Joined: May 14, 2005 Posts: 2125 Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: Re: Ecological Footprint Quiz
holmes wrote:
If we kept our farking breeding rates down to an intelligent advanced level we could do almost anything we wanted and the earth would recycle the waste products and impacts.
"farking breeding" ... isn't that redundant?
holmes wrote:
I scored a 16.
I scored an 8 ... despite happily eating meat each and every day. I just knew living in a tiny house and driving a tiny car would pay off some day!
Quote:
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.8 PLANETS.
Oh well, if I get the chance to retire in a couple more years, I'll sell the car, build a green (and even smaller) house and raise a few chickens to supplement my foraging. I should be able to make it down to < 1.0 planet then. _________________ “Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.6 PLANETS.
Time to power down. I wonder what the algorithm for the test is like? Wanna do this with pen and paper in days when there's no longer connection or hosting
Gives me a thought : wars or painful events reducing population is going to have a chance to hurt the environment as well.... _________________ regards,
Rostov
"Some {} are more equal than others"
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4420 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Ecological Footprint Quiz
I retook the test to factor in my new driving habits...and it got ugly.
I now use 44 acres (9.8 planets).
I honestly don't know why I use so much land.
Ok, I fly to visit my sister in California every now and then. And ok, I eat a lot of packaged foods (I live in Massaschusetts, it's not like we can grow anything over here). And yes, I do have a "big" house. But is 2500sq. ft. really that big?
Surely the quiz can't just end at 2,500sqft. The top third of American homes is over that limit. The quiz doesn't allow people with a 4,000sqft. house to be seperated from the 2500sqft. people.
Also, the quiz should factor in AC usage and # of children.
I consider myself a fairly green individual...but perhaps I should change the adjective... _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2063 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Ecological Footprint Quiz
CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.9
MOBILITY 17.8
SHELTER 3.2
GOODS/SERVICES 19
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 46 _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: Re: Ecological Footprint Quiz
CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4
MOBILITY 0.7
SHELTER 2.5
GOODS/SERVICES 3
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 10
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 2.3 PLANETS.
Cool, so all we have to do is find 1.3 more planets and I'll be set.
For a more detailed EF test, check out this spreadsheet. You can get a breakdown of every little contribution to your EF. Using this spreadsheet my EF was 11.5 acres.
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3428 Location: California, USA
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Ecological Footprint Quiz
15 acres, compared to average of 24 for US.
3.4 planets.
Now if you take 6.5 billion humans and divide by 3.4 planets, you end up with 1.9 billion humans per planet-equivalent.
I've seen comparisons saying that for a European average standard of living, we would be sustainable at a population level of 2.5 billion. So these numbers are roughly convergent.
Assume powerdown slightly beyond that level, i.e. to an Eastern European average rather than Western European average, and perhaps one planet could support about 3 billion humans. (After all, people in Eastern Europe still manage to eat enough and stay clean...)
Nature's got the solution for us, in the form of a dieoff of about half the population. After that, the rest is easy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
