What Is A Carbon Footprint?

A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment, and in
particular climate change. It relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-
to-day lives through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation etc.

The carbon footprint is a measurement of all greenhouse gases we individually produce and
has units of tonnes (or kg) of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The pie chart above shows the main elements which

make up the total of an typical person's carbon footprint in the developed world.

A carbon footprint is made up of the sum of two parts, the primary footprint (shown by the
green slices of the pie chart) and the secondary footprint (shown as the yellow slices).

1. The primary footprint is a measure of our direct emissions of CO2 from the burning of
fossil fuels including domestic energy consumption and transportation (e.g. car and plane).
We have direct control of these.

2. The secondary footprint is a measure of the indirect CO2 emissions from the whole
lifecycle of products we use - those associated with their manufacture and eventual
breakdown. To put it very simply – the more we buy the more emissions will be caused on
our behalf.

Carbon footprint
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A carbon footprint is "the total set of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions caused by an
organization, event, product or person" [1]. For simplicity of reporting, it is often expressed in
terms of the amount of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent of other GHGs, emitted.
The concept name of the carbon footprint originates from ecological footprint discussion.[2]
The carbon footprint is a subset of the ecological footprint and of the more comprehensive
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
An individual, nation, or organization's carbon footprint can be measured by undertaking a
GHG emissions assessment. Once the size of a carbon footprint is known, a strategy can be
devised to reduce it, e.g. by technological developments, better process and product
management, changed Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP), Carbon capture,
consumption strategies, and others.
The mitigation of carbon footprints through the development of alternative projects, such as
solar or wind energy or reforestation, represents one way of reducing a carbon footprint and
is often known as Carbon offsetting.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 By area
○ 1.1 Of products
○ 1.2 Of electricity
○ 1.3 Of Heat and various combined heat and power schemes, heat
pumps etc
• 2 Kyoto Protocol, carbon offsetting, and certificates
○ 2.1 Mandatory market mechanisms
○ 2.2 Voluntary market mechanisms
• 3 See also
• 4 Notes
• 5 References
• 6 External links

[edit] By area
[edit] Of products
Several organizations have calculated carbon footprints of products;[3] The US Environmental
Protection Agency has addressed paper, plastic (candy wrappers), glass, cans, computers,
carpet and tires. Australia has addressed lumber and other building materials. Academics in
Australia, Korea and the US have addressed paved roads. Companies, nonprofits and
academics have addressed manufacture and operation of cars, buses, trains, airplanes, ships
and pipelines. The US Postal Service has addressed mailing letters and packages. Carnegie
Mellon University has estimated the CO2 footprints of 46 large sectors of the economy in
each of eight countries. Carnegie Mellon, Sweden and the Carbon Trust have addressed foods
at home and in restaurants.
The Carbon Trust has worked with UK manufacturers on foods, shirts and detergents,
introducing a CO2 label in March 2007. The label is intended to comply with a new British
public available specification (i.e. not a standard), PAS 2050,[4] and is being actively piloted
by The Carbon Trust and various industrial partners.[5]
[edit] Of electricity
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality
standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may
contain suggestions. (December 2009)

The following table compares, from peer-reviewed studies of full life cycle emissions and
from various other studies, the carbon footprint of various forms of energy generation:
Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind generation technology.

The Vattenfall study found renewable and nuclear generation responsible for far
less CO2 than fossil fuel generation.

