A SUSTAINABLE WORLD – AN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND I=PAT PERSPECTIVE

Don Clifton The discussion and findings reported here, Research Scholar, University of South conducted by way of a literature review and Australia, Adelaide, South Australia. analysis, relate only to an aspect of the first Email: [email protected] of these three Project question by answering a further sub-question, namely: 'of the two Phone: 61 8 8463 0850 main approaches the Project has identified

from the literature as representing what it Abstract means for there to be a sustainable world – This paper identifies two approaches to how Reformist and Transformational approaches humanity might go about living sustainably – – which is more likely to see the primary a Reformist approach and a Transformational goal of a sustainable world achieved?' The approach. Reformism, as the current Project applies two methods to exploring this dominant approach, is critiqued using question: (a) Ecological Footprint Analysis Ecological Footprint Analysis and I=PAT, to (EFA) in conjunction with I=PAT, and (b) assess its merits in seeing humanity Socio-ecological resilience theory. This undertake an orderly transition to a paper focuses only on the first of these – sustainable world. The results suggest that EFA and I=PAT – by means of a critique of the pathway Reformism offers is challenging the Reformist approach (for a summary to believe as credible. Further, some of the report of the full Project, including key strategies the Reformist approach methodology and key findings in relation to advocates are shown to work against the very all 3 research questions shown above, see outcomes it otherwise sets out to achieve. Clifton (Forthcoming-a), and for a detailed review of the application of Socio-ecological Key words: resilience theory to a critique of the Sustainable world framework, carbon Reformist approach, see Clifton footprint analysis, I=PAT. (Forthcoming-a,b) information available from the author). 1. Introduction This paper reports on a component of a In presenting the EFA and I=PAT critique of current research project (the Project) that is Reformism, this paper is structured as concerned with what it means for humans to follows: live sustainably, that is, for there to be a sustainable world, and how this might be Section 2 provides an overview of what it achieved. The Project considers three key means for there to be a sustainable world questions namely: (a) what does it mean for through a summary of the two main there to be a sustainable world?, (b) what sustainable world approaches, identified sustainable world approach is being pursued from a literature review undertaken as part of by a State government in Australia, the South the Project (see Clifton (2010)), namely the Australian Government?, and (c) what are Reformist and Transformational approaches. the implications of this government's The purpose of this review is to summarise sustainable world approach in respect of its the key feature of Reformism as compared to contribution to, or detraction from, a global the Transformational approach, from which sustainable world goal? Reformism, as the current dominant sustainable world approach, is then subjected to critique.

3

Section 3 provides a brief overview of EFA outcomes the Reformist approach claims and discusses how this concept measures a they are able to do. necessary, although not sufficient, condition for humanity to live sustainably. Section 4 Section 8 concludes with a discussion of the follows with a summary of the current EFA implications of the reported findings, the key data and discusses how these data areas of knowledge contribution this paper demonstrate humanity's unsustainable way of has sought to achieve, key limitations of the life. findings, and areas for further research.

Section 5 continues the EFA review by 2. A Sustainable World considering what outcome, in EFA terms, What it means for there to be a sustainable humanity should be striving for. This is an world is a pluralistic and contested concept, important question to address as without grounded in differing value systems, clarity of this point, this paper's critique of perceptions of reality, and cultural contexts Reformism from an EFA perspective would (Gibbs & Krueger 2005; Osorio, Lobato & lack a meaningful measure against which to Castillo 2005). This plurality poses model the consequences of pursuing the challenges for summarising exactly what a Reformist agenda. In considering this EFA- 'sustainable world' means and, as Dobson outcomes question, a number of issues that (1996) points out, it makes the task of materially impact on how the EFA data are constructing a meaningful sustainable world interpreted, but that are currency poorly definition virtually impossible. As an developed in the literature, are reviewed in alternate to a definitional approach, Dobson some detail. Following this review, some (1996) recommends a typology general parameters are established on which representation of complex concepts such as the EFA modelling is then based. that of a sustainable world, and this advice of Dobson's was followed for the Project. Two In Section 6, I=PAT is introduced. This main approaches to a sustainable world were section: (a) provides a general overview of identified from the typology construction I=PAT ('I' – ecological impact/Ecological exercise conducted, they being a Reformist Footprint, is a function of 'P' – population, approach and a Transformational approach 'A' – affluence/consumption, and 'T' – (for a discussion of the research technology), (b) displays the Reformist and methodology and findings for the typology Transformation approaches in I=PAT terms, construction component of the Project, see (c) discusses how I=PAT can be Clifton (2010)). meaningfully applied to projecting future Ecological Footprint values based on the The Reformist approach focuses the Reformist approach, and (c) discusses key achievement of a sustainable world on relationships between I=PAT elements to reforming the current dominant socio- produce a meaningful set of assumptions in economic system through changes at the using I=PAT for Ecological Footprint margin to make this system more projection purposes. Section 6 concludes environmentally responsible and socially just with a presentation of the results from (green-and-just). This approach is projecting the Ecological Footprint through characterised by: (a) an anthropocentric bias, to the year 2050, using I=PAT, and based on (b) the meeting of human needs through a the Reformist agenda. focus on the consumption of goods and services produced and consumed in green- Section 6 highlights Reformism‘s reliance on and-just ways, (c) human population policies 'T' ('technology') to bring humanity's focused on stabilising population numbers, Ecological Footprint within necessary (d) maintaining of the current process of Biocapacity limits. In Section 7, a number of human development built around continued these key 'T' based strategies are discussed to economic growth and technology advance, consider if they are likely to deliver the but done in green-and-just ways, (e) a 4

commitment to continued economic growth term is used in this paper as a general term to overcome problems of poverty and to for humanity's 'living sustainably' goal. promote general human wellbeing, (f) continuation of the current globalisation and Although the Reformist and free-trade agenda as necessary to underpin Transformational approaches summarised these economic and social goals, and (g) above have connections to other viewpoints technological advance as necessary to drive of alternate sustainable world approaches – growth, improve human wellbeing, and the weak vs strong sustainability address any negative ecological impacts differentiation being perhaps the most harmful to human wellbeing (Clifton 2010). prominent – caution needs to be exercised in equating such alternate narratives to the A Transformational approach however Reformist and Transformational approaches. claims that progressing to, and the The weak vs strong sustainability concepts maintaining of, a sustainable world requires for example, although used in inconsistent fundamental and transformational socio- ways in the literature, are mostly linked to economic system change. This approach is economic concepts of capital maintenance, characterised by: (a) an ecocentric bias, (b) namely, for weak sustainability, the need to meeting human needs through consumptive maintain the aggregate of human forms of sufficiency and a focus on non-material capital (KHF) and natural capital (KN), and satisfiers, (c) a strategy for the long term for strong sustainability, the need to maintain reduction in human population numbers and the KHF and KN bases independently an increase in the population numbers of (Goodland 1995; Common & Stagl 2005). most non-human species, (d) continued These weak and strong sustainability consumptive growth viewed as unsustainable concepts are, however, mostly economic and a primary cause of both ecological concepts (Hediger 1999; Dovers 2005) problems and of poverty, (e) poverty as best grounded in an anthropocentric paradigm resolved through resource reallocation not (Wackernagel & Rees 1997), and form only more global resource-through-put growth, a part of the broader suite of issues of with a key role for the politically and importance in the Reformist and economically powerful, especially the Transformational narratives (for a further industrialised North, to cease the exploitation discussion on this issue, see Clifton (2010)). of resources from the politically and economically weak, and (f) quantitative The concept of a sustainable world is also a constraints placed on natural resource use multi-dimensional social construct. Aspects and waste discharge into the Earth's of what it means for there to be a sustainable ecosystems, such that they remain well world can be found in many academic and within ecosystem limits (Clifton 2010). professional disciplines including sociology (Bell 2009), environmental ethics (Light & The Reformist approach is the current Rolston 2003), justice studies, especially dominant approach to a sustainable world environmental justice (Schlosberg 2007), (Handmer & Dovers 1996; Gould & Lewis accounting (Schaltegger, Bennett & Burritt 2009), and is consistent with mainstream 2006), business strategy and management sustainable development narratives at the (Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn 2003) and international and national political levels, economics, notably the sub-fields of and within business circles (Castro 2004; environmental economics (Field & Field Robinson 2004). Although the term 2006), ecological economics (Daly & Farley 'sustainable development' is not used 2004), and green economics (Cato 2009). exclusively in the Reformist context, it The Reformist and Transformational nonetheless has strong historical links to narratives are, in this sense, multi- Reformism (Orton 1990; Escobar 1995) and disciplinary concepts and need to be as such, the more neutral 'sustainable world' considered and interpreted in this way.

