Month: November 2023

• (Published as “Ecological footprint doesn’t include impact of methane, loss of biodiversity”

The way the ecological footprint is calculated means the estimate that Saanich’s is equivalent to four planets is an underestimate

Dr. Trevor Hancock

20 November 2023

700 words

Important though the ecological footprint is, the way it is calculated means the estimate that Saanich’s ecological footprint is equivalent to four planets is an underestimate. That is because a lot of different activities – energy use, food growing, materials for buildings, modes of transportation, waste disposal – are all expressed as a measure of land area used. It is a useful measure of our impact on the Earth, but it is incomplete, because not everything can be converted to an area of land.

We need to be aware of this, so we do not only focus on the footprint and neglect other important ways in which what we do in Saanich has a harmful impact on the local, regional and global ecosystems that sustain us and all life. 

So this week I want to explore the first two of three key areas of human impact not adequately captured by the ecological footprint, but that still need to be addressed if we are to become a One Planet Region. These map to the three global ecological crises described by the UN – climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.

The ecological footprint does not measure climate change or energy use per se, but measures carbon emissions and converts that into the area of land that would need to be planted in trees to absorb that amount of emissions. However, that does not work for methane – a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas – because it is not taken up and sequestered by nature. So the footprint does not account for methane, despite its global warming potential.

Back in 2009, researchers at the University of Limerick in Ireland estimated the impact of including methane in Ireland’s ecological footprint. They found that if the global warming potential of methane were included, Ireland’s footprint would be about 20 percent higher.    

This underestimate of the footprint assumes greater significance when we recognise that the amount of methane being released to the atmosphere is far greater than corporations and governments have been telling us. Gas systems leak at all points from extraction through transmission in pipelines to end use; if the gas is turned into LNG there are also leaks during the liquefaction and shipping stages.

The crucial question is how much they leak. A 2023 article in Environmental Research Letters reported that leakage of anywhere between 2 and 9 percent (depending on the timeframe used) still means that replacing coal with gas is beneficial. But that same article noted that leakage rates in the US can be as high as 66 percent, while the recent ‘Production Gap Report’ from, among others, the UN Environment Programme, notes that improved measurements of “methane leakage along the gas supply chain have substantially reduced the expected climate benefits of replacing coal with gas.”   

The second ecological crisis that is not included in an estimate of Saanich’s ecological footprint is the loss of biodiversity. The Global Footprint Network clearly states: “The Ecological Footprint is not an indicator of the state of biodiversity, and the impact of a particular activity or process on biodiversity does not directly affect the Ecological Footprint calculation for that activity.”

However, the Network adds, “the Ecological Footprint can be used as a large-scale indicator of the underlying drivers or pressures that cause biodiversity loss.” So we need to recognise both that a four (or more) planet footprint places an enormous strain on nature and also document all the ways in which we harm ecosystems and reduce biodiversity, whether it be damaging local streams and their salmon runs or eating a high-meat diet sourced in part from the conversion of the Amazon rainforest to pasture.

The third impact that is not well represented by the ecological footprint is our use and dispersal of toxic chemicals: “Toxics and pollutants released from the human economy that cannot in any way be absorbed or broken down by biological processes . . .  cannot be directly assigned an Ecological Footprint”, notes the Network.

Next week I will discuss the increasingly alarming toll of these chemicals on both human health and the health of other species and entire ecosystems, and what we need to do locally about that, as well as about methane emissions and biodiversity loss.

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Obvious ways to reduce our ecological  footprint include switching to a low meat or “flexitarian” diet,  reducing food waste and creating compact, walkable “15-minute”  neighbourhoods

Dr. Trevor Hancock

14 November 2023

700 words

Over the past two weeks I have dug into the details of Saanich’s ‘four planets’ ecological footprint (EF), as calculated by CHRM Consulting. This week I look at the key recommmendations in the report for getting us to a ‘One Planet’ Saanich – which, of course, is also applicable to the whole region.

However, it is worth recalling that almost half (46 percent) of Saanich’s footprint is due to the activities of the federal and provincial governments, so while there is a lot that local governments and citizens can do to reduce our footprint, we also depend upon and must urge those governments to do their part.

The headlines from the report are:

• Our food consumption alone (24 percent of our EF) is equivalent to one planet, with 69 percent of that due to meat, fish, eggs and dairy consumption;
• Sixty two percent of the transport footprint (which is 17 percent of the EF) is due to light vehicles (mostly private) and 22 percent is attributable to air travel;
• Likewise, 62 percent of the buildings footprint (7 percent of the EF) is due to the energy used to operate our residential, commercial and institutional buildings; and finally
• Almost half the waste stream (which represents consumables and is 6 percent of the EF) is in the category of natural fiber textiles, rubber, and non-demolition wood waste and another quarter is paper, while 12 percent is plastic.

