1. Ecological Footprint

edited March 2020 in Environment

[note: Today is sort of a warm-up. For today only you do not need to do reading summaries, and you will only need to do 2 forum posts instead of 3.]

Lenzen, M, D Moran, K Kanemoto, B Foran, L Lobefaro and A Geschke. 2012. “International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations” Nature 486: 109-112.

Plunder of the Earth’s natural resources up 200% in 40 years https://theecologist.org/2016/jul/26/plunder-earths-natural-resources-200-40-years

(optional) Rees, William and Mathis Wackernagel. 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 16: 223-248.


From the two really short articles you can see that our environmental efforts some intensely disturbing global disasters, and the economic infrastructure of the United States is at the center of the problem.

The US makes up 4.5% of the world’s population, but consumes nearly 1/5th of all its energy resources, produces nearly 1/5th of its garbage. The list goes on and on, food, water etc. As a country, we consistently outstrip the rest of the world (save China), but per person the numbers look particularly horrendous. If every country consumed what we do, it would take several Earths. A US citizen uses 833 times more of our biocapacity than an indigenous Amazonian subsistence farmer does. For those of you concerned with overpopulation, that means an Amazonian indigenous person would need to have 3,331 kids to match the consumption levels of an American family of 4. Giving the US as a country a break, the wealthiest 20% of the world consume nearly 80% of all the world’s natural resources. The poorest 20% consume 1.5%.

Go here and calculate your ecological footprint: https://www.footprintcalculator.org/

What was your score? Does it surprise you? What do you believe is the best way for us to reduce our collective footprint on the planet? Do you have any other comments or thoughts on the readings?

Comments

  • My score was 5.2 earths. It doesn’t surprise me that it was high but thinking about it in terms of earths needed for everyone to live like I do really redefines my expectations of what “high” meant. I think flying to school so frequently (from Boston to CO) is pretty killer. I believe one of the most important ways we can reduce our carbon footprint on a global scale is restructure the food industry. Food sources should be immensely more localized and less meat based. The ability for so many different organizations to spread fabricated propaganda about their products is nuts. The first quote from Alicia Barcena Ibarra in the Ecologist article is interesting to me. The link from a high rate of extraction of materials to decline in human health and quality of life is probably a lot more direct than I know. In my head, the immediate reaction would be that, short-term, more extraction could increase many peoples health. However, that is obviously a very privileged and localized perspective. Makes me think more...

  • My personal Earth Overshoot day was March 18th and if everyone lived like me we would need 4 Earths :( It does not necessarily surprise me because I spend a lot of time on airplanes which to my understanding has major environmental implications. Also, because I live in Los Angeles, I spend a lot of time in car/traffic and going a few miles takes longer than it would on open roads. I think that globalization and technological advancements have compounded the effects of every day life like travel, food consumption etc. If we took a drastic step back from the goal of progress, production would go down, prompting more sustainable consumption methods or at the very least, a comfort with “less” in quantity.

  • My ecological footprint quiz results were 4.8 earths. Without air travel the results were 3.3. This result frustrated me because I live in a senior cottage and we have almost no control of our heating. We have radiators in almost every room and bathroom and they are supposed to turn on when the outside temperature is 60 degrees. They often don't turn on when they are supposed to, but they also are often on when it is very warm outside. Even when it is cold outside we often open the windows because even when the valves on all of the radiators are closed it is still so hot in the house. We have leaky faucets, windows that don't close completely, and poor insulation. The school says they are carbon neutral and so I put 100% renewable energy for that section but the results were still so high. The school also provides a large dumpster for trash and a small recycling bin for all of the yampa cottages to share. Within a day or two the recycling is full so people throw recycling in the dumpster. CC can do better. But so can my housemates and myself, we leave lights on (especially on our porch), we leave the tv on sometimes, and we generate an absurd amount of waste (lots of cans and boxes). Air travel was also pretty bad for me as I tend do fly home a lot and travel at least once a year. It's pretty frustrating that we have so little control over what CC controls, but I could also put in a lot more effort to reduce my footprint.

