Looking Into My Ecological Footprint

Within an Environmental Studies class I took here at Western, I researched what my ecological footprint was. An ecological foot print is the amount of resources a person consumes compared to the amount of resources available globally. This research paper addresses my personal faults as a consumer as well as national averages that people contribute to every day.

After taking the Global Footprint Network’s assessment, I found that if everyone lived like I did growing up in Alaska, we would need 2.4 planets. To put this into further perspective, we would need 4.2 trillion more trees than we have today. In addition, our planet has enough resources and livable land that each individual has about 1.7 hectares available, but according to my GFN, each person needs 4.1 hectares of land (10.25 acres). When I saw these results I was disappointed, but sadly, not too surprised. Though I try my best by being a vegetarian, using only LED bulbs, recycling, and carpooling when possible, I know there is more I can do. In Alaska, you are surrounded by natural beauty and lots of available land, which may contribute to the general population being apathetic about recycling. This is also due to the fact that recycling is not easily accomplished.  The few parts of the state who have access to recycling are only able to recycle paper, aluminum, and very particular types of plastic. Compost is only done privately. Glass recycling was revoked because there was no monetary profit for the state. Not only is recycling minimal, a majority of the population lives more than 15 miles from their work or school, so people have a necessary, daily commute. This is most likely why 1.8/4.1 (43.9%) global hectares are attributed to “mobility” (plus it doesn’t help that my 2003 Honda Pilot only gets about 20 miles per gallon).

I realize that sustainability and reducing humanity’s ecological footprint starts one person at a time. My ecological footprint can be broken down into five categories: food, shelter, mobility, goods, and services. As stated above, most of my footprint was due to commuting. My footprint can be lessened by having a more fuel efficient or electric car. However, this is not possible for everyone. Other simpler and more accessible ways would be to use public transportation, carpool, or even walk or ride a bike once a week. In other areas an ecological footprint can be as easy as using your own water bottle or coffee mug to avoid expendable vessels. You can also use reusable grocery bags, wash your clothes on cold and air dry them, lower the thermostat by as little as one degree, use washcloths instead of paper towels, and, of course, recycle at every opportunity. These are simple actions that can lessen a person’s footprint, help safeguard the environment, as well as save money.  There are also ways to encourage people to become more conscious about their choices. Charging a small fee for plastic/paper bags, offering a refund for recyclable glass, making sure that recycle bins are easily accessible, and offering curbside recycling are incentives for those who may think it’s too much work. There are also bigger steps one can take such as being vegetarian/vegan, switching to a renewable energy source, growing some of their own food, and taking the train or bus instead of flying. Most importantly, we need to fight for policy change.

I was alarmed at my results, but when I saw my results compared to the average of the United States’ ecological footprint, I was horrified.  If everyone on the planet lived like the average U.S. citizen, we would need five planets. I believe this is due to our privileged and wasteful lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. Each year, the average American throws away an average of 185 pounds of plastic, 300 pounds of food, and uses 500 gallons of gas for vehicles.  A lesser developed country may not have access to these resources or they may only be available to the wealthy; therefore they do not make such a huge impact. Sadly the U.S. has an economy that supports and encourages extravagance with very few incentives for being environmentally conscious.  The instant gratification/quick paced lifestyle which “requires” on-the-go/ individual packaging creates enormous amounts of landfill. Society has been taught that efficiency means the most product for the least amount of money. Using responsible packaging doesn’t fit this mold. We need to teach that the least amount of environmental impact will ultimately provide the highest quality of living. This is imperative if we want a viable planet for future generations.

In my opinion, the first step of lessening our national, and therefore global, footprint is to inform the public. Our society needs to teach children from a young age to not just avoid “littering” but show them what impact “littering” has on the planet. Environmental education needs to become a standard part of all elementary science curriculums. We also need to become “news media literate.” The media has become so corporative that it no longer reports only the facts.  It is more interested in selling papers, magazines, websites that it instead provides conflicting information in order to boost sales. 96% of the world’s scientists have stated and supported evidence of climate change; yet the media presents the argument on climate change as if it is a 50/50 chance and up for debate. Once the public becomes educated and the media reports the scientific facts, we can push for policy change. Our government has failed us, because they have chosen short-term profit over long-term citizen health. We have one planet and we must set aside greed, political parties, and our convenient lifestyles in order to be sure that it is a safe and secure place for future generations.

My Global Footprint Network results:

A visual representation of the hectares of land need to support my lifestyle compared to the WWU campus: