00:00:30.080 --> 00:00:43.800
[MUSIC PLAYING]

00:00:43.800 --> 00:00:46.350
We have created the
most successful

00:00:46.350 --> 00:00:49.120
species on this planet.

00:00:49.120 --> 00:00:51.900
200 years ago, nobody could
have imagined the kind of

00:00:51.900 --> 00:00:53.580
lives we are living today--

00:00:53.580 --> 00:00:56.610
the cities we've been able to
construct, the technologies

00:00:56.610 --> 00:00:59.300
we've been able to create.

00:00:59.300 --> 00:01:02.730
And so we are asking ourselves,
how will we be able

00:01:02.730 --> 00:01:07.290
to maintain the success
in the future?

00:01:07.290 --> 00:01:10.950
Since the end of World War II,
we have more than doubled in

00:01:10.950 --> 00:01:15.280
population, and we are consuming
far more per capita.

00:01:15.280 --> 00:01:18.870
In the last century alone, we
are now consuming 10-fold the

00:01:18.870 --> 00:01:21.770
energy of what we did
just 100 years ago.

00:01:21.770 --> 00:01:23.340
And we are recognizing
that the planet is

00:01:23.340 --> 00:01:25.670
getting awfully small.

00:01:25.670 --> 00:01:28.450
If we just compare how
successful we have become as a

00:01:28.450 --> 00:01:31.220
species, we as a species,
together with our cows and

00:01:31.220 --> 00:01:35.590
pigs, we are about 97%
of the biomass of

00:01:35.590 --> 00:01:37.340
all vertebrate species.

00:01:37.340 --> 00:01:40.340
But only about 3% are
wild species.

00:01:40.340 --> 00:01:43.430
So we have been able to dominate
the whole ecosystem

00:01:43.430 --> 00:01:44.370
of the planet.

00:01:44.370 --> 00:01:46.660
Now, that may be a success,
but its success

00:01:46.660 --> 00:01:48.150
also has its cost--

00:01:48.150 --> 00:01:50.080
that the planet's getting
awfully small.

00:01:50.080 --> 00:01:52.050
So that's why we have developed
the ecological

00:01:52.050 --> 00:01:55.290
footprint to start to measure
how big are we

00:01:55.290 --> 00:01:56.540
compared to the biosphere.

00:01:56.540 --> 00:01:59.520
How can actually use our
ecological assets more

00:01:59.520 --> 00:02:04.070
effectively to live well
on this planet?

00:02:04.070 --> 00:02:07.390
Now, the ecological footprint
is a very simple tool.

00:02:07.390 --> 00:02:10.080
It's a tool like a bank
statement that tells us, on

00:02:10.080 --> 00:02:13.810
the one hand, how many resources
do we have that

00:02:13.810 --> 00:02:16.060
renew itself thanks to
the biosphere that is

00:02:16.060 --> 00:02:17.690
powered by the sun.

00:02:17.690 --> 00:02:18.830
And how many do we use?

00:02:18.830 --> 00:02:20.940
And then we can see to what
extent, actually, we're

00:02:20.940 --> 00:02:24.070
dipping into the overall capital
or to what extent

00:02:24.070 --> 00:02:26.260
we're living within
the interest that

00:02:26.260 --> 00:02:29.550
nature provides us.

00:02:29.550 --> 00:02:32.860
If you want the real simple and
effective model of how the

00:02:32.860 --> 00:02:36.700
economy operates, just take a
cow, because everything that

00:02:36.700 --> 00:02:40.070
enters the cow as food
will leave again.

00:02:40.070 --> 00:02:42.770
Very similar to an economy,
a cow also produces value

00:02:42.770 --> 00:02:44.490
added-- the milk.

00:02:44.490 --> 00:02:46.100
The milk, too, whether
you consume it or

00:02:46.100 --> 00:02:48.020
not, becomes waste.

00:02:48.020 --> 00:02:53.440
So a farmer knows how much area,
how much pasture, how

00:02:53.440 --> 00:02:57.470
much cropland, how big of a farm
is necessary to maintain

00:02:57.470 --> 00:02:59.530
his or her cow herd.

00:02:59.530 --> 00:03:02.990
Now, the same way, we can say
how much area is necessary to

00:03:02.990 --> 00:03:06.890
support me or to support our
cities, to support our

00:03:06.890 --> 00:03:10.930
economies, to support the word
as a whole, all humanity--

00:03:10.930 --> 00:03:13.540
to maintain all the resources
we consume and

00:03:13.540 --> 00:03:15.340
to absorb the waste.

00:03:15.340 --> 00:03:17.020
That's what the ecological
footprint measures.

00:03:20.310 --> 00:03:22.320
The amazing thing about
nature is that

00:03:22.320 --> 00:03:25.000
it provide us resources.

00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:27.310
And the resources, we
transform into waste

00:03:27.310 --> 00:03:28.155
eventually.

00:03:28.155 --> 00:03:31.752
And nature then takes the waste
again, powered by the

00:03:31.752 --> 00:03:34.230
sun, makes them back
into resources.

00:03:34.230 --> 00:03:37.050
So this is kind of the cycle
of life, you could say.

00:03:37.050 --> 00:03:42.600
Now, if we start to use
resources more rapidly and

00:03:42.600 --> 00:03:46.830
make them into waste than nature
can transform them back

00:03:46.830 --> 00:03:49.880
into resources, we start
to have problems.

00:03:49.880 --> 00:03:52.690
It's like if I start to spend
more money than I earn.

00:03:52.690 --> 00:03:56.080
It works for some time,
but has consequences.

00:03:56.080 --> 00:04:00.460
So if you have these balances,
like in any other area of

00:04:00.460 --> 00:04:03.260
life, like how much money do
I earn compared to how much

00:04:03.260 --> 00:04:06.600
money do I spend or how many
assets do we have as compared

00:04:06.600 --> 00:04:09.770
to how many liabilities do we
have, this calls for accounts

00:04:09.770 --> 00:04:13.720
where we can compare demand
and supply, income and

00:04:13.720 --> 00:04:14.430
expenditure.

00:04:14.430 --> 00:04:17.690
The same applies to nature.

00:04:17.690 --> 00:04:20.640
Now, the supply side is
particularly simple.