  • edited March 2020

    My result didn't totally surprise me. It was 3.7 earths. I answered about my living situation on campus, which I didn't completely have a solid grasp on in terms of how much renewable energy the Italian is using. I guess living in dorms is actually a more efficient way of living than in a house with on a couple of other people. That's not a revolutionary observation but does sort of go against the immediate picture of environmentalists, who I imagine living in an a more open land scenario than maybe say a dorm room. I know there's definitely things I could be doing on an individual level that could be beneficial, for example flying, going from Colorado to Massachusetts and back for breaks is not a sustainable practice. The quiz is great for understanding individual impacts but I wonder about to what extent individual- level change is really the key to stopping environmental degradation. I feel like there's corporations which are responsible for huge amounts of fossil fuel emissions and political systems which fail to control them. Individual changes in lifestyle are important but I also see huge potential for reducing our collective footprint through political action and mobilization. I just feel like as long as the fossil fuel industry is able to thrive, individual action can only go so far. I do think the quiz is really great for understanding the ways in which our choices can impact the most vulnerable people to the effects of environmental degradation. Your own consumption patterns influence the livelihood of others and their health/ ability to thrive.

  • @caroline22 said:
    My score was 5.2 earths. It doesn’t surprise me that it was high but thinking about it in terms of earths needed for everyone to live like I do really redefines my expectations of what “high” meant. I think flying to school so frequently (from Boston to CO) is pretty killer. I believe one of the most important ways we can reduce our carbon footprint on a global scale is restructure the food industry. Food sources should be immensely more localized and less meat based. The ability for so many different organizations to spread fabricated propaganda about their products is nuts. The first quote from Alicia Barcena Ibarra in the Ecologist article is interesting to me. The link from a high rate of extraction of materials to decline in human health and quality of life is probably a lot more direct than I know. In my head, the immediate reaction would be that, short-term, more extraction could increase many peoples health. However, that is obviously a very privileged and localized perspective. Makes me think more..."

    Hey Caroline. I was thinking along similar lines! Transportation and globalized food were the first to come to mind for me in playing major roles in the environmental degradation were experiencing. In a similar vain to your comments on food production and consumption, I am thinking about the seafood industry in particular, which I have been researching for a separate paper. In my research I learned that a most of the fish (somewhere around 90 percent) Americans consume is from abroad and around 1/3rd of the fish caught in America is sent abroad. This seems like an inefficient and complication food production/consumption model considering the 1/3rd America is sending abroad could be eaten here instead which would supplement the amount of fish we need to import to fit consumption rates. Some of our seafood is even caught here, exported abroad to be processed and then reimported for American consumption. While I think global interconnectedness can be a positive of our current condition, there seem to be major pitfalls.

  • If everyone on the planet were to live like me, we would need 2.5 Earths. While it didn’t surprise me that if everyone were to live the way I do we would need more resources, I was surprised that my number was as low as it was. I think this is probably due to subconsciously underestimating the amount of resources I use or just the briefness of the quiz. This number is in part due to the fact that my house uses a lot of renewable energy and I live in a city, at least when I’m at home, that is very walkable and that when I’m at school everything I need is on campus. There’s very little need to drive places. While I do believe that individual choices make a difference in reducing our collective footprint, for example flying less, going vegan etc., I think a major way to reduce our collective footprint is through divestment in industries that are particularly abusive towards natural resources. Governmental regulation can be a tool to de-incentivize mass consumption of natural resources and is one area in which citizens can exert influence on policies that incentivize this type of behavior. One piece of the Lenzen et. Al article that I found particularly interesting was the argument for better consumer labels that traced not only short supply chains, but the more complex supply chains of international trade. I wonder how much of a difference this would make.

  • My score was 3.7 Earths, and the Overshoot day was calculated as being April 7th. I am slightly surprised by how 'low' my score was compared to what I thought it would be in my head. I believe it would be higher if the questions were more specific; my electricity and water use would up the number by an embarrassing/shameful amount. While I do not travel by car very many places, I do fly from Philly to Denver for most major holiday breaks in the school semester, which is a significant contributor to my carbon footprint. I know that the fashion industry is one of the most wasteful when considering the number of clothes manufactured, the means needed for production, the waste accumulated, and the short lifespan of most wardrobes. Not to mention, there are seasonal fashion trends that result in unnecessary consumerism. The shift towards clothing swaps and hand-me-downs has recently seen a new wave in the trendiness of consignment shops like our beloved Colorado Spring's Arc. I see this as a step in the right direction.

