vegan) Vs 10Gha

note, does not include transportation, nor processing

ref. Pimm 2001, Smil 2006, Wackernagel 2002

Land to Sequester C

We use 27%,But are only

5% ofpopulation

U.S. Energy

World Energy EJJGpeopleperson

GJ 5.357105.3575.655 18 =×=×

EJGpeopleperson

GJ 5.973.0325 =×

∴

%5 5.63.0 %;27

5.3575.97

⇒⇒

ha/person 6 0.3Gpeople

1.8Gha

hectares)(global 1.8Gha0.276.6Gha

=

=×

Footprint for An Automobile

Sequestion Area

OctaneC8H18

Assume

yrgalgalmile

yrmile /480/25

/000,12 =

368.0cm

ggasoline

=ρ )(235.168.03785480

3785785.31

3

3

3

metrictcm

ggalcmgal

cmlitresgal

=××

==

gasolinecarbon842.0

11496

18128128 ==+×

×

ture)infrastrucnor mfg. includenot does(

93.03.165.01.1/95.0

842.0235.1 hahatchatc

t =××⇒×

Energy used to heat home using 800 gallons of fuel oil/year

hectares global 1.23.16.195.0

65.3.2

3.2856.09.03785800 3

3

haha

hatC

tC

tCgOIL

gCcm

ggalcmgal

=×⇒×

=×××

Who uses what

Natomo Family in Mali, March 27, 2003

MATERIAL WORLD, Peter Menzel

The Skeen Family, Pearland TX, August 1993

MATERIAL WORLD, Peter Menzel

Criticism of the EF

� Bjorn Lomborg / The Economist� Journal of Ecological Economics� E. O. Wilson

Environmental Life Style Environmental Life Style Environmental Life Style Environmental Life Style Analysis (ELSA)Analysis (ELSA)Analysis (ELSA)Analysis (ELSA)****

� developed in 2007 class 2.83/2.813� estimate spending in different categories� relate spending to economic activities� relate economic activities to environmental

impacts****Environmental Life Style AnalysisEnvironmental Life Style AnalysisEnvironmental Life Style AnalysisEnvironmental Life Style AnalysisTimothy Gutowski, Amanda Taplett, Anna Allen, Amy Banzaert, Rob Cirinciore, Christopher Cleaver, Stacy Figueredo, Susan Fredholm, Betar Gallant, Alissa Jones, Jonathan Krones, Barry Kudrowitz, Cynthia Lin, Alfredo Morales, David Quinn, Megan Roberts, Robert Scaringe, Tim Studley, Sittha Sukkasi,Mika Tomczak, Jessica Vechakul, and Malina Wolf. IEEE International Symposium on Electronicsand the Environment, San Francisco, USA May 19 � 21, 2008

Table 1. List of Student Contributions and Areas of Contribution

Student Grad/ Undergrad

Life Styles, (variants) Nine Impact Areas (Grads only)

1 Allen, Anna N. G Soccer Mom 1.Services 2

Banzaert, Amy G �Oprah

approximation� 2.Housing

3 G Pro Golfer (2) 3.Insurance & Pensions

4 Cleaver, Christopher

U Management Consultant

5 Figueredo, Stacy G Retired Person 4.Utilities 6 Fredholm, Susan G Engineer 5.Government 7 Krones, Jonathan U U.S. Senator (3) 8 Kudrowitz, Barry G Commercial Artist (1.Services) 9

Lin, Cynthia U

Teach for America (3)

10 Morales, Alfredo U Corporate CEO 11 Quinn, David G Buddhist Monks (2) (2.Housing) 12 Roberts, Megan U Coma Patients (3) 13

Scaringe, Robert J. G �Bill Gates

approximation� 6.Transportation

14 Studley, Tim U Investment Banker 15 Sukkasi, Sittha G Homeless Person 7.Apparel 16 Taplett, Amanda G Project Coordinator Project Coordinator 17 Tomczak, Mika G 5 year old 8.Food Industry 18

Vechakul, Jessica G Vegetarian College

Student (8.Food Industry)

19 Wolf, Malina Isabella G Nursing Home 9.Utilities

Table 2 Life Styles with estimated expenditures including most subsidies (add $4391 for government services) and energy use

Life Style

Est. Income

Est. Expenditure Energy GJ Comment

1 Buddhist Monk I $13k $8.5k 154 interviewed 2 Buddhist Monk II $26k $20.5k 370 interviewed 3 Homeless person $4k $24k 160 4 Retired person - $31k 390 some interviews 5 Five year old 0 $32k 160 estimated 6 Soccer Mom - $32k 518 some interviews 7 Teach for America - $35k 300-500 interviewed (3) 8 Veg. College Student 11k $52k 260 interviewed 9 Engineer $75k $58k 350 composite 10 Commercial Artist - $50-65k 500 interviewed 11 Manage Consultant $120k $80k 640 some interviews 12 Nursing Home Patient 0 $90k 580 estimate 13 Investment Banker - $275k 780 (3 variants) 14 Coma Patient 0 $680k 3500 (3 variants) 15 U.S. Senator $1M $950k 4800 (3 variants) 16 Pro Golfer $3.9M $1.7M 6000 (2 variants)

