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>

In Depth

sams_blog_facesbehindclimatecomittee_header_01

Sams_Blog_FacesBehindClimateComittee_Header_01

In the <a class="cq lu" href="https://medium.com/building-ecologi/putting-down-roots-grounding-our-climate-impact-in-scientific-knowledge-1e46fe766522" rel="noopener">last article</a>, we discussed how we use scientific knowledge to guide our impact decision-making, and also introduced the concept of the Ecologi Climate Committee.
Here at Ecologi, we work closely with our Climate Committee to ensure that all the money we receive via the Ecologi platform goes as far as it possibly can to have the greatest possible climate impact.
The Committee is made up of academics and industry experts across many different sectors, and meets once per month for a formal discussion, chaired by myself. At our monthly Committee meetings and in between, the group discusses the latest developments in climate action, helps to answer challenging questions that arise from our work — or fed back by our community — and sets out the scope and direction of our climate impact.
Together with our Impact team, the Committee is also helping us to develop our Climate Impact Strategy Framework — a public-facing strategy document that will set out and explain our impact decisions, discuss the mechanisms for maximising impact, and show how we intend to reach our goal of reducing 50% of global emissions by 2040. We’ll be publishing this document later in 2021.
Let’s meet some of the team…

<h2>Nicoletta Piccolrovazzi</h2>
Co-Founder &amp; Chairman — Applied Sustainability GmbH
Nicoletta draws on thirty-plus years’ experience leading diverse organisations and developing sustainability-driven business and collaboration programs with leading corporates and NGOs. Recently, she founded Applied Sustainability GmbH with the purpose of helping organisations “make sustainability real”.
<h2>Miranda Gorman</h2>
Project Drawdown
Miranda Gorman, Ph.D. is an environmental engineer and Senior Research Fellow for Industry at Project Drawdown whose research focuses on the sustainability of material resources. She has published peer-reviewed research papers and presented at international conferences on the topics of material flow analysis, resource availability forecasting, the circular economy, and non-fuel mineral mining.
<h2>David Markowitz</h2>
Ecologist and Sustainability Expert
David has two degrees in biology and ecology with additional specialisms in forestry and carbon accounting. With experience from the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and working with satellite imagery to analyse protected areas and wildfires, David provides support to the Ecologi team regarding new and existing forestry-related projects.
<h2>Daniel Keir</h2>
CyStellar
Daniel is the Climate Change, Natural Perils and Sustainability Project Manager at CyStellar, a SpaceTech company using remote sensing data to deliver natural hazard and weather insights to various sectors. Day-to-day, he works with climate and weather data to aid companies monitoring natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and wildfires. He previously co-founded the sustainability consultancy, Ecofye.

sams_blog_facesbehindclimatecomittee_banner_01

Sams_Blog_FacesBehindClimateComittee_Banner_01

<h2>James A. King</h2>
Research Associate, University of Sheffield
James King, Ph.D. is a climate scientist and Research Associate at the University of Sheffield, whose work mainly focuses on climate models; investigating reasons why their performance varies in some parts of the world, developing ways to identify what makes a model more reliable, and using models to understand the ways that humans might be able to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Now, James’ research focuses on the broader impacts on the Earth system of nature-based carbon dioxide removal strategies.
<h2>Amelia Crews</h2>
Climate Advocate &amp; Energy Innovation Co-ordinator
Amelia is Energy Innovation Co-ordinator at Your Co-op Energy, working on many projects focused on community development utilising renewables. She actively engages the voice of youth in pivotal conversations around climate change: in 2021, she was an ambassador for the G7 Youth Summit (‘Y7’) in Cornwall.
<h2>Andrew Ritchie</h2>
Director, ALR Business Solutions Ltd
Within previous roles, Andy managed validation and verification activities relating to EU ETS and the UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism, plus a number of other schemes. More recently, he works in assessing forestry management against certification standards and is working with large organisations developing sustainability frameworks to help effectively manage their environmental and social challenges.