  • @elle said:
    If everyone on the planet were to live like me, we would need 2.5 Earths. While it didn’t surprise me that if everyone were to live the way I do we would need more resources, I was surprised that my number was as low as it was. I think this is probably due to subconsciously underestimating the amount of resources I use or just the briefness of the quiz. This number is in part due to the fact that my house uses a lot of renewable energy and I live in a city, at least when I’m at home, that is very walkable and that when I’m at school everything I need is on campus. There’s very little need to drive places. While I do believe that individual choices make a difference in reducing our collective footprint, for example flying less, going vegan etc., I think a major way to reduce our collective footprint is through divestment in industries that are particularly abusive towards natural resources. Governmental regulation can be a tool to de-incentivize mass consumption of natural resources and is one area in which citizens can exert influence on policies that incentivize this type of behavior. One piece of the Lenzen et. Al article that I found particularly interesting was the argument for better consumer labels that traced not only short supply chains, but the more complex supply chains of international trade. I wonder how much of a difference this would make.

    Hi Elle! I really like your point about divestment. It's also interesting to think about the ways in which fears surrounding the state of the environment has almost opened up a new market for green products. Rather than actually moving away from habits of mass consumption, people choose to consume differently and in ways that feel more environmentally friendly. It's really difficult to identify ways in which the actual culture of overconsumption itself can be curbed rather than the same levels just from improved sources. The quiz definitely made me think about that in terms of the question about diet. It's interesting to think that there could be one diet that's just inherently more environmentally friendly since people's sources for food across the globe/ climate for farming are so vastly different. Advertising and marketing, or at times political discourse, don't really leave space for those kinds of nuances, the way to get people to keep exchanging capital seems to be to assign certain behaviors, in this example diets, as bad or good, allowing for continued overconsumption just of different goods.

  • @caroline22 said:
    My score was 5.2 earths. It doesn’t surprise me that it was high but thinking about it in terms of earths needed for everyone to live like I do really redefines my expectations of what “high” meant. I think flying to school so frequently (from Boston to CO) is pretty killer. I believe one of the most important ways we can reduce our carbon footprint on a global scale is restructure the food industry. Food sources should be immensely more localized and less meat based. The ability for so many different organizations to spread fabricated propaganda about their products is nuts. The first quote from Alicia Barcena Ibarra in the Ecologist article is interesting to me. The link from a high rate of extraction of materials to decline in human health and quality of life is probably a lot more direct than I know. In my head, the immediate reaction would be that, short-term, more extraction could increase many peoples health. However, that is obviously a very privileged and localized perspective. Makes me think more...

    Yeah I'm pretty much on the same page with you and Cara here. Localization (food or otherwise) has a huge impact. When you look at the food, the shipping of the food, the packaging the food came in, the petrochemicals used to make the packaging, the packages the packages came in, the shipping for the packages of the packages of the packages, the feed that went into the industrial production of the animals, the shipping of that feed, the packages of the packages of the packages that went into the feed... the footprint we create (and the energy expended) is absurd. You can say the same for toilet paper or any number of things, and it's very much tied to our economic infrastructure of having all our basic needs met by multinational corporations. Any way we can subvert that is great!

  • I agree with your overall assessment that the quiz emphasizes individual action and lifestyle changes while it doesn't fully help people to understand the extent of corporate environmental degradation. I also immediately thought about the fact that flying to and from school is an unsustainable practice on a personal level. I think the most important point you bring up is that mass political mobilization and action is critical to reducing our collective footprint. I wonder if quizzes like these can help bring about that mobilization? Are there other ways to measure both a person's individual footprint and trace how they contribute or support larger corporations that have a huge footprint? Making one individual change in your life is admirable and I believe it is important to do one's part; however, without structural change, I would argue it doesn't have as much of an impact as one might hope or wish that it does. (hopefully this post worked, was unsure of how to properly leave a comment)

    @charlotte said:
    My result didn't totally surprise me. It was 3.7 earths. I answered about my living situation on campus, which I didn't completely have a solid grasp on in terms of how much renewable energy the Italian is using. I guess living in dorms is actually a more efficient way of living than in a house with on a couple of other people. That's not a revolutionary observation but does sort of go against the immediate picture of environmentalists, who I imagine living in an a more open land scenario than maybe say a dorm room. I know there's definitely things I could be doing on an individual level that could be beneficial, for example flying, going from Colorado to Massachusetts and back for breaks is not a sustainable practice. The quiz is great for understanding individual impacts but I wonder about to what extent individual- level change is really the key to stopping environmental degradation. I feel like there's corporations which are responsible for huge amounts of fossil fuel emissions and political systems which fail to control them. Individual changes in lifestyle are important but I also see huge potential for reducing our collective footprint through political action and mobilization. I just feel like as long as the fossil fuel industry is able to thrive, individual action can only go so far. I do think the quiz is really great for understanding the ways in which our choices can impact the most vulnerable people to the effects of environmental degradation. Your own consumption patterns influence the livelihood of others and their health/ ability to thrive.

