<p>No, not really. It's already factored in when calculating atmospheric Carbon levels. In terms of respiration and no other biological processes (such as waste excretion), humans only contribute 1.6% of all CO2.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006152/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006152/</a></p>
<p>Humans are just as natural of a species as any other. One of our biggest ecological roles is as forest protectors, which act as huge carbon sinks, counteracting our non-fossil fuel CO2 emissions.</p>
<p><em><strong>This is a good but potentially problematic question</strong></em>. It's a good question as it helps us define what the word <em><strong>Anthropogenic</strong></em> really means in the phrase <em><strong>Anthropogenic climate change</strong></em>. Anthropogenic relates to human activity (not existence) post 1700s. It's a poetenially problematic question as fossil fuel companies created the term Carbon footprint, it shifts the blame from producers onto consumers.</p>
<p>As a side: we have every solution needed to solve the climate crisis, it's just a matter of building those solutions at scale.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-14T12:06:42.060Z
I can see the 1.6% figure in the Introduction of the linked paper, but I'm not clear what it means, given that atmospheric carbon level is a stock while breathing out CO2 by humans is a flow.
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-09T16:46:12.570Z
Stock and pool are the same thing. In humans it is both but more flow as CO2 has to constantly be exhaled to avoid oxygen deprivation.

Stocks are also mostly abiotic, think about a literal pantry of food as the pool/stock of resources that exist in the home.
Di_ecoloarchus_economus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-14T09:16:49.553Z
2023-08-14T09:16:49.553Z
Di_ecoloarchus_economus
<p>The definition (according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> who quotes <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4155/cmt.10.39" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wright, Kemp and Williams</a>) is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or activity of interest. [...]&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is the carbon dioxide, produced by simply breathing, therefore included in the carbon footprint calculation, or not?</p>

<climate-change>
Does the Carbon footprint of a person include the air one breathes?
Schottky
# Does the Carbon footprint of a person include the air one breathes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-08-12)

The definition (according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint) who quotes [Wright, Kemp and Williams](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4155/cmt.10.39)) is:

> A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or activity of interest. [...]"

Is the carbon dioxide, produced by simply breathing, therefore included in the carbon footprint calculation, or not?

**Tags:** climate-change


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-08-14. Score: 1

No, not really. It's already factored in when calculating atmospheric Carbon levels. In terms of respiration and no other biological processes (such as waste excretion), humans only contribute 1.6% of all CO2.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006152/>

Humans are just as natural of a species as any other. One of our biggest ecological roles is as forest protectors, which act as huge carbon sinks, counteracting our non-fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

***This is a good but potentially problematic question***. It's a good question as it helps us define what the word ***Anthropogenic*** really means in the phrase ***Anthropogenic climate change***. Anthropogenic relates to human activity (not existence) post 1700s. It's a poetenially problematic question as fossil fuel companies created the term Carbon footprint, it shifts the blame from producers onto consumers.

As a side: we have every solution needed to solve the climate crisis, it's just a matter of building those solutions at scale.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I can see the 1.6% figure in the Introduction of the linked paper, but I'm not clear what it means, given that atmospheric carbon level is a stock while breathing out CO2 by humans is a flow.  
> **username_1**: Stock and pool are the same thing. In humans it is both but more flow as CO2 has to constantly be exhaled to avoid oxygen deprivation.  Stocks are also mostly abiotic, think about a literal pantry of food as the pool/stock of resources that exist in the home.  

---