sams_blog_facesbehindclimatecomittee_banner_02

Sams_Blog_FacesBehindClimateComittee_Banner_02

<section class="gu gv gw ei gx">
<div class="n p">
<div class="ao ap aq ar as fr au u">
<h2>Melissa Hobson</h2>
Sustainability communications consultant
Melissa Hobson is a consultant working in the sustainability and for-purpose sector. In communications, Melissa has worked with companies and charities big and small (both in-house and agency side) for over 11 years. She is passionate about marine conservation and has been a certified SCUBA diver for 13 years.
<h2>David Dennison</h2>
Climate &amp; Energy Advisor
David is an experienced climate change advisor with a strong technical background and deep knowledge of the energy sector, including renewables. He is particularly passionate about climate trends and impact on the environment. His goal is to help business, government and the community navigate a successful transition to net zero.
<h2>Rebecca Dobbin</h2>
Ecologist &amp; Environmental Scientist at Victoria University of Wellington
Rebecca has a BSc in Ecology and Biodiversity, and a Master’s degree in Climate Change Science and Climate Policy. Her research is focused on climate science and modelling, mitigation, adaptation, conservation biology and carbon markets. She write reports on opportunities for mitigation and adaptation in New Zealand, and assists Ecologi with climate research.
<h2>Nicolien Van Zwieten</h2>
Geoscientist
Nicolien works as a geologist specialising in ground hazards, having completed degrees in BSc Physical Earth Science, and MSc Structural Geology and Geophysics. Her experience also includes GIS work addressing biodiversity loss and the climate crisis, and researching carbon capture and storage initiatives.
<h2>Stefanie Kaiser</h2>
Communications, forestry and sustainability expert
Stefanie works at the intersection of communication and sustainability. She specialises in sustainable land use and forestry, but spends most of her days thinking about the wider implications of sustainability solutions. In previous work, Stefanie worked in impact investing, and she also previously trained as a biologist.
<h2>Chris Webb</h2>
CEO, GreenGrowth
Chris is an environment and sustainability expert and currently CEO of GreenGrowth investments, helping people have a positive environmental impact with their money. He is well experienced in evaluating and improving business’ sustainability profiles both in the UK and abroad. His work in carbon reduction, circular economy and resource efficiency has received national and international sustainability awards.
</div>
</div>
</section>

Next time in this series, we’re going to talk about the key external, democratic and market forces that impact our work in finding and funding the most effective climate solutions.

Blog

activism_blog_header-2

Activism_Blog_Header

Environmental activism: your first steps

<h2>It’s not too late to start making a positive impact on the environment</h2>
<h3>We know that it’s easy to become overwhelmed when thinking about the state of the environment.</h3>
You’ve only got to look at the news or the latest David Attenborough documentary to know that the environment needs us to take action now more than ever. The recent<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report</a>, which spells out a ‘<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/10/code-red-for-humanity-what-the-papers-say-about-the-ipcc-report-on-the-climate-crisis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">code red for humanity</a>’ has sent shockwaves across the internet – there are some startling truths, and while it seems hopeless at times, scientists have said that if we take urgent action to address greenhouse gas emissions, this would minimise the likelihood of further tipping points occurring.
Feeling helpless is a normal reaction when it comes to our environment, as the scale of the problems can seem huge. But, there is hope.
Greta Thunberg hits the nail on the head with her poignantly titled book, No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference. Activism has to start somewhere. From the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage or gay liberation, social change has one thing in common: a group of like-minded people get fed up with the way things are done and collectively decided to take action to solve a social problem. Climate change is no different.

<h2>‘Slacktivism’ vs ‘activism’&#8230;</h2>
Sometimes it can feel that you’re doing enough just by supporting a political or social cause via social media or online petitions, but the truth is this involves very little effort or commitment. This is why these actions have been dubbed as Slacktivism, with many feeling that they want to do and achieve more. Activism isn’t as hard as you think it is &#8211; in order to be an activist you just need to take action to achieve a political goal. It’s really that simple, and while online petitions can be useful, we want to help you understand how you can help in a bigger way. 
Want to know more? Here are some steps to get you started on your own environmental activism journey.

