Frequently Asked Questions
How do you calculate an Ecological Footprint?
Ecological Footprints can be calculated for individuals, companies, governments, or for a specific product from a business (i.e., smartphone). Individual footprints are calculated by adding up all of people’s (or companies) demands that compete for biologically productive space, such as cropland to grow potatoes or cotton, or forest to produce timber or to sequester carbon dioxide emissions. All of these materials and wastes are then individually translated into an equivalent number of global hectares.
How do you convert an Ecological Footprint (Individual) into a Biodiversity Credit?
In short, there is no easy way to convert an Ecological Footprint into a Biodiversity Credit. For one, an ecological footprint doesn't necessarily translate into species or biodiversity loss - nor does it incorporate the loss of True Value. Instead, an Ecological Footprint represent an amount of land use to sustain an individual. It does not take into account what species may be impacted, the likelihood that a species lost can be replaced ecologically or evolutionarily-speaking, pollution associated with consumption of different products, nor does it incorporate other value not easily translated into a capitalistic system (i.e., intrinsic value).
Instead, TCF uses a qualitative assessment of Ecological Footprint and converts it to an equivalent Biodiversity Credit which we have standardized. For example, someone who uses 10x's the resources of another individual would need to purchase 10x's the Biodiversity Credits. As a result, they would need to either protect habitat associated with more biodiversity or simply protect more lower-quality habitat.
How do you calculate a Biodiversity Credit associated with a particular project or habitat protection?
Biodiversity is most easily calculated at the species level. The number of species is an indicator of overall biodiversity. However, trying to calculate the number of species is very difficult because of logistical constraints and also because most species have yet to even be described (How many species haven't we found yet?). Instead, scientists usually use indicator species or forest cover as an indicator of overall biodiversity coupled with environmental predictors of biodiversity (e.g., elevation and latitude). Another way is to use qualitative assessments of forest type to infer biodiversity.
TCF uses different metrics depending on the needs of those purchasing a Biodiversity Credits. For individuals, we use an internal qualitative assessment that standardizes the amount of biodiversity likely to be protected based on forest cover and environmental predictors (elevation and latitude). For example, a reforestation project can potentially restore habitat for many species but currently holds a lower biodiversity value since it can't support many species. Whereas for businesses who may need to meet a specific standardization, then we use a quantitative assessment established by GLOBIO methodology.
Why should you care about biodiversity?
Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals (Ceballos et al. 2015). We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century. 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species' extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel.
What is the True Cost of Biodiversity?
We have 7 billion people on this planet that are dependent on the services provided by our forests and our oceans, yet we as a society invest very little in its health and continued prosperity. What we are seeing across the planet is unregulated destruction of the Amazon rainforest for timber and gold which reduces our ability to maintain basic services such as clean air and water, the loss of coral reefs which sustain fishing communities and ecotourism across the planet, the over-exploitation of wildlife resulting in the extinction of species at an unprecedented rate never seen before in our planet's history, introduction of invasive species as a result of globalization which has the unintended consequence of drastically impacting ecosystems that people depend upon, and pollution by individuals and corporations that prevents us from having basic services such as potable water and safe fish to eat.
Ecosystem services are those natural processes that benefit people and the rest of life on the planet, providing everything we need - healthy soils, pollinating insects, trees that provide us with oxygen, rivers and oceans that feed us, all for free. We are talking about an enormous valuation: the top 17 ecosystem services are worth more each year than the entire global economy - tens of trillions of dollars. Interestingly, biodiversity - which represents the diversity of life on the planet and is often measured by species richness - is a concept often ignored in these valuations. Consider the loss of crop pollinators, currently valued at over $100 billion worldwide. This work is currently done for free. However, wide-scale use of pesticides is thought to have resulted in the collapse of colonies - particularly in North America - requiring farmers to hire companies to bring in hives. This is just one species that we depend upon. Think of all the other species out there that provide services. At least 10 million species exist, and yet scientists have hardly begun to understand their contribution to ecosystems or what benefit they might have for people.
