What’s a Carbon Footprint Anyway?

Greenhouse gas, global warming, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, carbon offsets - what next? It’s a little hard to keep up with our new eco-speak! Well, we’ll decipher it a little at a time. Today we tackle carbon footprints.

We all contribute to the greenhouse gases that create, or I should say contribute to, global warming. I’m sure you already know global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases that cause heat energy to get absorbed and reflected back into our atmosphere, raising the temperature of the earth’s climate. The gases include methane and carbon dioxide, CO2. This warming is increasing at an alarming speed. This warming is causing the ice shelves to melt, warming our oceans, gradually raising the levels of our oceans, changing our weather patterns and has the potential to wreak serious havoc on our earth in a matter of years.

There are two perspectives on global warming. One says humans have primarily caused the problem, and we need to stop it. Those that don’t believe the theory feel it would be happening despite us and some of those folks believe the concept of global warming is just propaganda to further individual or group agendas.

I don't think there's any question some increase in global warming would be occurring naturally despite us, but our activities are certainly contributing significantly to the increased speed of the earth’s warming. One study indicates the average temperatures will actually plateau for the next 3-4 years, then the warming will increase much more quickly.

So, a carbon footprint is an estimate of the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide a person, business or an activity produces. Although carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas, as a major contibutor it's used for a gauge of greenhouse gas production. An estimate may look at a specific activity, such as driving, or overall lifestyle effects including all energy use. The idea is to estimate the impact on the climate and global warming.

Are you interested in seeing what your impact is? I’ve seen figures indicating the national average for someone in the U.S. is anywhere from 7.5 to 20 tons of carbon dioxide emitted a year. You can use one of the on-line carbon footprint calculators to determine your effect.

Carbon Calculators:

The Nature Conservancy

Carbon Fund

There’s a whole list of calculators to choose from on this squidoo site

Cool, isn’t it? Now that you’ve gotten your estimate, what can you do? There are a number of steps you can take to minimize your impact. One is to reduce and modify your activities that produce greenhouse gases. Another way is to purchase “carbon offsets” from services that decrease emissions elsewhere by planting trees or financing businesses that reduce greenhouse effects, or develop cleaner energy. Some folks like to purchase offsets to make their impact completely carbon neutral. Others do it as a supplement.

Upcoming posts will go into detail on these ways to reduce your carbon footprint.

Eco Tip of the Day

I love this envirotip (yes, I think I made up that word). When filling out a reply or response card for a business or service, note on it any ideas you have for making the service healthier or more environmentally friendly. As more businesses try to accomodate their eco-conscious consumers, they may actually implement some of your suggestions.

FDA Says Bisphenol A (BPA) Exposure Is of 'Some Concern' for Infants and Children

From ScienceDaily (Jan. 20, 2010)

The FDA has shifted its stance on bisphenol A (BPA) and said that exposure to the chemical is of "some concern" for infants and children. Previously, the agency's stance was the chemical posed no risk to humans; this stance was consistent with the chemical industry's stance.

FDA officials have now declared that more research was needed and suggested reasonable steps to reduce exposure to BPA. Frederick vom Saal, a University of Missouri scientist, says that this stance is a step forward but more steps need to be taken. Since 1997, research from vom Saal and other MU colleagues have shown adverse health effects of BPA at exposure levels below those currently considered safe by the FDA. Vom Saal has received more than $1 million of the $30 million that government agencies, including the NIH, have committed in the next 18 to 25 months to study the health risks of BPA exposure.

"The FDA formally acknowledging concern about BPA and working with NIH to incorporate research from outside of the chemical industry is a huge step forward," said vom Saal, who is a Curator's professor of biological sciences in MU's College of Arts and Science. "The FDA position presented today [January 19] is consistent with the position that the National Toxicology Program made two years ago. Since then, considerable published research reaffirmed the health dangers of BPA. The FDA says they want to respond more quickly. Now, we will see if they are really able to respond to the huge amount of new science showing dangers not recognized two years ago. They should move quickly to restrict the use of by BPA in products used by adults as well as infants."

BPA is a one of the world's highest production-volume chemicals and has been used for 40 years to make hard plastic items, such as, drinking glasses, baby bottles, food-storage containers, the lining of food and beverage containers, and dental sealants. Previous studies have shown adverse health effects of BPA on the brain and reproductive system, as well as metabolic diseases in laboratory animals. "The Japanese industry voluntarily removed BPA from can linings 10 years ago and thus, were able to reduce exposure to BPA by 50 percent," vom Saal said. "Last year, Congress asked companies in the United States to take similar actions; however, companies have made no move toward compliance. A huge problem facing the FDA is that it does not have the regulatory authority to even determine what products contain BPA, and Congress will have to pass new laws giving the FDA the authority it needs to regulate chemicals such as BPA."


Story Source: Adapted from materials provided by University of Missouri-Columbia.

Looking to October

London was recently the site of an environmental gathering of government representatives from 54 countries, looking ahead to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October in Nagoya, Japan. The organizers are working hard to ensure there's fundamental agreement on the purpose and issues to avoid a repeat of the discord that surfaced during the recent Copehagen Summit.

While attention to reversing damage to the world's natural environment has fallen behind economic issues over the past several years, the international community recognizes that attention needs to be refocused on these issues. Curbing global warming and maintaining diversity of species are crucial to our future physical and economic health.

We have to restore the damage we've done to our eco systems. Will our swamps be able to continue filtering water when they're full of toxins? At what point do we reach the tipping point where we no longer have enough remaining plants and trees to absorb significant amounts of CO2 or send water back into the atmosphere for our use? Now that the  US Supreme Court has determined large corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to pursue their money making goals the safety of our natural resources is even more at risk.

Research is suggesting that even the decline of honeybees seen in many countries may be due, at least in part, to reduced plant diversity. It's been found that bees that are able to collect pollen from a greater variety of plants have better immune systems. We know we need a variety of foods and supports to be healthy, why would it be any different for the non-human creatures.The more species of plants and animals, insects and fish that we loose, the more our own health is threatened.

It's refreshing to see the international community planning ahead for success. Hopefully it will result in meaningful dialogue and agreement in October.