[tkn317071]

Post the recipe. :D

right...

I don't know it because my wife made it but it was soba noodles with a thai style peanut butter garlic sauce with spinach and golden-browned, crispy tofu.

yum

[k_semler]

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 6.9

MOBILITY 5.9

SHELTER 4.7

GOODS/SERVICES 7.2

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 25



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 5.6 PLANETS.

[lowem]

5, what on earth are you people doing to use so much space?

I was wondering about that one too. 17? 20?
Or ... are they using different units?

There didn't seem to be an option not own a car, that was odd.

If you set distance travelled by car to zero, you won't be asked about the fuel efficiency part.

[lowem]

Oh I get it. You get automatically switched to either hectares or acres. I suppose it has got to do with which region you select.

Divide by 2.471 to get from acres to hectares.

So that makes :

25 -> 10.1
20 -> 8.1
17 -> 6.9

Hmm. That's still high. Wow.

You need 4 or 5 planets, dudes!

[lowem]

Is it me, or did I miss the earlier posts all of a sudden? Hmm. Another of those "ghost in the machine" episodes ...

[Terran]

only 13, its really good for someone from California.

[Barbara]

My footprint 4.8

Country is 3.8

I need 2.7 planets! Where is the other 1.7????

[Barbara]

This quiz makes me think of something.

We can use 2.something planets BECAUSE many others are using 0.2 or 0.1.

So, when they say that we are rich THANKS to poors, they're right.

[davidyson]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 1.3

MOBILITY 1

SHELTER 0.8

GOODS/SERVICES 1.4

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4.5

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 2.5 PLANETS.

[MrPC]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 3.4
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.5
GOODS/SERVICES 0.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4.4

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY (Australia) 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 2.4 PLANETS.

[Rod_Cloutier]

I scored 9.9 global hectares- A higher end score

It said we need 5.5 planets for us all to be comfortable.

Not so I'm almost bankrupt (as is our society) and we will be living on less soon!

Better yet lets go out into space and find the other 5.5 planets we require

[julianj]

I know we like this sort of thing here,

Da Da Da! Here's the Ecological Footprint Quiz.

http://www.myfootprint.org/

Find out how much of the earth's resources you are taking up!

I scored 2.1 Hectares, as opposed to the UK's average of 5.3.

I'd be smugly congratulating myself, If I still wasn't overshooting the Earth's capacity of 1.8 Hectares per person by about 20%.

You only need to know what area your dwelling covers, all the rest of the questions are straightforward.

[Jack]

Oops! I think I broke it...at least, it wouldn't give me an answer. Just a blank page.

[Muffloj]

I found that site dislikes carnivoresjavascript:emoticon(':twisted:')

[Licho]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 0.9
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 0.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.8

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 1.0 PLANETS.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Way to go Licho.

I need 4 hectacres as compared to the 8.8 my country men use. I got most of that because I eat meat everyday and its packaged. Would my score be lower if I got it from a butcher? it would still be processed though wouldn't it?

[Wildwell]

FOOD 1.3
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 0.3
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.1



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 1.2 PLANETS.

I'll have to eat more veg I think!

[johnmarkos]

I have had some profound realizations lately that deserve highlighting, IMHO.

1. As far as possible post-peak scenarios go, we should focus on society's ability to provide food, shelter, and a handful of other necessities first. JohnDenver, in his "Food and Shelter" thread, has begun a discussion of this issue.

2. The goal of agricultural technology should be to reduce the amount of land (and water) needed to support an individual human. If this reduction in agricultural footprint can be accomplished with energy inputs and the footprint of the energy production itself is lower than this reduction, then more energy reduces overshoot.

3. Energy-rich societies are better able to clean their environment and restore ecosystems like forests and rivers than energy-poor societies. Through enabling people to restore their environment, more energy again reduces overshoot.

4. Overall, whereas energy-rich societies should probably lower their total energy use, energy-poor societies could stand to raise theirs significantly. This will enable them to raise their standard of living, clean their environment, and reduce oveshoot (see points 2 and 3).

5. Energy-rich societies waste a lot of energy. SUVs, superfluous car trips, McMansions, fast food, and suburban sprawl all exemplify wasteful energy use. Developed nations could greatly reduce their energy footprint through conservation. Efficient technologies developed to reduce the footprint of energy-rich societies could also reduce the growth of energy-poor societies' footprint as they increase their energy use.

6. If we use only renewables, EROEI is meaningless. It makes much more sense to focus on energy / terrestrial area. Any technology that increases watts/hectare (or terrawatts) reduces overshoot. Polluted land, water, and air should be considered acreage lost to energy production in this equation. Carbon dioxide emissions should be included somehow, too. Therefore, we are looking for clean, renewable energy sources that increase watts/hectare.

7. For these plans to work, we need to control the world population through voluntary means like free, safe, and legal birth control and education for all women.

So how do we alleviate overshoot? Work on agricultural technologies that reduce the terrestrial area required to sustain an individual human, work on energy technologies that increase watts/hectare, and work on providing education and family planning to women. We have a lot of work to do.

I have posted this mini-rant to my blog as well as here.

[NeoPeasant]

It seems like you have an exactly wrong idea of what overshoot is. If you can support one person on one acre of zero fossil energy input farmland and you can support four people with fossil energy input farmland, you have created 3 phantom acres of farmland. Lose the fossil energy and 3 people must die.
Overshoot is a population that has grown to match the temporary phantom carrying capacity created by energy subsidies.

[johnmarkos]

It seems like you have an exactly wrong idea of what overshoot is. If you can support one person on one acre of zero fossil energy input farmland and you can support four people with fossil energy input farmland, you have created 3 phantom acres of farmland. Lose the fossil energy and 3 people must die.
Overshoot is a population that has grown to match the temporary phantom carrying capacity created by energy subsidies.

I just moved the terms of the equation. You're looking at it as

Code: Select all

F / S = P

F is available area for food production (footprint)
S is the area required to sustain an individual human
P is the population that can be sustained

I simply multiplied both sides by S, coming up with

Code: Select all

F = P * S

Also, you seem to be asserting that the energy used to reduce S must be derived from fossil sources. I don't agree.