2209681

Giant Feet

From tracking animals through a dense forest to figuring out a runner’s gait and cycle,

footprints are incredibly valuable in various facets of life. However, the most paramount of all is

the carbon footprint -- “the amount of greenhouse gases and specifically carbon dioxide emitted

by something” (Merriam-Webster). Carbon footprints have become increasingly acknowledged

around the world as the threat of climate change has risen.

While growing up in a community that is passionate about climate change, I was exposed

at a young age to various methods to reduce my carbon footprint and why it was a vital concept.

Participating in clubs such as Environmentally Concerned Kids (ECK) and Northgate

Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) allowed me to gain more knowledge and a deeper

understanding of how climate change functions, and what it entails for humanity. In addition,

visiting India in the summers and witnessing the different approaches they have on life

diversified my opinion about how people can effectively combat this issue.

Though I had some prior knowledge about carbon footprints, I first studied carbon

footprints as a junior in AP Environmental Science class. We covered a variety of contributors to

our species’ carbon footprint, including farming methods and ocean pollution. Every subject was

connected by their contributions to the greenhouse gases existing in our atmosphere. An

individual’s carbon footprint depends on the choices they make, such as the choice to carpool to

a high school game rather than driving alone. This has a significant impact on one’s carbon

footprint.

My interest in carbon footprints was furthered by Hasan Minhaj’s show, The Patriot Act.

In an episode about fast fashion, Minhaj points out the woes about our society’s constant “need”

1
 2209681

to make and follow new trends, and how it ends up contributing more to climate change than

planes. Although the overall episode was geared towards showcasing the overspending that

Americans annually indulge in, it uniquely tied in the subject of climate change in order to raise

awareness. I decided to look into how different sectors of life are related to climate change and

carbon footprints. I was surprised to find out how every decision or action affects our carbon

footprint even if it is not emissions related. For example, an article of clothing has a carbon

footprint based on the emissions it took to construct that piece of clothing and transport it. The

materials that were used and where the article was made also influence the overall carbon

footprint of that product. The difference in the location is significant when contributing to carbon

footprints. Through an economist’s eyes, it makes sense to make a product in China due to higher

margins. However, from an environmentalist's perspective, it makes more sense to invest in

manufacturing in countries that have a higher use of renewable energy to lessen the impact on

climate change. These thoughts led me to my question: How does the country you live in affect

your carbon footprint?

Every time a new energy source enters the market, emissions around the world change

due to the allocation of resources to utilizing the new energy. However, different countries

change their energy outputs in various ways due to natural resources or trade. According to Rob

Jordan at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, natural gas is a prime example of

how this phenomenon works in real life. Jordan writes that “Because of greater supply and

cheaper prices, natural gas usage has surged [In America], with an attendant 2.6 percent increase

in carbon dioxide emissions for 2019” (Jordan). The United States has about 2,828.8 trillion

cubic feet of natural gas which can last for 92 years if it is the sole provider of energy. China, on

2
 2209681

the other hand, holds 19.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. They still demand the gas in high

quantities due to its reliability, lower emissions, and safeties. Jordan explains that “while annual

emissions are decreasing slowly in many industrialized regions, including the U.S., where they

are down a projected 1.7 percent since last year, they are growing in many countries, including

China, where they should rise 2.6 percent this year.” The explosion of the utilization of natural

gas has to lead to a decrease in other forms of energy, and importantly, coal and biofuel use has

dropped. When you look at the superficial emissions of carbon of natural gas versus biofuel the

numbers are clearly in favor of natural gas, “Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon

dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with

emissions from a typical new coal plant” (Union of Concerned Scientists). However, what those

numbers fail to include is the deeper damage caused by natural gas. The extraction of natural gas

leads to the leakage of methane, which is a fossil fuel that is “34 times stronger than CO2 at

trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years” (Myhre, G., D.

Shindell, F.-M. Bréon). Land disturbance that is required for the procurement of the gas harms

local animal life and alters land use. When everything is accounted for, the carbon footprint of

natural gas is greater than regular oil. This is especially true for countries that import the

resource compared to those that have abundant natural reserves of it.

Devin Jackson, a middle school teacher, and the leader of the successful

Environmentally Concerned Kids (ECK) program at Foothill believes that societal and

institutional customs are the reason for differing carbon footprints. He explains:

Obviously, Americans have higher carbon footprints than residents of countries in Africa

or many countries in Asia (except India and China and Russia), and that’s not because

3
 2209681

Americans are just more naturally inclined to want to harm the environment more than

people in other countries, even though a vast number of Americans deny climate change

… Americans are accustomed to flying a lot, taking lots of trips in cars and planes

everywhere, and that’s something that just doesn’t exist in other countries, and so

Americans have a higher carbon footprint because of how our society influences us.”

