Данное словосочетание часто встречается в экологии. К примеру:

3% of US energy footprint comes from heating water for laundry.

Правильно ли сказать "энергетический след"?

6 Answers 6


No, "след" is not the right word here: although "footprint" does translate as "след" in a related term of "carbon footprint" ("углеродный след"), the meaning is quite different when the word is used in combination with "energy".

I would translate the term as "объем энергии" using the "memory footprint" ("объем памяти") as a template, or simply use the "энергопотребление" word, like this:

3% энергопотребления США приходится на нагревание воды для стирки.


I'm Russian, I have a diploma in Economics, and here's my answer: there's no such concept as "footprint" meaning "total cost" in Russian, you need to search for an appropriate word, as by "footprint" you always mean different things.

In this context I'd write "3% потребляемой энергии приходится на стирку." But be careful, in some context you might want to use энергоёмкость (specific energy conumption) which means that to do X you need Y kWt*Hrs of energy. Or, to improve costs by M% you need to reduce энергоёмкость by K%.


Russian language is de-facto used (to greater or lesser extent) in some countries, even in those one where it is not recognized as official one.

Among Latvian residents I've recently encountered phrase экологическая стопа, which I've never heard before but nevertheless came up to conclusion that this is exactly what "ecological footprint" stands for.

After some research (a-ha-ha, that's how googling should be called to sound more scientific) I've found this term used in official Latvian documents translated to Russian.

Moreover, there are some examples of using this term in Russian documents as well. So, since this is a relatively new term and thus this is a question of adoption of some certain form, I'd stick to стопа. This perfectly understandable, clear and correlates with english word footprint.

So, my advice would be to say энергетическая стопа.

  • 2
    I would like to both upvote and downvote this. Upvote for finding this rare usage, downvote for recommending to use it.
    – Anixx
    Mar 15, 2013 at 14:44
  • @Anixx, I don't recommend it, I've just said that personally to me it is quite acceptable, so up-vote without doubt )))
    – shabunc
    Mar 15, 2013 at 15:33

"коэффициент эмиссии парниковых газов на единицу площади" or a slightly reduced version "энергокоэффициент парникового эффекта" would be a bit wordy but no less concise suggestion in my opinion.


I would translate with a verb like 'отнимает' or 'отбирает' or 'забирает'. Means - takes from the whole consumption or from the whole energy production even better


Well, given the general Russian tendency to literally copy English terminology, almost word for word, this particular case poses one of the most misleading concepts since "footprint" appears to be of an ultimately metaphorical simile comprising both area and the trace left by carbon emissions per hectare, so, fair enough,it would be logical to perceive it as a proportion of carbon dioxide pollution per area unit, a required quotient rather than just measurement.

  • Welsome to Russian.SO! On this site, you can edit your own answers (and when you gain enough reputation, even others' answers!) If you want to add to an answer, please just edit it rather than posting a new answer. Thanks!
    – Quassnoi
    Mar 18, 2013 at 7:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.