What's Your Ecological Footprint?

[Holden 0]

:P Oh my gosh, it's Holden!

 

Well folks, I thought I'd add my own semi-useful link to the boards...

What's Your Ecological Footprint?

We did that in Social Studies the other day, and the results were disastrous... It basically tells you how many Earths we would need if everyone lived like you. Post your results and see how doomed we are :lol:

______________________________

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 10.5 hectares (25.9 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 5.6 Planets to support global consumption.

 

BTW the number of hectares is the amount of space each person would need to survive if they lived like you, to get food, store waste, etc.

[Seiben 0]

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 7.7 hectares (18.9 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 4.8 Planets to support global consumption.

[STSF Laura 0]

So, I puzzle. I realize that the US, in general, is pretty wasteful, but why does changing ONLY that factor (from US to Europe) change the result from 5 to 3.7? That's a dramatic difference.

[Dumbass 0]

Yeah, and the questions about energy comsumption don't change the result at all. Why ask them at all?

[OHNO 0]

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 12.3 hectares (30.4 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 6.6 Planets to support global consumption.

 

I gess I best rethink how I do things around here. :lol:

[Cougar 0]

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 10 hectares (24.8 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 5.4 Planets to support global consumption.

[Nemesis 0]

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 3.2 hectares (7.9 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 1.7 Planets to support global consumption.

 

Too bad that quiz, was completely crap. They didn't even have the country I lived in so that makes my results bogus to begin with... errrrr

[Tachyon 0]

We did this last year for Grade Nine geography. :lol: In it I got different differing results . . . 9.2 hectares for one I think, 5.1 planets. I'll see if I can dig up the website, it has a pretty good test.

[Tachyon 0]

Drat! I just found the site, and indeed, it is Earthday! (Mak beat me to it . . .)

 

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

 

:lol:

[Igor 0]

This is when I put 12% for other species>

 

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 2.9 Planets to support global consumption.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is when I put 25% for other species>

 

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 3.4 Planets to support global consumption.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But they didn't ask about your caring of the enviroment outside of your home... he he

[Cougar 0]

Drat! I just found the site, and indeed, it is Earthday! (Mak beat me to it . . .)

 

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

 

:lol:

from that I got:

FOOD 2.4

MOBILITY 0.5

SHELTER 3.6

GOODS/SERVICES 5.3

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11.8

 

 

 

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.

[Holden 0]

So, I puzzle. I realize that the US, in general, is pretty wasteful, but why does changing ONLY that factor (from US to Europe) change the result from 5 to 3.7? That's a dramatic difference.

I wish I had a better memory...our teacher told us why that was, and I totally forgot. And it's odd that changing the other factors didn't change anything...hmmmm....

[koolaidman 0]

CATEGORY ACRES

 

FOOD 4.9

 

MOBILITY 0.2

 

SHELTER 4.2

 

GOODS/SERVICES 4

 

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 13

 

 

 

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

 

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

 

 

driving plays a big part in that and as i dont have my liscense and live in a relatively small town (translated= i dont get out much) i didn't think it'd be too big

 

 

 

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3 PLANETS.

Edited December 5, 2004 by koolaidman

[Igor 0]

I can't do the other ecological quiz thing 'cause my country isn't listed.

[Seiben 0]

Earth Day quiz:

 

 

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

 

FOOD 3.3

 

MOBILITY 0.4

 

SHELTER 2.7

 

GOODS/SERVICES 3.2

 

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 9.6

 

 

 

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 5.3 PLANETS

[Vex Xiang 0]

Just a little background on this quiz :P

 

This is a legitimate scientific survey, but you are getting the watered down internet 1-minute version :lol:

 

The actual quiz is extremely long and to truly take it takes lengthy research and recording of your daily activities at home.

 

This is merely an approximation. But it is pretty accurate.

[NDak 0]

CATEGORY ACRES

 

FOOD 5.9

 

MOBILITY 0.2

 

SHELTER 6.9

 

GOODS/SERVICES 6.4

 

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 19

 

 

::snickers::

[Grom 0]

Just a little background on this quiz :)

 

This is a legitimate scientific survey, but you are getting the watered down internet 1-minute version :lol:

 

The actual quiz is extremely long and to truly take it takes lengthy research and recording of your daily activities at home.

 

This is merely an approximation. But it is pretty accurate.

