Ecological footprint

[MeDeFe]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 3.2 planets.

And I thought I was doing well, I guess the city screwed me over, I just picked the coldest one.

[Iliad]

Somehow, I'm not sure it is accurate. The quiz's name alone screams aging, liberal, hippie douchebag (one out of South Park there).

stop chucking the "hippie" bomb and try to accept what's happening. The food, the electricity has to be created and that costs resources. And those resources aren't infinite and we are taking more and more of them.

If the current deforestation levels continue there would be no rainforests by the year 2040 in South America.

Because everything happens on a linear scale, right? As products become more scarce, their price goes up and people stop buying, so our resources won't totally disappear and we'll adjust. That's capitalism working things out on its own, its sort of like how natural life goes on: predators hunt over hunt an area and then die off until that area can support them again.

No they don't . Are you a school dropout? Seriously your knowledge of geography and the environment appalls me.

[Neutrino]

Because everything happens on a linear scale, right? As products become more scarce, their price goes up and people stop buying, so our resources won't totally disappear and we'll adjust. That's capitalism working things out on its own, its sort of like how natural life goes on: predators hunt over hunt an area and then die off until that area can support them again.

That makes no sence. The very essence of Capitalism is to exploit all available resources, as fast as they can be exploited. This society won't be able to perform an abrupt flip into a more permanent system without more than likely collapsing.

Your predator analogy is even further from the truth than your assertion that Capitalism is infinitely adaptable and can easily become the exact opposite of what it is now. Predators do not eat their prey to extinction, then die off until the numbers of their prey replenish. This kind of system is incredibly unstable; it is in a constant state of flux. Either the predator or they prey would quickly go extinct or be replaced by a rival that values stability more.
In reality, predators kill their prey at a constant rate, so both predator and prey numbers can be maintained. Humanity is the only species who disregards stability for some kind of explosive bonfire of resources.

P.S. I got 2.3.
I thought I'd score better than that.

[Scorba]

3.8 planets for me. So if we cull the world's population by 75%, I can continue living my life in peace with few negative affects on the environment. Works for me.

[Titanic]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 4.0 planets.

Global hectares required to sustain your lifestyle
7.6

Food 4.0
Transport 0.6
Shelter 1.2
Goods/services 1.8
Total 7.6

I'm gunna be hunted down by a bus full of Guardian readers who will bury me is an environmentally friendly coffin...

[misterman10]

Somehow, I'm not sure it is accurate. The quiz's name alone screams aging, liberal, hippie douchebag (one out of South Park there).

QFT

[Harijan]

That makes no sence. The very essence of Capitalism is to exploit all available resources, as fast as they can be exploited. This society won't be able to perform an abrupt flip into a more permanent system without more than likely collapsing.

This could not be more untrue. The purpose of capitalism is not to exploit resources. While I don't disagree with the tone of your argument, your premise is inherently flawed. You must learn how to form an articulate argument before attempting to argue your point.

Capitalism, as an economic system, functions best in growth scenarios. For example, the current popular version of the capitalist economy requires economies to consume and produce more each year to keep the economy healthy. Capitalism is just an economic theory. How capitalism is implemented and performs is dependent totally on society. Blaming capitalism for the world-wide exploitation of resources is like blaming the laws of physics for the assassination of JFK.

Your predator analogy is even further from the truth than your assertion that Capitalism is infinitely adaptable and can easily become the exact opposite of what it is now.

You are correct, capitalism is not “infinitely adaptable”. However, capitalism could be adapted to a net-zero consumption economy. The general idea is that resource conservation and resource consumption both generate revenue.

Since capitalism (in simple terms) cares primarily about the continual generation of revenue it is theoretically possible to balance consumption revenue with conservation revenue and have a net-zero consumption economy. The Kyoto Protocol is based on this theory, and problems with this theory are the primary reason/excuse why some countries, including the U.S. and Australia have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.

In reality, predators kill their prey at a constant rate, so both predator and prey numbers can be maintained. Humanity is the only species who disregards stability for some kind of explosive bonfire of resources.

This is also generally true. In a balanced ecosystem the predators and prey constantly cycle. It is rarely a true constant rate, but there is a general cycle of population growth and attrition that is maintained. I take issue with your portrayal of the predator/prey relationship.

Predators are not some altruistic group of animals that think, “hmm, the antelope population has really dropped, I need to lay off killing those poor little buggers.” Predators kill whatever they can kill with the least amount of effort possible. Predators know how much energy they can afford to expend in catching food, and they spend the least amount of energy possible to get the most amount of food they can. This is why predators kill sick and young animals first. Predators do not consciously or even subconsciously try to maintain ecosystem balance, they are simply trying to survive. Attributing any more or less than this to predators is ultimately misleading and wrong.

