What Is Your Ecological Footprint?

We Are Using More Earths Than There Are?

"Humanity's Ecological Footprint is over 23% larger than what the planet can regenerate. In other words, it now takes more than one year and two months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year. We maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet's ecological resources."

I recently got to hear Mathis Wackernagel, Executive Director of Global Footprint Network, speak at a swissnex event. Global Footprint Network is in the business of encouraging ecological sanity by getting people to think about their "Ecological Footprint". The Ecological Footprint is a resource management tool that measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing technology.

Mathis' message, entertainingly delivered, was:

Keeping track of the compound effect of humanity's consumption of natural resources and generation of waste is one key to achieving sustainability.

As long as our governments and business leaders do not know how much of nature's capacity we use or how resource use compares to existing stocks, overshoot may go undetected - increasing the ecological deficit and reducing nature's capacity to meet society's needs.

Check Your Footprint

You can use the tools on this page to calculate your own Ecological Footprint. How much of the Earth's resources, land, air and water do you require to support your lifestyle? What if everybody lived that way?

South Australian Vintners to Make Green Wine

Australian Food News reports that South Australia's wine makers and grape growers are the first industry group in the Australia to sign an agreement to accurately track and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. South Australia state legislation targets 60% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. The wine makers and grape growers associations have committed to support that goal.

What Consumers (and Tesco) Want

This action reflects concern that consumers and distributors across the globe are beginning to favor wine makers that are actively reducing their carbon footprint. "The UK is Australia's largest wine export destination. Of the nearly A$1 billion of Australian wines sold in the UK each year, South Australian wines make up a massive 72% of that market," said South Australia Premier Mike Rann. "South Australia exports nearly 400 million liters -- or A$1.6 billion of wine -- annually. Put simply, the wine industry is recognizing today that it cannot afford to ignore the planet or their markets." He went on to say, according to the article: "Sir Terry Leahy, the Chief Executive of Tesco, was recently reported saying that he wanted to devise a system of labeling that would enable shoppers to compare a product's carbon footprint just as easily as they can currently compare its price or nutritional value. I am told that Marks & Spencer has similar plans, as does the US shopping chain Wal-Mart."

Will They Give Up the Bottle?

A recent analysis (pdf here) calculated that transporting a bottle of wine from Australia or France to Chicago caused the emission of about 2 kg of CO₂. A large fraction of this is due to the weight of the glass bottle.

Transportation is responsible for most of wine's emissions footprint. And I didn't see any analysis in this report about the energy needed to produce that bottle (glass is energy-intensive). Will vintners down under switch to more energy-efficient boxes?


(A post about wine in Tetra Pak containers, and CO₂ savings.)

F1 to Allow "Hybrids" But Not For Efficiency

Recent news articles (like this one) have touted the announcement that some Formula One teams are working on hybrid gasoline/electric cars for the 2009 season. Indeed this is true. The rulebook has been modified to allow electric motors to be added to F1 cars. Some have hailed this as "fuel-saving" technology for these extreme vehicles.

Everybody Wants to Be Green

The key is that hybrid technology will not be used to increase fuel efficiency but to boost power temporarily, for example for passing. The additional weight of motors and batteries can be absorbed because F1 cars typically weigh less than the rule minimum, and carry ballast meet the required weight. This change may make F1 more interesting. In effect it gives cars a "turbo" or "nitro" button for bursts of speed, but not higher horsepower for the whole race. This will introduce a new element of race tactics. But it is unlikely to create technological breakthroughs that will benefit the rest of us. The real challenge for hybrid vehicles is to reduce battery weight and cost, and increase battery lifetimes. This is not likely to be an issue in a sport where cars get three miles to the gallon and go through dozens of tires in every race.

Will NASCAR Be Next?

We can only hope. Maybe then hybrids would gain broader appeal and get Detroit's attention.