Today’s talk given by Stuart Bond, GIFT programme manager was detailed and intriguing, yet there seemed to be too much information to explain in an understandable manor within the hour time slot given.
A one planet economy means humans and nature living in harmony together striving from their natural resources, at present the planet is classed as having a ‘three planet lifestyle’ meaning we are using two much of our natural resources. Organizations that were linked with these studies include WWF, eco logic, global footprint network and Institute for European Environmental Policy.
Figure 1: shows the logo for the whole organization, planning the changes for the one planet economy.
The Studies
There are 3 key influences on plans for a one planet economy, these are:
· Carbon Footprint (should not be more then 2˚C)
· Ecological Footprint
· Water Footprint (Should not increase to more than global scarcity)
Before being able to carry out any investigations into scenarios to improve these influences, data was needed from all EU countries on their current footprints. To help with these studies in 2010, large well known stake holders were introduced.
Four scenarios were then compromised, the storylines were:
· Clever and Caring
· Fast Forward
· Breaking Point
· Slow Motion
Every scenario was designed to hit targets to make a one planet economy by 2050.
The process of creating these scenarios has 4 stages:
· Stage 1- clarifying the purpose and structure of the scenarios exercise
· Stage 2- creating a scenario framework
· Stage 3- Developing the narratives and policy settings (producing a detailed plan)
· Stage 4- Modelling the scenarios using the software on eureapa.net.
The variables set for these studied scenario quantifications were: population, spending, basket of spend, production, efficiency and energy mix.
Results
Results of the carbon footprint benchmark showed that Luxemburg had the highest carbon footprint. The best scenario was clever and caring which was found to be the lowest with a large reduction in total expenditure, but this did not reach the benchmark aims for a one planet economy.
Water footprint could not be bench marked as there is no defined environmental limit for water usage.
My opinion
In my opinion I found it very difficult to concentrate in this seminar and understand the information given as I felt it was rushed. I feel that the expected aim for 2050 is unrealistic due to the amount of footprint around the countries at this present time, other issues are that china is a mass production country and I feel that the population of china would not take well to changes to this. I would like to see these footprints decreased in the near future in way of the affects on wild animals, but like I mentioned I feel getting the human population to change their lifestyle would be a hard if not impossible task.
References
http://seri.at/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/One_Planet_Economy.gif
http://www.oneplaneteconomynetwork.org/resources/GreenWeek/Eureapa_Flier.pdf
http://www.oneplaneteconomynetwork.org/resources/work-package-9.html
Louise Walker 
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one struggling! although I do appreciated how clever the modelling is and the level of research that has gone into it, all the parameters and such needed to make the accurate predictions for each scenario is immense. Just a lot of content to get through in one hour, doesn’t do the work justice. I hope the globe heads down the ‘kind and caring’ route but I agree 100% that governments are greedy, every day people are greedy, we all want nice things and we demand and consume. I would happily give it all up and cut back if I thought I could help. But although I don’t want to underestimate all people, I think in the end, most people wont make the effort on an individual effort to change. Who knows how the planet will end up? probably like something off of WALL.E
Pingback: March’s monthly comments | bsu0af
Wow, so is Luxembourg the country with the highest carbon footprint in Europe or the entire world? The way you describe this talk makes me wish I had gone. I admit since you said you felt that the talk was rushed then maybe there was more too the talk.
At least there is a surprisingly soon estimated aim for the cut-down in carbon footprints even if 2050 does seem a little too optimistic. I think being optimistic is at least going to help the situation. I agree that China is very forward thinking country in industry and production but I think altering the perception of an entire country without feasible, irrefutable evidence (which is surprisingly easily ignored) is going to be hard.