Product

carbon_footprint_blog_header_01

Carbon_Footprint_Blog_Header_01

From when Ecologi launched in June 2019 up to today, the way in which we calculate your carbon footprint hasn&#8217;t changed.
However, on Thursday 17th December 2020, we’re rolling out an update that will result in a more robust carbon footprint calculation &#8211; which is also more transparent, and is specific to your home country.
Whilst the existing calculation was always valid and used data from reputable sources, we had added a big buffer to account for margin of error, and had long wanted to devise a more accurate way to calculate individual footprints for our subscribers.
In this post, we’re going to deep dive into how footprints are calculated, and the methodology we used to calculate our new Ecologi individual footprints.
If you’re in a rush:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">The new update synthesises multiple datasets to produce more accurate carbon footprint measurements.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">With the new update, most carbon footprints are slightly smaller (between 5-30% smaller) than previously calculated (with the exception of Australia, which remains almost the same).</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">We’ve published our calculator, so you can check our working and feed back.</li>
</ul>

Whilst your individual footprint may be higher or lower than the average, depending on your personal lifestyle, there is an implicit base carbon footprint attributable to you, as a resident in your home country.
This is the average per capita carbon footprint for a person who lives where you do, and can be worked out by dividing the total greenhouse gas emissions from your country by its population. Usually, this footprint is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), that equivalent bit we’ll get on to.
<h2>Why do carbon footprint calculations vary?</h2>
You might be used to hearing that your carbon footprint is one number, then hearing it is something else from another source. This can be frustrating, and make it difficult to discern exactly how big your carbon footprint is. How does this happen? Well, it’s a little complicated.
Let’s take the UK for example, where the recorded amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) per person emitted in 2016 was <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&amp;stackMode=absolute&amp;country=~GBR&amp;region=World" target="_blank" rel="noopener">6.03 tonnes per year</a>. It’s completely correct to say that this is the amount of carbon dioxide each person on average is responsible for each year.

But it’s not just carbon dioxide that is warming our planet. There are a few other key greenhouse gases that also make up your overall footprint.
Firstly, there’s methane emissions. Methane (CH4) is emitted into the atmosphere from a number of sources &#8211; famously from cattle grazing, but also during the extraction of fossil fuels, as landfill gas, and through geological processes such as permafrost melt.
While methane molecules don’t exist in our atmosphere for as long as carbon dioxide molecules do, they are far more effective at warming the planet. Despite only accounting for around 20% of total emissions, it is estimated that methane <a href="https://www.globalmethane.org/documents/gmi-mitigation-factsheet.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accounts for over a third</a> of today’s human-caused global warming.

To make footprint calculations, we need to use the same units across our figures &#8211; so all greenhouse gases are normalised to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) based on the ‘Global Warming Potential’ (GWP) of the particular gas emitted over a 100-year period.
Knowing the GWP of the different gases emitted allows scientists to work out an individual’s footprint using CO2e as our baseline &#8211; almost as if they had only emitted CO2 in the first place.
The other significant greenhouse gases are nitrous oxide (NO2) and fluorinated gases (“F-gases”). Globally, this is how the various gases are distributed:

cait-global-emissions-gas

CAIT Global Emissions

Okay, great. Let’s plug in those numbers, to produce a carbon footprint for an individual in the UK again. The data from OurWorldInData produces a figure for per capita greenhouse gas emissions in CO2e &#8211; but the output number <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&amp;stackMode=absolute&amp;time=earliest..latest&amp;country=~GBR&amp;region=World" target="_blank" rel="noopener">is only 5.5 tonnes</a> &#8211; smaller than the first chart with just CO2.
Something else is at play here &#8211; so what gives?
<h2>Factoring in Land Use Change</h2>
The difference here is that the data source has changed and now includes ‘land-use change’. 
Land-use change is where, over time, your country has changed what it does with its land, which results in net changes to the amount of emissions that enter the atmosphere.
These changes can produce positive or negative results &#8211; for example, a country which has cleared lots of rainforest for agriculture would output more greenhouse gases than if it had conserved that rainforest. A country which has seized existing agricultural land and used it to plant lots of trees would have the opposite effect: reducing its emissions output by using the land to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases escaping into the atmosphere.
In the case of the example with the UK, recent land use change over time has resulted in net emissions reductions &#8211; for example, in 2016 land use change resulted in <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR" target="_blank" rel="noopener">net negative emissions of 12.77 megatons</a> of CO2e.
<h2>Emissions transfers</h2>
So: is that our finished calculation? Is 5.5 tonnes of greenhouse gases (measured in CO2e) the right number for somebody who lives in the UK?
It’s still missing a large part that tends not to be reported and monitored. Up until now the emissions measured have only occurred within your own country. If you think about the items you buy &#8211; fruit, clothes, electronics, anything! &#8211; only a portion of these will be manufactured in your own country, the rest are imported.
So far, we have not accommodated for these types of imports (or “emissions transfers”) in our calculation.
The ultimate figures we need to work out are called “consumption-based emissions”. These are emissions figures (also measured in tCO2e per capita) which take into account the carbon emissions embedded in the things that we import.
An updated figure for per capita carbon emissions is <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&amp;time=1990..latest&amp;country=GBR~USA~AUS~DEU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.
However, when we were working out our new methodology for calculating individual carbon footprints, we identified another problem with this data.
We spotted that this calculation uses data from the Global Carbon Project, which, when worked into footprint calculations produces figures that are significantly smaller than the ones using data from other sources, such as the United Nations.
Ecologi’s expert Climate Committee identified the data from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the most reliable data source &#8211; but the UNFCCC doesn’t include emissions transfers, which for people in many countries is likely to be a major source of your emissions!
So, Ecologi is combining multiple sources of data, to produce our own consumption-based emissions figures.

