We actually had to write a paper on this for Environmental Studies 196...
An ecological footprint is the amount of earth?s surface that a person uses throughout his or her life. The area can either be depleted by the resources that are obtained from it or waste and pollution that destroy it. Direct and indirect factors are used to calculate an ecological footprint. For example, it accounts for the size of the shelter a person lives in but also the amount of land necessary to produce the food that they eat. Transportation is another major factor that effects the environment due to material costs, fuel costs, and pollution. Location also factors in to transportation. Living in a city requires traveling less distance compared to living in a rural area. Flying is especially heavy on the environment due to the large spaces necessary for planes and heavy materials and fuel consumption.
The United States, Canada, and Finland have the highest per capita geological footprint, using 24, 22, and 21 acres respectively. Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have the lowest per capita footprint, using 1.3, 1.9, and 2 acres respectively. The countries with the smallest footprints all have a high population compared to the amount of land in the country. India especially has a population growth rate that far exceeds the resources available in the country. The three northern countries with large footprints all are relatively wealthy. While their own countries can not sustain the resources consumed by the people, they have enough purchasing power to import all necessary goods for the near future.
The U.S. is a northern country that is often discussed as a very high consumption country. The average per capita ecological footprint is 24 acres. This is the highest of any nation in the world. It would require 5.5 planets to sustain every human on the planet if they lived like the average American. The size of North America plays a major role in consumption. In order to travel almost everyone needs a car to commute to work, school, home, or shops because of the large distance between them. In most European areas a bike or the bus is sufficient for commuting because of the closer proximity of buildings.
Our capitalist economy also plays a large role in our use of resources. There is a great incentive for companies to produce as much product as is demanded.
I use 15 acres while living at college and 23 acres while living at home. It would require 3.4 and 5.2 planets respectively, to sustain everyone at that level. My father uses 24 acres, exactly the national average. It takes 5.5 planets to sustain that amount of consumption. The most significant difference between him and me is the amount of transportation we use. Almost all of my transportation is on foot, completely opposite of my father. The second major difference is the amount of materials and services we consume. Living at college is very environmentally friendly compared to living at home due to the proximity of all the buildings. At home it is necessary to use a car far more to travel. This increases my consumption so that it is almost equal to my father?s. However, when I graduate I create a footprint that is somewhere in between what it is at college and at home. I will almost certainly be living in a smaller home, probably an apartment. I also believe that I will not need to travel as far as I do at home.
Currently 3% of the earth?s wilderness is preserved by regulations. In the U.S. a person with a very small ecological footprint of 8 acres, would still require 2 earths to sustain that lifestyle for everyone and maintain 3% of the of the surface for protected plant and animal areas. The idea of preserving 12% of the earth?s surface or even 30%-70% of the earth?s surface hides the fact that most of the world?s population will have to live in very sparse conditions. The statistics calculated above assume that the person lives in an environmentally friendly house, gets half their food from a nearby source, and carpools in a very efficient car. If the rest of the world catches up to this standard of living not even 1% of the earth can be preserved. This indicates that our resources will continue to become scarcer as human conditions improve. A goal that would test the strain of preserving wilderness on our resources would be to double the amount of land currently protected to 6%. This currently feasible goal would be a reasonable experiment in future conservation.
In order to reduce the size of my footprint here at school I decided to see what would happen if I studied from home. If I lived at home and commuted to school it would require far more resources. At home I have almost the same footprint as my fathers. Many of the factors that determine the footprint remain constant. College life seems to reduce a person?s impact on the environment by about 10 acres when compared to living in a house. The idea that packing a lot of people and what they need in a tight area reduces environmental impact could be used on a larger scale. Most people would agree that college life is generally agreeable. If the high cost of living could be driven down this type of urban environment would be very effective. At college there is very little I could do to decrease my ecological footprint. Eating less meat would decrease my footprint individually, but not effect the environment as the cafeteria produces a fixed amount. Consuming less meat at home also decreases my footprint but I would have a hard time eating meat less than once a day. The gas mileage of my car is merely average. If I buy a car that is very fuel efficient I could increase my gas mileage and cut down on fuel consumption. This is a very viable option since some of my costs could be regained by the fuel saved with the new car. Flying also uses a lot of resources. I could decrease my footprint by not flying at all. However, because I have relatives overseas this option is not very attractive. There are no reasonable alternatives to flying so it seems likely that is something I will do for most of my life.
An ecological footprint is an interesting way to think about one?s impact on the earth. It shows how much we actually consume as opposed to what?s directly in front of us. The beef that we eat was once a cow grazing on a pasture. Thus that pasture size has to be factored in to our ecological footprint. Then the meat has to be transported requiring fuel, roads, and expending pollution. All these factors are considered in an ecological footprint and are not normally thought of. The footprint also shows how many planets it would require to sustain everybody at your level of consumption. It shows the large disparity between nations in terms of resources. The footprint makes it clear that very few live as prosperously as someone in the US. Ideally everyone would consume the same ecological footprint and consume only as much as our planet can sustain. Realistically, history has created many differences through out the world that will be hard to change.
Facebook
Twitter