The Carbon Footprint vs. The “Habitat Footprint”
March 9, 2010by Lisa Pierce
in Continuing Education, Green & LEED
The Carbon Footprint as you know, is a measure of our impact on the environment - particularly greenhouse gas emissions produced by burning fossil-fuels
for electricity, heat and transportation.
In theory, reducing our carbon emissions will slow climate change. Which is good. That’s what we want. Engineers have developed new technologies to generate power that don’t require fossil fuel combustion at all. For example, we thought that ethanol would be a viable solution. It was touted to reduce the carbon footprint of energy production as well as our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, ethanol created more carbon that it saved, used obscene amounts of water, inundated waterways with nutrients and polluted water.
Oops.
In the architectural community it is widely agreed upon that incorporating solar and wind-power alternative energy systems into the built environment is a good thing. But environmentalists caution us to remember what happened with ethanol.
I’m not sure how closely related the architectural community is to the ‘outdoorsman’ community - or if there is any overlap. I have to image that some architects are outdoorsmen/women. There has to be a hunter or fisher among the registered architects in the U.S. In the December/January issue of Field & Stream there was an article “Green Energy Land Rush” by Bob Marshall. It opened my eyes. (The article was not available online, unfortunately).
While using wind turbines to generate electricity can reduce the carbon footprint, it also reduces the wildlife habitat. The article references a study by Robert McDonald, a landscape ecologist for the Nature Conservancy. McDonald “studied the land requirements to produce a terawatt-hour of energy - about the electricity generated by a small power plant.” It turns out that our “environmentally friendly” [ie carbon-reducing power generating strategies] are not as environmentally friendly as we thought.
McDonald’s study showed that coal requires the least amount of land to produce a terawatt-hour of electricity. The land requirements were calculated to be: 3.74 square miles for coal, 14.2 square miles for photovoltaic solar power, and 27.8 square miles for wind. The chart puts in perspective how much more land is required to produce an equal amount of energy, from these three energy sources.

This means two things. First, it means that before we create massive solar or wind “farms” we need to consider how that will affect our furry, feathered and scaled friends, rather than just the carbon footprint of energy production. Second, it means that there is a large window for improvement to both solar and wind-power generating applications.
It’s no secret that animals have been losing their habitats and that human-animal interactions have been on the rise for decades. With solar and wind technologies, we trade the carbon footprint for a habitat footprint. In my mind, green is more than reducing the carbon footprint of our lives, it also means protecting and restoring habitats.