Limitations of our previous carbon footprint calculator

The existing method of calculating your carbon footprint drew on a few sources, including the World Bank, the Global Carbon Project, and the UK government, but it wasn’t unified and was very difficult to present transparently. 
Also, similar sized footprint countries were grouped together and the biggest value out of that group would represent all of them to play it safe.
Now that Ecologi is up and running in many more countries than it was in 2019, it makes sense and is more appropriate to accommodate as many exact country calculations as we can, using the data we have available.
Our new methodology would have input and oversight from our expert Climate Committee, and would be presented transparently and open to scrutiny from you, the public, as well.

artboard-1-copy-10

Artboard 1 copy 10

Introducing our new carbon footprint calculator

On Thursday 17th December 2020, we will be switching over to this new methodology for calculating individual carbon footprints. The change will be reflected in the pricing of our subscription options.
The broad method is the same: taking the total emissions from a country (in tCO2e), including accounting for emissions transfers, and dividing it by the number of people who live there.
Because of the differentiated format of the different datasets available, in producing the calculations we used multiple sources of data to produce viable carbon footprint results.
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">We retrieved emissions data from:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">UNFCCC (<a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/ghg-data-unfccc/ghg-data-from-unfccc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">download</a>);</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">CAIT (<a href="https://www.climatewatchdata.org/data-explorer/historical-emissions?historical-emissions-data-sources=cait&amp;historical-emissions-gases=all-ghg&amp;historical-emissions-regions=All%20Selected&amp;historical-emissions-sectors=total-including-lucf&amp;page=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">download</a>);</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">GCP (<a href="https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener">download</a>).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Emissions transfers data came from the GCP (<a href="https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener">download</a>).</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Population data came from the United Nations (<a href="https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">download</a>).</li>
</ul>
The first restraint we encountered was that emissions transfers data from the GCP was only available up to 2016. This meant that for data we retrieved from other sources that were newer than this, we could not use it (since combining datasets from different years would produce invalid results). There tends to be a 2-3 year lag in publishing much of the data anyway, so this wasn’t too much cause for concern, as the newest data from any of the datasets was from 2018.
UNFCCC data is the preferred dataset, per our expert Climate Committee. Its emissions data includes all greenhouse gas emissions inclusive of land use change, and contains data all the way up to 2018. The data is self-reported by nation as part of each nation’s responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol, and is collected differently depending on which Annex within the Protocol that the country reporting the data belongs to.
&#8220;Annex I&#8221; countries (mostly industralised nations) are legally bound to report their carbon emissions annually and to reduce them over time, and so the dataset is comprehensive for these countries. However, it contains large gaps for non-Annex I countries, which are only required to report every 2 years &#8211; and even then, there are giant gaps in the information, with some countries not having any recorded data at all.
Where emissions data for a country was missing within the UNFCCC dataset, we opted to revert to data provided by CAIT. The dataset from CAIT is more comprehensive than that from the UNFCCC, since it records measured emissions by particular authoritative institutions &#8211; many of them US governmental departments, like the EPA. This data could be subject to its own institutional or political biases &#8211; but our research and our calculations led us to consider it broadly accurate, and for non-Annex I countries it provides a much fuller dataset than that of the UNFCCC.
So, the emissions data we used for calculating Ecologi’s individual footprints was to use the most recent UN figure for national emissions (up to 2016) &#8211; unless it was missing, or greater than 6 years old. In either of these cases, we would revert to the most recent CAIT data for that country instead.
Sometimes, usually for small island countries, there was neither UN data nor CAIT data &#8211; and for these countries unfortunately we do not have an exact footprint figure.
Once we had isolated the datapoint for the specific country using the method above, a reasonable buffer of an extra 10% is added to this calculation.
For the first time, we’re also able to publish our work. <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y27iNTNulrnrjAj0DaphgnZYr2yhuUdzLW35V7cQTZo/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">View the full calculator</a>.

Why doesn’t Ecologi calculate your exact footprint based on answering questions about your lifestyle?

