For the sake of ecologic sustainablitiy stay on your soapbox.

I see that I abandoned my own post in 2006.

Well I'm bringing it back, thanks to the last comment.

Since I originally wrote this in 2006, my footprint increased from 2.6 to 3.1. I'm somewhat surprised. I now walk rather than drive to work, and I live in a tiny apartment that uses next to no electricity. However, I moved from a huge house out in the country with 5 people in it to a tiny apartment in Fresno with my husband and I. And I still am an occasional carnivore. But, I do fly more often (more than once a year) and not meat, but usually dairy products are part of my daily diet. Being busy means that I don't have as much time to shop at farmers' market then we'd like.

From the footprint website, here's some of their pointers to reduce the footprint: eat less meat and processed foods, reduce the amount of packaged foods you buy (Trader Joes..), walk/bike/use public transportation more, buy local (like join a CSA....we've had the brochure on our fridge for like 4 months now...), compost your waste (if you have a yard), drive less, etc.

From a planning standpoint, everyone who has commented on this in this post is absolutely right-- we are completely eating up viable farmland and creating non-sustainable communities in Fresno. The latest and greatest housing tracts may have solar panels, energy efficient appliances, and have "be walkable, smart-growth communities" (as one developer pointed out because the tract had narrow streets and small lots, thus reducing the amount of land used--good thing). But really, how walkable is a tract such as that if it's located miles from the nearest grocery store, park, or office center, and surrounded by farmland, as most of these are?

I'm going to get off of my soapbox now. But I will say, in Fresno, the best thing we can do is just Reduce. Live with less. Less waste, less food, less trips, less everything. It's a lifestyle change, and it might be a little hippie-esque, but it will make a much bigger difference if compounded across our population. You know, ethanol, even if it is a friendly alternative to air, takes thousands of acres of land to produce. I'd definitely recommend reading this week's Time magazine cover article about the "not so environmentally friendly effects of biofuels".

Can't we just drive less?

Or encourage her delusions

However, epidemic diseases, famines, impact on health of reduction of air quality, food crises, reduction of living space, accumulation of toxic or non degradable wastes, threats on keystone species are also factors influencing the well-being of people.

I take 6 planets. I would really love to see the air here clean up since I suffer from asthma. I can't say that I really do anything to help the situation. I would never give up my truck because without a truck your toys are useless. I also live way, way out in a suburb. If there was an ethanol station here I would use it. To change the situation here you would have to change everyone's way of thinking and life, so good luck with that.

...2.6 planets, and I carpool in a 'gas friendly' vehicle and don't eat animals.

An old friend of mine did a masters thesis on something very similar to this years ago. She wanted to determine the best ways to sustain agriculture in the SJV. Her research determined that the best way to sustain human life and agriculture in the SJV would be to STOP ALL agriculture in the SJV.

IT makes sense really, seeing as how 'auto emissions' are not the top of the chart when it comes to our SJV air pollution. The leading cause is actually methane (cow farts) and the second negative contributor is dust (from agricultural equipment, i.e. plowing fields).

I can only imagine the damage we do to our SJV every day dumping tons of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, etc. into the earth, then plowing them up into the air. We don't allow fields a rest time, but rather suck out every last nutrient we can year to year.

After the earth is completely useless, we build strip malls and track housing...

-s

This is an interesting forum topic for Fresno, because the current state of city planning here is not really conducive towards building a metro area that has the smallest ecological footprint that is possible and reasonable. Which is kind of disappointing, considering that we live in a state that generally has the political atmosphere that would support sustainable development. Granted, we live in a more conservative part of the state, but still…

For example, Fresno's public transportation system doesn't seem to be so conducive for getting around town in a reasonable time frame. Of course, it's not so much the transportation system that's the problem, but rather to state of urban sprawl, which puts the places we want to go (our homes, universities, theatres, grocery stores, restaurants, etc.) far away from each other. Aside from the obvious effects to our footprint from gobbling up land for development, this land gobbling also affects our ability to have a feasible public transportation system, and our footprint takes a double hit.

I'm not sure Fresno really takes advantage of the fact that we live in the most productive agricultural land in the nation, in terms of our footprint. Yes, we are an agribusiness-centered area, but when you walk into Safeway, Save-Mart or Albertson's, you're most often not buying produce that was grown here in the Valley, sadly. Where are all of our local farmer's markets? In this valley, we should have many more. The local produce stand that was beside the old Trader Joe's went out of business. :( So do Echo, the Chez Panisse-esque restaurant that used local produce in almost all dishes. So, this lack of taking advantage of our local produce hurts our footprint too, when we are shipping in produce from around the world when we could be taking greater advantage of what we have here.

Of course, we all can do our individual piece to make things better, and ultimately that's the only way things can change. Whether this means riding my bike more often, joining a CSA, or voting for politicians who support ecological sustainability, there's plenty to do. But it scares me a bit to wonder if it's going to take some kind of major crisis for this city, and the nation at large, to really change. I'm glad for the recent developments in this state (the governor's signing of the air pollution reduction bill, designation of more wilderness in the north coast, etc.), and I hope the trend continues.

It could be a bit scary to see the ecological footprint of Fresno…

What ideas do you or others have for reducing your own, or the city's, ecological footprint to one that is sustainable?