Well THIS particular quiz is fundamentally flawed and I am alarmed that a social studies teacher would consider this a legitimate teaching tool. :P

 

I tried answering all the questions "ecologically friendly" and the only way there is only one way that you can get below "If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 1 Planets to support global consumption" is by answering "0%" on the question of how much of the productive area should be left for other species. Furthermore, you cannot get below "1 planet" for the USA.

 

I think it would've been more effective for them to come out and say, "This is our platform: we believe that you should live your life this way...."

 

 

Edit: Just took the "Earthday quiz," almost exactly the same.

[NDak 0]

No Grom...

 

They want us to live in a little organic hut and eat only grubs and maybe some soy beans :lol:

[Grom 0]

No Grom...

 

They want us to live in a little organic hut and eat only grubs and maybe some soy beans :lol:

No trees were hurt in the making of this hut... :P

[Nemesis 0]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

 

FOOD 2.8

 

MOBILITY 0.1

 

SHELTER 1.1

 

GOODS/SERVICES 1.2

 

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 5.2

 

 

 

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.

 

I get it, we have to stop trying to help the poor people in underdeveloped countries, because if they get to where we are, the world will run out of resources. Thank you for helping us out there by bringing this quiz :lol:

 

 

 

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.9 PLANETS.

Edited December 6, 2004 by Nemesis

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Well, Grom's remarks are true. According to this site, in order to be "ecofriendly" you must:

• Live in Europe
  
• Drive only a motorbike.
  
• Go on vacations only near your home.
  
• Live in an apartment.
  
• Share that apartment with more than three to six people.
  
• Do not use your AC in the Summer or heat in the Winter.
  
• Only buy renewable electric.
  
• Unplug everything in your house/home when not in use.
  
• Do not eat meat.
  
• Do not consume dairy products.
  
• Eat only fresh, locally grown foods.
  
• Product nothing above an average (what that is who knows) amount of household waste.
  
• Most of your household waste must be recycled.
  
• Believe the entire planet should be used for production by humans.
  

As a teacher, I am appalled someone would present a site with such inconsistencies it isn't even funny. Furthermore, the site itself should contain a clear disclaimer...not even counting the fact I have serious questions about the "science" used to product the raw data.

Edited December 6, 2004 by FredM

[Vex Xiang 0]

Fact is, at our current population level...our humble little planet could only support everyone at a bread and water level (supposing all are equal).

 

The 0% for 1 planet is not unrealistic...its simply emphasizing that our planets self-renewing resources cannot support a human population of our size.

 

Do a little more research into this topic, you'll find some interesting information. Humans are dangerously overpopulated, and growing exponentially. Do some searches on species growth curves and environmental reproduction limitations. You'll find that we humans are reproducing at a rate similar to one self-destructive animal: the locust.

 

And anyone interested in agriculture should know what the life cycle of a locust is like :lol:

 

PS: Really do some research more than a simple google search...I have a step ahead since I've been studying this kind of thing for about a year, but otherwise I suggest keeping the assumptive critiques of a scientific study (which you are basing on by looking at a brief Internet quiz that "emulates" the actual study) to a minimum, hehe. Don't expect a 2 minute quiz to accurately represent the complexities of environmental sustainability. And if you scoff and say that there is no basis for living at such a basic level for our entire population, tell that to the Rapa Nui :P

Edited December 6, 2004 by Vex Xiang

[Grom 0]

Do a little more research into this topic, you'll find some interesting information. Humans are dangerously overpopulated, and growing exponentially. Do some searches on species growth curves and environmental reproduction limitations. You'll find that we humans are reproducing at a rate similar to one self-destructive animal: the locust.

 

The biggest problem that I have with this type of "science" is that it starts with a predetermined conclusion. When one starts with a predetermined conclusion, it's easier to slant "scientific proof" towards that conclusion. Granted, there is very little "objective science" out there, but I am very wary of the conclusions drawn by environmentalists/ecologists because of the fact that one must carefully distill reality from the platform.

 

 

My two pents... :lol:

[Grom 0]

As a teacher, I am appalled someone would present a site with such inconsistencies it isn't even funny. Furthermore, the site itself should contain a clear disclaimer...not even counting the fact I have serious questions about the "science" used to product the raw data.

What I'm wondering is...

 

Did the teacher discuss alternate viewpoints, or was this merely her personal views shielded under increasingly less credible term of "science?" Maybe Holden can answer this for us.