Take for example the evolution of the American family, it just used to be a house, but

now its 2 or even 3 cars since like you, kids are expected to start driving their own car

early.

Facts and statistics like, “A household can save nearly $10,000 by taking public transportation

and living with one less car,” and, “A person can reduce his or her chance of being in an accident

by more than 90% simply by taking public transit as opposed to commuting by car”prove why

Americans should switch over to public transportation (APTA) . However, according to the

United States Department of Transportation, the number of registered cars increased by over

2,000 between 2017 and 2018. The concept of the nuclear family has changed in America. The

average number of cars per household in America is now 2.38 with at least 94% of all American

households owning a car. Compared to the United Kingdom, with its smaller population but an

increased emphasis on public transportation. The average number of cars per household in the

UK is 1.24 with only 74% of the population owning a car (gov.uk). In countries such as America,

it is expected for families to own at least 2 cars whereas in the UK families often buy two cars

due to the community not establishing those standards in the first place. Cultures also play an

important role in assessing how a country can alter your carbon footprint. In countries such as

Bhutan, minimalism is a huge part of their culture, mainly due to religious teachings. Residents

4
 2209681

practice more of a mending lifestyle, one where reusing and recycling is prioritized, rather than a

newer-is better-lifestyle, where one must be constantly upgrading items in order to fit the cultural

niche that exists. Hassan Minhaj, anchor of Patriot Act, exclaimed that “in the 1980s, the average

American bought about 12 new articles of clothing every year. Today, the number is somewhere

around 64-68 new pieces a year. And, get this: half of which are worn 3 times or less.” He then

follows up with the carbon footprint impacts that these actions can have, “ Wear your clothes

nine months longer and help reduce your carbon footprint for the garment by 30 percent. …

Buying one used item per year, it could save nearly 6 lbs of CO2 emissions”(Minhaj). The

consumerism culture that exists in America is a definite cause for a higher footprint. Other than

cars and clothes, food and entertainment are also areas where differences can lead to an

individual’s footprint in a country vastly different.

Some experts propose that living in different countries has no impact on your carbon

footprint due to the fact that one’s footprint is dependent on choices that they take. This is true in

some part, an individual’s carbon footprint is only dependent on the choices and actions they

take, however, those actions are directly influenced by legislation laid out by the country they

live in and the options that the country allows. In the novel How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon

Footprint of Everything author, Mike Berners-Lee, writes that the more choices that a consumer

is presented with, the more their carbon footprint tends to increase. Berners-Lee cites an

experiment where consumers were given options to take home three snacks free of cost from a

pop-up store. The researcher’s experiment consisted of a control group of 5 differentiated snacks,

a “fewer choices” group of 3 snacks, and a “more choices” group of 10 snacks. When presented

with the control group the average snacks taken were 1.84, the 3 snack group’s average was 1.2

5
 2209681

and the 10 snack group’s average was 2.34. Berners-Lee then claims that simply the fact that

there were more choices prompts consumers to buy more and experience the variety that exists

between them.

The government is the greatest influencer of carbon footprints, an individual’s carbon

footprint is very dependent on environmental regulations that are set on the country. These

regulations often mirror the economic focus of the country. Countries whose economies revolve

around the trade of non-fossil fuels will have more leniency on environmental legislation than

countries that rely on fossil fuels. An example laid out by Yale’s environmental performance

index compares Sweden and Saudi Arabia. The number is derived from a country's focus on

environmental health and its ecosystem vitality. Sweden’s index number is 80.51, top five in the

world, where Saudi Arabia’s index number is 57.47 and ranks 97. If an individual resides in

Sweden where there is a great more emphasis on clean green energy compared to the rest of the

world, their carbon footprint will decrease due to the regulations and focus of the country that

they reside in. Countries with that emphasis will then go on to pass legislation supporting that

focus and then the economy, companies, and residents of that country will have to adjust to meet

those regulations. As Devin Jackson states in an interview, “real change in a country’s carbon

footprint comes when that country’s government commits to tackle climate change on a national

scale.” From a purely monetary standpoint, it makes sense for a firm to not think about the

environmental effects that their products might have. This is because in most cases, the

environmentally friendly method is more expensive than the profit-maximizing method.

