Is it time we retire the carbon footprint concept?

A quarter century since we learned about ‘carbon footprints’, researchers say it’s time to change the conversation.

For years, many of us have been finding ways to lower our ‘carbon footprint,’ whether by taking trains instead of planes, eating less meat, or upgrading to more energy-efficient lightbulbs.
According to researchers at the Oxford English Dictionary, this year marks a quarter century since the first recorded use of the term in a 1999 edition of the BBC’s ‘Vegetarian Good Food’ magazine.  
Although it’s helped us understand our impact on the climate, some environmental researchers now think the term has shifted too much of the burden to individuals.  
They argue we should measure other ways we affect the Earth, and start putting more pressure on policymakers and businesses. 
Since its mention in BBC Good Food, the term exploded in use and eventually became the Oxford Dictionary’s 2007 UK Word of the Year. 
Part of the term’s benefit is that it’s easy to understand, putting tangible numbers on actions that damage the planet. For example, studies have shown beef to have a higher carbon footprint compared to chicken.  
“It highlights how every choice we make, whether as individuals or organisations, contributes to environmental changes,” says Irene Bertolami, a researcher at the Eurac research centre in Bozen-Balzano, Italy. 
“Being able to recognise and measure that impact is a critical first step toward raising awareness.”
Despite these benefits, the term has failed to make decision-makers take action, says Antje Boetius, director of Germany’s polar research centre, the Alfred Wegener Institute. 
”Politically [it] did not result in the proper conclusions as to the national carbon emission pathways,’’ she says. “We are still in a world where reducing carbon emissions is more expensive and more effort than just sticking to fossil fuels. That frustrates people a lot.”
Researchers are also becoming wary of the varying methods behind environmental footprint calculators. A 2021 study argued that although carbon footprint is most well-known, “it is also [the indicator] where the chaos is most apparent,” since it does not have any consistent definition. 
Methodologies and tools need to be standardised to properly compare the footprint of different products and actions, experts argue. Otherwise, it can be difficult to avoid confusion and greenwashing. 
But perhaps the biggest black mark against the term comes from its use by major oil firms to shift responsibility to consumers.
According to science journalist Mark Kaufman, oil giant BP hired the public relations firm Ogilvy & Maher to popularise the term ‘carbon footprint’ in the early 2000s, in a bid to shift the burden of decarbonisation to the consumer. As part of this, BP released one of the first carbon footprint calculators in 2004 and still promotes the term today.  
Boetius has felt these effects in her own work. ”I sometimes get emails from people who see me on TV talking about climate, but also see that I am on a ship and ask: ‘how can you talk about climate protection and use a ship that runs on fossil fuel’,’’ she says. 
“I think the PR of the oil industry has worked really well diverting people, rather than getting them together in the quest for infrastructure and socio-economical solutions.” 
In fact some researchers suggest that carbon footprint calculators inhibit people, businesses and politicians from taking the necessary action to confront climate change.
”The carbon footprint is a distraction; we need a wholesale societal shift and a complete change as to how everything is done,’’ says Tom Bradley, director of the environmental consultancy Decerna. ‘’Personal reductions matter, but it is to a level where we are distracted from the need for a complete change of the system.” 
Part of that system change involves changing how we measure our footprints, says Mathis Wackernagel, president of sustainability think tank Global Footprint Network. 
He and his colleagues develop new ways to measure sustainability, and recently won the Nobel Sustainability Trust award for their work. One notable measure they have developed is Earth Overshoot Day, the day when humanity has consumed all the natural resources which the earth can replenish within a year. This year’s overshoot day was 1 August.  
They have also designed  an ‘Ecological Footprint’ – defined as how fast we consume resources and generate waste compared to how fast nature can absorb that waste and generate new natural resources. Carbon emissions make up roughly 60 per cent of this footprint. 
Wackernagel says that instead of focusing purely on carbon emissions, it is better to use a more comprehensive footprint measure to show how people affect their own resource security. 
Researchers say that we should stop giving people guilt trips over high carbon footprints, and instead raise awareness for ways to cut pollution. 
”Blaming language is not helpful,” says Wackernagel. He suggests climate goals should focus on making our resources more secure, rather than only making footprints as small as possible.  
Bertolami agrees. “For individuals, it might be more helpful to focus on simple ways to reduce pollution rather than zooming in on specific habits and creating guilt.”
Researchers are finding ways to boost this resource security, such as Bradley’s work on the REALM project to grow microalgae from greenhouse wastewater, which reduces freshwater demand and provides new algae products for businesses. Bertolami is also studying how buildings in Europe can cut their greenhouse gas emissions in the Prolight project.
Other researchers say that people should start demanding more climate action from their governments to reduce the giant footprints from the biggest polluters. 
“Often people are surprised when they hear that 10 per cent of all businesses or people are responsible for the majority of the carbon emissions,” says Boetius. 
Arguably, the goals of carbon footprint calculators have already been achieved.  
Bertolami says that she rarely hears about carbon footprints from her family, but they nonetheless make environmentally conscious decisions in their lives. 
”They make meaningful efforts, such as recycling, reducing household energy use, buying local and avoiding waste, even if these actions aren’t framed in terms of carbon or ecological footprints,” she says. 
“It’s as if their approach to sustainability is more intuitive or ingrained in their habits rather than driven by formal terms or concepts.”