About Us

WHAT IS AN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT? 

FULL FIRST ARTICLE SECTION:

The ecological footprint is a method promoted by the Global Footprint Network to measure human demand on natural capital, i.e. the quantity of nature it takes to support people or an economy.[2][3][4] It tracks this demand through an ecological accounting system. The accounts contrast the biologically productive area people use for their consumption to the biologically productive area available within a region or the world (biocapacity, the productive area that can regenerate what people demand from nature). In short, it is a measure of human impact on the environment.

.

Footprint and biocapacity can be compared at the individual, regional, national or global scale. Both footprint and biocapacity change every year with number of people, per person consumption, efficiency of production, and productivity of ecosystems. At a global scale, footprint assessments show how big humanity's demand is compared to what Earth can renew. Global Footprint Network estimates that, as of 2014, humanity has been using natural capital 1.7 times as fast as Earth can renew it, which they describe as meaning humanity's ecological footprint corresponds to 1.7 planet Earths.[1][5][6]

.

Ecological footprint analysis is widely used around the world in support of sustainability assessments.[7] It enables people to measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy and explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations.[2]

.

NOTE SECTION FRO WHOLE ARTICLE:

The simplest way to define an ecological footprint is the amount of environmental resources necessary to produce the goods and services that support an individual's particular lifestyle.
.
.
Ecological footprint analysis is widely used around the world in support of sustainability assessments.[7] It enables people to measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy and explore the sustainability of individual lifestylesgoods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations. 
.
.
The focus of ecological footprint accounting is renewable resources. The total amount of such resources which the planet produces according to this model has been dubbed biocapacity. Ecological footprints can be calculated at any scale: for an activity, a person, a community, a city, a town, a region, a nation, or humanity as a whole. Footprint values are categorized for carbon, food, housing, goods and services.
.
.
Footprint and biocapacity can be compared at the individual, regional, national or global scale. Both footprint and biocapacity change every year with number of people, per person consumption, efficiency of production, and productivity of ecosystems. At a global scale, footprint assessments show how big humanity's demand is compared to what Earth can renew. 
.
.
Footprint values are categorized for carbon, food, housing, goods and services. This approach can 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 energybiomass (foodfiber), building materialwater and other resources are converted into a normalized measure of land area called global hectares
.

BIOCAPACITY:

.

the biocapacity or biological capacity of an ecosystem is an estimate of its production of certain biological materials such as natural resources, and its absorption and filtering of other materials such as carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[1][2]

.

Biocapacity is expressed in terms of global hectares per person, thus is dependent on human population. A global hectare is an adjusted unit that represents the average biological productivity of all productive hectares on Earth in a given year (because not all hectares produce the same amount of ecosystem services). Biocapacity is calculated from United Nations population and land use data, and may be reported at various regional levels, such as a city, a country, or the world as a whole.

.

For example, there were 12.2 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water areas on this planet in 2016. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year, 7.4 billion, gives a biocapacity of 1.6 global hectares per person. These 1.6 global hectares includes the areas for wild species that compete with people for space.[3]

.

Biocapacity is used together with Ecological Footprint as a method of measuring Human impact on the environment. Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint are tools created by the Global Footprint Network, used in sustainability studies around the world.

.

HUMAN FOOTPRINT:

The Human Footprint is an ecological footprint map of human influence on the terrestrial systems of the Earth. It was first published in a 2002 article by Eric W. Sanderson, Malanding Jaiteh, Marc A. Levy, Kent H. Redford, Antoinette V. Wannebo, and Gillian Woolmer.[1] A map of human influence became possible with the advent of high-resolution satellite imagery in the 1990s.[2]

.

WATER FOOTPRINT:

DEFINITION:

There are many different aspects to water footprint and therefore different definitions and measures to describe them. Blue water footprint refers to groundwater or surface water usage,[4] green water footprint refers to rainwater,[5] and grey water footprint refers to the amount of water needed to dilute pollutants.[6]

.

