Printable View
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
Worrying! Especially because I would like to entertain myself thinking that I am environmentally 'conscientious'.Quote:
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.
:(
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
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
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. ^_^
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.)Quote:
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.
24 acres average for Americans??!??!!?? :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by SummerSolstice
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...I am sorry but I don't understand this expression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Claes
We need less people on the planet! Everybody use birth control and stop getting babies!Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Ahemmmmmm.... hrm... er... It means: Act rather than just...er... "sit on them :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
/Claes
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaesGefvenberg
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.
Oh, I see! Thanks! :)Quote:
Ahemmmmmm.... hrm... er... It means: Act rather than just...er... "sit on them :blush:
Yes, fingers out everybody!!!
:D :thumbs_up :D
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
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
Quite satisfactory result. :DQuote:
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.
hm, mine doesn't look too bad,Quote:
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.
great idea for a thread, Claes. I'll join the discussion later