NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Pretty straight foreward, What's your footprint?;)

EDIT: mines 13 :(

I got 15. AKA, 3.4 planets... wow, I'm a bastard.

I need like six earths. Cool.

3.4

Im A Monster We Need 1.9 Earths To Support Me!!!

Category Acres

Food 5.7

Mobility 2.5

Shelter 3.2

Goods/services 4

Total Footprint 15


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 3.4 Planets.

~15 acres
~3.2 planets

I am a capitalist pig., I guess...

Am I the only guy here who needs six planets to support him?

EDIT: 6.7 to be exact. I'm a very good consumer.

I got 15. AKA, 3.4 planets... wow, I'm a bastard.

Feh, you're a piker compared to me:

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 5.9

MOBILITY 0.5

SHELTER 12.8

GOODS/SERVICES 12.1

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 31

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON. IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 7.1 PLANETS.

Category Global Hectares

Food 1.3

Mobility 0.2

Shelter 0.7

Goods/services 0.7

Total Footprint 2.9



In Comparison, The Average Ecological Footprint In Your Country Is 5.3 Global Hectares Per Person.

Worldwide, There Exist 1.8 Biologically Productive Global Hectares Per Person.




If Everyone Lived Like You, We Would Need 1.6 Planets.

Am I the only guy here who needs six planets to support him?

Wait till LG takes it, he'll probably deplete the earth of pies within the next decade.

mines 13 :(
I got 15
I need like six earths. Cool.

:eek: Holy crap!

Mine is 3.7 and I felt terrible when I saw that - and then I saw your results. :eek: :eek:

My country's (Germany) average is 4.7, and if everyone would live as wasteful as I do, we'd need 2.1 earths.


How much does it say is the US average?

:eek: Holy crap!

Mine is 3.7 and I felt terrible when I saw that - and then I saw your results. :eek: :eek:

My country's (Germany) average is 4.7, and if everyone would live as wasteful as I do, we'd need 2.1 earths.


How much does it say is the US average?

24:(

:eek: Holy crap!

Mine is 3.7 and I felt terrible when I saw that - and then I saw your results. :eek: :eek:

My country's (Germany) average is 4.7, and if everyone would live as wasteful as I do, we'd need 2.1 earths.


How much does it say is the US average?

24 acres.

I got 2.6 planets.

The minimalist middle-aged male would live on 2 acres.

"CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 1.7
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.5
GOODS/SERVICES 0.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2"


"If everyone lived like you, we would need 1.0 planets"

Live with no water; no electricity; no car, motorbike, or bus; with 7+ people in a 500 SF household? I really am glad that isn't me...

In Comparison, The Average Ecological Footprint In Your Country Is 24 Acres Per Person.
Wow. 24 acres for the US?!!! Holy shit.

Wow. 24 acres for the US?!!! Holy shit.

Happy to share my 12.8 acres of shelter with you any time ... ;)

What we should do is reduce the population to about 1 billion. That way there would be enough for everyone to live at least as comfortably as me.

Category Global Hectares
Food 1.7
Mobility 0.8
Shelter 1
Goods/services 1.4
Total Footprint 4.9



In Comparison, The Average Ecological Footprint In Your Country Is 4.8 Global Hectares Per Person.

Worldwide, There Exist 1.8 Biologically Productive Global Hectares Per Person.



If Everyone Lived Like You, We Would Need 2.7 Planets.

The minimalist middle-aged male would live on 2 acres.

"CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 1.7
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.5
GOODS/SERVICES 0.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2"


"If everyone lived like you, we would need 1.0 planets"

Live with no water; no electricity; no car, motorbike, or bus; with 7+ people in a 500 SF household? I really am glad that isn't me...

If thou hast no electricity, how the FUCK are you on the intarweb? Magic? ESP?

Total Footprint: 23
Planets needed: 5.1

Well, I'm slightly below the US average. I'll definitely be lower once I'm at Ohio State since I'll be walking everywhere and my dorm is pretty small.

My country's (Germany) average is 4.7,

isn't that in hectares?
1 international acre is equal to the following metric units: o.40468564224 hectares
so the american footprint would be 6 hectares or something

I get 6.4 planets. Now, where's the quiz that informs me why I should care? Not everyone consumes like I do - in fact, the majority in poorer countries don't. Why should I care?

FOOD 2.2

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 6.9

GOODS/SERVICES 4.9

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14



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 3.2 PLANETS.

http://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_full.gifhttp://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_full.gifhttp://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_full.gifhttp://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_half.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and the sad part is that I conserve as much as I can. Well I could have a more fuel efficiant car but that wont be until I can afford one.

I conserve electricity and recycle as much as possible. I wish they billed us for trash by the pound because I would have an almost non-existant bill.

I conserve energy on A/C quite a bit, especially by Las Vegas 120 degree weather standards, and suffer with warm temps in the house.

I am a vegetarian and though I said I occasionally eat dairy, it's because I buy bread and they use eggs in it. I mostly drink soy milk and use egg replacer when baking.

*shrug*

Total Footprint: 23
Planets needed: 5.1

Well, I'm slightly below the US average. I'll definitely be lower once I'm at Ohio State since I'll be walking everywhere and my dorm is pretty small.

Get that score up or Osama wins. :rolleyes:

I think this is still true, that if everyone on Earth got one square yard, we could all stand on the Island of Zanzibar.

What we should do is reduce the population to about 1 billion. That way there would be enough for everyone to live at least as comfortably as me.

Hell, it would just be easier to expand in to space. Then we'd have access to nearly infinite resources and energy, which would enable us to grow economically and in population terms for a long time.

One thing most people seem to forget is that a US acre is 0.4 hactares, and thet there are 2.5 acres in a hectare. A European *scoring* 4 hectares is doing just as good as an American getting up to 10 acres

Hell, it would just be easier to expand in to space. Then we'd have access to nearly infinite resources and energy, which would enable us to grow economically and in population terms for a long time.

Yep. Infinite expansion = infinite resources. We need to recognise that sooner rather than later, though I do agree with DCD's statement. Earth is never going to be universally rich, and if it were, the definition of "rich" would have to be considerably lower, because there isn't enough to go around at the level I want to live at.

They'd need 5.7 planets to support me.

Yep. Infinite expansion = infinite resources. We need to recognise that sooner rather than later, though I do agree with DCD's statement. Earth is never going to be universally rich, and if it were, the definition of "rich" would have to be considerably lower, because there isn't enough to go around at the level I want to live at.

Population growth slows as people get richer; however, there aren't enough resources for us to do this on Earth so we're going to have to expand in to space for raw materials. Those raw materials enable everyone to become wealthy, and eventually population growth slows to near-replacement. Space is the key to solving these problems, because the Earth sure as hell can't do it alone.

Eventually, once other planets are colonized birthrates will soar again as the demands of colonization require larger families; the Earth's population will probably remain at a steady level for a long time, and might decline as people leave for new places.

Woohoo! I rated six planets!

isn't that in hectares?
1 international acre is equal to the following metric units: o.40468564224 hectares
so the american footprint would be 6 hectares or something
Oh! You're right, it's in different measurements! But it's even a bit more complicated, I think:


For the US, it's "acres" and it saysWorldwide, There Exist 4.5 Biologically Productive Acres Per Person.
Okay.

But:

For Germany it's "global hectares" and it says "Worldwide, There Exist 2.2 Biologically Productive Global Hectares Per Person.

For England, it is also "global hectares" but it says:

Worldwide, There Exist 1.8 Biologically Productive Global Hectares Per Person.

:confused:

Someone else figure that out, I'm confused...

The quiz is faulty. Even when I answered with the most favorably green responses, I still ended up needed 1.1 planets.

Woohoo! I rated six planets!

I'm trying to build up my score; my goal is to break the six barrier by the time I've graduated college.

