Abstract
In this paper, we elaborate on the concept of ecological debt. Starting from the enriching environmental justice perspectives, this grass-roots concept has to offer to sustainability discourse, a broad conceptual discussion is presented resulting in a working definition for ecological debt. In elaborating on this definition, we try both to accommodate these enriching perspectives and to offer a more robust conceptualisation that is applicable in international sustainability discourse. Also, a scientifically sound methodology is presented which allows quantifying different aspects of ecological debt. Finally, both the conceptual analysis as well as the quantification method is applied to the case of climate change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In contrasting ‘matters of concern’ with ‘matters of fact’, we gratefully borrow from Latour’s terminology (Latour 2004). In Goeminne (2009), one of the authors elaborates on an epistemology of ‘engaged knowledge’ showing how sustainability issues could be adequately framed as ‘matters of concern’ engaging experts and lay people in a participatory approach.
This is a mere observation and contains no normative ground. We do not intend that ngo-campaigning has to be based on scientific analysis or that scientific support to ngo-campaigning should be expected.
References
Agarwal, A., & Narain, S. (1991). Global warming in an unequal world. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.
Andersson, J. O., & Lindroth, M. (2001). Ecologically unsustainable trade. Ecological Economics, 37, 113–122.
Azar, C., & Holmberg, J. (1995). Defining the generational environmental debt. Ecological Economics, 14, 7–19.
Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations. Restitution and negotiating historical injustices. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, F. M., & Tiezzi, E. (2004). The problem of assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological Economics, 49, 253–257.
Blowers, A. (2003). Inequality and community and the challenge to modernization: Evidence from the nuclear oases. In J. Ageyman, R. D. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.), Just sustainabilities. Development in an unequal world. London: Earthscan.
Bravo, E., & Yánez, I. (Eds.) (2003). No more looting and destruction! We the peoples of the south are ecological creditors. Southern Peoples Ecological Debt Creditors Alliance (SPEDCA).
Brundtland, G. (Ed.). (1987). Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, J., Wang, Y., Lee, H., & Kim, J. (1998). An equity and sustainability based policy response to global climate change. Energy Policy, 26, 335–343.
Cörvers, R. J. M., & Slot, W. F. (1998). Milieukunde en milieuproblemen. In R. J. M. Cörvers & W. F. Slot (Eds.), Basiscursus Milieukunde, Analyse en Oplossing van Milieuproblemen. Heerlen: Open Universiteit.
Donoso, A. (2003). We are not debtors, we are creditors. In: Bravo, E., & Yánez, I. (Eds.), No more looting and destruction! We the peoples of the south are ecological creditors. Southern Peoples Ecological Debt Creditors Alliance (SPEDCA).
Giljum, S. (2003). Biophysical dimensions of north–south trade: Material flows and land use. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Akademischen Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften an der Formal-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Wien. Vienna.
Goeminne, G. (2009). Once upon a time I was a nuclear physicist. What the politics of sustainability can learn from the nuclear laboratory. Perspectives on Science, accepted for publication (forthcoming).
Goeminne, G., & Paredis, E. (2009). The concept of ecological debt: challenging established science-policy frameworks in the transition to sustainable development. In: Techera, E. (Ed.), Frontiers of environment and citizenship. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press (in press).
Hails, C. (Ed.). (2006). Living planet report 2006. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.
Jenkins, T. N. (1996). Democratising the global economy by ecologicalising economics: The example of global warming. Ecological Economics, 16, 227–238.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 25–48.
Marland, G., Boden, T. A., & Andres, R. J. (2008). Global, regional, and national fossil fuel CO2 emissions. In trends: A compendium of data on global change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA.
Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
McCarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D., & White, K. (Eds.). (2001). Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McLaren, D. (2003). Environmental space, equity and the ecological debt. In J. Ageyman, R. D. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.), Just sustainabilities. Development in an unequal world (pp. 19–37). London: Earthscan.
Munasinghe, M., & Swart, R. (2005). Primer on climate change and sustainable development. Facts, policy analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Opschoor, H. (1995). Krapte aan milieugebruiksruimte. In L. Leo Baas, J. Heystek, G. Peters, & K. van der Wal (Eds.), Oefeningen in Duurzaamheid: Perspectieven naar 2040 (pp. 12–22). Utrecht: Uitgeverij Jan Van Arkel.
Ott, H. E., & Sachs, W. (2000). Ethical aspects of emissions trading. Wuppertal Papers No. 110, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy, Wuppertal, Germany.
Paredis, E., Goeminne, G., Vanhove, W., Maes, F., & Lambrecht, J. (2008). The concept of ecological debt. Its meaning and applicability in international policy. Gent: Academia Press.
Pollard, R. (Ed.) (1992). The NGO alternative treaties from the Global Forum at Rio de Janeiro, June 1–15, 1992. Web page: http://www.igc.org/habitat/treaties/.
Robleto, M. L., & Marcelo, W. (1992). Deuda Ecológica. Santiago, Chile: Instituto de Ecologia Politica.
Sachs, W. (2002). Closing remarks. In: Dömling, M. (Ed.), Sustainability and justice: A political north–south dialogue. World Summit papers of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, No. 13.
Sachs, W. (2003). Environment and human rights. Wuppertal Papers No. 137, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy, Wuppertal.
Shah, R. (2000). International frameworks of environmental statistics and indicators. Paper for the ‘Inception Workshop on the Institutional Strengthening and Collection of Environment Statistics, Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
Simms, A. (2005). Ecological debt. The health of the planet and the wealth of nations. Ann Arbor, London: Pluto Press.
