Resource use matters, but material footprints are a poor way to measure it
6 months ago
- #environmental-metrics
- #sustainability
- #resource-use
- Material footprints sum up the weight of all resources used in an economy but fail to account for their scarcity, environmental, or socioeconomic impacts.
- The metric is included in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and used by organizations like the OECD, but it obscures more pressing environmental issues.
- Resource use matters for three key reasons: risk of depletion, environmental impact, and socioeconomic consequences, none of which are well-captured by material footprints.
- Over 70% of the EU’s material footprint comes from non-metallic minerals (e.g., gravel) and biomass (e.g., food), which have lower environmental impacts compared to metals or fossil fuels.
- Housing and food account for 71% of the EU’s material footprint, but reducing these sectors’ footprints offers limited environmental benefits.
- Luxury goods like clothing and electronics contribute minimally (1-2%) to material footprints, contrary to popular perception.
- Material footprints can lead to counterintuitive policy recommendations, such as promoting spending on low-material-intensity goods like clothing over essentials.
- Alternative metrics (e.g., specific resource depletion, pollution, labor conditions) are more effective for tracking sustainability than aggregated material weight.
- The article critiques material footprints for conflating vastly different resources (e.g., gravel vs. uranium) and diverting focus from high-impact issues like fossil fuels and mining.