BechtelTheEcologicalFootprint

** Director: ** [|Mathis Wackernagel]  ** Release year: **2005   The central argument of the film is that our ecological footprint calculation is an excellent way for us to keep track of our sustainability. In order to live sustainably we cannot be exceeding our current consumption limits. The footprint concept provides an infrastructure, similar to a banking system, which allows us to keep track of how many resources we are using compared to the total number that we have. Humans currently make up around 90% of the earth’s total invertebrate organisms and as we continue to develop new technologies that consume even more resources we need to keep track of where we are at. In the same what that someone can get away with reckless spending without looking at their bank account we can get away with using up more and more natural resources without paying attention to how much we have left, but this eventually has to come to an end. That end will likely be catastrophic if we don’t start paying more attention to our actions today.
 * Title: ** The Ecological Footprint
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

** What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **  __Earth is Finite __ A very important sustainability problem which this film draws out is that our planet earth is a finite resource. This very simple concept is often not well understood, but is the basis for the ecological foot print calculation. Because the earth is so incredibly huge it is hard to compare our day to day consumption with any sort of finite limit. If we do a few simple calculations, however, it is relatively easy to see what our effects are. The surface of the earth is roughly 51 billion hectares of land, which is a staggering amount, but of this 71% is ocean and 11% is barren land. This leaves only around 18% biologically productive land and only around 25% which we can use at all. If we reserve 50% this space for wildlife, which is really a fairly minimalistic perspective, this leaves only around 1 hectare per person on the planet. This single hectare needs to account for everything from the food we eat and other resources we use, to the treatment of our waste and absorption of our pollution. It is not difficult to imagine that today nearly everyone on the earth lives well beyond this limit. Americans alone use roughly 9.5 hectares each.  __Ecological Deficit __ <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Another serious problem addressed in the film is that our current consumption exceeds our supply by around 20%. This is happening with a number of different resources because we are taking them from the earth faster than they can be replaced. It is happening with fish, water, and trees just to name a few. The director compares this to liquidating financial assets, which we can do, but only for so long before we run out. It is very easy to exceed the world’s current consumption limit because there are no direct feedback loops. It won’t be any harder to cut down trees once we are taking them faster than they can grow back. In fact as technology increases, it becomes easier for us to exploit resources; only accelerating the problem. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> __<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Funnel Effect __ <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">A sustainability problem brought up by the film that I have never heard before is the problem of the funnel effect. This film describes it by comparing the rate at which our populations footprint is growing with that of the living planet index (I imagine you can also use this with other inverse relationships). The living planet index is a population counting model for different species on the planet and is produced by the World Wildlife Foundation. By looking at the graphs of these ratings one can clearly see that as our ecological footprint increases, the living planet index decreases. It is not difficult to see that there is a connection here that will continue in the future if we do not take action to stop it. This is referred to as the funnel effect because right now we still have a lot of breathing room and can keep doing what we are with little or no immediate consequences, but as time goes on and the funnel narrows we will be greatly restricted by what we can do without causing catastrophe. If we don’t do something about it now we will run into the side of the funnel and be squeezed through the neck. This isn’t something we want to happen. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I found this film very compelling because it was very clearly presented and direct. The problems were express precisely with many facts and figures. The narrator also brought in many different examples and made connections to a wide variety of sustainability concerns. The best thing about the movie was that it was very easy to swallow. It was rather short, but still very informative and the speaker did an excellent job of narratoring. The film was presented as more of a story than an actual lecture and included many great analogies to describe things.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I was not compelled by the lack of diverse opinion and sources in the movie. For pretty much the entire film there was only one person speaking, which does not provide the best argument.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What audiences does the film best address? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film definitely best addresses a more mature adult audience because it is filmed in a very traditional style. It feels more like you are sitting down and having a conversation with someone than actually watching a film. This film certainly could be shown to a very general audience, but the analogies between the ecological footprint and an accounting system would really only be understood by someone who was older and more experienced with money.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The best thing that could have been added to this film to enhance its educational value is more sources of information. There certainly are other scientists who could have contributed to the diversity of information provided. The film has a great amount of environmental value on its own, but it could definitely be a stronger educational piece.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The action suggested by this film is to use the information provided by the ecological footprint calculation to see that there is a problem with the way we are living and make steps to improve our sustainability. This calculation is a direct comparison between our net resource consumption and the area necessary to sustain that level of consumption. This area is something that can be universally understood and is an effective means to communicate the problem. Reducing our consumption is a huge challenge, but the first step is identifying the problem. One property owner calculated the average footprint of a retail space to be more than 1,600 times larger than the physical space the building occupied. This calculation did not include any of what went in to the products being sold, only the maintenance of the space itself. This calculation was then used to reduce the consumption of retail spaces through the use of more sustainable architecture. The mayor of London also used the ecological footprint calculation to gain support for improved environmental practices in the country. He was able to prove the importance of sustainability by showing that the country required an area as much as 250 times larger than the country to sustain its consumption. These are two specific examples of how this concept can be put to use, but the possibilities are limitless!

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> This film compelled me to seek our exactly how large my own ecological footprint was. You can calculate your own footprint at []. This site has a huge amount of educational value concerning what our current levels of consumption are and what we can do to improve them. It is an excellent hands on exercise in sustainability and one of the very few which you can see the results of immediately. My footprint was 4 earths (how much space would be needed if everyone lived like me) which is actually fairly low. I don’t own a car, live in shared housing, and don’t eat a whole lot of meat. I also created a few best and worst case scenarios while I was on this site. A highly consumptive American can have consumption levels as high as 12 earths and the lowest consumption Americans can have as low as 3 earths consumption. In comparison, the highest end lifestyles in India use only 2.4 earths and can be as low and 1/3 of an earth. These are some very interesting and useful statistics. What I can take from this is that if I want to improve minimize my footprint here in America, roughly the only things I can do to make a significant impact are buy a green designed home and become a vegan. It seems, however, that I can make a much more significant impact by moving to another country. What this means is clearly up to interpretation but it is certainly something interesting to think about. Another site where you can calculate this is []. This site isn’t quite as fun and interactive, but it is equally informational and produced pretty similar results.