5

But returning to the point of Reformism (b) Calculating a measure of available being the current dominant sustainable world Biocapacity (i.e. available KNR flows), approach, why is Reformism dominant? also expressed as ghpc. Three main (non mutually exclusive) (c) Comparing the Ecological Footprint and explanations are evident in the literature Biocapacity measures to determine a namely: (a) Reformism is a superior measure of ecological credit or deficit. sustainable world pathway than the Transformational approach (see Hart (2007) EFA does not capture every aspect of what it as an example of this view), (b) Reformism means to live sustainably (Kitzes 2007; is the only viable approach within the current Footprint Network 2008b). Instead, it political and economic space (authors measures what is claimed to be a necessary, suggesting this may be of importance include although insufficient, condition for there to Robinson (2004) and Barry (2007)), and (c) be a sustainable world, that being a the sustainability narrative has been captured requirement for humanity to live within the by the political and economically powerful Earth's Biocapacity limits (Footprint elite and modelled into the Reformist mode Network 2006; Giljum et al. 2007). to suit their own interests and ideology (for support of this view see Castro (2004) and EFA has its critics, and a number of claimed Kempf (2008)). This paper explores the first deficiencies have been identified and of these three explanations. examined in detail in the literature (see for example van den Bergh & Verbruggen 3. Ecological Footprint Analysis (1999), Venetoulis & Talberth (2005), and The characteristics of EFA are well Kitzes et al. (2009)). Despite this, EFA is documented in the literature (for examples seen as the most comprehensive and widely see Wackernagel et al. (2004), Kitzes et al. accepted measure of humanity's use of the (2007), and Footprint Network (2008a), KNR, with demonstrated consistency with however, in brief, EFA seeks to answer a other environmental impact indicators (York, specific two-part research question namely: Rosa & Dietz 2004; White 2007; Bagliani et "how much of the biological capacity of the al. 2008). In addition, Footprint Analysis has planet is demanded by a given human been accepted as a valid metric by many activity or population… [and] how much of government, private, and NGO bodies (see the planet’s capacity do we use compared to Footprint Network at how much is available?" (Footprint Network http://www.footprintnetwork.org/). 2008b). This paper follows the position of EFA EFA seeks to answer this research question supporters by proceeding on the basis that, by: although it has recognised areas of data (a) Calculating an Ecological Footprint inaccuracy and presents approximations as measure, which represents the opposed to exact measures, the concept is biologically productive land and water sufficiently robust to provide a meaningful area that a unit of focus (say, a city, picture of humanity's use of the Earth's nation, or all of humanity) uses to Biocapacity as compared to its availability produce the resources it consumes and (Wackernagel 2009). In addition, the EFA the wastes it generates or, in other words, data used in this paper is that produced by the rate of use of the Earth's renewable the Footprint Network natural capital (KNR) flows. The (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/) which is Ecological Footprint is usually expressed the most broadly recognised EFA data and in standardised units of global hectares, methodology (Footprint Network 2008b). and most commonly in per capita terms (global hectares per capita – ghpc).

6

4. Ecological Footprint Analysis and the current state of the world 5. Ecological Footprint vs Biocapacity Figure 1 sets out the most recent global-level targets EFA data. The key points to note are: But what Ecological Footprint vs Biocapacity measure (a) Humanity's collective Ecological should humanity be striving for? In the EFA literature, a minimum condition for humans to live sustainably Footprint of 2.6 ghpc is running at 144% in a global context is talked of in terms of humanity of available Biocapacity of 1.8 ghpc, needing "[its] global Footprint [to] be less than or meaning that a position of ecological equal to the global biocapacity (Footprint Network overshoot exists. 2006, para 15A) and "at a global level the minimum requirement for sustainability is that humanity's (b) This overshoot position means that footprint be smaller than the biosphere's biological available Biocapacity is insufficient to capacity" (Nijkamp, Rossi & Vindigni 2004, p. 753). meet current human demands. Instead, The claim of "equal to" in the first quote is the KNR base is being depleted and troublesome as to live sustainably, humanity's global- level Ecological Footprint needs to be less than wastes (in this case, CO2) are available Biocapacity. Being equal to it will not do, as accumulating in the Earth's ecosystems this fails to account for: (a) the Biocapacity rather than being fully assimilated. requirements of other species, (b) the need to maintain (c) The consequences of this KNR depletion ecosystem resilience, and (c) the conservative nature and waste accumulation are carried of EFA data. Gaining clarity on this issue, to which mostly by: (i) the economically and this section turns its attention, is of high importance as reliance on the raw published EFA data can paint an politically weak who suffer a otherwise distorted picture of humanity's current disproportionately low level of access to unsustainable ways of life. KNR use as compared to the economically and politically powerful, (ii) future 5.1. Other species generations who will inherit a depleted The Biocapacity measure used in EFA does KNR base, threatening their ability to not account for the needs of other species meet their own needs, and (iii) other that require access to the same Biocapacity species, in particular through a continued as humans (Wackernagel et al. 2004; and escalating rate of extinction Footprint Network 2006). The claim by EFA (Andersson & Lindroth 2001; Westra promoters is that the question of meeting the 2006). needs of non-human species sits outside of the research question EFA seeks to answer. In short, from a global perspective, humanity Instead, the amount of Biocapacity to be set is not living within the Earth's available aside for other species is seen as a values- Biocapacity and is, in this respect, not living based, scientific and political decision that sustainably. should be made at these levels and not automatically factored into the EFA data Figure 1: Current EFA data (Footprint Network 2006). Item Value Note: EF = Ecological Footprint; BioC = The Reformist and Transformational Biocapacity approaches however both call for the EF – average per person for all of protection of biodiversity for many reasons #1 2.6 ghpc humanity. including: (a) the maintaining of ecosystem BioC – average global BioC per integrity to provide the life supporting #1 1.8 ghpc person. services humans need to live flourishing Ecological deficit/overshoot – average #1 -0.8 ghpc lives (Diesendorf 1997; UNEP 2007), (b) per person for all of humanity. meeting various human instrumental needs EF as a percentage of BioC. #2 144% such as recreation, spirituality, aesthetic Data sources: pleasure, pharmaceutical production, support #1: Footprint Network (2009): 2009 release based on 2006 of cultural values, and agricultural purposes data. (UNEP 2007; Bell 2009), (c) meeting inter- #2: Author calculation. generational justice obligations (WCED 7

1987; Brown-Weiss 1990), and (d) especially aside of 12% of available Biocapacity for the in respect of the Transformational view, benefit of non-human species. meeting certain ethical obligations humans have towards nature (Naess 2005; UNEP A general view in the literature however is 2007; Bell 2009). So although taking the that the low-end 10%-12% estimate is point made by EFA advocates concerning the inadequate to protect the Earth's biodiversity exclusion of non-human species Biocapacity (Soulé & Sanjayan 1998; CABS 2003; needs from the Biocapacity measure, the Stokstad 2005), with a 10% value seen by question of 'how much Biocapacity should be some as likely to put up to half of the Earth's set aside for non-human species?' still needs species at risk of human caused extinction to be answered. Without some guidance on (Soulé & Sanjayan 1998). Values in the this matter, setting a target for sustainable order of 40%-60% of the Earth's surface, human use of Biocapacity becomes whether quoted in reference to protected impossible. areas or, more generally, as needing protection from intrusive human actions in a This 'how much for other species' question is broader landscape sense, are often cited as poorly addressed in the literature. Most necessary to offer an adequate basis for estimates talk of how much of the Earth's biodiversity protection (Soulé & Sanjayan surface should be set aside as protected 1998; Wilson 2002; Mackey 2004; Stokstad areas, with low estimates in the 10%-12% 2005). The claimed biodiversity protection range through to higher estimates of 40%- outcomes of these 40%-60% values are 60%+ (Soulé & Sanjayan 1998; Wackernagel consistent with both the Reformist and et al. 1999; Wilson 2002; CABS 2003; Transformational biodiversity protection Stokstad 2005). But there is a difference narratives, although the Transformational between claiming how much of the Earth's view tends to the higher end (or beyond) of surface should be set aside as protected this value range (Clifton 2010)). areas, and how much of the Earth's Biocapacity should be left for other species. Further, the Biocapacity that needs to be set An example of this difference is evident in aside for non-human species is not just any the World Commission on Environment and space, but needs to focus on biological Development's report 'Our Common Future' criteria (UN 1992; Foreman 1995), as (the Brundtland Report) (WCED 1987). opposed to continuing past strategies of Some authors claim that this Report calls for protecting areas of the Earth's surface that about 12% of the Earth's surface to be set are of little or no value to humans, or areas aside in protected areas (e.g. see suited only to human recreational actives Wackernagel & Yount (1998)). This 12% (Callicott 2003; Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2008). number does not however appear in the This is important when considering the Brundtland Report but is rather an Biocapacity measure used in EFA extrapolation of the Report's proposal that, calculations, as Biocapacity is based on based on the state of affairs at the time the biologically productive areas of land and Report was written, "the total expanse of water that support significant photosynthetic protected areas needs to be at least tripled if activity and biomass accumulation that can it is to constitute a representative sample of be used by humans. The Biocapacity Earth's ecosystems" (p. 156). The Report measure excludes non-productive and however never claims this is adequate to marginal areas such as arid regions, open protect biodiversity and instead sees oceans, the cryosphere, other low-productive protected areas as part of a broader approach surfaces, and areas producing biomass that to biodiversity protection framed within a are not of use to humans (Kitzes et al. 2007). general change in land use patterns and As such, vast areas of the Earth's surface – approaches to development. It is misleading deserts, polar regions, very mountainous to represent the 12% value implied in the areas, open ocean space, and so on – can be Brundtland Report as equating to the setting set aside in protected areas that have little or 8