artboard-1-copy-11

Artboard 1 copy 11

<h3>1. Make your bank and pension green</h3>
Did you know that 35 of the world&#8217;s major banks have provided in excess of<a href="https://www.ran.org/bankingonclimatechaos2021/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> $2.7 trillion (£2tn) to fossil fuel companies</a> since the Paris Agreement? Did you also know that according to a 2020 report from Rainforest Action Network, they found that fossil fuel financing had actually grown each year since the Paris agreement?
So while you think that the cash in your bank account, pension and personal investments may not seem to be doing any harm, the truth is that in most cases it’s the opposite. Your money could be used by the banks to make investments in fossil fuels, and you might be completely unaware.
It’s easy to assume that one person can’t make much of a difference. But we have to remember that money talks, and if more people opt to leave the major banks, or switch investments to other options, the louder the message is &#8211; because ultimately, your decision to leave affects their profits. Banks and investment companies care about their brand image <a href="https://www.ran.org/bankingonclimatechange2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">and work hard at being portrayed in a good light.</a> Meanwhile, putting your savings into an ethical fund will mean that they are no longer used for high-carbon investments, and are instead used to support renewables or other sustainable industries.
When it comes to pensions, switching to an ethical option isn’t as hard as you’d imagine. You can do this yourself by using your online login details most of the time. For example, the likes of <a href="https://www.nestpensions.org.uk/schemeweb/nest/aboutnest/investment-approach/other-fund-choices/nest-ethical-fund.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nest</a>, lets you change your settings in just a few clicks.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. Stop supporting fast fashion </h3>
We live in a society where clothing can be made cheaply, and we’re encouraged to buy as quickly as we dispose. It’s unsustainable, not just for the workers who are forced to create garments in unbearable conditions, but for the earth&#8217;s resources that we use to generate just one garment.  Did you know that around <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1952/full-report.html#heading-8">300,000 tonnes</a> of used clothes <a href="https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=will-fashion-firms-stop-burning-clothes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">are burned</a> or buried in landfill each year? And on top of this &#8211; fashion is the world’s second-largest polluter after the oil industry, and it’s thought that this will only increase as our appetite for fast-fashion continues to grow.
Much like living frugally, investing in your wardrobe’s statement pieces with the intention of keeping them forever is key. A good pair of jeans and a classic button-down shirt are timeless staples that never go out of fashion, so why keep replacing them? Alternatively, check out pre-loved websites, charity shops or auction sites. For clothes, you can even try online apps such as Vinted and Depop, and you can find out more about<a href="https://goodonyou.eco/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> clothing ethical ratings here</a> if you’re unsure of a company&#8217;s ethical credentials. If you want to learn more about the footprint of devastation that our fast-fashion addiction leaves behind, you can watch ‘<a href="https://truecostmovie.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The True Cost</a>’, and read <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3289140-to-die-for" target="_blank" rel="noopener">‘To Die for: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World?</a>’ by Lucy Siegle.
&nbsp;
<h3>3. Contact your local Member of Parliament </h3>
Ecologi is based in the UK and here, elected representatives are Members of Parliament, or ‘MPs’. If you’re outside the UK, your representatives may be called something else &#8211; but the advice still applies.
Here, the key to success is patience and perseverance. While some may feel like there’s little to no point in contacting your local MP, imagine a day where a number of other like-minded constituents also did the same thing. Soon enough it becomes more frequent and develops into an unavoidable topic that your MP has no choice but to deal with. 
Writing to your MP is an effective way of creating public pressure. It’s also a personalised voice coming from a local constituent. MPs care about votes, which means they become answerable to the majority in their area. What’s important to you and your neighbours eventually becomes unavoidable, especially around the time of elections. 
If you’re unsure about what to do or what to say to your local MP:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_to_write_to_your_mp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here’s a great template to start you off</a></li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.writetothem.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here’s how to find your local MP</a></li>
</ul>
If you’re not convinced that your MP will deal with your climate concerns, you can publish your correspondence to them in an ‘open letter’ on social media &#8211; often representatives and organisations take far more notice of issues when they are being called out in public online.
Remember that it doesn’t matter if you didn’t vote for your local MP and if they don’t align with your preferred party or political views, they’re still in place to help voice the opinions of all constituents. 
&nbsp;
<h3>4. Subscribe to Ecologi and grow your own forest</h3>
We’re on a mission to reduce half the world&#8217;s emissions by 2040 through Collective Action. <a href="https://ecologi.com/collective-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Our timeline is clear</a> and our Ecologi Community is hard at work spreading the word.
While it may seem simple, <a href="https://ecologi.com/plan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">starting your monthly subscription</a> with Ecologi is one of the easiest ways to tackle climate change. For the price of a coffee and pastry a month, our Ecologi subscription is here to responsibly plant trees across the world and to support the very best in verified climate solution projects. 
Through our tree-planting partners, Ecologi supports tree-planting projects across the world. You can even choose to plant trees here in the UK. In addition to tree-planting, an Ecologi monthly subscription also supports Gold Standard and Verified Carbon Standard certified carbon reduction projects, ranging from protecting the Amazon rainforest, funding wind farms, biomass and hydropower solutions, or energy-efficient stoves for rural communities. 
&nbsp;
<h3>5. Arm yourself with plenty of knowledge</h3>
Read lots of books on the matter – especially from fellow environmental activists and leading experts on climate change. Understanding the complexity of the situation, and seeing the problems from more diverse perspectives allows you to speak up, challenge opinions and add to the conversation surrounding climate change. Knowledge is power, and it’s a great way to dive into a specific interest even more so.
Here are just some of Ecologi’s recommended reading for the budding environmental activist:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://naomiklein.org/on-fire/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal</a> – Naomi Klein</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52275335-how-to-avoid-a-climate-disaster" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need</a> – Bill Gates</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5571.Cradle_to_Cradle" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way We Make Things</a> – Michael Braungart and William McDonough</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55996032-climate-action-challenge" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Climate Action Challenge: A Proven Plan for Launching Your Eco-Initiative in 90 Days</a> – Joan Gregerson</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://penguin.co.uk/books/314/314671/this-is-not-a-drill/9780141991443.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This Is Not A Drill</a> &#8211; Extinction Rebellion</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7230015-how-bad-are-bananas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How Bad Are Bananas?: The carbon footprint of everything</a> &#8211; Mike Berners- Lee</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="http://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/why-women-will-save-the-planet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Why Women Will Save the Planet</a> &#8211; Friends of the Earth</li>
</ul>