I wonder if it's a bad thing to celebrate having a huge ecological footprint? :p

Wait till LG takes it, he'll probably deplete the earth of pies within the next decade.

year. :)

16 for me. 3.6 earths. :p

What? I don't get my 7.1 planets? What a rip-off!

The quiz is faulty. Even when I answered with the most favorably green responses, I still ended up needed 1.1 planets.

nope I tried and got:

FOOD 1.7

MOBILITY 0

SHELTER 0.7

GOODS/SERVICES 0.5

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3



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 1.0 PLANETS.

The quiz is faulty. Even when I answered with the most favorably green responses, I still ended up needed 1.1 planets.

I agree. I compost and stuff like that which helps out a lot and I garden and stuff, but even with those answers, I still ended up with a higher score. It needs to look at more stuff, I think than these vaguer questions. Or questions that you don't know the answer to: I don't know the size of my house, and I'm not taking the time to get out the survey and deed stuff to look.

What? I don't get my 7.1 planets? What a rip-off!
7.1? I'm impressed.

17 acres, 3.9 planets. I question the neutrality of this quiz.

I'm trying to build up my score; my goal is to break the six barrier by the time I've graduated college.

I wonder if it's a bad thing to celebrate having a huge ecological footprint? :p

The quiz never asked about how many cars I owned, nor how warm/cool I kept the house, nor about the boat or the tractor. I think I could have passed 8 planets pretty easily.

The quiz is faulty. Even when I answered with the most favorably green responses, I still ended up needed 1.1 planets.

Of course, the problem is that it assumes certain resources are going to be needed for transportation and other sectors; if I drive 400 miles a week, but I do it using a plug-in hybrid that gets 100 miles per gallon (or, even better, an electric vehicle) my ecological footprint is going to be many times smaller than a person who drives 400 miles per week in a vehicle that gets 50 miles per gallon.

Actually, if we remove fossil energy and several metals from the ecological footprint calculation, the number of earths necessary will drop dramatically. You just don't need as many raw materials if you have an economy based upon renewable energy, electric vehicles, bioproducts, and carbon (not CO2, carbon as in nanotubes or polymers).

7.1? I'm impressed.

I know. :D But I swear, I don't live on 12.8 acres, I mean, the house is only 1800 square feet, on maybe 1/4 acre lot, and was built 110 years ago, so ... Wish I had 12 acres, I could buy a riding mower!

Of course, the problem is that it assumes certain resources are going to be needed for transportation and other sectors; if I drive 400 miles a week, but I do it using a plug-in hybrid that gets 100 miles per gallon (or, even better, an electric vehicle) my ecological footprint is going to be many times smaller than a person who drives 400 miles per week in a vehicle that gets 50 miles per gallon.

Actually, if we remove fossil energy and several metals from the ecological footprint calculation, the number of earths necessary will drop dramatically. You just don't need as many raw materials if you have an economy based upon renewable energy, electric vehicles, bioproducts, and carbon (not CO2, carbon as in nanotubes or polymers).

And I accounted for that when I played the test game. I don't know how the Bhagwan got 1.0 planets, but I think we should keep trying until we find out what the real minimum score is.

[edit]
I tried again and got 2 Acres/1.0 planets. I don't know if there is a lower score possible.

Of course, the problem is that it assumes certain resources are going to be needed for transportation and other sectors; if I drive 400 miles a week, but I do it using a plug-in hybrid that gets 100 miles per gallon (or, even better, an electric vehicle) my ecological footprint is going to be many times smaller than a person who drives 400 miles per week in a vehicle that gets 50 miles per gallon.

Uh, the energy for that plug-in hybrid has to come from somewhere. Either the car extracts the energy of a power plant does. That is why plug-ins are a silly idea. You have to look at the dust to dust costs of a car to figure out its impact. A 100mpg, 4 seater could be built today, but it would cost about $200,000. You'd end up polluting more just making the super car.

I entered what I consider to be a minimalist version of my lifestyle. I still got a score of 8.

The bottom line is this:

I need a car to do my job. I don't work in the same place or places every day. Public transportation is not feasible. I drive over 400 miles a week todo my job. I'm not changing jobs to reduce my footprint. My wife and child live in a house. I'm not going to move into a multi-family complex to reduce my footprint. We're not giving up electricity. I'm not going to grow my own goddamn food. I intend to eat meat, eggs and dairy products, dammit!

I live a relatvely eco-friendly lifestyle. my car gets tremendous mileage. I recycle and I have the most energy efficient versions of most appliances as well as flourescent lighting. I would LOVE to put up solar roofing tiles. There are steps I'm willing to take in order to conserve resources. I am NOT willing to regress 100 years. Sorry, but no. :p

I know. :D But I swear, I don't live on 12.8 acres, I mean, the house is only 1800 square feet, on maybe 1/4 acre lot, and was built 110 years ago, so ... Wish I had 12 acres, I could buy a riding mower!

I have 16 acres, so nah! :p

The quiz never asked about how many cars I owned, nor how warm/cool I kept the house, nor about the boat or the tractor. I think I could have passed 8 planets pretty easily.

Well, the problem is that it assumes we "need" these things to have the same benefit. Consider fossil fuels; all three are replaceable by other technologies, and if they are the net demand for fossil fuels

In the US:

91% of residential natural gas usage is for heating and cooking and residential accounts for 22% of natural gas demand. Eliminate the need for natural gas heating and replace natural gas power with other sources, and net summer demand falls by 35%. Winter demand falls over 50%. 70% of petroleum demand is used in vehicles. Eliminate the need for fuels, and you cut oil demand by 70%. 91% of coal is used in power plants. Replace coal power plants, and coal demand falls 91%.

Once currently available technology reaches a point where it is market-viable, it will be able to cut oil demand by 70%, coal by 91%, and natural gas by at least 35-50% (I don't want to work out the data for industrial.

All fossil fuel demand in the United States has been reduced by at least 50% in this model, and the dirtiest fuel, coal, has been cut to almost nonexistence.

What we should do is reduce the population to about 1 billion. That way there would be enough for everyone to live at least as comfortably as me.
Overconsumption is the bigger problem than overpopulation.

Hell, it would just be easier to expand in to space. Then we'd have access to nearly infinite resources and energy, which would enable us to grow economically and in population terms for a long time.

Not this crap again ...

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 5.4

MOBILITY 0.5

SHELTER 3

GOODS/SERVICES 2.5

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11



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

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The test could have more questions. I don't use heat or air conditioning, for example, but I (clearly) do use electricity. Also, amount of food you eat for the food portion will make a difference. I am 4'11 and 95 lbs, I will eat less than someone who is 6'2 and 300 lbs. Also, there's the question of why you may or may not have as many people in the house. If your house is crowded because you keep popping out babies, you are, in the long run, putting more of a strain on the environment.

Overconsumption is the bigger problem than overpopulation.

From my perspective, those who comsume less than me are underconsuming.

:confused:

Someone else figure that out, I'm confused...


wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Conversions)



The quiz is faulty. Even when I answered with the most favorably green responses, I still ended up needed 1.1 planets.

of course it is faulty. you can't calculate the exact ecological footprint with only a few questions, it's just an estimate.
it's also possible to donate to an organisation trough the site, so it's probably a litle bit biased.

Uh, the energy for that plug-in hybrid has to come from somewhere. Either the car extracts the energy of a power plant does. That is why plug-ins are a silly idea. You have to look at the dust to dust costs of a car to figure out its impact. A 100mpg, 4 seater could be built today, but it would cost about $200,000. You'd end up polluting more just making the super car.

Renewables and nuclear. These sources provide gigantic amounts of energy, many times more than we consume now and more than we have consumed over the past 400 years of fossil fuels. Even better, they're virtually limitless; solar power from space is many times bigger than solar on Earth, and fast-breeder technology guarantees that supplies of nuclear fuel will not run out.