ARTICLE:

A water footprint shows the extent of water use in relation to consumption by people.[1] The water footprint of an individual, community, or business is defined as the total volume of fresh water used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or community or produced by the business. Water use is measured in water volume consumed (evaporated) and/or polluted per unit of time. A water footprint can be calculated for any well-defined group of consumers (e.g., an individual, family, village, city, province, state, or nation) or producers (e.g., a public organization, private enterprise, or economic sector), for a single process (such as growing rice) or for any product or service.[2]

.

Traditionally, water use has been approached from the production side, by quantifying the following three columns of water use: water withdrawals in the agricultural, industrial, and domestic sector. While this does provide valuable data, it is a limited way of looking at water use in a globalised world, in which products are not always consumed in their country of origin. International trade of agricultural and industrial products in effect creates a global flow of virtual water, or embodied water (akin to the concept of embodied energy).[1]

.

In 2002, the water footprint concept was introduced in order to have a consumption-based indicator of water use, that could provide useful information in addition to the traditional production-sector-based indicators of water use. It is analogous to the ecological footprint concept introduced in the 1990s. The water footprint is a geographically explicit indicator, not only showing volumes of water use and pollution, but also the locations.[3] Thus, it gives a grasp on how economic choices and processes influence the availability of adequate water resources and other ecological realities across the globe (and vice versa).

.

.

BLUE WATER FOOTPRINT:

blue water footprint refers to the volume of water that has been sourced from surface or groundwater resources (lakes, rivers, wetlands and aquifers) and has either evaporated (for example while irrigating crops), or been incorporated into a product or taken from one body of water and returned to another, or returned at a different time. Irrigated agriculture, industry and domestic water use can each have a blue water footprint.

.

GREEN WATER FOOTPRINT:

green water footprint refers to the amount of water from precipitation that, after having been stored in the root zone of the soil (green water), is either lost by evapotranspiration or incorporated by plants. It is particularly relevant for agricultural, horticultural and forestry products.[7]

..

GREY WATER FOOTPRINT:

 

A grey water footprint refers to the volume of water that is required to dilute pollutants (industrial discharges, seepage from tailing ponds at mining operations, untreated municipal wastewater, or nonpoint source pollution such as agricultural runoff or urban runoff) to such an extent that the quality of the water meets agreed water quality standards.[7] It is calculated as:

where L is the pollutant load (as mass flux), cmax the maximum allowable concentration and cnat the natural concentration of the pollutant in the receiving water body (both expressed in mass/volume).[8

.

ARTICLE:

A water footprint shows the extent of water use in relation to consumption by people.[1] The water footprint of an individual, community, or business is defined as the total volume of fresh water used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or community or produced by the business. Water use is measured in water volume consumed (evaporated) and/or polluted per unit of time. A water footprint can be calculated for any well-defined group of consumers (e.g., an individual, family, village, city, province, state, or nation) or producers (e.g., a public organization, private enterprise, or economic sector), for a single process (such as growing rice) or for any product or service.[2]

.

Traditionally, water use has been approached from the production side, by quantifying the following three columns of water use: water withdrawals in the agricultural, industrial, and domestic sector. While this does provide valuable data, it is a limited way of looking at water use in a globalised world, in which products are not always consumed in their country of origin. International trade of agricultural and industrial products in effect creates a global flow of virtual water, or embodied water (akin to the concept of embodied energy).[1]

.

In 2002, the water footprint concept was introduced in order to have a consumption-based indicator of water use, that could provide useful information in addition to the traditional production-sector-based indicators of water use. It is analogous to the ecological footprint concept introduced in the 1990s. The water footprint is a geographically explicit indicator, not only showing volumes of water use and pollution, but also the locations.[3] Thus, it gives a grasp on how economic choices and processes influence the availability of adequate water resources and other ecological realities across the globe (and vice versa).

.

EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY:

Earth Overshoot Day (EOD) is the calculated illustrative calendar date on which humanity's resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources that year. The term "overshoot" represents the level by which human population's demand overshoots the sustainable amount of biological resources regenerated on Earth. When viewed through an economic perspective, the annual EOD represents the day by which the planet's annual regenerative budget is spent, and humanity enters environmental deficit spending. EOD is calculated by dividing the world biocapacity (the amount of natural resources generated by Earth that year), by the world ecological footprint (humanity's consumption of Earth's natural resources for that year), and multiplying by 365 (366 in leap years), the number of days in a year:

.

