How many earths do *you* need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

- 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.

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.

---

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:

---

- 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/

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").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

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%. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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