00:04:20.640 --> 00:04:24.020
If we just measure the amount of
nature we have in terms of

00:04:24.020 --> 00:04:26.640
number of planets, it's
basically just one-- one

00:04:26.640 --> 00:04:28.440
planet that is available.

00:04:28.440 --> 00:04:31.370
To be more specific, we
can say how big it is.

00:04:31.370 --> 00:04:34.320
The surface of the planet,
roughly, is

00:04:34.320 --> 00:04:37.380
about 51 billion hectares.

00:04:37.380 --> 00:04:39.760
Now, that's a lot of hectares.

00:04:39.760 --> 00:04:43.170
Each hectare would be enough
for a soccer field.

00:04:43.170 --> 00:04:46.240
So we could have 51 billion
soccer games going on at the

00:04:46.240 --> 00:04:48.800
same time if we paved over
the whole planet.

00:04:48.800 --> 00:04:52.330
But not all of this area is
biologically productive.

00:04:52.330 --> 00:04:55.280
71% of it is ocean surface.

00:04:55.280 --> 00:04:56.690
The rest is land.

00:04:56.690 --> 00:04:59.120
Some of the land is
covered by ice.

00:04:59.120 --> 00:05:01.940
So not all of the land is
biological productive.

00:05:01.940 --> 00:05:05.580
What I mean by biologically
productive is area that really

00:05:05.580 --> 00:05:08.330
supports most of the biomass.

00:05:08.330 --> 00:05:12.330
And that's both on the land, as
well sea area, particularly

00:05:12.330 --> 00:05:13.960
close to the coast.

00:05:13.960 --> 00:05:17.430
So if we look at how much of
the area of the planet is

00:05:17.430 --> 00:05:22.100
productive, it's about a quarter
of the whole surface.

00:05:22.100 --> 00:05:24.860
Now, what does that actually
mean on a per person term?

00:05:24.860 --> 00:05:27.610
If you just divide this area
of biologically productive

00:05:27.610 --> 00:05:31.200
space by number of people
on this planet--

00:05:31.200 --> 00:05:34.950
today, about 6.4 billion
people-- what we get is

00:05:34.950 --> 00:05:40.080
roughly 1.8 hectares of
biologically productive space.

00:05:40.080 --> 00:05:42.690
That's basically what we could
say the budget that nature

00:05:42.690 --> 00:05:46.840
provides on a per person
basis worldwide.

00:05:46.840 --> 00:05:49.600
But that needs to support
everything we do--

00:05:49.600 --> 00:05:52.900
all the food we eat, all the
resources that we consume,

00:05:52.900 --> 00:05:54.670
absorb all the waste.

00:05:54.670 --> 00:05:57.750
We may choose not to use
everything for ourselves,

00:05:57.750 --> 00:06:00.860
because some may remember we're
not the only species on

00:06:00.860 --> 00:06:03.100
this planet.

00:06:03.100 --> 00:06:05.340
The fish I eat is not
available to the

00:06:05.340 --> 00:06:08.170
seal or to the whale.

00:06:08.170 --> 00:06:13.380
Or we compete for space with
elephants or giraffes, also

00:06:13.380 --> 00:06:17.230
even smaller animals, like in
the tropical rainforest.

00:06:17.230 --> 00:06:20.060
As we start to intervene with
these ecosystems, their

00:06:20.060 --> 00:06:22.400
biodiversity is under threat.

00:06:22.400 --> 00:06:26.090
So we could ask ourselves, how
much of the biologically

00:06:26.090 --> 00:06:29.110
productive area do you want to
leave aside for other species

00:06:29.110 --> 00:06:30.000
so they can thrive?

00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:33.590
And how much do we want
to keep for ourselves?

00:06:33.590 --> 00:06:37.790
EO Wilson, for example, the
father of the biodiversity

00:06:37.790 --> 00:06:42.840
idea in his latest book, The
Future of Life, says, let's

00:06:42.840 --> 00:06:44.960
put 50% aside for
other species.

00:06:44.960 --> 00:06:47.850
And he is very committed to
great lives for everybody.

00:06:47.850 --> 00:06:49.970
So it's not to say people should
have miserable lives.

00:06:49.970 --> 00:06:53.480
He just says one of our big
assets is our biodiversity,

00:06:53.480 --> 00:06:58.110
our genetic diversity that we
have inherited that it took

00:06:58.110 --> 00:07:00.810
least a billion years
to establish.

00:07:00.810 --> 00:07:04.140
Now, in order to maintain it,
possibly, we want to leave a

00:07:04.140 --> 00:07:07.180
good chunk of our budget aside
for other species.

00:07:07.180 --> 00:07:09.780
Now, let's assume we
EO Wilson's word.

00:07:09.780 --> 00:07:13.040
And it's up to you to choose,
because we can choose to live

00:07:13.040 --> 00:07:14.760
in a very depleted planet.

00:07:14.760 --> 00:07:18.380
Or we can choose to live on a
more diverse, biologically

00:07:18.380 --> 00:07:20.690
richer, and probably
more stable planet.

00:07:20.690 --> 00:07:21.910
So it's up you to choose.

00:07:21.910 --> 00:07:26.750
But let's assume we take EO
Wilson's number of 50%.

00:07:26.750 --> 00:07:29.120
That would then reduce the
budget to less than one

00:07:29.120 --> 00:07:33.690
hectare of ecologically
productive space per person.

00:07:33.690 --> 00:07:34.660
That's what we have.

00:07:34.660 --> 00:07:36.880
So we can be even more specific
about sustainability

00:07:36.880 --> 00:07:40.800
and say, how can we have
fulfilling lives, all have

00:07:40.800 --> 00:07:45.940
great lives, on average in a
budget of about one hectare,

00:07:45.940 --> 00:07:47.060
and possibly less.

00:07:47.060 --> 00:07:52.300
If we choose to be a larger
population, if we really will

00:07:52.300 --> 00:07:55.230
grow to nine billion people,
that would mean that we would

00:07:55.230 --> 00:07:59.450
have about 30% less per capita
capacity available.

00:07:59.450 --> 00:08:02.780
And so the challenge may get
even more difficult.