Emission factors of common fuels

Thermal Energy Electric

Fuel/
g(CO2- Intensity g(CO2-
Resource
eq)/MJth W·hth/W·he eq)/kW·he

&0000000000 &000000000
&00000000000
00009251000 0000002990
00994000000B:
0B:91.50– 000B:2.62–
Coal 863–941[6]
91.72 2.85[6]
Br:1,175[6]
Br:94.33 Br:3.46[6]
955[7]
88 3.01

&0000000000 &000000000 &00000000000

Oil 00007300000 0000003399 008930000008
073[8] 9993.40 93[7]
 &0000000000 &00000000000
&000000000
00006829999 00664000000c
0000002700
Natural gas 9cc:68.20 c:577[6]
000cc:2.35[6]
oc:68.40 [6] oc:751[6]
oc:3.05
51[8] 599[7]

&00000000000
&0000000000
Geothermal 00040000000TL
00000300000
Power 0–1[7]
03~
TH91–122[7]

&000000000 &00000000000
Uranium
0000000190 00062500000W
Nuclear
000WL0.18[6] L60
[6]
power
WH0.20[6] WH65[6]

&000000000 &00000000000
Hydroelectri
0000000046 000150000001
city
0000.046[6] 5[6]

&00000000000
Conc. Solar
000400000004
Pwr
0±15#

&000000000 &00000000000
Photovoltaic
0000000330 001060000001
s
0000.33[6] 06[6]

&000000000 &00000000000
Wind power 0000000066 000210000002
0000.066[6] 1[6]

Note: 3.6 MJ = megajoule(s) == 1 kW·h = kilowatt-hour(s), thus 1 g/MJ = 3.6 g/kW·h.

Legend: B = Black coal (supercritical)–(new subcritical), Br = Brown coal (new subcritical),
cc = combined cycle, oc = open cycle, TL = low-temperature/closed-
circuit (geothermal doublet), TH = high-temperature/open-circuit, WL = Light Water Reactors,
WH = Heavy Water Reactors, #Educated estimate.
These studies thus concluded that hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power always produced
the least CO2 per kilowatt-hour of any other electricity sources. These figures do not allow
for emissions due to accidents or terrorism.Lastly some relatively new green renewable
electricity generation methods, wind power for example, emit no carbon during operation, but
do leave a minor footprint during construction phase using the cradle-to-grave approach of
the complete production life cycle.
[edit] Of Heat and various combined heat and power schemes, heat
pumps etc
The previous table gives the carbon footprint per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated,
which is about half the world's man-made CO2 output. The CO2 footprint for heat is equally
significant and research shows that using waste heat from power generation in combined heat
and power district heating, chp/dh has the lowest carbon footprint.[9] much lower than micro-
power or heat pumps.

[edit] Kyoto Protocol, carbon offsetting, and certificates

Carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and the emissions of other GHGs, are often
associated with the burning of fossil fuels, like natural gas, crude oil and coal.
The Kyoto Protocol defines legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the GHG
emissions of industrialized countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Accordingly, from an
economic or market perspective, one has to distinguish between a mandatory market and a
voluntary market. Typical for both markets is the trade with emission certificates:
• Certified Emission Reduction (CER)
• Emission Reduction Unit (ERU)
• Verified Emission Reduction (VER)

