Michael Pietrinferni

,the highest part of my carbon footprint was the food category. For the most common reason, the food we buy is only ever at the grocery story. We do not live nearby farms so there really isn't another choice, even if trying to be environmental. Electricity is actually not so bad because after doing some research, Hydro-Québec's electricity is 99% renewable from wind turbines and dams. Knowing this, I feel a lot better about our household electricity system, knowing we aren't adding as many fossil fuels as many, using energy from sources that permanently recreate itself.

In my case, between only using bus to travel, and having a home only using renewable electricity, my situation is not all so bad, kind of evening out with relying on buying transported goods. Our family naturally tries to be environmental when possible, but sometimes, there is only so much you can change without it effecting yourself too much for the worse.

If we end up making more electric vehicles, and only charge them with renewable energy, perhaps we will release less carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Of course, this is conflicting for the gas companies, relying on people to pay for gas to live off of that money.

Personally, I feel the second we invented the word "economy" we already messed up. There wouldn't be cars or vans, etc. if we still lived like the indigenous people who always lived in tribes, sharing all the resources equally while still living happily. We forgot about that way of life and now we are all "in most other species' eyes "selfish monsters", only ever wanting more power and recognition. If I could change the world in a way that would lower the world's carbon footprint, I would destroy economy as a whole. Instead, any services like the library. restaurants, hospitals, special homes, arcades, etc. are all free to use by everyone, like allies, not foes. It's because we are so far deep in only caring about ourself that if we returned to this lifestyle, we would only be brought will chaos and robbery. We can't even trust our own kind anymore without assuming there is an interior motive behind anybody. Its very sad.

Clearly indicated in all 4 videos, our carbon footprint is way too high than it should be. Our Global Footprint Network (land and water) need to produce the resources we use and absorb the waste we generate, our biological productive area being our provider. We have nearly enough space to handle the amount of waste we use, and not enough space to reproduce our resources. The higher income countries consume way more (higher carbon footprint) than those of poorer nations. Humanity uses way too much resources, unable to recover. Our carbon footprint helps us realize which side of the coin we are taking, either being safe, reproducing what we use, or using way more than we can recover.

The following paragraph is what I retained from the 4 videos you requested us to watch:
Most common part of our footprint is using fossil fuels. electrical cars power isn't any better than fossil fuel cars because most of our electrical power involves burning fossil fuels. Its better if electric vehicle is hydro produced. The Ecosphere that was once balanced is now corrupted due to our technology that surpassed balance. We are hogging all the resources, not sharing as much with species around us. Climate change, carbon dioxide being the biggest cause that ruins the temperature of our planet. Our cycle is ruined by our fuel based machines that we use to live. All our products are often produced by carbon machines. We are the only species that can plan ahead, with high intelligence. As quoted in one of the videos, "We are consuming our resources 50% faster than it can regenerate". In the past, we were much more balanced because we were unable to control certain flaws or tragedies like sickness, injuries, machines used as weapons, etc. Statistics went up and down, keeping our society balanced. Over the years. we have counteracted so many of those problems that we are thriving too much. Another quote found in the same video as the last, "We use 12.0 billion hectares". The speaker mentions that our society is unconscious of what we are doing to our environment, too used to being dependent to our high end technology. We are heading to a 4 Celsius degree increase on Earth. Because we are obsessed with high technology cost so much, it's hard to afford any of these things to save our planet, business is more important than the future of our planet's health. We are losing approx. 4% a year. What ruins our environment is that our power requires to burn fossil fuel, to keep society going. Thanks to business, our survival is too important, unable to focus on the long-term picture. Another speaker, using information from the UN bank of Human Societies, states that our society has problems with trust due to our inequal societies. This inequality is about the same throughout most countries. Social mobility has a big role in our balance of society, When in the middle-class, its quite balanced. When there are too much people of the high and low classes in an area, its often a strict country with harsh lifestyles and consequences to those less fortunate. Causality is also a big issue of our balance, many of those higher up like celebrities use the resources that multiple families would use all on their own.