00:08:02.780 --> 00:08:05.910
And so I would say universities,
government

00:08:05.910 --> 00:08:09.680
agencies, libraries, please
put a big sign

00:08:09.680 --> 00:08:11.160
on top of your door.

00:08:11.160 --> 00:08:12.460
How can we all have well?

00:08:12.460 --> 00:08:16.780
How can we all have great lives
on less than one hectare

00:08:16.780 --> 00:08:17.890
per person?

00:08:17.890 --> 00:08:19.690
That's the big challenge
we're facing.

00:08:19.690 --> 00:08:24.212
That's what the ecological
footprint tries to figure out.

00:08:24.212 --> 00:08:26.970
Now, That was the supply side.

00:08:26.970 --> 00:08:28.260
How much do we actually use?

00:08:28.260 --> 00:08:31.850
How much do we use
for providing the

00:08:31.850 --> 00:08:33.020
things that we consume?

00:08:33.020 --> 00:08:36.289
Like in my life, I don't know
about you, but I eat food,

00:08:36.289 --> 00:08:40.055
food from-- some is from the
sea, some from the land, fiber

00:08:40.055 --> 00:08:41.590
to clothe myself.

00:08:41.590 --> 00:08:43.940
Now, some of it might be
plastic, but some of it may

00:08:43.940 --> 00:08:46.990
actually cotton or wool
fibers, et cetera.

00:08:46.990 --> 00:08:49.080
So that uses space.

00:08:49.080 --> 00:08:50.330
Fibers for paper--

00:08:50.330 --> 00:08:53.160
quite a significant part of
the overall footprint.

00:08:53.160 --> 00:08:57.110
How much air is necessary for
timber for our furniture, for

00:08:57.110 --> 00:08:58.640
our housing?

00:08:58.640 --> 00:09:00.470
To house our infrastructure--

00:09:00.470 --> 00:09:01.850
quite a significant
space, too.

00:09:01.850 --> 00:09:04.730
Not very large on the maps,
perhaps, but very highly

00:09:04.730 --> 00:09:06.790
productive land where
we build our cities.

00:09:06.790 --> 00:09:10.890
Area to absorb our waste, areas
to actually absorb the

00:09:10.890 --> 00:09:12.990
waste from the fossil
fuel burning-- quite

00:09:12.990 --> 00:09:14.330
a significant part.

00:09:14.330 --> 00:09:16.690
How much bigger would it need
to be, or how much more

00:09:16.690 --> 00:09:19.320
biosphere would we need to
actually to cope with the

00:09:19.320 --> 00:09:20.650
excess CO2?

00:09:20.650 --> 00:09:22.800
So these areas, we
can all add up.

00:09:22.800 --> 00:09:24.850
That's what we take
from nature.

00:09:24.850 --> 00:09:26.680
That's what we call the
ecological footprint--

00:09:26.680 --> 00:09:30.510
we believe, actually, an
underestimate of what we use,

00:09:30.510 --> 00:09:35.890
because some aspects of our
resource consumptions are hard

00:09:35.890 --> 00:09:36.510
to quantify.

00:09:36.510 --> 00:09:37.860
Data is scarce.

00:09:37.860 --> 00:09:40.200
So we probably don't have
the full picture.

00:09:40.200 --> 00:09:43.480
Also, areas that we use for
various functions--

00:09:43.480 --> 00:09:46.540
let's say there's a forest where
we get timber, as well

00:09:46.540 --> 00:09:48.110
as water supply.

00:09:48.110 --> 00:09:50.830
Or double cropping
in agriculture.

00:09:50.830 --> 00:09:53.070
We only count once,
otherwise we would

00:09:53.070 --> 00:09:54.420
exaggerate the footprint.

00:09:54.420 --> 00:09:58.240
So basically, we just look at
a minimum number that we

00:09:58.240 --> 00:10:01.820
think, we believe in order to
maintain the resource flow.

00:10:01.820 --> 00:10:07.100
So when we look at the balance
sheet, we see the supply is

00:10:07.100 --> 00:10:09.210
quite a bit less than what
we actually use--

00:10:09.210 --> 00:10:10.350
the demand on nature.

00:10:10.350 --> 00:10:13.530
Now, how is it possible and how
can we use more land and

00:10:13.530 --> 00:10:16.350
sea space than is actually
available?

00:10:16.350 --> 00:10:20.110
But actually, it's quite easily
possible to use more

00:10:20.110 --> 00:10:21.050
than what we have.

00:10:21.050 --> 00:10:21.630
Think of water.

00:10:21.630 --> 00:10:24.810
We can pump water out of the
ground more rapidly than the

00:10:24.810 --> 00:10:26.835
ground waters are
being recharged.

00:10:26.835 --> 00:10:30.600
Or we can fish more rapidly than
fish is being restocked.

00:10:30.600 --> 00:10:32.610
Or we can cut forests
more rapidly

00:10:32.610 --> 00:10:34.870
than they are regrowing.

00:10:34.870 --> 00:10:39.290
It is quite simple, like with
money, quite simple to spend

00:10:39.290 --> 00:10:44.160
more than what we earn, also
in terms of resources.

00:10:44.160 --> 00:10:45.560
And that's why we
need accounts.

00:10:45.560 --> 00:10:49.410
That's why we need to find out
what's the supply and what's

00:10:49.410 --> 00:10:52.030
the demand.

00:10:52.030 --> 00:10:54.910
Over the last 40 years, we've
just had one planet.

00:10:54.910 --> 00:10:59.120
That's why the line of supply
is very, very horizontal.

00:10:59.120 --> 00:11:02.130
It's true it's not the same
planet every year.

00:11:02.130 --> 00:11:05.130
So it's a different planet
because we change ecosystem

00:11:05.130 --> 00:11:07.900
compositions, so we have
less forests now,

00:11:07.900 --> 00:11:09.720
more grazing space.

00:11:09.720 --> 00:11:12.450
Technology changes the
way we transform

00:11:12.450 --> 00:11:14.480
resources into products.

00:11:14.480 --> 00:11:16.000
So it is a different
planet every year.

00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:19.060
But every year, we can make the
balance and compare how

00:11:19.060 --> 00:11:22.880
much did we use as compared to
what nature was able or the

00:11:22.880 --> 00:11:25.780
biosphere was able to regenerate
in that year?