As for the general ideas in this thread, Cawk Mongler is an absolute idiot. However, he does bring up a valid point. I have seen several ecological footprint questionnaires, and the one linked here is fairly typical. Each question does collect data that I can see as being very valid for measuring our individual resource consumption, but I do not understand how the data is being translated into the “footprint”.

Does anyone have any experience with how these footprint studies are done? I would like to see the math and the mechanics of how the answers to our questions are converted to the “footprint”.

Until such information is provided, arguing about the validity of the “footprint” survey is nothing but posturing and rhetoric. Can anyone shed light on how the footprint is calculated?

It would also be neat to have an offset section, so even though I drive a big honkin red-neck truck, what can I do to offset that. Can I plant trees? Donate to alternative energy efforts?

Results: 2.5 – but resolved to get that down to less than one.

[Harijan]

3.8 planets for me. So if we cull the world's population by 75%, I can continue living my life in peace with few negative affects on the environment. Works for me.

While selfish, I actually believe Scorba has got the right idea. The cheapest and best solution to our world-wide consumption fetish is population control. Our economies can slowly be adapted over a few generations to a zero growth population (really anything faster than that will cause economic collapse).

In reality, any environmental conservation efforts without population control are equivalent to putting a band-aid on a severed artery. Unfortunately, the world is not ready to discuss, much less implement, population control.

[sully800]

3.2

But that was a pretty poor survey for determining your environmental impact.

Do you have electricity and running water??? Yes. How wasteful you are with such resources is a much bigger concern.

[Harijan]

3.2

But that was a pretty poor survey for determining your environmental impact.

Do you have electricity and running water??? Yes. How wasteful you are with such resources is a much bigger concern.

It is an Australian survey, running water and electricity cannot be assumed.

[Gypsys Kiss]

3.2

But that was a pretty poor survey for determining your environmental impact.

Do you have electricity and running water??? Yes. How wasteful you are with such resources is a much bigger concern.

It is an Australian survey, running water and electricity cannot be assumed.

nor can intelligence

4.3 planets. can i have at least 1 with just women on, please

[cawck mongler]

Everyone on this forum but me: HEY U GUYZ GESS WUT WE FUKKEN LEARND 2DAY IN FUKKEN JUNIOR HIGH, CAPITALISM IS FUKKEN SATAN THAT IS DESTROYING EARTH AND THE HUMAN RACE IS GOING 2 B WIPED OUT

Me: But wait, no country on the planet has or has ever had a purely capitalist economy, the government has always been there to intervene and stop corporations from getting out of control.

Furthermore, people in less wealthy countries starve right now, because the wealthy countries consume so much, so when resources start getting more scarce its only going to cause more people to starve, and its going to happen gradually overtime, not the sudden doomsday where half the planet dies in a month as you're making it out to be.

Also, all of the resources basic to our survival are renewable, so it would be impossible to go past the point of no return. We also have alternatives for most if not all of our non renewable resources, such as oil, so no there wouldn't be a global catastrophe.

Everyone but me: HAHA NICE TRY U FUKKEN NAZI CAPITALIST PIG WE ALL KNOW THAT EVERYTHINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE AND THAT THERES NOTHING OTHER THEN ABSOLUTIONISM FOR EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM THE WORLD FACES

Me: Sigh...

[Harijan]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28565

CM, how is your mom doing?

[houston333]

2.5 planets

thats so sad......

[GreecePwns]

2.7

[fireedud]

4.2

[muy_thaiguy]

3.2

But that was a pretty poor survey for determining your environmental impact.

Do you have electricity and running water??? Yes. How wasteful you are with such resources is a much bigger concern.

It is an Australian survey, running water and electricity cannot be assumed.

nor can intelligence

4.3 planets. can i have at least 1 with just women on, please

Sure, but they are all Man-hating feminazis.

[Iliad]

3.2

But that was a pretty poor survey for determining your environmental impact.

Do you have electricity and running water??? Yes. How wasteful you are with such resources is a much bigger concern.

It is an Australian survey, running water and electricity cannot be assumed.

nor can intelligence

Hey!

[Stopper]

Damn, I wish I lived in a city that was so very hot as all the ones listed.

[Iliad]

Damn, I wish I lived in a city that was so very hot as all the ones listed.

Move here!

[Neutrino]

This could not be more untrue. The purpose of capitalism is not to exploit resources. While I don't disagree with the tone of your argument, your premise is inherently flawed. You must learn how to form an articulate argument before attempting to argue your point.

Capitalism, as an economic system, functions best in growth scenarios. For example, the current popular version of the capitalist economy requires economies to consume and produce more each year to keep the economy healthy. Capitalism is just an economic theory. How capitalism is implemented and performs is dependent totally on society. Blaming capitalism for the world-wide exploitation of resources is like blaming the laws of physics for the assassination of JFK.

Eh, my rather simplistic definition of Capitalism was a direct result of his rather stupid assertion that a Capitalist system can run at full power right up until the exploitation of the very last resource, upon which it will immediately perform an abrupt about-face into renewability.