[edit] Mandatory market mechanisms

To reach the goals defined in the Kyoto Protocol, with the least economical costs, the
following flexible mechanisms were introduced for the mandatory market:
• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
• Joint Implementation (JI)
• Emissions trading
The CDM and JI mechanisms requirements for projects which create a supply of emission
reduction instruments, while Emissions Trading allows those instruments to be sold on
international markets.
- Projects which are compliant with the requirements of the CDM mechanism generate
Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs).
- Projects which are compliant with the requirements of the JI mechanism generate Emissions
Reduction Units (ERUs).
The CERs and ERUs can then be sold through Emissions Trading. The demand for the CERs
and ERUs being traded is driven by:
- Shortfalls in national emission reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
- Shortfalls amongst entities obligated under local emissions reduction schemes.
Nations which have failed to deliver their Kyoto emissions reductions obligations can enter
Emissions Trading to purchase CERS and ERUs to cover their treaty shortfalls. Nations and
groups of nations can also create local emission reduction schemes which place mandatory
carbon dioxide emission targets on entities within their national boundaries. If the rules of a
scheme allow, the obligated entities may be able to cover all or some of any reduction
shortfalls by purchasing CERs and ERUs through Emissions Trading. While local emissions
reduction schemes have no status under the Kyoto Protocol itself, they play a prominent role
in creating the demand for CERs and ERUs, stimulating Emissions Trading and setting a
market price for emissions.
A well-known mandatory local emissions trading scheme is the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (EU ETS).
[edit] Voluntary market mechanisms
In contrast to the strict rules set out for the mandatory market, the voluntary market provides
companies with different options to acquire emissions reductions. A solution, comparable
with those developed for the mandatory market, has been developed for the voluntary market,
the Verified Emission Reductions (VER). This measure has the great advantage that the
projects/activities are managed according to the quality standards set out for CDM/JI projects
but the certificates provided are not registered by the governments of the host countries or the
Executive Board of the UNO. As such, high quality VERs can be acquired at lower costs for
the same project quality. However, at present VERs can not be used in the mandatory market.
The voluntary market in North America is divided between members of the Chicago Climate
Exchange and the Over The Counter (OTC) market. The Chicago Climate Exchange is a
voluntary yet legally binding cap-and-trade emission scheme whereby members commit to
the capped emission reductions and must purchase allowances from other members or offset
excess emissions. The OTC market does not involve a legally binding scheme and a wide
array of buyers from the public and private spheres, as well as special events that want to go
carbon neutral.
There are project developers, wholesalers, brokers, and retailers, as well as carbon funds, in
the voluntary market. Some businesses and nonprofits in the voluntary market encompass
more than just one of the activities listed above. A report by Ecosystem Marketplace shows
that carbon offset prices increase as it moves along the supply chain—from project developer
to retailer.[10]
While some mandatory emission reduction schemes exclude forest projects, these projects
flourish in the voluntary markets. A major criticism concerns the imprecise nature of GHG
sequestration quantification methodologies for forestry projects. However, others note the
community co-benefits that forestry projects foster. Project types in the voluntary market
range from avoided deforestation, afforestation/reforestation, industrial gas sequestration,
increased energy efficiency, fuel switching, methane capture from coal plants and livestock,
and even renewable energy. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) sold on the voluntary
market are quite controversial due to additionality concerns.[11] Industrial Gas projects receive
criticism because such projects only apply to large industrial plants that already have high
fixed costs. Siphoning off industrial gas for sequestration is considered picking the low
hanging fruit; which is why credits generated from industrial gas projects are the cheapest in
the voluntary market.
The size and activity of the voluntary carbon market is difficult to measure. The most
comprehensive report on the voluntary carbon markets to date was released by Ecosystem
Marketplace and New Carbon Finance in July 2007.[10]
ÆON of Japan is firstly approved by Japanese authority to indicate carbon footprint on three
private brand goods in October 2009

Carbon footprintz

Published: July 14, 2010, 11:22 am

Edited: July 14, 2010, 11:22 am

Lead Author: Maggie L. Walser

Topic
s: Atmospheric Science, Climate Change, Consumption, Energy,
 Environmental Monitoring, Greenhouse Gases, Pollution

Rate:

•
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
This article has been reviewed by the following Topic Editor: Stephen C. Nodvin

Table of Contents
1 Introduction

1.1 Primary and secondary footprints

1.2 Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect

1.3 Carbon dioxide equivalent

2 Individual carbon footprints

2.1 Transportation

2.2 Home heating and cooling

2.3 Food

3 Offsets and emissions trading

3.1 Carbon offsets

3.2 Emissions trading

4 Carbon footprint calculator

5 Further reading

Introduction
A carbon footprint is the measure of the amount of greenhouse gases, measured in units of
carbon dioxide, produced by human activities. A carbon footprint can be measured for an
individual or an organization, and is typically given in tons of CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) per
year. For example, the average North American generates about 20 tons of CO2-eq each year.
The global average carbon footprint is about 4 tons of CO2-eq per year (Figure 1).
Primary and secondary footprints

