The material footprint of Quebecers would not be ecologically viable, argues a study by the Institute for Socioeconomic Research and Information (IRIS). Close-up on a flawed analysis that raises relevant questions.
From 16 to 19 tonnes to meet basic needs
In Quebec, providing for basic needs translates into an annual material footprint of 16 to 19 tons per person, estimates IRIS in an analysis published on Thursday. This indicator measures the quantity of raw materials that have been extracted in order to ensure the production of products and services. It differs from the carbon footprint, which reports the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere to produce a good or service. According to IRIS, “the measurement of the carbon footprint, associated with the climate crisis, is insufficient to account for all the ecological crises that threaten living things”.
A suggested maximum of 8 tons
In his analysis titled The material footprint of basic needs coverage in Quebec, IRIS points out that “strict vital consumption in Quebec is not ecologically viable” since it greatly exceeds the maximum threshold of 8 tonnes per person per year recommended by scientists. The Quebec organization refers to a study published in 2014 by Finnish researchers, which concluded that a material footprint greater than 8 tons was not ecologically viable. Scientists have estimated that biotic resources (living matter) should not exceed 2 tons and abiotic resources (mineral and fossil resources) 6 tons.
How much material to produce a good?
The IRIS study used a Statistics Canada indicator, the Market Basket Measure (MBM), to carry out its analysis. The MBM determines the total cost of the market basket which represents the poverty line for a household of two adults and two children. These data were cross-referenced with another indicator, material intake per unit, or Material Input Per Unit of Service (MIPS), developed by the Wuppertal Institute, a German research center that specializes in particular in the development of measurement tools for the ecological transition. MIPS estimates the amount of material extracted to produce a good or service.
The Hardware Footprint of SUVs
One of the most concrete examples of the material footprint concerns the production of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). According to calculations by the Wuppertal Institute, producing a standard SUV results in a footprint of 16 tons per vehicle, or 10 times the physical weight of the car. The figure is even higher for electric SUVs. “The production of an electric car requires three times more natural resources than the production of an internal combustion car,” notes Colin Pratte, co-author of the IRIS analysis. According to him, the “consumption of natural resources is a major blind spot in the dominant approach to the fight against the ecological crisis”.
The limits of individual responsibilities
According to IRIS, expenditure items related to transportation (4.6 to 7.5 tons) and everyday consumption (4.7 tons) result in the largest material footprint in Quebec. Colin Pratte believes that the numbers are most likely higher in reality since their analysis focused only on basic needs. “If, tomorrow morning, all Quebec households agreed to live on the poverty line to fight against the ecological crisis, it would not only be senseless from a social point of view, but above all insufficient,” he says. It shows that an approach to transition based on individual behavioral changes is insufficient in terms of ecological transition, that the greatest part of the responsibility lies with public authorities. »
An imperfect methodology
While the IRIS analysis has the merit of identifying certain blind spots, the methodology used has certain limitations, as the authors themselves acknowledge. “The hardware footprint of the MPC [mesure du panier de consommation] that we consider in this note must be interpreted as exploratory research, the degree of uncertainty of which is explained by the dating and geographical location of the data used”, write the authors, Colin Pratte and Krystof Beaucaire. For example, the majority of the data used to calculate the material footprint dates from 2006 to 2008. However, IRIS reports that it is still used by the European Environment Agency.
The dangers of generalizing
Professor in the Department of Economics at UQAM and specialist in sustainable development, Charles Séguin considers the IRIS note “interesting”, but also brings some caveats. “The reference point is 8 tons, which was suggested by a single study conducted in Finland in 2014. It would take other studies to validate this figure,” he underlines. If an indicator such as the material footprint can be interesting to assess a particular sector, such as the automotive industry, it may be more risky to seek to extend it to all consumer products, he believes. Environmental impacts are not always measured in weight, he adds. “I would have more confidence, say, if it had been done for a specific product. »