My house has a lot of wildlife and greenery, with plenty of ways to have fun activities without worsening my carbon footprint. For example, playing with my cats. Its simple fun, yet, no technology required to rub their tummies and make them chase their toys and sometimes sticks. Other examples like walking around, trying to learn how to ride a bike at my old elementary school, and going to Oka Park are examples of being environmental. When going somewhere with less advanced technology like going on vacation to a cottage surrounded by trees and wildlife, it makes you not only appreciate what you have, but we have been surrounded by the real way to live this whole time, and instead, we turn to a computer screen. Our Gen Z generation is so dependent on technology to live that we forget how to have a fun time without increasing our carbon footprint. You can tell when you go on walks or long field trips away from technology, you can easily feel how much more open minded and joyful you are than sitting in front of a bright screen damaging your eyes and sanity. Your are more relaxed, and down to Earth. It explains why people in the past were so much more productive, living a real life alongside nature. With this, less is more and better.

From the following articles, I didn't realize cattle had such a strong impact on global warming. I never knew and don't think I ever would have assumed that cow methane helps that much. I found the idea of improving cattle feed quality a very clever strategy for reducing methane emissions and cattle productivity. As we use high nutrient diets like high-quality forages and targeted feed additives, we can lower our methane production, greenhouse gas that affects a portion of "anthropogenic" emissions. By feeding the cows with healthy products, we are actually strengthening the digestion of cows plus their gut microbiome, meaning they can absorb nutrients with much more ease than the way we used to feed cattle with low end products. According to the articles that I read above, the sights indicate that optimizing cattle diets could reduce global methane emissions by 4.42 to 15.05 gigatons by 2050, with our current adoption at just 21%, primarily developed cow slaughter simulations to fatten up cows until they can be killed. Though we improved the way we feed our cows, naturally the better products will cost more money. However, fattening up cows apparently makes them produce better and healthier milk for us to drink. I am in complete agreement with the idea of healthier cows, they being a big part of helping us stay strong and now can help against global warming, the last thing I expected from cows. If we continue to promote better animal health, support food security, and increase farmer income, while also addressing broader environmental concerns like land degradation and water usage. Overall, the adoption of improved cattle feed is not just an economic opportunity but also a vital step toward more sustainable livestock farming practices.

I do hope we can keep up a healthy lifestyle for our animals. After all, we are the ones keeping them in "pens" a bit less bad than a cage but still restricting their freedom. The least we can do is keep them healthy and happy can't we?

From what I have learned, we do not take care of our crops as we used to. There was a comparison between cultural agriculture and modern agriculture. Back in the days, the crops were better taken care of, giving it proper, natural ways to grow and not harm the environment like natural sun, water, etc. Now days, we use chemicals to increase the production rate of the crops, even though this makes them not only less healthy but isn't helping our environment in the long run. Many common foods/crops like palm oil, coffee, cocoa, and livestock feed are examples of crop that actually cause deforestation. Though the food itself doesn't cut down trees, the machines required to produce these crops however do involve us to cut trees down. For example palm oil is widely used in processed foods which leads to significant deforestation. Apparently its the worst in Indonesia and Malaysia, the palm oil harming biodiversity, including orangutans. Coffee, often in high demand, causes constant deforestation. Overall, the article "4 Foods That Are Eating the World’s Forests And How to Choose Better" makes the reader understand in great deal what the simplest of products/foods that we are used to using, can actually do to our forests, most of us not really seeing the linkage at first.

In the other article "Drawdown Solution: Tropical Forest Restoration", similar to the other article, it gets straight into the issues we are having with our tropical forests, like getting cleaned out faster than they replant. It talks about Project Drawdown's wanting to regenerate and protect tropical forests. They have restored 287 million hectares of degraded tropical forests with commitments to reforesting 350 million hectares by 2030. The restoration is done to avoid any further land demand and any other activities requiring a forest to be taken down. The restoration of tropical forests is extremely important due to its potential for carbon sequestration and positive environmental impacts like getting rid of some CO2 in our atmosphere. I always wished there was more greenery in our world like once upon a time. Everyone was more happy and appreciative with what they had.