artboard-1-copy-12

Artboard 1 copy 12

<h3>Start small and set your own goals</h3>
Activism doesn’t always mean protests and boycotts. Ripples make waves, so start small with your efforts. You’re also more likely to adopt them if they’re smaller and easier to do. The key to success is little and often. We all know the basics; reusing your coffee cup, opting for a meat-free diet, and consciously using less plastic throughout our daily lives. So, we’re not going to preach to the converted here, so if you’d like to know more on small goals, you can <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/29/50-ways-to-green-up-your-life-save-the-planet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">read this great article to get you started</a>.

artboard-1-copy-9

Artboard 1 copy 9

<h2>Collective Action: the key to environmental activism</h2>
Being an environmental activist is all about making small changes. The very fact that you want to help, and are willing to make changes to your lifestyle, is a good foundation for you to start your journey. You’re also not alone. Right now, there are tens of thousands of like-minded people who want to make a positive difference and change the world for the better, just like you.
Ecologi believes that the key to successful change is through <a href="https://ecologi.com/collective-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Collective Action</a>. We know that we’re facing the biggest challenge of our lifetime and that by coming together we can make a difference to the planet for generations to come. We believe that with a little input from a lot of people, we can create real, tangible change. 
 
This article demonstrates just a few, simple ways that environmental activism takes shape. Outdated notions of ways to protect the environment are a thing of the past. The average person can take a few positive steps to make a huge difference. 
Whether you’re planning to switch banks and invest your pension in cleaner energy, adopt a vegetarian lifestyle or <a href="https://ecologi.com/plan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">subscribe to Ecologi every month</a>, there’s no wrong way to save the planet. The important thing is to make changes and move forwards with action and purpose.

