Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
PRESENTATION TO UTAH CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, OCT. 6, 2011 Environment and Prosperity: Examining Long-Range Planning and Resource Limitations in the 21st Century UTAH VITAL SIGNS Ecological Footprint of Utah and Utah GPI Report Brief Overview of Research and Implications by Wayne Martinson, Chair Utah Population and Environment Coalition Oct. 6, 2011 MISSION STATEMENT FOR UPEC We believe it is our responsibility as citizens of the earth to be concerned about the environment, sustainability, and population. Furthermore, we place special value on the unique heritage and landscape of the state of Utah. UTAH VITAL SIGNS Goal: To empower Utah citizens and key decision-makers to make better decisions about their future by providing clear, well documented information about key indicators of environmental sustainability in Utah. UTAH VITAL SIGNS Taking available data and turning it into information that people can use Result: indicators of sustainability Two studies have been completed The Utah Ecological Footprint Study was completed in Summer 2007. The Utah Genuine Progress Indicator Report was completed in January, 2011. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Resource accounting tool that compares Humanity’s demand (Footprint) Nature’s renewable supply (Biocapacity) ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Established standards maintained by international organization Based upon human demand on the Earth – not wildlife needs Based on actual yields from productive land ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Expressed in global hectares per person 1 hectare (ha) = 100 meters x 100 meters = 2.47 acres = 2 football fields or 1 large soccer field global hectare (gha) = hectare with world-average ability to produce resources and absorb wastes EARTH’S FOOTPRINT TO BIOCAPACITY RATIO FOOTPRINTS ACROSS THE WORLD FOOTPRINT SCENARIOS STUDY BOUNDARIES FOR UTAH REPORT Geographical: State of Utah Time: two different years 1990 • Base year for Kyoto Protocol • Last year of net out-migration in Utah • Population still under 2 million 2003 • Last year of complete data from many sources RESULTS FOR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF UTAH, SANDRA MCINTYRE, PROJECT DIRECTOR AND HELEN PETERS, LEAD RESEARCHER In 1990, Utah was living within its means By 2003, after the growth of the 1990s, we were in ecological overshoot: Footprint: 9.9 gha/capita Biocapacity: 8.9 gha/capita Comparison 1990 global hectares (thousands) Land types Cropland Footprint Biocapacity 1,987 2,675 783 4,167 2,192 18,682 Fisheries 423 34 Built land 816 456 Pasture Forest Energy land TOTAL 8,973 15,174 26,014 Comparison 2003 global hectares (thousands) Land types Footprint Biocapacity Cropland 2,447 2,663 Pasture 1,150 3,840 Forest 3,030 13,951 Fisheries 560 27 Built land 1,136 976 Energy land TOTAL 15,526 23,849 21,457 COMPARING UTAH’S FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY GOING INTO “ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT” SURPLUS VS. DEFICIT DATA AVAILABILITY Now available online: Full report Utah data National and international data (as licensed) Calculation formulas Charts in Excel and as GIF files http://www.utahpop.org/vitalsigns/ IMPLICATIONS Going into overshoot Drawing down on nature’s capital THE CHOICES AHEAD Increase biocapacity Decrease footprint Level of consumption Population THE CHOICES AHEAD Utah Population Projections Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis. THE CHOICES AHEAD Materials Energy-efficient technologies Buy local Clean energy Consume less YOUR NEXT STEPS Calculate your footprint Interactive calculator at http://myfootprint.org YOUR NEXT STEPS Compare to averages – how big are your feet? Footprints 2003 (gha/capita) Utah U.S. World 9.9 9.6 2.2 YOUR NEXT STEPS Knowledge is power Work together to find collective actions and to choose a sustainable future Use the Ecological Footprint tool to track progress A UTAH VITAL SIGNS PROJECT OF THE UTAH POPULATION & ENVIRONMENT COALITION THE UTAH GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI) 1990-2007 A Report to the People of Utah Authors: Erica Gaddis, Ph.D. and Günseli Berik, Ph.D. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT Utah GDP in million dollars (2000 USD) $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 $- “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP... goals for ‘more’ growth should specify of what and for what” - Simon Küznets (developed GDP) GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI) Alternative to GDP Full accounting (debit side and credit side) Monetary measure Single number and multidimensional Tracked over time Compared to other states and the nation Combined with other indicators to guide policy Objective quality of life metric US GPI AND GDP OVER TIME Gross Production vs. Genuine Progress, 1950 - 2004 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 1950 1960 1970 —— GDP Per Capita 1980 1990 —— GPI Per Capita 2000 LOCAL GPI INITIATIVES GPI COMPONENTS (ACCOUNTS) SCOPE OF GPI STUDY FOR UTAH Years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2007 Coverage State of Utah Counties: Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, Washington, Weber Units 2000 US dollars Methods Modified from previous regional US studies Involves many assumptions and decisions NOTES ON THE UTAH GPI STUDY Framework Not policy prescriptive Transparent framework Basis for dialogue Open for modification and improvement Not all issues are captured Water scarcity Nuclear waste © Utah Population @ Environment Coalition TRENDS IN ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL COMPONENTS Nonrenewable resources Leisure time lost Commuting Climate change Net services of durables Vehicle crashes Underemployment Crime Pollution abatement Air pollution Family breakdown Noise pollution Water pollution Ozone depletion Volunteer labor Cropland services Streets and highways Net Capital Growth Desert services Wetland services Forest services Household labor Value and Cost of GPI Components for Utah in 2007 in Millions of Dollars (2000 USD) GPI COMPONENT RESULTS FOR 2007 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 -$5,000 -$10,000 GPI Nonrenewable resources Leisure time lost Commuting Climate change Net services of durables Vehicle crashes Underemployment Crime Pollution abatement Air pollution Family breakdown Noise pollution Water pollution Ozone depletion Volunteer labor Cropland services Streets and highways Net Capital Growth Desert services Wetland services Forest services Household labor Personal consumption Value and cost of GPI Components for Utah in 2007 in Millions of Dollars (2000 USD) GPI IS THE SUM OF COMPONENTS INCLUDING PERSONAL CONSUMPTION $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $- $(10,000) $(20,000) $14 BILLION: HOUSEHOLD AND VOLUNTEER LABOR Photo credit: park.on.ca DIVORCE WENT DOWN Photo credit: florida-divorce-ut.org CRIME RATE WENT DOWN Photo credit: government-fleet.com CRASH RATE WENT DOWN COST OF DRIVING IN 2007: $7.9 BILLION Photo credit: udot.utah.gov VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN UTAH IN 2007 WAS $25 BILLION redit: ut.usda.gov PRIME FARMLAND WAS LOST Acres of prime farmland 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS & COSTS OF AIR QUALITY WENT UP Photo credit: TimeScience 2009 MORE UTAHNS BECAME UNDEREMPLOYED POLICY AND PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR GPI GPI gives snapshot of well-being reflective of past decisions Provides a blueprint for moving forward evaluate policy trade-offs prioritize the use of public funds GPI could be adopted by state Full accounting principles of GPI could be integrated with existing assessment tools OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The Utah Footprint Study indicates that we need to be concerned about and address our demand for biological resources in Utah. The Utah GPI report demonstrates that we can develop other ways of measuring success in Utah, including economic, social and environmental factors. These types of studies can be done at a more localized level. SPECIFIC EFFORTS Calgary, Canada develops specific footprint reduction targets. Maryland State Government uses GPI as a measurement tool for progress. Minnesota has also worked in this area. Salt Lake City’s Green Guide to a Sustainable City and Salt Lake County Green. Sustainability plans and efforts at universities in Utah. Envision Utah, Utah Quality Growth Commission and Utah Foundation Other efforts in Utah? What are the results of these efforts? And how much do these efforts work together? © Utah Population and Environment Coalition OVERALL DIRECTIONS FOR PLANNERS IN UTAH The Ecological Footprint and Genuine Progress Indicator studies are among a set of new tools for better defining quality of life and its relationship to the natural environment. Planners have increasing opportunities to use new tools to clarify how to better balance demands for action with the contraints of nature, as well as economic and social needs/values.