00:11:25.780 --> 00:11:30.160
So what we see is that today,
we're using 20% more than what

00:11:30.160 --> 00:11:31.160
nature can regenerate.

00:11:31.160 --> 00:11:35.100
In other words, it would take
a year and more than two

00:11:35.100 --> 00:11:38.170
months to regenerate
everything that we

00:11:38.170 --> 00:11:40.390
use within one year.

00:11:40.390 --> 00:11:43.220
This difference is what we call
the ecological deficit--

00:11:43.220 --> 00:11:46.020
the difference of how much
more rapidly we are using

00:11:46.020 --> 00:11:50.120
resources like forests, fish
stock, putting CO2 into the

00:11:50.120 --> 00:11:54.836
atmosphere, than nature is
able to accommodate.

00:11:54.836 --> 00:11:57.610
Now, there's nothing wrong with
liquidating assets as

00:11:57.610 --> 00:11:59.750
long as we know that we're
liquidating assets.

00:11:59.750 --> 00:12:02.600
But if we believe it's the true
income and we live on

00:12:02.600 --> 00:12:06.180
this liquidation as if we could
go on doing that, then

00:12:06.180 --> 00:12:07.580
we put ourselves in danger.

00:12:07.580 --> 00:12:10.800
It's like never looking
at our bank statement.

00:12:10.800 --> 00:12:14.710
A simple way of showing this
difference is looking at the

00:12:14.710 --> 00:12:16.010
world as a big bucket--

00:12:16.010 --> 00:12:19.920
the bucket that gets filled
by solar energy that just

00:12:19.920 --> 00:12:23.490
provides the interests of
nature, the natural interests

00:12:23.490 --> 00:12:25.770
that nature can regenerate.

00:12:25.770 --> 00:12:27.470
That would be called a

00:12:27.470 --> 00:12:29.790
sustainable use of the resources.

00:12:29.790 --> 00:12:32.460
What we do today is
we use technology.

00:12:32.460 --> 00:12:34.440
And not all technology
needs to be that way.

00:12:34.440 --> 00:12:38.160
But we seem to like the
technology that allows us to

00:12:38.160 --> 00:12:43.280
access the capital stock, to
drain the resources more

00:12:43.280 --> 00:12:45.160
rapidly, getting
a bigger flow.

00:12:45.160 --> 00:12:48.080
So at the time, it's easier
because resources flow more

00:12:48.080 --> 00:12:52.110
easily because we're depleting
the overall assets.

00:12:52.110 --> 00:12:55.270
That's why we can actually live
high on the hog at the

00:12:55.270 --> 00:13:00.660
same time as we are depleting
our ecological assets.

00:13:00.660 --> 00:13:03.310
If we look at this bank
statement and say, oh, we're

00:13:03.310 --> 00:13:07.860
using more than what we have, is
this good news or bad news?

00:13:07.860 --> 00:13:10.250
And I would say, actually, it's
good years in the sense

00:13:10.250 --> 00:13:12.840
that it gives us more
information.

00:13:12.840 --> 00:13:14.300
And we still have choice.

00:13:14.300 --> 00:13:17.000
We can still just not open
the bank statement

00:13:17.000 --> 00:13:18.960
and recycle the envelope.

00:13:18.960 --> 00:13:21.060
Or we can look at it.

00:13:21.060 --> 00:13:23.800
But if we do spend too much
money, we also know what the

00:13:23.800 --> 00:13:24.810
consequences are.

00:13:24.810 --> 00:13:27.420
So there is a kind of
a feedback loop.

00:13:27.420 --> 00:13:30.160
In the same way, we have to
think of nature from a

00:13:30.160 --> 00:13:33.540
budgeting perspective and say,
what are the consequences of

00:13:33.540 --> 00:13:36.870
overspending, because we are
able to overspend nature.

00:13:36.870 --> 00:13:39.570
Ecological limits are not like
a wall where we just crash

00:13:39.570 --> 00:13:42.250
into them and say, oh, wow, we
reached the ecological limits,

00:13:42.250 --> 00:13:43.720
now we have to change
whatever.

00:13:43.720 --> 00:13:46.820
Actually, it's very easy to
exceed ecological limits.

00:13:46.820 --> 00:13:49.110
It doesn't get harder
to cut trees.

00:13:49.110 --> 00:13:51.620
Actually, our chainsaws will
get more efficient.

00:13:51.620 --> 00:13:54.310
So as we cut more trees, it
doesn't get more difficult.

00:13:54.310 --> 00:13:56.910
If we pump more CO2 in the
atmosphere, it doesn't get

00:13:56.910 --> 00:13:58.100
more difficult.

00:13:58.100 --> 00:14:01.010
So they're not as direct
feedback loops from nature

00:14:01.010 --> 00:14:03.160
telling us that we're using
more than what is being

00:14:03.160 --> 00:14:04.770
regenerated.

00:14:04.770 --> 00:14:08.440
For a piece of wood, sustainably
harvested or not,

00:14:08.440 --> 00:14:09.800
you can't see the difference.

00:14:09.800 --> 00:14:10.700
You need accounts.

00:14:10.700 --> 00:14:13.690
You need assessments to find
that to what extent the

00:14:13.690 --> 00:14:17.300
capital, the assets were used
in a sustainable way.

00:14:17.300 --> 00:14:21.040
That's what the ecological
footprint offers.

00:14:21.040 --> 00:14:22.670
How this is all calculated?

00:14:22.670 --> 00:14:24.240
It's actually very simple.

00:14:24.240 --> 00:14:27.140
You look at how many resources
are being produced in this

00:14:27.140 --> 00:14:35.130
country, how many are being
exported, how many do we get

00:14:35.130 --> 00:14:36.070
through imports.

00:14:36.070 --> 00:14:39.230
And then the net balance is
what we actually consume

00:14:39.230 --> 00:14:40.800
within this country.

00:14:40.800 --> 00:14:44.070
And then we can compare this
amount with how much area is

00:14:44.070 --> 00:14:46.630
actually necessary to regenerate
these resources,

00:14:46.630 --> 00:14:49.050
which gives us the overall
footprint.