Herein lies the problem. We know species, ecosystems, and the planet as a whole are valuable. And yet, we still have not developed a global wide solution to protecting life on the planet, which inevitably protects us as a species. In fact, many politicians in the U.S. are currently attempting to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Park Service, and the Endangered Species Act. The proponents of such attacks argue that these agencies and protections are limiting growth and that states should have full control of these lands to benefit the economy and add jobs. Others have somehow eluded to the notion that protection of oceans and forests is inherently incompatible with economic growth - as though somehow we can't have a healthy planet and provide jobs and grow the economy. The most short-sighted argument is that the EPA should take into account the true costs of implementing regulations such as job impedance, meanwhile ignoring the costs associated with human health from respiratory illnesses, brownfield sites due to corporate negligence, pollution of rivers, lakes, and oceans, job loss due to oil spills, and all the costs associated with climate change.
In both cases, the exact opposite is true. Our continued economic growth and prosperity as a people is entirely dependent on a healthy, thriving, environment. The difference is that we are talking about short-term gain at the expense of long-term prosperity. For example, when oil companies demand pipelines to move petroleum from oil tar sands in Canada, they will benefit financially from increased production. However, every single person on this planet pays the price of this action, as well as future generations. Use of fossil fuels will accelerate climate change, resulting in loss of real estate along coasts, increased droughts and wildfires, the spread of infectious diseases and health-related costs, loss of biodiversity due to changing climate patterns, higher energy demands and costs associated with warmer temperatures, and increased hurricane risks. This also overlooks the inevitable oil spill which will also cost the public dearly. With 300 oil spills each year in the U.S. and 8700 accidents since 1986, the cost is astronomical. The BP Deep Horizon oil spill alone cost $61.6 billion in lost wages, environmental damage, and clean-up.
In the case of the EPA, the governmental organization is in place to protect the people and those ecosystems that they depend upon. Far too often throughout the world, a few individuals will benefit at the expense of everyone else. In economic theory, this is referred to as the tragedy of the commons - resources available to all are exploited by a few individuals to the detriment of the whole. A few corporations may benefit from large scale extraction of oil and may even contribute to job growth - though recent evidence suggests that the oil industry provides far fewer jobs than green jobs associated with wind and solar. However, the majority of the world does not benefit and in many cases suffers due to the direct and indirect impacts of increased oil exploration.
What hope is there then to preserve our environment and incorporate the true value of nature and its services into a market economy? First, people need to take into account the true cost of whatever they consume whether it be energy, transportation, housing, food and clothing. Combined, this is often referred to as an ecological footprint. The true cost of consumables would automatically be passed onto the consumer if rules and regulations enforced sustainable quotas and policies. For instance, by demanding that companies meet universally accepted human rights and environmental standards, we would essentially be pricing the true cost of being sustainable into the fair market price. Companies wouldn't be able to avert these costs by moving to environmentally sensitive areas, sourcing materials from some of the most fragile areas of the planet, and paying slave-labor wages. If a world-wide universal standard was enforced, then there would be little incentive to move jobs to areas where people and the environment can be exploited. Secondly, we still need protected areas in which communities, organizations, and governments work to protect their biodiversity. One way to do this is to pay developing countries for the ecosystem services that they provide. For example, the Amazon rainforest is a trillion dollar treasure and developed countries need to pay their fair sure if we all want to benefit from its long-term existence. Certainly you cannot expect developing countries who are having trouble feeding their people to ignore the pot of gold in their backyard. Lastly, in order to truly understand the value of all species on this planet, we need to know what actually exists. As of today, roughly 1.5 million species have been described by scientists. At the very least, there remain several million more. There is little chance in protecting what we have yet to describe and understand, and a major shift in thinking is needed with considerably more resources devoted to tackling this undertaking. All of this needs to happen now. There is no second chance, there is no back-up planet. If we act now, there's still hope for a healthy planet and a prosperous economy, but we need to make gigantic strides now and make the same substantial investments in our planet that we make in every other part of our society.
