Arguments that New Zealand is living sustainably [4 max]:
a. The EF is below the biocapacity of the country and therefore is sustainable;
b. Proportion of energy generated from renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) is high and rising, which reduces GHG emissions/which reduces fossil fuel use;
c. By 2050, all of New Zealand's electricity is projected to be from renewable sources of energy rather than fossil fuels/reducing GHG emissions;
d. New Zealand is attempting to conserve native/endemic species/conservation efforts have increased the numbers of the critically endangered Kãkãpõ;
e. The EF for NZ is beginning to fall/is decreasing, suggesting that they are trying to live more sustainably;
Arguments that New Zealand is not living sustainably [4 max]:
f. Biocapacity is continuing to decline over time and this is not sustainable in the long term;
g. EF of New Zealand is greater than the overall biocapacity of the world which is not sustainable / New Zealand's ecological footprint per capita remains high (approx. 5 gha/person), indicating overconsumption compared to global sustainable limits ( ∼1.6 gha/person) / EF of New Zealand is much higher than the world average, which suggests they are consuming resources at a high/unsustainable rate;
h. 59\%/majority of energy used by New Zealand comes from fossil fuels, which release GHG/contribute to climate change/are finite/non-renewable;
i. New Zealand imports/uses fuel oil which is not renewable/when used produces CO2 which is a GHG/contributes to climate change;
j. New Zealand has a high level of car ownership which produces carbon dioxide which is a GHG/contributes to climate change/contributes to photochemical smog;
k. Continued reliance on high-emission sectors (e.g. agriculture and transport) makes emissions reduction more difficult (despite renewable electricity progress);
I. Livestock farming has grown significantly over time contributing to methane production/water pollution;
m. Intensive (arable) farming uses fertilizers which can lead to eutrophication of rivers / intensive arable farming use pesticides which can pollute rivers/kill non-target organisms/cause soil/water toxification / intensive farming has a heavy use of machinery which results in the combustion of fossil fuels/releases CO2;
n. New Zealand has lost large areas of forest/deforestation which has increased the risk of soil erosion/loss of habitats/loss of endemic species/loss of biodiversity/loss of a carbon sink;
o. Introduced predator species/invasive species continue to threaten the biodiversity of New Zealand;
p. Some species cannot survive without continued human intervention;
q. Population/immigration is increasing and therefore there will be a greater demand for resources in the future;
r. A high proportion of NZ's (endemic) species are threatened or at risk which suggests they are not living sustainably/that conservation measures have not been successful;
Note to examiners: Award [5 max] for pros and cons combined. Reserve one mark for the conclusion..
Conclusion [1 max]
For example: Although the ecological footprint for New Zealand is below its biocapacity which makes it appear sustainable, its use of imported oil/fossil fuels means the country is not truly sustainable;
A valid conclusion should be credited if it is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument) supported by evidence and makes a clear value judgement. Do not credit the conclusion if only one side of the argument has been considered within the overall response.
Marking guidance: