OU blog

Personal Blogs

1st Critique of the Eco Footprint Model

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Neal Grout, Friday, 6 May 2011, 19:15

The Futility of Trying to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

 

Introduction

This short essay will explain why individuals’ attempting to reduce their carbon footprint within the greater context of living in a socio-economic system, is ineffectual as a means of protecting the environment. Moreover, due to backfires in the rebound effect attempts to reduce energy use will only cause greater environmental damage in the form of supply side resource depletion and the increasing pollution of environmental sinks.

 

What is an Ecological Footprint?

The ecological footprint model is a measure of human population demand on our environment, the Earth’s biosphere. It represents the amount of resources we use, including renewables such as fish stocks and forest, and non-renewables such as mined metals, minerals and fossil fuels. It also represents the environments ability to absorb the corresponding waste generated by human socio-economic activity. The concept was originally developed by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel when they published their book; Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.

In 2006, humanities total ecological footprint was estimated using the eco-footprint model at 1.4 Earths – that is the area needed to support the world’s human population at that time. Clearly this shows humanity in overshoot, with numbers in excess of its environmental carrying capacity, and considering that the human global population is still growing exponentially with a doubling time of approximately 44 years, our impact on the environment is also increasing at an accelerating rate.

The footprint is a useful tool when comparing lifestyles and consumption behaviour between various peoples and cultures worldwide and for explaining in simple terms the ecological concept of carrying capacity. Its use as a tool in attempting to alter personal consumptive behaviour is ineffective due to Universal energy laws which affect all systems from non living Bernard cells which form in heated liquids through to living beings and the systems they are a part of such as our globalized Industrial society.

 

The Thermodynamic laws and the Maximum Power Principle

As far as we are aware, through corroboration based on empirical measurement and the falsifiability/refutability of the scientific method, these laws are Universal and absolute. All open, dynamic systems are subject to them.

 

The First law; Energy can be transformed from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed (you can’t get something for nothing).

The Second or entropy law; while quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates over time. Usable energy is irretrievably lost in every step of system processes (perpetual motion machines are impossible).

The Third law; the entropy of a perfect crystal approaches zero as the absolute temperature approaches zero (not relevant to this essay).

The Maximum Power Principle (MPP); during self organization, system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and efficiency.

The MPP can be broken down into systemic priorities.

The first priority of a system is to maximize energy intake (Odum, 2007).

The second priority is to maximize efficiency in its energy processing. When there are no excess, unused resources to be found, a high diversity of cooperating units develops, with better efficiency and division of labour (Odum, 2007).

This second priority explains the formation of hubs/hierarchies within open systems as they try to maximize power throughputs.

 

 

The Rebound Effect, Jevons Paradox and Backfire

If we want to understand what’s going on in a system we need to look at it through the energy lens (Logan, 2010). The rebound effect is otherwise known to economists as Jevons paradox after the mathematician who first proposed the theory. In his 1865 book, The Coal Question, Jevons wrote;

"to suppose that the economic use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth. As a rule, the new modes of economy will lead to an increase of consumption according to a principle recognized in many parallel instances…. The same principles apply, with even greater force and distinctiveness to the use of such a general agent as coal. It is the very economy of its use which leads to its extensive consumption…. Nor is it difficult to see how this paradox arises…. If the quantity of coal used in a blast-furnace, for instance, be diminished in comparison with the yield, the profits of the trade will increase, new capital will be attracted, the price of pig-iron will fall, but the demand for it increase; and eventually the greater number of furnaces will more than make up for the diminished consumption of each. And if such is not always the result within a single branch, it must be remembered that the progress of any branch of manufacture excites a new activity in most other branches and leads indirectly, if not directly, to increased inroads upon our seams of coal…. Civilization, says Baron Liebig, is the economy of power, and our power is coal. It is the very economy of the use of coal that makes our industry what it is; and the more we render it efficient and economical, the more will our industry thrive, and our works of civilization grow (140-142)."

What Jevons is describing with his paradox is a function of the maximum power principle (Logan, 2010). Any attempt within a system to increase efficiency of energy use only leads to increased energy throughput. Environmentalists often refer to this as a rebound effect backfire which is gradually being recognized as having a greater effect than previously thought (Sorrell, 2010).

An example of direct rebound effects would be individuals who make energy efficiency alterations to their accommodation. This saves energy which also produces cash savings in their bank account. Unless they were very careful on where this extra money was spent it could easily cause a backfire if for example they used the savings for a holiday abroad with the ensuing fuel expenditure on the flights involved.

Even if individuals take great care over their energy expenditures there is little they can do about indirect rebound effects. Energy that is unused by individuals will be redistributed elsewhere in the growing socio-economic system which makes up society as Jevons explained.

 

A Real Solution

If we as a society are going to get serious about our impact on the environment then supply side command controls such as production quotas incorporating maximum sustainable yields and rationing programs, which were successfully introduced by many countries during wartime, are the best options. 

 

Conclusion

Many, if not most, people believe humans are somehow above the limits of energy resources. Ignorance about energy develops during times of accelerating growth (Odum, 2007). Many people believe that cutting back on their energy use by introducing efficiency measures reduces their impact on the environment. Jevons paradox and the MPP tell us this is not true either on a personal or societal level.

 

Works Cited

Jevons, W. S. (1865). The Coal Question.

Logan, M. (2010, Oct 1st). Whither Complexity?Retrieved Mar 17th, 2011, from University of Alaska Anchorage: http://www.math.uaa.alaska.edu/~afkjm/video/MaryLogan-Energy/MaryLogan-Energy.html

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Odum, H. (2007). Environment, Power and Society for the 21st Century. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sorrell, S. (2010, Mar). Energy, growth and sustainability: five propositions. PDF file.Retrieved Mar 17th, 2011, from SPRU University of Sussex: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/research/sewps

Wackernagel. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint. New Society Press.

 

 

Permalink Add your comment
Share post