President Trump has acted on his campaign promises to reverse Obama’s environmental policies and proposed a budget that would significantly slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s funding in an effort to take federal responsibility out of environmental regulations. More recently, White House officials have met to discuss whether the United States should leave the Paris climate agreement.
[Local programs get the biggest hit in proposed EPA budget]
The United States is one of the world’s biggest consumers, and U.S. policies can have global environmental effects. As of 2013, the world’s population would need 1.7 Earths to support its demands on renewable natural resources, according Global Footprint Network, a nonprofit organization that calculates human demands on the planet’s ecosystems.
ECOLOGICAL
DEFICIT
ECOLOGICAL
RESERVE
Consumption is greater than the
resources available to that population
Consumption is less than the
resources available to that population
No data
6
3
3
12
Global hectares per capita in 2013
ECOLOGICAL DEFICIT
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
Consumption is greater than the
resources available to that population
Consumption is less than the
resources available to that population
No data
6
3
3
12
Global hectares per capita in 2013
The Middle East, with low biocapacity to begin with, is experiencing a deficit.
South America and areas of Africa that are rich with forest land had the highest biocapacity per capita in 2013.
Global Footprint Network measures human consumption relative to what the planet can regenerate with a measure called the ecological footprint. The footprint takes into account how much in biological resources, such as fishing grounds and forest land, are necessary to fulfill the consumption of a country and absorb its waste. This includes imports and excludes exports. The smaller a country’s footprint is, the better.
A country also has a biocapacity — that is, the country’s capacity to renew the resources demanded from its ecosystems. Because this measure is based on technology and land-management practices, biocapacity may change from year to year. The bigger a country’s biocapacity is, the better.
Therefore, a country has an ecological deficit if its ecological footprint is greater than its biocapacity and ecological reserve if its biocapacity is greater.
[Scientists are looking at these indicators to measure climate change]
How we got here
Of the countries running the highest ecological deficits, the United States has one of the highest biocapacities. This means that even though the country has a lot of resources, its consumption is still highly unsustainable.
U.S.
Canada
20 global hectares
per capita
Biocapacity
16.2
Ecological
footprint
Ecological reserve
10
8.6
8.8
Ecological deficit
Ecological
footprint
3.8
Biocapacity
0
1980
2013
China
World
5
3.6
2.9
0.9
1.7
0
Largest ecological deficits
per capita in 2013
Trinidad
and Tobago
Singapore
10 global hectares
per capita
0
1980
2013
Oil and natural gas industries fueled a spike in economic growth in the 2000s in Trinidad and Tobago.
South Korea
Belgium
Israel
10
0
South Korea’s economy relied more heavily on manufacturing starting in the 1980s.
Netherlands
Japan
U.S.
10
0
The ecological footprint of the U.S. has been decreasing since 2005.
Switzerland
Oman
10
0
Oman’s carbon footprint has increased dramatically since 1980 due to oil and natural gas activity.
Note: Only countries with a population of more
than 1 million and data for more than one year
are included.
Canada
U.S.
20 global hectares
per capita
Biocapacity
16.2
Ecological reserve
Ecological footprint
10
8.6
8.8
Ecological deficit
Ecological footprint
3.8
Biocapacity
0
1980
2013
World
China
5
3.6
2.9
1.7
0.9
0
Largest ecological deficits per capita in 2013
Trinidad
and Tobago
Israel
South Korea
Singapore
Belgium
10 global hectares
per capita
0
1980
2013
Oil and natural gas industries fueled a spike in economic growth in the 2000s in Trinidad and Tobago.
South Korea’s economy relied more heavily on manufacturing starting in the 1980s.
U.S.
Netherlands
Switzerland
Oman
Japan
10
0
The ecological footprint of the U.S. has been decreasing since 2005.
Oman’s carbon footprint has increased dramatically since 1980 due to oil and natural gas activity.
Note: Only countries with a population of more than 1 million and data for more than one year
are included.
Canada
World
U.S.
China
20 global hectares
per capita
Biocapacity
16.2
Ecological reserve
Ecological footprint
10
8.6
8.8
Ecological deficit
Ecological footprint
3.6
2.9
3.8
Biocapacity
1.7
0.9
0
1980
2013
Largest ecological deficits per capita in 2013
Trinidad
and Tobago
Israel
South Korea
U.S.
Netherlands
Switzerland
Oman
Singapore
Belgium
Japan
10 global hectares
per capita
0
1980
2013
Oil and natural gas industries fueled a spike in economic growth in the 2000s in Trinidad and Tobago.