Disposable Income, Annual Expenditures, Government Services and Total Income calculated for 24 different Life

Styles in the United StatesIncome Data by Lifestyle

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

Chi

ld

Com

a - I

CU

Com

a - m

ix

Com

a - s

uppo

rt

Hom

eles

s

Mon

k 2

Nur

sing

Hom

e

Mon

k 1

Veg

Stud

ent

Ret

iree

TFA

- Chi

cago

TFA

- Hou

ston

TFA

- NYC

Artis

t

Engi

neer

Socc

er M

om

Mgm

t Con

sulta

nt

Inv

Bank

er

Gol

fer -

Hig

h

Gol

fer -

Low

CEO

"Ave

rage

"

CEO

"Gre

at"

Opr

ah

Gat

es

Lifestyle

Dol

lars

Disposable IncomeAnnual ExpendituresTotal Income CalculationGovt Services

Table 1 Relative Share of Expenditures, Average Ref: �What We Work for Now�, J. Segal et al, 2001 www.RedefiningProgress.org, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey

Production Services Use Total 1 • Food

• Rest 8%

6% ↓ 14%

2 • Housing • Utilities & fuels • Furnishings &

supplies

19% 6%

2% 6%

33%

3 • Apparel

3% 2% ↑ 5%

4 • Transport • Vehicle • Gas • Other • Public transp.

9% 3%

3% 1%

3%

19%

5 • Services/Personal

20% 20%

6 • Insurance/Pension

9% 9%

TOTAL 48% 43% 9% 100%

Table 2 Expenditures by Category for $20,000 Production Services Use Total 1 • Food

• Rest $1,600

1,200 ↓ 1,600

1,200

2 • Housing • Utilities & fuels • Furnishings &

supplies

3,800 1,200

400 1,200

4,200 1,200 1,200

3 • Apparel

600 400 ↑ 1,000

4 • Transport • Vehicle • Gas • Other • Public transp.

1,800 600

600 200

600

1,800 600 1.200 200

5 • Services/Personal

4,000 4,000

6 • Insurance/Pension

1,800 1,800

TOTAL 9,600 8,600 1,800 20,000

Table 3 Approximate Energy Used (GJ) Productiona Servicesb Use Total 1 • Food

• Rest 34GJ

8GJ ↓ 42GJ

2 • Housing • Utilities & fuels • Furnishings &

supplies

81 26

3 69c

179GJ

3 • Apparel

13 3 ↑ 16GJ

4 • Transport • Vehicle • Gas • Other • Public transp.

39 13

4 1

60d

117GJ

5 • Services/Personal

27

6 • Insurance/Pension

12

TOTAL 206GJ 58GJ 129GJ 393GJ

Energy use versus disposable income for

23 different life styles in the U.S.

Energy Use vs. Disposable Income

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

Disposable Income ($)

Ener

gy U

se (M

J)

Global warming potential per person and disposable

income for 23 different Life Styles in the United States.

Global Warming Potential

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

Child

Coma -

ICU

Coma -

mix

Coma -

supp

ortHom

eless

Monk 2

Nursing

Hom

eMon

k 1Veg

Stud

ent

Retiree

TFA - Chic

ago

TFA - Hou

ston

TFA - NYC

Artist

Engine

er

Socce

r Mom

Mgmt C

onsu

ltant

Inv Ban

ker

Golfer

- High

Golfer

- Low

CEO "Ave

rage"

CEO "Grea

t"Opra

hGate

s

Lifestyle

Dis

posa

ble

Inco

me

($)

1.00

10.00

100.00

1,000.00

10,000.00

100,000.00

1,000,000.00

GW

P (MT C

O2E)

Disposable Income GWP (MT CO2E)

Economic activity generated by each life style versus

disposable income for 23 life styles in the U.S. 1997 data

Economic Impact of Activity

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

100,000,000,000

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

Disposable Income ($)

Econ

omic

Act

ivity

($)

What’s Next?What’s Next?What’s Next?What’s Next?

� Scale, Flow and Cycles � Do readings for this topic� Do homeworks #1 & 2

Figure 1-2: Global terrestrial carbon uptake. Plant (autotrophic) respiration releases CO2 to the atmosphere, reducing GPP to NPP and resulting in short-term carbon uptake. Decomposition (heterotrophic respiration) of litter and soils in excess of that resulting from disturbance further releases CO2 to the atmosphere, reducing NPP to NEP and resulting in medium-term carbon uptake. Disturbance from both natural and anthropogenic sources (e.g., harvest) leads to further releaseof CO2 to the atmosphere by additional heterotrophic respiration and combustion

-which, in turn, leads to long-term carbon storage (adapted from Steffen et al., 1998).