sams_blog_puttingdownroots_header_01

Sams_Blog_PuttingDownRoots_Header_01

<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider"></div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
If we were going to be serious in our ambitious mission of reducing 50% of global emissions by 2040, we would need to ground ourselves firmly into climate science.
Ecologi’s humble beginnings were more fuelled by motivation and enthusiasm for the cause, than by knowledge of the complexities of Earth systems science. In order to truly maximise our climate impact, we would need to tap into a whole wealth of climate knowledge, from leading experts in the field.
&nbsp;
</div>
</div>
</section>
<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider">
<hr class="section-divider" />
</div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
<h3></h3>
<h3 class="graf graf--h3">Starting from the top</h3>
Two years into running Ecologi, committing to use peer-reviewed climate science to inform the way we do what we do is ingrained in our organisational identity — but before that, it had also given us somewhere to start, as we began to build our subscription service to restore the planet. Fundamentally, it gave us the ‘what we do’ part in the first place.
When Elliot, Lucy and Alex first sat around a kitchen table pondering climate solutions that they could channel funding to — if they could build the platform to scoop up the world’s pocket change — there were obvious avenues to start down: we’d support a broad array of renewables and other carbon reduction efforts, and we’d plant lots of trees.
By that time, it was already well-established that growing trees is a singularly fantastic thing to do. Quite aside from drawing down carbon, trees provide habitats, stabilise soil, purify air and water sources, provide income to local communities, and much else beside. Re-greening our surroundings also has a measurable positive impact on our mental health.
</div>
</div>
</section>

sams_blog_puttingdownroots_banner_01

Sams_Blog_PuttingDownRoots_Banner_01

<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider"></div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
Purchasing credits to offset personal carbon footprints is altogether more controversial. Some influential climate thinkers don’t like offsets. Some people think that carbon offsets make us complacent, and leave us living our heavily carbon-intensive lives, just with less guilt. This might be true (although I’ve never seen it studied formally), though my hunch is that people offsetting their footprints probably already lead lower carbon lives than those who don’t. Corporate offsetting is perhaps a different matter, but I imagine the same probably applies, perhaps with a slightly weaker correlation. Conjecture. Anyway: I also see the carbon market through a slightly different lens.
Carbon credits are a mechanism for exchanging cash for verified emissions reductions. That, fundamentally, is what they are. They are a vehicle for moving money from you, to a climate project that will have (or has already had) a real-world impact.
This vehicle is imperfect — and, sure, choosing to buy carbon credits requires some due diligence (which we’ll take a look at in this series). But the same is true for any method of climate action — <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" href="https://ecologi.com/articles/in-depth/growing-trees-responsible-reforestation" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://ecologi.com/articles/in-depth/growing-trees-responsible-reforestation">including planting trees</a>. Used well, carbon credits are a powerful tool for dragging down emissions — and this is the position of scientists much more qualified than myself, who readily admit that offsets make them feel uneasy. Offsetting isn’t going to solve this on its own; and it is <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" href="https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf">a necessary but not sufficient condition</a> for solving climate change.
In the not-too-distant future, we are hoping to expand ‘what we do’ to include lots of other areas in climate action, and allow our subscribers to choose certain topics within climate that they’d like to contribute to. For our beginnings though, the science was behind us as we started out by offering subscribers two things: offsetting a footprint’s worth of CO2e emissions through purchasing verified carbon credits, and, separately, funding the planting of an awful lot of trees.
&nbsp;
</div>
</div>
</section>
<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider">
<hr class="section-divider" />
</div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
<h3></h3>
<h3 class="graf graf--h3">Required reading</h3>
With Ecologi now up and running, our impact team set out establishing what scientific research would form the wider basis of our understanding of the climate problem. Nothing other than a broad, solid foundation of peer-reviewed, cutting-edge climate research would suffice to get us where we need to be.
We were already familiar with <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" href="https://drawdown.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://drawdown.org/">Project Drawdown</a> — ‘the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming’ — who are firm favourites, and nowadays firm friends, of ours. Drawdown compiles a list of around 100 climate solutions, and sorts them according to their maximum emissions reduction potential, assuming universal global uptake. In the Ecologi office, Drawdown is roundly considered a real ‘north star’ of climate knowledge.
</div>
</div>
</section>