no relevance to areas incorporated in the The key point to be made here is that human Biocapacity measure and the survival of use of Biocapacity that is close to total species in these areas. available Biocapacity is not only biodiversity eroding but is also limiting in the extent to So in answer to the question of how much which spare systems capacity is maintained Biocapacity should be set aside for non- and tipping points are kept at a distance. The human species, the literature offers no clear EFA literature does not confront in any answer. It suggests however that a figure in material way this issue of socio-ecological the 10%-12% range is not credible and resilience in its consideration of human use higher estimates in the order of 40%-60%+ of available Biocapacity. As such, no are more likely to be required to deliver an guidance is available from the literature on outcome consistent with sustainable world what Ecological Footprint vs Biocapacity principles. gap is needed to address the full scope of resilience issues, although the need for such 5.2. Socio-ecological resilience a gap is clear. The next point concerns the maintaining of ecosystem resilience. Two main forms of 5.3. Conservative values resilience are identified in the literature, EFA data tends to underestimate the namely engineering resilience and ecological Ecological Footprint value and overestimate (or socio-ecological) resilience (Peterson, available Biocapacity. The reasons for this Allen & Holling 1998; Walker & Salt 2006) are grounded in a preference for the (socio-ecological resilience is the term used conservative use of data where uncertainty in this paper for this second form of exists, and exclusion from the calculations of resilience). Engineering resilience refers to factors where no reliable data are available the ability of a system to bounce back to its (Kitzes et al. 2007; Wackernagel 2009). pre-disturbance state following some from of disturbance – such as a global financial crisis An indication of the possible extent of the and the ability of the economic system to disparity between humanity's actual return to an upward growth path. Socio- overshoot position and that presented by the ecological resilience on the other hand refers EFA data is evident in a study by Venetoulis to the ability of a system to continue to & Talberth (2005; 2006). These authors function effectively despite exposure to undertook an alternate calculation to disturbance. A number of factors enhance incorporate many, but not all, of the factors socio-ecological resilience including (a) the standard EFA figures exclude. Compared diversity within a system, (b) maintaining of against the EFA 2005 data release, the spare capacity and keeping well away from findings showed an ecological overshoot of system tipping points, and (c) the ability of a 39%, (that is, humanity's global Ecological system to adapt to change, evolve, and to self Footprint was 139% of available organise (Meadows, Randers & Meadows Biocapacity), about double that of the 18% 2004; Walker & Salt 2006). In the overshoot value reported in the standard EFA sustainable world context, it is socio- figures. ecological resilience that is of key importance through the continued meeting of The point here is that basing decision making on the the sustainable world goals of human and actual EFA data risks interpreting the true state of ecological wellbeing, regardless of what affairs of human appropriation of available disturbance and change might occur to Biocapacity in an overly optimistic way. Based on the Venetoulis & Talberth study, the disparity between ecological and social systems over time. In the actual and the reported may be substantial. So this sense, the concepts of a sustainable although this issue of conservative data relates to world and socio-ecological resilience are calculated EFA values as opposed to actual inseparable (Holling 1996; Walker & Salt Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint, it is nonetheless 2006). of importance in setting, measuring, and interpreting,

9

Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint targets based on in moving to a sustainable world are EFA data. considerable.

5.4. Summary Figure 2: Current EFA data with modified In summary, the amount of Biocapacity that Biocapacity vales can be safely appropriated for human use Item Value within the sustainable world context remains unclear. What is clear however is that: (a) Note: EF = Ecological Footprint; BioC = Biocapacity #1 humans utilising 100% of available 1. Base EFA data EF – average per person for all of Biocapacity is inconsistent with a sustainable 2.6 ghpc world, (b) allowing say, 10%-12% of humanity. BioC – average global BioC per available Biocapacity for meeting the needs 1.8 ghpc of non-human species is also inconsistent person. Ecological deficit – average per person with a sustainable world as it breaches -0.8 ghpc biodiversity preservation objectives, and for all of humanity. values in the 40%-60%+ range may well be EF as a percentage of BioC. 144% required to be set aside, (c) in addition, 2. BioC – 20% unavailable for human use #2 Biocapacity needs to be set aside for socio- BioC available for human use. 1.4 ghpc ecological resilience purposes, and (d) a Ecological deficit – average per person -1.2 ghpc further allowance needs to be made for the for all of humanity. conservative nature of the EFA data. EF as a percentage of available BioC. 181% 3. BioC – 50% unavailable for human use #2 For the purpose of the analysis presented in BioC available for human use. 0.9 ghpc this paper, two values – 20% and 50% – are Ecological deficit – average per person -1.7 ghpc used for the amount of Biocapacity, as for all of humanity. measured in the EFA data that is unavailable EF as a percentage of available BioC. 289% for human use. Although somewhat arbitrary, the 20% value takes a minimalist approach Data sources #1: From Figure 1. by moving a short distance beyond the 10%- #2: Author calculation applying the factors detailed in 12% for biodiversity purposes that has been Section 5.4. to the base EFA data in this Figure 2. shown above to be inadequate. The 50% Note: Figures subject to rounding. Detailed calculations are value sits comfortably in the higher end available from this paper's author. ranges for biodiversity protection. An argument can of course be made that the 6. Projecting the Ecological Footprint 20% value is totally inadequate purely from a 6.1. Introduction biodiversity protection perspective, and even the 50% value may be inadequate as it fails The discussion so far has considered what it properly to factor in the conservative nature means for there to be a sustainable world, of EFA data and does not consider issues of and has used EFA to show that humanity is, socio-ecological resilience. But to get lost in at a global level, not living sustainably in the a 'should it be 20% or 50% or something sense of living within the limits of available else' discussion can in some ways distract Biocapacity. In this section, the Reformist from the bigger picture. As shown in Figure and Transformational sustainable world 2, the setting aside of 20% of Biocapacity approaches are presented in I=PAT terms. In sees the current Ecological Footprint value addition, I=PAT is used to project the current running at about 180% of the resulting Ecological Footprint forward based on the Biocapacity available for human use. At a Reformist view, with a purpose of 50% of Biocapacity value, the Ecological considering the implications of pursuing the Footprint is some 289% of human available Reformist narrative in bringing humanity's Biocapacity. Either way, the numbers are Ecological Footprint within Biocapacity significant and the challenges humanity faces limits.

10

6.2. I=PAT I=PAT presents human impact on the Figure 3 sets out the Reformist and environment 'I', as a function of. Transformational approaches in I=PAT 'P': Population. terms. In brief, the Reformist approach is relatively benign on population ('P') issues, 'A': Consumption-production per capita (or seeks strong global economic growth ('A'), affluence), with GDP per capita often and relies on technology ('T') to offset the used as a proxy measure. impacts of 'P+A' to keep 'I' within ecological 'T': The environmental impact per unit of limits. The Transformational view however consumption/production which, although seeks to specifically restrict 'I' such that referred to as 'technology', is really a humans live within ecological limits, and all catch-all for the collective ecological of 'PAT' are addressed to ensure these limits impact of production and consumption on 'I' are not breached. activities. (For an overview of I=PAT, see Holdren et al. (1995), Chertow (2000) and York et al. (2003b)).

Figure 3: I=PAT and the Reformist and Transformational approaches IPAT Reformist approach Transformational approach element Reduce Biocapacity use to sustainable levels by Set limits on Biocapacity use to be well within focusing on 'T' and using (mostly) market pricing available Biocapacity levels. 'I' systems that internalise all social and ecological All of 'PAT' are addressed to ensure these limits #1 externalities. are not breached. Orientation to maximising the human population Current human population is too high and that can be supported within sustainable world unsustainable, and is an issue for all countries to criteria. address. Contain very high population growth rates in some A long term population reduction strategy is 'P' (mostly developing) countries. required through collective non-coercive and non- Prevent population decline in some (mostly discriminatory choice. developed) countries. This population reduction strategy will enhance Otherwise allow population to settle to a 'natural' the wellbeing of both humans and other species. level. Continued global GDP growth is necessary to Increased consumption is needed for some where progress human wellbeing and overcome problems basic needs are not being met but this is achieved of poverty. through more equitable distribution, not more 'A' Reducing consumption is, for the most, not a viable global GDP growth. option and will harm society and fail to help the Overall, and especially in the developed world poor. and for the wealthy in developing nations, resource consumption needs to be reduced. Technological progress to overcome the impacts of Technology is an important part of the overall 'P+A' is the key to living sustainably and to sustainability solution but on its own it will not 'T' reducing 'I' to be within ecologically sustainable achieve the needed change. limits. Technology needs to be progressed with caution. Source: Clifton (2010). Note #1: This does not mean that Reformism ignores Biocapacity use limit-based policies – cap and trade systems (e.g. for carbon emissions) or quota limits (e.g. for fisheries) are examples of such policies. The focus for Reformism however is more towards market pricing mechanisms than the strong scale-limiting approaches incorporated in the Transformational approach.