Besides, PHEVs aren't going to be on the market for another decade at least; given the growth rate of renewables and the revival of nuclear, I'd say we will have more than enough renewable and nuclear power to meet the demand in 2016 or 2020. Plus, pollution is relative. It might cost more to make these cars, but the savings from eliminating petroleum and other fossil fuels will more than outweigh the additional cost.

How amusing.

I rapidly came to the conclusion that there was something flawed with this quiz a long time ago, when my geology prof used it to attempt to prove a point in class.

I just ran a test, I answered everything exactly the same, except one time I said I was from the US, the other time I said I was from France. The US result was tripled over the France result, for no reason having to do with any of my answers. WTF is up with that?

By the way, I went with the minimal amount on every answer. The only way I was able to get it down to only needing one earth, was by pretty much tossing out every single industrial convenience. Electricity, motorized transportation of any sort, my own home, eating meat at all. Living in a 30 square meter home with 7 other people... :rolleyes:

I get 6.4 planets. Now, where's the quiz that informs me why I should care? Not everyone consumes like I do - in fact, the majority in poorer countries don't. Why should I care?

If you care about the kind of world your children and grandchildren will have to live in, and even the kind of world you are going to live in in your old age, then you should care about the fact that our consumption currently exceeds the earth's carrying capacity. Otherwise ... consume away!

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Conversions)





of course it is faulty. you can't calculate the exact ecological footprint with only a few questions, it's just an estimate.
it's also possible to donate to an organisation trough the site, so it's probably a litle bit biased.

I just now reached that same conclusion. I'd say it's a marketing tool more than anything else.

From my perspective, those who comsume less than me are underconsuming.
From the perspective of what the earth can actually support, you are overconsuming.

Not this crap again ...

It's a factual statement. Space has unlimited quantities of resources, and we will expand in to it over the next century. In the short term, solar power from space will produce gigantic quantities of energy, and the moon will be a source of abundant raw materials. In the intermediate and long term, technologies like fusion will allow even more energy than solar power, and planets and other celestial bodies in our solar system will provide more raw materials than thousands of Earths.

We will never run out of energy or resources. The price of electricity and commodities in 2010 will be less in real terms than it is today. Also, I guarantee you that the price of electricity and all minerals will be cheaper in real terms in 2020 than they are today. And, by 2030, the price of raw materials will be at their lowest real prices in the history of commodity pricing. After this point, the scarcity and price of resources will depend entirely on the growth rate of the economy.

How amusing.

I rapidly came to the conclusion that there was something flawed with this quiz a long time ago, when my geology prof used it to attempt to prove a point in class.

I just ran a test, I answered everything exactly the same, except one time I said I was from the US, the other time I said I was from France. The US result was tripled over the France result, for no reason having to do with any of my answers. WTF is up with that?

By the way, I went with the minimal amount on every answer. The only way I was able to get it down to only needing one earth, was by pretty much tossing out every single industrial convenience. Electricity, motorized transportation of any sort, my own home, eating meat at all. Living in a 30 square meter home with 7 other people... :rolleyes:

Living a primitive agrarian existence would be a hoot, huh?

If you care about the kind of world your children and grandchildren will have to live in, and even the kind of world you are going to live in in your old age, then you should care about the fact that our consumption currently exceeds the earth's carrying capacity. Otherwise ... consume away!

According to the quiz, only by living in France and going with stone age lifestyles will allow us to get to the point where we are living within our means. The quiz is flawed.

Living a primitive agrarian existence would be a hoot, huh?

Loads, espescially when little Billy comes down with pneumonia, and we discover that there's no Penecillin around to help him. My idea of a good time.

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Conversions)
Um, yeah, but why are the numbers for England and Germany different?

(If I'm being thick, don't bother)

According to the quiz, only by living in France and going with stone age lifestyles will allow us to get to the point where we are living within our means. The quiz is flawed.

It's the confounded metric system. A hectare is about .4 acres.

From the perspective of what the earth can actually support, you are overconsuming.

Then we should cull those who do not produce.

Overconsumption is the bigger problem than overpopulation.

No it's not. No it's fucking not! There is a certain standard of living that I insist on I don't care how many more people lowering it will permit to exist. I'm not living without air conditioning, an automobile and tasty food. I refuse to live like some kind of smelly hippie on a commune.

:eek: :eek:
ATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 2.7
SHELTER 9.6
GOODS/SERVICES 11.1
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 30



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 6.8 PLANETS.

It's a factual statement. Space has unlimited quantities of resources, and it is possible for us to expand in to it over the next 50-100 years. Solar power from space will produce gigantic quantities of energy, and the planets and other celestial bodies in our solar system are rich in raw materials

We will never run out of energy or resources. The price of commodities in 2010 will be less in real terms than it is today. Also, I guarantee you that the price of electricity and all minerals will be cheaper in real terms in 2020 than they are today. And, by 2030, the price of raw materials will be at their lowest real prices in the history of commodity pricing.

And do you actually expect humans to live out there? What if what we end up needing more land for crops? You could build a sort of station that provides air, balances the gravity so we weigh what we're used to, etc, but what if a generator breaks? You'd be completely dependant on these machines, remember, and machines always fail sooner or later. Usually, you can hire a repairman to fix the problem, but when that's your only source of oxygen? He's suffocating right with you. Besides, do you really think humans can live in a world where nothing is natural?

And do you actually expect humans to live out there? What if what we end up needing more land for crops? You could build a sort of station that provides air, balances the gravity so we weigh what we're used to, etc, but what if a generator breaks? You'd be completely dependant on these machines, remember, and machines always fail sooner or later. Usually, you can hire a repairman to fix the problem, but when that's your only source of oxygen? He's suffocating right with you. Besides, do you really think humans can live in a world where nothing is natural?

With redundancy and the proper preventive maintenance, space can be very safe. How about looking at either the International space station or the Russian Mir as examples of successful long-term exterrestrial living?

Loads, espescially when little Billy comes down with pneumonia, and we discover that there's no Penecillin around to help him. My idea of a good time.

Pneumonia is a virus. Penecillin is an antibiotic. It wouldn't help anyway. I see what you mean, though, however, overusing medicine will make it less effective and may make us return to being unable to do much about disease down the line.

WTF is up with that?

probably has to do with differences in lifestyle. (like the use of airco, the distances people have to travel in the USA)
and the test is way to short to accuratly test you ecological footprint.

Um, yeah, but why are the numbers for England and Germany different?
:eek: after re-reading the wiki i'm at a loss too. but i wouldn't care too much, it's probably the tests fault :(

And do you actually expect humans to live out there? What if what we end up needing more land for crops? You could build a sort of station that provides air, balances the gravity so we weigh what we're used to, etc, but what if a generator breaks? You'd be completely dependant on these machines, remember, and machines always fail sooner or later. Usually, you can hire a repairman to fix the problem, but when that's your only source of oxygen? He's suffocating right with you. Besides, do you really think humans can live in a world where nothing is natural?

Humans already live in space already for extended periods quite safely. With the added push from private investment and the flood of resource wealth from space, we're going to be expanding there very quickly and space technology is going to advance even faster than it is now.

However, I don't think we're going to live permanently in space, we're going to use it as a source of raw materials and energy while we work to terraform other planets to permanent habitability; even so, we're probably not going to need other planets to live on because our population isn't going to be putting the kind of strain on the Earth like we did when we had to rely on its resources for our economic growth.

People will live on Earth, agriculture will be grown on Earth, and raw materials will come from space. Some manufacturing will occur in space, and the moon will have permanent bases for resource and energy production. Eventually, the technology will develop and enable us expand to other terraformed planets and double our land for food production, resource extraction, energy production and habitation.