sams_blog_puttingdownroots_banner_03

Sams_Blog_PuttingDownRoots_Banner_03

Over time, we established more links with other voices in the climate space, uncovered more existing and new research, and developed a network of trusted authority figures across the movement.
In building the operational machinery that runs climate impact here at Ecologi, we have leant on a number of sources, institutions and research pieces, including:
<ul class="postList">
<li class="graf graf--li"><a class="markup--anchor markup--li-anchor" href="https://stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html">Rockström et al on planetary boundaries</a>;</li>
<li class="graf graf--li"><a class="markup--anchor markup--li-anchor" href="https://www.sei.org/publications/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://www.sei.org/publications/">Stockholm Environment Institute</a>;</li>
<li class="graf graf--li"><a class="markup--anchor markup--li-anchor" href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/">The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi)</a>;</li>
<li class="graf graf--li"><a class="markup--anchor markup--li-anchor" href="https://www.bcorpclimatecollective.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://www.bcorpclimatecollective.org/">B Corp Climate Collective</a>;</li>
<li class="graf graf--li"><a class="markup--anchor markup--li-anchor" href="https://climate-laws.org/legislation_and_policies" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://climate-laws.org/legislation_and_policies">Climate Change Laws of the World</a>;</li>
</ul>
Further, we’ve also been keeping our fingers on the pulse across the climate sphere through professional bodies like IEMA and CIEEM, as well as the works of our favourite climate researchers, writers and activists, like Emily Atkin, Wawa Gatheru, Jon Foley, Kate Marvel, Naomi Klein, George Monbiot, Mary Annaïse Heglar, Eric Holthaus, David Wallace-Wells and many, many others.
We also kept in touch with a number of the climate leaders who kindly took part in our <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" href="https://itstime.earth" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://itstime.earth">It’s Time</a> event in 2020.
Upon this foundation, it was time to start building an impact strategy.