.
.
Progression of the dates of Earth Overshoot Day [2]

In 2020 the calculated overshoot day fell on August 22 (more than three weeks later than 2019) due to coronavirus induced lockdowns around the world.[3] The president of the Global Footprint Network claims that the COVID-19 pandemic by itself is one of the manifestations of "ecological imbalance".[4]

.

Earth Overshoot Day is calculated by Global Footprint Network and is a campaign supported by dozens of other nonprofit organizations.[5] Information about Global Footprint Network's calculations[6] and national Ecological Footprints are available online.[7]

.

CARRYING CAPACITY: (not to be confused with biocapacity)

The carrying capacity of an environment is the maximum population size of a biological species that can be sustained by that specific environment, given the food, habitat, water, and other resources available. The carrying capacity is defined as the environment's maximal load, which in population ecology corresponds to the population equilibrium, when the number of deaths in a population equals the number of births (as well as immigration and emigration). The effect of carrying capacity on population dynamics is modelled with a logistic function. Carrying capacity is applied to the maximum population an environment can support in ecology, agriculture and fisheries. The term carrying capacity has been applied to a few different processes in the past before finally being applied to population limits in the 1950s.[1] The notion of carrying capacity for humans is covered by the notion of sustainable population.

.

At the global scale, scientific data indicates that humans are living beyond the carrying capacity of planet Earth and that this cannot continue indefinitely. This scientific evidence comes from many sources but is presented in detail in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, in ecological footprint accounts,[2] or planetary boundaries research.[3] An early detailed examination of global limits was published in the 1972 book Limits to Growth, which has prompted follow-up commentary and analysis.[4] A 2012 review in Nature by 22 international researchers expressed concerns that the Earth may be "approaching a state shift" in its biosphere.[5]

.

ECOSYSTEM VALUATION:

Ecosystem valuation is an economic process which assigns a value (either monetary, biophysical, or other) to an ecosystem and/or its ecosystem services. By quantifying, for example, the human welfare benefits of a forest to reduce flooding and erosion while sequestering carbon, providing habitat for endangered species, and absorbing harmful chemicals, such monetization ideally provides a tool for policy-makers and conservationists to evaluate management impacts and compare a cost-benefit analysis of potential policies. However, such valuations are estimates, and involve the inherent quantitative uncertainty and philosophical debate of evaluating a range non-market costs and benefits.
..

ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

Environmental assessment (EA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term "environmental impact assessment" (EIA) is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state.[1][2] It is a tool of environmental management forming a part of project approval and decision-making.[3] Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.

.

The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision makers consider the environmental impacts when deciding whether or not to proceed with a project. The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made".[4] EIAs are unique in that they do not require adherence to a predetermined environmental outcome, but rather they require decision makers to account for environmental values in their decisions and to justify those decisions in light of detailed environmental studies and public comments on the potential environmental impacts.[5]

.

GREENHOUSE DEBT:

Greenhouse debt is the measure to which an individual person, incorporated association, business enterprise, government instrumentality or / [and] (per Neb., USA) geographic community exceeds its permitted greenhouse footprint and contributes greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and climate change.[1]

.

The concept makes no sense without a clear numerical value for the permitted greenhouse footprint. It is not clear what this value is.

.

Friends of the Earth and similar organisations put forward the concept to define specifically the environmental harm caused by developed countries' past and present policies.[2] Some governments, at least the Australian Labor leadership, have a tendency to accept such a line of reasoning.[3]

.

The greenhouse debt assessment thus forms an ecological footprint analysis but can be used separately. Taken conjointly with a 'water debt' analysis and an ecological impact assessment, greenhouse debt analysis is basic to giving individuals, organisations, governments and communities an understanding of the effects they are having on Gaia, life, and global warming.

.