And do you actually expect humans to live out there? What if what we end up needing more land for crops? You could build a sort of station that provides air, balances the gravity so we weigh what we're used to, etc, but what if a generator breaks? You'd be completely dependant on these machines, remember, and machines always fail sooner or later. Usually, you can hire a repairman to fix the problem, but when that's your only source of oxygen? He's suffocating right with you. Besides, do you really think humans can live in a world where nothing is natural?

*glances over at the Mall of AMerica*

*turns and looks at Las Vegas*

Yes. *nod* :)

Then we should cull those who do not produce.

No, because lack of production is not the problem.

And do you actually expect humans to live out there? What if what we end up needing more land for crops? You could build a sort of station that provides air, balances the gravity so we weigh what we're used to, etc, but what if a generator breaks? You'd be completely dependant on these machines, remember, and machines always fail sooner or later. Usually, you can hire a repairman to fix the problem, but when that's your only source of oxygen? He's suffocating right with you. Besides, do you really think humans can live in a world where nothing is natural?

These places would be designed with a hundred multiple redundancy systems. They wouldn't be able to completely break under any circumstance that didn't totally obliterate the colony. What do you mean, "live in a world where nothing is natural?" Are you saying the moon or mars isn't natural? Besides, even if you refer to being seperated from that nature by metal and glass - does your question also apply to those living in inner cities? They're seperated from nature by the same materials.

probably has to do with differences in lifestyle. (like the use of airco, the distances people have to travel in the USA)
and the test is way to short to accuratly test you ecological footprint.


But the test asks questions about how far you travel, and by what means. Hell, I said I lived in a 30 sq meter apartment with seven other people, in which there is no electricity. How would that place have AC?

Pneumonia is a virus. Penecillin is an antibiotic. It wouldn't help anyway. I see what you mean, though, however, overusing medicine will make it less effective and may make us return to being unable to do much about disease down the line.

Bacterial pneumonia clicky (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/bacterial_pneumonia/article_em.htm)

No, because lack of production is not the problem.

Go live in a hut if that's your wish, but forcing me into one under the banner of "saving the next generation" is your intention, I'll politely decline and shoot you in the back as you walk away. Humans are smart and resourceful, and will not go back to the dark ages.

If we killed a few billion, we'd have more resources to go around.

If we killed a few billion, we'd have more resources to go around.

Don't forget that the entire ocean is pretty much unutilized; there's a lot of useful materials that are not accessible due to the constraints of current technology. In fact, there are about 200 years worth of coal sitting in the seabed off Norway, untapped because we can't reach it with current technology. And that's just one deposit in one sea in one part of the entire world network of oceans...imagine what's in other parts of the seabed (that oil discovery in the Gulf is another important sign that there is a lot of untapped wealth in the ocean).

Not to mention that the oceans account for about 70% of the Earth's surface area; I figure we could fit a lot more people in such a huge, untapped resource.

I'm sure that the test is quite bias and flawed....I just thought it'd be fun:)
I asked an environmental engineer about this test(i took it in school today) and he said that at present population levels, every person would have to live in conditions much like that in old Soviet block countries-1 apartment flat per family, no car, maybe a TV a fridge and heating as well as an electric stove..

Bacterial pneumonia clicky (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/bacterial_pneumonia/article_em.htm)

Ugh. I know that bugger all too well. We had an outbreak of the precursor bacterial infection in my dorm, I, as well as a load of other people spent three weeks on antibiotics. Because I'm allergic to penecillin, I was on another, more expensive antibiotic. Some people ignored their symptoms, and it developed into full fledged pneumonia.

According to the quiz, only by living in France and going with stone age lifestyles will allow us to get to the point where we are living within our means. The quiz is flawed.

The numbers may not be precise, but the point the quiz makes is accurate; the planet cannot support people living the lifestyle that many of us lead. Reducing our consumption does not require moving to France or adopting a stone age lifestyle. We actually need to harness the most advanced technologies we have (as well as using some very simple ones) in order to get our levels of consumption down to where we are living within the means of what the planet can support.

Humans already live in space already for extended periods quite safely. With the added push from private investment and the flood of resource wealth from space, we're going to be expanding there very quickly and space technology is going to advance even faster than it is now.

However, I don't think we're going to live permanently in space, we're going to use it as a source of raw materials and energy while we work to terraform other planets to permanent habitability; even so, we're probably not going to need other planets to live on because our population isn't going to be putting the kind of strain on the Earth like we did when we had to rely on its resources for our economic growth.

People will live on Earth, agriculture will be grown on Earth, and raw materials will come from space. Some manufacturing will occur in space, and the moon will have permanent bases for resource and energy production. Eventually, the technology will develop and enable us expand to other terraformed planets and double our land for food production, resource extraction, energy production and habitation.

I stand corrected.

But the test asks questions about how far you travel, and by what means. Hell, I said I lived in a 30 sq meter apartment with seven other people, in which there is no electricity. How would that place have AC?

well, the test is seriously flawed i gues, but that doesn't make your real "ecological footprint" any smaller.

These places would be designed with a hundred multiple redundancy systems. They wouldn't be able to completely break under any circumstance that didn't totally obliterate the colony. What do you mean, "live in a world where nothing is natural?" Are you saying the moon or mars isn't natural? Besides, even if you refer to being seperated from that nature by metal and glass - does your question also apply to those living in inner cities? They're seperated from nature by the same materials.

No, it is natural, but I meant the seperation with metal and glass. Those in inner cities may be seperated most of the time, but when they go outside there are pigeons, grass, and trees. Not many trees, but there are still some elements of nature.

well, the test is seriously flawed i gues, but that doesn't make your real "ecological footprint" any smaller.

Of course, but I'd like a test that is little more than a propaganda tool to make us feel bad.

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

Pretty straight foreward, What's your footprint?;)

EDIT: mines 13 :(13 what? Hectares? Acres?
According to that thing, if I ate more meat and produced about as much waste as everyone around me as opposed to less, I'd need 1.5 worlds as opposed to 2.9. Oh, and if I lived in Germany as opposed to the US :p

One of the most fun homework assignments I've ever had. :D

Go live in a hut if that's your wish, but forcing me into one under the banner of "saving the next generation" is your intention, I'll politely decline and shoot you in the back as you walk away. Humans are smart and resourceful, and will not go back to the dark ages.

I don't live in a hut ... I live in an apartment. Very comfortably. And my level of consumption is what ... half of yours? Major sacrifices are not required.

The only way humanity will go back to the dark ages is if we keep consuming like we do, and deplete the planet so badly that it is no longer able to support advanced societies. On the other hand if we adopt technologies (some advanced, some simple) that are readily available, and use are smarts and resourcefulness to adapt, we will continue to thrive as a species.


If we killed a few billion, we'd have more resources to go around.

That would only work if you killed the 20% of people that consume 80% of the planet's resources (i.e. people like you). If you killed some of the 80% that use only 20%, that would accomplish very little.

13 what? Hectares? Acres?
According to that thing, if I ate more meat and produced about as much waste as everyone around me as opposed to less, I'd need 1.5 worlds as opposed to 2.9. Oh, and if I lived in Germany as opposed to the US :p

One of the most fun homework assignments I've ever had. :D

13 acres, I'd need 2.7 earths......*resumes shopping for hybrid*

No it's not. No it's fucking not! There is a certain standard of living that I insist on I don't care how many more people lowering it will permit to exist. I'm not living without air conditioning, an automobile and tasty food. I refuse to live like some kind of smelly hippie on a commune.
When 20% of the world's population consumes 80% of the resources, it is indeed overconsumption, not overpopulation that is the problem.

It is too bad you place your petty comforts above other people's very right to exist. Or that you place your luxuries above the needs of future generations. The point of changing your lifestyle is not to allow " afew more people to exist", but rather to allow an entire species to continue to thrive.

I do not live in a commune. I live in an apartment. I eat tasty food. I live comfortably. And yet my level of consumption is significantly lower than yours. Major sacrifices are not required. A little smarts, a little technology, and a willingness to adapt are.

