What's your ecological footprint?

[iacrobat]

I was reading a debate about globalisation on another thread that got me thinking about this book I read a few years ago, Our Ecological Footprint . I don't know if this has been posted here before.

If I am not mistaken it was written by 2 Canadians in BC. The methodology has become widely accepeted in environmental assessments as far as I know.

This link,

http://www.lead.org/leadnet/footprint/intro.htm

is a tool to calculate your own footprint, it's pretty nifty. It is designed for people who live in North America though, so I had bit of trouble with it, ie. I don't own a car.

My statistics:

13 acres of biological productive land to support my living habits.

"Your Eco-Footprint measures 51.5% of an average American Footprint. "
??
"Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres."

One random statistic I recall from the book is that, for example, the Netherlands would need an area of land 14 times it's size to support the average ecological footprint of a Dutch person.

Canada and America are pretty close and it said that 2 more planet Earths would be required to support the world's population if everyone lived as an American or North American (I don't recall which). If anyone has the book and would like to correct, please do.

So this brings me back to what I had read in another thread that talked about globalisation and how good/bad it is for the world.

My question is: besides making money, is globalisation about raising the standard of living around the world and making it more equitable? If so, are first world countries, assuming this methodology is accurate, prepared to reduce their consumption?

Or is globalisation just a codename for the plundering of the 3rd world by the 1st?

Any thoughts?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

"Your Eco-Footprint measures 40.5 % of an average American Footprint."

I guess being a vegetarian with a fairly small appetite, who doesn't own a car and prefers walking to using public transport kind of helped.

As for globalization: I think it's naive for anyone to believe globalization is intended to help developing countries (not that you were suggesting this). While I certainly don't believe that globalization is a "bad" thing, I do believe that it currently acts almost exclusively to the benefit of wealthy countries and in particular to their wealthiest corporations. (Indeed, globalization can be said to harm workers in 'developed' countries as it makes it easier for their jobs to be taken overseas.)

Western companies don't set up factories in developing countries out of a desire to improve the standard of living there. They do so because there are few regulations governing the conditions they employ people in or the pay they offer them, they pay less tax than they would in a 'developed' country and their operating costs are lower.

Something I've read a lot about recently is the use of loans provided to developing countries by international finance institutions. All too often the loans are required to be used for a project which brings great benefits to multinationals operating in the country, but very little benefit to the people living there. In a country where clean water is a luxury many don't have access to, wouldn't loans be better spent providing more wells or more sanitation facilities, rather than on extremely expensive road networks which the vast majority of citizens will never use? Coincidentally, the road networks are quite useful to MNCs though.

I could go on all day about this. I'll just say that to be honest, I'm inclined to agree with the idea of globalization as a "codename for the plundering of the 3rd world by the 1st." I don't think it has to be this way, globalization isn't an inherently negative phenomenon, but as it operates now it acts almost exclusively in the interests of the already rich and powerful, to the detriment of everyone else.

BTW, I think this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in FYM in a long time.

 

[anitram]

Your Eco-Footprint measures 59.1 % of an average American Footprint.

I'm a North American, but I really don't eat much meat, I don't own a car, and generally eat way less calories than the average. Jeez, I'd be huge if ate what that theoretical person ate!

 

[Angela Harlem]

is this bad?

Total Footprint per person 10.4 hectares or 25.6 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 101.5 % of an average American Footprint.

Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres.

 

[fah]

My eco footprint is 43.4 %

I'm thinking this is good?

I bombed out on the public transportation (never use it - feels ashamed)

 

[Popmartijn]

Mine is 90.7% of an average American Footprint.
Total Footprint for me is9.3 hectares or 22.9 acres.

I guess the many travelling by car (600+ km/week) did it, even though mine is fairly fuel efficient (~ 5 liter/100 km).



Marty

 

[meegannie]

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1.3 hectares or 3.2 acres
Transportation Footprint 1.3 hectares or 3.3 acres
Housing Footprint 0.3 hectares or 0.6 acres
Other Footprints 1.1 hectares or 2.6 acres

Total Footprint per person 3.9 hectares or 9.7 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 38.5 % of an average American Footprint.

Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres.

My transportation would've been lower, but I had to put 25 hours since flying to North Carolina and back is 18+ hours total.

 

[Salome]

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 2.5 hectares or 6.2 acres
Transportation Footprint 1.4 hectares or 3.4 acres
Housing Footprint 1.6 hectares or 4 acres
Other Footprints 2 hectares or 5 acres

Total Footprint per person 7.6 hectares or 18.7 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 74.2 % of an average American Footprint.

 

[DrTeeth]

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1.9 hectares or 4.8 acres
Transportation Footprint 0.7 hectares or 1.8 acres
Housing Footprint 1.4 hectares or 3.5 acres
Other Footprints 1.5 hectares or 3.7 acres

Total Footprint per person 5.6 hectares or 13.8 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 54.9 % of an average American Footprint.

Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres

 

[Mullen-Girl]

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1.7 hectares or 4.1 acres
Transportation Footprint 1.6 hectares or 3.9 acres
Housing Footprint 1.1 hectares or 2.8 acres
Other Footprints 1.6 hectares or 4 acres

Total Footprint per person 6 hectares or 14.8 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 58.7 % of an average American Footprint.

Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres.

 

[iacrobat]

I agree with you FizzingWhizzbees, I think it is naive to think that globalisation is in any way intended to help developing countries. The argument that somehow factories in the Special Economic Zones in China are improving anyone's standard of living except the shareholder's of the multinational whose products are made there. It's hardly a long term viable solution to unemployment. If China ever developes any kind of human rights standards, multinationals will be out of there in a second.

Globalisation does seem inevitable and I think it can be done in a more equitable way. But I don't think it is sustainable in the long term. The cost of a good produced in China is artificially low because costs, ie. environmental, social, etc., are not factored in cost of production.

I think a vibrant local economy is much healthier in the long term because those participating in that economy have a vested interest in seeing that people are paid a fair price for their labour and that the environment is treated well. Something produced in your own backyard should be cheaper than something produced halfway around the world. Someone in Toronto should pay less for a tomato produced 50km outside the city than a tomato from Mexico.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1.9 hectares or 4.7 acres
Transportation Footprint 2.2 hectares or 5.3 acres
Housing Footprint 2 hectares or 4.9 acres
Other Footprints 2.2 hectares or 5.5 acres

Total Footprint per person 8.3 hectares or 20.4 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 81 % of an average American Footprint.

Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres.

How much of the biosphere should be set aside for other species?
40%

(The Brundtland Commission suggested to increase the set aside area to a meager 12 %)

Your choice means the following: You maintain that every person should be able to live a satisfying life within an average of 1.3 hectares or 3.2 acres.

Hence, it requires 6.4 Earths to support each member of the present human population at your standard of living.