11

6.3. I=PAT and projecting the Ecological upward curving relationship between 'A' and Footprint Ecological Footprint indicating that as 'A' EFA data is specific in time as it shows 'what increased, the Ecological Footprint trend-line was' by way of human demands on the consistently increased by a greater than a 1- Earth's ecosystems as compared to available to-1 factor (also see Bagliani et al. (2008) for Biocapacity (Kitzes 2007; Footprint Network a similar study to that of York et al, and 2008b). From a sustainable world WWF (2006) and Moran et al. (2008) for a perspective however, the consequences of cross-nation study of the relationship human behaviour need to be looked at not between Ecological Footprint and the Human only in terms of the present, but also in terms Development Index – all of these three of the future. Although EFA is not a forward studies show results similar to those of York looking or predictive measure it does not et al). exclude its application in considering possible futures based on a set of Next, efforts have also been made to identify assumptions as to how EFA components may within-nation Ecological Footprint, 'P', and change over time (Footprint Network 2006). 'A' relationships. In particular, some time It is this forward looking objective to which series data comparing Ecological Footprint, I=PAT can offer some valuable insights. GDP, and population change in the European Union (EU) for the period 1971 to 2008 The Ecological Footprint is a measure of appears in WWF (2007). These data show human impact on the Earth's ecosystems by that, at an aggregate level, the EU's way of humanity's consumption of available Ecological Footprint increased at about 75% Biocapacity. In this sense, 'I' in the I=PAT of the collective population plus GDP per formulation can be considered in terms of the capita growth rate. EU nation-specific data Ecological Footprint, with all of 'PAT' as however showed significant variation, drivers of humanity's Footprint examples being Germany which managed to (Wackernagel et al. 1999; York, Rosa & keep its aggregate and per capita Ecological Dietz 2007). In its basic form however, Footprint relatively stable over the 1971- I=PAT gives no indication of the 2003 period (due mainly to a shift from fossil relationships between the 'PAT' elements, fuel to renewable energy generation), and that is, does a change in one element (say, France and Spain both showing significant 'P'), produce a straight multiplicative change increases in aggregate and per capita in 'I', or are the relationships more complex? Ecological Footprint. This is a poorly researched area with no reliable I=PAT component relationship data A third possible source of data is research readily available (Kitzes 2007; York 2008). conducted on the links between economic However, some general guidance on possible growth and environmental quality relationships is evident in the literature as represented as the environmental Kuznets follows: curve (EKC). The EKC presents human impact on the environment as an inverted 'U' First, York et al (York, Rosa & Dietz 2003a; shaped curve. The argument is that in the 2003b; 2004; 2005; 2007) conducted a cross- early stages of societal change towards national analysis of Ecological Footprint in industrialisation, increasing environmental relation to 'P' and 'A' (as GDP), with results degradation is experienced but the point is indicating (a) a strong, but slightly less than, reached where further industrialisation sees a 1-to-1 relationship between population size change to decreasing environmental impact and Ecological Footprint meaning that a 1% and improved environmental quality (Stern increase in national population produced an 2004; Bagliani, Bravo & Dalmazzone 2008). almost 1% trend-line increase in a national Although this EKC phenomenon has been Ecological Footprint, and (b) a monotonic observed for some local environmental

12

quality factors such as sulphur emission and From an economic growth perspective, domestic water quality, it has been shown reasons offered for this failure to decouple not to hold from a broader based include: (a) accumulated capital is applied by consumption perspective, that is, the overall industry to replace labour with new impact of economic growth increases human technologies that drive greater production ecological impact when all impact factors are and consumption (Gould, Pellow & accounted for wherever those impacts may Schnaiberg 2008), (b) efficiency gains are occur on the planet (Stern 2004; York, Rosa pursued for the specific purpose of driving & Dietz 2007; Bagliani, Bravo & further economic growth (Princen 2005), (c) Dalmazzone 2008). increased wealth results in changes in behaviour towards more energy intensive and Finally, some insights can be gained by environmentally demanding production and looking at historic population, GDP and consumption patterns, including dietary Ecological Footprint data. The most recent changes towards a higher proportion of meat set of EFA accounts show that, over the (Dauvergne 2008), and larger houses with period 1961 to 2006, humanity's collective fewer occupants per dwelling (Ho 2007; Ecological Footprint grew at an annual Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2008), (d) advances in 'T' average rate of about 2.0%, global are not happening quickly enough to counter population grew at about 1.7% pa, and global 'P+A' increases (Speth 2008; Victor 2008), GDP per capita at about 1.9% pa (raw data (e) some technological developments, source: Footprint Network 2009; WRI 2010). including those intended to reduce human Based on these data, humanity's collective environmental impact, can result in Footprint grew by about 55% of 'P+A' unintended environmental harm (Dauvergne although there is significant year by year 2008; Victor 2008), and (f) resources to meet variation. The last 6 years to 2006 for increasing population and economic growth example show the Ecological Footprint demands need to be met from less efficient having grown at about 70% of 'P+A'. and more marginal primary sources as the most efficient sources have been utilised first, increasing financial costs, energy costs, What these comments on the relationships and environmental costs to extract and between the I=PAT elements show is a lack process these resources (Farley, Erickson & of decoupling between 'P+A' upward Daly 2005). pressures and the needed reductions in 'I'. Jackson (2009) identifies two types of decoupling between economic growth ('A') Some of these reasons for decoupling failure and ecological impact ('I') namely: (a) will be considered in more detail below. The relative decoupling, which is a reduction in key point to be taken from the discussion in resource input per unit of production, and (b) this section however, is that growth in 'P+A' absolute decoupling, which is an absolute has clear links to an increasing 'I'. Similar to reduction in resource input despite increased the problem of identifying the amount of production output. The point Jackson makes Biocapacity that humans can safely utilise is that although some degree of relative within a sustainable world context, there is decoupling may be evident between no clear data on the extent to which changes continued economic growth and ecological in 'P+A' flow through to 'I' despite these links harm, there is no evidence supporting being well known and reported. But for the absolute decoupling in the global context. sake of the analysis in this paper, two figures are used: (a) a collective decoupling of 'P+A' from changes in 'I' of 25%, that is, a 1% This lack of absolute decoupling between change in 'P+A' equals a 0.75% change in 'I' population and economic growth, and of (consistent with the EU findings), and (b) a continued ecological damage, is well 50% decoupling where a 1% change in 'P+A' documented (for examples, see OECD equals a 0.50% change in 'I' (an optimistic (2008), UN (2005), and Jackson (2009)).

13

view beyond what current evidence suggests Footprint rise to about 3.1 ghpc against is occurring). available Biocapacity of about 1.1 ghpc. What this means is that 'T' in I=PAT needs to 6.4. Projecting Biocapacity offset the impacts of population and GDP The final issue to consider in projecting the growth so as to reduce the collective human EFA data from a Reformist perspective is Ecological Footprint from 3.1 ghpc down to that of Biocapacity. Future trends in about 1.1 ghpc in addition to the 50% available Biocapacity remain uncertain in decoupling rate already factored into the that it is subject to many forces including: (a) calculation. At the other end of the spectrum, the negative impacts of current resource based on a decoupling rate of 25%, and 50% depletion (Daily & Ehrlich 1992), (b) the of Biocapacity set aside as unavailable for potentially positive impacts of improvements human use, the 2050 Ecological Footprint in technology that may increase KNR becomes about 3.9 ghpc against a productivity (Lenzen et al. 2007), and (c) Biocapacity of 0.7 ghpc. human caused global warming, where impacts are expected to vary from region to The problem here however is that the region, and also vary depending on the magnitude of the task 'T' based strategies magnitude of the temperature change need to accomplish is well beyond anything experienced (Lenzen et al. 2007; Speth that is evident as currently being achieved 2008). Some attempts to model future despite the idea of sustainability, in the form Biocapacity and KNR stocks have been of Reformist based sustainable development, attempted including those of Meadows, having been prominent on the international Randers & Meadows (2004), WWF (2006), stage for over 20 years since the release of and Lenzen et al. (2007). All in all, the the 1987 Brundtland Report. To put the results are mixed and there is little to work magnitude of the task into further with to present a meaningful Biocapacity perspective, of the 124 nations included in projection other than assume that current the most recent set of EFA accounts total Biocapacity will remain about the same, (Footprint Network 2009), only 23 have a with forward adjustments made only in current Ecological Footprint of 1.1 ghpc or respect of per capita Biocapacity changes less, and of these, only 3 have a Footprint of resulting from population movements. This 0.7 ghpc or less. All of these 23 nations fit is the approach used in this paper. comfortably within a low or least developed nation descriptive. On the other hand, the 6.5. Ecological Footprint Analysis average Ecological Footprint for the roughly projection results 1 billion people living in the world's high Figure 4 presents the various inputs used to income countries is currently about 6.1 ghpc, forward model humanity's per capita which is as much as 6 times what humanity Ecological Footprint based on the Reformist needs to reduce its collective Ecological approach. Figure 5 shows the summary data. Footprint measure to by 2050 in order to be The modelling projects through to 2050 living sustainably in EFA terms by that date. which, although somewhat arbitrary, provides a view of the possible longer term These figures pose some serious challenges consequences of Reformist strategies and the to the believability of the Reformist agenda. challenges they create. Although not denying the benefits of having a positive outlook on human ingenuity and In short, based on the most reserved set of problem solving capabilities, surely we must assumptions (Ecological Footprint rises at question the Reformist view of pinning the 50% of 'P+A' growth rates, and 20% of future wellbeing of humanity, and of all life Biocapacity is set aside as not available for on the planet, on yet to be developed 'T' human use), by 2050 the 'P+A' growth solutions to the negative impacts of pressures that are captured in the Reformist Reformist population and economic growth view see the global-level Ecological strategies. 14

But despite these concerns, does a focus on magnitude of the challenge? The discussion 'T' offer a meaningful pathway to a will now turn to exploring this question. sustainable world regardless of the

Figure 4: Projecting the Ecological Footprint – I=PAT inputs Factor Reformist modelling inputs Note: EF = Ecological Footprint; BioC = Biocapacity #1 I=PAT element: 'I'  Current global average EF is approximately 2.6 ghpc. (Ecological Footprint)  Projected 2050 BioC based on projected 2050 population and holding all else constant = approximately 1.3 ghpc. #2 #3 I=PAT element: 'P'  Human population is currently about 6.5 billion.  Mid-range UN projection to 2050 is about 9 billion (equates to a growth rate to 2050 of approx 0.71% pa). #4 I=PAT element: 'A'  Assume real global average per capita GDP growth of 1.5% pa.  Note: (i) The global GDP per capita growth rate from 1961-2006 was about 1.9% pa. #5 (ii) The Brundtland Report calls for annual economic growth of 3%-4% in the North and 5%-6% in the South. #6 #7 Decoupling rates  Decoupling rate between 'P+A' and changes in 'I': (i) Scenario 1: 25% (i.e., 'I' increases at 75% of the increase in 'P+A'). (ii) Scenario 2: 50% (i.e., 'I' increases at 50% of the increase in 'P+A'). BioC available for human  BioC set aside for other species, resilience purposes, and conservative EFA use calculations: #8 (i) Scenario 1: 20% set aside leaving 80% for human use. (ii) Scenario 2: 50% set aside leaving 50% for human use. Data sources: #1: See Figure 1. #3: Footprint Network (2009). #6: WCED (1987). #2: Author calculation: [Current BioC per capita] x #4: UN (2007). #7: As detailed in Section 6.3. [global population on which current BioC value is #5: WRI (2010). #8: As detailed in Section 5.4. based (6,592m)] / [projected 2050 total human population].