However, if a government states that emissions have to meet a certain standard that will result in

any good that u purchase from a company that abides by those laws will have a lower carbon

6
 2209681

footprint without those governmental standards. Legislation can also affect the proportion that

each activity can influence an individual’s carbon footprint. “If you live in Sweden where

electricity is produced with relatively clean sources, your carbon footprint from electricity for the

average household is only 5 percent of the total carbon footprint of the household”(Jones).

However, when Christopher Jones, a researcher, and professor at UC Berkeley, compared that to

a country where electricity is not produced with relatively clean sources like Mexico, a family’s

carbon footprint from electricity can be up to 35 percent or even more. Jones writes that laws and

plans that have been laid out by the Swedish government have allowed for the advent and

increase in clean energy compared to Mexico’s lack of it. This directly affects an individual’s

carbon footprint because even if both families from each country use the same amount of

electricity in one month, their carbon footprints are going to be vastly different due to the source

of their electricity.

Therefore, the country one resides in deeply affects their carbon footprint. From the laws

and regulations that the country has in place regarding the environment to the natural resources

that exist in the country everything influences how an individual’s carbon footprint is shaped.

These differences can be important in assessing and combating the worldwide problem of

climate change. By looking at the differences between carbon footprints one can personalize a

method in reducing theirs. Planting a garden might not have the same effect in Sweden as it does

in the United States. Understanding that there are actions that can greatly reduce your carbon

footprint that others are important in identifying the problem. Finding out how one’s country

approaches the issue and in what ways they are already combating it is important as well. By

knowing what the country has already done, an individual can reduce their footprint by focusing

7
 2209681

on the area’s that the country has failed to fix or make advancements on. Moving forward, it is

important that all residents of the world acknowledge that this is their problem. We must

understand and recognize how important climate change truly is and how easy it is to fight the

problem. Simple acts like thrifting clothes or riding a bike do not seem like a big deal but if

everyone commits to that the overall carbon footprint can significantly decrease. By applying

these ideas to societies, we are paving a road towards a happier world in which giant feet are not

a good thing.

Hey Mrs. Reed, Mrs. Eisner told us to write a short little blurb talking about something

that might have influenced our paper in some way. Well mine is obviously the corona virus since

I was unable to get the second interview in time for this draft. I switched from a live person

interview to an email so my interview should be done in a few days. Thank You!!

8
 2209681

Works Cited

BERNERS-LEE, MIKE. HOW BAD ARE BANANAS?: the Carbon Footprint of Everything.

PROFILE BOOKS LTD, 2020.

“Carbon Pollution from Transportation.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 10 June 2019,

www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/carbon-pollution-transport

ation.

“Choose Your Calculator.” Cool California, coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov/.

“Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas.” Union of Concerned Scientists,

www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natural-gas.

“General.” Rita.dot.gov/Bts Is Now Www.bts.gov! | Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

www.bts.gov/rita.

Praveen. “The World's Biggest Natural Gas Reserves.” Hydrocarbons Technology, 23 Jan. 2020,

www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-biggest-natural-gas-reser

ves/.

“Public Transportation Facts.” American Public Transportation Association, 10 Feb. 2020,

www.apta.com/news-publications/public-transportation-facts/.

Sanders, Robert. “When It Comes to Carbon Footprints, Location and Lifestyle Matter.”

Berkeley News, 9 July 2015,

news.berkeley.edu/2011/04/13/when-it-comes-to-carbon-footprints-location-and-lifestyle-

matter/.

9
 2209681

Sanders, Robert. “When It Comes to Carbon Footprints, Location and Lifestyle Matter.”

Berkeley News, 9 July 2015,

news.berkeley.edu/2011/04/13/when-it-comes-to-carbon-footprints-location-and-lifestyle-

matter/.

Selin, Noelle Eckley, and Clarence Lehman. “Biofuel.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia

Britannica, Inc., 27 Sept. 2018, www.britannica.com/technology/biofuel.

Statista Research Department. “Number of Cars in U.S.” Statista, 12 Mar. 2020,

www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/.

“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” How

Much Natural Gas Does the United States Have, and How Long Will It Last? - FAQ -

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA),

www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8.

“Welcome.” Welcome | Environmental Performance Index, epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/.

“Climate Change.” Global Footprint Network,

www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/climate-change/.

Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. “CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Our World in Data, 11

May 2017, ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

Stanford University. “Global Carbon Emissions Increase.” Stanford News, 17 Dec. 2019,

news.stanford.edu/2019/12/03/global-carbon-emission-increase/.

10