From Envirowiki

In the 1970s a group of population biologists, ecologists, and environmental scientists struggled to find a way to connect the relationship between population, human welfare, and environmental impacts. Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren first proposed the I=P*f(P) in 1972, which later became the I=PxAxT formula in 1974:

Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology

[edit] 1 The Proposal

The formula was proposed as a measurement of the environmental impact of a society, by multiplying the population, affluence, and technology of that society. All three factors that establish impact are so interwoven with one another that it is hard to calculate them independently.

• The first variable, Impact, is defined by the change to the environment, as a result to the activities of a country, community, or action.
• The second variable, Population, is defined by current government censuses.
• Affluence is defined by the quarterly GDP of a country per capita.
• Technology is defined by many recent scholars as “everything else.”

The formula suggests that the greatest atrocities of environmental degradation are not the work of the impoverished majority, but the affluent minority, who have access to, and utilize most of the world’s most needed resources. While the I=PxAxT formula is over 30 years old, it is still widely used and applied today. Many have proposed objections to the formulas use of calculating the impact of a society as outdated, and unrealistic for helping propose solutions, where others view it as merely a simplistic basis for assessing the past and present need for reform. It can be useful for generalizations as well as specific situations, but can’t be literally applied to countries, and societies in the increasingly complex predicament we are in, because emerging factors discredit its ability to completely and unbiasedly evaluate impact today.

[edit] 2 Problems

It is first important to identify the inherent bias and problems with I=PxAxT, and each variable independently. While population is a concrete number measured by a census bureau, and affluence is consistently measured by GDP, technology and impact remain fairly abstract, yet complex ideas that encompass much more than their names suggest. However, all four of I=PxAxT’s variables are flawed in some way when they are accepted universally.

First of all, environmental impact, especially in developing countries is so complex that it cannot be summed -up in one number, or statement. How do you measure something that as a society we do not even fully comprehend yet? One could use green house gas emissions, deforestation, ecosystem disturbance, and local biodiversity loss to measure the impact of a given country or community. However, these are only the simplest of impact statements. What do you do as the concerns get more complex?

A series of international reports in the 1980’s stressed these 10 principal concerns, “Ozone layer depletion, Climate Change, Desertification. Deforestation, Biodiversity Loss, Population Growth, Freshwater Resources, Marine Environmental Deterioration, Toxification, and Acid Rain” (Speth, 89-91). These impacts of human civilization have become even more complex since this was published in the 80’s. Not only can many of these impacts not be encapsulated into a single number, but they also cannot be attributed to a single country or community, therefore they cannot be used in an environmental impact statement.

As the world globalizes, and foreign ecosystems once separated by thousands of miles come into contact, it becomes nearly impossible to differentiate one country’s impact from another, or summarize an impact in one concise number, or statement. How would we measure the outsourced impact many developed countries have on less developed countries? Our current societal definition of impact could not be used to place blame for this very reason. The mental model that much of the world has today for environmental impact raises many epistemological questions. As our former beliefs and actions as a civilization are continuously proven to have tremendous adverse effects of the environment, how do we know that what we think we know is correct? We cannot measure a concept like impact without having a stable concept of what the term encompasses.

The second variable, population, is a concrete number consistently measured with little error, but can still be found problematic for the I=PxAxT formula. An increased population would logically lead to an increased impact. However, this can be so case specific that it is hard to accept it as equal in all situations. For example most developed countries have decreasing populations, which are aging and affluent. However, there are no studies that find a correlation between these countries (including the United States) having a decreased population, and in turn having a decreased impact on their environment. this is probably because affluence and technology are increasing. also, even though birthrates may be decreasing, that doesn't neccesarily mean that population is deceasing, as immigration may be increasing at a greater rate.

In contrast the population in developing, or underdeveloped countries can have the same ambiguity. Usually this is due to factors not incorporated into the I=PxAxT formula. For example with increased access to education, birth control, and more equal gender roles, the impact of a population can be greatly reduced in comparison to an equally populated, and poverty stricken country without these opportunities. The impact of the size of a population can be so different depending on so many other factors within that population that it becomes problematic when it is used as a universal formulation of environmental impact.

The same can be said for both affluence, and technology. GDP (the measurement of affluence) is fatally flawed. That is one opinion that scholars are in consensus on. The variables that go into calculating GDP, and the ones excluded are extremely biased, and cannot be the sole measurement of affluence within a country. One key factor in understanding the impact of a society on its environment is not the total wealth of the country, but the distribution of wealth within a country. GDP is a measurement averaged per capita, which does not remotely represent distribution among the members of that society. Along these same lines, the impact of affluence is not equal among countries of similar wealth. A key question left out is, what are countries doing with their wealth? The formula (when directly applied) would indicate that decreased affluence would lead to decreased impact. Not only is it extremely unrealistic that the affluence of the world will stop its rapid and exponential growth, but it is also a very blinded view not to believe that increased affluence is going to play a tremendous role in developing the alternatives and philanthropy that can mitigate our impact.

