The controversy of carbon footprints

Written by Jamie Epstein, Countable News

What’s the story? 

• In the fight against climate change, carbon footprints have been a way to measure an individual's environmental impact and pinpoint exactly which habits or activities they can change to lower their effect on the crisis. Carbon footprint calculators were created by several companies and organizations to make this concept more accessible. 
• Recently, activists and researchers have been questioning the credibility of carbon footprint calculators and wondering why individuals are more concerned about their personal emissions instead of the 100 investors and fossil fuel companies responsible for 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

What is a carbon footprint?

• A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, released into the atmosphere by the actions of an individual, city, country, or company, introduced as a way to visualize one entity’s impact on the environment.
• Carbon footprint calculators add up the foods you eat, the clothes you buy and wear, your commute to work, the electricity you use, anything you throw away, and more to quantify your output. The larger your carbon footprint is, the more stress you put on the environment. 

History of the carbon footprint 

• In 1996, Professor William Rees created the “ecological footprint” to measure how different populations and behaviors affect the planet. In 2004, oil and gas company BP popularized the new term “carbon footprint,” and brought counting carbon emissions down to the individual level as part of a public relations (PR) campaign. 
• BP found itself at the center of numerous environmental controversies and on the receiving end of multiple heavy fines by the U.S. government and condemnations by activist groups. In 2000, Mother Jones named BP one of the world’s worst corporations, and in 2002, BP’s profits dropped 46-57 percent. 
• In 2004, BP started its carbon footprint campaign as part of the $200 million makeover done by PR firm Ogilvy & Mather. The rebranding included a new name (from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum), logo, and entire visual identity. The intent of the campaign was to define the company as innovative, progressive, socially conscious, and responsible. The firm wanted to promote that the company was moving “beyond petroleum” and into greener, environmental approaches.
• Within the public relations campaign, BP stated its intent to help its customers reduce their environmental impacts by increasing awareness to lead a more sustainable lifestyle and combating climate change through individual behavior change. 
• Today, BP’s Carbon Footprint calculator breaks down personal emissions into travel, home, food, and purchases. After estimating how much energy and resources are used, the results will show how many tons of carbon dioxide are emitted yearly. 
• The tool became widely popular and inspired other organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nature Conservancy to adopt their own carbon footprint calculators. However, investigative journalists and researchers have argued that the concept of carbon footprints, and BP’s campaign, are misleading. 

Responses to BP’s carbon footprint campaign 

• Mashable writer Mark Kaufman argued that BP hired Ogilvy & Mather to promote the idea that climate change is not the fault of the oil industry, but that of individuals. He wrote that the term “carbon footprint” is a sham created to convince the public that the climate crisis is the responsibility of those who commute to work in gas-powered vehicles, who don't follow vegan diets, and who use plastic bags for their groceries. 
• Stanford University Ph.D. Candidate Benjamin Franta claims the carbon footprint to be “...one of the most successful, deceptive PR campaigns maybe ever” and University of Brighton Professor Julie Doyle argued that BP’s motive was to assign the responsibility of climate impact to the individual, letting BP off the hook by appearing to already be doing something about it.
• MIT researchers questioning the validity of a carbon footprint calculated the emissions of a homeless person and discovered that an individual will still indirectly emit 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide each year. They argued having a sustainable carbon footprint is impossible. 
• In an opinion article for the New York Times in 2006, one of the creators of BP’s campaign, John Kenney, admitted it was a marketing scheme and not a sincere effort to promote low-carbon lifestyles. 
• While many see the limits in the carbon footprint concept and equation, they also admit the term “carbon footprint” is here to stay. BP’s carbon footprint campaign has raised awareness of the environmental impacts of the consumer’s everyday life, but the definition can still be expanded to pertain more strongly to governments and corporations as well.

What do you think? Do you think carbon footprints are useful or misleading?