The ECO footprint and SARS

Does everyone remember the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic? It was a pretty big issue from November 2002 to July 2003. Toronto had to quarantine many of its citizens because of the threat of being diagnosed with SARS. Well, prior to this epidemic, I really don’t think we were discussing air pollution and smog related issues in urbanized settings. SARS just happened to come from the Guangdong Province in China, which has 467 people per square kilometer and does not have the best air quality in China. Poor air quality is often a good indicator of urban environmental quality. High levels of particulate matter, ozone, and other pollutants constitute poor air quality which come from our cars, factories and homes.

Our exposure to local air pollutants, dirty water and unsanitary landscapes can all promote disease. The connection to the ecological footprint? The ecological footprint measures the resources consumed and the waste produced by a given entity translated into the land and water area required to support this level of activity. Things that the Eco footprint measure that are important here for consideration include “how many kilometres per litre does your car get” or how much do you drive each year on average” or “on average, how many kilometres do you travel on public transportation”. All of these questions measure urban environmental quality to some degree which in turn can illustrate how bad air quality is in the city or rural area.

Have cities in Canada even recognized the fundamental problems with air quality and smog? The reason why I allude to SARS is because SARS really woke people up. Not everyone understands its diagnosis, signs or symptoms but do recognize that it is a respiratory syndrome that can stem from poor air quality. My point, it unfortunately takes outbreaks like SARS to capture our attention and recognize the importance of public health issues. The Eco footprint is an excellent indicator of how sustainable you are, but one can easily take the test, view their results, and not make changes to become more sustainable. Unlike the Eco footprint, there are no free riders with epidemics like SARS. People living in urban environments cannot afford to take risks with these diseases because they are highly contagious and our bodies are very susceptible to them.

Environmental policy decisions are ultimately shaped on citizens’ perceived threats of health related issues. When we are more in touch or concerned about the health related problem like SARS, then policy suddenly influences things like enhancing public transportation, putting in congestion charge zones as done in London, or just generally cutting down on these pernicious pollutants that affect our respiratory system.

Key message: It should not take things like SARS to address air quality issues. Respiratory illness is easily exacerbated by heavy automobile use, limited use of public transit and inadequate air quality emission standards that regulate how many air pollutants go into our environment. People love to free ride the Eco footprint as they can measure their footprint and ostensibly take action on reducing it. We tend to have a reactive approach to environmental action, something must really shake us like a hurricane, tsunami or a flood for meaningful change to happen. When people are immediately affected by the problem i.e. SARS, it reinforces reality and brings us closer to the issue.