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
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., I guess. A hectare for each person is acceptable.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's" - Dostoevksy
I say stop kissing!Originally Posted by AimusSage
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's" - Dostoevksy
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.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
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.
Last edited by Laindessiel; 12-01-2006 at 02:16 PM.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's" - Dostoevksy
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!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.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!
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Well hrumphCATEGORY 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.
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
My mission in life is to make YOU smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:
Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em
|Litnet Challange status = 5/260
|currently reading
3.6 earths
A good novel is like a rainbow garden in your pocket.
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...")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.
Last edited by Lily Adams; 12-01-2006 at 08:55 PM.
Tomorrow always holds the promise of something new and exciting. I am the Jetsons meet the Flintstones.
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.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?
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Gee, this is worryingFOOD 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.. Interesting quiz, Claes, thanks for sharing !
"Where mind meets matter, both should woo!"Currently reading:
* Paradise Lost by John Milton
Worrying.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.
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.
If you believe even a half of this post, you are severely mistaken.
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.
My score was 3.4 overall and in all reality it should be higher.Kilted, what's your score after all?
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)
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**
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
First of these quizes are all a crock anyway, but...
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.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.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Oh well...I'm still young...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
Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions!
the whole boatload of sensitive!
— Allen Ginsberg, Howl II.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