Ensuring that the greenhouse debt is zero is essential towards achieving ecologically sustainable development or a sustainable retreat. Any greenhouse debt incurred will contribute to making life harder for future generations of humans and non-human lifeforms.

.

There are three possible consequences that occur as a result of a greenhouse debt.

  1. Mitigation: finding compensatory ways of reducing the greenhouse debt so its effects are neutralised
  2. Adaptation: finding ways of adjusting to the resulting global warming or climate change
  3. Suffering: having one's quality of life reduced as a result of the consequences

.

HAPPY PLANET INDEX: 

The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an index of human well-being and environmental impact that was introduced by the New Economics Foundation in 2006. Each country's HPI value is a function of its average subjective life satisfaction, life expectancy at birth, and ecological footprint per capita. The exact function is a little more complex, but conceptually it approximates multiplying life satisfaction and life expectancy and dividing that by the ecological footprint. The index is weighted to give progressively higher scores to nations with lower ecological footprints.

.

The index is designed to challenge well-established indices of countries’ development, such as the gross domestic product (GDP) and the Human Development Index (HDI), which are seen as not taking sustainability into account. In particular, GDP is seen as inappropriate, as the usual ultimate aim of most people is not to be rich, but to be happy and healthy.[1] Furthermore, it is believed that the notion of sustainable development requires a measure of the environmental costs of pursuing those goals.[2]

.

Out of the 178 countries surveyed in 2006, the best scoring countries were Vanuatu, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, and Panama.[3] In 2009, Costa Rica was the best scoring country among the 143 analyzed,[4] followed by the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Guatemala and Vietnam. Tanzania, Botswana and Zimbabwe were featured at the bottom of the list.[5]

.

For the 2012 ranking, 151 countries were compared, and the best scoring country for the second time in a row was Costa Rica, followed by Vietnam, Colombia, Belize and El Salvador. The lowest ranking countries in 2012 were Botswana, Chad and Qatar.[6][7] In 2016, out of 140 countries, Costa Rica topped the index for the third time in a row. It was followed by Mexico, Colombia, Vanuatu and Vietnam. At the bottom were Chad, Luxembourg and Togo.

.

 

 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS:

Life cycle assessment or LCA (also known as life cycle analysis) is a methodology for assessing environmental impacts associated with all the stages of the life cycle of a commercial product, process, or service. For instance, in the case of a manufactured product, environmental impacts are assessed from raw material extraction and processing (cradle), through the product's manufacture, distribution and use, to the recycling or final disposal of the materials composing it (grave).[1][2]

.

An LCA study involves a thorough inventory of the energy and materials that are required across the industry value chain of the product, process or service, and calculates the corresponding emissions to the environment.[2] LCA thus assesses cumulative potential environmental impacts. The aim is to document and improve the overall environmental profile of the product.[2]

.

Widely recognized procedures for conducting LCAs are included in the 14000 series of environmental management standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), in particular, in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. ISO 14040 provides the 'principles and framework' of the Standard, while ISO 14044 provides an outline of the 'requirements and guidelines'. Generally, ISO 14040 was written for a managerial audience and ISO 14044 for practitioners.[3] As part of the introductory section of ISO 14040, LCA has been defined as the following:[4]

.

LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout a product's life cycle (i.e. cradle-to-grave) from raw materials acquisition through production, use and disposal. The general categories of environmental impacts needing consideration include resource use, human health, and ecological consequences.

.

Criticisms have been leveled against the LCA approach, both in general and with regard to specific cases (e.g. in the consistency of the methodology, particularly with regard to system boundaries, and the susceptibility of particular LCAs to practitioner bias with regard to the decisions that they seek to inform). Without a formal set of requirements and guidelines, an LCA can be completed based on a practitioner's views and believed methodologies. In turn, an LCA completed by 10 different parties could yield 10 different results. The ISO LCA Standard aims to normalize this; however, the guidelines are not overly restrictive and 10 different answers may still be generated.[3]

.

NETHERLANDS FALLACY:

The Netherlands fallacy refers to an error Paul R. Ehrlich and his co-authors claim others make in assuming that the environmental impacts of the Netherlands and other rich nations are contained within their national borders.[1]

.