First, and understandably given the above, “an overarching priority for climate action is to minimize demand for energy and eliminate emissions from use of fossil fuels.” At a time when irresponsible political leaders are calling for a reduction or even elimination of the carbon tax, it is important to recognize that the tax is, as Minister Guilbeault stated a year ago, a tax on pollution. 

It is also important to recall that the ecological footprint does not include methane. But numerous reports and studies have shown that liquified natural gas (LNG) is not the ‘clean’ fuel it is marketed to be (nor is it ‘natural’). Indeed, once all the fugitive methane emissions from its extraction, transportation, liquefaction, further transportation and combustion are taken into account, it may be more damaging than coal. Which is why moves to prevent new gas heating installations in Nanaimo, Victoria and elsewhere make sense.

Given that the largest part of the footprint (after the federal and provincial governments’ share) comes from food and food waste, an obvious way to reduce our footprint is to switch to a low meat or ‘flexitarian’ diet, and to markedly reduce food waste at all stages along the supply chain. 

This should be coupled with federal and provincial initiatives to encourage and support sustainable agricultural practices, such as the recently announced Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership between the federal and provincial governments.

Also noteworthy is the second goal of the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s Service plan, which includes reference to regenerative, low-carbon farming, although there is not a single mention in the plan of either organic or ecological farming. Locally, the Sandown Centre for Regenerative Agriculture in North Saanich points the way to “a thriving, climate change-resilient, sustainable local food system.”

With respect to making transportation more sustainable, the report states: “We can have greater impact if we go beyond switching to electric vehicles and instead focus on reducing the demand for vehicle-based travel.” Supportive policies include creating compact, walkable ’15-minute neighbourhoods’, promoting electric vehicle sharing, and creating the infrastructure for walking, biking and rolling.

When it comes to buildings, BC’s Step Code supports municipalities in gradually increasing the energy efficiency of buildings. Saanich, for example, adopted the Zero Carbon Step Code earlier this year and “does not recognize Renewable Natural Gas for compliance.” Other useful measures include building smaller, multi-family, higher density homes that are more affordable, use fewer materials and require less heating and cooling.

Finally, we can reduce consumption and waste by placing more focus on sharing, re-use and repair in addition to recycling, and by buying less ‘stuff’.

In addition to the measures identified in the report, there are other areas of action that are not captured in the way the ecological footprint is measured. I will explore them next week.

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

• Published as “Digging into our transportation, buildings and consumables footprint”

Transportation, the next largest component after food, accounts for 17 per cent of Saanich’s ecological footprint, and fossil fuel accounts for almost all of that

Dr. Trevor Hancock

7 November 2023

701 words

Last week I began digging into the details of Saanich’s ‘four planets’ ecological footprint (EF), as calculated by CHRM Consulting; the report is available on the District of Saanich website. I looked at our food consumption and associated food waste, which at 24 percent is the largest share of the EF (setting aside the 46 percent of the EF that is due to the local activities of the provincial and federal governments). This week, I will look at the other three main categories – transportation, buildings, and consumables and waste.

Transportation, the next largest component after food, accounts for 17 percent of Saanich’s footprint. Fossil fuel (gasoline, diesel, aviation and marine fuel) accounts for almost all of that, including the fuel used to operate vehicles (60 percent of the transportation footprint) and to extract, process and transport those fossil fuels (a further 28 percent of the transport EF). Another 10 percent of the footprint is the energy embodied in the materials used to construct all those vehicles, which includes the impacts of extraction and processing of those materials, with the remaining 2 percent being the land area taken up by roads and related infrastucture (except parking lots).

When we examine the EF by type of transportation, the largest contributor is light duty vehicles (cars, light trucks) at 62 percent, followed by air travel (22 percent), heavy duty vehicles (6 percent), off-road vehicles (4 percent) and BC Ferries and other watercraft (3 percent). The reason for all the focus on private vehicle use and flying is obvious.

The third main category in Saanich’s overall EF, at 7 percent of the total, is buildings, and most (62 percent) of the EF of buildings is due to the energy used to operate them; heating, cooling, lighting and so on. A further 19 percent of the EF of buildings is due to the materials and energy embodied in their construction (i.e. the land area needed to extract and process the materials. used in construction, as well as the energy used for extraction, processing and construction) while a further 13 percent is due to the energy used to extract, process and transport the fuels used in the ‘operating’ category. Finally, the remaining 6 percent of the EF of buildings is the land area on which they sit.

The report also tells us that 65 percent of the buildings footprint is attributable to residential buildings, with the rest due to a combination of commercial and institutional buildings.