Figure 1. National carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita. (2005). (Source:
UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library)

An individual’s or organization’s carbon footprint can be broken down into the primary and
secondary footprints. The primary footprint is the sum of direct emissions of greenhouse
gases from the burning of fossil fuels for energy consumption and transportation. More fuel-
efficient cars have a smaller primary footprint, as do energy-efficient light bulbs in your
home or office. Worldwide, 82% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are in the form
of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion (Figure 2).
The secondary footprint is the sum of indirect emissions of greenhouse gases during the
lifecycle of products used by an individual or organization. For example, the greenhouse
gases emitted during the production of plastic for water bottles, as well as the energy used to
transport the water, contributes to the secondary carbon footprint. Products with more
packaging will generally have a larger secondary footprint than products with a minimal
amount of packaging.
Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect

Figure 2. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. (Source: Energy Information

Administration)

Although carbon footprints are reported in annual tons of CO2 emissions, they actually are a
measure of total greenhouse gas emissions. A greenhouse gas is any gas that traps heat in the
atmosphere through the greenhouse effect. Because of the presence of greenhouse gases in
our atmosphere the average temperature of the Earth is 14 ºC (57 ºF). Without the greenhouse
effect, the average temperature of the atmosphere would be -19 ºC (-2.2 ºF).
Many greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water, occur
naturally. Other greenhouse gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are synthetic. Since the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, both
natural and man-made, have been increasing. Burning fossil fuels and land-use changes such
as deforestation interfere with the natural carbon cycle, moving carbon from its solid form to
the gaseous state, thus increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide equivalent
Each greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs, etc.—has a different atmospheric
concentration, and a different strength as a greenhouse gas. A potent greenhouse gas with a
very small atmospheric concentration can contribute to the overall greenhouse effect just as
much as a weaker greenhouse gas with a much larger atmospheric concentration. Because of
this variability, carbon footprints are measured in tons of CO2-eq, or the tons of CO2 that
would cause the same level of radiative forcing as the emissions of a given greenhouse gas.
Individual carbon footprints

Figure 3. Breakdown of a typical individual's carbon footprint. (Source: Carbon

Footprint)

An individual’s carbon footprint is the direct effect their actions have on the environment in
terms of greenhouse gas emissions. In general, the biggest contributors to the carbon
footprints of individuals in industrialized nations are transportation and household electricity
use. An individual's secondary carbon footprint is dominated by their diet, clothes, and
personal products (Figure 3).
Transportation

Figure 4. Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions flowchart. (Source: World

Resource Institute)

Worldwide, the fossil fuels used for transportation contribute to over 13% of greenhouse gas
emissions (Figure 4). Cars with an average fuel efficiency produce nearly 20 pounds of CO2-
eq for every gallon of gasoline burned.
Air transportation has a larger carbon footprint than driving. The average round-trip flight
across the U.S. emits about 6,000 pounds of CO2-eq, and short-haul flights emit more CO2-eq
per mile traveled than medium- to long-haul flights.
Home heating and cooling
In the U.S., 20% of greenhouse gas emissions come from home energy use. Heating and
cooling usually consume more energy than any other home appliances. The relative
contributions of heating and cooling to an individual’s carbon footprint vary by region. In
colder states, as much as two-thirds of a household’s energy bill is from heating. Heating an
average American home with natural gas or electricity produces a carbon footprint of 6,400
or 4,700 pounds CO2-eq, respectively. In warmer areas, summertime air conditioning
constitutes the bulk of a household's energy bill. Air conditioning a typical home produces a
carbon footprint of about 6,600 pounds CO2-eq.
Food
Worldwide, agriculture contributes to nearly 14% of total greenhouse gas emissions. In the
U.S., the food we eat accounts for 17% of our total fossil fuel consumption. The carbon
footprint of an average American diet is 0.75 tons CO2-eq, without accounting for food
transportation. On average, food travels 1,500 miles between the production location and the
market. Meat products have a larger carbon footprint than fruits, vegetables, and grains: the
carbon footprint of the average meat eater is about 1.5 tons CO2-eq larger than that of a
vegetarian.

