ecological footprint of california - advisory committee on water
TRANSCRIPT
Ecological Footprint of California Global Footprint Network in support of EPA's California
Footprint Project
Joy Larson
The Ecological Footprint
CARBON footprint
Biocapacity: How much
bioproductive area is available to us?
Ecological Footprint: How much bioproductive
area do we demand?
Accounting Framework
3
Biocapacity
per person
Ecological Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Biocapacity
per person
Italy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Glo
bal h
ec
atr
es
pe
r c
ap
ita
United States of America
Carbon Cropland Grazing land Fishing ground Forest land Built-up land
0
1
2
3
4
5
Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing Land Fishing Grounds Forest Land Built-up Land
Glo
bal h
ec
tare
s p
er
ca
pit
a
California USA
In total, California was responsible for 7
percent of the total U.S. Ecological Footprint,
while comprising 12 percent of the population.
Ecological Footprint from consumption from carbon emissions nearly 2 gha less (36 percent less) than USA. This difference could be due to use of hydroelectric.
Surprising results, such as that California consumes 35 percent less agricultural and fishery products (in gha) may be due to weaknesses in the State level trade data.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Ecological Footprint Biocapacity
Glo
bal h
ec
tare
s p
er
ca
pit
a
California
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
In 2008, the estimated biocapacity of
California was 36.2 million global
hectares
This is 23% of the demanded California Ecological Footprint
Represents only 3% of the biocapacity available in the whole of the U.S. (1.2 billion global hectares)
At 1.0 gha per person the biocapacity of California is much less than the national average of 3.9 gha per person
California’s Ecological Footprint by Land Use
Net importer of crop, fish, and forest products
• crop production accounts for 52% of consumption
• fish production accounts for 27% of consumption
• Forest production accounts for 32% of consumption
Net exporter of grazing land products, producing more than it consumes.
In conclusion…
Although California has a large economy and benefits from increases in crop prices, it is still reliant on imports. This poses a potential risk as global resources prices increase.
Potential next steps for deficit reduction
Evaluate Footprint of Production vs GDP – how much nature does it take to produce GDP?
Evaluate the costs of inputs like water and fossil fuel
To what extent are we losing ecological capital needed to maintain high productivity (ground water, soils, rain)?