App footprint calculators which ask questions about your lifestyle to determine your emissions use what’s called a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Where you start with zero, and based on questions start to add sources of emissions in to this e.g. how much you fly, how big is your house. 
This approach can be considered fairly accurate based on what you answer, but also tends to be ‘leaky’ as your footprint no doubt contains other areas that you weren’t able to disclose, let’s say you love buying flowers, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/environmental-price-of-flowers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a hidden source of emissions</a>.
When you look at an entire country’s emissions by the sum of all of its industries, the calculation ‘leaks’ less because the known emissions are all present.
Whilst your individual footprint may be higher or lower than the average for somebody who lives in your country, the law of averages provides us with an accurate initial figure for what your footprint would be, if all of the people in your country emitted the same.
You no doubt can think of two people within the same country who will have very different footprints. At Ecologi, this is really important to us, because we believe that those who have bigger footprints should pay for them.
That’s why, with all of our subscriptions we offer the opportunity to modify your base footprint upwards, if you consider your own lifestyle to be particularly carbon heavy (for example, if you would normally fly frequently).

The team has spent a lot of time with their nose to the glass on carbon footprints, comparing between each nation, finding the leaks and plugging holes. It’s quite easy to forget why this is important, and what relevance these numbers have.
The amazing work of <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Climate Action Tracker</a> puts it in to perspective &#8211; the carbon footprints combined with lacklustre environmental policy put almost all nations on a collision course for above 2°C warming (even including the &#8216;green recovery&#8217; mid-Covid pledges). It’s worth reading specifically about <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">how exactly your country is failing you</a>.

screenshot-2020-12-11-at-10-10-14

Screenshot 2020-12-11 at 10.10.14

In the new year we’ll break apart everyone’s existing footprints that had been grouped with similar countries and each footprint will be specific to their country, alongside a few tasty data visualisation improvements.
With this transparent footprinting strategy, we can now talk about this and develop it in the open. We’d be grateful to hear from more experts in this field, so please drop us an email with any thoughts on <a href="mailto:climatestrategyfeedback@ecologi.com">climatestrategyfeedback@ecologi.com</a>

Blog

blog_earth_overshoot_day_header

Blog_Earth_Overshoot_Day_Header

UK Overshoot Day 2022

This year’s 2022 UK Overshoot Day falls on 19th May. Here’s a look at what<a href="https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Earth Overshoot Day</a> is, what it means for our environment and how we can help.

blog_earth_overshoot_day_banner_01

Blog_Earth_Overshoot_Day_Banner_01

Earth Overshoot Day marks the date in the calendar when the human demand for Earth’s natural resources exceeds what the planet can generate within a year. Put simply, once we’ve passed Earth Overshoot Day, it’s a clear indication that we are using the Earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate.  
A country’s overshoot day is determined by working out whether its Ecological Footprint per person is less than the global biocapacity per person, which is 1.6 global hectares. If a country exceeds its allowance, it’s using resources the Earth can’t replace quickly enough.

blog_earth_overshoot_day_banner_02

Blog_Earth_Overshoot_Day_Banner_02

Who’s responsible for Earth Overshoot Day?

Every nation on the planet is responsible for Earth Overshoot Day. Each individual country’s Overshoot Day is based on their demand and use, with some nations being bigger culprits than others. 
No two countries consume natural resources in the same way, so it stands to reason that Earth Overshoot Day will be different for many countries &#8211; some countries don’t have a determined Overshoot Day if their Ecological Footprint per person is less than the global biocapacity per person. Let’s be clear though – while an Overshoot Day later in the year may seem like a good indication, a country’s goal should be to have no determined Overshoot Day at all. Having a later Overshoot Day just means that these nations don’t take as long to exceed their allowance. 
It’s key to remember that while each country may have a determined Overshoot Day, global warming knows no borders. Regardless of the country, it’s vital to raise awareness about the unsustainable use of resources so that people from every nation are aware of what they’re consuming.

blog_earth_overshoot_day_banner_03

Blog_Earth_Overshoot_Day_Banner_03

What does Earth Overshoot Day mean for our environment?

There are many contributing factors from different industries and activities that influence Earth Overshoot Day, but some of the biggest culprits are:
&nbsp;
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The amount of energy we consume, specifically non-renewables, like coal and oil. <a href="https://www.overshootday.org/solutions/energy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">We need to be investing and using renewable energy</a>, like solar and wind power and reducing our reliance on our cars.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Resources required to feed the human population, and the amount of food that goes to waste. Not only does it take a lot of energy to grow the crops that feed our feed, but the cost of transporting goods from one place to another also consumes dirty energy that’s negatively impacting the environment. </li>
</ul>

blog_earth_overshoot_day_banner_04

Blog_Earth_Overshoot_Day_Banner_04

Being responsible for Earth Overshoot Day doesn’t solely lie with politicians. Every day people can do their bit to reduce the demand for Earth’s natural resources. It starts with small changes to your lifestyle and spreading the word.
&nbsp;
<h3>Change your eating habits</h3>
Vegan and vegetarian diets are less resource intensive. Consuming less meat and animal products, particularly beef and dairy products, and switching to plant-based alternatives can go a long way to helping. 
For example, China’s government has committed to reducing half of its meat consumption by 2030, which would shrink humanity’s Ecological Footprint by 377 million global hectares, and move the date of Earth Overshoot Day back 5 days. This figure also includes methane emissions from cow flatulence. 
&nbsp;
<h3>Waste not, want not</h3>
Some 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted every year, which equates to about a third of all food produced to feed humans. What’s more, roughly 40% of the food goes to waste in the United States. According to the UN, cutting the world’s food waste by half would move Overshoot Day by nearly two weeks.
&nbsp;
<h3>Rethink your energy consumption</h3>
57% of humanity’s Ecological Footprint comes from carbon. By reducing carbon from humanity’s Ecological Footprint in half changes our consumption of 1.6 of Earth’s resources, right down to 1.1 and moves the date of Overshoot Day by nearly three months.