7. Decoupling 'I' from 'A' - Unpacking 'T' for the producer though bottom-line profit There are a number of factors that comprise gains, a win for the consumer in reduced 'T's component parts, however this costs, and a win for the environment by way discussion will focus on two of the more of reduced resource use (Hargroves & Smith prominent of these. The first, which was 2006; Jackson 2009). Efficiency, in the identified in the list of reasons for a lack of context of a 'T' based strategy to counter the decoupling between 'P+A' and 'I' shown in negative impacts on 'I' from increases in section 6.3, relates to efficiency. The second 'P+A', has two main facets which will be concerns the adoption of less harmful considered here, they being: (a) efficiency in behaviours in the production and renewable natural capital (KNR) productivity, consumption process. and (b) efficiency of use of resources in the production and consumption process. 7.1. Efficiency 7.1.1. Efficiency in K productivity Efficiency gains are a key strategy expressed NR in business and political circles for The application of new technologies to addressing sustainability problems. Such increase the productivity of the Earth's KNR gains are often touted as a win for all: a win base is an important part of the Reformist agenda. Strategies to achieve this increased 15

Figure 5: EFA data projected to 2050 whether these technologies have genuinely Item Value increased resource productivity in a way that Note: EF = Ecological Footprint; BioC = Biocapacity can be sustained in the longer term. Some claim that this is certainly true while others 1. Base EFA data remain unconvinced and propose that when EF – current average per person for 2.6 ghpc negative externalities (use of fossil fuels, all of humanity. #1 chemical and fertiliser pollution, long term Projected BioC in 2050 based on 1.3 ghpc soil degradation, biodiversity loss, population change only. #2 displacement of people from their lands, #3 BioC at 80% of 2050 value. 1.1 ghpc destruction of cultures, etc) are accounted BioC at 50% of 2050 value. #3 0.7 ghpc for, these current practices are far from being 2. Decoupling at 25%: EF increases at 75% of sustainable (Shiva (2005) is an example of 'P+A' this alternate view). 2050 EF. #4 3.9 ghpc BioC - at 80% of 2050 value. #5 1.1 ghpc But of more importance for this current Ecological deficit. #5 -2.9 ghpc discussion is the question of socio-ecological EF as a % of available BioC. #5 370% resilience. An approach that seeks to BioC - at 50% of 2050 value. #5 0.7 ghpc maximise the productivity of KNR as envisaged in the Reformist view undermines Ecological deficit. #5 -3.3 ghpc #5 the resilience of the very ecosystems on EF as a % of available BioC. 592% which human wellbeing is dependent (and 3. Decoupling at 50%: EF increases at 50% of similarly for the wellbeing of all other 'P+A' species). This undermining of resilience 2050 EF. #4 3.1 ghpc comes about for a number of reasons BioC - at 80% of 2050 value. #5 1.1 ghpc including the removal of spare systems #5 Ecological deficit. -2.0 ghpc capacity as increasing amounts of KNR are EF as a % of available BioC. #5 291% pulled into the production process, the imposition of change at a rate faster than BioC - at 50% of 2050 value. #5 0.7 ghpc #5 feedback mechanism can provide data on the Ecological deficit. -2.4 ghpc consequences of actions taken, and a general #5 EF as a % of available BioC. 466% pushing of ecosystems towards tipping points Data sources: allowing for little in the way of safety buffers #1: From Figure 1. to cope with the unexpected (Meadows, #2: From Figure 4. Randers & Meadows 2004; Walker & Salt #3: Author calculation. 2006). #4: Future value calculation: PV = Current aggregate EF = [Current EF per capita] x [global population on which current EF value is based From an I=PAT perspective, the strategy to (6,592m)]. improve K productivity has a key n = 44 years (from year of latest EFA data to 2050). NR i = 2.21% pa (i.e., population growth rate to 2050 of objective of increasing overall Biocapacity. 0.71% + assumed per capita GDP growth rate of If successful, this makes the needed level of 1.50%, as per Figure 4), reduced by the 25% and 50% 'I' (i.e., the Ecological Footprint) higher than decoupling rates as per sections 2 and 3 in this Figure 5. it might otherwise be in order for humans to FV = calculated FV divided by 2050 population to live sustainably by way of Biocapacity use, produce a per capita 2050 EF value. hence reducing the size of the overall #5: Author calculation based on data in this Figure 5. sustainability challenge. The problem is that Note: Figures subject to rounding. Detailed calculations are the undermining of ecosystem resilience that available from this paper's author. flows from this productivity maximisation productivity include the use of modern strategy risks the exact opposite occurring. industrialised agricultural practices, genetic engineering of plant and animal species, intensive livestock farming, and so on (Clifton 2010). Debates continue as to 16

7.1.2. Efficiency of use of resources in the 7.2.1. Green consumerism production and consumption process Green consumerism refers to the Efficiency gains at the production level are development, packaging, and marketing of well recognised as a means by which firms products in a way that is claimed to be improve productivity, reduce costs, and 'environmentally friendly'. The marketing increase wealth (Princen 2005; Gould, message is that people can save the world Pellow & Schnaiberg 2008). But production through consumption choices, and can efficiency does not necessarily equate to consume with a clear conscience. For overall resource use reduction. Termed the business the message is improved profits. 'Jevons Paradox', pursuing production based The complete package is a claimed win for resource efficiency can, and does, result in business, for the consumer, and for the increased production and consumption that environment (Beder 2002; Bell 2009). negates some or all of the resource efficiency gains that were otherwise expected. This Critics argue however that green effect is also apparent at the consumption consumerism fails to address the underlying end where through say, initiatives within problem of resource consumption and households to reduce energy costs through instead, promotes further consumption under power saving activities, the money saved is the misguided view that society can simply spent on alternate consumption somehow consume its way out of its (Princen 2005; Gould, Pellow & Schnaiberg unsustainable state (Beder 2002). In addition, 2008; Polimeni et al. 2009). In this respect, green consumerism is seen to continue the relative decoupling of economic growth from business-as-usual marketing strategies of KNR consumption, in the absence of some need creation through the deliberate alternate mechanism for containing increased engineering of feelings of dissatisfaction and production and consumption, can decrease deprivation in people's lives, offering the the likelihood that absolute decoupling can solution to this dissatisfaction through be achieved. In I=PAT terms, this means that consuming a particular product (in this case, the production and consumption efficiency a 'green' product). This marketing strategy component of 'T' has the effect of increasing drives continued consumption and economic 'A' such that 'T' simply cannot keep up with growth with flow-through implications of 'A' based pressures (York & Rosa 2003; increasing KNR use (Raiklin & Uyar 1996; Jackson 2009). Hamilton & Denniss 2005).

7.2. Less harmful behaviours in the 7.2.2. Restructuring of the economy production and consumption process Restructuring-of-the-economy relates to the Less harmful production and consumption claimed shift in production and consumption behaviours incorporate many factors activities within economies as they continue including the use of less polluting to industrialise. The claim is that the further substances, manufacturing products that can down the industrialisation path a nation be easily recycled, extracting KNR in less moves, the greater the proportion of its harmful ways (such as the harvesting of fish economy that is dedicated to less resource with less by-catch impact), and so on. But intensive service and information industries. the question remains as to whether these In this respect, increased economic growth actions have unintended consequences of results in a transformation to a less increasing consumption and hence negating environmentally damaging economy, some of the apparent gains achieved as consistent with the EKC proposition occurs in the efficiency context discussed discussed in section 6.3. above. To explore this question, two aspects of the less-harmful-behaviours issue will be Counter arguments to this claim include: (a) considered namely: (a) green consumerism, the apparent switch to service industries is and (b) restructuring of the economy. not as great as it seems, as much of the recorded change results from businesses 17

outsourcing activities they might have the merits of the current dominant approach otherwise done internally, or people paying to a sustainable world – the Reformist for things (meals in restaurants, home cleaning, gardening services, and so on) that Figure 6: Ecological Footprint by national they would otherwise have done themselves income (Victor 2008), (b) industrialised nations tend Ecological Population to export their manufacturing industries, Footprint (millions) especially the 'dirtier' industries, to the (ghpc) developing world which gives a misleading World 6,593 2.6 picture of the composition of the industry High Income 1,022 6.1 mix needed to meet local consumptive Countries demands for both industrialised and Middle Income 4,281 1.8 developing nations (Douthwaite 1999), and Countries (c) other changes also go on in consumption Low Income 1,277 1.0 behaviours as income grows and nations Countries industrialise that place growing, not Source: Footprint Network (2009) reducing, pressures on resource consumption