It's a factual statement.

No. It is a supposition or a projection based on the facts that you have available to you. But you cannot speak about the future with absolute certainty.


We will never run out of energy or resources. The price of electricity and commodities in 2010 will be less in real terms than it is today. Also, I guarantee you that the price of electricity and all minerals will be cheaper in real terms in 2020 than they are today. And, by 2030, the price of raw materials will be at their lowest real prices in the history of commodity pricing. After this point, the scarcity and price of resources will depend entirely on the growth rate of the economy.

The problem is not merely one of resource or energy constraints, but rather the undermining of the integrity a holistic ecosystem that produces the very things (air, water, etc.) that we need to survive. We can have all of the energy or iron you want, but if we do not have a planet we can live on, we are pretty much hooped.

I only got a 9.... :( (Wish it was worse.)

I can't believe people actually buy into (and care about) that type of bullshit. :rolleyes:

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 4.2

MOBILITY 0.5

SHELTER 3.7

GOODS/SERVICES 3

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11


And Im the least green bastard you will meet this week.

No. It is a supposition or a projection based on the facts that you have available to you. But you cannot speak about the future with absolute certainty.

True. Past results are not an indicator of future performance, but in many cases past trends can be extrapolated

The problem is not merely one of resource or energy constraints, but rather the undermining of the integrity a holistic ecosystem that produces the very things (air, water, etc.) that we need to survive. We can have all of the energy or iron you want, but if we do not have a planet we can live on, we are pretty much hooped.

The environment has been improving since the 1960's when the environmental movement gained power worldwide. The only real concerning point is our CO2 emissions; other than this, we are making real progress in solving ecological problems and the overall environment will improve as cleaner technologies and environmental programs in the developing world solve the problems in these areas.

Others, like water depletion, are 98% human-inflicted and 2% geologically inflicted. As a result, these problems can be solved if humanity works on the solutions. I think the economics of green technology and investment are making that a reality.

Category Acres
Food 3.2
Mobility 0.2
Shelter 2.5
Goods/services 1.7
Total Footprint 8



In Comparison, The Average Ecological Footprint In Your Country Is 24 Acres Per Person.

Worldwide, There Exist 4.5 Biologically Productive Acres Per Person.

I can't believe people actually buy into (and care about) that type of bullshit. :rolleyes:

Yeah, ecological sanity is such an outrageous concern. The future of the human species? Who gives a damn, anyway?

Of course, the problem is that it assumes certain resources are going to be needed for transportation and other sectors; if I drive 400 miles a week, but I do it using a plug-in hybrid that gets 100 miles per gallon (or, even better, an electric vehicle) my ecological footprint is going to be many times smaller than a person who drives 400 miles per week in a vehicle that gets 50 miles per gallon.

Actually, if we remove fossil energy and several metals from the ecological footprint calculation, the number of earths necessary will drop dramatically. You just don't need as many raw materials if you have an economy based upon renewable energy, electric vehicles, bioproducts, and carbon (not CO2, carbon as in nanotubes or polymers).

So electricity shouldnt count in your footprint? Cuz alot of electricity is made by burning fossil fuels...

"If everyone lived like you, we would need 1.0 planets"

Live with no water; no electricity; no car, motorbike, or bus; with 7+ people in a 500 SF household? I really am glad that isn't me...
Case in point! ^^^


Hell, it would just be easier to expand in to space. Then we'd have access to nearly infinite resources and energy, which would enable us to grow economically and in population terms for a long time.
Yup, I'm with you on that 100%. I've even started topics on this issue before. Nobody seems to care though... :\

So electricity shouldnt count in your footprint? Cuz alot of electricity is made by burning fossil fuels...

Well, it depends. I live in an area that is powered by nuclear, so my electricity comes from a comparatively clean source of power. If you live in a state like Texas or California, you can pay additional money to recieve your power from renewable sources. However, regardless of the electricity's source you're burning fewer fossil fuels in order to produce the same amount of propulsion for your vehicle; it reduces consumption overall especially when compared to conventional vehicles.

Also, plug-in electric vehicles are still about 10-15 years down the line; a more apt comparison would be a hybrid vehicle, which generates electricity from braking and so the additional power has no fossil input. Even so, given the double-digit, even exponential growth rate of renewable energy over the past decade along with the advancements in emissions technology for fossil fuels, and the recent revival of nuclear power in the US it is beyond a doubt that a much larger share of our electricity will come from renewables or similar sources with much smaller CO2 and pollutant footprints.

BP has a carbon calculator (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008204&contentId=7015209) at their website. It takes a little more digging than the typical "gimme a linky" NSG subscriber wants to do, so here it is. I notice that there is no Donate Now button in sight, nor is there any guilt associated with using several planets worth of resources. The graphics are cuter than the eco-quiz, too.

Enjoy.

Yeah, ecological sanity is such an outrageous concern. The future of the human species? Who gives a damn, anyway?
Good job of missing the point you dolt...

I'm talking about the quiz and the way they want everyone to think. (I.E. "OZMG1!!1 TA EV!LZ HUMONS!!1")

Good job of missing the point you dolt...

I'm talking about the quiz and the way they want everyone to think. (I.E. "OZMG1!!1 TA EV!LZ HUMONS!!1")

I don't think they said or implied anything about "TA EV!LZ HUMONS!!1"

More like "TA EV!LZ" of overconsumption, which are things to be concerned over.

BP has a carbon calculator (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008204&contentId=7015209) at their website. It takes a little more digging than the typical "gimme a linky" NSG subscriber wants to do, so here it is. I notice that there is no Donate Now button in sight, nor is there any guilt associated with using several planets worth of resources. The graphics are cuter than the eco-quiz, too.

My family actually produces only 12 tons of CO2 according to this calculator, which is a little more than 60% of the US average; of course, you have to factor in the fact that I'm a college student, so I don't really drive very much or take plane trips.

However, my family's house is pretty new (2001) and we have a lot of new, energy efficient appliances so our overall efficiency is a lot higher than other houses in the US. I didn't even factor in the fact that we get power from a nuclear plant; that probably would push the CO2 emissions even lower.

I also plant a couple of trees a year, so I figure I've offest about 10-20% of that.

CATEGORY: GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD: 1.4
MOBILITY: 0.1
SHELTER: 0.7
GOODS/SERVICES: 0.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT: 3.1

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 4.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.7 PLANETS.

The German version is very broken/badly translated, so I had to retake the test.
And I object that the test does not have the option of "no car". I don't have a car!

Anyway, still interesting. Now where do I get the other 0.7 planet from? (Let alone all of you guys who apparently need the whole solar system!)

Anyway, still interesting. Now where do I get the other 0.7 planet from? (Let alone all of you guys who apparently need the whole solar system!)

Ocean? If we assume that humanity only fully utilizes the land part of the Earth and that is the part used in calculating how many resources we would need for certain lifestyles (let's call it a land-Earth) then fully utilizing ocean resources would theoretically provide the equivalent of another 0.7 land-Earths, since approximately 70% of the planet is water.

So, the Earth actually has 1.7 land-Earths of resources. :confused:

So, the Earth actually has 1.7 land-Earths of resources. :confused:

It's possible they haven't factored in the yet to be discovered oil & nat. gas deposits in the oceans, and if we haven't found all the oil, whos to say we haven't found other natural resources under the oceans?

It's possible they haven't factored in the yet to be discovered oil & nat. gas deposits in the oceans, and if we haven't found all the oil, whos to say we haven't found other natural resources under the oceans?