The key to success is using the Earth’s resources effectively and sustainably, and the good news is that simple changes to our lifestyles can make a huge difference in eradicating the concept of  Earth Overshoot Day.
We all have a part to play in collectively ensuring a sustainable  future.
<a href="https://ecologi.com/plan">Sign up today to take climate action with Ecologi</a>.

blog_beyond_ecoanxiety_header

Blog_Beyond_EcoAnxiety_Header

Beyond eco-anxiety: How climate change affects your mental health

The climate crisis is arguably the greatest threat to life on our planet. It is a threat that we have met with astonishingly inadequate action. Climate change is a perfect storm &#8211; because it is often invisible and seen as a future problem, our psychological reaction often doesn’t match the urgency of the crisis. 
 
Social scientists have termed climate change a “<a href="https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/wicked-problem/about/What-is-a-wicked-problem" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wicked issue</a>” for its tendency to result in people avoiding concrete action because it appears distant to so many of us, predominantly in nations in the Global North which have been least impacted from the most direct impacts of climate change so far. There is no denying that the climate crisis is a highly complex issue, and this is reflected in the diverse ways in which we must respond to it.
Our physical and psychological reactions to climate change are rooted in our very biological make-up: whenever we perceive a threat we exhibit a fight, flight or freeze response. These reactions developed as a survival mechanism when we still had to face predators, but have persisted because evolution moves at a much slower pace than human civilisations. Someone who is predisposed to a flight response may be a climate denier or refuse to engage with the topic, while a fight response can manifest as activism to the point of burnout. The freeze response to the climate crisis is often termed eco-paralysis, which can lead to a variety of outcomes &#8211; avoidance of the issue, but also depression and despair.
In experiencing climate-related mental health issues, the first step is to recognise that they are a healthy response to the crisis we find ourselves in. The highly dysfunctional systems of racial capitalism, oppression and <a href="https://bricksmagazine.co.uk/2021/08/10/racism-extractivism-and-capitalism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">extractivism</a> that permeate most aspects of our lives have rendered many of us numb to the reality of human and ecological devastation. We must actively seek to regain our agency as empathetic, ecological beings. The first step towards doing this is acknowledging our very much justified emotions concerning climate change.

blog_beyond_ecoanxiety_banner_01

Blog_Beyond_EcoAnxiety_Banner_01

Eco-anxiety can be broadly described as a form of existential dread, which results in often continuous feelings of negativity, stress, or even panic. It can be triggered in a variety of ways and relate to both experienced or observed impacts of climate change, as well as anticipated events. In extreme cases, anxiety can lead to physical illness through over-exposure to stress chemicals. 
Eco-anxiety must be taken seriously. At a climate protest a few years ago, I met someone who had tragically lost their child to suicide after grappling with debilitating eco-anxiety for months. The current state of the world can be all-consuming, and it is important to recognise when professional or even medical support is needed &#8211; with organisations such as <a href="https://www.climatepsychologyalliance.org/support/indsupport" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Climate Psychology Alliance</a> leading the way in addressing climate-related mental health issues.
Eco-anxiety is a global phenomenon affecting many people, including <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3918955" target="_blank" rel="noopener">young people</a>. Accounts of eco-anxiety that we hear about in the UK have predominantly stemmed from the Global North, with a focus on observed rather than experienced events, and anticipated rather than experienced environmental degradation and catastrophe. It is, however, anything but a phenomenon solely of the Global North; anxiety rooted in environmental damage has been experienced in Indigenous and Global South populations for many years, with academics such as Ashlee Cunsolo having established a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340880861_Indigenous_mental_health_in_a_changing_climate_A_systematic_scoping_review_of_the_global_literature" target="_blank" rel="noopener">global perspective</a> on the topic. For Indigenous populations, both eco-anxiety and climate grief are the result of painfully real, physical losses felt by those at the frontline of climate impacts, which lead to the loss of traditional knowledge and place-based identity. It is essential, therefore, that we make our advocacy around eco-anxiety <a href="https://www.badactivistcollective.com/the-bad-book/eco-anxiety" target="_blank" rel="noopener">intersectional</a>.

blog_beyond_ecoanxiety_banner_02

Blog_Beyond_EcoAnxiety_Banner_02

Losing home, one day at a time: Solastalgia

Another phenomenon growing in significance globally is solastalgia &#8211; the distress of seeing our home environment degraded or destroyed, or anticipating further damage. It is a homesickness that is felt without leaving one’s doorstep, an amalgamation of complicated place-based grief and nostalgia. The growing school of Ecopsychology, which recognises the interconnectedness of people and their surrounding ecosystems, is a much-needed criticism of Western psychology’s inability to explain mental health phenomena outside the context of our urban-industrial society. Environmental change affects us, on a very visceral level. The causal relationships between access to nature and mental and physical health are well-established and should not be ignored.
My experience with solastalgia is a very personal one. I grew up in a bleak tower block in a largely undeveloped area, surrounded by wetlands. Those natural habitats were a lifeline for me &#8211; for many hours each day, I would roam the fields, collecting nature memorabilia, identifying species, and playing with my friends. We were economically poor, but as long as we were outside, we were happy. Over the years, more and more of the wetland was drained and built up to create housing for the emerging middle class &#8211; most of them employed in the local chemical industry. My friends and I found ourselves more and more confined to indoor spaces, watching our beloved playing fields being chipped away at, bit by bit. My sister, who is ten years younger, never experienced those wetlands. There are times when I wonder how many generations we have left before natural spaces completely disappear from our childhoods.

blog_beyond_ecoanxiety_banner_04

Blog_Beyond_EcoAnxiety_Banner_04

Between loss and acceptance: Climate grief

A lot of my academic work focuses on the relationship between people and nature, and their inextricable interdependence. Climate grief is a stark example of this connection. Similar to the loss of a loved one, people can grieve for the loss of natural habitats, whether they are present in their own lives or not. In my own research on the topic, I interviewed climate activists from around the world experiencing climate grief (also called ecological or environmental grief). The results were surprising. People could be immensely affected by witnessing destruction with their own eyes, but also by watching a news piece on bushfires in Australia for example, or the destruction of the Amazon rainforest &#8211; a phenomenon called vicarious trauma. After an initial period of shock and outrage following the realisation of the extent of the climate crisis, many would fall into a state of depression, with little to no capacity for action. This is followed by acceptance, from which constructive action could follow. 
Rather than denying our feelings, climate grief can be tackled by embracing difficult emotions. As Leslie Davenport writes in Emotional Resiliency in the Era of Climate Change, “as we begin to express our thoughts, feelings and behaviour in alignment with our deepest values, we build tremendous strength and resiliency.” Observing our ‘emotional visitors’ without judgement is an essential part of that, she stresses and is the first step towards conscious adaptation to our lived realities. Rather than letting our grief become despair, we can use it as a tool to push for change.

blog_beyond_ecoanxiety_banner_05

Blog_Beyond_EcoAnxiety_Banner_05

Cultivating resilience in the age of climate chaos

While the above serves as a brief introduction to different (environ)mental health phenomena, I want to stress that it is impossible to put these into strict categories. Many experiences of eco-anxiety, solastalgia, climate grief and eco-paralysis overlap, and the lines between them are often blurred. Insisting on strict definitions and categorisations would not do justice to the diversity of human experience with regard to the climate crisis, and would make a cross-cultural, intersectional approach to the topic impossible. The boon and bane of eco-anxiety and Co are that they do not fit into our institutionalised models of mental health &#8211; which on the one hand complicates access to professional services, but on the other hand, transcends the binary lens through which Western academia views mental health.

blog_beyond_ecoanxiety_banner_06

Blog_Beyond_EcoAnxiety_Banner_06

So, how do we cultivate resilience in the face of perpetual crisis? 

On an individual level, the first step is to actively cherish what we still have. Time in nature is a powerful antidote to negative emotions. Research has found that spending just <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44097-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">120 minutes a week</a> in nature can seriously improve our mental health. 
However, to truly fight the intersecting crises of climate and mental health, we need other people. My own research showed that people drew the most strength from being in the community and realising that they’re not alone with their feelings. Community is where the spark of resistance is born, where movements are built. As someone who has experienced depression and anxiety from the state of the world, activism has often been a lifeline for me &#8211; given that it is <a href="https://shesapiens.com/mental-health-as-an-activist/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">balanced</a> with periods of rest, regeneration and active <a href="https://repeller.com/what-is-pleasure-activism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">joy</a>. 
The intimate relationship between climate and mental health highlights the interdependence of all things, where one action influences all others. To quote <a href="https://sarahjaquetteray.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sarah Jaquette Ray</a> in A field guide to climate anxiety, “in our Western culture, which prioritises reason over feeling, emotional intelligence is a radical concept.” It is time to reclaim that awareness and take action rooted in radical acceptance of our hurt, anger, fear and fierce love for the planet. And we must reclaim it collectively. Because politics won’t save us &#8211; only our communities can.

blog_beyond_ecoanxiety_banner_07

Blog_Beyond_EcoAnxiety_Banner_07

Jessica Kleczka is a climate activist, social scientist and writer. With a background in Psychology and Environmental Science, she currently works in climate policy and as a freelance journalist, with a focus on amplifying grassroots movements around the world. She is passionate about mental health awareness and advocates for a just transition away from fossil fuels. Learn more about Jessica’s work <a href="https://www.jessicakleczka.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">on her website</a>.

