The not so eco-friendly origin of the “carbon footprint”

According to the organization Time for Change, the carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases produced to support human activities in a given time frame, and it is measured in tons of carbon dioxide.

For measuring the carbon footprint of a person, several aspects of their lifestyle should be taken into account, such as, for example, how frequently they travel by car and plane, and if they heat their house with oil, gas or coal, or even with electricity, since its generation may also have emitted CO2. The purchase of food and other goods is also considered, as their production may emit some CO2 as well (Rohrer, 2021).

The notion of the “carbon footprint” has dominated our conversations surrounding the topic of climate change, with multiple carbon footprint calculators having been developed and made available online for people to measure the approximate quantity of CO2 they have emitted, as well as the teaching of this term having been included in many school curriculums.

However, there is something about the carbon footprint that isn’t very much talked about – its origin. And it turns out that this term’s popularity is thanks to non-other than British Petroleum, more commonly BP, one of the largest oil companies in the world.

In 2005, BP launched a large advertising campaign in which they promoted the use of the term “carbon footprint”, even developing their own carbon footprint calculator (Wikipedia, 2021).

But, why would a petrochemical corporation promote the idea of worrying more about the amount of CO2 we emit that is damaging the planet? Well, the answer is because, since the carbon footprint focuses more on the individual’s attitudes, by bolstering this idea, BP would be able to deviate public attention from restricting the activities of fossil fuel companies onto individual responsibility to solve climate change (Kaufman, 2021).

This way, the company can also sustain the image of one that “cares for the environment” whilst not having to change any of its behaviours. In fact, one of the most catastrophic oil spills in history happened 5 years after this campaign, due to an explosion at one of BP’s oil rigs in the US Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and millions of marine animals. Today, many species are still struggling due to this unforgettable event (Meiners, 2021).

Furthermore, BP has started in September an expansion project, also in the Gulf of Mexico, which expects 8 wells to be drilled and, eventually, a production of around 400 000 barrels of oil equivalent to peak daily net by the mid-2020s (Lepic, 2021). Thus, it is pretty clear that BP won’t start looking at its own “carbon footprint” anytime soon.

Still, it can be argued that, even though BP brought the carbon footprint concept into popularity for its own benefit, it still, nonetheless, contributed to a positive change in the public’s perception of the climate crisis by incentivising people to take this issue more seriously and act upon it. And, yes, that is true. However, there is another problem with the notion of carbon footprint – if we only consider people’s individual behaviour, then the goals set for an ideal carbon footprint are unachievable.

Currently, the ideal amount of CO2 each person should be releasing to limit global warming to below 1.5 ° C is between 2 and 3 tons per year (Better Meets Reality, 2021). However, in the US, for example, a homeless person who eats in soup kitchens and sleeps in homeless shelters will still indirectly emit around 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide every year, according to a study by MIT researchers (Kaufman, 2021).

This is because, in a society mostly powered by fossil fuels, even if a person doesn’t have a car, home or job, they will still inadvertently carry a sizeable carbon footprint.

As Benjamin Franta, a J.D.-Ph.D. student at Stanford Law School who researches law and history of science, puts it, “As long as fossil fuels are the basis for the energy system, you could never have a sustainable carbon footprint. You simply can’t do it.” (Kaufman, 2021).

Therefore, in order to achieve the goals we want to preserve our environment, thinking on an individual carbon footprint scale isn’t enough. It is up to both consumers and corporations to assume responsibility for the billions of tons of carbon dioxide that are emitted every year. People’s change of attitudes and behaviour in order to achieve a “sustainable footprint” fully depends on the corporations that dominate the world. We will only be able to achieve the ambitious goals we’ve set once a change is brought by those companies as well, and that is something that no “carbon footprint” or “net-zero” campaign can rightfully deny.

Works cited:

Rohrer, Jürg. “What Is a Carbon Footprint - Definition of Carbon Footprint.” Time for Change, 26 Jan. 2021, www.timeforchange.org/what-is-a-carbon-footprint-definition.

Wikipedia contributors. "Carbon footprint." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 25 Oct. 2021. Web. 26 Oct. 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_footprint&oldid=1051760415

Kaufman, Mark. “The Devious Fossil Fuel Propaganda We All Use.” Mashable, 9 July 2021, www.mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham.

Meiners, Joan. “Ten Years Later, BP Oil Spill Continues to Harm Wildlife—Especially Dolphins.” National Geographic, 3 May 2021, www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-is-wildlife-doing-now--ten-years-after-the-deepwater-horizon.

Lepic, Bojan. “BP Starts Next Expansion Project Phase In Gulf of Mexico.” Rigzone, 29 Sept. 2021, www.rigzone.com/news/bp_starts_next_expansion_project_phase_in_gulf_of_mexico-29-sep-2021-166563-article.

“What Is A Sustainable Carbon Footprint (Per Person) To Aim For?” Better Meets Reality, 15 Feb. 2021, www.bettermeetsreality.com/what-is-a-sustainable-carbon-footprint-per-person-to-aim-for.