How many earths do *you* need?

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Why not have a look at http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp? It is an admittedly very simplified but still interesting calculation of how many earths we would need if everyone had *your* standard of living. Yours truly ended up with 2.4, which is bad enough, but significantly better than the swedish average.

What about you lot?

/Claes

[Scheherazade]

FOOD 1

MOBILITY 0.3

SHELTER 0.7

GOODS/SERVICES 0.6

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.6

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.8 PLANETS. Worrying! Especially because I would like to entertain myself thinking that I am environmentally 'conscientious'.

:(

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Worrying! Especially because I would like to entertain myself thinking that I am environmentally 'conscientious'.Yes, that is more or less exactly what I was thinking. My only (small) comfort is that the swedish average is 3,65! My all year biking helps me to stay well below that.

One must consider some things of course: Housing for instance: If we heated our dwellings acc. to a world average, we could very well freeze to death in the winter (even though it happens to be exceptionally warm for the season at the moment).

Still, this is good food for thought, and I think the general message should be: Fingers out everybody, and do what you can do, be it on a personal or global corporate level. This is clearly a case where every little (not to mention big) bit counts.

/Claes

[SummerSolstice]

You think 1.8 is bad? I got 3.2!!

I don't drive, and my parents never have to take me anywhere but college and church (each about fifteen minutes away), and they're always on their way somewhere, too, so I only used 0.2 acres in mobility, but I used 6.2 acres in food! *blinks* *looks down at waist* *blinks again* O_O

On the upside, my footprint was 10 acres less than the 24 acre average for Americans. ^_^

[Logos]

CATEGORY-GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD-2.4
MOBILITY-0.5
SHELTER-1.8
GOODS/SERVICES-2.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT-7.1

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.9 PLANETS.

Hrm, :mad: well, I'm glad to see I'm a little more eco-friendly than most in my area, the obvious hard hitter for me a love of imported foods/wine but I didn't see a lot of pertinent questions regarding 'goods and services'. I also buy Canadian products as much as possible. (produce, clothes etc.)

[Scheherazade]

On the upside, my footprint was 10 acres less than the 24 acre average for Americans. ^_^24 acres average for Americans??!??!!?? :eek2:

That is a lot! the UK is not doing that badly then...

I am kind of glad that my result is roughly 1/2 of an average UK resident at least... but still...
Fingers out everybodyI am sorry but I don't understand this expression?

[AimusSage]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.5
MOBILITY 0.9
SHELTER 1.2
GOODS/SERVICES 1.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 5.3

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 4.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.9 PLANETS.

We need less people on the planet! Everybody use birth control and stop getting babies!

[ClaesGefvenberg]

24 acres average for Americans??!??!!??Yes... Well, we have to take into account that we are all "prisoners" of our respective societys. Interestingly enough, thus far all of us have ended up below our local averages, but one can only go so far below it and still be a part of ones society.

I am sorry but I don't understand this expression?Ahemmmmmm.... hrm... er... It means: Act rather than just...er... "sit on them :blush:

We need less people on the planet! Everybody use birth control and stop getting babies!That, unfortunately, is right on the button :( Either that, or we need more planets, because I for one certainly cannot envisage many people being prepared to adjust their lifestyles very far in the necessary direction. I also don't think we'll start colonizing new worlds anytime soon.

/Claes

[Scheherazade]

Yes... Well, we have to take into account that we are all "prisoners" of our respective societys. Interestingly enough, thus far all of us have ended up below our local averages, but one can only go so far below it and still be a part of ones society.Very true.

My surprise is due to the fact that I cannot image what might be pulling the American average 4-5 times higher than a European country (3 times their neighbouring Canada), especially if we consider Summer an 'average' American. Her score is roughly 3/5 of the given American average so what is increasing the general average? Just curious and intrigued.

Ahemmmmmm.... hrm... er... It means: Act rather than just...er... "sit on them :blush:Oh, I see! Thanks! :)

Yes, fingers out everybody!!!