artboard-1-copy-9

Artboard 1 copy 9

A note from Ecologi 
 
In facing the climate crisis, we need all of us to be resilient. Resilience doesn’t mean never feeling sad or angry about climate change – it means taking steps to securing long term wellbeing and agency in the face of the challenges we face.
&nbsp;
If you are feeling burned out, overwhelmed, or in despair, we’ve collected some resources from organisations doing amazing work on eco-anxiety, which we hope might help.
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The <a href="https://www.allwecansave.earth/project" target="_blank" rel="noopener">All We Can Save Project</a> is an amazing resource for community building and sharing deeper dialogue about the climate crisis. There’s a book, All We Can Save, to read – or you could <a href="https://www.allwecansave.earth/circles" target="_blank" rel="noopener">start an All We Can Save Circle</a> which you could start with your friends or in your workplace. The Project also lists resources for <a href="https://www.allwecansave.earth/emotions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">working with climate emotions</a>.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Force of Nature runs <a href="https://www.forceofnature.xyz/podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a thought-provoking podcast</a> centred around eco-anxiety and how to turn eco-anxiety into agency, as well as <a href="https://www.forceofnature.xyz/the-bloom" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a media platform called The Bloom</a> for young voices to express their feelings, thoughts and actions in the face of the climate crisis.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.theresilienceproject.org.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Resilience Project</a> trains young people to run peer-to-peer support circles based on the latest insights from psychology and neuroscience to <a href="https://www.theresilienceproject.org.uk/our-work" target="_blank" rel="noopener">build a resilient generation of youth</a>.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://www.climatepsychologyalliance.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Climate Psychology Alliance</a> holds regular online ‘<a href="https://www.climatepsychologyalliance.org/events/500-climate-cafe-jan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Climate Cafes’</a> which you can attend to discuss fears &amp; uncertainties about our climate &amp; ecological crisis, all while in a safe and empathetic space with others who feel the same.

blog_internetimpact_header

Blog_InternetImpact_Header

The Impact of the Internet: risks of the digital era

The last Blockbuster store remains in Oregon as of 2022, symbolising how we have truly shifted into a new era of digital transformation. And as many opt for alternatives in this hyper-digital world, we must also acknowledge the somewhat surprising effect that the internet has on the environment and whether the risks outweigh the positives.

blog_internetimpact_banner_01

Blog_InternetImpact_Banner_01

How much is the internet contributing to carbon emissions?

With streaming services, innovative technology and even a global pandemic, the demand for digital technology continues to be on the rise. According to the <a href="https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ITU</a> (International Telecommunication Union), <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think" target="_blank" rel="noopener">4.1 billion people or 56.6%</a> of the world now uses the internet. The entire internet infrastructure (including the systems that enable it to exist and operate and the gadgets we use to connect to it) is responsible for approximately <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think" target="_blank" rel="noopener">3.7%</a> of global greenhouse gas emissions. Data centres in the US alone are responsible for <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/data-centers-and-servers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2% of the country’s electricity use</a>.
Around a decade ago, Alex Wissner-Gross, an environmental fellow at Harvard University claimed that<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/jan/12/carbon-emissions-google" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> two Google searches produces as much carbon dioxide as boiling the kettle for a cup of tea</a>. Wissner-Gross highlighted that by Google fulfilling its primary aim to provide <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/jan/12/carbon-emissions-google" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fast internet searches</a>, it ultimately placed a burden on the amount of energy that is required. The Guardian interpreted this claim by Wissner-Gross to say that it would mean <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/jan/12/carbon-emissions-google" target="_blank" rel="noopener">3,500 tonnes of CO2 is released daily (or 1.28 million tonnes per year)</a> just by using the infamous search engine. To allow more of a visual representation, they compared this to the carbon emissions produced by Laos, a country home to over <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/laos-population#:~:text=The%20current%20population%20of%20Laos,1%2C%202022%20population%20at%207%2C481%2C023." target="_blank" rel="noopener">7 million citizens</a>. Therefore, claiming that the digital era is ‘less energy-hungry’ may be a pretence as it could actually consume as much as it did <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-footprint-internet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">around 20 years ago</a>. However, in the past 10 years or so, some companies operating in this space have realised the need to meet their huge energy demands by using <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/28/google-tech-giants-spark-record-rise-in-sales-of-renewable-energy">energy from renewable source</a>s rather than fossil fuels, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for. Carbon offsetting has also been funded by some of these corporations in order to reduce the impact on the planet of the emissions they are responsible for. What hasn&#8217;t changed though, and is in fact still increasing, is the huge amount of energy consumed by their activities, and consequently by our usage of the internet.

