Useful resource use issues, however materials footprints are a poor technique to measure it

What do a tonne of potatoes, gravel, coal, and copper have in frequent? Not a lot, besides that all of them weigh the identical, and are handled precisely the identical in a metric referred to as the “materials footprint”.

The fabric footprint sums up the burden of all of the assets used inside an financial system. So if a rustic’s materials footprint is 60 million tonnes, it extracts 60 million tonnes of “stuff” per 12 months. This consists of each non-renewable assets like metals and fossil fuels, and “renewable” ones like crops and wooden. The shortage or environmental influence of various assets will not be thought-about, so each kilogram of stuff is taken into account simply as vital as each kilogram of one thing else.¹

Some readers is probably not aware of this metric, but it surely has gained rising reputation in environmental discussions and worldwide coverage. It’s included as a key metric within the United Nations’ Sustainable Improvement Targets, which is why now we have charts on it in our SDG Tracker. This metric is tracked in per capita phrases and is proven within the chart under.

Additionally it is used within the planetary pressures index by the UN Improvement Programme, and also you’ll discover many reviews on it by the OECD, European businesses, and others.²

Nonetheless, for causes I’ll clarify on this article, I don’t discover this metric useful in understanding the sustainability of useful resource use or its environmental impacts. I concern that quite than serving to us deal with a few of our largest environmental and useful resource challenges, it obscures our understanding and takes our focus away from essentially the most urgent issues.

There are not less than three the explanation why we needs to be measuring and monitoring our useful resource use:

1. To see if we danger operating out of a selected useful resource. If we’ve depleted the world’s copper, cobalt, or lithium and are susceptible to operating out, then we have to find out about it. However to evaluate this, we have to know the way a lot of that particular materials we’re utilizing, and how a lot is left. We’d must know the way a lot copper, cobalt, or lithium we use every year and the state of our international reserves. To try this, we have to have a look at particular mineral datasets (which exist and are printed by organizations such because the US Geological Survey or British Geological Survey). We’ve got lots of this information on Our World in Information. That is additionally true for “pure” ecosystems or populations we’re depleting. If we’re involved in regards to the depletion of Atlantic bluefin tuna, we should have a look at how a lot of that inhabitants or species we’re catching, what number of are left, and the way shortly populations regenerate. Our crew additionally exhibits this information on fish catch and depletion for particular species. a metric that throws the burden of tuna along with wooden, coal, and gravel doesn’t assist perceive the shortage of any of them.
2. To measure the environmental influence of extracting and consuming assets. Mining makes use of land, can disrupt landscapes, and trigger air pollution. Burning fossil fuels generates carbon emissions and air air pollution. Beef manufacturing can drive deforestation and biodiversity loss. These impacts are extraordinarily vital to watch (we cowl most, if not all, of them on OWID). However materials footprints don’t inform us a lot in regards to the environmental influence. The manufacturing of a tonne of gravel doesn’t have the identical influence as a tonne of uranium or pork.
3. To measure the socioeconomic penalties of extracting and consuming assets. Mining could be related to unsafe working practices, and a few provide chains depend on exploitative labor. However, once more, the fabric footprint does nothing to assist us determine and enhance these situations. Cobalt and gold mining are related to poor working situations in international locations just like the Democratic Republic of Congo, however materials footprints don’t inform us that. The truth is, many of those valuable minerals are extracted in comparatively small portions, in order that they barely present on a whole-economy materials footprint. A few of the most documented exploitative practices have been in textile provide chains. When it comes to materials footprint, clothes has a really low “materials depth”, so judging by this metric, it could be deemed a extra “accountable” technique to spend your cash.

Useful resource use does matter for these causes, however the materials footprint, at finest, captures them poorly and, at worst, hides a few of the most detrimental impacts.

The chart under exhibits the breakdown of the European Union’s materials footprint. Greater than 70% is made up of biomass (our meals and wooden for trade and development) and non-metallic minerals for development and infrastructure.

This could already increase some questions.

“Non-metallic minerals account for a big a part of the entire materials footprint, but they’ve much less environmental and local weather influence than metals and fossil fuels. It is because they’re principally composed of inert supplies reminiscent of gravel, limestone.”

If we take into account a big materials footprint problematic, then it follows that we must always concentrate on utilizing much less sand, gravel, wooden, and limestone. Nonetheless, this might obtain far much less in addressing many of the useful resource constraints and environmental and social impacts that we care about than tackling different (smaller) classes like fossil fuels and explicit metallic ores.

Since non-metallic minerals and biomass dominate the EU’s materials footprint, we shouldn’t be shocked that housing and meals have the most important influence after we have a look at the footprint by the end-use sector.

The chart under exhibits this breakdown: greater than half (52%) of the entire footprint is linked to housing, and 19% to meals. These two sectors alone account for nearly three-quarters of the fabric footprint. Once more, most of that is from non-metallic minerals like gravel and sand, and biomass for meals (principally crops).

Quite a lot of the issues some may classify as “non-essential” items, reminiscent of automobiles, stuff we purchase for our houses, and clothes, are small by comparability.³

It’s attention-grabbing to learn the European Setting Company’s evaluation of what this breakdown means for coverage and motion.

On housing, the company states:

“The very excessive materials footprint of housing implies that no vital discount within the EU’s materials footprint could be achieved with out addressing our constructed setting. However, the environmental profit from avoiding extraction of non-metallic minerals is comparatively small.”

So, to considerably scale back our materials footprint, we have to rethink our houses — perhaps the supplies we use to construct or their measurement — however the environmental advantages of doing so are fairly small. Once more, that raises the query of why we might make this the focus of motion if there are few advantages.

