If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, have fewer kids and ditch your car…!

Carbon footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the activities of a particular individual, organization, or community.

The most common way to reduce the carbon footprint of humans is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Refuse. In manufacturing this can be done by recycling the packing materials, by selling the obsolete inventory of one industry to the industry who is looking to buy unused items at lesser price to become competitive. Nothing should be disposed off into the soil, all the ferrous materials which are prone to degrade or oxidize with time should be sold as early as possible at reduced price.

This can also be done by using reusable items such as thermoses for daily coffee or plastic containers for water and other cold beverages rather than disposable ones. If that option isn’t available, it is best to properly recycle the disposable items after use. When one household recycles at least half of their household waste, they can save 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Another easy option is to drive less. By walking or biking to the destination rather than driving, not only is a person going to save money on gas, but they will be burning less fuel and releasing fewer emissions into the atmosphere. However, if walking is not an option, one can look into carpooling or mass transportation options in their area.

Choice of diet is a major influence on a person’s carbon footprint. Animal sources of protein (especially red meat), rice (typically produced in high methane-emitting paddies), foods transported long distance and/or via fuel-inefficient transport (e.g., highly perishable produce flown long distance) and heavily processed and packaged foods are among the major contributors to a high carbon diet.

Finally, throwing food out not only adds its associated carbon emissions to a person or household’s footprint, it adds the emissions of transporting the wasted food to the garbage dump and the emissions of food decomposition, mostly in the form of the highly potent greenhouse gas, methane.

The carbon handprint movement emphasizes individual forms of carbon offsetting, like using more public transportation or planting trees in deforested regions, to reduce one’s carbon footprint and increase their “handprint.”

Furthermore, the carbon footprint in the food industry can be reduced by optimizing the supply chain. A life cycle or supply chain carbon footprint study can provide useful data which will help the business to identify critical areas for improvement and provides a focus. Such studies also demonstrate a company’s commitment to reducing carbon footprint now ahead of other competitors as well as preparing companies for potential regulation. In addition to increased market advantage and differentiation eco-efficiency can also help to reduce costs where alternative energy systems are implemented.

The most significant way individuals could mitigate their own carbon footprint is to have fewer children, followed by living without a vehicle, forgoing air travel and adopting a plant-based diet.

Having one fewer pair of small human feet padding around your home can help the environment, at least those were the findings of a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Looking at 39 peer-reviewed articles and governmental reports, the researchers determined that the best way to reduce your personal carbon emissions was to have one fewer child.

In reality though, shrinking one’s carbon footprint is difficult, and conscious choices have to be made to do it.

Researchers are aware of this, advocating that textbooks shift away from advocating for the low-impact solutions, like plastic bag reduction, and put forth possible solutions that are more radical, or at the very least, will have a bigger impact.

“Though adolescents poised to establish lifelong patterns are an important target group for promoting high-impact actions, we find that ten high school science textbooks from Canada largely fail to mention [high-impact] actions (they account for 4 percent of their recommended actions), instead focusing on incremental changes with much smaller potential emissions reductions.”

Of course, high impact and low impact choices can vary depending on where a person lives, something else the study points out.

For instance, switching from a gasoline automobile to an electric car still emits the equivalent of 1.15 tonnes of CO2 a year, but this number can go up if the electricity used in your area doesn’t rely heavily on renewable sources of energy.

“We provide mean values for our recommended actions,” the researchers write, “but we do not suggest that these are firm figures universally representative of each action, but instead best estimates.”

Still, taking bigger swings to help the planet may have enough of a spillover effect to save it, the researchers believe. At least until we’ve all gone vegan and are walking everywhere.

Take an action today to help the environment.

Here’s how you can help friends and family during somber times.

Death is a part of life.

It’s a cliché. But clichés exist for a reason.

The fact is we are surrounded by dying each and every day. Every time we step out in our yard, we are seeing an abundance of life. But we’re also seeing the results of the death, decay and rebirth that is inherent in the cycles of life.

It makes intuitive sense, then, that a closer connection to nature may help us better come to terms with death and the grieving process.

That help may take many forms, and with debate still raging over whether grief should be treated as depression, any early restorative and healing interventions should be considered an important tool in preventing more severe problems from developing that may require medication.

