Introduction
Throughout the life of a human being on earth, there is an interaction between each individual and the environment. Each one of us during his lifetime leaves a mark on the globe. There is a variety of ways of how human beings can interact with the Earth. These ways may be of a positive or a negative effect depending on their overall outcome (Paul et al 2011). Therefore, Human footprint can be defined as the measure of human impact on the environment.
How Human Footprint Affects the World Ecology
Following social and economic development, human beings end up consuming very large numbers of a wide range of natural resources from the Ecological system of the Earth thus becoming hazardous in most of the regions as far as ecological environment is concerned. As witnessed on the changes on the environmental outlook in the recent past, it is true that these social and economic activities have affected the environment greatly (Dongjing et al 2009). Some of the notable changes include global warming, biodiversity loss, droughts, as well as resource exhaustion. They have greatly raised the concern that considering some factors, development has surpassed the Earth’s handling capability. The impact of these factors on the globe are however reciprocal and very soon the human life will be constrained by the ecological system’s servicing and supporting capability (Ernesto et al 2011).
Military activities on the globe have also contributed widely to the weakening of the ecological system. Warfare ends up causing environmental harms. These harms include demolishing of landscapes caused by heavy weaponry as well as the contamination caused on the ecosystem by chemicals. Nevertheless, the military campaigns use a lot of nuclear and fossil fuels in warships, planes, and tanks. The military of the United States consumes gallons amounting to a minimum of 1.3 billion of oil per year in the Middle East. This exceeds Bangladesh annual consumption. These high levels of fossil fuels become major sources of carbon dioxide contributing to climate change. Destruction theory explains that the effects of militarism are not only limited to war periods. Effects are even felt from the soldiers who are in training as well as in transit or the major military infrastructure surrounding the world. Interests and constant preparation of the military for future crisis go a long way to increase the scale as well as the military operations (Andrew et al 2012).
Consequently, even when there are no armed operations, the normal activities in the military institutions consume large amounts of the non-renewable energy, research and development resources, maintenance as well as operation of overall infrastructure. They also generate toxic waste and substances in large amounts, which end up contaminating land and water. Of all human activities, military operations are the major contributors of hazardous substances on the globe. Moreover the most endangered ecological systems are the one found on the exact locations where the operations do occur. These places are exempted from the legislation of environmental protection by the claim that they are measures to safeguard the national security (Andrew et al 2012).
Presently, Ecological Footprint is one of the popular indicators when it comes to measuring the extent to which social development is affecting ecological system (Dongjing et al 2009). This indicator measures the demand of the humans on biosphere as it regards parts of the land and the sea that are biologically productive producing resources and waste absorption. In order to calculate the Ecological Footprint, the bioproductive parts of sea and land are put into six categories: cropland where food crops grow, fibre, rubber, oil crops, animal feed, and many others; grazing land where animals are reared for leather, meat, milk and wool; forest area where timber is harvested or wood for paper; fishing ground where fishing take place; built-up land which is used to accommodate transportation, industrial production and housing infrastructure; energy land used to offset excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuels being burned, or using biomass to replace it, for fuel wood harvesting, and for hydropower and nuclear energy . Global hectare (gha) is the unit for measuring the Ecological Footprint. This represents the ability of the world on average to absorb wastes as well as produce resources (Paul et al 2011).
The above-mentioned concept has been in use since 1992 and thus it has been very useful in measuring how human’s living and production has affected the environment as it regards various aspects such as global, state, country, city or even the village. Ecological footprint can be termed as the estimation of human demand on the ecosystems, which implies the biologically productive areas, which provide the biomass for the purpose of human consumption to certain population sizes. Measuring the ecological capability is also considered imperative. The human demand is accounted for by this factor (Paul et al 2011). Although it is worth noting that human beings most of the time meet demands by importing resources or over-exploiting them, thus this affects the local ecosystems. If the ecosystem is overloaded, then human demands will not be met.
Viewing it from an ecological perspective, the carrying capacity of an ecosystem signifies the relationship existing between the capacity of supply of the ecosystem and consumer demand. In ecosystem terms, the maximum capacity of supply is equivalent to the ecosystem’s carrying capacity (Wang et al 2012). If the carrying capacity of the ecosystem is exceeded then the outcome becomes adverse. One adverse outcome, which is most common, is whereby the ecological balance deteriorates which might end up causing regression in the ecosystem thus leading to a low productivity system. This might end up making an ecosystem so unfit for human survival. From a consumer’s perspective, the carrying capacity can be defined as the maximum end-meeting consumer’s needs. When the limit is exceeded, then there is no sustainability in the consumer’s behavior. The ecosystem productivity is the matter, which is produced by ecosystems so that consumer’s demands can be met. This matter is a product of the land on the globe (Wang et al 2012). This notion has the suggestion that both production and consumption of the matter are equal to the biologically productive areas in ecological footprint. Therefore the ecological footprint is a model that can be useful in assessing overall security regarding the carrying capacity of the ecosystem as well as allowing quantitative evaluation of the same. For this kind of an assessment the carrying capacity is considered as the security threshold.