Offsets and emissions trading

Carbon offsets
There are many ways for individuals and organizations to reduce their carbon footprint, such
as driving less, using energy efficient appliances, and buying local, organic foods as well as
products with less packaging. The purchase of carbon offsets is another way to reduce a
carbon footprint. One carbon offset represents the reduction of one ton of CO2-eq. Companies
who sell carbon offsets invest in projects such as renewable energy research, agricultural and
landfill gas capture, and tree-planting.
Critics of carbon offsets argue they will be used to absolve any guilt over maintaining
“business as usual” in our lifestyles. Additionally, the current offset market is voluntary and
largely unregulated, raising the possibility that companies will defraud customers seeking to
reduce their carbon footprint.
Emissions trading
Emissions trading schemes provide a financial incentive for organizations and corporations to
reduce their carbon footprint. Such schemes exist under cap-and-trade systems, where the
total carbon emissions for a particular country, region, or sector are capped at a certain value,
and organizations are issued permits to emit a fraction of the total emissions. Organizations
that emit less carbon than their emission target can then sell their “excess” carbon emissions.
This market mechanism is expected to bring down the costs of meeting emissions targets.

Carbon footprint calculator

Calculate your carbon footprint with EarthLab.

Further reading
• Carbon Footprint
• Carbon Footprint of Nations - Calculator and Paper
• Carbon Management Council
• Energy Information Administration – Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change,
and Energy
• National Geographic – Green Guide
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Greenhouse Gases
FAQs
• Native Energy
• Plant-a-Tree-Today – Carbon Free
• Slate – Green Challenge
• Terrapass
 • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Wackernagel, M., Rees, W. 1995. Our Ecological Footprint: reducing
human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC and Philadelphia, PA: New
Society Publishers. ISBN: 086571312X
• World Resources Institute – Earth Trends

How to reduce your carbon footprint

Edit Read more: Sustainable living, How To

• Edited 5 days agoby A Wikia contributor

• Edited by A Wikia contributor

• Edited by A Wikia contributor

• Edited by A Wikia contributor

• Edited by A Wikia contributor

• Edited by A Wikia contributor

• View full history
 1. Use vegetable-based and biodegradeable cleaning products
2. Use recycled wood chips to keep the weeds down, retain moisture, and
prevent erosion.
3. Use natural predators to control unwanted growth rather than pesticides
which harm the environment.
4. Water grass early in the morning. See more on Water Conservation in
Gardens
5. Borrow seldomly used items such as ladders and chain saws.
6. Put leaves in a compost heap instead of burning them or throwing
them away.
7. Install water barrels to collect rain water from troughs. Place a
small bucket in your sink to collect water when washing produce. Use this
water in the garden.

Contents
[show]
• 1 Reduce---
Reuse---Recycle
plastic, paper,
aluminum, glass
○ 1.1 Office
Work
○ 1.2
Transport
ation
○ 1.3 Food
hurtin for
a squirtin

Reduce---Reuse---Recycle plastic, paper, aluminum, glass

Edit

Office Work Edit

1. Reduce the need to copy and print. When you need to, copy and
print on both sides of the paper
2. Reuse items like envelopes, folders, and paper clips
 3. Set up a bulletin board for memos rather than sending copies to each
employee
4. Use recycled paper and recycle printer cartridges
5. Use Soy based ink which is very environmentally friendly.
6. Use more reusable water bottles rather than disposable cups.
7. 'Turn off 'power strips and lights at the end of the day.
8. Consider flexible work schedules or telecommuting.
9. Switch from paper towels in restrooms to continuous cloth towels
(aka cabinet towel dispensers)
10.Shutdown the computer before leaving your workstation at the end of the
day

