PDA

View Full Version : What is your ecological footprint ?


kiwitt
07-05-2005, 04:37
check http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

I got 4.7 Hectares.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-05-2005, 04:44
17. If everyone lived like me, we would need 3.8 planets. Fortunatly there are all those starving people in Africa that let me live this way.
JAG
07-05-2005, 04:46
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.6
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 0.8
GOODS/SERVICES 0.8
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.4



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 1.9 PLANETS.

Cool.
Big_John
07-05-2005, 04:49
13 acres (~5.3 hectares) about half my national average, but i'm still using nearly 3 earths worth of my share! ~:cheers:
Sasaki Kojiro
07-05-2005, 04:52
The only quibble I have is that it should say:

" WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.8 PLANETS, or we would need to make each acre more biologically productive"
Kanamori
07-05-2005, 04:53
41 or 9.2 planets ~:cheers:
Papewaio
07-05-2005, 04:58
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 2.8

MOBILITY 1.3

SHELTER 0.6

GOODS/SERVICES 2

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6.7


IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 7.6 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.7 PLANETS

A few ambigous questions in there.

My mobility has certainly increased since getting a station wagon a couple of weeks ago compared with just using public transport. But when I did the questionaire a second time my mobility while using public transport only dropped to 1.2 compared with 1.3???

Also it begs the question. Should I limit my consumption because of another nations lack of contraception?

Given that Australia has the same landmass of Europe, but only 1/20th of the population.

Mind you that is deceptive given the lack of water in Aus.
King of Atlantis
07-05-2005, 05:03
i got 19, but i was below my national average of 25.
PanzerJaeger
07-05-2005, 05:08
CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 6.9

MOBILITY 9.4

SHELTER 8.4

GOODS/SERVICES 16.1

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 41



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 9.2 PLANETS.

Ahah, im really trying to feel guilty but its not working.. i liked Sasaki's first answer though. ~D
King of Atlantis
07-05-2005, 05:11
41! All these europeans wer making me feel bad. :jawdrop:
Kanamori
07-05-2005, 05:15
I find it odd that it, seeminly, parallels having a lower score w/ being a better person, or at least, being better for the world. It is neither desirable nor healthy to live packed in like sardines; simply put, it is not my fault that some seem to have issues with either using contraceptives or limmiting how much sex they have unprotected. If anything, it shows that we have a huge problem w/ overpopulation.
ichi
07-05-2005, 05:17
22 acres, requiring 5.1 planets.

This has confirmed my belief that we need to support the space program, 'casue we need more planets

ichi :bow:
King of Atlantis
07-05-2005, 05:23
22 acres, requiring 5.1 planets.

This has confirmed my belief that we need to support the space program, 'casue we need more planets

ichi :bow:

well said ~:)
Lemur
07-05-2005, 05:41
CATEGORY / ACRES
FOOD / 3.7
MOBILITY / 0.2
SHELTER / 2.7
GOODS/SERVICES / 2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT / 9

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 1.9 PLANETS.
Wow, that's pathetic for an American. We need to get a car, burn up some more electricity, something. I feel so ashamed. 1.9 planets? That's nothing! That's not even trying!
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2005, 06:11
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 0.5
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 0.3
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.7



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.

Im perfect ~D
Papewaio
07-05-2005, 06:21
All you need to prove that you are perfect is to prove to Jag that you are.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2005, 06:35
Wow, that's pathetic for an American. We need to get a car, burn up some more electricity, something. I feel so ashamed. 1.9 planets? That's nothing! That's not even trying!

Look at me the evil conservative living in the most expensive place to live in the US and taking up less than my share. Now I should be the one whos ashamed.
TonkaToys
07-05-2005, 09:00
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.5
MOBILITY 0.9
SHELTER 0.7
GOODS/SERVICES 0.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4

AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.2 PLANETS
Shame...
Divinus Arma
07-05-2005, 09:03
Category Acres

Food 6.9

Mobility 5.7

Shelter 8.6

Goods/services 13.1

Total Footprint 34



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 7.7 Planets.
King of Atlantis
07-05-2005, 09:39
Look at me the evil conservative living in the most expensive place to live in the US and taking up less than my share. Now I should be the one whos ashamed.

shame on you :whip:
Revelation
07-05-2005, 09:49
Category Global Hectares

Food 2.8

Mobility 0.7

Shelter 1.3

Goods/services 2.1

Total Footprint 6.9



In Comparison, The Average Ecological Footprint In Your Country Is 7.6 Global Hectares Per Person.