(examples are shown in section 6.3). approach, which is an approach consistent An alternate way of considering the with current mainstream sustainable restructuring-of-the-economy issue is by use development narratives evident in political of the EFA data. The Ecological Footprint and business domains – by way of the calculation is consumption, not production, application of Ecological Footprint Analysis based, where what matters in the calculation (EFA) in conjunction with I=PAT. This is a person's Ecological Footprint, or critique suggests that Reformism is collectively a nation's overall Ecological challenging to believe as credible. The Footprint, based on what is consumed reliance on technology solutions (i.e., 'T' in regardless of where in the world those goods I=PAT) requires these solutions to achieve or services are produced (Kitzes 2007; two things: (a) a 100% decoupling of Footprint Network 2008b). Figure 6 shows population and economic growth pressures the Ecological Footprint measure for national from the Ecological Footprint, and (b) a groupings based on income. What is evident reduction in humanity's existing aggregate from these data is that high income countries Ecological Footprint from its current (i.e., countries of the industrialised West, unsustainable level. The extent of 'T' based plus Japan and some other highly reductions needed to achieve these outcomes industrialised nations) run by far the highest is both substantial and well beyond what is Ecological Footprint and one that is well evident as occurring in practice. The above the global average. In this sense, the enormity of the Reformist challenge is restructuring-of-the-economy argument is further evidenced by noting that the average unconvincing. The industrialised countries Ecological Footprint value needed to be met that presumably have transitioned to a higher by all of humanity is currently being portion of service industries in their achieved by only a handful of countries, all economic mix have per capita Ecological of which are very low on the scale of Footprint measures well above what is national development. In other words, the sustainable on a global level. Reformist approach proposes a solution that continues the current focus on economic growth for progressing human wellbeing, 8. Discussion and conclusion whilst concurrently reducing the global

average human Biocapacity consumption 8.1. Purpose and findings level to that of the citizens of the least This paper has presented, by way of a developed nations on the Earth. literature review and analysis, a critique of

18

The magnitude of this required impact from important (section 7.1), as are efforts to make 'T' strategies becomes even more challenging these activities less ecologically harmful to accept as credible when considering the (section 7.2). The point however is that options 'T' offers. A number of these 'T' without some way to address the flow- strategies, rather than achieving the needed though implications of these strategies in absolute decoupling of economic growth driving further Biocapacity use, these from ecological impact, can instead drive strategies can work against the sustainable increases in production and consumption, world goals they otherwise seek to achieve. hence negating some or all of the apparent In this respect, pursuing the Reformist gains that were intended to be delivered. In agenda may simply be a means of this respect, one of the reasons put forward aggravating humanity's unsustainable ways for the lack of absolute decoupling of of life under the misguided belief that a economic growth from ecological impact – sustainable world outcome will materialise at that changes in 'T' are not occurring fast some point in the not too distant future if we enough (see section 6.3) – may instead be 'just work hard enough at it'. better interpreted as changes in 'T' can drive increased resource consumption such that 'T' So is the Transformational approach the strategies are possibly never able to occur solution? It is beyond the scope of this paper fast enough to counter the ecological impacts to explore the Transformational approach in of the continued economic growth they help detail, however the key points to note are create. these. First, the Transformational approach seeks to act directly on all of the I=PAT The core message presented in this paper of elements as opposed to the Reformist the highly questionable ability of the approach that is mostly 'T' focused (see Reformist approach to deliver a sustainable Figure 3). In this respect, the world outcome is not new, but rather adds to Transformational approach offers a greater the weight of existing evidence. Arguments range of solutions than the Reformist rejecting the possibility of continued approach is willing to tolerate. Next, the economic growth, demonstrating the Transformational approach specifically seeks ineffectiveness of efficiency solutions to a socio-ecological resilience approach to how achieve needed reductions in human impacts humanity goes about conducting itself, as on the Earth's ecosystems, and affirming the compared to the Reformist approach that is increasing rather than decreasing impact focused on maximisation and optimisation humanity is having on the Earth's strategies within both social and ecological ecosystems, are well rehearsed. These systems (Clifton 2010). In both of these arguments appear in the literature in a respects – direct action on all I=PAT number of areas including the sustainability elements, and a socio-ecological resilience literature in general (e.g., Meadows, Randers focus – the Transformational view seems to & Meadows (2004), Princen (2005), Shiva present a pathway forward that is more likely (2005), Victor (2008), and Jackson (2009)), to see a sustainable world achieved than the and within various academic disciplines Reformist approach can otherwise offer. including ecological economics (e.g., Daly, H & Farley (2004), and Common & Stagl Earlier in this paper it was noted that (2005)), the emerging field of green Reformism is the current dominant approach economics (e.g., Cato (2009)), and to a sustainable world. Reformism however, environmental sociology (e.g., Gould, Pellow not only dominates, but it does so to the & Schnaiberg (2008), and Bell MM (2009)). exclusion of the Transformational narrative in political and business circles. To be heard None of this is to say that all aspects of the politically and by business, any proposals to Reformist narrative should be rejected. progress the achievement of a sustainable Clearly the need for increased efficiency in world need to fit the Reformist view production and consumption activities is (Handmer & Dovers 1996; Gould, Pellow & 19

Schnaiberg 2008). If, as this paper, and as ecological resilience requirements in other authors propose, Reformism is Biocapacity allowances, and (c) adding to the challenging to believe as a credible pathway weight of evidence in considering the merits to a sustainable world, then why does of the Reformist view as a credible pathway Reformism dominate to the exclusion of the forward for humanity. Transformational view? One answer is that the third of the reasons for Reformism's In the process of reviewing the I=PAT and dominance set out in section 2 – the EFA concepts and their application to sustainability agenda has been captured by critiquing the Reformist approach, a number the politically and economically powerful of challenges emerged where further research elite – is in fact true. If this is the case, then may be beneficial. The key areas evident in even if further research on the various issues the above discussion are: (a) the conservative detailed in this paper, plus other efforts to nature of the EFA data, (b) the amount of interrogate the Reformist and Biocapacity that is available for human use, Transformational approaches, result in an (c) the drivers of change in Biocapacity and increasing weight of evidence against how this might unfold in the future, and (d) Reformism, the challenges of embracing an the drivers of future Ecological Footprint alternate narrative take on a whole new values and in particular, the relationships dimension. Hurdles in progressing to a between I=PAT components. sustainable world cannot in this setting be overcome by simply presenting a convincing argument. The current wrestle over the 8.2.1. Conservative nature of the Ecological reality, cause, and severity, of global Footprint Analysis data warming, and embarking on a path of needed The conservative nature of the EFA data is, action, is an example of this dilemma to some degree at least, resolvable through (Hamilton 2007; Hoggan 2009). The point to improvements in data gathering and analysis, be made here is that although further work and through improvements in the EFA on considering the merits of the Reformist calculation methodology, all of which are the and Transformational views is worthwhile, subject of an ongoing research programme and to which this paper has hopefully made a (Kitzes et al. 2009). Some inaccuracy can valuable contribution, such research needs to however be expected to remain if for no be paralleled with efforts to address the other reason than a full understanding of economic and political power obstacles that humanity's impact on the KNR base may might be standing in the way of needed simply not be knowable. A more realistic change. expectation may be to couple improvements in EFA data accuracy with error estimates as to the possible extent of its under-reporting 8.2. Contribution, limitations, and further of the true state of affairs. research

This paper has sought to contribute to efforts to help progress humanity to the orderly and 8.2.2. Biocapacity for human use peaceful achievement of a sustainable world Although further research can help improve by: (a) adding to the body of literature that our understanding of the amount of expands consideration of approaches to a Biocapacity that can be safely utilised by sustainable world beyond mere adherence to humanity, science alone will not answer the the current dominate Reformist view, (b) question. As an example, underlying the adding to an understanding of how EFA question of how much Biocapacity should be demonstrates humanity's current set aside for non-human species are basic unsustainable use of the Earth's renewable value issues as to the extent to which non- natural resources, particularly by way of human species should simply be managed to consideration of the Biocapacity needs of meet human needs (an anthropocentric other species, and introducing to EFA orientation), as compared to flourishing for discussions the need to consider socio- their own sake (an ecocentric orientation) 20

