What's your ecological footprint? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2004, 06:23 PM   #1
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 01:09 PM
What's your ecological footprint?

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?
__________________

__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 06:59 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:09 PM
"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.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-25-2004, 08:16 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:09 AM
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!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 12:21 AM   #4
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:09 PM


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.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 03:21 AM   #5
fah
Blue Crack Addict
 
fah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In my house with the rest of fahs
Posts: 20,147
Local Time: 04:09 AM
My eco footprint is 43.4 %

I'm thinking this is good?

I bombed out on the public transportation (never use it - feels ashamed)
__________________
fah is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 03:56 AM   #6
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 01:09 PM
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
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 03-26-2004, 04:28 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 12:09 PM
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.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 04:41 AM   #8
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 01:09 PM
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.
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 06:10 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 01:09 PM

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
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 06:59 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Mullen-Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Antonio/Austin, TX
Posts: 4,951
Local Time: 07:09 AM
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.

__________________
Mullen-Girl is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 07:58 AM   #11
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 01:09 PM
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.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 03-26-2004, 06:21 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 05:09 AM

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.
__________________

__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com