Teaching us the facts of life (and death)

On one level, nature provides an intellectual frame of reference for death and dying — reminding us that death is a natural phenomenon that we can neither escape nor ignore. That context should not be underestimated, particularly in a culture that often seeks higher meaning in, or a reason for, a loved one’s passing.

The regenerative powers of nature

The allegorical role that the natural world plays in our grieving doesn’t just end in teaching us that death happens. Nature also provides undeniable physical evidence of another age-old cliché – life goes on.

In an article on nature awareness as a healing therapy, Kirsti A. Dyer, MD, explains this key healing quality of nature as it pertains to grief:

“Being in nature one becomes aware of the infinite circle of life. There is evidence of decay, destruction and death; there are also examples of rejuvenation, restoration, and renewal. The never-ending cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth can put life and death into perspective and impart a sense of constancy after experiencing a life changing loss or a death.”

Emotional connections

On a purely emotional level, too, nature can provide solace in grief, which at its heart is a response to the loss of someone or something to which we’ve formed a bond. Such emotional support may take the form of new bonds with animals, plants or natural landscapes — or it may involve finding comfort by visiting sites or scenery that were dear to both the deceased and the grieving party.

Nature-based solutions for general health

It shouldn’t be forgotten that nature plays a supportive role in nurturing our overall well-being and health, a key factor in helping somebody move on from grief and avoid the risks of prolonged depression.

In an article on biophilia (a posh term for our natural affinity to nature), Neil Chambers describes the growing field of research into a nature-based approach to heath care, the benefits of which include better recovery times in hospitals, improved concentration and fewer behavioral disorders in school age children, and increased emotional and mental well-being:

“Our mental and physical health is directly connected to biophilia. As a species that exists within nature, we are incredibly affected by its absence and presence. Yet, we function in cities and buildings that largely lack a connection to the environment. Studies indicate that this disconnect has caused myriad issues that we now expect to be corrected with modern medicine and drug therapy. Since the early 1980s, studies have explored how biophilia affects our physical health, and the findings are eye-opening. The act of simply reconnecting people to the natural elements brings about faster recovery rates, reduced stress, and eased symptoms of physical and mental disorders.”

How, then, can we consciously use nature to aid in the healing process? Below are a few starting points for exploration.

Explore nature-based rituals

Flowers and plants have long been a symbolic part of our rituals surround death, but there is a growing movement that seeks to create more profoundly nature-based ceremonies and processes. From woodland burials to grief walking retreats, there are a myriad of options for incorporating nature into the rituals we adopt.

Get outside more

Simply setting a routine to get out more in nature can be a great way to keep moving after the loss of a loved one. That might take the form of a regular walk you take alone, walking with friends, or even seeking out a walking group that is specifically tailored to those who are grieving, as described in this Globe and Mail story. In the video below, Maureen Hunter, a former nurse who began writing and speaking about grief after the death of her son, reflects on the importance of one of her regular walking spots:

Use visualization

Dyer also reminds us that simply holding images of nature in our minds, and in particular images of nature’s healing and regenerative properties, can provide a powerful inspiration to keep going when it feels like our world has been destroyed:

“Nature’s healing forces can serve as powerful recuperative images for those who have experienced a death or other significant loss. Images of the rebirth in nature can be useful as symbols for the strong internal forces, bringing hope of surviving the loss. From monumental newsworthy events to ordinary insignificant occurrences, one can witness the incredible destructive power and the amazing healing capabilities of nature…”

Start a garden

From opportunities for exercise to providing healthy food, gardening has many potential therapeutic qualities. For those who are grieving, it can also be a great way to both get motivated and to form a direct, intimate connection with the kinds of healing processes we have discussed in nature. IdeaStream reports on one community in Ohio which took this concept to a logical next level, starting a Grieving Garden with the intentional purpose of coping with an unforeseen tragedy.

Be creative

There is no “right” way to experience grief, and there is no “right” way to use nature to deal with it. Each of us has our own view of nature, our own opportunities to connect with it, and our own needs in terms of our emotional and physical well-being. If you are experiencing grief, or seeking to help someone who is experiencing grief, take some time to seek out ideas, activities and rituals that work for you.

Can getting in touch with the Earth’s electrons improve your well-being? We look at the science.

 

The concepts are ones that we all can understand. Celebrating nature. Improving health. Getting a good night’s sleep. Strengthening the primordial bond between humans and the planet on which we live.