So What's the Solution?
There is no easy answer. However, we believe there are several fundamental steps that need to be taken.
First, the main dangers of biodiversity loss are population growth and resource consumption. So how can we make sure that we don't lose more species, and that all levels of biological diversity are maintained?
Paradigm Shift
Maybe more important than any one decision each of us makes, we need a societal paradigm shift that stops focusing solely on infinite economic growth which doesn't value the environment or the welfare of the people. And yet, the current economic system is entirely dependent on nature's resources. Instead, a shift is needed towards a system which integrates people into nature, a system that places value on both people and the environment, and one that doesn't reward those who harm the same system that we are all inextricably dependent upon. This is illustrated in the concept of Deep Ecology and is further discussed here: True Cost. This is also the premise of our Biodiversity Offset Program.
Consumption
Secondly, one way to measure your impact on the planet, is a carbon footprint. A carbon footprint represents the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product. It is calculated by summing the emissions emanating from all facets of a persons life. This includes all aspects of consumption. For example, all emissions from every stage of a product or service’s lifetime (material production, manufacturing, use phase, and end-of-life disposal). Developed nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions. Obviously, these uneven contributions to the climate problem are at the core of the challenges the world community faces in finding effective and equitable solutions.
People can be encouraged and educated about what products to purchase - or not purchase - that limit their impact on the planet. For example, see how eating meat greatly increases your impact, or the use of non-certified palm oil contributes to deforestation. And your impact isn't limited to food. Consider that having another child, driving your car, and trans-atlantic flights all contribute significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. There are no shortage of ways to limit your impact by changing behavior. But recent research suggests that people are willing to adjust their consumption if given enough information: Carbon Footprint Labeling Impacts Shopper Behavior.
Deforestation, Habitat degradation, and Forest fragmentation
We have a deforestation problem of epic proportions driven mainly by the consumption of just four commodities--beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products. Not only is this a problem that impacts global climate change, but it also is a driving force behind species extinctions. Companies can make an impact by introducing “zero deforestation” policies that clean up their supply chains. That means holding their suppliers accountable for producing commodities like timber, beef, soy, palm oil and paper in a way that does not fuel deforestation and has a minimal impact on our climate. Companies should set ambitious targets to maximize the use of recycled wood, pulp, paper and fiber in their products. Consumers should be encouraged to make informed decisions about the products that they purchase. People can make a difference by consuming less, eating sustainable food, and choosing recycled or certified sustainable wood products. For example, consumption of non-certified palm-oil is having a devastating impact on tropical forests. This is also the premise of our Biodiversity Offset Program.
Human Population Growth
Worldwide population growth alone isn't the problem. Rising consumption in all countries - particularly those in developed countries - is even more problematic. In many cases, growth rates are slowing, but even slower growth rates in areas with high consumption rates is fueling our impact on the planet. So how do you curb global growth in an egalitarian society? Education is likely the most effective way. Effective family planning, sex education, and K-12 education worldwide have great potential to slow growth or reduce the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the long-term, in addition to generating other social advantages, such as fewer abortions, lower maternal mortality, and social justice for women. In many countries including the United States, the government actually encourages population growth through tax breaks for parents with children. Clearly, if we are to reduce populations, we should be incentivizing people to not have them, but most governments want to grow their tax base (and spending), not reduce it. Interestingly, with a growing divide in wealth in developed countries, we are actually beginning to see fewer young people having children - largely driven by finances. A reduction in the population growth rate can have large consequences on climate change, deforestation, and presumably extinction rates. Other steps that can reduce global population growth rates:
Ecological Footprints can be calculated for individuals, companies, governments, or for a specific product from a business (i.e., smartphone). Individual footprints are calculated by adding up all of people’s (or companies) demands that compete for biologically productive space, such as cropland to grow potatoes or cotton, or forest to produce timber or to sequester carbon dioxide emissions. All of these materials and wastes are then individually translated into an equivalent number of global hectares.