  • Going into this I thought that my score would be pretty low, around 2 or 3 earths, but It came out to be around 4 or 5. I took it a couple times playing around with the sliders and the most interesting result I came across is when I took the quiz trying to be as environmentally friendly as possible while still being realistic. The result of this was an 'earth consumption' of still above 1 earth. It makes me worried for the future. We know that continents such as North America and Europe consume a lot of resources when compared to the rest of the world. My thought is that communities around the world that do not use a lot of resources will eventually due to globalization and the goal of getting everyone the same standard of living as seen in places like the US and Western Europe. As these places begin to convert to this style of living, we will eventually use more resources than the world has to offer. People talk about how public policy will help to fix this but to be honest I'm not sure about it. Is there any hope?

  • @elle said:
    If everyone on the planet were to live like me, we would need 2.5 Earths. While it didn’t surprise me that if everyone were to live the way I do we would need more resources, I was surprised that my number was as low as it was. I think this is probably due to subconsciously underestimating the amount of resources I use or just the briefness of the quiz. This number is in part due to the fact that my house uses a lot of renewable energy and I live in a city, at least when I’m at home, that is very walkable and that when I’m at school everything I need is on campus. There’s very little need to drive places. While I do believe that individual choices make a difference in reducing our collective footprint, for example flying less, going vegan etc., I think a major way to reduce our collective footprint is through divestment in industries that are particularly abusive towards natural resources. Governmental regulation can be a tool to de-incentivize mass consumption of natural resources and is one area in which citizens can exert influence on policies that incentivize this type of behavior. One piece of the Lenzen et. Al article that I found particularly interesting was the argument for better consumer labels that traced not only short supply chains, but the more complex supply chains of international trade. I wonder how much of a difference this would make.

    Elle, great point about the need for advocacy by citizens for protecting our natural resources through political change. I agree that governmental regulation of large industries (particularly that of the fashion industry) and confinements on logging and fishing operations to make them more sustainable is necessary to decrease our combined carbon footprint. I also found the part in the Lenzen et. Al article about the 1977 CITES report that equates selling unsustainable commodities as equally as harmful as illegal animal trafficking to be striking. The politics on international trade are very complex, and I, therefore, do not have an answer as to how effective this would be. The number of countries participating, the amount of pushback received, and the strength of black markets and illegal trade all undercut the effectiveness of regulations. There is also a discourse when making the jump between condemning animal trafficking, which provides a face and name to the victims, with that of commodities like cocoa harvesting being abhorrent-- the average person may not see the cocoa tree as a 'victim' in the same sense. This is where I think the media comes into play in terms of educating the people. If people put pressure on governments for implementation of policies after they are informed of the harms of everyday consumerism, then maybe change can happen.

  • edited March 2020

    x

  • It also seems like theres opportunity to follow up a quiz like this with much more information. On the individual scale theres a lot of aspects of people, atleast specifcally American's lives, that feel unnegotiable (and use a lot of resources and energy) such as going to school across the country and what not. I feel like theres a big opportunity to advocate for alternative eco-friendly conservation methods such as neutralizing your own personal footprint (instead of completely elimimnating it) which potentially feel more attainable. I think there should be a lot more access for average people to be able to do that. An example could be giving a couple dollars to some organizations that specicialize in reduction of carbon each time I flew to school or something. There also is potential for more structural changes such as these. Instead of encouraging people to neutralize their footprint, airlines could agree to upcharge flights and pay the money to environmental organizations themselves.

