A modest proposal: global rationalization of ecological footprint to eliminate ecological debt

  • Ohl B
  • Wolf S
  • Anderson W
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In the context of ecological overshoot, extreme poverty, and profligate consumption, we propose using ecological footprint analysis (EFA) to regulate and rationalize material consumption worldwide. EFA quantifies human- consumption flows relative to renewable natural capital stocks given specified levels of technology. Worldwide, 1.8 global hectares (gha) of bioproductive land exist per person, yet the human population is currently consuming 2.2 gha per person. Given global overshoot and the radically uneven distribution of consumption, we propose a global regime of cap-and-trade of ecological footprint. Under the terms of our modest proposal, all nations would be allocated pop- ulation-based ecological footprints of an “earthshare” of 1.8 gha per person. Nations with large per capita footprints would be obligated to make reductions through some combination of reduced consumption, resource-productivity gains, population decreases, ecological restoration, and purchase of footprint credits. In contrast, countries with small per capita footprints could sell footprint credits to finance modernization along ecological lines. Mathematical simula- tion of our proposal indicates global convergence of nations’ ecological footprints in 136 years. In our view, the ob- scenity of contemporary ecological degradation and human suffering is perhaps rivaled by the audacity of our pro- posal to commodify biocapacity worldwide. We leave it to the reader to compare our response to institutional failure and the problem of distributive justice to the remedy Swift offered in 1729.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ohl, B., Wolf, S., & Anderson, W. (2008). A modest proposal: global rationalization of ecological footprint to eliminate ecological debt. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 4(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2008.11908010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free