Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madhuri
3 planets!Quote:
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.
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
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??
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
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.Quote:
- 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.
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/Quote:
- 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.
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...
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").
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I also failed to mention I believe in preserving nature in parks and uninhabited land. So maybe 80%. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
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, funnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil