watch your step

The concept of an ecological footprint is great for visualizing the idea that we are running an ecological deficit: our collective demands on the Earth's productivity exceed its capacity. It also illustrates how we can reduce our individual footprints in the lifestyle choices we make. However, as pointed out by Stephen Bocking in the Spring 2004 edition of Alternatives Journal, the concept has its shortcomings:

It ignores problems that can't be reduced to the effects of consumption, such as species extinction or toxic waste. A region could run an ecological surplus, but still lose species. A housing development might have a tiny footprint - built from recycled materials, solar powered, without a car in sight - but if placed in the middle of a wilderness it would still be a travesty.

Many of the assumptions used in calculating how much land a person needs to support his or her lifestyle are open to question. Do we really know enough about how the ecosystem works to be able to realistically calculate our footprint? There is also the fundamental assumption that any resource used by one person (or the human species) is no longer available to another person (or species). This, Bocking argues, is an oversimplification. Another problem is that "the concept distracts us from some important, real causes of scarcity: not just exhausted resources, but also war, oppression and inequality." And the concept simply does not attempt to quantify beauty, diversity or intrinsic worth.

Still, you could do worse than spend a few minutes with a footprint calculator. There are a number online, but here are two. One calculates your individual footprint and the other calculates a nation's collective footprint. The second one provides background information on how a nation's footprint is calculated.

how now, brown cow?

As reported on Discovery Channel:

Farm animals like sheep and cows produce large amounts of methane gas when they digest their food. The gas then escapes out either end of the animal and into the atmosphere. This process accounts for one fifth of all the world's methane emissions, and since methane is a potent greenhouse gas, making cows and sheep less flatulent is a big priority in the fight against global warming. That's why a team of scientists in Western Australia has developed a vaccine that kills the methane-producing bacteria that live in the sheep's digestive tract. After two injections, the test sheep produced eight per cent less methane than before, and the scientists expect this percentage to increase as they refine the vaccine and make it more effective.

Hmmm. Maybe we should just eat more grain and less meat.

north could learn from south

Ontario intends to signficantly reduce its dependence on coal-fired power generating stations, but has done little to publicize the economic benefits, choosing to focus instead on the important environmental benefits. The South Arican government last year approved a renewable energy white paper that aims to increase the renewable energy contribution to final energy consumption annually by 10 000GWh by 2013, mainly from biomass, wind, solar and small-scale hydro. Adoption of the white paper had been delayed by the lack of a financial and economic analysis study, which is now complete, and shows the impact that the introduction of renewable energy technologies will have on parameters such as employment creation, low income household incomes, and Gross Domestic Product. As quoted by the IIEC, the benefits are considerable:

The net impact on GDP of investing in RE technologies rather than in a coal-fired power station in achieving the ten-year target has now been modelled to be as high as 1 000 million Rand (Rand 6.3=US$1) per year (2003). This impact includes both the initial construction phase as well as ongoing operations. This impact is to be achieved through support of new generating facilities beyond the financially viable level of approximately 5 400 GWh annually.

one reason why the West is a poor role model

In a recent press release, the International Association of Public Transportation shows just how much cars are increasing dependence on fossil fuels:

The growing world demand for oil has been largely fuelled by the United States and China. The demand for gasoline in the United States has been increasing sharply as a result of ever more cars on the road and longer commuting distances. Yet, according to a recent report by the American Public Transportation Association, if Americans used public transport at the same rate as Europeans, the US would reduce its dependence on imported oil by over 40% (roughly the amount imported from Saudi Arabia annually).

With a daily increase of 1,000 private vehicles in Peking alone, the ‘car boom’ is also largely responsible for China’s growing energy needs. “The case of China shows us all too clearly how worrying the future potential is,” explained Prof Dr Ing Meyer. China currently has about 15 cars per 1,000 inhabitants, compared with 500 per 1,000 in western Europe and 700 per 1,000 in the United States. With the rapidly-growing Chinese economy, this figure is set to jump to 80 cars per 1,000 inhabitants by 2020.