Environmentalists since the late 20th century have analyzed the environmental sink status and sink capacities of poor nations. As polluting industries migrate from rich to poor nations, the national ecological footprint of rich nations shrinks, whereas the international ecological footprint may increase or also decrease. The nature of the fallacy is to ignore increasing environmental damage in many developing nations and in international waters attributable to the imported goods or changes in the economy of such nations directly due to developed nations.

.

Such an approach may lead to incorrect assertions such as the environmental impact of a particular developed country is reducing, when a holistic, international approach suggests the opposite. This may in turn support over-optimistic predictions toward the improvement of global environmental conditions.[2]

.

The Netherlands have had a huge impact regarding leaving water footprints across the world. The Netherlands have made this footprint by importing water from other countries leaving increasing scarce regions. Water footprints of a country can come from either water resources used internally or resources that are outsourced. Dutch consumers spend have left most of their water footprint from agricultural goods and industrial goods.

.

GLOBAL HECTARES:

The global hectare (gha) is a measurement unit for the ecological footprint of people or activities and the biocapacity of the earth or its regions. One global hectare is the world's annual amount of biological production for human use and human waste assimilation, per hectare of biologically productive land and fisheries.

.

It measures production and consumption of different products. It starts with the total biological production and waste assimilation in the world, including crops, forests (both wood production and CO2 absorption), grazing and fishing.[1] The total of these kinds of production, weighted by the richness of the land they use,[1] is divided by the number of hectares used. Biologically productive areas include cropland, forest and fishing grounds, and do not include deserts, glaciers and the open ocean.[2]

.

"Global hectares per person" refers to the amount of production and waste assimilation per person on the planet. In 2012 there were approximately 12.2 billion global hectares of production and waste assimilation, averaging 1.7 global hectares per person.[3] Consumption totaled 20.1 billion global hectares or 2.8 global hectares per person, meaning about 65% more was consumed than produced. This is possible because there are natural reserves all around the globe that function as backup food, material and energy supplies, although only for a relatively short period of time. Due to rapid population growth, these reserves are being depleted at an ever increasing tempo. See Earth Overshoot Day.

.

Opponents and defenders of the concept have discussed its strengths and weaknesses.[4]

.
.
The global hectare is a useful measure of biocapacity as it can convert things like human dietary requirements into common units, which can show how many people a certain region on earth can sustain, assuming current technologies and agricultural methods. It can be used as a way of determining the relative carrying capacity of the earth.
.

Different hectares of land can provide different amounts of global hectares. For example, a hectare of lush area with high rainfall would scale higher in global hectares than would a hectare of desert.
.

It can also be used to show that consuming different foods may increase the earth's ability to support larger populations. To illustrate, producing meat generally requires more land and energy than what producing vegetables requires; sustaining a meat-based diet would require a less populated planet.
.

BIOMASS:

Biomass is plant-based material used as fuel to produce heat or electricity. Examples are wood and wood residues, energy crops, agricultural residues, and waste from industry, farms and households.[1] Since biomass can be used as a fuel directly (e.g. wood logs), some people use the words biomass and biofuel interchangeably. Others subsume one term under the other.[a] Government authorities in the US and the EU define biofuel as a liquid or gaseous fuel, used for transportation.[b][c] The European Union's Joint Research Centre use the concept solid biofuel and define it as raw or processed organic matter of biological origin used for energy, for instance firewood, wood chips and wood pellets.[d]

.

In 2019, 57 EJ (exajoules) of energy was produced from biomass, compared to 190 EJ from crude oil, 168 EJ from coal, 144 EJ from natural gas, 30 EJ from nuclear, 15 EJ from hydro and 13 EJ from wind, solar and geothermal combined.[2][e] Approximately 86% of modern bioenergy is used for heating applications, with 9% used for transport and 5% for electricity.[f] Most of the global bioenergy is produced from forest resources.[g] Power plants that use biomass as fuel can produce a stable power output, unlike the intermittent power produced by solar or wind farms.[h]

.