Worldwide, There Exist 1.8 Biologically Productive Global Hectares Per Person.
the tokai
07-05-2005, 10:55
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 1.7

MOBILITY 0

SHELTER 0.6

GOODS/SERVICES 0.5

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.8



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 1.6 PLANETS.

That's not too bad i think.
Samurai Waki
07-05-2005, 11:19
3.5 Global Hectares or 1.9 Planets not terrible, but the Reason I get away with it most of the time is because I live on a small Island where you can buy everything Fresh in the morning and everything I need is within a half mile walk of my Condo. Also the Resort has a Solar Powered Roof so that cuts down a lot on Energy use. Damn Hippies and their earth.
Beirut
07-05-2005, 11:34
5 hectares and 2.8 planets. Holy Jumping, I'm almost a hippie! ~:eek:
_Martyr_
07-05-2005, 11:38
Category Global Hectares
Food 1.3
Mobility 0.3
Shelter 0.7
Goods/services 1.1
Total Footprint 3.4



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 1.9 Planets.

Could be lower.
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-05-2005, 13:34
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.1
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 0.8
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.4

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.1 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.3 PLANETS. Good for a westerner but not enough. ~:handball:
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 14:02
So I'm guessing the moral of the story is we should all be eating wheat germ 3 times a day and living in Chinese style high rise appartment buildings, but with no electricity or running water and we all take public transportation everywhere?

Isn't that going to befoul the few remaining biologically productive acres we have out there? All that human waste accumulating?

I would love to see the assumptions behind this thing. It does look all of the eco-facscists ideals rolled up into one ball of wax.
Kanamori
07-05-2005, 14:40
Well, at least the web site is designed well. :balloon2:
Spetulhu
07-05-2005, 16:01
Total Footprint 6.7

In Comparison, The Average Ecological Footprint In Your Country Is 8.4 Global Hectares Per Person.

If Everyone Lived Like You, We Would Need 3.7 Planets.
IrishMike
07-05-2005, 16:19
CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.9
MOBILITY 3.7
SHELTER 4.9
GOODS/SERVICES 7.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 22



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 5.1 PLANETS.


Oh yeah, living large and lovin it.
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-05-2005, 16:54
A few ambigous questions in there.

My mobility has certainly increased since getting a station wagon a couple of weeks ago compared with just using public transport. But when I did the questionaire a second time my mobility while using public transport only dropped to 1.2 compared with 1.3???

Also it begs the question. Should I limit my consumption because of another nations lack of contraception?

Given that Australia has the same landmass of Europe, but only 1/20th of the population.

Mind you that is deceptive given the lack of water in Aus.
I think the quiz has take into account Aus. conditions, approximately at least. I take the quiz again, supposing that I'm living in Aus.
FOOD 2.6
MOBILITY 0.3
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 0.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 7.6 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.2 PLANETS. Compare this with my actual score: total footprint 2.4/1.3 planets
Aurelian
07-05-2005, 17:05
CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.4
MOBILITY 0.7
SHELTER 6.4
GOODS/SERVICES 6.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 19

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

Interesting exercise. I'd like to see the assumptions they used too, though I think I can pretty much figure it out based on my results.

My food was relatively high because I probably eat some kind of meat daily, and most of my food is shipped in from elsewhere.

My mobility was pretty good because I use the metro or walk most of the time. The car is usually reserved for weekends or evening grocery runs just down the street.

I'm surprised my shelter was so high... but there are only 2 of us living in a 1000-1500 foot apartment. Still, I would have thought that being in a big apartment building was a plus.

The goods and services number is probably pretty average for my area.

So I end up at 19 - under the national average at 24. Booyah.

Kanamori's 41 in Wisconsin probably reflects the joys of non-stop driving that one has to do in the midwest. I originally come from Michigan and there is a lot of driving, and a lot of eating that goes on. Plus the heating. I'm sure I use a lot fewer resources in DC than I did in Michigan.

A few years ago I explained this concept to a couple of girls doing "development" studies. I think I depressed them by pointing out that it was impossible to bring all the Third Worlders up to US/European consumption levels if you were looking at this kind of accounting.

One of the reasons why China industrializing is a big problem.


Oh, bonus. Here's (http://redefiningprogress.org/programs/sustainabilityindicators/ef/methods/calculating.html) a link to the Methodology page on their website.