:D :thumbs_up :D

[kilted exile]

The main issue I have with this quiz is the limited nature of it. Ascribing such general statements for the possible answers makes it in my opinion unreliable for giving a correct determination.

One of the glaring ommissions is that there is no statements with regards to conservation of water or method of powering home.

The question regarding car travel is also off the mark, it does not take into account the possibility of someone owning a hybrid car or even a small car compared to a gas guzzling SUV. Nor does it take into account car pooling and number of passengers in the car per journey.

The waste production is also a difficult one. Not everywhere has recycling facilities which are capable of meeting demand (and that is before I even start on the issues of recycling mixed cullet - which is so impractical that it is not even carried out at a lot of MRF's)

Also there would appear to be some inherent bias towards small town/country living. I would prefer to see plot size used instead of House size as those living on a couple of acres of land are obviously using more of the space than in the city where garden/ lot size is limited.

Also for the food question, if you are not a vegan/vegitarian you're footprint will be skewed. It does not account for green farming techniques, or the need for more farmland for growing if everyone was to become vegitarians.

Despite what I have said however, there are a large number of practical things we could all do in order to reduce our footprint and they should be done. I am just wary of the Agenda behind the group who made this quiz

[Logos]

I guess the quiz is an interesting tool by which to measure one's consciousness about their impact on their environment. But people don't often have choices in say, where they get their electricity, or how their city/municipality treats waste.

Most people move to where the jobs/work/water/sewage/infrastructure is and often it is most affordable to live in a big city/close to where they can work. Not everyone can 'afford' to live on a farm, grown their own food, be self-sufficient. Many people consider those who 'live off the land' to be anti-social unabomber types :p

People who are not married/no kids/live alone etc. will get some of the worst ratings by this quiz as being the least efficient 'households', not sharing all their space with others and not driving multiple people around in their cars. I think in most societies emphasis is placed on 'fam-vals', I mean its easier to criticise a single person for being less eco-friendly than it is say a family of 5, right? I agree there are just too many people on the planet and we are doomed to come to a point where it can't sustain us anymore, like James Lovelock's theory:

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovebioen.htm

[Pensive]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 0.3

MOBILITY 0.3

HELTER 0.3

GOODS/SERVICES 0.3

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.2

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 0.6 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.

Quite satisfactory result. :D

[Logos]

I was typing my response while you had posted yours kilted and I agree with you that the quiz is problematic with such generalised questions. But there was one about gas mileage? litres of gas per 100kms or something? isn't that what ultimately divides the SUV's from the 'regular' cars?

[kilted exile]

But there was one about gas mileage? litres of gas per 100kms or something? isn't that what ultimately divides the SUV's from the 'regular' cars?

Ok, I must have double clicked so the car part can come out but my issues are still the same. This group are probably also of the opinion that Kyoto is a good thing (It is most certainly not a good thing for the developing world.) I just think if as much effort was put into research as into scaremongering - I'm looking at you Greenpeace - we would be closer to solving the problem.


More thoughts on the car thing: Age of car is also a concern due to the efficiency of filters over the years. When I was at college we tested the emmisions of my Air Pollution Prof's car (small 2 seater from 70's) and compared it to the emmissions from a pick-up from 2000 . The output was very close


**Realization**
The reason the mileage Q didnt come up is because I dont drive.

[SleepyWitch]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 0.9

MOBILITY 0.4

SHELTER 0.6

GOODS/SERVICES 0.8

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.7



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 4.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.




IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.5 PLANETS.
hm, mine doesn't look too bad,
great idea for a thread, Claes. I'll join the discussion later

[Madhuri]

This was my result...



FOOD 0.2

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 0.6

GOODS/SERVICES 0.3

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.3



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 0.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS

[Laindessiel]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 0.5

MOBILITY 0

SHELTER 0.5

GOODS/SERVICES 0.7

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.7


IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 1.2 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.


:thumbs_up , I guess. A hectare for each person is acceptable.

[Laindessiel]

We need less people on the planet! Everybody use birth control and stop getting babies!

