Your Ecological Footprint: More Than CO2

Typical Earthship, an autonomous home using earth-filled tires.  It's own thermal mass is used to regulate temperature.

The term carbon footprint has been growing in popularity over the past several years, primarily due to the heightened awareness of climate change. A carbon footprint consists of the net greenhouse gases emitted by an entity, individual, organization or nation. Personal carbon calculators define a carbon footprint as the net carbon dioxide attributable to an individual over a one year period. Since there are many different greenhouse gases, the specific gas(es) must be converted to tonnes or kilograms of equivalent carbon dioxide.

Very often, the term carbon footprint is confused with another term called ecological footprint. Carbon footprint only considers net greenhouse gases emitted, whereas ecological footprint is much more encompassing. The ecological footprint is a calculation of productive land and water required by an individual, both in terms of usage and also to absorb wastes that the individual produces. A carbon footprint is specified in tonnes or kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. An ecological footprint is expressed in terms of global hectares. An ecological footprint is broken into four consumption categories: carbon, goods and services, housing and food. The carbon category includes transportation and home energy use.
 
An ecological footprint can also be broken down by ecosystem types or biomes. These consist of forestland, pasture land, cropland and marine fisheries. In addition to consumption categories, waste must also be considered. Scientists have calculated the average per capita ecological footprint to be approximately 23.5 global hectares. On a renewable basis there are only 15.7 global hectares available meaning that we are collectively overshooting the Earth's ecological capacity by almost 50%.

There are several ways of reducing both an individual's carbon footprint and ecological footprint. One significant but controversial way is to shift from a meat to a vegetarian diet. According to a recent study, it was determined that a vegetarian diet was more environmentally friendly than a meat diet. It requires approximately 0.18 global hectares per person while a meat diet (high fat) requires almost five times as much, or 0.85 global hectares per person per year. There are many contributing factors for the meat diet, including deforestation and energy required for processing / transportation. And don't forget cow flatulence. Scientists have estimated that the meat consumption life cycle contributes 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. More emissions results in larger effect on the climate.

Another method of reducing one's ecological footprint is to buy local fresh food from farmers markets and preferably organically produced. It is important to eliminate transportation and refrigeration costs as much as possible. Organic foods eliminate the environmental impact of pesticides (including transportation and packaging). Farmers markets generally incorporate less packaging materials and food is fresh with no refrigeration or electricity requirements. More environmentally friendly all around.

When purchasing a new house there are many green initiatives that should be considered. Take advantage on the house orientation towards the sun for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. Consider rooftop gardens and soil-less turf on outside walls as was showcased by the Beijing Olympic exhibition hall. Passive solar heating, water efficient fixtures, sustainable building materials and other green design features should be incorporated where possible.

It is estimated that households can reduce their water footprint by 60% just by adopting more conservative water usage. To further reduce your carbon footprint beyond what has already been suggested, try changing your driving habits; avoid excessive acceleration/deceleration, drive with your lights off if possible, turn off the air conditioner. And don't forget to take mass transit at every opportunity.

This article was originally published in EzineArticles with the title Carbon Footprint Versus Ecological Footprint.   Author Steve Auger.

Ecological Footprint: Impact of War

When we think of war we usually think in terms of human casualties and displacement.  But human tragedy is only one aspect of war.  Another is the long lasting ecological footprint resulting from war that often takes decades to resolve.

Ecological footprint normally refers to an entity such as an individual, company or government. In this article it is used in the context of a military presence or product of war.  An ecological footprint refers not only carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases contributing to the carbon footprint but also to ecological issues including pollution and use of non-renewable resources such as clean water. 

Ecology is of great concern because war generally involves the indiscriminate destruction of land and damage to the surrounding environment. One such example was the dropping of the atom bomb on two Japanese cities at the end of the 2nd world war.  In this case the ecological footprint consisted of massive destruction of land and long lasting effects of radiation.  Another example of war-induced ecological footprint was the spraying of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.  Not only was Agent Orange an effective defoliate but also released dioxins as it degraded, causing serious health problems for anyone exposed to it. 

Some of the more obvious environmental issues resulting from war are air and ground pollution, destruction of forests and land mines.  An indirect impact to war's ecological footprint is the diversion of government money and resources from less urgent programs, some of which relate to the environment.

There are other more obscure ecological issues to consider such as the weakening of basic services and infrastructure within a country.  This often results in water shortage, cooking fuel shortage and waste mismanagement during and after the war.  The ecological footprint is impacted because inadequate water management can result in bacterial contamination, water loss via leaks (pipe damage) results in insufficient irrigation of cropland, food shortage and soil erosion. The Iraq war resulted in cooking fuel shortages and led to residents cutting down trees in order to cook.

Another war-related issue is the threat to biodiversity due to large numbers of displaced refugees.  For example, the mountain gorilla population and habitat were threatened after the Rwanda genocide as displaced refugees returned to an overpopulated country and were forced to inhabit the forest reserves.

A very serious impact to war's ecological footprint in wartime is the mishandling of hazardous substances such as radioactive material. For example, during the Iraq war (in 2003) two hundred barrels of uranium oxide were stolen from a nuclear plant south of Baghdad. The contents of the barrels were dumped into rivers then local residents used the containers for storing basic amenities. Iraq's nuclear inspector now believes that one thousand people could die of leukemia. Manufacture and test of dangerous weapons (in wartime or peace) also increases the ecological impact of the military presence. The contaminants from military sites are slowly leaching into the environment.  Disposal of nuclear waste is a significant global problem.

In recent years, most scientists and responsible individuals have been much more concerned with the ecological footprint we are leaving for future generations to deal with.  Concerns such as climate change, biodiversity and pollution.  War is a significant contributor to all of these environmental problems. Hopefully our political and military leaders will be joining the green movement and consider the environment in future war activities, more so than in the past.

This article was originally published by Steve Auger in EzineArticles entitled Ecological Footprint of War.