How do you convert an Ecological Footprint (Individual) into a Biodiversity Credit?
In short, there is no easy way to convert an Ecological Footprint into a Biodiversity Credit. For one, an ecological footprint doesn't necessarily translate into species or biodiversity loss - nor does it incorporate the loss of True Value. Instead, an Ecological Footprint represent an amount of land use to sustain an individual. It does not take into account what species may be impacted, the likelihood that a species lost can be replaced ecologically or evolutionarily-speaking, pollution associated with consumption of different products, nor does it incorporate other value not easily translated into a capitalistic system (i.e., intrinsic value).
Instead, TCF uses a qualitative assessment of Ecological Footprint and converts it to an equivalent Biodiversity Credit which we have standardized. For example, someone who uses 10x's the resources of another individual would need to purchase 10x's the Biodiversity Credits. As a result, they would need to either protect habitat associated with more biodiversity or simply protect more lower-quality habitat.
How do you calculate a Biodiversity Credit associated with a particular project or habitat protection?
Biodiversity is most easily calculated at the species level. The number of species is an indicator of overall biodiversity. However, trying to calculate the number of species is very difficult because of logistical constraints and also because most species have yet to even be described (How many species haven't we found yet?). Instead, scientists usually use indicator species or forest cover as an indicator of overall biodiversity coupled with environmental predictors of biodiversity (e.g., elevation and latitude). Another way is to use qualitative assessments of forest type to infer biodiversity.
TCF uses different metrics depending on the needs of those purchasing a Biodiversity Credits. For individuals, we use an internal qualitative assessment that standardizes the amount of biodiversity likely to be protected based on forest cover and environmental predictors (elevation and latitude). For example, a reforestation project can potentially restore habitat for many species but currently holds a lower biodiversity value since it can't support many species. Whereas for businesses who may need to meet a specific standardization, then we use a quantitative assessment established by GLOBIO methodology.
Why should you care about biodiversity?
Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals (Ceballos et al. 2015). We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century. 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species' extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel.
What is the True Cost of Biodiversity?
We have 7 billion people on this planet that are dependent on the services provided by our forests and our oceans, yet we as a society invest very little in its health and continued prosperity. What we are seeing across the planet is unregulated destruction of the Amazon rainforest for timber and gold which reduces our ability to maintain basic services such as clean air and water, the loss of coral reefs which sustain fishing communities and ecotourism across the planet, the over-exploitation of wildlife resulting in the extinction of species at an unprecedented rate never seen before in our planet's history, introduction of invasive species as a result of globalization which has the unintended consequence of drastically impacting ecosystems that people depend upon, and pollution by individuals and corporations that prevents us from having basic services such as potable water and safe fish to eat.
Ecosystem services are those natural processes that benefit people and the rest of life on the planet, providing everything we need - healthy soils, pollinating insects, trees that provide us with oxygen, rivers and oceans that feed us, all for free. We are talking about an enormous valuation: the top 17 ecosystem services are worth more each year than the entire global economy - tens of trillions of dollars. Interestingly, biodiversity - which represents the diversity of life on the planet and is often measured by species richness - is a concept often ignored in these valuations. Consider the loss of crop pollinators, currently valued at over $100 billion worldwide. This work is currently done for free. However, wide-scale use of pesticides is thought to have resulted in the collapse of colonies - particularly in North America - requiring farmers to hire companies to bring in hives. This is just one species that we depend upon. Think of all the other species out there that provide services. At least 10 million species exist, and yet scientists have hardly begun to understand their contribution to ecosystems or what benefit they might have for people.