Transportation Edit
1. Consider using your bike, feet, or mass transportation for most
transportation needs
2. Consider purchasing a Hybrid vehicle, an Electric Motorbike or
more efficient car..
3. Purchase radial tires and keep them properly inflated
4. Drive during non-peak hours If you avoid heavy traffic you will not
spend a significant amount of gas during stops.
5. Don't Warm it Up The best way to warm up a modern car is to drive it.
Idling hurts engines, wastes gas, and contributes to global warming and
pollution.
6. Try Trains If you go on holiday opt for a country nearby and don't use the
plane but travel by train. Flying with a plane a distance of 2.2 km or 1.375
miles would add 1 kg of CO2 to your personal carbon footprint.

Food hurtin for a squirtin Edit

1. Increase your plant consumption. More land has to be put into
agricultural production to produce meat than to produce plant products.
Because the methane they belch is 23 times more effective at retaining
heat than CO2, domestic animals contribute more to global warming than
all human transportation combined.
2. Buy local products. Buy goods that were produced locally rather than
transported across long distances.
3. Buy food at your local health food or natural food store. Most food
in these stores is more expensive, but the bulk bins and bulk spices are
often cheaper than grocery store equivalents and use less packaging.
Bring your own reusable jars, bags or other containers.
4. Be particular about the fish you eat. Many fish are over harvested or
their capture has negative impacts on ocean ecosystems. In addition,
some species of seafood pose health risks due to heavy metals and toxins
that have built up in their systems. Choose seafood that is both
sustainable and healthy.
5. Vegetarian cookbooks are a great place to begin exploring meat-free
options such as textured vegetable protein. Some good choices for those
new to meat-free eating include: Moosewood Restaurant Cooks at Home:
 Fast and Easy Recipes for Any Day by the Moosewood Collective, How to
Cook Everything Vegetarian: Simple Meatless Recipes for Great Food by
Mark Bittman, and The Enchanted Broccoli Forest by Mollie Katzen.

Ecological footprint
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It

compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents
the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a
human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste.
Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet
Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2006,
humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths – in other words,
humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.[1] Every year,
this number is recalculated — with a three year lag due to the time it takes for the UN to
collect and publish all the underlying statistics.
While the term ecological footprint is widely used,[2] methods of measurement vary.
However, calculation standards are now emerging to make results more comparable and
consistent.[3]

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Analysis
○ 1.1 Overview
○ 1.2 Methodology
• 2 Studies in the United
Kingdom
• 3 Discussion
• 4 By country
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Further reading
• 8 External links
[edit] Analysis

Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their Human Development

Index.

