Post on 07-Nov-2015
description
Energy in Macroeconomic Growth Modeling
Dr. Matthew Kuperus Heun Engineering Department
Calvin College
10:15 AM, 31 March 2015 Huang Engineering Bldg Mackenzie Room (300)
Stanford University
Net Energy Analysis Workshop
Mainstream Macroeconomic Growth
Modeling
GDP = Akl
GDP = AklCapital stock
GDP = AklCapital stock
Labor
GDP = AklTechnology
Capital stockLabor
GDP = AkleEnergy
1980 20101980 2010
GDP = Akl GDP = Akle
GDP = Akl GDP = Akle1980 20101980 2010
GDP = Akl GDP = Akle
Five Propositions
CONPROCONPRO
NOYESNOYES
Quick-Reference Guide | 7
Quick-Reference Guide
For Additional InformationFor Additional Information
ArgumentsArguments
What Your Vote MeansWhat Your Vote Means
Summary Put on the Ballot by Petition SignaturesSummary Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
AgainstNo on 46Patients and
Providers to Protect Access and Contain Health Costs
1510 J Street, Suite 120Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 706-1001info@NoOn46.comwww.NoOn46.com
ForYour Neighbors For Patient Safety969 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 103Los Angeles, CA 90041(310) 395-2544info@YesOn46.orgwww.yeson46.org
AgainstNo on 45Californians
Against Higher Health Care Costs
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600Sacramento, CA 95814(866) 676-8156Info@StopHigherCosts.orgwww.StopHigherCosts.org
ForConsumer Watchdog Campaign2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112Santa Monica, CA 90405(310) 392-0522yeson45@consumerwatchdog.orgwww.yeson45.org
Californians are being overcharged for health
insurance. Prop. 45 will stop the price gouging by requiring health insurance companies to be transparent and publicly justify rates before premiums can increase. The same regulation of auto insurance has saved drivers billions. Sponsors: Consumer Watchdog, California Nurses Association. Opponents: health insurance companies.
Prop. 45 is a power grab by special interests
to take control over health care benefits and rates from Californias successful new independent commissionand give it to one Sacramento politician instead. Higher costs, more bureaucracy. Political interference with treatment options. Exempts big corporations. Nurses, doctors, consumers say vote No!
46 saves lives. It prevents substance abuse by
doctors and patients and holds negligent doctors accountable. Estimates show 18% of health professionals have an abuse problem in their lifetimes. Medical negligence is this countrys third largest cause of death. Prescription drug overdoses are epidemic. A cure is overdue. Vote Yes.
Trial lawyers wrote Prop. 46 to make
millions from medical malpractice lawsuits. We will pay, and could lose our trusted doctorsas many doctors and specialists are forced to leave California, moving to states with more affordable medical-liability insurance. Protect your wallet and access to healthcare. No on 46.
A NO vote on this measure means: The
cap on medical malpractice damages for such things as pain and suffering would remain at $250,000 and not be subject to annual inflation adjustments. Health care providers would not be required to check a statewide prescription database before prescribing or dispensing drugs. Hospitals would not be required to test physicians for alcohol and drugs.
A YES vote on this measure means: Rates
for individual and small group health insurance would need to be approved by the Insurance Commissioner before taking effect.
A NO vote on this measure means: State
regulators would continue to have the authority to review, but not approve, rates for individual and small group health insurance.
A YES vote on this measure means: The
cap on medical malpractice damages for such things as pain and suffering would be increased from $250,000 to $1.1 million and adjusted annually for future inflation. Health care providers would be required to check a statewide prescription drug database before prescribing or dispensing certain drugs to a patient for the first time. Hospitals would be required to test certain physicians for alcohol and drugs.
Requires drug testing of doctors. Requires review of statewide prescription database before prescribing controlled substances. Increases $250,000 pain/suffering cap in medical negligence lawsuits for inflation. Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs from raising the cap on medical malpractice damages ranging from tens of millions to several hundred million dollars annually, offset to some extent by savings from requirements on health care providers.
Requires Insurance Commissioners approval before health insurer can change its rates or anything else affecting the charges associated with health insurance. Provides for public notice, disclosure, and hearing, and subsequent judicial review. Exempts employer large group health plans. Fiscal Impact: Increased state administrative costs to regulate health insurance, likely not exceeding the low millions of dollars annually in most years, funded from fees paid by health insurance companies.