sams_blog_puttingdownroots_banner_02

Sams_Blog_PuttingDownRoots_Banner_02

<h3 class="graf graf--h3">A committee for the climate</h3>
Resource constraints in our early months as a start-up meant that we weren’t likely to hire a whole team of scientists straight from the off.
The solution was to tap into the expertise of scientists around the world who were able and willing to donate some of their time voluntarily. Thus, the Ecologi Climate Committee (ECC) was born, populated initially by just a small handful of climate academics.
In thinking about how we work with our Committee, I’m reminded of <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" href="https://www.cambridge.org/gb/about-us/media/press-releases/why-we-disagree-about-climate-change" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://www.cambridge.org/gb/about-us/media/press-releases/why-we-disagree-about-climate-change">Mike Hulme’s fantastic explanation</a> in Why We Disagree About Climate Change, of three common approaches to the use of scientific knowledge:
<ul class="postList">
<li class="graf graf--li">Decisionist: where the policymakers (in this case, Ecologi) make decisions to reach certain ends, and consult scientists (in this case, the Committee) to produce scientific knowledge to provide the means to reach these ends.</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">Technocratic: where the scientists (the Committee) provide an informed consultation, and the policymakers (Ecologi) build policy which is tightly based on that.* This approach relies on the assumption that everything can be discovered and decided through the establishment of scientific fact, and also relies heavily on a competent and unbiased scientific community to produce ‘politically neutral’ ends.</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">Co-productive: where the policymakers (Ecologi) and the scientists (the Committee) recognise that both policy ends and their operational means arise through the co-creation of shared knowledge encompassing both the scientific (the responsibility of the Committee) and the non-scientific (such as the commercial, the value-driven, the political, and the democratised; the responsibility of the Ecologi team).</li>
</ul>
*Consider the claims of ministers during the COVID-19 pandemic to be ‘following the science’. These kinds of claims point towards a technocratic decision-making system, where the role of policymakers is simply to do whatever the scientists tell them they ought to do. Whether that is actually what happened in that case is a question for another day.
Historically, the approach we have employed in working with the Committee since its inception has evolved, touching all three categories and leaning mostly toward the decisionist and the co-productive.
Commercial constraints — like budgets, market forces, commercial risk, and our reliance on some degree of democratisation to maintain subscriber satisfaction — mean that establishing a hard technocracy with our committee isn’t particularly realistic. This means that we are always walking a delicate balance between following what the experts are saying, and allowing our subscribers some degree of agency over the way their subscription is being used.
Some examples are below, to illustrate the kinds of things we might bring to the Committee agenda, with their approaches given in brackets afterward:
We are building a subscription for the planet which incorporates the purchasing of carbon credits to offset personal footprints. Which project types would be suitable, and which should we avoid? (Decisionist)
We’ve come across this new experimental negative emissions technology which is making bold claims in the headlines. What does the Committee think about these technologies, and are there any that have emerged so far which have some backing from the scientific community as a viable way to artificially sequester carbon? (Technocratic)
We need to come up with a robust methodology for producing a risk profile for the projects available to us each month — some kind of automated risk engine that we can put our projects through, which will present us a snapshot of the risks relating to a project of its type in its location — and then we can use this snapshot to inform our project decisions. Let’s discuss what this should look like, and then let’s collaborate on the build, so that both the Committee and the Ecologi team are happy with the outcomes and we can use this as a regular tool to assess project risks. (Co-productive)
It was established in our Climate Committee meetings in late 2020 that in more or less every decision we make over which climate solutions to put our subscriber revenue behind — whatever policies and processes we have, and whatever microscope we scrutinise them under — there will almost always be some form of value judgement to be made at the end.
For example, take our monthly decisions about which carbon reduction projects to support. Say, one month, we are presented with two projects:
<ul class="postList">
<li class="graf graf--li">Project A is a small forestry-related project in a country in the Global South. It has a handful of <a class="markup--anchor markup--li-anchor" href="https://sdgs.un.org/goals" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://sdgs.un.org/goals">SDG co-benefits</a>, and also has a decent side programme attached to it, which supports local biodiversity. These types of projects specifically within this host country have recently gotten a lot of bad press, because some similar projects elsewhere in the country have been mismanaged. This project itself seems to be managed and monitored very well, but the bad press about similar projects may be reflected in poor feedback or a loss of trust from our subscribers if they have read the articles and we can’t convince them that we believe this project to be solid. And, if it turns out that there’s something we’ve missed, it could be that this project ends up hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons as well.</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">Project B is a large solar project in a different country in the Global South. It has fewer co-benefits than the first project, but has a fantastic community outreach programme, making a huge contribution to just a couple of the social and humanitarian SDGs. There’s nothing controversial about the project, but it’s also not particularly exciting. It’s ‘just’ a solar project, after all.</li>
</ul>
Purchases from either project would be of equal volume (in terms of tonnes of emissions reductions), and both purchases would be for credits measured to the same carbon standard.
Which project should we choose?
Hard scientific facts aren’t going to make the decision for us. The verified tonnes of carbon we’d be purchasing as credits are considered quantitatively the same, after all. At some point, we have to make a judgement call, a trade-off, relating to the many questions that arise when taking these projects side-by-side. For example:
<ul class="postList">
<li class="graf graf--li">How do we rank or prioritise community co-benefits and biodiversity co-benefits?</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">If we select the ‘riskier’ but ‘more interesting’ project (A), is this better than picking the ‘safer’ but more ‘boring’ project (B)? Is the ‘boring’ project too uninspiring to motivate our subscribers? Is the ‘riskier’ project too risky to justify supporting?</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">Should we support the smaller project, where our funding will be more vital to the project itself, or should we support the larger project, which ultimately has a far greater potential for climate impact?</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">What else have we supported recently? Have we supported too many of the same project types lately? How do these projects match up to our wider impact strategy framework? Would there be any negative feedback from our community if we go for yet another solar project, or yet another forestry project? The same questions also apply to the project host countries.</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">What is the price difference between them? Is one more expensive per tonne than the other? Would a higher price indicate better quality? Does a lower price mean nobody else wants to buy the credits?</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">How well monitored are the projects? Are we satisfied that they meet our internal requirements for what constitutes a well-run carbon reduction project? What about additional third party monitoring?</li>
<li class="graf graf--li">What about social proof? Have other similar organisations supported these projects before, and how did that go?</li>
</ul>
This is why a full technocracy cannot work in this setting. If I, as the Committee chair, were to put these questions to the Committee during our regular meeting, I’d be met by shrugs — and quite rightly. “All these factors aren’t directly comparable,” they would tell me. “We can give you advice and pointers, but there will always be trade-offs, and it’s a value judgement that eventually you’ll just have to make.”
I know this, because we have discussed it in the Committee. And that is what they said.