The category of consumables and waste, which represent 6 percent of Saanich’s EF, is actually calculated based on what is disposed of annually, based on a 2022 regional waste audit. The assumption is that, on the one hand, “the majority of materials consumed are disposed within the year”, and on the other that the “steady flow of durable goods disposed every year [is] equivalent to the new durable goods supply entering the region.” It also includes liquid waste, but that constitutes only a tiny fraction of the consumables and waste footprint.

The distinction between embodied materials and embodied energy is also important in this category. Embodied materials – “the forest and crop areas needed to produce the disposed of materials such as paper, wood, and textiles” – make up 44 percent of the EF of consumables and waste, with almost all the rest (52 percent) being the embodied energy of those materials – “the emissions associated with producing the materials”,

Importantly, the emissions reported do not include methane emissions from landfill and sewage systems, since unlike carbon emissions, methane cannot be sequestered, so it cannot be converted to a land equivalent in order to calculate the ecological footprint. This is a useful reminder that, if anything, the EF underestimates the true impact of our activities.

The largest component of consumables – 44 percent – is ‘non-compostable organics’, of which about 80 percent is textiles; paper comes next at 24 percent, then plastic (12 percent) and household hygiene products (9 percent).

Next week, I will look at what all this means for local action. What should we focus on, where are the big wins, and what policy actions do we need, not just locally, but provincially and federally, to create a One Planet region.

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

• (Published as “We need to get our ecological footprint down to one planet”)

Over two-thirds of our food footprint is attributable to animal-based foods, which are much more energy and land-intensive

Dr. Trevor Hancock

31 October 2023

702 words

As I reported last week, CHRM Consulting has just completed an updated report on the ecological footprint of Saanich, which is available on the District of Saanich website. The report found Saanich’s footprint was equivalent to four planets’ worth of biocapacity each year, meaning we require four times more biologically productive land and water area than is available to us on a fair global basis.

Of that, almost half (46 percent) results from “senior government impacts”, including “infrastructure and services provided to citizens that are not captured at the local level”. We pay for them through our federal and provincial taxes, so they are not included in the consumption data used in the ecoCity Footprint Tool to calculate the local footprint.

The remaining 54 percent consists of the footprint associated with food (24 percent), transportation (17 percent), buildings (7 percent) and consumables and waste (6 percent). The report provides considerable detail on what makes up each component of the footprint, and what can be done to reduce our footprint, with the aim of getting to a One Planet footprint as soon as possible.

Our food consumption (and waste) is the largest component outside of senior government impacts. Since local data on food consumption was not available – it would need a special survey – national averages were used instead. Thus this report tells us about what our impact is and what would need to happen nationally, and presumably, for the most part, locally.

First, food accounts for 20 percent of what is known as our consumption-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; that is, emissions anywhere in the world associated with the production, processing and distribution of the food we consume in Canada. Of that, only 9 percent of the emissions come from the transportation of food, meaning we need to focus mainly on what we eat, rather than where it comes from.

This is in fact an underestimate, as the way the footprint is calculated does not include methane, and we know farming is a major source of methane. The UN Environment Programmme reports agriculture accounts for about 40 percent of all human-linked methane emissions, mainly from livestock (manure and animal emissions – cow farts, to put it simply) but also from rice paddies. Moreover, because methane is a more potent GHG than CO₂ and only remains in the atmosphere for a decade or so, an increase or reduction in methane can have quite a rapid impact on global warming over the short term.

Overall, the footprint of our food consumption alone is equivalent to one planet, in part because of the amount of land needed to produce our food. As a recent article in Anthropocene Magazine noted, “Planet Earth is basically a farm . . . over half of all habitable land is used for agriculture.” More than half of the food footprint (54 percent) is due to our consumption of meat, fish and eggs, with a further 15 percent due to dairy consumption, meaning over two-thirds (69 percent) is attributable to animal-based foods, which are much more energy and land-intensive.

Moreover, the report notes, “In Canada, about half the food we produce is wasted”, with a significant part of that waste occurring in the supply chain. So not surprisingly, the report suggests: “We can achieve dramatic reduction in our footprint and emissions if we prioritize reducing food waste across the supply chain and also shift to low carbon food choices.”

But reducing the ecological footprint of our agrifood system is not simply a matter of changing what we eat and wasting less food. There are implications for the entire system of agriculture, as a recent article in PLOS Climate showed. The international team of researchers used a global food system model to examine how the agrifood system could actually remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. They conclude that while low-meat ‘flexitarian’ diets can contribute, the largest impacts will come from “hydrogen-powered fertilizer production, livestock feeds, organic and inorganic soil amendments, agroforestry, and sustainable seafood harvesting practices”, all of which we could and should do locally.

Next week I will look at what the report says about transportation, buildings, and consumables and waste, and what else it will take to get to a One Planet Saanich.

© Trevor Hancock, 2023

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy