What is your ecological footprint? And some good enviromental news.

[tomsnowman123]

The water that you get when you drill a well.

There's a reason why people have to dig deeper and deeper wells - it's because the water table is going down.

Which is why we all need to start to conserve water, and we need policies enacted to protect it.

 

[Mr Moron]

What in the world is with question #7?

7. Do you have electricity in your home?
No
Yes
Yes, with energy conservation and efficiency

seems kind of odd to ask on an internet quiz. Oh well.

My footprint was 9. Probably comes from that at least for the time being i'm somewhat home bound and don't go further from the home than I can go on foot.

EDIT: Gets bumped up to 10 when i put my normal transportation and not just what it's been for the past few/next few months.

 

[Urederra]

Which is why we all need to start to conserve water, and we need policies enacted to protect it.

Or research cheap ways of purifying it. like osmotic membranes or something.

Anyway, wasting water is not a good idea.

 

[croxis]

Category Acres
Food 3.5
Mobility 0.2
Shelter 6.9
Goods/services 4.9
Total Footprint 16



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 3.5 Planets.

 

[Aramazd]

What in the world is with question #7?

7. Do you have electricity in your home?
No
Yes
Yes, with energy conservation and efficiency

seems kind of odd to ask on an internet quiz. Oh well.

Maybe some people take this test at the library or their friends house or you have a laptop and are taking the test during a blackout.

 

[Till]

Category Global Hectares
Food 1.1
Mobility 0.4
Shelter 5.5
Goods/services 4.7
Total Footprint 11.7


The house and the fact that i am currently without a housemate scored me some bad boy points.

 

[BasketCase]

Well, we cannot morally reduce the number of people: so, you're left with option of reduces other people's footprints or your own. Or some clever combination thereof.

Then the number of people will be reduced immorally.

Eliminate every disease, put a stop to every war. But there's only a finite amount of food we can produce--so, eventually, X number of people will starve to death, and that's simply the way it's going to be.

Lots of developing nations call enforced birth control immoral--mostly because reduced population reduces their economic strength, and therefore reduces their slice of highly coveted world influence. They're going to have to get over it; overpopulation is the main source of most of the world's problems.

 

[lost_civantares]

Well, nobody should be able to own part of the planet either. To say that people have ownership over the land we have to live on is wrong, imo. Secondly, privte property inherently restricts freedom, by the simple fact that much of this planet is now off limits to me.

Why can't I have the freedom to have my piece of property? How would it be wrong? Who determined it to be that way?

The point where we take out of ourselves, prevent people from having the right to do what they want to what they sweated and worked for for years, and trust it to a fallible government (Would you trust Bush with the environment? How do you know that not enough of your fellow citizens are going to "moronic" enough to elect someone with the same values about the environment as Bush? What happens then? You can never trust the government fully, anything and anyone can change in 10 years).

It is our responsiblity to take care of the environment for future generations yes, but the point where we must give up everything (which is where you are going with this if you carry it out fully) to do so doesn't make sense since it will do no good for anyone.

I hear this every where but it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, but curious.

Edit: I also didn't fully realize for some reason that I was quoting something from so far back , but I have questions.

For those curious I recieved a 9, I can't really help the fact that I live in the middle of no where, and so there is absolutely no public transportation.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Why can't I have the freedom to have my piece of property? How would it be wrong? Who determined it to be that way?

I could also ask who determined that we have the right to own the land. If I'm not mistaken, many Native Americans did not believe that the land could be owned.

The point where we take out of ourselves, prevent people from having the right to do what they want to what they sweated and worked for for years, and trust it to a fallible government (Would you trust Bush with the environment? How do you know that not enough of your fellow citizens are going to "moronic" enough to elect someone with the same values about the environment as Bush? What happens then? You can never trust the government fully, anything and anyone can change in 10 years).

I would not trust the enviroment to Bush. As for the government, let's get rid of the whole thing. I want to get rid of establishments that restrict human freedom, private proerty is one of those, like the government.

It is our responsiblity to take care of the environment for future generations yes, but the point where we must give up everything (which is where you are going with this if you carry it out fully) to do so doesn't make sense since it will do no good for anyone.

People feel like they have the right to do things on their property that are harmful to the enviroment. And again, I believe it restricts freedom. It's not a matter of giving up anything to me, as giving up private property is increasing freedom.

I hear this every where but it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, but curious.

Curiosity is a good thing.

Edit: I also didn't fully realize for some reason that I was quoting something from so far back , but I have questions.

That's ok, it's an important topic warranting discussion. Fire away.

For those curious I recieved a 9, I can't really help the fact that I live in the middle of no where, and so there is absolutely no public transportation.

Well, it's better than many.

 

[BasketCase]

I want to get rid of establishments that restrict human freedom, private proerty is one of those, like the government.

Before we had government, private property still existed--it was simply taken by force of arms instead of force of law. Whether with guns, or with spears, or with teeth and claws, really isn't important.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's merely a way of collectively defending private property. Canadians, as a whole, defend Canada - and then we quibble for our specific part.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Before we had government, private property still existed--it was simply taken by force of arms instead of force of law. Whether with guns, or with spears, or with teeth and claws, really isn't important.

Except for some of the hunter-gatherer groups, since they were on the move a lot.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.4
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 8.2
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 4.9 PLANETS.

Most people in the world don't live like me though, so its not a big deal.