sams_blog_puttingdownroots_banner_04

Sams_Blog_PuttingDownRoots_Banner_04

<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider"></div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
For this and similar reasons, in early 2021, we began to understand that not everybody on our Climate Committee should be a scientist, because not everything we need to do is science.
When, in June, we put out posts online seeking out new members to add to the Climate Committee, we sought out more climate scientists and ecologists, yes, but also science communicators, commercial sustainability experts, disaster risk reduction (DRR) experts, PhD students, and even environmental ethicists.
With this, our recent Committee expansion gave us a broader field of individuals to consult, and would help bring more perspectives to the table when we are co-producing knowledge that guides the climate impact Ecologi has.
The science is still there, undiluted — but now we also have a broader range of perspectives to help us consider the non-scientific considerations as well.
&nbsp;
</div>
</div>
</section>
<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider">
<hr class="section-divider" />
</div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
<h3></h3>
<h3 class="graf graf--h3">Knowing our limitations and identifying where improvements can be made</h3>
I’m very proud of our Climate Committee, and I consider it a great honour to work with experts right at the top of their game, every month. Each time I come away from our Committee meetings I feel like I’ve learned something, having enjoyed an interesting, productive and friendly discussion among a set of talented and warm individuals.
This all said, all that we’ve built, and that I’ve described in this post, is not necessarily a perfect formula. Consensus does not always come easily, and following each meeting sometimes I’m left with as many questions seeking answers as I had when we started — which can be taxing. But we are Ecologi — and we are always looking to improve.
To highlight one key area I’d like to improve upon as we grow: I’d like to better accommodate climate scientists, leaders and thinkers located in Eastern time zones. Our regular Committee meeting is held over video link, and is set at 5pm UK time on a weekday, which is reasonably comfortable for most people West of about GMT+3.
But it inevitably leads the Committee to be exclusionary for those based in time zones further East than this — because this would potentially require them to join a Committee meeting late in the evening (e.g. New Delhi) in the middle of the night (e.g. Singapore), or in the small hours of the morning (e.g. Melbourne or Auckland).
This will improve. As our Committee grows, we’ll host multiple meetings per month, at different times of day, to accommodate a truly global expert community.
Another improvement that I’m fond of, is that we recently committed to offering a fee to all Committee members for their time. It is my belief that we should pay Committee members for sharing their valuable insight, and also that being financially comfortable enough to support the Committee for free should never be a prerequisite to taking part. Some members have opted to waive this fee and donate it instead as climate impact on our platform, and that’s fine too — but I’m glad that the offer is there. And I’m proud that Ecologi is established enough now to be able to afford this.
</div>
</div>
</section>

sams_blog_puttingdownroots_banner_05

Sams_Blog_PuttingDownRoots_Banner_05

<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider"></div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
There will continue to be bumps in the road, I’m sure. But I also believe that our Committee is a truly vital piece in the Ecologi puzzle. We won’t always get it right, but that’s okay. If we stumble, then we’ll be open and honest with our supporters, hold ourselves accountable, and learn our lessons. Then we’ll dust off our knees to get back to work.
And what an honour and a pleasure it is, to bring the group together remotely each month. Together, we learn and we grow.
&nbsp;
</div>
</div>
</section>
<section class="section section--body">
<div class="section-divider">
<hr class="section-divider" />
</div>
<div class="section-content">
<div class="section-inner sectionLayout--insetColumn">
Next time in this series, I’ll be introducing you to some of our Committee members, to lift the lid on who these experts are that are supporting us to build Ecologi’s climate impact strategy.
</div>
</div>
</section>

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

Meet the faces behind the Ecologi Climate Committee

Environmental activism: your first steps

Putting down roots: grounding our climate impact in scientific knowledge

We send good things