Herein lies the problem. We know species, ecosystems, and the planet as a whole are valuable. And yet, we still have not developed a global wide solution to protecting life on the planet, which inevitably protects us as a species. In fact, many politicians in the U.S. are currently attempting to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Park Service, and the Endangered Species Act. The proponents of such attacks argue that these agencies and protections are limiting growth and that states should have full control of these lands to benefit the economy and add jobs. Others have somehow eluded to the notion that protection of oceans and forests is inherently incompatible with economic growth - as though somehow we can't have a healthy planet and provide jobs and grow the economy. The most short-sighted argument is that the EPA should take into account the true costs of implementing regulations such as job impedance, meanwhile ignoring the costs associated with human health from respiratory illnesses, brownfield sites due to corporate negligence, pollution of rivers, lakes, and oceans, job loss due to oil spills, and all the costs associated with climate change.
In both cases, the exact opposite is true. Our continued economic growth and prosperity as a people is entirely dependent on a healthy, thriving, environment. The difference is that we are talking about short-term gain at the expense of long-term prosperity. For example, when oil companies demand pipelines to move petroleum from oil tar sands in Canada, they will benefit financially from increased production. However, every single person on this planet pays the price of this action, as well as future generations. Use of fossil fuels will accelerate climate change, resulting in loss of real estate along coasts, increased droughts and wildfires, the spread of infectious diseases and health-related costs, loss of biodiversity due to changing climate patterns, higher energy demands and costs associated with warmer temperatures, and increased hurricane risks. This also overlooks the inevitable oil spill which will also cost the public dearly. With 300 oil spills each year in the U.S. and 8700 accidents since 1986, the cost is astronomical. The BP Deep Horizon oil spill alone cost $61.6 billion in lost wages, environmental damage, and clean-up.
In the case of the EPA, the governmental organization is in place to protect the people and those ecosystems that they depend upon. Far too often throughout the world, a few individuals will benefit at the expense of everyone else. In economic theory, this is referred to as the tragedy of the commons - resources available to all are exploited by a few individuals to the detriment of the whole. A few corporations may benefit from large scale extraction of oil and may even contribute to job growth - though recent evidence suggests that the oil industry provides far fewer jobs than green jobs associated with wind and solar. However, the majority of the world does not benefit and in many cases suffers due to the direct and indirect impacts of increased oil exploration.
What hope is there then to preserve our environment and incorporate the true value of nature and its services into a market economy? First, people need to take into account the true cost of whatever they consume whether it be energy, transportation, housing, food and clothing. Combined, this is often referred to as an ecological footprint. The true cost of consumables would automatically be passed onto the consumer if rules and regulations enforced sustainable quotas and policies. For instance, by demanding that companies meet universally accepted human rights and environmental standards, we would essentially be pricing the true cost of being sustainable into the fair market price. Companies wouldn't be able to avert these costs by moving to environmentally sensitive areas, sourcing materials from some of the most fragile areas of the planet, and paying slave-labor wages. If a world-wide universal standard was enforced, then there would be little incentive to move jobs to areas where people and the environment can be exploited. Secondly, we still need protected areas in which communities, organizations, and governments work to protect their biodiversity. One way to do this is to pay developing countries for the ecosystem services that they provide. For example, the Amazon rainforest is a trillion dollar treasure and developed countries need to pay their fair sure if we all want to benefit from its long-term existence. Certainly you cannot expect developing countries who are having trouble feeding their people to ignore the pot of gold in their backyard. Lastly, in order to truly understand the value of all species on this planet, we need to know what actually exists. As of today, roughly 1.5 million species have been described by scientists. At the very least, there remain several million more. There is little chance in protecting what we have yet to describe and understand, and a major shift in thinking is needed with considerably more resources devoted to tackling this undertaking. All of this needs to happen now. There is no second chance, there is no back-up planet. If we act now, there's still hope for a healthy planet and a prosperous economy, but we need to make gigantic strides now and make the same substantial investments in our planet that we make in every other part of our society.
So What's the Solution?
There is no easy answer. However, we believe there are several fundamental steps that need to be taken.