The science of it all? Well, that’s a little harder to grasp. Which is why earthing — the practice of physically getting in touch with Mother Earth to better your health — remains fact for some and fiction for others.

 

In Defense Of Earthing

Backers of the practice of earthing — also known as grounding — often point to a 2012 study in the Journal of Environmental and Public Heath entitled “Earthing: Health Implications of Reconnecting the Human Body to the Earth’s Surface Electrons” to prove their point. (There are other studies, too, that earthing proponents tout, but the JEPH one is their touchstone.)

The article concludes that, “Emerging evidence shows that contact with the Earth — whether being outside barefoot or indoors connected to grounded conductive systems — may be a simple, natural, and yet profoundly effective environmental strategy against chronic stress, [autonomic nervous system] dysfunction, inflammation, pain, poor sleep, disturbed [heart rate variability], hypercoagulable blood and many common health disorders, including cardiovascular disease.”

How does one “earth?” Well, it can be as simple as the act of walking barefoot outdoors. There, with bare skin on bare earth — this, again from the JEPH article — “Reconnection with the Earth’s electrons has been found to promote intriguing physiological changes and subjective reports of well-being.”

It is, earthing proponents state, all in the electrons. The Earth’s surface is electrically conductive, enabling free-ranging electrons to jump into the human body. That is, providing nothing else — say, that pair or rubberized sneakers — gets in the way.

Once at one with the body, the electrons “rebalance” the electrical state of the body and create, according to the article by Gaétan Chevalier, Stephen T. Sinatra, James L. Oschman, Karol Sokal and Pawel Sokal, “a stable internal bioelectrical environment for the normal functioning of all body systems.”

OK. But what about indoors, sleeping or working or eating? Can you get your electrons on indoors?

Many earthing products — sheets, pillowcases, mats for the floor, etc. — are sold (red flag! red flag!) so that you can get all that good earth energy with a roof over your head. The products all have some kind of energy conductive material — metal strips of some kind — woven into the product. The product is plugged into the grounding hole of any electrical outlet. That ground, of course, should have a direct line to the earth.

So, from ground to your king-sized bed on the second floor — you’re earthed. All you need are a couple grounding products, sold on several websites. These sites, it must be pointed out, have direct ties to some of the the authors of the aforementioned study (red flag!).

 

Speaking Out Against Earthing

Dr. David Gorski, on the blog Science-Based Medicine, leaves no earth unscorched in his assessment of the practice.

“Basically, it’s the overlaying of ‘science-y’-sounding terminology to earth worship, where the power of the earth somehow maintains and protects us, and the cause of all illness is because of man’s ‘disconnectedness’ from the earth,” writes Gorski, a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit. He’s also chairman of the board of directors for the Society for Science-Based Medicine, a group which is dedicated to promoting good science in medicine and opposing pseudoscience in medicine.

“Basically,” Gorski writes, “it’s magical thinking on par with homeopathy.”

The Wall Street Journal did a look into earthing in a 2014 article entitled, “Will Getting Grounded Help You Sleep Better and Ease Pain?” and found it lacking in credibility, too. Author Laura Johannes interviewed professors and electrical engineers who confirmed that, yes, walking barefoot outdoors, or inside on a grounded mat, can cause the body to absorb electrons.

But, they point out, that happens all the time. Plus, they say, nothing is special about the Earth’’ electrons.

Johannes writes that there is “little credible proof of health benefits,” according to the experts the Journal interviewed.

Dr. Andrew Weil is the founder, professor and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He’s also a best-selling author of books on holistic health.

In a 2013 article on his site, DrWeil.com, he addresses the controversies surrounding earthing.

“We’ll need additional studies of better design and with more participants before we can know whether it is really possible to derive health benefits from earthing,” Weil wrote. “While the studies done so far are intriguing, some of the hype for earthing is over-the-top.”

In the end, there are proponents of earthing who are steadfast in their belief that it works, and that the science-based community (along with some journalists and other unsavory characters) are out to get them. And there are hard-nosed skeptics who look at earthing as a scam, as a bunch of scientific hooey and, at worst, as a capitalistic enterprise designed to take money from sick people.

As Weil suggests, more studies are never a bad thing. Until then, though, most would probably agree that a little barefoot walk in the park now and again can’t hurt.