Prop Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.46
Prop Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.45
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/deadline-california-voters-mail-ballots.html
Proposition 1 Proposition 2 Proposition 3 Proposition 4 Proposition 5
Proposition 1
Energy and the Economy are Linked
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Ener
gy C
onsu
mpt
ion [1
015 B
TU/y
ear]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Ener
gy C
onsu
mpt
ion [1
015 B
TU/y
ear]
1973 Stagflation
Early 1980s
.com Collapse
Great Recession
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
% C
hang
e US GDP
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
% C
hang
e
US Energy
US GDP
Proposition 2
Fundamentals of Energy Supply, Demand, and Prices
Are Different Now
Quantity
Price
Quantity
Price
Demand
Quantity
Price
Demand Supp
ly
Quantity
Price
Demand Supp
ly
Quantity
Price
Demand Supp
ly
Quantity
Price
Demand Supp
ly
Quantity
Price
Supp
ly
Quantity
Price
Supp
ly
Quantity
Price
Demand
Quantity
Price
Demand
Supp
lyDemand
~2000
25
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
~2000
25
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
25
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
June 2008132
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
132
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
Dec 2008
40
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
40Pric
e [$
/bar
rel]
Quantity
Supp
lyDemand
Mar 2011
120
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Quantity
Supp
lyDemand120
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
May 2014
110
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
110
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Supp
lyDemand
Jan 2015
45
Quantity
Price
[$/b
arre
l]
Proposition 3
Heretofore Under-appreciated Metrics
are Fundamentally Important for Understanding
Macroeconomic Growth
I. Bashmakov. Three Laws of Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 35(7):35833594, July 2007.
D. J. Murphy and C. A. S. Hall. Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1):5272, Feb. 2011.
D. J. Murphy and C. A. S. Hall. Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1):5272, Feb. 2011. M. Aucott and C. Hall. Does a change in price of fuel affect GDP growth? An examination of the U.S. data from 19502013. Energies, 7:65586570, 2014.
D. J. Murphy and C. A. S. Hall. Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1):5272, Feb. 2011.
C. W. King, J. P. Maxwell, and A. Donovan. World economy-wide energy expenditures and net energy metrics. Energies, page **** In Review ****, 2015.
M. Aucott and C. Hall. Does a change in price of fuel affect GDP growth? An examination of the U.S. data from 19502013. Energies, 7:65586570, 2014.
EROI = Energy DeliveredEnergy Input
Lucas gusher at Spindletop West Texas, 1901
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Oil_Boom#mediaviewer/ File:Lucas_gusher.jpg
Oil platform P-51 Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_platform#mediaviewer/File:Oil_platform_P-51_(Brazil).jpg
Gilbert, D. Exxon, Shell Emit More CO2 Despite Pumping Less. Wall Street Journal, page B1, 15 October 2014.
Gilbert, D. Exxon, Shell Emit More CO2 Despite Pumping Less. Wall Street Journal, page B1, 15 October 2014.
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
0 10 20 30 40
Oil,Price,($20
10/BBL
)
EROI
High
Low
Historical*range*for*conven0onal*US*oil*and*gas*
Oil*Sands*(SAGD)*
Oil*Shale*(surface*w/ATP,*Shell*inAsitu)*
*2013*Carey*King*
See: C. W. King and C. A. S. Hall. Relating Financial and Energy Return on Investment. Sustainability, 3(10):18101832, Oct. 2011.
M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
0 10 20 30 40
Oil,Price,($20
10/BBL
)
EROI
High
Low
Historical*range*for*conven0onal*US*oil*and*gas*
Oil*Sands*(SAGD)*
Oil*Shale*(surface*w/ATP,*Shell*inAsitu)*
*2013*Carey*King*
See: C. W. King and C. A. S. Hall. Relating Financial and Energy Return on Investment. Sustainability, 3(10):18101832, Oct. 2011.
M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Proposition 4
The Dynamics of the Energy-Economy Nexus are an
Interdisciplinary Grand Challenge
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org
C. L. Schultze and D. H. Newlon. Ten years and beyond: Economists answer NSFs call for long-term research agendas. Compendium, American Economic Association, 15 July 2011.