The IEA (International Energy Agency) describe bioenergy as the most important source of renewable energy.[i] The IEA also argues that the current rate of bioenergy deployment is well below the levels required in future low carbon scenarios, and that accelerated deployment is urgently needed.[j][k] In IEA's Net Zero by 2050 scenario, traditional[l] bioenergy is phased out by 2030, and modern bioenergy's share of the total energy supply increases from 6.6% in 2020 to 13.1% in 2030 and 18.7% in 2050.[3] IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) projects a doubling of energy produced from biomass in 2030, with a small contribution from traditional bioenergy (6 EJ).[m] The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) argue that bioenergy has a significant climate mitigation potential if done right,[n][o] and most of the IPCC's mitigation pathways include substantial contributions from bioenergy in 2050 (average at 200 EJ.)[p][q][4] Some researchers criticize the use of bioenergy with low emission savings, high initial carbon intensities and/or long waiting times before positive climate impacts materialize.[5]

.

The raw material feedstocks with the largest potential in the future is lignocellulosic (non-edible) biomass (for instance coppices or perennial energy crops), agricultural residues, and biological waste. These feedstocks also have the shortest delay before producing climate benefits (see below). Heat production is more "climate friendly" than electricity production, because the conversion from chemical to heat energy is more efficient than the conversion from chemical to electrical energy (see below). Heat from biomass combustion is also harder to replace with heat from alternative renewable energy sources (e.g. solar thermal, heat pumps or geothermal), since heat from biomass can reach higher temperatures.[r] Solid biofuel is more climate friendly than liquid biofuel, since the production of solid biofuel is more energy efficient (see below). Replacing coal with biomass is more climate friendly than replacing natural gas with biomass, because coal combustion produces more emissions per produced energy unit than natural gas (see below). It is more climate friendly to combust biomass in large or modern coal plants than in small or old biomass-only power plants, since the former plants are more efficient (see below).

.

 

CARBON FOOTPRINT:

A carbon footprint is the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an individual, event, organization, service, place or product, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).[1] Greenhouse gases, including the carbon-containing gases carbon dioxide and methane, can be emitted through the burning of fossil fuels, land clearance and the production and consumption of food, manufactured goods, materials, wood, roads, buildings, transportation and other services.[2]

.

In most cases, the total carbon footprint cannot be calculated exactly because of inadequate knowledge of data about the complex interactions between contributing processes, including the influence of natural processes that store or release carbon dioxide. For this reason, Wright, Kemp, and Williams proposed the following definition of a carbon footprint:

.

A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or activity of interest. Calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent using the relevant 100-year global warming potential (GWP100).[3]

.

The global average annual carbon footprint per person in 2014 was about 5 tonnes CO2e.[4] Although there are many ways to calculate a carbon footprint, the Nature Conservancy suggests that the average carbon footprint for a U.S. citizen is 16 tons.[5] This is one of the highest rates in the world.[6]

.

The use of household carbon footprint calculators originated when oil producer BP hired Ogilvy to create an "effective propaganda" campaign to shift responsibility of climate change-causing pollution away from the corporations and institutions that created a society where carbon emissions are unavoidable and onto personal lifestyle choices. The term "carbon footprint" was also popularized by BP.[7]

.

 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities strengthen the greenhouse effect, causing climate change. Most is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. The largest emitters include coal in China and large oil and gas companies, many state-owned by OPEC and Russia. Human-caused emissions have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 69% over pre-industrial levels. The growing levels of emissions have varied, but it was consistent among all greenhouse gases. Emissions in the 2010s averaged 56 billion tons a year, higher than ever before.[2]

.

Electricity generation and transport are major emitters, the largest single source being coal-fired power stations with 20% of GHG. Deforestation and other changes in land use also emit carbon dioxide and methane. The largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions is agriculture, closely followed by gas venting and fugitive emissions from the fossil-fuel industry. The largest agricultural methane source is livestock. Agricultural soils emit nitrous oxide partly due to fertilizers. Similarly, fluorinated gases from refrigerants play an outsized role in total human emissions.

.

