Earth’s total EF in 2016 (the latest year of available data) was 2.75 gha, or 1.69 NOE needed to sustain the current consumption requirements of the average person.
7 This result is influenced by the balance between countries’ ecological reserves and deficits. The United States, for example, yielded a -4.5 gha ecological deficit in 2016 (3.6 gha of biocapacity per person versus 8.1 gha EF per person), while Brazil yielded a 5.9 gha reserve (8.7 gha of biocapacity per person versus 2.8 gha EF per person).
8 Despite being relatively similar in terms of total land and water area, this disparity highlights an important point: variations between EFs of countries, including those of individuals, must be evaluated in the context of larger societal influences, such as economic development, cultural attitudes and, perhaps most importantly, geographic location. Due to the anonymous nature of NationStates, a deeper analysis of this sort for each participating nation is beyond the scope of this report, but it is worth noting for the reader to recognize their own place in the world and consider how geography intricately shapes our ultimate output.
As a measure of an individual’s degree of sustainability, the EF and NOE calculations are commonly used to juxtapose one’s ecological impact with another’s to identify gaps or areas for improvement where necessary. According to this sample of participants in Forest, three nations (13.6%) achieved an EF and NOE below the world mean in both categories. Currently, if everyone lived like the average Forest participant, we would need a little more than 2 earths. The mean NOE of Forest, 0.61 above the world mean, ranks in the top 65% of all real-world countries, on par with countries such as the Bahamas, Libya, and Cyprus.9 Though it may seem discouraging, considering the target number for the NOE category is 1, the results are not far from expectations. Most real-world developing and developed nations fall above the world mean in these categories, and it is reasonable to infer that many of the participants reside in such nations. Factors such as the quality of one’s education, socioeconomic standards, governmental priorities at all levels, and family size are just a few of the ways in which our ecological footprint may be determined. The results of these two categories reflect how even for eco-friendly individuals, changing economic and environmental landscapes of the post-industrialized world make it increasingly challenging to meet optimal sustainability goals.
In 2014, the world’s mean accumulation of CO2 emissions reached 4.99 tonnes/year.10 Forest’s mean CO2 emissions of 6.0 tonnes/year would rank in the top 70% of the world in this category, alongside countries like Denmark and Iceland. Being the largest component of the ecological footprint, measuring the carbon footprint of an individual, let alone entire countries, can become remarkably exhaustive. Our food, transportation, and home choices, just to name a few, each comprise a small portion of our total carbon output. Factors that one may not even be aware of nor have control over; such as the extraction, shipment, and packaging of various goods and services; also make up an integral part of our carbon footprint. In terms of the percentage of CO2 emissions per total EF, Forest actually resulted in a lower portion than the world mean. While it does not reflect that the average Forest participant emits less CO2 than the average person in the world, it does reflect that their total EF is slightly more diverse in its resource requirements.
Conclusions
For the average individual on earth to eliminate his or her EF entirely would be not merely impractical, it would be impossible. Per the Footprint Calculator, if one were to live in the most environmentally sustainable way possible in a developed country, he or she would still need at least 0.6 earths. And though the hunter-gatherer way of life lends a sense of Shangri-La in the minds of the modern eco-warrior, the post-industrialized world beckons us to accept that we must instead look for rational ways to harmonize environmental sustainability with technological advancement, sooner rather than later. In a study on the eco-friendly changes that one can make to his or her livelihood, Wynes and Nicholas recommended “having one fewer child, living car-free, avoiding airplane travel, and eating a plant-based diet.”11 A few of the Forest participants, however, expressed challenges to these proposals that they currently face, such as living with family members who choose to eat meat, living far away from a grocery store, or unsuccessfully finding local foods that are not in plastic packaging. Still, small conscious choices in our everyday lives have the power to make a lasting difference on the earth. For example, if a growing proportion of society started to exclude meat for one day out of the week or bought from a nearby farmer’s market, our world EF could see a meaningful decrease. The Global Footprint Network also identifies ways to persuade our leaders of government to effect change. Calling upon our legislators to support renewable energy and efficient public transport systems is vital to the progress towards sustainability and lowering our EF.12 However we choose to find solutions to this global issue is ultimately up to us as individuals, but the cause does not move forward with just one person at the helm. As we know, our EF is multifactorial and interconnected, and no stone need be left unturned with the possibility for planting trees in its place one day.