    @elle said:
    I agree with your overall assessment that the quiz emphasizes individual action and lifestyle changes while it doesn't fully help people to understand the extent of corporate environmental degradation. I also immediately thought about the fact that flying to and from school is an unsustainable practice on a personal level. I think the most important point you bring up is that mass political mobilization and action is critical to reducing our collective footprint. I wonder if quizzes like these can help bring about that mobilization? Are there other ways to measure both a person's individual footprint and trace how they contribute or support larger corporations that have a huge footprint? Making one individual change in your life is admirable and I believe it is important to do one's part; however, without structural change, I would argue it doesn't have as much of an impact as one might hope or wish that it does. (hopefully this post worked, was unsure of how to properly leave a comment)

  • The ecological footprint quiz determined that if everyone were to live like me, we would collectively use 2.7 Earths. I filled out this survey using my current living style, aka quarantined in my home. This definitely cut down on my motor traffic estimate, however, I believe that besides that there were few changes. As I filled out the survey I tried to compare my lifestyle at home to mine at school. I believe at school I tend to live a far more efficient lifestyle. As Charlotte observed, dorm style living does correlate to a lower ecological footprint than my single family home at school. CC is also more conscious about insulation and lighting efficiency than my parents can be in our old home. In addition, I eat far less meat at school, and generally consume fewer animal products such as eggs and cheese. I also don't drive when not carpooling, as I don't own a car. However, when I'm home on breaks my friends and I consistently go on long drives as an activity, which is definitely not eco-friendly. Amalie introduced an interesting point of the current fashion industry and the way out clothing contributes to our carbon footprint. When at school I tend to purchase most of my clothing second hand from thrift shops like the Arc, as they're so accessible. With everything being closed now, I am purchasing more things from retailers online, meaning that there is a greater carbon footprint in their production and shipment. I find these surveys to be a very useful tool in checking your own consumption, and finding more specific areas to improve on. I think waste and transit are the areas where I strive to grow the most.

  • The ecological footprint quiz determined that if everyone consumed as much as me we would need 2.5 earths to sustain the planet. This makes sense but is a scary reality that highlights the lack of sustainability in of our lifestyles. The average American uses enough resources that if everyone lived that way we would need 5 planets. I think the main reason my number was lower than that is because I filled this out as if I were still living life like I would at CC. I don't commute every day and live in an apartment with 8 others. CC also makes it easier to reduce our impact, for example it's far easier to compost at CC than at my family home with my parents. Now that I am back in Seattle I think that transportation will greatly increase my footprint. I will likley be commuting upwards of an hour a day in my car without carpooling to get to and from work. I am vegetarian which is an area that I also think helps reduce my carbon impact, but thats not to say meat alternatives cannot be just as bad and I am certainly contributing to the dairy industry. The food industry is an area in which we all contribute to and is a major source of our carbon footprint.

  • @a_hipp said:
    My score was 3.7 Earths, and the Overshoot day was calculated as being April 7th. I am slightly surprised by how 'low' my score was compared to what I thought it would be in my head. I believe it would be higher if the questions were more specific; my electricity and water use would up the number by an embarrassing/shameful amount. While I do not travel by car very many places, I do fly from Philly to Denver for most major holiday breaks in the school semester, which is a significant contributor to my carbon footprint. I know that the fashion industry is one of the most wasteful when considering the number of clothes manufactured, the means needed for production, the waste accumulated, and the short lifespan of most wardrobes. Not to mention, there are seasonal fashion trends that result in unnecessary consumerism. The shift towards clothing swaps and hand-me-downs has recently seen a new wave in the trendiness of consignment shops like our beloved Colorado Spring's Arc. I see this as a step in the right direction.

    I think bringing up the fashion industry is something really important to talk about and a topic that is not often thought about when considering our carbon footprint. Not only is there a lot of energy and resources needed to ship and package those products from all over the world, there is also a huge pollution impact. I watched a documentary about it for a previous class and I remember them stating that it is one of the worst polluters of water after agriculture. The dyes used for clothes, especially jeans are very toxic. The use of synthetic material by the fast fashion industry is also believed to be a major contributor of microplastics. I think a question on this survey about clothing shopping habits could be an interesting addition and cause people to think more about the impact of their shopping habits.

  • I agree with what Caroline said about neutralizing ones own carbon footprint and I like the idea of airlines being more responsible for the emissions of flights. However, I think that increasing prices of flights is not the way to do it as it makes travel even less accessible to poorer people. There should be more responsibility on companies to reduce carbon footprint, but this is hard for the travel industry and companies like amazon. While there is a greater carbon footprint with individual shipments and orders online versus the shipments of those products to stores, online deliveries may be cheaper and necessary for some people. Finding a balance between thinking economically and environmentally with consumerism is important but for a lot of people there is no option. I think one solution is policy changes and more environmental accountability for companies.
    And @slothman with globalization environmental issues will get a lot worse but I think lifestyle changes and technological advancements that will help the environment will happen. There is some hope.