There are restrictions to the inference about consequences of climate change presently from likeness with historic climatic fluctuations, because present trends in the warming end up bringing unprecedented evaporation of the summer sea ice as well as loss of habitat for the ice-associated biota. Lastly, climate change occurs not in isolation but there are always interactions with other simultaneous pressures.
Annotated Bibliography
Andrew K. Jorgenson, Brett Clark, and Jeffrey Kentor, ‘Militarization and the Environment: A Panel Study of Carbon Dioxide Emissions and the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1970–2000, (2012)
This paper talks of how the military affairs have influenced the ecological systems. The author goes deep to show how much the military activities both active and dormant have contributed to the adverse effects that have been witnessed in different parts in the globe the United States being the major focus. The US military system is the one seen as being the biggest threat to the environment for they consume a lot of fossil fuels and thus emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Dongjing Chen & xiaoyan may, ‘the inequality of natural resources consumption and its relationship with the social development level based on the ecological footprint and the hdi’, (2009)
The paper provides a more informed understanding of the situation currently facing natural resources in the globe and how it is related to the social development levels. The concept of Ecological Footprint is useful in the indication of the impact of the humans on the ecology. Then the Human Development Index (HDI) applies as a Social Development level process. The results have the indication that, significant inequality is contained in the consumption of the natural resources among the studied 136 countries during 1996 to 2005 and it is the largest inequality. Some of the keywords highlighted in the article are Ecological footprint; Gini coefficient; Environmental Kuznets Curve; Lorenz asymmetry coefficient; Human
Development Index (HDI);
Ernesto F. , Federico C., Lorena V. ,Esteban G., Herna´ N., Jonathan C., Daniel P., and Florenciaricard M. ‘Ecological and environmental footprint of 50 years of agricultural expansion in Argentina’, (2011)
The article shows that Agriculture has gone through expansion in the past 50 years in Argentina and this has endangered the forest cover as explained in the article. In parallel, levels of productivity were boosted through administering external inputs, management practices and modern technology. This study evaluates the impact agricultural expansion has had between 1960 up to 2005 by considering the implications of technology, land use, and changes in management of Nitrogen, Carbon, and Phosphorous in biomass. It also looks at the implications of energy, water pollution, habitat intervention, soil erosion and greenhouse gases.
Cultivation of the natural ecosystems and the farming intensification led to a noticeable increase in productivity, energy flux strengthening, and matter cycles were opened and negative impact on the habitats as well as green house gases emission. However, improved practices of tillage and application of mild pesticides, pollution risk and erosion currently are lower than how it was in mid-20th century. Some assumptions consistency of the results were verified through the use of uncertainty analysis.
Paul wassmann, Carlos M. Duarte W., Susana Agusti´ w and Mikael K., ‘Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem’, (2011)
The article reviews the evidence of the influence that climatic changes have had on the marine ecosystem. Definition of the term footprint is given, and then followed by the evaluation of the availability of baseline information that can be relied upon. A review is done on the published literature in order to synthesize footprints of the climatic changes and how it affects the marine ecosystems. Responses are then filed on the conclusions based on the findings. Among these responses were abundance changes and range shifts, growth, behavior and community shifts. Most of the reports talk about marine mammals and fish. Significant losses of species which were endemic in Arctic Ocean, as well as in the ice algae production not forgetting the associated community proved difficult to assess because there were no quantitative reports their abundance as well as distribution. Despite the warming nature sounding alarming and threatening the Arctic Ocean, research efforts to evaluate climatic impacts due to changes in this region are rather limited.
Wang H., Wang Hai., Sun H., Wang X., Liao X., Chen Z., Li X., ‘Assessment of the Ecological Security in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area by Using the Ecological Footprint Method’, (2012)
The article talks of how the concept of ecological footprint and the models of its calculations are crucial in measuring the sustainability level of both economic and social development. The situation of ecological security of Three Gorges Reservoir Area (TGRA) is evaluated by this approach. The construction has led to changes in the immigration and ecology status of the TGRA. Ecological footprint is described in the article as a very important method to study the security of regional ecology. Adverse effects are seen in the region of TGRA and the ecological situation is seen not to be good. Introduction of natural resources coming from other regions is necessary in compensating the deficit in ecology.
References
Andrew K. Jorgenson, Brett Clark, and Jeffrey Kentor, ‘Militarization and the Environment: A Panel Study of Carbon Dioxide Emissions and the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1970–2000, (2012)
Dongjing Chen & xiaoyan may, ‘the inequality of natural resources consumption and its relationship with the social development level based on the ecological footprint and the hdi’, (2009)
Ernesto F. , Federico C., Lorena V. ,Esteban G., Herna´ N., Jonathan C., Daniel P., and Florenciaricard M. ‘Ecological and environmental footprint of 50 years of agricultural expansion in Argentina’, (2011)
Paul wassmann, Carlos M. Duarte W., Susana Agusti´ w and Mikael K., ‘Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem’, (2011)
Wang H., Wang Hai., Sun H., Wang X., Liao X., Chen Z., Li X., ‘Assessment of the Ecological Security in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area by Using the Ecological Footprint Method’, (2012)