Smith, K. R. (1996). The natural debt: North and south. In T. W. Giambellucu & A. Henderson-Sellers (Eds.), Climate change: Developing southern hemisphere perspectives. Chicester/New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Spangenberg, J. H. (Ed.). (1995). Towards sustainable Europe. A study from the Wuppertal Institute for friends of the earth Europe. Luton/Bedfordshire: Friends of the Earth Publications.
Srinivasan, U. T., Carey, S. P., Hallsteind, E., Higgins, P. A. T., Kerr, A. C., Koteen, L. E., et al. (2008). The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 1773–1786.
Torras, M. (2003). An ecological footprint approach to external debt relief. World Development, 31, 2161–2171.
Torvanger, A., Berntsen, T., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Holtsmark, B., Ringius, L., & Aaheim, A. (1996). Exploring distribution of commitments—A follow-up to the Berlin Mandate. CICERO Report, No. 3, Oslo.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Frank Maes, Bernard Mazijn, Patrick Van Damme, Wouter Vanhove, Jesse Lambrecht, Leida Reinhout, Geert Fremout and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. The underlying research for this paper was mainly funded by the Policy Preparation Research Program 2003 of the Flemish Interuniversity Council. Gert Goeminne acknowledges support of a postdoctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation—Flanders.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.
Appendices
Annex: calculation methodology
This annex deals with the mathematical details of calculating the Historical Carbon Debt (HCD), the Generational Carbon Debt (GCD) and the total Carbon Debt (CD) of a country, according to the two models introduced in the paper. For model 1, we start from defining the total Carbon Debt, then indicating how it can be split up into a Historical and a Generational Carbon Debt. In the case of model 2, we go the other way around, beginning with definitions for the HCD and GCD which taken together make up the total CD.
Model 1
2.1 The total Carbon Debt (CD)
In the case of model 1, the Carbon Debt is the cumulative amount of CO2 a country has emitted over time above the sustainable level. In a more formal way, the carbon debt of a country c, CD c , can be expressed as
where σ is the start year, ε the end year of accounting, Pop c (i) is country c’s population for year i, Pop w (i) is the world year i population, e c (i) is country i’s CO2 emissions from year i and s w (i) is the world sustainable level for year i. The carbon debt can be positive or negative. Countries with a positive CD are debtors, those with a negative CD are creditors. Summing the CD c over all countries gives the carbon debt of the world as a whole, CD w , i.e.
which immediately gives
2.2 The Historical Carbon Debt (HCD)
In model 1, splitting the CD c of a particular country in a HCD c and a GCD c is based on the HCDdebtors/CDdebtors ratio of all debtor countries as a whole, and the latter is determined as follows. Consider all carbon creditors, i.e. all countries which have a negative CD c . According to model 1, these countries should be compensated for exactly the amount of carbon credit they total. Also according model 1, this total amount of carbon credit equals the total amount of HCDdebtors of all debtor countries together, i.e.
In this way, the HCDdebtors/CDdebtors ratio is determined for all debtor countries as a whole. This ratio can than be used to determine the HCD c for every individual debtor country; every debtor country thus having the same HCD c /CD c (= HCDdebtors/CDdebtors) ratio.
2.3 The Generational Carbon Debt (GCD)
The rest of a debtor country’s CD c is then regarded as carbon debt towards future generations, i.e. the GCD c
HCD c being determined according to Eq. 3. In this model, carbon creditors will have a negative HCD c (credit) and no GCD c ; carbon debtors will have a positive HCD c and a positive GCD c adding up to a positive CD c ; the HCD c /CD c ratio of an individual country being determined by the HCDdebtors/CDdebtors ratio of all debtor countries together. The sum of all HCD c over all countries is of course equal to zero.
Model 2
3.1 The Historical Carbon Debt (HCD)
In this model, the HCD deals with over-emissions with respect to the world average per capita emissions. The Historical Carbon Debt is thus the amount of CO2 a country has emitted over time in excess of the world average per capita emissions. In a more formal way, the Historical Carbon Debt of a country c, HCD c , can be expressed as:
where σ is the start year, ε the end year of accounting, Pop c (i) is country c’s population for year i, Pop w (i) is the world year i population, e c (i) and e w (i) are country i’s and world CO2 emissions from year i.
It should be mentioned that the HCD can be positive or negative. Countries with a positive HCD are considered to be in debt with countries that have a negative HCD. Note that the sum of HCD over all countries is equal to zero.
3.2 The Generational Carbon Debt (GCD)
The Generational Carbon Debt concerns that part of over-emissions with respect to a sustainable level that does not fall under the historical carbon debt. The Generational Carbon Debt is thus the cumulative amount of CO2 a country has emitted over time above the sustainable level, taking into account only that part of CO2 emissions that does not overshoot the world average per capita emissions (as that part is contained in the HCD). In a more formal way, the Generational Carbon Debt of a country c, GCD c , can be expressed as
with:
where σ is the start year, ε is the end year of accounting, Pop c (i) is country c’s population for year i, Pop w (i) is the world year i population, e c (i) and e w (i) are country i’s and world CO2 emissions from year i, and e sust(i) is the sustainable level for year i. Note that in this case, every country has a positive GCD c (i) in proportion to its share in the world’s population. This is in line with the argument made in the paper that once the HCD c (i) is compensated for, we deal with a notional average consumer.
3.3 The total Carbon Debt (CD)
The total Carbon Debt of a country, CD c , is of course determined by the sum of the HCD and GCD, i.e.
Making use of Eqs. 1, 4, 5 and 6, it is easily verified that the total carbon debt calculated according to model 2 is identical to the total carbon debt according to model 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goeminne, G., Paredis, E. The concept of ecological debt: some steps towards an enriched sustainability paradigm. Environ Dev Sustain 12, 691–712 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-009-9219-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-009-9219-y