I say stop kissing! :p

[kilted exile]

Just an interesting (well to me anyway) point,the posts by both Madhuri, lain & Pensive actually highlight some of the problems with the Kyoto Protocol. People living in countries in Asia are now getting more into the use of new technology and the average foortprint for those areas is due to increase exponentially. The extra amount of consumption of world resources due to the global village will increase (and so it should, those countries have as much right to those resources as any of us).

The other issue is as societies and cities in those areas continue to develop people will migrate from the rural communities the cities which will lead to reduced production of food. The only way Kyoto makes a difference is if Asia does not develop to the extent of the "western world".

This is of course completely wrong, which is why as I say the money and time spent on Kyoto should be spent on researching technologies. Including the use of Nuclear which gets a really unfair deal.

Otherwise in 20 years the global consumption will be much higher, not lower.

[Laindessiel]

The one-child policy in China is effectively working because the people cooperate! Unlike here, not only do we not have enough budget and resources to produce efficacious action from the government, but also the people here (mostly the ones who live in the rural areas) turn a deaf ear on such things! To them, making the population grow is one way of decreasing poverty (in which they complain about all the time). It's not only the government's lack of persuasion but also the people's cooperation!

Imagine, the Philippines has an estimated population of about 85 million already with only a land size of 115,434 sq. km., about the same land size as Italy's. Approximately 60% are youth (from 15-29) and 40% are living below the poverty line and scrimps on a daily budget of just P50 a day (that's just a dollar).

The Filipino people has not changed their ways and still continue to eradicate the issues nailed for them. It's no wonder that from being hailed as the "Tiger Cub of Asia" once, we are now called the "Sick Man of Asia".

But when there is life, there is hope.

[Pendragon]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4.9
MOBILITY 1.2
SHELTER 2
GOODS/SERVICES 3
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.5 PLANETS.

And that's with me having a family of five in a 14 x 76 mobile home! Not to mention being disabled. When I worked all the time and we traveled a lot, it would have been far worse! :) When I used to hunt for food purposes, I despise people who kill animals just for sport!, the food thing would have been down a lot, because I also possessed and preserved the meat myself. Now, I do not hunt at all. And guess what? Now, I wouldn't have to hunt! The area is so swamped with deer that they are commonly seen downtown! When I hunted, you had to actually hunt for the deer. Now, you can fall over them anywhere! :lol:

[Nightshade]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 0.9
MOBILITY 1.7
SHELTER 0.8
GOODS/SERVICES 1.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4.8

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.


Well hrumph :mad:



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.7 PLANETS.

and thats with me being good and recycling ( when I can find a recycle bin) walking everywhere within a mile and a half ( when Im not in danger of being mugged) and buying un processed unpackaged food ( well except for crisps and juice cartoons and icecream of course still thats dreadful

[Neovia]

3.6 earths :blush:

[Lily Adams]

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 3.7

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 3.7

GOODS/SERVICES 3.7

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.6 PLANETS.

Interesting, though I can't say I'm proud. Then again there are far too many people on this planet. ("If everyone lived like you...")

[Scheherazade]

The main issue I have with this quiz is the limited nature of it. Ascribing such general statements for the possible answers makes it in my opinion unreliable for giving a correct determination.I agree with you that it is very hard to determine an exact result for each individual through 20-q quizes on the net; we would probably need some expert observing our life style over a certain period of time to know the *exact* result for each and every one of us but, like you say, that money can be spent more efficiently! ;)

Even though, like many other surveys and researches, this one has many, many shortcomings, it achieves couple of things: Gives us a very general idea about where we more or less stand when it comes to consumption, makes us discuss and debate the issue (who knows? Maybe next time one of us needs to go to the corner shop, we will walk instead of taking the car etc) and also reminds us of a scary alternative (however likely/unlikely it might be). I think scaremongering in such issues can be good if it leads to some behaviour change in us for the better.
People living in countries in Asia are now getting more into the use of new technology and the average foortprint for those areas is due to increase exponentially. The extra amount of consumption of world resources due to the global village will increase (and so it should, those countries have as much right to those resources as any of us).The thing is that the West has been consuming Asia's fair share as well so far; but, now that Asian countries are also increasing their consumptionas well, I think the Western countries do need to cut down theirs to their 'legitimate' level. Someone in the UK consuming 5 times as much as someone in Asia is rather unfair, I think.

Kilted, what's your score after all? :D

[Schokokeks]

FOOD 1.2
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 1.2
GOODS/SERVICES 1.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.9

IN COMPARISON: THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 4.7 GLOBAL HECTARS PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.2 PLANETS.

Gee, this is worrying :eek2:. Interesting quiz, Claes, thanks for sharing !

[Taliesin]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.6
MOBILITY 1.8
SHELTER 0.7
GOODS/SERVICES 2.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 7



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.4 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.9 PLANETS.

Worrying.

However, Estonia was not even on the list so we had to take the Finland option to even take the test so we don't know how accurate this is.
And yes, in northern areas you need to put energy into heating so that you wouldn't freeze to death so that skewes some things around here.
But worrying nevertheless.

[kilted exile]

Ok, I am going to attempt to answer these Q's without getting into politics. Which is a difficult thing to do if I want to explain the full situation. Hopefully this suffices. If people want the politically oriented rant they will have to PM me.


Kilted, what's your score after all? :D

My score was 3.4 overall and in all reality it should be higher.


The thing is that the West has been consuming Asia's fair share as well so far; but, now that Asian countries are also increasing their consumptionas well, I think the Western countries do need to cut down theirs to their 'legitimate' level. Someone in the UK consuming 5 times as much as someone in Asia is rather unfair, I think.

Yes, I fully agree that the western countries need to start cutting down their usage, however the majority of the changes the ordinary person can make will have next to zero impact if we do not start to affect change at the upper levels of the problem. For example the use of nuclear power instead of coal and gas burning power plants. The problem is that when people think of nuclear power, they immediately think Chernobyl. Nuclear is realtively clean and efficient compared to Fossil Fuel usage. (more in next part)



Even though, like many other surveys and researches, this one has many, many shortcomings, it achieves couple of things: Gives us a very general idea about where we more or less stand when it comes to consumption, makes us discuss and debate the issue (who knows? Maybe next time one of us needs to go to the corner shop, we will walk instead of taking the car etc) and also reminds us of a scary alternative (however likely/unlikely it might be). I think scaremongering in such issues can be good if it leads to some behaviour change in us for the better.

Yes the quiz does give the layman an idea of where they are failing, and may encourage them to change their ideas. However, it will be a short time change. Soon enough we will become lazy or forget about it and seep back into our old ways. Also these independent changes will do little to solve the greater problem (there is no way each individual will reduce themselves to a score of 1.8 - or that after the Asian Boom people living in that area will only be at 1.8 - without technological advances). For this reason it is to science and new technologies we must look for a solution.

**However, this doesn't mean that people should stop doing the little things**

[Virgil]

First of these quizes are all a crock anyway, but...


CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 4.2

MOBILITY 5.2

SHELTER 11.9

GOODS/SERVICES 11.6

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 33



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.




IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 7.4 PLANETS.

I love it!! And proud of it. If you want to live like you're in the third world, be my guest. I think I'll enjoy prosperity.:D If you feel so guilty, why don't you trade places with someone in a third world village. That person would love to trade.

[toni]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 0.4

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 0.5

GOODS/SERVICES 0.9

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 1.2 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.1 PLANETS

Oh well...I'm still young...:D

[Pensive]

Ahhh, by mistake, less than 1 got selected by me in the poll.

*frowns*

Can it be changed?

[kilted exile]

I love it!! And proud of it. If you want to live like you're in the third world, be my guest. I think I'll enjoy prosperity.:D If you feel so guilty, why don't you trade places with someone in a third world village. That person would love to trade.

