Transcript of Live Chat with the Co-creator of the Ecological Footprint, Mathis Wackernagel, Ph. D on Tuesday, July 3rd @ 2PM ET

Great activity. We are just beginning to awaken as a race to the critical state of our lot on the Earth!

When something is done about entertainers and politicians and famous people for using planes, busses and lots of frivilous stuff....then I will worry about MY footprint.

I drive 2 miles per day, open windows at my house and don't put my AC on all the time, I recycle....etc.
I do my part for my stinkin footprint.

How about all of the celebrities that fly daily? How about all of the business execs that fly from town to town for a meeting daily?
no...it isnt the average person that needs to be lectured to about their carbon footprint.

We hope that you will be able to join us for this live chat this afternoon at 2 p.m. ET. If you are unable to make it, please leave your question in the comment thread.

Welcome to Gather Dr. Wackernagel! We look forward to spending the next hour with you as you answer Gather member questions about ecological footprints.

Hi Dr. Wackernagel, welcome! Can you tell me what are some of the less obvious suggestions you give to businesses that help reduce their ecological footprint?

What does your company do to encourage "going green" among employees at work?

I'm curious as to what surprised you most as you were creating the Ecological Footprint, either how humans behave or how the earth reacts to our demands on it. Thanks.

Hi Everyone,

Thank you so much for joining this chat.

First I'd like to address Tracey's comments and questions.

Tracey hit on some important points – first of all, flying is indeed the most significant factor determining your personal Ecological Footprint. Second, it is true that there is a correlation with wealth and Footprint which usually relates directly to consumption. And happiness is not correlated with consumption above a certain level of meeting our basic needs. But even for those of us that choose to do our parts to lead one-planet lifestyles, living in the United States or other high Footprint countries and paying taxes for highways and dams and military expenditures, we still have Footprints are bigger than the globally sustainable 1.8 global hectares per person.
Therefore, to most effectively reduce your personal Footprint, you need not only focus on reducing your day to day energy consumption, but to focus on the big purchases, and work to get your town, your city, your country to stop building unsustainable infrastructure.
We call the slogan "Slow things first." When you recognize that infrastructure put in place today has a longevity of 50 to 80, or even more, years—I mean, if you build a house, essentially the way we build our houses today will determine how we will consume for decades to come. And the same is true with government projects like highways and dams.
So the question really becomes, today, are we building traps for ourselves, or opportunities? And yes indeed, a big part of the infrastructure is already built, but we continue to reshape and redirect our infrastructure with every additional house we build, with every additional highway we build, or public transportation system that we build. So it's putting the choices more clearly in front of decision makers—who do choose today whether we should add more bus lines or whether we should extend a highway or we should build more parking spaces—to understand what are the implications of investing in these infrastructures.
It's not that different from, for example, an engineer building a bridge, they build the safety factors into bridge and say, we want to make sure this bridge will work for decades to come. And in the same way, we can apply these kind of principles to cities and say, are we making cities future-friendly? Are we preparing them to live on lower footprints with a higher quality of life? Because cities worldwide, and regions, they compete for ecological resources. And those cities that are able to provide the highest quality of life on the least resource consumption will be the most competitive ones in the long run.

As an advocate of the Slow Food movement, i appreciate your slogan "slow things first." Here's how the Slow Food manifesto put it, somewhat superlatively, almost 20 years ago:

Our century, which began and has developed under the insignia of industrial civilization, first invented the machine and then took it as its life model.

We are enslaved by speed and have all succumbed to the same insidious virus: Fast Life, which disrupts our habits, pervades the privacy of our homes and forces us to eat Fast Foods.

To be worthy of the name, Homo Sapiens should rid himself of speed before it reduces him to a species in danger of extinction.

A firm defense of quiet material pleasure is the only way to oppose the universal folly of Fast Life.

May suitable doses of guaranteed sensual pleasure and slow, long-lasting enjoyment preserve us from the contagion of the multitude who mistake frenzy for efficiency.

Our defense should begin at the table with Slow Food. Let us rediscover the flavors and savors of regional cooking and banish the degrading effects of Fast Food.

In the name of productivity, Fast Life has changed our way of being and threatens our environment and our landscapes. So Slow Food is now the only truly progressive answer.

That is what real culture is all about: developing taste rather than demeaning it. And what better way to set about this than an international exchange of experiences, knowledge, projects?

Slow Food guarantees a better future. Slow Food is an idea that needs plenty of qualified supporters who can help turn this (slow) motion into an international movement, with the little snail as its symbol.

A gastronome who is not also an environmentalist is an idiot.

An environmentalist who is not also a gastronome is, well, sad.

