Since the beginning of human history, we have observed impacts we humans have had on our surroundings. Whether through over hunting, slash and burn agriculture, diversion of rives for agriculture or changing of habitat through settlement, man has been changing the planet for millenniums.
The fact that we have and will change the planet is not in dispute anymore, except for a few that may subscribe to a modern notion of manifest destiny, it is generally accepted that we are facing a challenging on a planetary scale. And the cause is Mankind.
Part of this awareness was brought about by the changes themselves. Weather that we were accustomed too as kids has changed or become less predictable. Escapism vacation spots, be they winter getaways or tropical getaways, are different somehow, with shorter seasons, more man-made snow, less undersea life and coral, perhaps more severe storms.
But, also, mass communication and media tools have broadened our awareness. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a prime example.
With this upsurge in mass media, and in an attempt to quantify an often complex set of climatological and atmospheric variables, the "carbon footprint" has emerged as the gold standard for measuring environmental impact.
Great benefit has ensued from identifying with a single standard measure and a semi-simplified concept or "bogeyman" that we can rally around. We are all talking a common language, carbon trading and offsets have come to light. The dimension of the problem is coming into focus.
The question is, have we taken something complex, and oversimplified for the sake of building awareness and in fact, should be focused on greater complexities of the planets eco-system? Or have we in fact, by focusing on carbon footprint, found the best proxy for measuring our collective and individual impact on the planet.