00:14:49.050 --> 00:14:52.750
It's a very simple balance
calculation of import, export,

00:14:52.750 --> 00:14:56.430
and production, looking at the
yields, getting the areas

00:14:56.430 --> 00:14:58.810
necessary to support
these flows.

00:14:58.810 --> 00:15:01.760
Now, in detail, obviously, it's
a bit more complicated,

00:15:01.760 --> 00:15:04.730
because we have about 3,000
data points per country.

00:15:04.730 --> 00:15:06.620
And so there's a lot of
calculations going on.

00:15:06.620 --> 00:15:11.520
But in essence, that's done for
every resource category.

00:15:11.520 --> 00:15:15.100
So we can do the bean counting,
not just for the

00:15:15.100 --> 00:15:18.180
world as a whole but for
each individual person

00:15:18.180 --> 00:15:20.490
or even for a nation.

00:15:20.490 --> 00:15:25.470
What I just want to show use a
few examples of countries--

00:15:25.470 --> 00:15:29.050
to what extent they draw on
resources, and to what extent

00:15:29.050 --> 00:15:31.220
they have resources available.

00:15:31.220 --> 00:15:37.110
So for example, if we take the
United States, roughly 9 1/2

00:15:37.110 --> 00:15:39.980
hectares per person are being
used for the average

00:15:39.980 --> 00:15:40.920
consumption.

00:15:40.920 --> 00:15:43.990
And comparatively, way we could
say, OK, there's only

00:15:43.990 --> 00:15:48.280
1.8 hectares available
per person worldwide.

00:15:48.280 --> 00:15:48.990
So what does that mean?

00:15:48.990 --> 00:15:52.390
It would mean roughly that if
everybody lived the American

00:15:52.390 --> 00:15:56.470
lifestyle worldwide, it would
take over five planets to

00:15:56.470 --> 00:15:59.220
maintain this resource
consumption.

00:15:59.220 --> 00:16:01.350
And I am embarrassed to tell
you that actually, my

00:16:01.350 --> 00:16:04.230
footprint is even larger,
to a large extent--

00:16:04.230 --> 00:16:05.960
possibly about 2/3 of it--

00:16:05.960 --> 00:16:08.630
because I'm flying around the
world, telling people, how can

00:16:08.630 --> 00:16:09.660
we have smaller footprints?

00:16:09.660 --> 00:16:11.260
They think, how absurd
is that?

00:16:11.260 --> 00:16:12.000
It is absurd.

00:16:12.000 --> 00:16:14.793
And then I have to live up
with that fact that even

00:16:14.793 --> 00:16:17.760
though I bicycle my son to
daycare, that doesn't really

00:16:17.760 --> 00:16:20.880
balance out all the air fuel
that I'm using up going

00:16:20.880 --> 00:16:22.990
around, meeting people, and
saying, how can we actually

00:16:22.990 --> 00:16:24.640
live within the means
of nature?

00:16:24.640 --> 00:16:29.160
So there's a contradiction there
I have to live with.

00:16:29.160 --> 00:16:31.020
But that's why I am actually
speaking to you now through

00:16:31.020 --> 00:16:33.570
this media so I don't
have to fly to you.

00:16:33.570 --> 00:16:36.960
So we save a little bit of
footprint right there.

00:16:36.960 --> 00:16:39.100
But then we can also
compare the United

00:16:39.100 --> 00:16:40.580
States and other countries.

00:16:40.580 --> 00:16:44.720
For example, many Americans
love to go to Italy.

00:16:44.720 --> 00:16:47.280
It's this great country.

00:16:47.280 --> 00:16:48.520
We can walk around.

00:16:48.520 --> 00:16:50.650
You walk around, watch other
people walk around.

00:16:50.650 --> 00:16:51.970
They watch you walk around.

00:16:51.970 --> 00:16:53.300
And everybody's having
a good time,

00:16:53.300 --> 00:16:55.250
using very few resources.

00:16:55.250 --> 00:16:58.710
They like to eat slowly,
local food.

00:16:58.710 --> 00:17:01.360
There's a lot of public
transportation available.

00:17:01.360 --> 00:17:06.599
Italy is able to provide a very
high quality of life on

00:17:06.599 --> 00:17:08.530
three times less footprint.

00:17:08.530 --> 00:17:10.510
Now, that's an inspiration.

00:17:10.510 --> 00:17:16.050
Imagine if we applied American
and Italian and Japanese and

00:17:16.050 --> 00:17:20.990
Kenyan ingenuity into how to
build cities that actually

00:17:20.990 --> 00:17:23.460
work well for everybody,
that can operate on a

00:17:23.460 --> 00:17:26.170
much smaller footprint.

00:17:26.170 --> 00:17:28.860
When I grew up, the best time
I ever had walking to

00:17:28.860 --> 00:17:31.860
kindergarten, walking to primary
school, then bicycling

00:17:31.860 --> 00:17:34.840
to high school, was this that
time where I could basically

00:17:34.840 --> 00:17:36.540
move around on my own.

00:17:36.540 --> 00:17:39.620
And many young Americans
are deprived from that

00:17:39.620 --> 00:17:40.690
possibility.

00:17:40.690 --> 00:17:43.030
Parents are forced to drive
their children around--

00:17:43.030 --> 00:17:47.050
so one example quality of life
and resource consumption is

00:17:47.050 --> 00:17:50.150
not correlated at all.

00:17:50.150 --> 00:17:55.470
We just looked at 1991 to 2001
to see to what extent our

00:17:55.470 --> 00:17:57.470
footprints increased
or decreased.

00:17:57.470 --> 00:18:01.880
And what we found, quite to our
surprise, is that in high

00:18:01.880 --> 00:18:05.190
income countries, the per capita
footprint actually

00:18:05.190 --> 00:18:12.100
increased about 8%, while in
the middle and lower income

00:18:12.100 --> 00:18:14.890
countries, the footprint per
capita actually decreased.

00:18:14.890 --> 00:18:17.850
So what we see is that in areas
where we think most

00:18:17.850 --> 00:18:20.740
likely, we may be better off in
the world if we had smaller

00:18:20.740 --> 00:18:23.170
footprint in high income
countries, it

00:18:23.170 --> 00:18:24.220
has actually increased.