Well, I mentioned earlier that Statoil found some 3 trillion tons of coal underneath the sea near Norway; to put that in perspective, there are about 900 billion in proven coal reserves worldwide. This is the equivalent of discovering an oil pool with at least 1.2 trillion barrels of conventional oil...it's gigantic. An,d of course, once we've found a way to get that coal out of there, we will increase our recoverable supply of coal fourfold. And, of course, the technology is getting pretty close to that point; oil wells are already pushing 2km in depth, and if you get a little deeper you will be able to produce from the entire ocean.

Now, that's just one deposit in one part of the ocean; there could easily be many more of those deposits scattered throughout the rest of the world. That 10 billion barrel find of deepwater oil in the Gulf is another sign that there's a lot of resources in the ocean. We haven't even begun to explore for natural gas there, and gas becomes a lot more common as you drill deeper...the entire ocean is effectively unexplored due to technological difficulties. And this doesn't even include the metals or other ores that exist down there; this area is a goldmine just waiting to be explored. The kind of resources down there will serve our needs well in to the future, enabling us to explore space and develop renewable technologies with comparative leisure.

That's why I predict the cost of all commodities will be cheaper in real terms by 2016-2020, and the price of commodities by 2030 will be at their lowest levels in the history of commodity pricing.

Well, it depends. I live in an area that is powered by nuclear, so my electricity comes from a comparatively clean source of power. If you live in a state like Texas or California, you can pay additional money to recieve your power from renewable sources. However, regardless of the electricity's source you're burning fewer fossil fuels in order to produce the same amount of propulsion for your vehicle; it reduces consumption overall especially when compared to conventional vehicles.

.

Your footprint should indeed not include electricity.

I dont know how many watt hours of electricity it takes to "fill up" a current plug in car (yes they do exist) or how far one goes but I can tell you how much CO2 an efficient (circulating fluidised bed boiler with economiser and superheater feeding two staged pressure steam turbines) coal burning poewerplant. In round numbers 700 megawatt hours (after parasitic load) produces about 750 tons of CO2 out the stack.

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 5.9

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 4.7

GOODS/SERVICES 4.4

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 15

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 3.4 PLANETS.


Better than I thought I would be...I try, but there is no public transportation in my area and most places are too far away to walk to when you have to get there at a certain time.

Your footprint should indeed not include electricity.

I dont know how many watt hours of electricity it takes to "fill up" a current plug in car (yes they do exist) or how far one goes but I can tell you how much CO2 an efficient (circulating fluidised bed boiler with economiser and superheater feeding two staged pressure steam turbines) coal burning poewerplant. In round numbers 700 megawatt hours (after parasitic load) produces about 750 tons of CO2 out the stack.

Not to mention the nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides out the stack.

Or the residual amounts of uranium that are present in coal, that also go out the stack into the air in amounts that would be illegal if it were a nuclear plant. (about eight tons a year nationwide).

And during the 48 hour ramp up,a coal or oil fired plant not a paragon of efficiency. Just looking at the monitoring data is enough to give you pause.

I dont know how many watt hours of electricity it takes to "fill up" a current plug in car (yes they do exist) or how far one goes but I can tell you how much CO2 an efficient (circulating fluidised bed boiler with economiser and superheater feeding two staged pressure steam turbines) coal burning poewerplant. In round numbers 700 megawatt hours (after parasitic load) produces about 750 tons of CO2 out the stack.

As a matter of fact, it's 0.262 kWh/mile for a 2006 converted PHEV Toyota Prius. So, if you drive it 15,000 miles per year on 100% battery power you will consume 3.93 mWh of electricity. That produces an equivalent of 4.21 tons of CO2 per year using coal.

From the EPA fuel economy website:
Toyota Prius produces 3.4 tons of CO2/ year
Honda Civic produces 5.5 tons of CO2/year
Toyota Camry produces 6.6 tons of CO2/year
Ford Explorer produces 10.8 tons of CO2/year
Chevy Suburban produces 11.5 tons of CO2/year

So, a PHEV Prius produces slightly more CO2 than a regular Prius when its electricity comes from coal, but produces significantly less CO2 than all other non-hybrid gasoline vehicles. Now, if that electricity comes from natural gas (as is the most likely case in California or other West Coast states), the PHEV Prius will only produce 2.53 tons of CO2/year. This makes it cleaner than any other vehicle on the market.

Other sources would produce little or no CO2/year from power generation; wind only produces 0.05 tons per year or a mere 113 pounds of CO2 in the case of the PHEV Prius. Nuclear produces only 1.39 tons (and that includes the production process, which is unfair because all sources have production processes); if you only factor in generation, nuclear power produces only 113 tons per yearm just like wind.

As a matter of fact, it's 0.262 kWh/mile for a 2006 converted PHEV Toyota Prius. So, if you drive it 15,000 miles per year on 100% battery power you will consume 3.93 mWh of electricity. That produces an equivalent of 4.21 tons of CO2 per year.

From the EPA fuel economy website:
Toyota Prius produces 3.4 tons of CO2/ year
Honda Civic produces 5.5 tons of CO2/year
Toyota Camry produces 6.6 tons of CO2/year
Ford Explorer produces 10.8 tons of CO2/year
Chevy Suburban produces 11.5 tons of CO2/year

So, a PHEV Prius produces slightly more CO2 than a regular Prius when its electricity comes from coal, but produces significantly less CO2 than all other non-hybrid gasoline vehicles. Now, if that electricity comes from natural gas (as is the most likely case in California or other West Coast states), the PHEV Prius will only produce 2.53 tons of CO2/year. This makes it cleaner than any other vehicle on the market.

Looks even better if you get your electricity from nuclear power.

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 5.9

MOBILITY 0.2

SHELTER 3.7

GOODS/SERVICES 3.7

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14



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 3.1 PLANETS.

Thats higher than the last time I took it, but I've gotten a car since then. Had to gues on some of the numbers to not sure on the sq ft of my dorm or the cars gas milege yet, haven't had to fill it yet and have been driveing it for a little over two weeks and have just past the three quarters mark, though I think that has more to do with how little I drive more than the efficiancy of the car, its 11 years old so I can't believe its all that efficent.

Personally I think this is just a further argument for the terraforming of Mars:cool:

A typical electric car goes about half as far on a single charge (about 150 miles) as a typical gas car goes on a tank of gas (about 300 miles). There are some new battery and engine designs that will increase this efficiency at the expense of either the speed or the pulling power of the vehicle. With current electric car technology you have to pick at best two of the three: speed, range, or strength. Given enough time and research we will probably get all three but we can't do it now so pick.

Wind and wave power are pipe dreams. I'm sorry to disapoint all you hopeful, birght-eyed youngsters who've been promised and are waiting for renewables like these but they take up too much space, generate too little to be worth their mass production, and are too unreliable. They're at best supplimental sources.

Solar shows lots of potential and you can indeed collect much more in orbit than on the ground because that pesky atmosphere of ours isn't getting in the way a few hundred miles up. The problems with solar are that the best we can do right now is about 30% and those panels cost close to 100x the 8-12% panels, we'd need a couple hundred square kilometers of panels to take care of things, and it takes about 4 lbs of fuel to get 1 lb of payload into a low orbit. Getting panels into orbit could be solved with NERVAs and NPRs so long as Greenpeace is kept distracted during the launch, but that'd take years and years to set up and build. And did I mention you'd have to figure out a way of getting the energy back down to the ground? Dropping batteries? Microwave beams? Doesn't sound very environmentally friendly, does it?

Nuclear power plants are a great source of power. The radioactive muck in older plants that greenies love to call waste in their chants is actually good fuel. Just remove the cold from the hot and you'll have new rods and pellets. Nuclear is clean, safe, reliable, and compact. All the pros without the cons.

Looks even better if you get your electricity from nuclear power.

I actually just worked it out; read the bottom paragraph to get an idea of the CO2 produced by the second largest fossil fuel, the largest nonfossil source of energy and the largest renewable. The last two (nuclear snd wind) produce a mere 113 pounds of CO2 each, or the equivalent of a whole six gallons of gasoline per year.

