Ecological Footprint: Lab When I

Ecological Footprint: Lab

When I first learned that my ecological footprint was calculated at 4.7 planets, I was upset. I have been trying to use the resources around me in a responsible manner, but according to this calculation, my lifestyle was nowhere near what would be defined as sustainable, either for myself or much less my children. An ecological footprint is defined according to environmental scientists as "how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resource it consumes and to absorb its wastes, using prevailing technology"

Footprint Basics - Overview, 2009, Footprint Network). Another way of thinking of this is how much harm an individual life does to the planet that cannot be undone.

The footprint is a product of many factors. Some aspects of the footprint are due to individual choices, such as what type of food you consume or what kind of car you drive. But economic circumstances might limit your choice of certain foodstuffs, such as organic foods, and your job may require you to drive long distances, to areas where there is little or no public transportation. Your occupation may require you to drive frequently. And you may have parents or a spouse who generates a great deal of trash, even though you strive to reuse and recycle. While it might be easy to deny yourself consumer goods, it can be harder to deny a loved one what he or she desires.

There are a number of possible criticisms of the ecological footprint because of the lack of control individuals have over many of its components. Many of us are trapped in Westernized urban or suburban lifestyles that are not of our creation. The most serious the criticisms of the ecological footprint involves its calculations regarding fuel: "the measurement of ecological footprint does not take into account the side effects of trade practices, urbanization, the differences between the ways of energy generation and consumption and other similar factors, which contribute to the shaping of the lifestyle of a populace. The ecological footprint ignores the fact that farmers in the rural areas are bound to consume more resources in transportation and in making up for the insufficiency of other needful resources" while it is very easy for an urban dweller to walk to the store to get a quart of milk or a new container of laundry detergent -- organic and environmentally friendly, of course (Ecological footprint, 2009, Buzzle.com).

People in rural and suburban areas lack adequate access to public transportation, which immediately increases their ecological footprint. But although residents of cities may walk more or take public transport, the amount of electricity it takes to light a city, to air-condition it in the summer, and the amount of fossil fuel it takes to heat a city during the winter is far greater than that of a suburb or rural area. There is also the 'trade off' in terms of certain life choices that are penalized highly by the model. An activist or environmental science professor may take planes all over the world to help people in suffering areas, unlike someone who never travels by plane but takes little interest in environmental issues. Would it be better if no one had an SUV to take into the woods to go camping, to learn about the importance of the environment? Surely, learning about the environment is a way to spur people on, especially the next generation, to want to help the planet.

Meat is also penalized very heavily, but the source of the meat, whether it is grain-fed or pasture-raised, is not taken into a consideration. Non-meat processed foods can still travel a long distance and have an impact on the environment. However, I should note that my eating habits were the worst offenses on my ecological footprint scorecard, and even though I do not agree with all of the calculations, doing the footprint analysis was an important wake-up call for me in terms of how I view myself and my food choices in relationship to the environment.

When comparing my results with my colleagues, food was definitely one of the worst problems for all of us, particularly for me. We agreed this is partially a result of being students, as we often eat on the run, and eat food that is processed, contains meat, and is not prepared in a sustainable manner. Eating more locally-grown food grown on farms rather than in an industrial fashion would be one way for all of us to reduce are carbon footprint. Eating less processed food would result in smaller amounts of physical waste being strewn all over the planet and cooking more at home would mean lower environmental transportation costs as we would use less fuel driving to restaurants.