Two online ecological footprint calculators gave me a tough verdict: If everyone in the world lived like I did, we would need 2.35 to 3.9 worlds to support us. The data is based on my answers to questions written by the World Wildlife Fund and Earth Day Network, but nevertheless it supports an incontrovertible truth: the way people like me live in the developed world is at odds with the resources we have on Earth. This problem persists even for those of us who are aware of ecological limits and care about the environment.
In order to investigate the roots of the problem, the online calculators asked me questions under several categories. First, they asked me about my food consumption habits — whether I eat meat and animal products, and whether I eat organic or locally-grown foods. Even though I make an effort to eat foods that are less environmentally harming, I cannot justify my reasons for eating them at all. And while I eat dining hall food most of the time, I don't really think about the sources of my food — I don't know if it was grown in Connecticut or halfway around the world. I'm not a carnivore, and I don't usually opt for dairy, but the way I eat is still out of line with the Earth's capacity.
Then, the calculators asked me about my consumption of products such as electronic gadgets, appliances, and clothing. I don't consider myself to be a girl who loves shopping, or one who has an outsize material presence, but I still had to admit that I buy a few articles of clothing every month. Isn't that reasonable? I've also replaced broken phones and laptops in the past year and bought textbooks and paper for class, but I didn't have environmental impact in mind when I was making those purchases. The idea, however, is that every product we consume, whether out of necessity or on our own whims, is related to the health of the planet.
The calculators also interrogated me about my use of physical space. I live in a college dorm with five other people, and we have comfortable heating and lighting. I don't know whether we have energy-efficient lightbulbs in our ceiling fixtures or how much of our electricity is generated from renewable resources. I think I should, but this conviction is not a replacement for my ignorance of the actual fact. I don't even want to think about my family's house outside of school.
Finally, the calculators moved on to the issue of transportation. I thought this topic would redeem me in terms of my environmental impact; after all, I walk everywhere at school and almost never drive, motorcycle, or take public transport. But in the past year, I've spent between 10 and 25 hours in airplanes, and these hours corresponded to the images of three aircrafts, at least in my responses to the online calculators. The impacts of traveling do not only apply to daily commuters; they apply to almost everyone in the modern world.
If we really care about the world (like I say I do) how do we reconcile that concern with our actual lifestyle? How do we keep the number of planets we need to one? I may support legislators and politicians who want to cut carbon emissions and oppose those who deny the urgency of climate change. I may have grandiose concerns, but if they do not trickle down into my everyday actions, they are ineffectual.
I support the goal of the United Nations Climate Change Conference this December to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius in the next few decades. But I must demonstrate this support in a legitimate ways, in my own life. If you feel similarly, you must do the same. As individuals and civilians, we must reexamine our consumption habits and physical presence — and agree to adapt them to our environment — whether or not our delegates and nations come up with a binding treaty.