00:18:24.220 --> 00:18:27.110
And in areas where we may think
they may actually need

00:18:27.110 --> 00:18:29.960
larger footprints to meet basic
needs, they actually

00:18:29.960 --> 00:18:32.670
have smaller footprints
per capita.

00:18:32.670 --> 00:18:36.510
So that's quite a
worrying trend.

00:18:36.510 --> 00:18:39.310
Footprint analysis can be used
to look at countries in much

00:18:39.310 --> 00:18:40.000
more detail.

00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:43.150
For instance, compared to the
number of Netherlands, for

00:18:43.150 --> 00:18:46.340
example, available to Holland
over the last 40 years, which

00:18:46.340 --> 00:18:50.180
was one Netherland, you can see
to what extent they have

00:18:50.180 --> 00:18:53.780
grown their ecological footprint
as a whole nation

00:18:53.780 --> 00:18:57.030
from using about the equivalent
of two Hollands to

00:18:57.030 --> 00:18:58.870
about six Hollands.

00:18:58.870 --> 00:19:01.420
Holland is one of the great
examples of environmental

00:19:01.420 --> 00:19:04.610
planning, where they have done
an enormous effort in actually

00:19:04.610 --> 00:19:07.620
setting goals and achieving
in many of them.

00:19:07.620 --> 00:19:10.690
And overall, what we still see
is that the ecological

00:19:10.690 --> 00:19:13.280
footprint is still growing--

00:19:13.280 --> 00:19:15.070
slower than other places.

00:19:15.070 --> 00:19:16.110
Nevertheless, it's
still growing.

00:19:16.110 --> 00:19:18.600
That shows us the challenges
we are in.

00:19:18.600 --> 00:19:20.550
Now, the only goal
is not to have a

00:19:20.550 --> 00:19:22.130
smaller and smaller footprint.

00:19:22.130 --> 00:19:25.100
It's just a necessary condition
that we make sure

00:19:25.100 --> 00:19:28.130
humanity's footprint is smaller
than what the planet

00:19:28.130 --> 00:19:30.140
can regenerate.

00:19:30.140 --> 00:19:33.330
But it won't be possible
to achieve high quality

00:19:33.330 --> 00:19:36.600
environments without looking
at the quantity of

00:19:36.600 --> 00:19:40.090
our demand of nature.

00:19:40.090 --> 00:19:42.320
And then we can see how does
that compare to other

00:19:42.320 --> 00:19:47.090
nations-- let's say one of the
Asian tigers, South Korea.

00:19:47.090 --> 00:19:49.640
They started from using
about one South Korea

00:19:49.640 --> 00:19:51.350
in 1961 now to six.

00:19:51.350 --> 00:19:54.270
So they have grown about
doubly as rapidly.

00:19:54.270 --> 00:19:57.000
The footprint allows us to have
much richer information

00:19:57.000 --> 00:19:58.360
about nations.

00:19:58.360 --> 00:20:00.460
That's why it's interesting not
just to people interested

00:20:00.460 --> 00:20:03.960
sustainability, but also to
financial analysts or to

00:20:03.960 --> 00:20:06.710
people study countries, their
geography, economic

00:20:06.710 --> 00:20:10.380
development, to understand
better what is happening, what

00:20:10.380 --> 00:20:13.810
kind of conflicts can emerge,
to what extent countries may

00:20:13.810 --> 00:20:18.610
not be able to maintain their
resource throughput.

00:20:18.610 --> 00:20:23.150
One of the main outlets of our
national calculations for the

00:20:23.150 --> 00:20:26.620
ecological footprint where we
compare how much we use in

00:20:26.620 --> 00:20:29.750
each nation as compared to how
much actually there is within

00:20:29.750 --> 00:20:35.620
each nation is issued in the
Living Planet Report by WWF.

00:20:35.620 --> 00:20:38.800
And so what they use the
ecological footprint for is

00:20:38.800 --> 00:20:42.970
actually to show to what extent
we are using ever more

00:20:42.970 --> 00:20:46.230
resources, because if they only
wanted to save tigers--

00:20:46.230 --> 00:20:47.770
and they want to do
more than that--

00:20:47.770 --> 00:20:51.420
they recognize it's not possible
to save tigers

00:20:51.420 --> 00:20:54.370
without reducing
human pressure.

00:20:54.370 --> 00:20:56.540
And it's not possible to reduce
human pressure without

00:20:56.540 --> 00:20:58.320
doing it in fair waste, because
otherwise, we'd just

00:20:58.320 --> 00:20:59.920
produce more conflicts.

00:20:59.920 --> 00:21:04.070
So they used the footprint to
show that increasing demand.

00:21:04.070 --> 00:21:06.520
And at the same time, they
have another measure.

00:21:06.520 --> 00:21:10.840
We could call it a Dow Jones
index of ecological wealth.

00:21:10.840 --> 00:21:15.040
They call it the Living Planet
Index to actually show to what

00:21:15.040 --> 00:21:19.090
extent population sizes of wild
vertebrate species, both

00:21:19.090 --> 00:21:23.810
in the sea and in fresh water,
but also in the land, have

00:21:23.810 --> 00:21:25.830
declined in size.

00:21:25.830 --> 00:21:29.350
So their average population
is now 30% down

00:21:29.350 --> 00:21:33.540
compared to 30 years ago.

00:21:33.540 --> 00:21:36.490
We could interpret
these two lines--

00:21:36.490 --> 00:21:39.810
ecological capacity or
ecological health going down,

00:21:39.810 --> 00:21:41.090
our demand going up.

00:21:41.090 --> 00:21:43.360
We could say, that's very
similar to a funnel.

00:21:43.360 --> 00:21:44.690
That's what the Natural
Step, for

00:21:44.690 --> 00:21:47.340
example, calls the funnel--

00:21:47.340 --> 00:21:51.690
the idea that it is possible to
increase our demand on the

00:21:51.690 --> 00:21:53.950
nature at the same time as

00:21:53.950 --> 00:21:56.990
ecological capacity is declining.

00:21:56.990 --> 00:21:59.460
So these are not two
contradictory stories that

00:21:59.460 --> 00:22:00.570
some people hold up.

00:22:00.570 --> 00:22:01.660
Who is right?

