On ecological footprints, again

14 Dec 2005

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Dear Umbra,

I have a couple of questions that relate to how I live and ask others to live. First, my guess is that many of your readers are above average in terms of income and education; who is the average American that we need ultimately to create a sustainable life for? Second, as we try to make our personal lives more sustainable, what is the ecological footprint we need to seek (i.e., square acres or miles or whatever) and what resources does that block contain for us to use in a sustainable way?

Kit Robison
Columbus, Ohio

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Dearest Kit,

A while back I wrote about the ecological footprint, and I appreciate the opportunity to revisit the topic and retract my snarkiness.

The sole of a new machine.

Photo: iStockphoto.

First, as we contemplate your question, Grist readers are "above average" in terms of education, and many do well on the income front. I would argue, however, that demographic categories and the "average person" for whom a "sustainable life" needs to be designed are red herrings. People with fewer years of education don't have inherently different needs from Ph.D.s. If people do have different needs, it's because of their whole personhood. No one wants their sustainable life to be designed for them, and the only way sustainability can achieve its true promise is if it serves people's self-identified needs. Otherwise, it will not be sustainable, it will be a fad.

Now, on to the ecological footprint. This concept was coined by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees in 1993. They looked at how much of the planet is habitable and accessible, at natural resources, at consumption and waste, then devised a formula and came up with a number: each human is allotted 4.5 acres. (The typical American "uses" 24 acres.) Take some time to measure your own footprint, explore how to reduce it, and learn more about the resources our global acres contain.

Back in my last look at the footprint, I got all snarky about how it makes you feel bad. I have since been converted by none other than Mathis Wackernagel himself, a nice, smart fellow who got tired of flying around to make presentations (as he well knows, flying puts us over the top on the personal-footprint calculator) and made a film about his work to send instead. I saw this film, "The Ecological Footprint: Accounting for a Small Planet," and it is a good (if oddly expensive) resource.

In the film, nice Mathis very reasonably and kindly explains that this tool is a friendly way to make plans for the future so we all can live happy lives. He and his cohorts intended the tool not for individuals, but for communities, states, and countries -- I missed that point originally. Since our personal footprint includes shared burdens such as roads, it encourages us to solve problems as a team. To that end, the Global Footprint Network is working to standardize the footprint tools and expand their use worldwide until they become an indicator as familiar as GDP. With the footprint calculator, communities can measure how far they are from sustainability, and set meaningful, realistic goals.

I am now quite excited about the potential of the footprint to help extricate us from the hole we've dug for ourselves. As its proponents say, "The ecological footprint is not about how bad things are. It is about how they are -- and what we can do about it."

Retractfully,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Prints Charming

I have to admit I was happy to see that charm can still get you something in the world today. The footprint is a great way to introduce folks to sustainability. However, I am worried that the push for standards in the footprint world is premature given the problems with the science that have been discussed at length in the lit, i.e. Ecological Economics. But never mind, lets make the blurry bleak picture of our ecological footprint the status-quo --as prince charming suggests, apparently, with great effect and interest at stake . . . .

by jvenet at 9:49 AM on 15 Dec 2005

Needs vs. available resources

Umbra--though usually right on--misses the point when it comes to education/income and footprints. It's very easy to minimize your footprint if you live in the city (preferably an energy efficient apt. building), take public transportation to work (or even work from home), and still manage to purchase locally grown/organic food (often found in more expensive supermarkets). Income has a lot to do with a person's footprint. For instance, whether or not you can even afford the expensive rents of a city, or even the cost of public transportation hinges on income. In my case, there are commuter buses I could take to work, but it's actually quite expensive, as they're the ones that also take folks to the airport. While I don't work in the city, I do work in an expensive part of the world, and can't afford to live close by. I purchased the best car I could that was most efficient (an Echo), but couldn't afford the 4x higher pricetag of a hybrid, with minimal mileage improvement. I buy local foods when I can--usually in the summer from farmer's markets--and cannot always afford to buy organic foods. My home is modestly sized for the area (where many places are knocked down for McMansions). I have a housemate but no children, so I don't have as many people banging around my house than if I contributed to population growth.

While we all need to be responsible for our own actions, the design of our cities and towns need to be reevaluated--and where possible, changed. I lived in England for a year, and never owned a car. I didn't need one to get to work or the supermarket. But our system of highways--while very convenient--make it dangerous, if not impossible to walk or bike to work or the store. Holding our local, state and federal governments responsible for this sprawl is necessary. And hopefully the idea of more cohousing (which Umbra also covered recently) will catch on as well.

by kamaral at 1:30 PM on 15 Dec 2005

It is not just individuals

While the idea of a footprint is not all bad (it helps us measure the impact of various choices on the environment), I do have one major problem with it.
It is not only individuals that consume and produce waste. Corporations, unions, governments, schools, museums, churches and all other institutions also make decisions about consumption patterns.
Assigning all consumption to individuals misses the impact of institutions. For instance, the US military is a major polluter. Look at the use of radioactive ammunition, and landmines. These are major environmental problems that cannot be assigned to individuals.
Yes, we need to clean up our individual acts, but let's not forget the choices institutions of all types make.

by bookerly at 9:09 PM on 15 Dec 2005

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?