ecological footprint calculators

It was around this time last year, if my memory does not betray me, that we went through the ecological footprint calculator in Global Issues class. At the time I did not give it much thought, as I had done ecological footprint calculators many times before and would do it again many times later. Indeed, the result of 5 earths now no longer strikes me with as much shock as it did when I first learned about climate change in a grade one classroom, back at Leslie York Mills CMS. Since then, I have not taken any drastic action to improve my score, though it has only increased in time with the gradual climb in global population and pollution. 

For me, at least, the ecological footprint calculator has failed its purpose. 

CRITICISMS:

There have been many criticisms made of the ecological footprint calculator already so far. Chief among them is that the results are inaccurate, which is understandable since it is impossible to input your entire lifestyle into a web program. However, proponents of the system can rightly refute this by pointing out that certain generalizations need to be made in order for anything to work. In light of this fact, I will not spend time talking about the niceties of error or limitation present in the ecological footprint calculator. 

The real problem is not something so trivial as inaccuracy. Rather, it is the pure hearted idealism of the system that renders it completely out of touch with reality. 

EXAMPLES:

The average York School student, I believe, is an international and busy fellow. They are likely to go on trips around the world a few times every year, visiting family and learning about foreign cultures and languages. Yet in the eyes of the ecological footprint calculator the act of travel in itself is a crime. Just two plane rides (one to your destination and one back home) are almost certain to place you above the 2 Earths limit. 

The average York school student also has extracurriculars to go to. But, granted that they don’t have an electric car, driving a gasoline vehicle is bound to increase your ecological footprint by a great amount. (By the way, even having an electric vehicle would run into the ethical issue of child slavery in the Congo) In that case, it might be better to just abandon the “internationally minded” and “well balanced” philosophy at the York school if we want to save our planet.

There are also things that York School students cannot control. A certain student wants to take the TTC to limit his energy consumption in travel. But the Eglinton LRT line is still incomplete, so he is unable to take public transportation. Another student wants to have a new house with better insulation to reduce heating requirements. But buying a new house costs a lot of money. Yet another student wants to put solar panels on his roof to be able to use renewable energy. But he lives in a condo that does not have solar panels on its roof and uses energy from a coal power plant. All three of these students are well past the one Earth limit, it seems. 

MAIN ARGUMENT:

Enough examples have been made. The argument is just that the goals of the ecological footprint calculator are not realistic. It requires individuals to do things that are way out of their control, to make lifestyle changes that are impossible. 

Yes, there are small things that each of us can do, such as eating less meat or generating less garbage. But by account of the ecological footprint calculator, the things we can change amount to little in the face of the things we can’t. Arguably the biggest determiner of your ecological footprint, your energy source, is controlled by the government. York school students are lucky to live in the “Green Belt”, an area where energy comes from renewable hydroelectricity. Someone living in Yellowknife would have a much different story. 

All of this generates a certain ‘climate defeatism’ that is fatal to the cause of environmentalism. Rather than encouraging people to be more sustainable, the ecological footprint calculator makes people lose hope that the fight against climate change can ever be won. Afterall, the ecological footprint calculator makes it seem as if no matter what you do, you will always have a score of more than one Earth. Dejected, people now simply resort to the act of apathy, resuming their previous lives or, even worse, growing more prodigal by the realization that their efforts are irrelevant. 

HELPFUL OR HURTFUL?

Yet the ecological footprint also serves another malicious purpose, which is the transfer of blame from the institution to the individual. As we have seen, the biggest indicators of one’s ecological footprint are not the responsibility of individuals, but rather the responsibility of governments and corporations outside of the individual’s control - such as the construction of renewable energy power plants, the creation of more accessible public transportation, or regulations for the handling of industrial waste. But the ecological footprint calculator is unaware of this fact. It takes in the inputted information and blindly tells the recipient that they are the ones at fault for their unsustainable ecological footprint, and that it is up to them to change and make it smaller. All the while, corporations and governments are completely free from blame and allowed to do as they choose. 

This is not the right way to tackle climate education. As long as the large institutions do not fall in line it would be impossible for individuals to save the planet all by themselves, and the mindset cultivated by the ecological footprint calculator seeks to only service the real climate criminals. That is not to mention all the other ethical dilemmas of the system, such as the labor exploitation of lesser-developed countries by supposedly “sustainable” companies and manufacturers.