At current emission rates averaging six and a half tonnes per person per year, before 2030 temperatures may have increased by 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) over pre-industrial levels, which is the limit for the G7 countries and aspirational limit of the Paris Agreement.[3]

 .

CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVELENT: (GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL):

Global warming potential (GWP) is the heat absorbed by any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, as a multiple of the heat that would be absorbed by the same mass of carbon dioxide (CO2). GWP is 1 for CO2. For other gases it depends on the gas and the time frame.

.

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e or CO2eq or CO2-e) is calculated from GWP. For any gas, it is the mass of CO2 that would warm the earth as much as the mass of that gas. Thus it provides a common scale for measuring the climate effects of different gases. It is calculated as GWP times mass of the other gas.

.

Methane has GWP (over 100 years) of 27.9[1]: 7SM-24  meaning that, for example, a leak of a tonne of methane is equivalent to emitting 27.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Similarly a tonne of nitrous oxide, from manure for example, is equivalent to 273 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

.

 

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY:

Greenhouse gas inventories are emission inventories of greenhouse gas emissions that are developed for a variety of reasons. Scientists use inventories of natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions as tools when developing atmospheric models. Policy makers use inventories to develop strategies and policies for emissions reductions and to track the progress of those policies. Regulatory agencies and corporations also rely on inventories to establish compliance records with allowable emission rates. Businesses, the public, and other interest groups use inventories to better understand the sources and trends in emissions.

.

Unlike some other air emission inventories, greenhouse gas inventories include not only emissions from source categories, but also removals by carbon sinks. These removals are typically referred to as carbon sequestration.

.

Greenhouse gas inventories typically use Global warming potential (GWP) values to combine emissions of various greenhouse gases into a single weighted value of emissions.

.

Some of the key examples of greenhouse gas inventories include:

.

  • All Annex I countries are required to report annual emissions and sinks of greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
  • National governments that are Parties to the UNFCCC and/or the Kyoto Protocol are required to submit annual inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks.
  • The Kyoto Protocol includes additional requirements for national inventory systems, inventory reporting, and annual inventory review for determining compliance with Articles 5 and 8 of the Protocol.
  • Project developers under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol prepare inventories as part of their project baselines.
  • Scientific efforts aimed at understanding detail of total net carbon exchange. Example: Project Vulcan - a comprehensive US inventory of fossil-fuel greenhouse gas emissions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

STATISTICS:

Ecological Footprint:

 Global Footprint Network estimates that, as of 2014, humanity has been using natural capital 1.7 times as fast as Earth can renew it, which they describe as meaning humanity's ecological footprint corresponds to 1.7 planet Earths.
 

GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK:

Ecological Footprint Network:
Since 2003, Global Footprint Network has calculated the ecological footprint from UN data sources for the world as a whole and for over 200 nations (known as the National Footprint Accounts). The total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that level of consumption are also calculated. Every year the calculations are updated to the latest year with complete UN statistics.

HOW DO I BE AN ECO-CONCIOUS CONSUMER? 

Analyze the Life Cycle Analysis of the product, and brand you are buying from. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Large Corporations are responsible for __________.
This is true, And this needs to change. As a community, need to wake up to the fact that we, the consumers really have the power. ______
The average ecological footprint of an individual in the united states is ________
At the end of the day, we can only control ourselves. ____ hectares is equivalent to ___ Acers !
.
WHAT SHIPPING MATERIALS DO YOU USE?
  • 100% Compostable Shipping Label
  • 100% Compostable Water Activated Gummed Kraft Tape
  • Water Dissolvable Packing Peanuts 
  • Corrugated Cardboard Box (Compostable/Recyclable) 
 
WHAT MAKES YOUR SHIPPING LABELS AND TAPE COMPOSTABLE?
.
Shipping Labels:
Our shipping Labels Sticky Adhesive is made from natural melted rubber. We source our 100% Compostable Shipping Labels from Noissue.
.
Water Activated Gummed Kraft Tape:
The Water Activated Sticky Adhesive is made from Corn Starch. The face stock is made out of Kraft Paper, 50% of which is made from post consumer recycled material! Our 100% Compostable Tape is sourced from EcoEnclose.