[edit] Overview
The first academic publication about the ecological footprint was by William Rees in 1992.[4]
The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed as the PhD
dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, under Rees' supervision at the University of British
Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990–1994.[5] Originally, Wackernagel and Rees
called the concept "appropriated carrying capacity".[6] To make the idea more accessible,
Rees came up with the term "ecological footprint," inspired by a computer technician who
praised his new computer's "small footprint on the desk."[7] In early 1996, Wackernagel and
Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.[8]
Ecological footprint analysis compares human demand on nature with the biosphere's ability
to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by assessing the biologically
productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes and
absorb the corresponding waste, using prevailing technology. Footprint values at the end of a
survey are categorized for Carbon, Food, Housing, and Goods and Services as well as the
total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that level of
consumption. This approach can also be applied to an activity such as the manufacturing of a
product or driving of a car. This resource accounting is similar to life cycle analysis wherein
the consumption of energy, biomass (food, fiber), building material, water and other
resources are converted into a normalized measure of land area called 'global hectares' (gha).
Per capita ecological footprint (EF) is a means of comparing consumption and lifestyles, and
checking this against nature's ability to provide for this consumption. The tool can inform
policy by examining to what extent a nation uses more (or less) than is available within its
territory, or to what extent the nation's lifestyle would be replicable worldwide. The footprint
can also be a useful tool to educate people about carrying capacity and over-consumption,
with the aim of altering personal behavior. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that
many current lifestyles are not sustainable. Such a global comparison also clearly shows the
inequalities of resource use on this planet at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
In 2006, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately
1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per capita was 9.0 gha, and that of
Switzerland was 5.6 gha per person, while China's was 1.8 gha per person.[9][10] The WWF
claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural
resources) of the planet by 20%.[11] Wackernagel and Rees originally estimated that the
available biological capacity for the 6 billion people on Earth at that time was about 1.3
hectares per person, which is smaller than the 1.8 global hectares published for 2006, because
the initial studies neither used global hectares nor included bioproductive marine areas.[8]
A number of NGO websites allow estimation of one's ecological footprint (see Footprint
Calculator, below).
Ecological footprinting is now widely used around the globe as an indicator of environmental
sustainability.[citation needed] It can be used to measure and manage the use of resources
throughout the economy. It can be used to explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles,
goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and
nations.[12] Since 2006, a first set of ecological footprint standards exist that detail both
communication and calculation procedures. They are available at www.footprintstandards.org
and were developed in a public process facilitated by Global Footprint Network and its
partner organizations.
[edit] Methodology
The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described in the Living
Planet Report or in more detail in Global Footprint Network's [6]. The national accounts
committee of Global Footprint Network has also published a research agenda on how the
method will be improved.[13]
There have been differences in the methodology used by various ecological footprint studies.
Examples include how sea area should be counted, how to account for fossil fuels, how to
account for nuclear power (many studies[weasel words] simply consider it to have the same
ecological footprint as fossil fuels),[citation needed] which data sources used, when average global
numbers or local numbers should be used when looking at a specific area, how space for
biodiversity should be included, and how imports/exports should be accounted for.[7].[8]
However, with the new footprint standards, the methods are converging.[citation needed]
In 2003, Jason Venetoulis, PhD, Carl Mas, Christopher Gudoet, Dahlia Chazan, and John
Talberth -a team of researchers at Redefining- developed Footprint 2.0. Footprint 2.0 offers a
series of theoretical and methodological improvements to the standard footprint approach.
The primary advancements were to include the entire surface of the Earth in biocapacity
estimates, allocate space for other (non-human) species, change the basis of equivalence
factors from agricultural land to net primary productivity (NPP), and change the carbon
component of the footprint, based on global carbon models. The advancements were peer
reviewed and published in several books, and have been well received by teachers,
researchers, and advocacy organizations concerned about the ecological implications of
humanity's footprint.[14][15]

[edit] Studies in the United Kingdom

The UK's average ecological footprint is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) with variations
between regions ranging from 4.80 gha (Wales) to 5.56 gha (East England).[10] Two recent
studies have examined relatively low-impact small communities. BedZED, a 96-home mixed-
income housing development in South London, was designed by Bill Dunster Architects and
sustainability consultants BioRegional for the Peabody Trust. Despite being populated by
relatively "mainstream" home-buyers, BedZED was found to have a footprint of 3.20 gha due
to on-site renewable energy production, energy-efficient architecture, and an extensive green
lifestyles program that included on-site London's first carsharing club. The report did not
measure the added footprint of the 15,000 visitors who have toured BedZED since its
completion in 2002. Findhorn Ecovillage, a rural intentional community in Moray, Scotland,
had a total footprint of 2.56 gha, including both the many guests and visitors who travel to the
community to undertake residential courses there and the nearby campus of Cluny Hill
College. However, the residents alone have a footprint of 2.71 gha, a little over half the UK
national average and one of the lowest ecological footprints of any community measured so
far in the industrialized world [16][17] Keveral Farm, an organic farming community in
Cornwall, was found to have a footprint of 2.4 gha, though with substantial differences in
footprints among community members.[18]