  • My score shows that if everyone lived like me, we would need 3 Earths. Since I've never taken this test, it surprised me to see how my idea of sustainable living is not as sustainable as I though it was. At the same time, it's not such a surprise to see the result given the fact that as an international student from two different countries (Lebanon and Armenia) studying in Colorado, I spend a lot of hours traveling, which is one of the biggest footprints.
    I struggled to answer some of the questions because I have moved around the world the past few years and each lifestyle would generate different results. However, my central source of carbon footprint being flights, the results wouldn't differ vastly.
    As a vegetarian, I try to reduce my footprint by not consuming meat, which is a major source of our carbon footprint. However, it's also important to acknowledge that not all alternatives are sustainable (such as soy) and not to dismiss the implications of imported products (such as importing quinoa from Peru to the United States).
    Improving public transportation and its accessibility are also major steps to reduce our collective footprint. It is ridiculous the amount of huge cars I see in the US with only one person in it...

  • @slothman said:
    Going into this I thought that my score would be pretty low, around 2 or 3 earths, but It came out to be around 4 or 5. I took it a couple times playing around with the sliders and the most interesting result I came across is when I took the quiz trying to be as environmentally friendly as possible while still being realistic. The result of this was an 'earth consumption' of still above 1 earth. It makes me worried for the future. We know that continents such as North America and Europe consume a lot of resources when compared to the rest of the world. My thought is that communities around the world that do not use a lot of resources will eventually due to globalization and the goal of getting everyone the same standard of living as seen in places like the US and Western Europe. As these places begin to convert to this style of living, we will eventually use more resources than the world has to offer. People talk about how public policy will help to fix this but to be honest I'm not sure about it. Is there any hope?

    I think hopelessness in the face of environmental crises is destructive and apathetic. Every bit of our actions should be taken accountable. Even if what we're doing means preserving a small percentage of the biodiversity, it shouldn't discourage us but do the opposite. At this point of urgency, all the little positive actions are extremely important and a sense of hopelessness is not only removing yourself from this responsibility as a human but also discourages the ones around you. It is also worth acknowledging that your perspective on being "as environmentally friendly as possible while still being realistic" is coming from a point of privilege that most of the earth's population doesn't have access to. Not to mention the fact that "places like the US and Western Europe" have time and time again exploited the resources robbed from communities around the globe that even with globalization these communities will not have access to the resources you mentioned. So to answer your question, this crisis is not about hope, it's about responsibility, accountability and action. Nihilism undermines all of that.

  • @caroline22 said:
    The first quote from Alicia Barcena Ibarra in the Ecologist article is interesting to me. The link from a high rate of extraction of materials to decline in human health and quality of life is probably a lot more direct than I know. In my head, the immediate reaction would be that, short-term, more extraction could increase many peoples health.

    That's a really good catch Caroline. There's some optional readings in folder 3 (progress can kill) that sort of delve into an aspect of that, and if you're interested I can send you some scans of Bodley's Victims of Progress which I assign in another class. It's also interesting how wealth in the US creates new public health problems like obesity.

  • My ecological footprint was 2.9 earths, which did not suprise me when I saw that my exceding 40 hours a year of flying was responsible for almost 2/3 of it. I did also play aroung with it, and tried to see if it would change a lot depending in my lifestyle in the US and in Uruguay, and also my diet. With my life style it did not change much, 0.3 earths more for my lifestyle in the US. But my diet did generate a huge difference of exactly a whole earth. I used to eat meat daily sometimes even twice, while now I limit myself to eat cheese once in a while as my only diary product. I have tried to feel comfortable with the idea that my diet, paying to off-set my flying emissions, and the fact that I bike everywhere was making up for the emissions of my flights, but when I tried putting no flights at all, my ecological footprint was of 1.2 earths. Is incredible to see how much personal actions do play a huge part in environmental issues, and how absurd is the fact that I spent 5 years of my life travelling to "get the best education I can" while in the middle of a global pandemic (also highly influenced by food consumption and flying) seems that I could have done much of it without moving from my home.
    I still believe that there could be way more detail in the survey to make answers more accurate, is it the same cooking and heatin your house with fire/gas/elctricity? Is the equipment in your house shipped from half the world away or local? From which renewable sources is your energy coming from? Still, it is such an important information everyone should check to keep themselves accountable on what is their role in this global environmental crisis. (And mostly what is ours as students from a really privileged Univeristy)

