Product

carbon_footprints_blog_image2

Carbon_Footprints_blog_Image2

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>

Updates

investment_blog_header

Investment_Blog_Header

At Ecologi we’re often reaching for the celebration klaxon for our community’s impact milestones, but it’s a little different this time around.
Today, we’re pleased to announce that we’ve taken on £4m ($5.7m) of investment led by <a href="https://www.generalcatalyst.com/">General Catalyst</a> to follow our dreams and grow Ecologi to the scale needed to take on climate change in a significant way.
General Catalyst has a knack for turning their investments into household names: AirBnB, Deliveroo, Snapchat, Stripe, and Monzo to name just a few.
We know there’s room for the Spotify of Sustainability, and it’s with the resources of a leading investor that we can make this a reality, in a timeframe suitable for turning the proverbial Titanic around and reversing climate change over the critical decade ahead.
Before we started Ecologi, the idea was that we’d be set up as a non-profit organisation. Our mission is altruistic and that non-profit model aligned with our vision. As half of the world’s emissions have happened within the <a href="https://ieep.eu/news/more-than-half-of-all-co2-emissions-since-1751-emitted-in-the-last-30-years">lifetime of a 30-year-old</a>, there isn’t the luxury of time to grow traditionally through donations and slower ‘organic growth’. But, it didn’t take long to understand that to achieve Spotify-level scale, then you need Spotify-level capital to fulfil our potential impact.
It’s not just a sum of money that we were looking for, but a partner who wholly understands the delicate conditions which Ecologi needs to thrive: putting the planet first; complete transparency; keeping operational costs minimal; and staying ethical (see our decision to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/withdrawing-tech-nations-net-zero-elliot-coad/">withdraw from TechNation</a>).
Amongst 50 or so investors we spoke to, it was General Catalyst who fully understood this ethical tightrope with our long term plans to raise the bar on what it means to be a social enterprise. They gave examples of supporting one of their investments to donate over <a href="https://www.warbyparker.com/buy-a-pair-give-a-pair">eight million prescription glasses</a>; they set up a non-profit fund with excess profits from an ethical investment; also they understood that the future of Ecologi should be part-owned by our community via crowdfunding &#8211; an exciting development to own a stake in Ecologi and our planet too (more details at the end of this post).

investment_blog_how_its_going

Investment_Blog_How_Its_Going

As we approach our 2nd birthday, we enter a new chapter with Ecologi that will be characterised with scale. Up to now, everything has been done on the tightest of budgets with our wonderful but tiny team. We look forward to progressing our climate impact exponentially as we race towards our target to reduce 50% of global emissions by 2040.
There is plenty we have in store. We want to actually show you the impact you’re making through storytelling and technology. We want to support projects that rewild our planet and fund innovative carbon removal technology. We want to show you your carbon footprint in real-time. We want to make good on the opportunity that can come out of rounding up the world’s pocket money and putting it into the world’s most impactful climate solutions.
Now we can, so no excuses! Let’s grow. 🌿
From Elliot, Lucy, Alex and the team here: thank you for your part in supporting this ray of climate hope 💚

blog_divider_mushroom

Blog_Divider_mushroom

We showed a draft of this announcement to a few of our Ecologi subscribers and friendly critics and asked them what questions they had:
What will you spend the investment on?
Now’s the time to scale up our teams to enhance the platform, grow our climate projects procurement and reporting team, and expand our marketing and partnership teams. We’ll be a company of 40-60 people over the next 12 months. 
The investment will also allow us to buy larger quantities of certified carbon offsets and tree purchases upfront meaning we can plan better, get access to some projects we’d otherwise not be able to, and sometimes access better prices.
Some of the existing staff will be now paid the going rate for their level of expertise. None of the investment is to go on bonuses or dividends. 
Will we still operate Ecologi as we have done?
Absolutely yes.
If we are to be massively successful in our objectives it’s because we took on board everything that you needed us to be.
Is the source of the investment from profits of fossil fuel or high carbon industries?
No. It’s from a combination of pension funds that make investments in technology, and previous technology company profits. 
What is the investor expecting in return?
They will be looking to make a return on their investment, multiple times the amount they put in. And this is something that we can achieve and be entirely compatible with our journey. 
At some point in our future we’ll expect to come to the end of investment rounds and have a few options to suit us: be acquired and taken under the wing of a major future sustainability company; float on the stock market and be publicly owned; or even Ecologi makes their own investments in early-stage climate projects which yield their own returns. It’s far too early to say which financing route will come into effect but be assured that it’ll be a decision made with our mission in mind.
Investors will be expecting no dividends during this journey as any profits are to be reinvested back into the company.
How is Ecologi going to stay ethical?
As we grow, we will have the resources to upgrade our <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dACvzjE5nBE1cKZBAhYzsUa7rIiLJqCWXVgY4bNS8_Q/edit#gid=1742437033">transparency docs</a> and be a lot more verbose about what we’re up to. A quick run-through of what’s coming up: 
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In the queue to be B Corp certified, all prep governance work is complete; </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A bonafide social enterprise with mission locked into our company documents; </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Increased detail on our quarterly financial reports such as director salary info; </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Regular “our door is always open”-style drop-in to chat with Elliot, the CEO, over Zoom;</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Lifting the lid on what we’re up to with a “Building Ecologi” blog series.</li>
</ul>
Every person on the team and now investors included knows that we have our hearts fully set on creating a company that reimagines what it is to be a social enterprise. 
It’s going to take some doing, and bear with us as we get there. But please <a href="https://ecologi.com/pages/contact">drop us a line</a> on how we’re doing, as well maybe subscribe to our new <a href="https://medium.com/building-ecologi">Building Ecologi</a> series where we’ll talk about our plans out in the open and welcome your thoughts.

