Skip Navigation

Ecological Footprints

Travel Forums Off Topic Ecological Footprints

Page

Last Post

11. Posted by james (Travel Guru 4136 posts) 10y

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 2.8

MOBILITY 0.9

SHELTER 0.7

GOODS/SERVICES 1.6

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6

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

I think mine is lower than what I thought due to the fact that I use public transport on a daily basis, and my car not so much.

12. Posted by Hien (Moderator 3906 posts) 10y

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 1.1
MOBILITY 1.5
SHELTER 1.5
GOODS/SERVICES 4.8

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8.9

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 3.2 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.9 PLANETS.

[ Edit: Edited at Apr 23, 2006 1:28 AM by Hien ]

13. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 10y

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 2.6
MOBILITY 5.1
SHELTER 0.7
GOODS/SERVICES 4.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 12.9

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 7.2 PLANETS.

This thing is messed up. There was only one question pertaining to 'goods/services' (the waste one) and I ticked much less and still I get a crappy score. So how did you guys manage to get that one down?

The mobility one I can understand - having to tick 100 hours per year of flying will do that for you. But really, I think this thing is totally out of wack. I doubt it is even possible to get it down to 1 earth. :(

And I don't see why living in a city is seen as a bad thing - the way I see it, being centralised actually helps because you don't have to drive everywhere to get things (or have them driven to you) and you have access to public transport which smaller towns don't. But oh well.

There's another calculator similar to this on the Australian Conservation Society.

I'm happy to say I scored much more favourably there - 4 planets only :)

14. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

I played around with the questions a bit to try and get it down to one planet. It certainly isn't impossible, and you don't need to live in a grass hut to do it.

Age: 21-35
City: 10,000 - 100,000
Weather: Edmonton (Canada)
Gender: Male

Animal Products: Never (Vegan)
Processed/Imported: Very Little

Waste: Much Less

People in House: 5
Size: 50-100 sq/m
type: Apartment
Electric: Yes, with conservation

Public: 25-100km
MotorCycle: 0km
Car: 0km
Bicycle/Walk: Most of the time
Flying: Never

FOOD....................0.4
MOBILITY................0.3
SHELTER.................0.5
GOODS/SERVICES..........0.6
TOTAL FOOTPRINT.........1.8

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

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.

So it is certainly possible, A lot of it has to do with eating and living locally. You can still have an apartment in the city, but having more people per dwelling helps.

Cutting out animal products, or at least reducing them helps a lot. As for getting around, I know in a lot of countries there are not very good ways to travel out of the city without a car of somekind.. you can take buses city to city.. but to actaully stop/live in rural area's i'm not sure.

15. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Peter I looked on that Australian one and it looks good too. I read the explanation for the "red meat" section. Here is what it has to say:

"Animal products make up the biggest part of your eco footprint - 34% to be exact. Meat, particularly beef, has a very high environmental impact, using much water and land to produce it, and creating significant greenhouse pollution. In fact if you reduce your intake by one 150g serve of red meat each week, you'll save 10,000 litres of water and 300kg of greenhouse pollution in a year."

I am thinking the one I posted used a similar equation.

16. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

So it is certainly possible, A lot of it has to do with eating and living locally. You can still have an apartment in the city, but having more people per dwelling helps........so on....

That's how most big city dwellers live in the 3rd world. I lived like that in the early part of my life before China opened up. I ate a bit more meat, but certainly had more than 5 people in the house. Which balances things more or less.

However, most people in those situations want to "get out". Interesting isn't it.

17. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Yeah that is really good point Q, that everyone really wants to have more "independance". Live on their own, or only with a couple people. Have their own place. I want my own place as well to be honest.

18. Posted by Blitz198 (Full Member 99 posts) 10y

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 4.2

MOBILITY 1.2

SHELTER 5.7

GOODS/SERVICES 6.2

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 17


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.9 PLANETS.

19. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 10y

Well, I played around a little more. The biggest difference was made when I change my flying behaviour. Of course, it doesn't help that the only option over 25 hours is 100 hours! Realistically, I probably spend about 40-50 hours flying. Anyway, all things the same and ticking 25 instead of 100 results in a footprint of 6.1. About half of what it was! I'm surprised that flying contributes to the 'goods/services' tally, but anyway.

Oh, and the only other change was that I ticked green residence this time because I figure buying 100% green electricity classifies me that way.

Food is now my biggest problem ;) but there's no way I'm giving up milk, eggs and meat on a daily basis. It's just not going to happen.

FOOD 3.1
MOBILITY 1.3
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 1.3

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6.1

Anyway, with flying more realistically around 40-50 hours, I think I would probably end up at about a 8/9.

20. Posted by james (Travel Guru 4136 posts) 10y

Quoting Peter

Well, I played around a little more. The biggest difference was made when I change my flying behaviour. Of course, it doesn't help that the only option over 25 hours is 100 hours! Realistically, I probably spend about 40-50 hours flying. Anyway, all things the same and ticking 25 instead of 100 results in a footprint of 6.1. About half of what it was! I'm surprised that flying contributes to the 'goods/services' tally, but anyway.

Oh, and the only other change was that I ticked green residence this time because I figure buying 100% green electricity classifies me that way.

Food is now my biggest problem ;) but there's no way I'm giving up milk, eggs and meat on a daily basis. It's just not going to happen.

FOOD 3.1
MOBILITY 1.3
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 1.3

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6.1

Anyway, with flying more realistically around 40-50 hours, I think I would probably end up at about a 8/9.

I was wondering why yours was almost double what mine was. It's the flying.