In answer to Kathleen's comments,
The same principle applies to what I described above about cities. Many businesses, especially the larger corporations, make a lot of choices with big Footprint implications - from building offices and factories, to how they make and transport their products, to how often employees travel around the world for meetings.

In addition what Ecological Footprint analysis reveals for industrial sectors and companies is when and where they will face increasing limits in resources such as energy, forest, croplands, pastures and fisheries. It also helps identify strategies that will succeed in a resource-constrained world, including products and services that will be most needed in the future.

Ecological Footprint anaylsis will give different results for different companies - this is part of its value - it can help companies see the greatest leverage points for reducing their Ecological Footprint and improving their productivity and often profitability.

This is a fascinating conversation. The New York Times recently had an article that explored why Europe is greener than we are. Do you think that America will ever catch up to European standards? What would we need to do to do in order to make head way in this area?

Regarding what we do here at Global Footprint Network to encourage "going green" (Jeffrey's question):

Many of us, myself included, bike to work every day. We're actually moving offices soon and we consult the entire team when considering locations in terms of how accessible the new location will be for them via bike, and of course we be sure to choose places close to public transit. Additionally, we like to think of ourselves as a mini Google in terms of food options: we prepare our own lunches daily and eat together, family style. I usually shop for the staff at the farmers' market on Sunday to get Salad mix and vegetables, and we have very food-ethics conscious people on staff that help us find other low-impact products for lunches.
We also re-use paper and buy recycled paper, minimize printouts, etcetera.

Turn off some of the lights in Las Vegas?!
(I'm European...!)

Ha! That's funny that you should mention The New York Times Robin! Today in the business section is an article about company efforts to go green. Here is a synopsis. What do you think Dr. Wackernagel? Will this make a difference?

"Corporations are adding a new title to the executive suite — chief sustainability officer — not just an environmental watchdog, but someone to oversee the effort to go green."

EK - can he use the company jet?

Kurt, That's funny! The answer is no, but we will give the sustainability officer a unicycle or a pogo.

Linda - regarding surprises in creating the Footprint, I think what has amazed me since I was 10 years old and my farther showed me graphs from Donella Meadow's Limits to Growth, through when Bill Rees and I came up with the Footprint and even now as it takes off in the world, is how hard we resist the obvious fact that we only have one planet.

The first step in making real progress to end ecological overshoot is to recognize ecological limits. In our culture, this is almost like trying to break a taboo - we don't like limits, and don't want to talk about them or make decisions to act within them.

But ecological limits are kind of like gravity when you're walking up a hill: sometimes you don't like them, but you certainly can't ignore them and you have to cope with them. The Ecological Footprint helps us recognize, measure, and manage to live well and live within ecological limits.

TJ, this chat has nothing to do with Robert Redford or Al Gore. It has to do with the Global Footprint Network.

My question is a two parter. What areas of the world are most environmentally conscious? What areas of the world are more willing to change their habits to alter their ecological footprints? I see the U.S. as late getting out of the gate on this issue.

Robin - your question about whether the US will every catch up to Europe is an interesting one. We have actually focused most of our efforts at Global Footprint Network in Europe because in historically the culture and governance there has been more receptive to recognizing ecological limits and are ready for a tool like the Ecological Footprint that helps measure those limits and manage for living within them. We have a big cultural wall to overcome here in the US on that front, but things are changing rapidly the past few years, and business in particular in the US is starting to lead and innovate in this area.

The important thing to remember about global overshoot (using more resources than a planet can regenerate) is that its a challenge wholly of our own making, so we always have the choice to begin making choices for one planet living. This is no less true for Americans than for Europeans.

How much worse will our (meaning the U.S.) ecological footprint have to get before we start making more major changes in the right direction? Are you optimistic that we can turn it around or our we too selfish.

TJ I'm happy to answer your question but don't fully understand what you're asking - please rephrase and maybe it'll sink in better - remember English is not my first language!

Unfortunately, there are only fifteen minutes left in the chat. Dr. Wackernagel will try to answer as many questions as time permits.

E.K. - Absolutely, the more people in government, business, academic institutions and other organizations whose job is to make their organization's practices and policies more sustainable the better! Hiring someone for this purpose is a great step for organizations to take towards decreasing their Ecological Footprint.

TJ - thanks for rephrasing. Let me see if I can offer an answer now:

Our mission at Global Footprint Network is a bold one - we want to end ecological overshoot. We have a number of parallel strategies for how to go about doing this -- we want to influence big institutions with large Footprint leverage (nations, corporations, international organizations like the UN and World Bank); we want to influence at a more "bottom up" level, working with a partner network of almost 80 organizations around the world and with regions, NGOs and other local Footprint efforts; and we want to create a global dialogue about ecological limits and overshoot. This is where our media and communications efforts come in - and television is a great way to reach a lot of people who are not already in the choir, so to speak.