I think you are missing the point here Virg, it is not trading places that should happen (there would still be the same problem) it is more equal use of resources that is required. But hey so long as you're good screw everyone else right?

[Pensive]

I think you are missing the point here Virg, it is not trading places that should happen (there would still be the same problem) it is more equal use of resources that is required. But hey so long as you're good screw everyone else right?
To some extent, I agree. If everyone will start thinking for himself/herself then there wouldn't be any life one day. And the truth is that one day bad conditions (I hope it wouldn't happen) can come over you. In that case, government will have to help you. And how will it do so when there wouldn't be any resources??

I saw earthquake hitting Pakistan, it was terrible, killed millions of people. And just because we did not have much resources/money/food problems, there are still people homeless.

But the biggest problem regarding consumption I can see is the population. Only if there would have been less population, things would have been better in Pakistan. There would be no point in blaming those who earn good....all that needs to be done is to either reduce population or get your asses on to a new planet.

[Virgil]

I think you are missing the point here Virg, it is not trading places that should happen (there would still be the same problem) it is more equal use of resources that is required. But hey so long as you're good screw everyone else right?

Right. I work, earn a living, put food on the table, care for my family, help others. I'm not about to bicycle acrosss town when i have a car. I'm not about to eat porridge when I can afford meat. I'm not going to live in a shack or a one bedroom apartment when I can afford a house. I'm striving for the third world to enjoy life like people in the west can, not reduce my life to that of the third world. That to me is progress. You mention India and China consuming. Well, that consumption means that they are achieving a better standard of living. That is a good thing. Theire lives are infinitely better and I hope that some day they can enjoy life as well as I. I don't find it noble to live like a pauper. I don't find it noble to make my life harder for some ambiguous goal. They used to call people who did that in the middle ages monks. I don't intend to live like a monk for some vague religion of environmentalism.

[kilted exile]

Right. I work, earn a living, put food on the table, care for my family, help others. I'm not about to bicycle acrosss town when i have a car. I'm not about to eat porridge when I can afford meat. I'm not going to live in a shack or a one bedroom apartment when I can afford a house. I'm striving for the third world to enjoy life like people in the west can, not reduce my life to that of the third world. That to me is progress. You mention India and China consuming. Well, that consumption means that they are achieving a better standard of living. That is a good thing. Theire lives are infinitely better and I hope that some day they can enjoy life as well as I. I don't find it noble to live like a pauper. I don't find it noble to make my life harder for some ambiguous goal. They used to call people who did that in the middle ages monks. I don't intend to live like a monk for some vague religion of environmentalism.

Ok no-one (at least nobody sensible, organisations such as Greenpeace might but that is another story for another day and time) is saying you must give up meat live in a one bedroom apartment or shack and bike everywhere. Nor do you have to live like a pauper or monk.

However, as someone in the western world who earns a decent wage. There are more options open to you to live a good life and still conserve resources than will immediately be open to the developing world (which to begin with will still be powered by coal, some countries may want to use nuclear but of course we cant be having that - anyway that is straying into the forbidden political territory). These options include changing the type of car you own to a more efficient model (possibly, I am of course not sure of what kind of vehicle you drive) or even a hybrid. I am going to assume you have some kind of garden (as you mentioned a house) you could compost some of your waste in order to reduce landfill space. You could buy foods which contain less packaging. And of course, everybody can recycle more. Then we move to inside the house, well you're an engineer you know all the ways you can improve efficiency inside your home - even if you dont do it thinking it'll be good for the environment you will at least reduce heating and cooling expenses and that is always nice :thumbs_up but can I suggest if you can afford it that you look into GeoThermal power?

Then there are steps your government could take like introducing tax breaks etc for energy reducing measures by the general public or forcing oil companies to make biodiesel more available.

Yes the boom in Asia is signifying a better standard of living (which everyone will agree is a great thing) however you're wish for them to have the same as what you currently have simply cant happen. There is no way everyone in the world can live and use the same amount of resources as is consumed by the western world currently. We can only use that much because of the large number of people that are not.