[edit] Discussion
Early criticism was published by van den Bergh and Verbruggen in 1999;[19] another criticism
was published in 2008.[20] A more complete review commissioned by the Directorate-General
for the Environment (European Commission) and published in June 2008 provides the most
updated independent assessment of the method.[21] A number of countries have engaged in
research collaborations to test the validity of the method. This includes Switzerland,
Germany, United Arab Emirates, and Belgium.[22]
Grazi et al. (2007) have performed a systematic comparison of the ecological footprint
method with spatial welfare analysis that includes environmental externalities, agglomeration
effects and trade advantages.[23] They find that the two methods can lead to very distinct, and
even opposite, rankings of different spatial patterns of economic activity. However, this
should not be surprising, since the two methods address different research questions.
Calculating the ecological footprint for densely populated areas, such as a city or small
country with a comparatively large population — e.g. New York and Singapore respectively
— may lead to the perception of these populations as "parasitic". This is because these
communities have little intrinsic biocapacity, and instead must rely upon large hinterlands.
Critics argue that this is a dubious characterization since mechanized rural farmers in
developed nations may easily consume more resources than urban inhabitants, due to
transportation requirements and the unavailability of economies of scale. Furthermore, such
moral conclusions seem to be an argument for autarky. Some even take this train of thought a
step further, claiming that the Footprint denies the benefits of trade. Therefore, the critics
argue that that the Footprint can only be applied globally.[24]
The method seems to reward the replacement of original ecosystems with high-productivity
agricultural monocultures by assigning a higher biocapacity to such regions. For example,
replacing ancient woodlands or tropical forests with monoculture forests or plantations may
improve the ecological footprint. Similarly, if organic farming yields were lower than those
of conventional methods, this could result in the former being "penalized" with a larger
ecological footprint.[25] Of course, this insight, while valid, stems from the idea of using the
footprint as one's only metric. If the use of ecological footprints are complemented with other
indicators, such as one for biodiversity, the problem could maybe be solved. Indeed, WWF's
Living Planet Report complements the biennial Footprint calculations with the Living Planet
Index of biodiversity.[26] Manfred Lenzen and Shauna Murray have created a modified
Ecological Footprint that takes biodiversity into account for use in Australia [27].
Although the ecological footprint model prior to 2008 treated nuclear power in the same
manner as coal power,[28] the actual real world effects of the two are radically different. A life
cycle analysis centered around the Swedish Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant estimated carbon
dioxide emissions at 3.10 g/kWh[29] and 5.05 g/kWh in 2002 for the Torness Nuclear Power
Station.[30] This compares to 11 g/kWh for hydroelectric power, 950 g/kWh for installed coal,
900 g/kWh for oil and 600 g/kWh for natural gas generation in the United States in 1999.[31]
The Swedish utility Vattenfall did a study of full life cycle emissions of Nuclear, Hydro,
Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind which the utility uses to produce electricity. The net
result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3 grams of carbon dioxide per KW-Hr
of produced power. This compares to 400 for natural gas and 700 for coal (according to this
study). The study also concluded that nuclear power produced the smallest amount of CO2 of
any of their electricity sources.[32]
Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching
the problems of fossil fuel waste.[33][34] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World
Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air
pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through
using solid fuel."[35] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[36] A
coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same
wattage.[37] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much
radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[38] In addition, fossil fuel
waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and
other weather events. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to
accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr
of electricity produced (in UK and USA) from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for
hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[39]

[edit] By country

World map of countries by ecological footprint

This table is based on 2007 data from the Global Footprint Network published in 2010. Data
is given as global hectares per capita. The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7
global hectares per person (18.0 billion in total). With a world-average biocapacity of 1.8
global hectares per person (12 billion in total), this leads to an ecological deficit of 0.9 global
hectares per person (6 billion in total). If a country does not have enough ecological resources
within its own territory, then there is a local ecological deficit and it is called an ecological
debtor country. Otherwise, it has an ecological remainder and it is called an ecological
creditor country.
NB this list does not include all countries; it contains 153 of the 185 world countries