(Clifton 2010). In addition, and as discussed of this issue can be helpful in considering in section 5.1, the question of 'how much possible future Biocapacity states, it is likely Biocapacity for other species' needs to be to remain an issue of significant uncertainty. matched with a 'how is this to be set aside' question. But despite this, both the Reformist 8.2.4. Drivers of Ecological Footprint and and Transformational approaches place a I=PAT. high level of importance on biodiversity As discussed in section 6.3, the relationships maintenance, and some further research is between the various I=PAT components is needed to consider possible ranges of not well understood. These issues are more Biocapacity that should be set aside for than simply attempting to determine biodiversity protection. In addition, greater coefficients so as to understand what an X% effort needs to be made in presenting the increase in 'A' or 'P' might translate to in EFA data to make it clear that living at, or terms of movement in 'I'. The reason for this just below, the Biocapacity number quoted is is that the 'PAT' elements also interact, where not consistent with a sustainable world. change in one can drive change in another (Holdren, Daily & Ehrlich 1995; Victor Finally, the issue of socio-ecological 2008). This is evident from the discussion in resilience is poorly explored in the EFA section 7, where the instigation of certain 'T' setting. Much more needs to be done to strategies are shown to have flow-on impacts develop this stream of thought including on 'A'. Further research on the nature of these gaining increased understanding of the interactions may offer not only opportunities interactions between the Biocapacity for better forward looking modelling, but allowance and the resilience allowance (for also better decision making by governments, example, does a greater focus on biodiversity businesses, and households, when acting to protection address at least some resilience progress sustainable world outcomes. issues, such that biodiversity and resilience allowances in the Biocapacity measure may 8.3. Limitations and their implications not be merely additive?). The data accuracy issues discussed above clearly result in limitations on the extent to 8.2.3. Drivers of change in Biocapacity which the numbers quoted in the I=PAT The forward looking Biocapacity measure calculations can be seen as an accurate used in the modelling described in this paper reflection of humanity's current and future assumes a zero net outcome from Ecological Footprint, and of the current and enhancement strategies and degradation future available Biocapacity that is available consequences (see section 6.4). Gaining a for human use. better understanding of the likely trends in future Biocapacity, although of value in the The calculations can also, in some respects, type of modelling undertaken here, also be seen as likely to underestimate the true confronts some significant challenges. For state of humanity's overshoot position from example, the impacts of human caused global following the Reformist approach. One warming, including its biodiversity loss reason is that certain assumptions in the implications, remain highly uncertain as do I=PAT projections have erred on the the implications of the current continued cautious, in particular, the per capita GDP degradation of the Earth's ecosystems (UN growth rate of 1.5% pa used in the 2005; Brown 2008). Further, the arguments calculations is less than has been the presented in this paper suggest that a experience over the last 40 years or so, and continued focus on the Reformist approach may under-represent actual growth rates. The to progressing a sustainable world will most 1.5% figure is also well below the rates of likely see an escalation in KNR depletion growth that are called for by Reformist hence reducing the very Biocapacity it seeks advocates (see Figure 4). It remains to be to preserve. So although further exploration seen of course whether continuation of 21

current KNR depletion will, as a number of Economics, vol. 65, no. 3, 2008/4/15, pp. authors propose, become a constraint on 650-661. economic growth making the 1.5% Bagliani, M, Gallic, A, Niccoluccic, V & assumption overly optimistic (Meadows, Marchettinic, N 2008, 'Ecological Randers & Meadows 2004; Brown 2008). Footprint Analysis Applied to a Sub- Next, even the most conservative National Area: The Case of the Province Biocapacity value used in the I=PAT of Siena (Italy)', Journal of Environmental projections as being available for human use Management, vol. 86, pp. 354-364. – 50% of the total available –does not make Barry, J 2007, 'Towards a Model of Green any additional allowance for socio-ecological Political Economy: From Ecological resilience needs, or accommodate the Modernisation to Economic Security', conservative nature of the EFA data. Green Economics, vol. 1, no. 3/4, pp. 446- 464. But does all of this uncertainty in the data Beder, S 2002, Global Spin: The Corporate used in this paper to construct an argument Assault on Environmentalism, Green as to the merits of the Reformist approach Books Ltd., Devon, UK. really matter? Well, in some respects the Bell, MM 2009, An Invitation to answer is no. Wackernagel (2009), in Environmental Sociology, Pine Forage discussing the accuracy of the EFA data, Press, California, USA. makes the point that the EFA output, as with Brown, L 2008, Plan B 3.0, W. W. Norton & the output of any model, will never be Company Inc., New York. entirely accurate – it will always be an Brown-Weiss, E 1990, 'In Fairness to Future approximation. For Wackernagel, what is Generations', Environment, vol. 32, no. 3, important to ask is whether "[the] results April, p. 6. [are] accurate enough to be useful" (p. CABS 2003, Global Gap Analysis: Towards 1925), with this usefulness dependent on the a Representative Network of Protected question the output is intended to address. Areas, Conservation International, Center Although improvements in data accuracy for Applied Biodiversity Science; would be nice to have in conducting the Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science review set out in this paper, the core issue Number 5, Washington, DC. being considered is whether the Reformist Callicott, JB 2003, 'Critique of and an approach is a credible pathway to achieving a Alternative to the Wilderness Idea sustainable world. To do this, Reformism (reproduced from "Wild Earth" 1995)', in needs to deliver continued human and Environmental Ethics, eds. A Light & H ecological wellbeing, a necessary condition Rolston, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, of which is for humanity to live within Oxford, UK., pp. 437-443. Biocapacity limits. In this respect, improving Castro, CJ 2004, 'Sustainable Development', the accuracy of the data may help firm up the Organization & Environment, vol. 17, no. detail, but is unlikely to change the high level 2, 2004/06, pp. 195-225. conclusions this paper makes. Cato, MS 2009, Green Economics, Earthscan, London. Chertow, MR 2000, 'The IPAT Equation and References Its Variants.' Journal of Industrial Andersson, JO & Lindroth, M 2001, Ecology, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 13. 'Ecologically Unsustainable Trade', Clifton, D 2010, 'Representing a Sustainable Ecological Economics, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. World - A Typology Approach', Journal 113-122. of Sustainable Development, vol. 3, no. 2, Bagliani, M, Bravo, G & Dalmazzone, S June 2010, p. In Press. 2008, 'A Consumption-Based Approach to Clifton, D Forthcoming-a, 'Sustainability and Environmental Kuznets Curves Using the Government - A Case Study of the South Ecological Footprint Indicator', Ecological Australian Government'. Forthcoming.

22

Clifton, D Forthcoming-b, 'A Sustainable Footprint Network 2008b, The Ecological World - a Socio-ecological Resilience Footprint - Questions and Answers, The Critique'. Forthcoming. Footprint Network, viewed 29 July 2008, Common, M & Stagl, S 2005, Ecological . Daily, GC & Ehrlich, PR 1992, 'Population, Footprint Network 2009, Ecological Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Footprint and Biocapacity 2006 data Capacity', Bioscience, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. release (based on National Footprint 761-771. Accounts 2009 edition). Footprint Daly, H & Farley, J 2004, Ecological Network. Economics: Principles and Applications, Footprint Network 2006, Ecological Island Press, Washington. Footprint Standards 2006, The Footprint Dauvergne, P 2008, The Shadows of Network: Global Footprint Network Consumption, MIT Press, Cambridge, Standards Committees. MA, USA. Foreman, D 1995, 'The New Conservation Diesendorf, M 1997, 'Principles of Movement', in Deep Ecology for the 21st Ecological Sustainability', in Human Century, ed. G Sessions, Shambhala Ecology, Human Economy, eds. M Publications Inc, Boston, USA. Diesendorf & C Hamilton, Allen & Gibbs, D & Krueger, R 2005, 'Exploring Unwin, Sydney, pp. 64-97. local capacities for sustainable Dobson, A 1996, 'Environmental development', Geoforum, vol. 36, no. 4, Sustainabilities: An Analysis and a 2005/7, pp. 407-409. Typology', Environmental Politics, vol. 5, Giljum, S, Hammer, M, Stocker, A, Lackner, no. 3, pp. 401-428. M, Best, A, Blobel, D, Ingwersen, W, Douthwaite, R 1999, The Growth Illusion, Naumann, S, Neubauer, A, Simmons, C, The Lilliput Press, Dublin. Lewis, K & Shmelev, S 2007, Scientific Dovers, SR 2005, Environment and Assessment and Evaluation of the Sustainability Policy: Creation, Indicator "Ecological Footprint", Implementation, Evaluation, The Environmental Research of the Federal Federation Press, Leichhardt, NSW. Ministry of the Environment, Nature Dunphy, D, Griffiths, A & Benn, S 2003, Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Organizational Change for Corporate Research Report 363 01 135, UBA-FB Sustainability, Rouledge, London. 001089/E. Ehrlich, PR & Ehrlich, AH (eds) 2008, The Goodland, R 1995, 'The Concept of Dominant Animal, Island Press, Environmental Sustainability', Annual Washington DC. Review of Ecology & Systematics, vol. 26, Escobar, A 1995, Encountering 1995, pp. 1-24. Development: The Making and Unmaking Gould, KA & Lewis, TL 2009, 'The of the Third World, Princeton University Paradoxes of Sustainable Development', in Press, New Jersey. Twenty Lessons in Environmental Farley, J, Erickson, JD & Daly, H 2005, Sociology, eds. KA Gould & TL Lewis, Ecological Economics: A Workbook for Oxford University Press, New York, pp. Problem Based Learning, Island Press, 269-289. Washington DC. Gould, KA, Pellow, DN & Schnaiberg, A Field, BC & Field, MK 2006, Environmental 2008, The Treadmill of Production, Economics, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, Colorado York. USA. Footprint Network 2008a, Ecological Hamilton, C 2007, Scorcher: The Dirty Footprint, Footprint Network, viewed 1 Politics of Climate Change, Black Inc., August 2008, Melbourne. .