South Korea’s economy relied more heavily on manufacturing starting in the 1980s.
The ecological footprint of the U.S. has been decreasing since 2005.
Oman’s carbon footprint has increased dramatically since 1980 due to oil and natural gas activity.
Note: Only countries with a population of more than 1 million and data for more than one year are included.
Since 2005, however, the United States has been decreasing its ecological footprint. Its fossil fuel use is the largest component of the nation’s ecological footprint. In 2013, the country’s carbon footprint per capita reached its lowest since 1980. This may be the result, in part, of a smaller role that coal plays in the U.S. economy.
Ecological footprints by state
in 2010
U.S.
CA
NY
TX
VA
0
1
2
8
10
9
3
4
5
6
7
global hectares per capita
Ecological footprints by state in 2010
U.S.
NY
CA
VA
TX
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
9
global hectares per capita
Within the United States, Virginia has the biggest ecological footprint per capita, nearly twice that of New York.
According to a report from Global Footprint Network, this is partly because of the greater density of New York, which allows for more efficient use of infrastructure, such as public transportation. Virginia also has a larger housing and personal transportation footprint per capita.
Largest ecological reserves
per capita in 2013
Central
African Rep.
Brazil
10 global hectares
per capita
0
1980
2013
Australia
Finland
Uruguay
20
10
0
Pastureland in Mongolia has deteriorated over time due to droughts and climate change.
Canada
Paraguay
Mongolia
30
20
10
0
Congo
Bolivia
30
20
10
0
Deforestation in South American countries is rapidly depleting these areas of their biocapacity.
Note: Only countries with a population of more
than 1 million and data for more than one year
are included.
Largest ecological reserves per capita in 2013
Central
African Republic
Brazil
Australia
Uruguay
Finland
20 global hectares
per capita
10
0
1980
2013
Pastureland in Mongolia has deteriorated over time due to droughts and climate change.
Canada
Paraguay
Mongolia
Congo
Bolivia
30
20
10
0
Deforestation in South American countries is rapidly depleting these areas of their biocapacity.
Note: Only countries with a population of more than 1 million and data for more than one year
are included.
Largest ecological reserves per capita in 2013
Central
African Republic
Brazil
Australia
Uruguay
Canada
Paraguay
Mongolia
Finland
Congo
Bolivia
30 global hectares
per capita
20
10
0
1980
2013
Pastureland in Mongolia has deteriorated over time due to droughts and climate change.
Deforestation in South American countries is rapidly depleting these areas of their biocapacity.
Note: Only countries with a population of more than 1 million and data for more than one year are included.
Of the countries with the largest ecological reserves, most have biocapacities that are declining at a sharp rate. In other words, they may run into ecological deficits soon if the trend continues. In some countries, this can be attributed to a combination of rapid population growth and deforestation.
Largest ecological deficits
in 2013
The United States makes up 13 percent of the world’s total footprint and has the second-largest deficit in the world, trailing China’s deficit, which is driven by its accelerated growth. While the United States’ total footprint has been decreasing since 2005, it is still twice the size of India’s and far greater than that of other developed countries.
World
ecological
footprint
20B global
hectares
15B
Rest of
the world
10B
China
India
5B
4B
U.S.
U.S.
3B
2B
China
1B
0
1980
2013
1980
2013
India
Japan
Germany
1B
0
South Korea
U.K.
Italy
1B
0
Iran
Mexico
1B
0
Note: Only countries with a population of more
than 1 million and data for more than one year
are included.
The United States makes up 13 percent of the world’s total footprint and has the second-largest deficit in the world, trailing China’s deficit, which is driven by its accelerated growth. While the United States’ total footprint has been decreasing since 2005, it is still twice the size of India’s and far greater than that of other developed countries.
20B global
hectares
World
ecological
footprint
15B
Rest of
the world
10B
Largest ecological deficits in 2013
China
India
5B
4B
U.S.
U.S.
3B
2B
India
Japan
Germany
China
1B
0
1980
2013
1980
2013
South Korea
U.K.
Italy
Iran
Mexico
1B
0
Note: Only countries with a population of more than 1 million and data for more than one year
are included.
20B global hectares
World
ecological
footprint
The United States makes up 13 percent of the world’s total footprint and has the second-largest deficit in the world, trailing China’s deficit, which is driven by its accelerated growth. While the United States’ total footprint has been decreasing since 2005, it is still twice the size of India’s and far greater than that of other developed countries.