[Petrarch's Love]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4.4
MOBILITY 0.7
SHELTER 3
GOODS/SERVICES 3.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 12



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

Wow, given the results of most people on this thing, myself included :blush:, it seems we should start figuring out how to colonize mars, or better yet Jupiter. :lol: Actually some friends of mine from the astronomy department were talking about possible lunar colonization the other day. Maybe they'll start sending anyone who needs more than one planet to the dark side. :D

By the way, this may be a stupid question, but I can't quite figure out how they're getting 3 acres out of my tiny city apartment. Are they figuring out the land needed to generate the electricity or something? I guess that would make sense.

And wow Virg, seven and a half planets?! I thought I lived like a spoiled American, but you've got me beat.:p I'm not even sure how you did it? I took the quiz according to my lifestyle in California, where I drive more and my family lives in a big house, and it still only bumped me up by one acre (and I certainly don't live like a pauper ;) ).

[Virgil]

By the way, this may be a stupid question, but I can't quite figure out how they're getting 3 acres out of my tiny city apartment. Are they figuring out the land needed to generate the electricity or something? I guess that would make sense.

And wow Virg, seven and a half planets?! I thought I lived like a spoiled American, but you've got me beat.:p I'm not even sure how you did it? I took the quiz according to my lifestyle in California, where I drive more and my family lives in a big house, and it still only bumped me up by one acre (and I certainly don't live like a pauper ;) ).

I don't either. But like I said I'm poud of it. I'm willing to bet that the quiz is skewed against Americans. We have more land here, and so our homes are much bigger than what I've come across in Europe. Plus we eat more meat here, and getting around on bicycle is impractical in our spread out cities and countrysides.

[Madhuri]

I live in India and I work as hard as anyone else living in the West, and I do enjoy a good standard of living. I have all the facilities that any educated person can aspire for, I agree that India is a developing nation (not a third world, plzzz) and has a huge population, its true that a lot has to be achieved, but we are no way less than anyone.

[Laindessiel]

India is a fast developing country! I admire India for using its resources to not keep the country from stagnating. India can never be a third-world country with the progression rate it's goin now.

[Virgil]

However, as someone in the western world who earns a decent wage. There are more options open to you to live a good life and still conserve resources than will immediately be open to the developing world.
This is where we seem to disagree. You seem to think that the resources are limited. I'm telling you that they're infinite. A study was out I think it was last month that estimated the total oil still untapped and it said that of all the oil that has been used in the hundred and fifty or so years we've been using it, we have only consumed around 18%. We have enough oil to last the world for the next several hundred years. The third world is not poor because they can't buy oil.


which to begin with will still be powered by coal,
We still use coal in this country.


some countries may want to use nuclear but of course we cant be having that
These same envionmentalist who are screaming like chicken littles now told us it was no good to use nuclear energy when I was growing up. The fact is that if you listen to the enviornmentalist they don't want us to use energy period. Coal, natural gas, and oil are greenhouse gases, nuclear creates radioactive material. What are we supposed to use? They think we can live on solar panels and windmills. :lol: They really want us to live like cave men, and even then they're afraid that firewood is going to cause a forest fire.


I am of course not sure of what kind of vehicle you drive) or even a hybrid. I am going to assume you have some kind of garden (as you mentioned a house) you could compost some of your waste in order to reduce landfill space. You could buy foods which contain less packaging. And of course, everybody can recycle more. Then we move to inside the house, well you're an engineer you know all the ways you can improve efficiency inside your home - even if you dont do it thinking it'll be good for the environment you will at least reduce heating and cooling expenses and that is always nice :thumbs_up but can I suggest if you can afford it that you look into GeoThermal power?
I drive a fairly good fuel efficient car (it's now ten years old and there are better) but I drive an hour each way to work. I carpool with three other guys, I conscientiously recycle (although sometimes I think it's a waste), and I tried composting (my mother still does) for while but it's a pain so I no longer. I have no issue with other sources of energy if you can justify them by cost. We can talk about alternative energy sources, if you like. But each of them have ramifications like oil and coal. Geothermal is a good idea, where it's coming up from the ground on it's own, but if you're going to dig to tap large resources of it, then you're going to warm the outer earth at an unnatural rate, and what does that do to the environment. Those windmills are very poor efficiency, kill lots of birds, and in theory if built enough of them you're going to alter the air stream, which will cause all sorts of climate change. Solar panels are the only thing that get you something without environmental impact, and we could do more of that to save a few dollars, but it won't make much of an impact.