And finally, we’re thinking of running a crowdfunding campaign later this year. We’d love to <a href="https://ecologi.typeform.com/to/DMMimqA9">ask you five questions</a> that should take less than a minute to answer.

Blog

covid_climate_change_blog

Do you remember, somewhere in the fog of 2020, that period where the pandemic had seeped into every area of our lives but its exact contours and consequences hadn’t yet been established? That point after the initial panic was over, where people had begun to accept this new reality, and had started to consider where we might go from here? Somehow, amidst the horror of news screens filled with ventilated bodies and death counts scrolling ever upward, hope began to spring. Thoughtful, poetic articles began to emerge online about the deeper meaning of this event. Humanity had been given a chance to pause, to reflect, and perhaps &#8211; against all odds &#8211; change course. There was a cautious, quasi-spiritual sense that the planet was sending us a message, as if Mother Nature had realised that humans were not going to bring themselves back from the brink and was now taking the matter into her own hands. These visions of a better society were complemented by a raft of personal resolutions towards self-improvement: goals were set and new habits were inculcated, with the aim of returning after the pandemic a better you in a better world. It was as if we were all given the opportunity to zoom out, from our own lives but also society as a whole, to decide what was really important.
This sense of optimism seemed to be supported by palpable changes in our environment. Global emissions were down 7%; flights had dropped 96%; there were dolphins in Venice! These cracks of light in the gloom sustained us, made us feel as if the pandemic was really for something (beyond, well, surviving a pandemic). That is, there seemed to be a goal we were working towards, by which we could orientate our present reality, giving it some sense. And this was important. Hope sustains us in times of difficulty. It is the voice which reminds us no pain lasts forever, that the sun also rises.

But it seems that somewhere along the way, this optimism began to give way to something else. Weariness. Disillusionment. As lockdown 2 almost imperceptibly melted into lockdown 3, as the term ‘wave’ began to lose all meaning because the Covid tide had never gone away, darker realities began to set in. Not only did we witness our governments continue to vacillate and send mixed messages, we saw huge opportunities to restructure our economy missed, the same old mistakes from the 2008 financial crisis repeated as ‘too big to fail’ industries such as aviation and steel were bailed out, with no climate-change mitigation requirements built into the rescue packages. Rather than being <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-leveller-trfn-idUSKCN21R30P" target="_blank" rel="noopener">‘The Great Leveller’</a>, we saw this pandemic exacerbate existing inequalities, the wealth of the top 1% rising by $8 trillion during the pandemic whilst many ordinary people were reduced to government handouts. Working from home also removed access to an equal workspace and put increased pressure on those facing challenging circumstances in their home environment. And everywhere we looked we found ourselves adrift in a sea of plastic: the take-out diets triple-plastic wrapped to avoid contamination, the delivery packages ordered to punctuate the boredom of lockdown living, and of course the proliferation of that once unknown acronym: PPE. And perhaps most deflating of all, it turned out those dolphins had never been in Venice, that it was a piece of <a href="https://www.2oceansvibe.com/2020/03/23/sorry-but-the-dolphins-that-appeared-in-venice-is-fake-news/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fake news</a> exploiting the sense of hope in the air.
What happened here? Were we deluded to dream of a better future? Did we imagine something that never really could have been? 
No. It is never wrong to hope. And it did sustain us in those interminable lockdown months. Our error was in putting our hopes on an external event, in this notion that Covid had come to save us, as if it were some sort of geo-biological defense mechanism, the natural arc of history correcting itself. But an event can only be as significant as the responses which it generates. Which is to say, the significance of the pandemic was in the million daily acts of kindnesses which it elicited: the grocery collections for elderly and infirm neighbours, the selfless bravery of the frontline workers putting themselves and their families at risk for the greater good, the proactiveness of those who organised events and other forms of support for the most vulnerable. Without even realising it, without waiting for a sunny day where we would have the type of society that we wanted, we were building it in front of our very eyes. One based on solidarity, equality and community concern (all of which happen to be the very characteristics needed to pull us out of the climate crisis &#8211; since we are all sharing increasingly limited space and resources on this planet). What we needed wasn’t a deus ex machina to solve the problem. What we needed was to see that the world around us is a result of the values we hold as a society, and it is this we need to change. This means remembering that the same essential ties that bound us through the pandemic persist and it is along these ties that change is effected, not some grand narrative happening out there. After all, the planet doesn’t care &#8211; it is humans that will perish, not nature.

The pandemic certainly has and will create short term change. The US government has just initiated an unprecedented $1.9 trillion stimulus package which stands to halve national poverty for example. But if we forget the lessons that Covid taught us about our own ways of life, such socially-minded policies will quickly fade into memory. No cataclysm will prevent business as usual from returning. As the Cree Indian saying goes, “Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money.” We cannot wait for further wildfires, droughts and floods to jostle us into wakefulness. It is only through a wave of individuals coming together into communities, into a global movement, encompassing economics, energy, agriculture, and politics, that a truly sustainable way of life will be achieved. Outward events can point us in the direction, but we must walk the path. The steps need not be huge, but we must continue to take them. Reading or sharing this article. <a href="https://ecologi.com/plan">Subscribing to offset the carbon we produce</a>. Reducing meat consumption, <a href="https://ecologi.com/articles/blog/one-small-step-for-you-one-giant-impact-for-humankind">greening our finances</a> or <a href="https://ecologi.com/articles/blog/activism-how-the-drops-inside-the-ocean-are-breaking-down-the-dam">joining a movement</a>. Every step counts. But never question that it is you who must walk those steps. Far from being a lonely journey, the more you do, the more you will find the others who are walking it with you.

george_poet_bts_blog_header

Looking for some more info on our George The Poet video? You’ve come to the right place! It tells the story of the importance of sowing seeds of hope for the future generations and inspiring people to be part of something bigger: a community, a movement, a change… 
 
Lots of work went into the creation of this video &#8211; 11 crew members were involved in the overall production, through the creativity of Bristol-based agency <a href="https://www.enviral.co.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Enviral</a>, who helped turn around this project in just 14 days.

George The Poet was our first choice for this campaign. He’s a firm favourite of both the Ecologi and Enviral teams, and we were so excited at the possibility of working alongside him. Putting aside his ability to produce and deliver incredible spoken word pieces, and the huge body of work that he can put his name to, he is a true champion of sustainability. 
That&#8217;s why we loved working with the team at Enviral on this project; because of their storytelling abilities. They understand the importance of conveying a genuine, engaging narrative. They knew George would be able to create something amazing, which oozed purpose and which reflected the passion of our Ecologi team. 
Having a lead who truly cares about the planet was vital. We wanted to inspire viewers to take action, and we couldn’t think of anyone better to get this across than George The Poet.

george_poet_bts_blog_1

With limited time, finding a suitable location was a bit of a challenge. We knew that the audio was the lead in this film so we had to find a location away from roads and airports so we could ensure crisp sound. Whilst we can’t reveal exactly where the film was shot, the countryside between London and Bristol proved to be perfect!

The video was directed by the Envival team, a sustainability-focused agency who were stoked to be working on a campaign they were so aligned with. The full Enviral production crew was brought together for the shoot including Joss as the Director, and their camera crew, audio team and photographer.

george_poet_bts_blog_2

What we did to comply with Covid regulations

Covid is real. Whilst we&#8217;re so happy to be back on set again, it&#8217;s super important to make sure that everyone is safe and comfortable. By following the industry guidelines, ensuring that everyone wore masks, respecting social distancing, and by shooting outdoors, we were able to mitigate the risks as much as possible and ensure a safe and successful shoot.

<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">George did 12 takes over the course of just 2 hrs</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">We had 11 crew on set in total</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The final video took 6 hours of colour grading to make it look perfect! </li>
</ul>

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

Ecologi, Chapter 2

There is no vaccine for the climate: connecting Covid-19 to climate change

Behind the scenes of the George The Poet video

We send good things