00:22:01.660 --> 00:22:03.926
Those who say everything is
getting better or those who

00:22:03.926 --> 00:22:04.790
say, no, everything
is getting worse.

00:22:04.790 --> 00:22:09.240
Actually, we can accelerate the
cars even though the gas

00:22:09.240 --> 00:22:11.720
tank is getting emptier
and emptier.

00:22:11.720 --> 00:22:14.850
We can have bigger parties as
the use of more and more of

00:22:14.850 --> 00:22:16.200
our Capital

00:22:16.200 --> 00:22:18.540
So that's what the funnel
basically shows--

00:22:18.540 --> 00:22:23.330
that yes, our demand
is going up and our

00:22:23.330 --> 00:22:24.620
supply is going down.

00:22:24.620 --> 00:22:27.950
So the room to maneuver
is getting smaller.

00:22:27.950 --> 00:22:32.870
And sustainability really is
about how can we open up this

00:22:32.870 --> 00:22:36.650
funnel again so that we have
more space to maneuver, we

00:22:36.650 --> 00:22:39.310
have more opportunities and more
possibility for choice?

00:22:39.310 --> 00:22:41.960
Because if not, we start to bump
more and more into the

00:22:41.960 --> 00:22:43.850
wall of the funnel.

00:22:43.850 --> 00:22:46.680
That's experienced by
organizations, let's say,

00:22:46.680 --> 00:22:51.750
through regulatory fines or
through increased fees for

00:22:51.750 --> 00:22:55.310
waste disposal or increased
resource

00:22:55.310 --> 00:22:58.210
costs, consumer boycotts.

00:22:58.210 --> 00:23:00.990
The ecological footprint also
shows what we call the bed

00:23:00.990 --> 00:23:02.330
cover effect--

00:23:02.330 --> 00:23:06.850
that like in a cold night, when
we cover our head and

00:23:06.850 --> 00:23:09.550
then we get cold feet, because
the cover is too small.

00:23:09.550 --> 00:23:10.830
The same with the biosphere.

00:23:10.830 --> 00:23:15.070
It is slightly small compared
to our appetites.

00:23:15.070 --> 00:23:17.850
And so how that plays out
is like, for example, in

00:23:17.850 --> 00:23:18.590
California.

00:23:18.590 --> 00:23:22.670
We say, oh, let's save
our redwood trees.

00:23:22.670 --> 00:23:24.570
Then we just buy Indonesian
timbers.

00:23:24.570 --> 00:23:27.710
It just puts the pressure
somewhere else.

00:23:27.710 --> 00:23:30.010
In the end, we have to
look at the benefits.

00:23:30.010 --> 00:23:32.740
The footprint is not just this
moral burden of saying, oh,

00:23:32.740 --> 00:23:34.400
it's bad, to have a
smaller footprint.

00:23:34.400 --> 00:23:35.960
No, the contrary--

00:23:35.960 --> 00:23:38.540
it really is a commitment to
having the best lives,

00:23:38.540 --> 00:23:40.740
recognizing there's only so much
budget, like with your

00:23:40.740 --> 00:23:41.710
financial budget.

00:23:41.710 --> 00:23:43.370
How much financial budget
do you have?

00:23:43.370 --> 00:23:45.940
And then how can you make the
best choices to use your

00:23:45.940 --> 00:23:49.230
budget most wisely?

00:23:49.230 --> 00:23:52.800
One interesting example from
Australia was actually that

00:23:52.800 --> 00:23:55.200
large retail developer.

00:23:55.200 --> 00:23:59.290
Their environmental manager
calculated just roughly how

00:23:59.290 --> 00:24:03.170
much area is necessary to
maintain one square meter of

00:24:03.170 --> 00:24:06.350
retail space-- and not for the
products being sold, just for

00:24:06.350 --> 00:24:08.730
cooling it, heating it,
rebuilding it every five

00:24:08.730 --> 00:24:10.710
years, washing it, whatever.

00:24:10.710 --> 00:24:17.630
All that added up makes a
footprint about 1,600 times

00:24:17.630 --> 00:24:19.220
larger than the area itself.

00:24:19.220 --> 00:24:23.300
So it takes 1,600 malls per
mall of ecological area to

00:24:23.300 --> 00:24:25.265
support that area.

00:24:25.265 --> 00:24:28.140
Now, that's a large number.

00:24:28.140 --> 00:24:29.280
What do you do with it?

00:24:29.280 --> 00:24:30.260
I wouldn't have known.

00:24:30.260 --> 00:24:32.390
I would have told the
environmental manager just to

00:24:32.390 --> 00:24:34.050
burn the report not
to get fired.

00:24:34.050 --> 00:24:37.140
But actually, what they did
what it is they recognized

00:24:37.140 --> 00:24:41.440
this resource consumption is a
huge cost to the developer.

00:24:41.440 --> 00:24:44.510
They rent out space in their
malls to other retailers.

00:24:44.510 --> 00:24:47.410
So they can actually realize
a lot of savings by having

00:24:47.410 --> 00:24:50.780
smaller equipment, by not
heating and cooling as

00:24:50.780 --> 00:24:51.930
excessively.

00:24:51.930 --> 00:24:55.100
Actually, now, they're even
planning a mall in Melbourne

00:24:55.100 --> 00:24:57.860
without AC equipment.

00:24:57.860 --> 00:25:00.520
So there are lots of
possibilities to actually make

00:25:00.520 --> 00:25:03.480
architecture much more
eco-friendly, which also is

00:25:03.480 --> 00:25:07.020
more comfortable to people
generally, and uses less

00:25:07.020 --> 00:25:09.170
resources and costs less.

00:25:09.170 --> 00:25:11.410
So they have used the footprint
to help communicate

00:25:11.410 --> 00:25:15.730
these ideas to the CEO, to
shareholders, to renters, to

00:25:15.730 --> 00:25:20.290
get people on the same page and
really make this happen.

00:25:20.290 --> 00:25:21.660
The mayor of London--

00:25:21.660 --> 00:25:23.170
very interesting
sustainability.

00:25:23.170 --> 00:25:25.950
He wanted some more ammunition
to say, how can I show the

00:25:25.950 --> 00:25:27.610
importance of sustainability
for our city?