blog_internetimpact_banner_02

Blog_InternetImpact_Banner_02

Web hosting can be described as a <a href="https://medium.com/wedonthavetime/guest-blog-post-the-alarming-environmental-impact-of-the-internet-and-how-you-can-help-6ff892b8730d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">‘rented home that a website lives in’</a>, and being a carbon-neutral web host means making sustainable choices to safeguard the environment.   Thus, for activity on the website to be seen as sustainable, the ‘house’ the search is conducted in, the files are accessed from, and the data is stored in, must also follow sustainable practices. 
Data centres can be interpreted as one of the core issues of how the internet is contributing to the current climate crisis, as they account for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-footprint-internet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">around half a percent of global CO2 emissions</a>. According to The Shift Project, data centres contribute up to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c719f655-149c-4ce0-a7a5-18527c7776cf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15% of the IT sector’s digital footprint</a>. Furthermore, statistics show that Google has emitted <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c719f655-149c-4ce0-a7a5-18527c7776cf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1.5 million tonnes</a> of greenhouse gases in 2020, Microsoft emitted around <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c719f655-149c-4ce0-a7a5-18527c7776cf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">16 million tonnes</a>, and Amazon emitted a whopping <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c719f655-149c-4ce0-a7a5-18527c7776cf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">44 million tonnes</a>. With more than <a href="https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/amazon-statistics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">197 million</a> people searching products on Amazon everyday (which is about 98.5 million cups of tea, I might add), carbon-neutral web hosting may be a solution to this rising issue.
Krystal hosting has responsibly planted over 1 million trees with Ecologi and were recently presented with a sustainable award to celebrate this special milestone. Krystal uses <a href="https://krystal.uk/green" target="_blank" rel="noopener">100% renewable electricity</a> from sources like the sun, wind and sea, as opposed to non-renewable sources like coal, oil, and natural gas. In 2017, Krystal became one of the first hosts to be run wholly on renewable energy and each and every one of their data centres has also achieved a PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) <a href="https://krystal.uk/green" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rating of at least 1.2</a>, which is regarded as ‘very efficient’. Krystal will also be offsetting lifetime carbon emissions of their employees, which is approximately around 20,420 tonnes of CO2e.  
Simon Blackler, Krystal CEO and Founder, said that “Last year we co-founded <a href="https://www.milliontreepledge.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MillionTreePledge.org</a> and after planting 1.2 million trees via Ecologi in 9 months, we completed the first part of the pledge. We’ve now set our sights on protecting or planting 1 billion trees by 2030.” 
Simon went further to explain the impact of <a href="https://ecologi.com/collective-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">collective action</a> and how “combined efforts of many businesses of all sizes, can and will, make the impact our planet so desperately needs.” 
 
Ecologi readers wishing to use Krystal Hosting will be offered a 50% discount with code EcologiEarthDay22 during checkout, until the end of May. (T&amp;C’s apply).

blog_internetimpact_banner_03

Blog_InternetImpact_Banner_03

With <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/may/03/internet-carbon-footprint" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1.5 billion people </a>using the net, it is no surprise that experts have estimated an annual <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/may/03/internet-carbon-footprint" target="_blank" rel="noopener">growth of 10%</a> in total energy footprints. 
A researcher at <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lancaster university</a> compared the use of the internet to the airline industry, stating that they both emitted ‘similar levels’ of carbon emissions. To put that in context, the aviation industry is responsible for <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200218-climate-change-how-to-cut-your-carbon-emissions-when-flying" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5% of global warming</a>, accumulating around <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-calculating-the-true-climate-impact-of-aviation-emissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">32.6 billion tonnes of CO2e since 1940</a>. To make matters worse, it is predicted that these emissions will <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think" target="_blank" rel="noopener">double by 2025</a>. Some predictions are indicative of the fact that the internet will actually contribute to <a href="https://royalsociety.org/blog/2020/05/internet-emissions-whats-the-issue/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">23% of global carbon emissions by 2030</a>. 
<a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">80% of energy</a> used worldwide is dependent on non-renewable energy sources, and so are the most searched websites. A study conducted at Yale identified how internet usage increased by up to <a href="https://news.yale.edu/2021/01/27/surge-digital-activity-has-hidden-environmental-costs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">40% since lockdown occurred</a> in 2020, and that the environmental implications from this may have been overlooked. The study mentions how a <a href="https://news.yale.edu/2021/01/27/surge-digital-activity-has-hidden-environmental-costs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">forest twice the size of Portugal</a> would be required just to offset the emissions that occurred from 2020 to 2021, as a result of staying at home. In some way, the pandemic acted as a control variable, allowing experts to measure the impact that excess use of the internet has on the climate. 
<a href="https://www.websitecarbon.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Website Carbon</a> can help you identify and measure how much carbon a website emits each time its <a href="https://medium.com/wedonthavetime/guest-blog-post-the-alarming-environmental-impact-of-the-internet-and-how-you-can-help-6ff892b8730d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">homepage is visited.</a> 
Changes made now are crucial to moving away from high levels of risk that the internet poses for the environment and prospective climate initiatives. Simple actions can help, such as carbon-neutral web hosting, avoiding the urge to send unnecessary emails or limiting the number of files we save but don&#8217;t necessarily need. Of course, these feel rather insignificant, but collectively they lead to large-scale impact. It’s mind-boggling to think that if everyone in the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200305-why-your-internet-habits-are-not-as-clean-as-you-think" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UK sent one less ‘thank you’ email, 16,433 tonnes of carbon</a> could be saved in just one year. On top of that, did you know that the quality of streaming videos also affects the level of carbon emissions emitted? This means that if <a href="https://news.yale.edu/2021/01/27/surge-digital-activity-has-hidden-environmental-costs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">70 million streaming subscribers </a>reduced the quality of their video, <a href="https://news.yale.edu/2021/01/27/surge-digital-activity-has-hidden-environmental-costs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">3.5 million tonnes of emissions</a> could be avoided from entering our atmosphere.

blog_internetimpact_banner_04

Blog_InternetImpact_Banner_04

How can the internet help raise awareness?