Cutting CO2 emissions by 95%? Using no gasoline? Sounds good to me...

Wind and wave power are pipe dreams. I'm sorry to disapoint all you hopeful, birght-eyed youngsters who've been promised and are waiting for renewables like these but they take up too much space, generate too little to be worth their mass production, and are too unreliable. They're at best supplimental sources.

Generally, the estimate is 20% for wind and about 15% for solar for a total of 35% wind and solar generation. Add in all the others, and you've got about 50% renewables; that's enough to replace coal and nuclear could fill in the rest. Overall, it would be possible to have 50% renewables; combine that with 50% nuclear (totally feasible) and you have a clean, abundant, and stable source of power that can more than meet demand while keeping pollution in check.

Nuclear power plants are a great source of power. The radioactive muck in older plants that greenies love to call waste in their chants is actually good fuel. Just remove the cold from the hot and you'll have new rods and pellets. Nuclear is clean, safe, reliable, and compact. All the pros without the cons.

Reprocessing technology has advanced considerably; eventually, we're going to be at a point where fuel can be recovered at close to 100% efficiency. That means the conventional uranium reserves are nearly limitless; add in other nuclear technologies and you've got more than enough to meet huge growth in electricity demand over the next few decades.

Transmission line technology is also advancing; currently, that's the biggest challenge facing the power industry, but it is being addressed, especially given the advances following the 2003 blackout in North America.

Re PHEV Vehicles:

Obviously, I'm making a big assumption that you could drive the Prius 15,000 miles with only electric power; the current generation of PHEVs get about 70 miles to the charge with a 25% gasoline component.

Most accurately, the PHEV Prius would produce 5.635 tons of CO2/year with coal-fired generation as the source of the charge; this means the vehicle would produce about 1.48 tons of CO2/year with nuclear or wind.

The environment has been improving since the 1960's when the environmental movement gained power worldwide. The only real concerning point is our CO2 emissions; other than this, we are making real progress in solving ecological problems and the overall environment will improve as cleaner technologies and environmental programs in the developing world solve the problems in these areas.

The only areas in which we have made progress on the environment are in the first generation environmental problems that arose in teh 1960's, namely point source air and water pollution. In all other areas, we are still headed toward ecosystem collapse.

The environmental movement has never gained power worldwide. Not even close. And we are even further from developing anything resembling an ecological society.


Others, like water depletion, are 98% human-inflicted and 2% geologically inflicted. As a result, these problems can be solved if humanity works on the solutions. I think the economics of green technology and investment are making that a reality.

Little to nothing is being done to address the problem of water depletion. North American water consumption levels remain excessively high. The technology and lifestyle changes needed to reduce that are available, but are simply not being used.

. I live in an area that is powered by nuclear, so my electricity comes from a comparatively clean source of power. The level of emissions alone does not dictate the level of ecological impact. Nuclear plants require an incredible amount of energy to set up, and to decommission. Land is required both to mine the fissionable material and to dispose of the waste afterward (both of which are often done in remote but fairly pristine areas). Don't fool yourself.

BP has a carbon calculator (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008204&contentId=7015209) at their website. It takes a little more digging than the typical "gimme a linky" NSG subscriber wants to do, so here it is. I notice that there is no Donate Now button in sight, nor is there any guilt associated with using several planets worth of resources. The graphics are cuter than the eco-quiz, too.

Enjoy.

And of course BP is a completely unbiased source as well. It's not like they are trying to sell product or anything.

And of course BP is a completely unbiased source as well. It's not like they are trying to sell product or anything.
Suit yourself. It's not like I value your opinion.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 5.8 PLANETS.

Good thing everyone can't live like me. pwnd

Suit yourself. It's not like I value your opinion.

I see that we have run out of good arguments.

The level of emissions alone does not dictate the level of ecological impact. Nuclear plants require an incredible amount of energy to set up, and to decommission. Land is required both to mine the fissionable material and to dispose of the waste afterward (both of which are often done in remote but fairly pristine areas). Don't fool yourself.

That's true. However, given that the infrastructure for uranium enrichment and power production is a lot smaller than the infrastructure necessary to produce fossil fuels, I'd say it's worth the cost to replace as much of our need for fossil fuels with nuclear.

Also, nuclear power fills a very useful role when it comes to integrating renewables in to the grid; until distributed generation technology really matures, we will need peak stabilizers to keep supply and demand balanced.
We need something that is big and fairly clean to manage demand until larger scale distributed power becomes commonplace, and nuclear is the key.

12 (they claim the average for my country is 24)
2.8 planets.

So, in order to get one planet I need to... what? Live in a cave and eat only organic free-range worms? :D

Yeah, ecological sanity is such an outrageous concern. The future of the human species? Who gives a damn, anyway?

Nobody opposes ecology or the environment. They simply go :rolleyes: at "The Earth is going to fall out of orbit tomorrow!"-type of hyperbole that appears to be so common. Of course, the equal and opposite extreme, "I can dump whatever where ever and who cares?" is just as bad, and deserves a similar response.

The problem with renewables is that when they were first being developed it was estimated that we'd be getting about 20-30% of our power from them by now. That was the prediction. A very optimistic one. The reality is 6-7%. To get the 50% would require huge breakthroughs in the technology and production/deployment of it. A more realistic outlook would be about 1/4 "renewables", 3/4 nuclear, Vetalia.

And renewables aren't as clean as you might think. They require power and materials to build and we'd need lots of units to meet demand. That means until they’re up and running they'll be made with dirty power. And because no machine is totally efficient we'd use up more power making the renewable collectors than we'd get out of most of them. Wind can only go up in windy areas and only produce power when the wind blows. Solar only works where the sun shines and shines directly. Solar works better in space because the sun is always shining and there ain't no air in space (but there's an air and space museum) but you have to get the collectors up there. Geothermal taps eventually cool off because they're being tapped and you end up with a big dead setup when that happens. Problems like this aren't as easy to solve as you may think.

The only areas in which we have made progress on the environment are in the first generation environmental problems that arose in teh 1960's, namely point source air and water pollution. In all other areas, we are still headed toward ecosystem collapse.

Progress is progress. Unraveling decades of environmental abuse takes a long time, and convincing consumers that they need to take stock of the effects their decisions have on the environment take even longer.

The environmental movement has never gained power worldwide. Not even close. And we are even further from developing anything resembling an ecological society.

It takes time; the only real way an ecological society is going to develop is if people start to feel the effects economically. For most people, the price of gas or food is the only real contact they have with the larger markets for raw materials, and so the environmental costs are hidden within the price they pay.

We've seen this trend with hybrid vehicles and biofuels; 8 years ago, when oil was $10/barrel no one really cared about fossil fuel depletion, and now that it's at $60 many of the people who couldn't care less about fossil fuels have suddenly become concerned. Unfortunately, their obsession is with "dependence on foreign oil" rather than the real threat of pollution, but if it means them sticking the Suburban in the garage and buying a Prius for work to save gas, it still helps.

Obviously, the merits of programs like carbon taxes and emissions caps are pretty clear at this point; however, in order to develop this society you will have to convince consumers and businesses that the additional costs will save them even more in the long run. The market is not myopic, but even the free market requires an inital push to make major changes a reality.

Little to nothing is being done to address the problem of water depletion. North American water consumption levels remain excessively high. The technology and lifestyle changes needed to reduce that are available, but are simply not being used.

The problem isn't consumption levels, it's that the water isn't always where the demand is. The areas with the most severe water problems

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 2.4
MOBILITY 0.4
SHELTER 1.3
GOODS/SERVICES 1.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 5.8

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

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

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.2 PLANETS.

http://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_full.gifhttp://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_full.gifhttp://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_full.gifhttp://www.earthday.org/footprint/images/globe_half.gif

Meh. I've seen better, more in-depth quizzes than this one. Why does it assume that I own a car? Not being able to answer the last two questions properly threw it off for me (got 2.6 earths, btw).