23

Hamilton, C & Denniss, R 2005, Affluenza: Moles, R, Monfreda, C, Moran, D, When Too Much is Never Enough, Allen Nakano, K, Pyhälä, A, Rees, WE, & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. Simmons, C, Wackernagel, M, Wada, Y, Handmer, JW & Dovers, SR 1996, 'A Walsh, C & Wiedmann, T 2009, 'A Typology of Resilience: Rethinking Research Agenda for Improving National Institutions for Sustainable Development', Ecological Footprint Accounts', Industrial and Environmental Crisis Ecological Economics, vol. 68, no. 7, Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 482-511. 2009/5/15, pp. 1991-2007. Hargroves, K & Smith, MH 2006, The Kitzes, J, Peller, A, Goldfinger, S & Natural Advantage of Nations, Earthscan, Wackernagel, M 2007, 'Current Methods London. for Calculating National Ecological Hart, SL 2007, Capitalism at the Crossroads, Footprint Accounts', Science for 2nd edn, Pearson Education, New Jersey. Environment & Sustainable Society, vol. Hediger, W 1999, 'Reconciling "Weak'' and 4, no. 1. "Strong'' Sustainability', International Lenzen, M, Wiedmann, T, Foran, B, Dey, C, Journal of Social Economics, vol. 26, pp. Widmer-Cooper, A, Williams, M & 1120-1143. Ohlemiiller, R 2007, Forecasting the Ho, S 2007, Energy Efficiency Seen Failing Ecological Footprint of Nations: a to Cut Consumption, Environmental News Blueprint for a Dynamic Approach, ISA Network: 23 Nov 2007, at Research Report 07-01: ISA, Centre for http://www.enn.com/. Integrated Sustainability Analysis at the Hoggan, J 2009, Climate Cover-Up, University of Sydney; Australia Schools of Greystone Books, Vancouver. Biology and Chemistry at the University Holdren, JP, Daily, GC & Ehrlich, PR 1995, of Sydney, Australia; Stockholm The Meaning of Sustainability: Environment Institute at the University of Biogeophysical Aspects, United Nations York, UK; Department of Biology at the University and The World Bank, University of York, UK. Washington DC. Light, A & Rolston, H 2003, Environmental Holling, CS 1996, 'Engineering Resilience Ethics, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, versus Ecological Resilience', in UK. Engineering Within Ecological Mackey, BG 2004, 'The Earth Charter and Constraints, ed. PC Schulze, National Ecological Integrity - Some Policy Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 31- Implications', Worldviews: Environment 44. Culture Religion, vol. 8, no. 1, 2004, pp. Jackson, T 2009, Prosperity Without Growth, 76-92. Earthscan, London. Meadows, DH, Randers, J & Meadows, D Kempf, H 2008, How the Rich are 2004, Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Destroying the Earth, Green Books, Update, Chelsea Green Publishing Devon, UK. Company, White River Junction. Kitzes, J 2007, 'A Research Agenda for Moran, DD, Wackernagel, M, Kitzes, JA, Improving National Ecological Footprint Goldfinger, SH & Boutaud, A 2008, Accounts', paper presented at the 'Measuring Sustainable Development - International Ecological Footprint Nation by Nation', Ecological Economics, Conference: Stepping Up the Pace - New vol. 64, no. 3, 2008/1/15, pp. 470-474. Developments in Ecological Footprint Naess, A 2005, 'The Basics of Deep Methodology, Policy and Practice, Cardiff, Ecology', The Trumpeter, vol. 21, no. 1, 8-10 May 2007. pp. 61-71. Kitzes, J, Galli, A, Bagliani, M, Barrett, J, Nijkamp, P, Rossi, E & Vindigni, G 2004, Dige, G, Ede, S, Erb, K, Giljum, S, 'Ecological Footprints in Plural: A Meta- Haberl, H, Hails, C, Jolia-Ferrier, L, analytic Comparison of Empirical Results.' Jungwirth, S, Lenzen, M, Lewis, K, Loh, Regional Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, 2004/10, J, Marchettini, N, Messinger, H, Milne, K, pp. 747-765.

24

OECD 2008, OECD Environmental Outlook UN 2005, Living Beyond Our Means - to 2008 - Summary, Organisation for Millennium Ecosystems Report, United Economic Cooperation and Development. Nations. Orton, D 1990, 'Sustainable Development: UN 2007, World Population Prospects - Expanded Environmental Destruction', 2006 Revision, United Nations - Green Web Bulletin, vol. 16, February. Department of Economic and Social Osorio, LA, Lobato, MO & Castillo, X 2005, Affairs, Population Division, New York. 'Debates on Sustainable Development: UNEP 2007, Global Environmental Outlook Towards a Holistic View of Reality', 4, United Nations Environmental Environment, Development and Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Sustainability, vol. 7, pp. 501-518. van den Bergh, JCJM & Verbruggen, H Peterson, G, Allen, CR & Holling, CS 1998, 1999, 'Spatial Sustainability, Trade and 'Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Indicators: an Evaluation of the Ecological Scale', Ecosystems, vol. 1, pp. 6-18. Footprint', Ecological Economics, vol. 29, Polimeni, JM, Mayumi, K, Giampietro, M & no. 1, 1999/4, pp. 61-72. Alcott, B 2009, The Myth of Resource Venetoulis, J & Talberth, J 2005, Ecological Efficiency, Earthscan, London. Footprint of Nations 2005 Update, Princen, T 2005, The Logic of Sufficiency, Redefining Progress, Oakland, California. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, USA. Venetoulis, J & Talberth, J 2006, Refining Raiklin, E & Uyar, B 1996, 'On The the Ecological Footprint, Center for Relativity of the Concepts of Needs, Sustainable Economy. Wants, Scarcity, and Opportunity Cost', Victor, PA 2008, Managing Without Growth, International Journal of Social Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Economics, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 49-56. Cheltenham, UK. Robinson, J 2004, 'Squaring the Circle? Wackernagel, M 2009, 'Methodological Some Thoughts on the Idea of Sustainable Advancements in Footprint Analysis', Development', Ecological Economics, vol. Ecological Economics, vol. 68, no. 7, 48, pp. 369-384. 2009/5/15, pp. 1925-1927. Schaltegger, S, Bennett, M & Burritt, R Wackernagel, M, Monfredaa, C, Erbb, K-H, 2006, Sustainability Accounting and Haberlb, H & Schulzb, NB 2004, Reporting (Eco-Efficiency in Industry and 'Ecological Footprint Time Series of Science), Springer, Dordrecht. Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea Schlosberg, D 2007, Defining Environmental for 1961-1999: Comparing the Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Conventional Approach to an 'Actual Land Shiva, V 2005, Earth Democracy, South End Area' Approach', Land Use Policy, vol. 21, Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. pp. 261-269. Soulé, ME & Sanjayan, MA 1998, Wackernagel, M, Onisto, L, Bello, P, 'Conservation Targets: Do They Help?' Linares, AC, Falfan, IS, Garcia, JM, Science, vol. 279, no. 5359, pp. 2060- Guerrero, AIS & Guerrero, GS 1999, 2061. 'National Natural Capital Accounting with Speth, JG 2008, The Bridge at the End of the the Ecological Footprint Concept', World, Yale University Press, London. Ecological Economics, vol. 29, pp. 375- Stern, DI 2004, 'The Rise and Fall of the 390. Environmental Kuznets Curve', World Wackernagel, M & Rees, WE 1997, Development, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1419- 'Perceptual and Structural Barriers to 1439. Investing in Natural Capital: Economics Stokstad, E 2005, 'Global Analyses Reveal From an Ecological Footprint Perspective', Mammals Facing Risk of Extinction', Ecological Economics, vol. 20, no. 1, Science, vol. 309, no. 5734, 22 July, pp. 1997/1, pp. 3-24. 546-547. Wackernagel, M & Yount, D 1998, 'The UN 1992, Convention on Biological Ecological Footprint: an Indicator of Diversity, United Nations. Progress Toward Regional Sustainability',

25

Environmental Monitoring and 2008, re: Ecological Footprint and Assessment, vol. 51, no. 1-2, p. June. I=PAT. Walker, B & Salt, D 2006, Resilience York, R & Rosa, EA 2003, 'Key Challenges Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and to Ecological Modernization Theory.' People in a Changing World, Island Press, Organization & Environment, vol. 16, no. Washington DC. 3, 2003/09, pp. 273-288. WCED 1987, Our Common Future: World York, R, Rosa, EA & Dietz, T 2007, 'Driving Commission on Environment and the Human Ecological Footprint', Development, Oxford University Press, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Oxford. vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 13-18. Westra, L 2006, Environmental Justice and York, R, Rosa, EA & Dietz, T 2005, 'The The Rights of Unborn and Future Ecological Footprint Intensity of National Generations, Earthscan, London. Economies', Journal of Industrial Ecology, White, TJ 2007, 'Sharing Resources: The vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 139-154. Global Distribution of the Ecological York, R, Rosa, EA & Dietz, T 2003a, Footprint', Ecological Economics, vol. 64, 'Footprints in the Earth: The no. 2, pp. 402-410. Environmental Consequences of Wilson, EO 2002, The Future of Life, Modernity', American Sociological Vintage Books, New York. Review, vol. 68, no. 2, April 2003, pp. WRI 2010, Earth Trends - Economics, 279-300. Business and the Environment., World York, R, Rosa, EA & Dietz, T 2003b, Resources Institute, at 'STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/in Tools for Unpacking the Driving Forces of dex.php?theme=5, accessed 9 March 2010. Environmental Impacts', Ecological WWF 2007, Europe 2007: Gross Domestic Economics, vol. 46, no. 3, 2003/10, pp. Product and Ecological Footprint, World 351-365. Wide Fund for Nature. York, R, Rosa, EA & Dietz, T 2004, WWF 2006, Living Planet Report 2006, 'Tracking the Anthropogenic Drivers of World Wide Fund For Nature, Gland, Ecological Impacts', Ambio, vol. 33, no. 8, Switzerland. pp. 509-512. York, R 2008, Personal communication between R. York and D. Clifton, 23 July

26