Abstract
This paper examines the relevancy of the Ecological Footprint indicator for the study of environmental justice between generations. While EF statistics—measuring the pressure put on nature by generations co-existing at a particular period under the prevailing production technology—can hardly be interpreted on its own, it is argued that interpretational difficulties vanish once the EF is corrected for changes in technology, and once it is made explicit that the EF is concerned with environmental justice. Thus, what should be interpreted is not a single EF statistic, but the entire EF distribution. Moreover, although usual interpretations of EF figures consist of comparing the actual pressure put on nature with the one allowing nature’s regeneration, it is argued that this physical interpretation is not the only possible one, and that EF measures allow a—normative and descriptive—study of intergenerational justice under ethical frameworks other than resources-centred sustainability.
The author is grateful to Paul-Marie Boulanger, Alexander Cappelen, Paul Cobben, Axel Gosseries, Russell Keat, Jonathan Seglow, and an anonymous referee for their suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
A global hectare, serving as a standard unit of measurement for surface, is constructed by weighting different kinds of biologically productive surfaces (e.g. cropland, forests, fisheries). See Wackernagel et al. (2005).
- 2.
- 3.
Each person is supposed to enjoy a life of the same length (i.e., a fixed number of periods).
- 4.
That postulate is widespread in EF literature, measuring the pressure put on nature by the average citizen.
- 5.
One should notice here that the fact that intertemporal inequalities in net EF can be interpreted in terms of intergenerational inequalities in lifetime consumption does not imply that a study of intergenerational justice can concentrate exclusively on consumption, and neglect EF figures, because the fair intergenerational consumption profile depends, among other things, on the exact pressure put by each unit of consumption on nature.
- 6.
Naturally, if one is sceptical about the concept of human welfare—especially in an intergenerational context—one may prefer relying on physical interpretations, and compare the actual raw EF with bio-capacity. On the contrary, if one thinks that the concept of welfare is central to the study of justice, it is worth thinking about some—welfare-based—ways of interpreting EF statistics.
- 7.
On the various laws of regeneration, see Clark (1990).
- 8.
Postulating a fixed number of generations allows us to avoid the Non-Identity Problem (see Gosseries 2003).
- 9.
- 10.
Imposing such a constraint constitutes an appealing way to insure ourselves against being unfair with respect to unexpected future people in a second-best world where the future of life on the Earth is unknown.
- 11.
It should be stressed that such a result does not necessarily hold under alternative assumptions on the regeneration of nature, or if substitutability in production is introduced (see Roemer 2005).
- 12.
That proportion is equal to ρ/(1 + ρ).
- 13.
The calculations presented here are based on an EF and bio-capacity time series from Wackernagel et al. (2005).
- 14.
Individual utility is assumed to depend on consumption only, and is equal to c α, with α equal to 0.2. Hence, it should be stressed that the present result does not rely on assuming any intrinsic value for the natural environment.
Bibliography
Ayres, R.U. 2000. Commentary on the utility of the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics 32: 347–349.
Bentham, J. 1789. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In J.S. Mill: Utilitarianism, ed. Warnock, M. (1962). London: Fontana Press.
Bicknell, K.B., R.J. Ball, R. Cullen, and H.R. Bigsby. 1998. New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecological Economics 27: 149–160.
Clark, C.W. 1990. Mathematical bioeconomics. The optimal management of renewable resources. London: Wiley.
Gosseries, A. 2003. Intergenerational justice. In The Oxford handbook of practical ethics, ed. H. LaFollette, 459–484. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haberl, H., K.-H. Erb, and F. Krausmann. 2001. How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: The case of Austria, 1926–1995. Ecological Economics 38: 25–45.
North, D.C. 1981. Structure and change in economic history. New York: Norton.
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rees, W.E. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environmental Urbanization 4: 121–130.
Roemer, J.E. 2005. Intergenerational justice and sustainability under the leximin ethic. Cowles foundation discussion paper, no 1512.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Sidgwick, H. 1874. The methods of ethics. London: Macmillan.
van den Bergh, J.C., and H. Verbruggen. 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics 31: 61–72.
van Vuuren, D.P., and L.F. Bouwman. 2005. Exploring past and future changes in the ecological footprint for world regions. Ecological Economics 52: 43–62.
Wackernagel, M., and W.E. Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island/Philadelphia: New Society.
Wackernagel, M., and J. Silverstein. 2000. Big things first: Focussing on the scale imperative with the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics 32: 391–394.
Wackernagel, M., et al. 2005. National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method. Global Footprint Network, available at http://www.footprintnetwork.org.
Wiedmann, T., et al. 2006. Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input-output analysis. Ecological Economics 56(1): 28–48.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ponthiere, G. (2013). On the Relevancy of the Ecological Footprint for the Study of Intergenerational Justice. In: Merle, JC. (eds) Spheres of Global Justice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5998-5_59
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5998-5_59
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5997-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5998-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)