Progress is progress. Unraveling decades of environmental abuse takes a long time, and convincing consumers that they need to take stock of the effects their decisions have on the environment take even longer.



It takes time; the only real way an ecological society is going to develop is if people start to feel the effects economically. For most people, the price of gas or food is the only real contact they have with the larger markets for raw materials, and so the environmental costs are hidden within the price they pay.

We've seen this trend with hybrid vehicles and biofuels; 8 years ago, when oil was $10/barrel no one really cared about fossil fuel depletion, and now that it's at $60 many of the people who couldn't care less about fossil fuels have suddenly become concerned. Unfortunately, their obsession is with "dependence on foreign oil" rather than the real threat of pollution, but if it means them sticking the Suburban in the garage and buying a Prius for work to save gas, it still helps.

Obviously, the merits of programs like carbon taxes and emissions caps are pretty clear at this point; however, in order to develop this society you will have to convince consumers and businesses that the additional costs will save them even more in the long run. The market is not myopic, but even the free market requires an inital push to make major changes a reality.



The problem isn't consumption levels, it's that the water isn't always where the demand is. The areas with the most severe water problems

I agree with most of what you are saying. But given the first paragraph above, is the market responsive enough to address these problems before they become crises?

Ood 1.1

Mobility 10.6

Shelter 1.1

Goods/services 14

Total Footprint 26.8



In Comparison, The Average Ecological Footprint In Your Country Is 1.1 Global Hectares Per Person.

Worldwide, There Exist 1.8 Biologically Productive Global Hectares Per Person.




If Everyone Lived Like You, We Would Need 14.9 Planets.

FOOD 4.2
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 2
GOODS/SERVICES 2.1
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8.3

4.6 planets!

Hmm, I get a footprint of 3 [hectares]; if everyone lived like me, it'd take 1.7 planets to sustain us.
However, after one generation the human race would be extinct, so that works out. Alternatively, I'd just have to kill .7 of a person to even things out.

Category Acres
Food 4.9
Mobility 0.2
Shelter 3.5
Goods/services 3.5
Total Footprint 12

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 2.7 Planets.

2.7 planets for me, hmmmm? Lets start colonizing other planets to sustain my people!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

A reactor that is integrally safe by design, and instead of using only 1% of the energy in nuclear fuel, uses up to 99.5% of the energy, and the waste is limited in comparison to other reactors.

12 (they claim the average for my country is 24)
2.8 planets.

So, in order to get one planet I need to... what? Live in a cave and eat only organic free-range worms? :D

You need to live in that cave with seven other people and eat locally grown organic free-range worms. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

A reactor that is integrally safe by design, and instead of using only 1% of the energy in nuclear fuel, uses up to 99.5% of the energy, and the waste is limited in comparison to other reactors.

Excellent. Prototypes will save us all.

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 3.7
MOBILITY 2.5
SHELTER 2.5
GOODS/SERVICES 4.4
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.



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


I think what really got me, was that I drive more than 400 miles a week.

Someone take the quiz for me, I'm too lazy.

Excellent. Prototypes will save us all.

In April of 1986, two special tests were performed on the EBR-II, in which the main primary cooling pumps were shut off with the reactor at full power (62.5 megawatts, thermal). By not allowing the normal shutdown systems to interfere, the reactor power dropped to near zero within about 300 seconds. No damage to the fuel or the reactor resulted. This test demonstrated that even with a loss of all electrical power and the capability to shut down the reactor using the normal systems, the reactor will simply shut down without danger or damage. The same day, this demonstration was followed by another important test. With the reactor again at full power, flow in the secondary cooling system was stopped. This test caused the temperature to increase, since there was nowhere for the reactor heat to go. As the primary (reactor) cooling system became hotter, the fuel, sodium coolant, and structure expanded, and the reactor shut down. This test showed that an IFR type reactor will shut down using inherent features such as thermal expansion, even if the ability to remove heat from the primary cooling system is lost.

Nothing to stop you from building a larger one now, except that the program was killed by the Democrats at the time, because they said it was a "proliferation hazard" even though it is specifically designed so that it's not a proliferation hazard.

Inherently safe, Orders of magnitude more efficient. Substantial reduction in nuclear waste (it can even use depleted uranium as fuel).

Not just a prototype.

Excellent. Prototypes will save us all.
Yes, in the long run they will.

My scores:
FOOD 1
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 0.6
GOODS/SERVICES 0.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.3

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON. WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.3 PLANETS.

I live alone, too.

At least we know that Earth Day are doing their bit by having special, CapsLock-free keyboards produced to save plastic.

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.2
MOBILITY 5.4
SHELTER 8.6
GOODS/SERVICES 12.8
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 32



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 7.2 PLANETS.

I just live my life and comute 104 miles each way to work (I'll stop that this thursday).

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

Pretty straight foreward, What's your footprint?;)

EDIT: mines 13 :(

4.4
2.4 planets

Total Footprint: 2 (country average 5.3).
Everyone lived like me: 1.1 planets.

That's what happens when you're a poor vegetarian who walks everywhere and buys most of your food from the local market.

You need to live in that cave with seven other people and eat locally grown organic free-range worms. :)

Damn, that sounds exactly how a friend of mine lived during Mao's Cultural Revolution. I'm starting to see the message of this wacko group. They're certainly anti-capitalist.

Damn, that sounds exactly how a friend of mine lived during Mao's Cultural Revolution. I'm starting to see the message of this wacko group. They're certainly anti-capitalist.
Yups. Environmentalism is like a watermelon. The surface is green, but the substance of it is red.

I'm sure that the test is quite bias and flawed....I just thought it'd be fun:)
I asked an environmental engineer about this test(i took it in school today) and he said that at present population levels, every person would have to live in conditions much like that in old Soviet block countries-1 apartment flat per family, no car, maybe a TV a fridge and heating as well as an electric stove..

Also the feed back gives a clue:

BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON

Now most of the indsutrial resources, oil, coal mining etc do not occur in biological productive areas. So consumption of those are not going to affect the biologically productive areas. Only food production and housing will have a major affect on these. Now considering that the highest population densities in the world are in the advanced nations (Japan, UK, Belgium etc) who don't seem to be under too much strain we can probably safely say that shelter is definitly possible. If push comes to shove Las Vegas is a good example of using an area that is Biologically un-porductive as a place to establish shelter though getting supplies there is inefficent.

So now it is just finding enough food for the whole world at western consumtion standards. This requires a bit more thought, there is enough productive land for vegtables and grain to supply the world so that is ok but we need space for meet and dairy. If we were to accept industrial farming (battery hens example) for meat products then we should be ok but it is not the most attractive solution. As other people have pointed out the worlds surface is 70% water so we could always go about reclaiming land from the seas and oceans. Now you may be thinking fresh water may be a problem well we could extract the water from the seas and oceans with the added benefit that this would lower them a bit.

Now, all we need is to find better ways of producing power and not using finite fossil fuels, this is the lergest challenge. Nucleur power definitely helps on a large scale though I will admit the fission type is time limited though with good plant design this is quite far off. There is fussion which is attractive and just needs to be proven at indutrial scales to work (50 odd years are the current estimtes). Then you have renewables, as others have suggested puting solar panels on roofs etc.

A bit of a sarcastic ramble but I could not help myself.

As an aside, people have noted choosing different countries will affcet your rating differently. I would assume this is due the limited number of questions which would force then to make estimtes for each response depending on the mean consumption of the country the user is from. As the U.S.A has probably the highest rates of consumption in the world respondents from there are going to have their answers weighted more heavily than other countries.

Yups. Environmentalism is like a watermelon. The surface is green, but the substance of it is red.

That is one of the best one liners I have read in a long time