Then there are steps your government could take like introducing tax breaks etc for energy reducing measures by the general public or forcing oil companies to make biodiesel more available.
We have that and I'm not against it.


Yes the boom in Asia is signifying a better standard of living (which everyone will agree is a great thing) however you're wish for them to have the same as what you currently have simply cant happen. There is no way everyone in the world can live and use the same amount of resources as is consumed by the western world currently. We can only use that much because of the large number of people that are not
Again this is where we disagree. You also assume the same population or worst. Developed countries are having huge population declines. Higher standard of living for some reason seems to cause people to have less children. The world population will eventually stabilize and then decline.

[Virgil]

I live in India and I work as hard as anyone else living in the West, and I do enjoy a good standard of living. I have all the facilities that any educated person can aspire for, I agree that India is a developing nation (not a third world, plzzz) and has a huge population, its true that a lot has to be achieved, but we are no way less than anyone.

Maddie, I hope you don't think I was putting India down. I think India and China in the last 10 years have been doing the correct economic policy for the improvement of its citizens. By following the environmentalist's argument, you've done bad thing. There is no shame in wanting a better life.

[miss tenderness]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 2.4

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 1.5

GOODS/SERVICES 1.7

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 5.8



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 4.1 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.




IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.2 PLANETS.

3 planets!

[kilted exile]

Ok, to clear up a few things:

- I really dislike the term environmentalist, it used to be a good term but it has been hijacked by so many groups and organisations (Greenpeace - but again I digress) that it only has any meaning as a soundbite used by media companies to cover a large number of groups with at times different ideologies and ways they would like the problem to be solved. Some of them as you mentioned would like to see people turn to a vegetable only diet, I enjoy having discussions with these people as they quite quickly turn out not to have a clue what they are on about. Others such as myself are somewhat technocrats, we believe there are technological solutions to these problems and with proper funding we can find them.

- The global warming with regards to Ozone depletion issue is one which I do not believe fully relates to this matter ( It is a peripheral issue) and in actual fact I do not subscribe fully to it. I may expand on this at a future date.

- The part about the test being skewed against americans due to land mass I can not agree with. Firstly I believe Canada is larger and the test does not appear to have skewed things too much with regards to the Canadian average. However as I said earlier the test itself is inherently flawed for a large number of reasons.

- Do you have any information as to the group which carried out the study you refer to, I too remember hearing some mention of it on CNN (terrible channel) but I did not have time to listen to the full story. I ask because of the inherent biases in most studies of this type carried out by both sides, due to the politics rule I cant really expand on this point further.

Anyway, that's all for now may return later to edit this and add more

[Nightshade]

hum,mm a few thing energy saver light bulbs.... eviromentaly friendly AND they save you masses on the leccy bill. course they are expnsive in the beging and useless if you have dimmer switches but they last 10 years!! surley they are worth the cost?

Theres all sorts of things that people can do to be more 'eco friendly' and for the most part they are actually money saving ( yes Ill admit Im not only P&P oriented but also bloddy tight fisted when it comes to spending my money so I reap the double benifits of being ecofriendly):lol:


I like that term technocrats... like more renwable resorces for energy.. I mean I think wind turbines look rather nice what is all the fuss about? and theres those tide generaters, solar pannels ( obviouusly not for england but still!) Im sure if you think about it there mnust be hundreds of ways to clean up our act it just takes a bit demermination and elbow grease or in this case will and funding.