On meals, the coverage implications are additionally unclear:

“The potential for a radical discount of the meals sector’s materials footprint is quite low as it’s composed of meals gadgets important to our societies. Nonetheless, dietary shifts and the administration of meals waste can contribute to decreasing the meals sector’s materials footprint”.

We want meals to eat, so considerably slicing again is difficult. The 2 apparent proposals are decreasing meals waste and shifting to extra plant-based diets (much less material-intensive, since you don’t have to supply meals for the animals first). These are each robust suggestions that I’ve written rather a lot about earlier than.

However what’s essential is that there’s already a lengthy listing of causes why we might wish to make these adjustments: the truth that meals is answerable for as much as one-third of the world’s greenhouse gasoline emissions; that it makes use of half of the world’s liveable land; that it’s the main driver of water use, water air pollution, biodiversity loss, and deforestation; and the truth that we increase and slaughter greater than 70 billion land animals for meals yearly. All these issues could be improved by shifting to extra plant-based diets and decreasing meals waste.

Of all of the arguments to make this shift, the “materials footprint” is the least convincing. In the case of sustainability, it’s a lot much less apparent why I ought to care extra in regards to the weight of the quantity of wheat, corn, or lentils we develop than I do in regards to the ecosystems destroyed, forests minimize down, animals raised underneath merciless situations, or the rivers polluted.

A typical clarification for measuring materials footprints is that many people overconsume and want to take action much less. On a private stage, I’m additionally very acutely aware of my consumption. I think twice about what I purchase and its influence. I nonetheless put on garments which can be many, a few years previous, and I maintain on to my cell phone for so long as I can.

Once I converse to others about this, they usually point out the identical gadgets and industries: client expertise and “quick style” are all the time within the highlight.

However, surprisingly, considering rigorously about these purchases will not be recommendation that follows from materials footprints. The chart under exhibits the breakdown of the EU’s materials consumption, this time by closing product. We see that these client merchandise account for a really small fraction of the entire footprint.⁴

Textiles and clothes (which incorporates footwear and non-clothing textiles) account for only one% of the entire. Computer systems and client electronics are simply 0.8%. Surprisingly, rubber and plastic merchandise are simply 0.2%.

Dramatically decreasing our use of things historically related to extra consumption would barely change our materials footprint. My sense is that most individuals are unaware of this.

The fabric footprint leads us to counterintuitive coverage suggestions that many environmentalists would strongly object to. Right here’s the European Setting Company once more:

“Providers require the bottom materials use per euro spent amongst all domains, adopted by clothes and family items. Due to this fact, consumption patterns immediately have an effect on the EU’s materials footprint and one technique to scale back it’s to advertise expenditure patterns which can be much less materials intensive.”

Spending extra money on providers than bodily “stuff” is smart if we wish to scale back our materials footprints. Nonetheless, since clothes and households even have a low materials depth, we might additionally scale back our footprint by spending way more on garments, televisions, telephones, and different client items and fewer on necessities reminiscent of meals and housing.

“Spend extra of your cash on garments and iPhones” to attenuate your environmental footprint will not be recommendation I’ve heard earlier than (and isn’t recommendation I’d give both). But that is what the European Setting Company implies when it suggests “selling expenditure patterns which can be much less material-intensive”. That recommendation comes immediately from the outcomes of fabric footprints.

One motivation for measuring materials footprints was to increase the main focus of sustainability past carbon footprints. I share this sentiment. I wrote a ebook about seven environmental issues, and local weather change was simply one in all them.

Nonetheless, there are higher methods to know these environmental considerations than summing up the burden of the totally different assets we use.

I’ve written many articles on measuring sustainability and environmental impacts that transcend carbon emissions. At Our World in Data, now we have intentionally made the environment part intensive (see our listing of matters under). We’ve lined land use, water use, eutrophication, deforestation, fertilizer overuse, biodiversity loss, meals waste, and way more.

Useful resource use issues, and we have to monitor points reminiscent of the danger of operating out of some supplies or the mining and socioeconomic impacts of others. There’s a lot that we are able to do to make our economies extra material-efficient and to shift from a mannequin of continuous extraction to a extra round one the place we reuse supplies.⁵ I’ve written about this alternative earlier than as we shift from fossil fuels to low-carbon power.

Evaluating useful resource portions inside a typical context will also be informative. For instance, figuring out how a lot mined supplies we’ll want for various power sources might help us perceive a few of the implications of the power transition. The identical applies to the quantity of crops (together with feed) required for various dietary decisions.

Figuring out how a lot uranium the world makes use of every year is beneficial. Making a metric that means it needs to be handled the identical as bananas will not be.

Hannah Ritchie (2025) - “Useful resource use issues, however materials footprints are a poor technique to measure it” Printed on-line at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/material-footprint-limitations' [Online Resource]

@article{owid-material-footprint-limitations,
    writer = {Hannah Ritchie},
    title = {Useful resource use issues, however materials footprints are a poor technique to measure it},
    journal = {Our World in Information},
    12 months = {2025},
    be aware = {https://ourworldindata.org/material-footprint-limitations}
}

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, information, and code produced by Our World in Information are fully open entry underneath the Artistic Commons BY license. You’ve got the permission to make use of, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, offered the supply and authors are credited.

The info produced by third events and made obtainable by Our World in Information is topic to the license phrases from the unique third-party authors. We’ll all the time point out the unique supply of the information in our documentation, so you need to all the time test the license of any such third-party information earlier than use and redistribution.

All of our charts could be embedded in any website.