15B
Rest of
the world
10B
India
China
Largest ecological deficits in 2013
5B global hectares
4B
U.S.
U.S.
2B
India
Japan
South Korea
U.K.
Italy
Iran
Mexico
Germany
China
0
1980
2013
1980
2013
Note: Only countries with a population of more than 1 million and data for more than one year are included.
Which countries are developing sustainably?
Economic development often means using more resources and increasing carbon emissions. From 2000 to 2013, most countries increased their GDP and ecological footprints at the same time. However, there are 48 countries that managed to develop sustainably: They increased GDP while decreasing their ecological footprints, though most of these countries saw small economic growth.
Change in ecological
footprint from
2000 to 2013
Change in GDP
per capita from
2000 to 2013
0
+100%
+200%
+200%
Trinidad and Tobago
Djibouti
+100%
China
Georgia
Armenia
Myanmar
Azerbaijan
0
These countries grew their economies, but their ecological footprints increased as well.
48 countries increased their GDP and decreased their ecological footprints from 2000 to 2013.
0
+100%
+200%
+200%
+100%
0
Uzbekistan
Niger
U.S.
Chad
Ireland
Denmark
These countries cut their ecological footprints the most, but did not grow their economies much.
These countries grew their economies by a lot, but their ecological footprints decreased just a little.
Note: GDP per capita is in 2010 U.S. dollars.
Decrease in GDP
per capita
from 2000 to 2013
Increase in GDP
per capita
from 2000 to 2013
0
+100%
+200% change
+200% change
Trinidad and Tobago
These countries grew their economies by a lot, but their ecological footprints increased by a lot as well.
Djibouti
Swaziland
+100%
China
Georgia
Vietnam
Increase in
ecological
footprint
per capita
from 2000
to 2013
Armenia
Algeria
Lithuania
Turkmenistan
Myanmar
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Mongolia
0
Uzbekistan
Niger
U.S.
Chad
Decrease
in ecological
footprint
per capita
from 2000
to 2013
Spain
Ireland
Denmark
48 countries increased their GDP and decreased their ecological footprints from 2000 to 2013.
These countries cut their ecological footprints the most, but did not grow their economies much.
These countries grew their economies by a lot, but their ecological footprints decreased just a little.
Note: GDP per capita is in 2010 U.S. dollars.
Decrease in GDP per capita
from 2000 to 2013
Increase in GDP per capita
from 2000 to 2013
0
+100%
+200% change
+200% change
Trinidad and Tobago
Djibouti
Swaziland
+100%
China
These countries grew their economies by a lot, but their ecological footprints increased by a lot as well.
Georgia
Vietnam
Armenia
Algeria
Lithuania
Turkmenistan
Cambodia
Myanmar
Increase in
ecological footprint
per capita
from 2000 to 2013
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Mongolia
Ethiopia
0
Uzbekistan
Niger
Chad
Decrease in
ecological
footprint
per capita
from 2000
to 2013
U.S.
Ireland
Spain
Denmark
48 countries increased their GDP and decreased their ecological footprints from 2000 to 2013.
These countries grew their economies by a lot, but their ecological footprints decreased just a little.
These countries cut their ecological footprints the most, but did not grow their economies much.
Note: GDP per capita is in 2010 U.S. dollars.
For developing countries, an increase in ecological footprint may be necessary to bolster their economies. Footprints per capita in these countries may not be high to begin with, so small changes can cause a comparatively big jump. Sustainable technology may also not be as widely available in developing countries.
For developed countries, the opposite may be true: Because their rate of growth is decreasing and most already have large footprints, fluctuations might not be so obvious.
Though there are many solutions, the fastest way for a country to reduce its ecological footprint, according to Global Footprint Network, is to switch to greener energy sources. Even though the United States has been decreasing its ecological footprint, its consumption rate is still far from completely sustainable.
More stories
How Trump is rolling back Obama’s legacy
During President Trump’s first year in office, Congress and his administration plan to review, revoke and overwrite key parts of his predecessor’s domestic legacy. Here’s what Trump has done so far.
Scientists are looking at these indicators to measure climate change
World leaders have gathered in Paris to try to hammer out a plan to slow the machinery of climate change. Here’s how experts say the pieces fit together.
Local programs get the biggest hit in proposed EPA budget
A proposed budget eliminates 56 programs and trims staffing by nearly 4,000 jobs.
Appalachia comes up small in era of giant coal mines
As the coal industry is squeezed, the most productive mines employ huge machines and relatively few people.