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Energy Market
Dynamics
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
High Energy Cost Share
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
High Energy Cost Share
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
High Energy Cost Share
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
High Energy Cost Share
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Economic Interactions
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
Government Stimulus
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
Government Stimulus
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
Government Stimulus
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Economic Development
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
Biophysical Constraints on Energy Supply
Government Stimulus
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Economic Development
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
Biophysical Constraints on Energy Supply
Government Stimulus
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Economic Development
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Declining Net Energy
(EROI)
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
Biophysical Constraints on Energy Supply
Government Stimulus
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Economic Development
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Declining Net Energy
(EROI)
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Energy Efficiency
Increased Energy
Demand
Energy Scarcity Rel. to Demand
Increasing Energy Prices
Economic Slowdown (Recession)
Reduced Energy
Demand
Decreasing Energy Prices
Economic Growth
(Recovery)
Biophysical Constraints on Energy Supply
Government Stimulus
After M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
Stimulation of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Economic Development
Destruction of High-Cost
Energy Supply
Energy Surplus Rel. to Demand
Declining Net Energy
(EROI)
Low Energy Cost Share
High Energy Cost Share
Energy Efficiency
GDP = Akl
Proposition 5
Transition to a Stable Clean Energy Regime is
Incompatible with an Unstable
Energy-Economy System
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/03/michigan_gov_rick_snyder_wants.html
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/03/michigan_gov_rick_snyder_wants.html
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/03/michigan_gov_rick_snyder_wants.html http://www.novoco.com/energy/resource_files/reports/cap_renewable-energy-investment_011012.pdf
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/03/michigan_gov_rick_snyder_wants.html http://www.novoco.com/energy/resource_files/reports/cap_renewable-energy-investment_011012.pdf
Establish Interdisciplinary Structures
Secure Funding
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8. Human Development Index
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8. Human Development Index
High Human Developm
ent
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
Ecological Footprint [hectares/person]
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
Ecological Footprint [hectares/person]
Average Available Biocapacity
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
USA
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
USA
China
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
USA
IndiaChina
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
USA
IndiaChina
South Africa
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
8 AFRICA
Human Development Index
Exceeds biospheres average capacityper person, low development
Exceeds biospheres averagecapacity per person,
high development
Within biospheres average capacityper person, low development
World average biocapacity available per person
Thre
shol
dfo
rhig
hhu
man
deve
lopm
ent
EcologicalFootprint(2003globalhectares
perperson)
11
10
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00
Meets minimum criteriafor sustainability
Fig. 8: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003
More than1 billion
100 million 1 billion
30 million 100 million
10 million 30 million
5 million 10 million
less than5 million
Country population (coloured by region):
North AmericaEurope EUEurope Non-EULatin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica
TOWARDS LASTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development is acommitment to improving thequality of human life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supportingecosystems (IUCN et al., 1991).
Countries progress towards sustainabledevelopment can be assessed using theUnited Nations Development Programmes(UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI)as an indicator of well-being, and theFootprint as a measure of demand on thebiosphere. The HDI is calculated from lifeexpectancy, literacy and education, and perperson Gross Domestic Product. UNDPconsiders an HDI value of more than 0.8to be high human development. AnEcological Footprint lower than 1.8 globalhectares per person, the average biocapacityavailable per person on the planet, would bereplicable at the global level.
Successful sustainable developmentrequires that the world, on average, meets,at a minimum these two criteria, withcountries moving into the blue quadrantshown in Figure 8. As world populationgrows, less bioproductive area is availableper person and the quadrants height shrinks.
In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa wereusing less than world average per personbiocapacity, while the EU and North Americahad crossed the threshold for high humandevelopment. No region, nor the world as awhole, met both criteria for sustainabledevelopment. Cuba alone did, based on thedata it reports to the United Nations.
Changes in footprint and HDI between 1975and 2003 for some nations are illustrated onpages 11-13. During this period, wealthynations such as the United States of America
significantly increased their resource usewhile increasing their quality of life. Thisdid not hold for poorer nations, notablyChina or India, where significant increasesin HDI were achieved while their per personEcological Footprints remained below globalper person biocapacity.
Comparing a countrys average EcologicalFootprint per person with global averagebiocapacity does not presuppose equalsharing of resources. Rather it indicateswhich nations consumption patterns, ifextended worldwide, would continueglobal overshoot, and which would not.The Ecological Footprint and the HDIneed supplementing by other ecologicaland socio-economic measures freshwaterscarcity and civic engagement, forexample to more fully definesustainable development.
Goldfinger, S. et. al. 2008. Africa: Ecological Footprint and Human Well-being. WWF International and Global Footprint Network. p. 8.
Cuba
Well$or$Mine$Egross,t(
Edelivered,t(
Einvest,t(
EROIt(>>$1.0$
Einput,t(
(a)$
Heun, M.K. and de Wit, M. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, Jan. 2012.
Well$or$Mine$Egross,t(
Edelivered,t(
Einvest,t(
EROIt(>>$1.0$
Einput,t(
(a)$
Heun, M.K. and de Wit, M. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, Jan. 2012.
Well$or$Mine$Egross,t(
Edelivered,t(
Einvest,t(
EROIt(>>$1.0$
Einput,t(
(a)$
Heun, M.K. and de Wit, M. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, Jan. 2012.
Well$or$Mine$Egross,t(
Edelivered,t(
Einvest,t(EROIt(!$1.0$(b)$
Einput,t(
M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
C. W. King and C. A. S. Hall. Relating Financial and Energy Return on Investment. Sustainability, 3(10):18101832, Oct. 2011.
M. K. Heun and M. de Wit. Energy Return on (Energy) Invested (EROI), Oil Prices, and Energy Transitions. Energy Policy, 40(C):147158, 2012.
C. W. King and C. A. S. Hall. Relating Financial and Energy Return on Investment. Sustainability, 3(10):18101832, Oct. 2011.