It's easy to point out the flaws of celebrities' lifestyle choices, but the fact is they influence a lot of people and help create cultural shifts that in turn help influence business and policy decisions.

I'm wondering if you met with a lot of resistance when you initially presented the Ecological Footprint? Did people dismiss your ideas?

What comes AFTER developing the Ecological Footprint? It's one thing to have the information, it is quite another to know how to USE it to drive change. Do you envision linking footprint to tax mechanisms, regulations or some other form of driving individual and corporate behavior?

Regarding Global Warming questions:

the Carbon Footprint accounts for about 50% of the Ecological Footprint, and is much of the reason we are in Ecological Overshoot. So yes, Global Warming is a serious problem that humanity is facing right now, but focusing only on global warming and ignoring the other components of our Footprint in addressing that problem - for example, substituting biofuels for oil, will only create more problems. NO matter how you slice it we can't live on more than one planet, and the Ecological Footprint can help us measure and monitor and find ways to live well and live within the means of the one planet we have.

Robin - I've been working with the Ecological Footprint for 18 years now. People still resist, but more and more people are accepting both the reality of Ecological limits and the value of the Ecological Footprint as a tool to help us move on a path towards sustainability.

The resistance to the simple idea of "there is only one planet Earth" has always been puzzling. But this also makes it exciting -- it's the most fascinating and relevant puzzle to solve. I am so smitten by it that I have not swayed from addressing the question, only adjusted the strategies.

Dr. Wackernagel, thank you for joining us this afternoon. And thank you to all the Gather members who participated. Until next time!

Tune into the Sundance Channel tonight, Tuesday, July 3rd at 9 p.m. to see Dr. Wackernagel and learn more about ecological footprints.

Rob - great question. We have some great information on our website (www.footprintnetwork.org - applications section and partner pages) of the various applications of the Ecological Footprint by business, government, and our 80 partners around the world. It is already being used in government as a policy setting tool - it helps sustainability policy makers figure out where to focus their energy, and then also helps them set targets and measure progress. There are many different ways to use this information to create policy. One interesting site to check out may be that of a recent Academic conference in Wales on the Ecological Footprint that I attended. You can check out all the papers people submitted on the topic online to see the variety of work that has been done just this past year on this topic, both technical work and policy applications: http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/events/International_Ecological_Footprint_Conference--Conference_Papers.html

Looks like time is up - its been a pleasure, thank you all so much for tuning in and for your great questions. Sorry I could not keep up with all of them. You can find a lot of great information, reports, news stories, etcetera on our website at www.footprintnetwork.org.

Warm wishes to you all,

Mathis

Great thread! I was hoping to be able to sit on my computer at work for a while, but it was a really busy day.

Mathis, thanks for all of the great info!

T.J., it looks like the Global Footprint Network is trying to make a difference. Why all the negativity?

T.J., Where do you live? I live in the Upper Left Coast, Portland, Oregon, to narrow it down. I am struck when I leave here by how different it is everywhere else. People bike like crazy here: there was even a Naked Bike Ride on a cold Oregon night, 700 people (too many to efficiently bust, and being naked is only marginally illegal here I guess) during Bike Palooza. Sorry for the run-on sentence, but I am having that kind of day, and maybe no one but you will read my post either. I tend to be more anarchist than tidy people can stand.

Another thing about Portland is the wonderful alarmist nature of the choir here. I heard about the Peak Oilers because I am on the Permaculture Guild list. The Peak Oilers have wonderful quirky things like the move about the Cuban necessity of going least-centralized agriculturally, all of a sudden, when the Soviets closed the pipeline. Here, it would have been a PR coup of healthfulness to have our people lose an average of 20 to 30 pounds each. The surgeon general would have been crowing and trying to take credit, trying to figure that his lecturing actually got through to people.

The most wonderful example of an anti-establishmentarian who actually lived to become a legend is Fukuoka of Japan. He has said that even in Japan, a quarter acre for each person is doable and would provide enough food for each.

I recommend Toby Hemenway's Gaia's Garden for a scientist's heartening and matter-of-fact, discovery way of dismissing excess gloom and a lack of focus on local issues.

If you want to irritate or entertain yourself, I also recommend visiting City Repair's website. I love playing in the clay with them, but I never expect posted times for their events to be the actual times that things will happen, unless I know the individual who is organizing that particular thing.

I nominate TJ for the Creative Grumpiness award. It is so refreshing to hear from someone outside the choir, "crossing the edge", Toby Hemenway would say.

Thanks, TJ.

Mary S.

It is great that this happened. I a relatively recent member, and didn't know about this site. I'm looking forward to notification of upcoming matters.
best regards, aeliot.