Book Review: Our Ecological Footprint
Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees. (Amazon)
The ecological footprint is a tool for measuring the resources required to sustain certain lifestyles, in terms of use and waste. Basically, the tool tries to describe what is needed to live sustainably with our planet, and not surprisingly we are far from that goal. The typical footprint of someone living in North America (Canada, USA) is higher than someone living in India. This is definitely not shocking information, as most people understand the differences between the lifestyles of the two places. But the tool shows that the footprint of the former is over ten times the size of the latter. More importantly the tool illustrates that the increased acreage required for a first-world existence is borrowed from other locations, as the acres required for American lifestyles is greater than the acreage of the country. In other words, places like India are necessary in order for modern lifestyles to even take place, otherwise we would need additional planets for survival (three for everybody to live at North American levels, according to the authors).
The fact that many locations are borrowing resources from other parts of the world is most evident in terms of non-renewable resources like oil, though renewable resources like wood also come into play. For a group of people (neighborhood, city, region, country) to not borrow from other locales it can change in numerous ways: its transportation needs, its residential and commercial energy use in buildings, its eating habits, etc. What the footprint allows is for each of these potential changes to be measured, indicating what the best (and most realistic) steps may be. Many footprint calculators exist online that work at the individual level, obviously the best place to start.
The ecological footprint is a tool for measuring the resources required to sustain certain lifestyles, in terms of use and waste. Basically, the tool tries to describe what is needed to live sustainably with our planet, and not surprisingly we are far from that goal. The typical footprint of someone living in North America (Canada, USA) is higher than someone living in India. This is definitely not shocking information, as most people understand the differences between the lifestyles of the two places. But the tool shows that the footprint of the former is over ten times the size of the latter. More importantly the tool illustrates that the increased acreage required for a first-world existence is borrowed from other locations, as the acres required for American lifestyles is greater than the acreage of the country. In other words, places like India are necessary in order for modern lifestyles to even take place, otherwise we would need additional planets for survival (three for everybody to live at North American levels, according to the authors).
The fact that many locations are borrowing resources from other parts of the world is most evident in terms of non-renewable resources like oil, though renewable resources like wood also come into play. For a group of people (neighborhood, city, region, country) to not borrow from other locales it can change in numerous ways: its transportation needs, its residential and commercial energy use in buildings, its eating habits, etc. What the footprint allows is for each of these potential changes to be measured, indicating what the best (and most realistic) steps may be. Many footprint calculators exist online that work at the individual level, obviously the best place to start.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated for spam.