My ecological footprint is 5.7 global hectares, which is less than the Calgary average and the Canadian average. The amount of land need to maintain the current rate of my consumption is 7 Canadian football fields and if everyone in the world lived like I do, we would need 3.1 earths. Most of my footprint comes from food, shelter and mobility As I currently live at home with my family (we have 6 members in total) in a home that is approximately 20 km away from UBC, it is quite difficult for me to change the mobility portion of my footprint. Although I do bus to school, I do drive to some extent but only to nearby locations and usually with another passanger. To lower the my footprint I can use more energy efficient lights which would reduce my shelter portion and if I were to switch my windows to double-paned windows that would also reduce the amount of natural gas my household uses to heat up our home. These two factors reduce my ecological footprint to 5.3 global hectares. Another scenario that I tested was if I was a vegan but all my living conditions remained the same as they are now. My ‘vegan’ ecological footprint is 5 global hectares from the original 5.7.

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide involves the sequestration of carbon dioxide from sources that produce large amounts of this molecule such as power plants. The carbon dioxide is compressed and transported via pipelines to empty oil and gas reservoirs, deep sedimentary brine-filled formations and deep coral beds that are of no use and are unmineable. This technique could potentially contribute to a full wedge because it has the capabilities of sequesting carbon to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide at 350, 450, 550, 650, and 750 ppmv with only about 0.01% leakage occurring.  Some sequestration by geologic storage is already in place, making this technique a promising mitigation strategy.

Biofuels cause Controversy

This week’s town hall meeting discussion caused many to question the use of biofuels. Government officials, NGOs, scientists, and farmers, all were present to give their two cents on the issue. The main focus of the this week’s meeting was whether or not we should use ethanol as proper replacement for petroleum. Those in favour of biofuels, such as of Government officials, scientists and farmers, argued that ethanol or biofuels in general burn cleaner decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, are sustainable and provide a solution to the rising costs of gasoline. However, those against the use of biofuels (NGOs, local farmers, and scientists) argued that the disadvantages greatly outweighed the advantages. They questioned the ethics behind using land for fuel for our vehicles rather than using that same land to put food in our mouths. They suggested on decreasing funding on biofuels and putting those funds towards new renewable sources such as solar or wind energy. However, as those in favour of biofuels rebutted, those renewable sources  would require more land usage to build the infrastructure necessary to accommodate those renewable sources and the costs for these sources are just not viable. The Pros also argued that the ethanol can be used directly in cars in a mixture with gasoline without citizens having to change engine or upgrading their vehicle. As of now its seems like the only option we’ve got in finding a solution towards our depleting oil reserves are biofuels.