  • Many politicians in the Third World have excused their exploitation of natural resources under the name of development, and mostly their sovereignty to do with their country what “developed countries” did since hundreds of years ago in their lands and in other lands to develop. A clear example is Bolsonaro and the increase in deforestation in Brazil. In that way I agree with you, industrialization has become a shared goal by many of the nation-states around the world and exploitation of natural resources is a key aspect of this.
    That said, I do not believe that as individuals we all seek the same lifestyle or “standard of living”. Environmental, indigenous, and anti-colonialist movements can prove you the exact opposite in the way that they react to these exploitation of natural resources. Communities across the globe have have diverse lifestyles, even within the US, to “scape” form the high consumption and environmentally harmful practices of the country. We definitely need to take active actions on our lifestyle to change what seems hopeless, and if we NEED to put hope into something I guess it can be technology and greener ways of energy (but by no means this should be used as a call to innaction).

  • edited March 2020

    Completely agree that upcharging flights to compensate for carbon footprints would make travel less accessible to poorer people and that that doesn't feel right. However, I can't really think of a feasible alternative. It seems like even if there were more responsiblity on airlines to reduce their carbon footprint, there is only so much that can really be done. At some point the concept of working to net zero their footprint would come into play. Additonally, for a company to work to net zero their footprint anyway, they would need money and it seems like for them to get that money charging more would be kind of the only solution. Its easy for me to say, but it seems like a side effect of limiting the percentage of people who can afford to travel is not bad enough that it would be a reason to do it. I think for a lot of environmental issues there can be this wierd dichotomy between helping the planet and hurting/detrimenting some people some how. I can't decide exactly what I think of that- which one is more important... Maybe its not even a real dichotomy and there's much better alternatives? Of course the airline example is all hypothetical too though so I don't really have a clue.

    @fionaw said:
    I agree with what Caroline said about neutralizing ones own carbon footprint and I like the idea of airlines being more responsible for the emissions of flights. However, I think that increasing prices of flights is not the way to do it as it makes travel even less accessible to poorer people. There should be more responsibility on companies to reduce carbon footprint, but this is hard for the travel industry and companies like amazon. While there is a greater carbon footprint with individual shipments and orders online versus the shipments of those products to stores, online deliveries may be cheaper and necessary for some people. Finding a balance between thinking economically and environmentally with consumerism is important but for a lot of people there is no option. I think one solution is policy changes and more environmental accountability for companies.

    And @slothman with globalization environmental issues will get a lot worse but I think lifestyle changes and technological advancements that will help the environment will happen. There is some hope.

  • I see a lot of people are talking about the environmental impact of food consumption, especially when talking about trade and transportation of said food. I think the Lenzen article brings up an interesting point on how to potentially save certain species that are affected by specific commodities being exported. Their solution is to limit or disallow the export of these commodities. This seems like a simple solution but brings forth a number of issues, one of which is people around the world will need certain things like coffee. However there is a way to fix this issue one of which I believe will have to go into affect which is localized indoor farming. With technology today there are ways to simulate specific climates so that specific crops can grow. I think if exports were disallowed or limited the demand for these sort of farms could grow and could potentially turn out to be more economically viable than the importation of goods.

  • edited March 2020

    @slothman I think that this is a really interesting point, and a great connection to the readings. I haven't read much on localized indoor farming, but the theory seems very logical, and I'm surprised it hasn't been implemented in more areas. I wonder if there is potential for this type of innovation to extend to vertical farming, or other sorts of techniques which further save space, and potentially energy if certain crops require extremely warm climate. I think that your point on needing a wide-scale embargo on globally traded goods is also fascinating. This is kind of a chicken vs egg situation, as to which action would have to be taken first, creating the indoor farms or creating the demand. I think that issues with water scarcity may arise depending on what part of the country you are based in, but there could be hubs within the confines of the United States which produce crops with a high-water demand and then transport within the confines of the nation.

  • @ccstein said:
    @slothman I think that this is a really interesting point, and a great connection to the readings. I haven't read much on localized indoor farming, but the theory seems very logical, and I'm surprised it hasn't been implemented in more areas. I wonder if there is potential for this type of innovation to extend to vertical farming, or other sorts of techniques which further save space, and potentially energy if certain crops require extremely warm climate. I think that your point on needing a wide-scale embargo on globally traded goods is also fascinating. This is kind of a chicken vs egg situation, as to which action would have to be taken first, creating the indoor farms or creating the demand. I think that issues with water scarcity may arise depending on what part of the country you are based in, but there could be hubs within the confines of the United States which produce crops with a high-water demand and then transport within the confines of the nation.