And its hardly fair that the rest of the world is paying the price for the luxery of a few,are you saying that 3rd woirld people dont work bloody hard for their livlihoods?
But how would vegtebable or meat affect the enviroment??

[kilted exile]

But how would vegtebable or meat affect the enviroment??

It would not affect things to any large amount it is just that a lot of groups (i.e Greenpeace) have other agendas which the vegetarian aspect fulfills so they try to work it into this discussion as well.

[Virgil]

- I really dislike the term environmentalist, it used to be a good term but it has been hijacked by so many groups and organisations (Greenpeace - but again I digress) that it only has any meaning as a soundbite used by media companies to cover a large number of groups with at times different ideologies and ways they would like the problem to be solved. Some of them as you mentioned would like to see people turn to a vegetable only diet, I enjoy having discussions with these people as they quite quickly turn out not to have a clue what they are on about. Others such as myself are somewhat technocrats, we believe there are technological solutions to these problems and with proper funding we can find them.

- The global warming with regards to Ozone depletion issue is one which I do not believe fully relates to this matter ( It is a peripheral issue) and in actual fact I do not subscribe fully to it. I may expand on this at a future date.


Hey, then we probably agree 90%. :thumbs_up I beleive in being good stewarts of the world and keeping the air and water clean and trying to reduce garbage, but some have raised this to the level of religion where they make people feel guilty as if they've committed some sin. Notice how everyone is blushing in this post, as if you have to be ashamed of living your life. When it makes sense to shift method of energy consumption, then people will do so.


- The part about the test being skewed against americans due to land mass I can not agree with. Firstly I believe Canada is larger and the test does not appear to have skewed things too much with regards to the Canadian average. However as I said earlier the test itself is inherently flawed for a large number of reasons.
Perhaps. It was just a hunch on my part. I scored so high mostly I think because I have a long driving commute to work every day.


- Do you have any information as to the group which carried out the study you refer to, I too remember hearing some mention of it on CNN (terrible channel) but I did not have time to listen to the full story. I ask because of the inherent biases in most studies of this type carried out by both sides, due to the politics rule I cant really expand on this point further.
I didn't find the actual article I read a month or two ago, but it's referenced in here: http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

[Koa]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 1.1

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 0.5

GOODS/SERVICES 1.1

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.9



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 3.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.




IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.6 PLANETS.



But well...I didnt know how to answer about how much my car consumes because I have no clue, and well I hardly ever drive with other people with me simply becasue driving is for me the last resort, meaning there's no public transport option nor someone who would take me to wherever I have to go :D

Though I was thinking not long ago... it's scary to think that the way we are living is so wrong...because I don't want to give up on all the nice things we have (especially the internet lol...though i'd sign now to give up on bloody cars, at least private cars: only buses) :( and it's unfair that we are living so unfairly to the other half of the world but it's so comfortable...

[bluevictim]

Just for reference, for the United States, the minimum footprint possible seems to be 2 acres (food 1.7, mobility 0, shelter 0.5, goods/services 0.2), and the maximum footprint possible seems to be 140 (food 6.9, mobility 28.9, shelter 33.6, goods/services 70.9), which they translate to 31.6 planets (they claim, "worldwide, there exist 4.5 biologically productive acres per person").

[kilted exile]

Hey, then we probably agree 90%. :thumbs_up I beleive in being good stewarts of the world and keeping the air and water clean and trying to reduce garbage

I am going to guess it is probably more like 70%, but thats cool if everyone agreed the world would be a very boring place :)

[Virgil]

I am going to guess it is probably more like 70%, but thats cool if everyone agreed the world would be a very boring place :)

I also failed to mention I believe in preserving nature in parks and uninhabited land. So maybe 80%. ;)

[kilted exile]

I also failed to mention I believe in preserving nature in parks and uninhabited land. So maybe 80%. ;)

Yeah, that sounds good. we'll split the odds and call it 80. After all we agree on the most important subject: Watching the Yankees lose is very, very, funny