The technology variable is flawed in much the same way. Not only does technology not “encompass everything else”, but technology cannot all be viewed the same way. All technology is not equal. It is true that a chainsaw (increased technology) can be much more devastating to an environment, then an axe (due to the scope of its ability to make an impact), but technology is no longer that simple. There are some technologies, such as cars that have had unparalleled negative effects on the environment, but at the same time, how would we incorporate the increased technology that has led to the development of hybrids, and electric cars into the equation. Technology should not be completely to blame for the impact we have had on the environment, and in the same regard should not be to heavily depended on to fix our environmental problems, but the fact that it has and will continue to contribute to both sides of the issue makes it very problematic as a variable. While it is obvious that all the variables have flaws when they are considered universal to all situations, or equal in scope, many recent scholars have different opinions on how to interpret the formula, and evaluate these flaws.

The most widely read and highly respected author on the topic is one of its creators, Paul Ehrlich. In his recent work One With Nineveh, he even slyly states that the impact of humans on the environment is “conveniently summarized in the I=PxAxT formula”(158). However, his work serves as a basis for understanding the intent of its creators for how and when the formula is appropriate. His definition of technology is much broader in scope then many experts give credit to. He also warns that historically “humanity has had great difficulty in reversing technology-based choices.” For this he should be applauded, because he was the first to publish a theory that raised fundamental issues, and linked them in a successful and useful way. However, there are issues that arise when the general population and scholars alike rely heavily on this formula. While this formula orients us towards the right questions, we cannot assume it to be universally true. The formula cannot be interpreted as a solution but rather as a question. This is where the formula becomes problematic. I=PxAxT is helpful in describing the problem, and where many of its drivers lie, however the problem is not what the formula describes, but rather what it prescribes. If the formula is applied as a solution to environmental issues today, the answers would be nearly impossible in today’s society, and discount certain factors that will be paramount to finding a real solution. The variables of impact have globalized, are huge in scale, and are no longer clear and consistently used in the same way. Not to mention there are new emerging factors that now are tightly intertwined with the other factors, but are not taken into account in the I=PxAxT formula. This includes such factors as environmental awareness, economic and social patterns, values and ethics of society, and technological advances to alleviate environmental pressures, and degradation.

That last factor, technological advances that benefit the environment, or at the least work to reverse the atrocities that are human caused on the environment, is a common argument among scholars today. The argument is not to attack the validity of the argument for assessing past and present impact, but rather as a formula that does not create incentive to develop environmentally benign technologies, and even remedial technology. It is a widely accepted view that although technology has played a huge role in the past as a fundamental driver of global environmental destruction, technological advancements will be crucial to changing our current crash course towards the natural world. As this happens, the formula will be decreasingly applicable to future evaluations, because it does not take into account the impact that environmentally benign and remedial technology will have in the future. Experts differ in their proposals for how the formula should be modernized, or applied to the increasingly complex impact of society on the environment, however most of them do agree in some form that the formula should not be used as it was originally proposed. Although it has been widely regarded as the most accurate and inclusive formulation, especially at its time of formulation in the 1970’s when the environmental movement was still blossoming, the issue of environmental impact increases rapidly in complexity with each passing day, which makes it hard for the formula to stand in its original form today. While many experts in recent years have strong opinions on how Ehrlich’s original I=PxAxT formula should be adapted and used today, there is no universal or even majority consensus on how this should be done. Some propose it is the paradigm we have for the formula that must change. We should not view it as a numerical and literal formula for calculation, but rather a formula for establishing a basis for estimation of past degradation, which in turn can form a hypothesis for the risk involved in further use of resources, and degradation of ecosystem services. In Red Sky at Morning by J.G. Speth of the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies at Yale, presents a very logical and modern interpretation of the formula. Speth states that the I=P*A*T formula is widely accepted, and is true by definition. However, he also states “it is handy and revealing” but has “led some analysts to rely on it to excess”(Speth, 120-121). His way of applying it today is to add other key factors into the equation. These include poverty, market failure, policy, and political failure, the scale and rate of economic growth, the nature of our economic value, our culture and its values, and the forces of globalization. He points out the inevitability of technology being the only variable subject to changing impact for the better. He says that population and affluence will inevitably continue to grow in the near future, so that leaves technology as the only variable we can manipulate in the formula. While some find technology to be the trouble spot in the formula, Speth contrasts the use of harmful technologies, and environmentally benign technologies within the equation. He overcomes the exclusion of innovation within technology as a remedy to environmental problems, by allowing it to counteract the damage done to the environment by technology as a part of the calculation.

It is important to remember that regardless of the I=PxAxT formula’s validity today, the creation of it leads us down a path of deeper understanding of what is going on around the world, and what needs to be done to mitigate that damage.

[edit] 3 Works Cited

• Ehrlich, Paul and Anne Ehrlich. One with Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2004.
• Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World. Bloomfield: Berret-Koehler Publishers, 2001.
• Speth, James. Red Sky at Morning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.