Wednesday, May 25, 2011

A traditionally built footprint

As I mentioned in my Earth Day post, I like to regularly (some might say obsessively) check my ecological footprint through websites such as Carbonfund or MyFootprint. And just as regularly, I'm frustrated to find that, even after taking virtually all the steps in 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, I'm still an energy hog by global standards. Last time I checked my footprint on Global Footprint Network, the site informed me that if everyone on Earth lived the way I do, it would take over 3 planets' worth of resources to support us all. I went back and tweaked my answers, trying to see what would happen if I ate fewer animal products or drove a bit less, but nothing seemed to make a significant difference.

As I tried to figure out just what I was doing wrong, it occurred to me that maybe it's not me, individually; maybe it's my whole country.  In other words, maybe any American is bound to use more resources, simply because of the way our society is structured. So I tried running a sample footprint for a 100 percent virtuous American—someone who was making the most ecologically responsible choices about everything, from food to home to transportation.  And what do you know, I found that even my hypothetical Lady Virtue was using up more than three Earths' worth of resources.

So I decided to try the same experiment with a fictitious character from a different country.  Lately I've been reading my way through the delightful Number One Ladies' Detective Agency series, by Alexander McCall Smith, which is set in Botswana.  So I decided to make Precious Ramotswe, the heroine of that series, the star of my new hypothetical scenario.  Mma Ramotswe, as she is known, lives in a small house with electricity and running water.  At first she lives alone; later she shares the house with a husband and two foster children.  She drives a vehicle described as a "tiny white van," and her diet includes plenty of fresh produce, but also meat, dairy, and lots of tea and fruitcake.  I decided to enter her moderately virtuous life just as it's presented in the books and see how it registered on the Earth-o-meter.  Data for Botswana isn't available on the Global Footprint Network, so I had to approximate using its nearest neighbor, South Africa, and make educated guesses about how much electricity, gasoline, and other resources Mma Ramotswe's lifestyle would use.  The result?  Mma Ramostwe, though a "traditionally built" lady (size 22), apparently treads much more lightly on the planet than I do.  If we all lived as she does, the website claims, we could all manage with just over one Earth.

So what's to be learned from this?  Not, presumably, that we should all move to Bostwana if we want to reduce our environmental impact.  More likely, that the most important changes eco-conscious Americans can make to reduce their environmental impact need to take place on a societal, rather than an individual, level.  Not just choosing renewable energy in your own home, but promoting the wider use of renewable energy across the country; not just eating local produce, but pushing for changes to the way farms are run in America.  And in the meantime, perhaps, not beating ourselves up too much over getting a score of three-plus Earths on the footprint quiz.  Marked on a curve, it's not as bad as it seems.

3 comments:

Doug Bonar said...

You said yourself that it can't just be encouraging others to do individual steps. That just gets to the three planet level.

I'm just guessing -- though looking up some of the differences shouldn't be too hard -- but fewer people owning TV's or computers, More people working as manual laborers. Less variety of clothes or food or semi-disposables (games, books, etc.)

-- Not that I have an answer.

Amy Livingston said...

The FAQ on the Global Footprint Network site says, "A person’s Ecological Footprint includes both personal and societal impacts. The Footprint associated with food, mobility, and goods is easier for you to directly influence through lifestyle choices (eating less meat, driving less, etc). However a person’s Footprint also includes societal impacts or “services”, such as government assistance, roads and infrastructure, public services, and the military of the country that they live in...
therefore in some nations it is not possible to reduce your Footprint to below one planet.... In order to allow their citizens to achieve a lifestyle that fits within one planet, governments need to dramatically improve the efficiency of the built environment and invest in renewable energy and smart land-use planning."

So, when I talk about advocating for change on a societal level, I'm talking less about encouraging *individuals* to make changes, and more about encouraging governments, businesses, etc. I think that "smart land-use" phrase is an important one; each household's impact will be reduced if the whole society is structured in a way that requires less fuel, less water, etc., per household.

Judy said...

Thomas Friedman's June 7 column in the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&sq=THE%20EARTH%20IS%20FULL&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1307995221-sQeNpL/tNHkUFCgKcIfCvw is about this. We're living beyond the earth's capacity now--i.e. using resources faster than we can replace them--and the change has to come on the societal level or it won't be enough.