First, the main dangers of biodiversity loss are population growth and resource consumption. So how can we make sure that we don't lose more species, and that all levels of biological diversity are maintained?
Paradigm Shift
Maybe more important than any one decision each of us makes, we need a societal paradigm shift that stops focusing solely on infinite economic growth which doesn't value the environment or the welfare of the people. And yet, the current economic system is entirely dependent on nature's resources. Instead, a shift is needed towards a system which integrates people into nature, a system that places value on both people and the environment, and one that doesn't reward those who harm the same system that we are all inextricably dependent upon. This is illustrated in the concept of Deep Ecology and is further discussed here: True Cost. This is also the premise of our Biodiversity Offset Program.
Consumption
Secondly, one way to measure your impact on the planet, is a carbon footprint. A carbon footprint represents the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product. It is calculated by summing the emissions emanating from all facets of a persons life. This includes all aspects of consumption. For example, all emissions from every stage of a product or service’s lifetime (material production, manufacturing, use phase, and end-of-life disposal). Developed nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions. Obviously, these uneven contributions to the climate problem are at the core of the challenges the world community faces in finding effective and equitable solutions.
People can be encouraged and educated about what products to purchase - or not purchase - that limit their impact on the planet. For example, see how eating meat greatly increases your impact, or the use of non-certified palm oil contributes to deforestation. And your impact isn't limited to food. Consider that having another child, driving your car, and trans-atlantic flights all contribute significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. There are no shortage of ways to limit your impact by changing behavior. But recent research suggests that people are willing to adjust their consumption if given enough information: Carbon Footprint Labeling Impacts Shopper Behavior.
Deforestation, Habitat degradation, and Forest fragmentation
We have a deforestation problem of epic proportions driven mainly by the consumption of just four commodities--beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products. Not only is this a problem that impacts global climate change, but it also is a driving force behind species extinctions. Companies can make an impact by introducing “zero deforestation” policies that clean up their supply chains. That means holding their suppliers accountable for producing commodities like timber, beef, soy, palm oil and paper in a way that does not fuel deforestation and has a minimal impact on our climate. Companies should set ambitious targets to maximize the use of recycled wood, pulp, paper and fiber in their products. Consumers should be encouraged to make informed decisions about the products that they purchase. People can make a difference by consuming less, eating sustainable food, and choosing recycled or certified sustainable wood products. For example, consumption of non-certified palm-oil is having a devastating impact on tropical forests. This is also the premise of our Biodiversity Offset Program.
Human Population Growth
Worldwide population growth alone isn't the problem. Rising consumption in all countries - particularly those in developed countries - is even more problematic. In many cases, growth rates are slowing, but even slower growth rates in areas with high consumption rates is fueling our impact on the planet. So how do you curb global growth in an egalitarian society? Education is likely the most effective way. Effective family planning, sex education, and K-12 education worldwide have great potential to slow growth or reduce the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the long-term, in addition to generating other social advantages, such as fewer abortions, lower maternal mortality, and social justice for women. In many countries including the United States, the government actually encourages population growth through tax breaks for parents with children. Clearly, if we are to reduce populations, we should be incentivizing people to not have them, but most governments want to grow their tax base (and spending), not reduce it. Interestingly, with a growing divide in wealth in developed countries, we are actually beginning to see fewer young people having children - largely driven by finances. A reduction in the population growth rate can have large consequences on climate change, deforestation, and presumably extinction rates. Other steps that can reduce global population growth rates:
- Provide universal access to safe and effective contraceptive options for both sexes. With nearly two in five pregnancies reported as mistimed or never wanted, lack of access to good family planning services is among the biggest gaps in assuring that each baby will be wanted and welcomed in advance by its parents.
- Guarantee education through at least secondary school for all, especially girls. In every culture surveyed to date, women who have completed at least some secondary school have fewer children on average, and have children later in life, than do women who have less education.