    @caroline22 said:
    Completely agree that upcharging flights to compensate for carbon footprints would make travel less accessible to poorer people and that that doesn't feel right. However, I can't really think of a feasible alternative. It seems like even if there were more responsiblity on airlines to reduce their carbon footprint, there is only so much that can really be done. At some point the concept of working to net zero their footprint would come into play. Additonally, for a company to work to net zero their footprint anyway, they would need money and it seems like for them to get that money charging more would be kind of the only solution. Its easy for me to say, but it seems like a side effect of limiting the percentage of people who can afford to travel is not bad enough that it would be a reason to do it. I think for a lot of environmental issues there can be this wierd dichotomy between helping the planet and hurting/detrimenting some people some how. I can't decide exactly what I think of that- which one is more important... Maybe its not even a real dichotomy and there's much better alternatives? Of course the airline example is all hypothetical too though so I don't really have a clue.

    @fionaw said:
    I agree with what Caroline said about neutralizing ones own carbon footprint and I like the idea of airlines being more responsible for the emissions of flights. However, I think that increasing prices of flights is not the way to do it as it makes travel even less accessible to poorer people. There should be more responsibility on companies to reduce carbon footprint, but this is hard for the travel industry and companies like amazon. While there is a greater carbon footprint with individual shipments and orders online versus the shipments of those products to stores, online deliveries may be cheaper and necessary for some people. Finding a balance between thinking economically and environmentally with consumerism is important but for a lot of people there is no option. I think one solution is policy changes and more environmental accountability for companies.

    And @slothman with globalization environmental issues will get a lot worse but I think lifestyle changes and technological advancements that will help the environment will happen. There is some hope.

    In Lenzen's article there is a similar point on how to solve biodiversity loss and emissions by taking as a key part of the analysis who should be responsible for those. "Developed" nations have accepted conditions for production in other countries that they will never accept in their own, and later on blamed them for their emissions in it. It seems clear that the responsibility should not go one way, the "host" country, the importer, and the company (and it's clients) should all be responisble for this. One solution that is argued is the fact of making information more accesible, if people know that the coffee they are buying from Mexico is responsible of X number of animal species loss, would they still buy it? I guess there is when inidivudal choices do matter, if the demand exists they will continue to produce it. Information should be clear and out there. I actually do not think that it would change much until informtion on environmental issues and education on it becomes more widespread. Adding to this, there is the other soultion, that I think you are reffering to, of taxing companies and countries in their emissions and environmental impact. But again, those comapanies have so much power in the world and politics, that it seems less and less likely that they could be directly asked to take responsibility over those actions.

    I am really skeptical about whether there could be such a balance on encomics and the environment when economics has clearly become a synonym of capitalism. Even if we do keep companies accountable, the expxlotation of resources and economic relations of imperialism will continue to exixst. To solve cliamte change first world countries are not paying the poor countries in danger, such as Bolivia, (which have been exploited by them since the 1500) because they are being the most affected. They are trying to solve a problem cause by capitalism with more capital, which is literally resulting in nothing. The same happend with the Sustainable development goals that are expressed in the Ecologists, the 8th one claims for economic growth. Under which circumstance have economies grow the way they did in the last 100 years? And why do we insist in this globalzied idea of economic growth?

  • @Julieta said:
    Many politicians in the Third World have excused their exploitation of natural resources under the name of development, and mostly their sovereignty to do with their country what “developed countries” did since hundreds of years ago in their lands and in other lands to develop. A clear example is Bolsonaro and the increase in deforestation in Brazil. In that way I agree with you, industrialization has become a shared goal by many of the nation-states around the world and exploitation of natural resources is a key aspect of this.
    That said, I do not believe that as individuals we all seek the same lifestyle or “standard of living”. Environmental, indigenous, and anti-colonialist movements can prove you the exact opposite in the way that they react to these exploitation of natural resources. Communities across the globe have have diverse lifestyles, even within the US, to “scape” form the high consumption and environmentally harmful practices of the country. We definitely need to take active actions on our lifestyle to change what seems hopeless, and if we NEED to put hope into something I guess it can be technology and greener ways of energy (but by no means this should be used as a call to innaction).

    This was in response to @slothman and @Patilkh 'discussion :)

Sign In or Register to comment.