It&#8217;s not all sombre clouds and weeping willows when it comes to the internet! In fact, in many ways the internet has helped introduce the concept of sustainability to the wider population. Be it by blogs, websites, digital news outlets or social media platforms, the world today provides endless means to accessing information relating to climate change. In other words, the internet has <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/social-media-and-saving-t_b_9100362" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reshaped our communication</a> and the way that we connect environmental challenges with feasible solutions. 
The director of Yale’s climate change communications program, said that the percentage of Americans who now viewed global warming as important was a <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/climate-change-awareness-polls-show-rising-concern-for-global-warming" target="_blank" rel="noopener">record-high 72% since 2018</a>. Meanwhile, in 2020, it was reported that around <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/threequartersofadultsingreatbritainworryaboutclimatechange/2021-11-05" target="_blank" rel="noopener">three-quarters (76%) of adults living in the UK</a> were worried about climate change. 
The concept of ‘<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/08/25/environmental-education-will-shape-a-new-generation-of-decision-makers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">conservation starts with education</a>’ relays the importance of acknowledging the role that the internet plays in building environmental awareness. In fact, a study conducted by Southern Cross University revealed that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/07/23/77-of-people-want-to-learn-how-to-live-more-sustainably/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">77%</a> of individuals were eager to learn about living a sustainable lifestyle. Whilst, an incredible <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/07/23/77-of-people-want-to-learn-how-to-live-more-sustainably/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">93%</a> voiced concerns about the future of the planet.

blog_internetimpact_banner_05

Blog_InternetImpact_Banner_05

We can visibly measure the impact that digital communication has on the environment from turnouts for World Cleanup days, protests, and demonstrations continuing to increase exponentially. This influx of support has been thought to be generated predominantly by Gen Z, who appear to have a huge impact on leading brands due to their <a href="https://medium.com/@percevalroger_16306/how-social-media-helps-increasing-environmental-awareness-22daa21cbf8d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high purchasing power</a>. 
Not just that, the surge of young climate activists who appear on social media has captivated the attention of millions around the world. According to the UNFCCC, ‘<a href="https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/environment-climate-change/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Young people are key actors in raising awareness</a>’. These individuals make appearances at major climate events, such as <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/meet-the-youth-activists-fighting-for-climate-action-at-cop26.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">COP26</a> and are involved in discussions with world leaders to make a real change to their future. By gaining momentum on their following, these young activists have been able to pressure governments and businesses into meeting their environmental targets and agreements. 
Recently, two sisters were able to convince Kellogs, a multinational company dominating <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/analysis-change-kelloggs-top-table-kellogg-quick-answer-departure-its-marketing-chief-new-appointment-tania-mason-asks-changes-top-will-impact-cereals/149661#:~:text=Kellogg%20is%20unrivalled%20in%20terms,of%20the%20top%2015%20brands." target="_blank" rel="noopener">over 30%</a> of the market share for breakfast cereals, to halt their use of <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-51551431" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unsustainable palm oil</a>. This occurred as a result of a petition they started online, which was inspired by a documentary the girls had previously watched. Therefore, the internet has not only played a massive role in educating younger generations about the dangers of unsustainable practices, but has also provided them with a platform to voice their concerns.

blog_internetimpact_banner_06

Blog_InternetImpact_Banner_06

There is no doubt that the internet has helped connect us to the bigger picture and offered opportunities to make a real change. However, there’s also no denying the negative impact that the internet continues to have on the climate. Technology is only expanding, individuals are looking for newer and better digital designs and businesses are seeking ways in which they can increase their efficiency. All this places a huge amount of pressure on our planet and moving forward, this must be accounted for. 
We cannot stop anyone from using the internet, that is a given, but we can all be more responsible in how we send emails, save files, or watch videos. In the same way we replaced plastic straws and bags with reusable materials, let’s do our best to make our use of the internet a sustainable one.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://ecologi.com/plan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sign up today to take climate action with Ecologi</a>.

Carbon footprinting at Ecologi

Unpicking a carbon footprint

Limitations of our previous carbon footprint calculator

Introducing our new carbon footprint calculator

Why doesn’t Ecologi calculate your exact footprint based on answering questions about your lifestyle?

Reality check

Next refinements and feedback

More posts

UK Overshoot Day 2022

Beyond eco-anxiety: How climate change affects your mental health

The Impact of the Internet: risks of the digital era

Start making a difference today

Fund the best climate solutions

We send good things