00:25:27.610 --> 00:25:29.300
And so he commissioned
a new report.

00:25:29.300 --> 00:25:33.360
The new report found out
actually it's more like 235

00:25:33.360 --> 00:25:36.020
larger, the footprint of London,
than London itself.

00:25:36.020 --> 00:25:37.990
He looked at more details.

00:25:37.990 --> 00:25:39.520
The Business Council
of London--

00:25:39.520 --> 00:25:41.440
London first said, we have
to look at this.

00:25:41.440 --> 00:25:42.590
This is serious.

00:25:42.590 --> 00:25:45.900
How can we help reduce the
footprint of London, because

00:25:45.900 --> 00:25:46.765
we want to stay competitive.

00:25:46.765 --> 00:25:49.390
We want to make sure London
stays a prime

00:25:49.390 --> 00:25:50.840
center of the world.

00:25:50.840 --> 00:25:53.470
So they have calculated the
footprint and looked with

00:25:53.470 --> 00:25:56.310
businesses and with developers
at what are the options?

00:25:56.310 --> 00:25:58.280
How can we reduce the footprint
while actually

00:25:58.280 --> 00:26:00.660
improving our quality of life?

00:26:00.660 --> 00:26:02.710
Now, that's just London.

00:26:02.710 --> 00:26:05.030
There have been over 150
cities, we believe.

00:26:05.030 --> 00:26:06.070
And we don't know them all.

00:26:06.070 --> 00:26:09.430
There may be more that have
calculated their footprints--

00:26:09.430 --> 00:26:11.260
some more like as a
student project,

00:26:11.260 --> 00:26:12.580
other in a lot of depth.

00:26:16.244 --> 00:26:19.160
The United Nations Population
Fund is looking at the

00:26:19.160 --> 00:26:20.990
footprint as a way of

00:26:20.990 --> 00:26:23.650
explaining population pressures.

00:26:23.650 --> 00:26:26.360
And there are many more examples
from around the word

00:26:26.360 --> 00:26:27.610
in all kinds of languages.

00:26:30.720 --> 00:26:33.230
What we need as the next step
to make the ecological

00:26:33.230 --> 00:26:36.920
footprint effective for
governments and organizations

00:26:36.920 --> 00:26:41.820
and individuals is to
standardize the way footprints

00:26:41.820 --> 00:26:43.310
are being calculated.

00:26:43.310 --> 00:26:45.160
And that's what we are
doing with the

00:26:45.160 --> 00:26:46.860
Global Footprint Network.

00:26:46.860 --> 00:26:50.240
We're bringing together
practitioners to find ways to

00:26:50.240 --> 00:26:53.410
standardize the applications,
to steadily advance the

00:26:53.410 --> 00:26:58.380
research behind footprint
accounting, and also to find

00:26:58.380 --> 00:27:02.170
ways to make the ecological
footprint ever more relevant

00:27:02.170 --> 00:27:06.100
to government policies, as well
as businesses who are in

00:27:06.100 --> 00:27:11.110
need of increasing their
environmental performance.

00:27:11.110 --> 00:27:13.410
The benefit of the footprint
really comes

00:27:13.410 --> 00:27:15.020
from a number of points.

00:27:15.020 --> 00:27:16.720
One--

00:27:16.720 --> 00:27:20.840
it provides not just relative
numbers of oh, is this can a

00:27:20.840 --> 00:27:22.110
little bit more than
this bottle.

00:27:22.110 --> 00:27:25.700
But actually, in absolute terms,
it shows to what extent

00:27:25.700 --> 00:27:30.240
our activities fit within global
limits, to what extent

00:27:30.240 --> 00:27:33.210
we draw on the finite
ecological

00:27:33.210 --> 00:27:36.242
capacity on this planet.

00:27:36.242 --> 00:27:39.310
A second benefit is that it
communicates quite easily.

00:27:39.310 --> 00:27:41.550
People can experience size.

00:27:41.550 --> 00:27:43.950
So areas-- how big
is this space?

00:27:43.950 --> 00:27:47.180
How big would be necessary
to support me?

00:27:47.180 --> 00:27:49.620
So it becomes much more
easy to communicate.

00:27:49.620 --> 00:27:51.680
And I believe, also, it's
quite comprehensive.

00:27:51.680 --> 00:27:55.600
So it actually includes so
many of the resources we

00:27:55.600 --> 00:27:57.500
depend on that we get
a good picture.

00:27:57.500 --> 00:28:00.970
Now, it's not a coincidence
why all these resource

00:28:00.970 --> 00:28:05.830
pressures on forests, on
biodiversity, on water, on air

00:28:05.830 --> 00:28:08.500
are happening at the same time,
but that actually, just

00:28:08.500 --> 00:28:14.970
the pressures are pushing in
all different directions.

00:28:14.970 --> 00:28:17.210
Rather than telling you
what you need to do--

00:28:17.210 --> 00:28:19.620
don't whatever, don't eat
too much chocolate or

00:28:19.620 --> 00:28:20.740
whatever it may be--

00:28:20.740 --> 00:28:23.690
it basically just says, look,
there's overall budget.

00:28:23.690 --> 00:28:24.570
Let's get together.

00:28:24.570 --> 00:28:25.870
It invites people
to the table.

00:28:25.870 --> 00:28:27.420
It invites people's
creativity.

00:28:27.420 --> 00:28:30.400
And indeed, we need everybody's
creative ideas to

00:28:30.400 --> 00:28:33.050
say, how can we actually live
well within this budget?

00:28:33.050 --> 00:28:35.690
And some people may say,
I like more chocolate.

00:28:35.690 --> 00:28:37.600
And other people say, I
like more bicycles.

00:28:37.600 --> 00:28:39.005
And other people say, I
like more spaghetti.

00:28:39.005 --> 00:28:39.810
I don't know.

00:28:39.810 --> 00:28:42.465
So it's up to us to choose
how we want to

00:28:42.465 --> 00:28:43.390
use the budget best.

00:28:43.390 --> 00:28:45.570
We just know overall
there's one planet.

00:28:45.570 --> 00:28:49.020
How can we could use it best
for our well being?

00:28:49.020 --> 00:30:18.889
[MUSIC PLAYING]