Do you think that corporations buying land for wildlife equivalent to the land their buildings and parking lots take up is the way of the future? Is it enough?

Ecological footprints

According to the glossary of a course from the Open University that I took a couple of years ago, an "ecological footprint" is "an environmental indicator which calculates the area of land, of world average productivity, theoretically required to provide the resources for, and to absorb the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and wastes produced by a particular product, population, settlement or human activity at a given level of technology". The footprint is intended to help people visualise just how much of an effect they have on the world.

The course gave the example of London needing the equivalent of half the acreage of the United Kingdom, and of the United Kingdom needing approximately two and a half times its own area to support it. Only sparsely populated countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have westernised lifestyles yet still have an ecological footprint less than the size of their country. In 1996, Americans had the largest footprint at 12.2 hectares per person, whilst there was only 5.6 hectares per person of productive land.

In one of today's stories, Wal-Mart also talks about a "footprint", but using a much narrower definition - the amount of land covered over by its buildings and parking lots. This is similar to the definition of "footprint" used concerning personal computers - the amount of space they take up on your desk.

In ecological terms, a footprint means a lot more than this.

In the case of a single computer, it could mean the amount of land ruined by mining to produce the heavy metals and other materials used in the making of the components. It would also mean the amount of oil, etc., used to make the plastics and other components. Then there would be the energy used to produce the computer and to run it - perhaps produced by open cast mining ruining the land, or the extraction of oil. The vast majority of energy is produced by polluting non-renewable sources of energy. Trees may need to be grown to soak up the carbon dioxide. Pollution may cause global dimming, which can reduce the amount of sun that crops receive, and therefore the yield, so that more land is needed to grow the same amount of food. Even if cleaner energy such as hydroelectric is used, the reservoirs behind the dams can take a lot of land out of production. Fuel is also needed to transport the materials and components to the manufacturers and thence to the wholesaler, the retailer and the customer. After the computer has been scrapped, it takes up space in landfill.

How much more of the Earth's resources, then, would an entire store, its contents and its activities take up? How large an 'ecological footprint' would a single store require?

Wal-Mart to Fund Wildlife Habitat

Wal-Mart is planning to spend $35 million on buying land for wildlife through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to compensate acre for acre for the land it has removed from nature by building stores, parking lots and distribution centers.

Land Near Grand Canyon to Be Protected

Conservationists hope to protect more than 850,000 acres in the area by buying 2 ranches that hold the grazing permits for them with the help of a grant from Wal-Mart.

See the following message for the remaining stories.

Researchers from New England Aquarium's Right Whale Research Project determined that Waldo was the whale they had been watching off Nova Scotia and had named Shackleton, after the intrepid polar explorer. Shackleton/Waldo is doing well, said Cristine Santiestezan, a spokeswoman for the Boston aquarium. He has spent every summer in the right-whale feeding ground in the Bay of Fundy, which is bound by Maine and the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. He is believed to be heading there now, she said, and "he's fat and happy."

Sue, now you know the answer to that infamous "Where's Waldo" question. ROFLMAO