But you cannot deny that Capitalism is a very efficient system for exploiting resources, whether they be human or natural. Capitalism cannot function in a renewable form because it would have to be so different from modern day Capitalism as to warrant a whole new name! Individual enterprise would be out: all resources would be controlled by the government so they could benifit as many people as possible. Competition would also be gone: it would create an unacceptable level of wastage, in a world where everything must be used to it's maximum.

I don't blame Capitalism for resource exploitation. I do, however, blame it for excessive resource exploitation. I know humanity is always going to use a large amount of resources (it would be rather stupid to think otherwise) but it is this Capitalist society that is doing more than its share of resource exploitation.

You are correct, capitalism is not “infinitely adaptable”. However, capitalism could be adapted to a net-zero consumption economy. The general idea is that resource conservation and resource consumption both generate revenue.

Since capitalism (in simple terms) cares primarily about the continual generation of revenue it is theoretically possible to balance consumption revenue with conservation revenue and have a net-zero consumption economy. The Kyoto Protocol is based on this theory, and problems with this theory are the primary reason/excuse why some countries, including the U.S. and Australia have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.

How so?
Unless a sociey uses 100% renewable reources and energy, it cannot be considered to have "net-zero consumption".
If it used 100% renewable resources, then the scenario I sketched above would have to be in effect and so Capitalism would wither.

This is also generally true. In a balanced ecosystem the predators and prey constantly cycle. It is rarely a true constant rate, but there is a general cycle of population growth and attrition that is maintained. I take issue with your portrayal of the predator/prey relationship.

Predators are not some altruistic group of animals that think, “hmm, the antelope population has really dropped, I need to lay off killing those poor little buggers.” Predators kill whatever they can kill with the least amount of effort possible. Predators know how much energy they can afford to expend in catching food, and they spend the least amount of energy possible to get the most amount of food they can. This is why predators kill sick and young animals first. Predators do not consciously or even subconsciously try to maintain ecosystem balance, they are simply trying to survive. Attributing any more or less than this to predators is ultimately misleading and wrong.

Blah, bad phrasing on my part.
Although predator and prey numbers are costantly in flux, this flux is nowhere as bad as cawck mongler's die-off and replenish model. Generally predator and prey numbers remain relitavely stable and so the predators predations do not cause the prey's numbers to crash. Yes, if some outside event causes a dip in prey numbers, predators might just provide the push to send prey off to extinction, just as if predator numbers fell inexplicably, prey suddenly would not be suffering as much predation and their numbers would skyrocket, leading them to the possibility of eating themselves to extinction.
Generally, though, predators and prey work together (unconsciously) to maintain the status quo. If this wern't true, then cawck's model would be.

It would also be neat to have an offset section, so even though I drive a big honkin red-neck truck, what can I do to offset that. Can I plant trees? Donate to alternative energy efforts?

Planting trees (in a Carbon Trading sense anyway) is entirely pointless. They won't have soaked up an appreciable amount of Carbon until they are fully grown, they'll release all that Carbon again when they die and rot and they exhale an appreciable amount of the Carbon they absorbed during they day at night.
Yes, they're good for the environment in many other ways, but for reducing the amount of CO2, tar and bituchem are much better ideas

[Harijan]

First off, its nice to have an actual conversation about this, rare find on a message board. I am very much enjoying the conversation.

How so?
Unless a sociey uses 100% renewable resources and energy, it cannot be considered to have "net-zero consumption".
If it used 100% renewable resources, then the scenario I sketched above would have to be in effect and so Capitalism would wither.

There are two ways to achieve net-zero consumption the first is to not consume, and the second is to replace whatever you take. Capitalism would function very well under the second option.

As resources become scarce, consumption becomes expensive, and alternatives to consumption become more viable. In this scenario a capitalist economy will actually favor non-consumption and consumption replacing companies because they have a competitive advantage over resource intensive alternatives.

The real problem right now is that in most industries it is still cheaper to consume than to recycle. That is changing, but it is not going to happen overnight.

For example, in 2006 more money was invested in solar and wind energy companies than in any other time in history. As these companies develop marketable technology they will continue to gain competitive advantage over fossil power sources and eventually energy will become a net zero consumption industry. The capitalist system will be unfazed by this transition. Instead of Exxon there will be Solarxon, but the economic system will remain the same.

Innovation and entrepreneurship will thrive as resources become more expensive. Anyone who can think of a way to provide anything from raw materials to finished products with a net-zero consumption processes will thrive. I just got done with a consulting gig for a company that is making wood pellets for home furnaces. Wood pellets are made from forest overgrowth or construction scrap. Pellets have a zero carbon production rating because they go straight from being alive to being fuel (no positive carbon contribution), and they burn with the same efficiency as coal with less soot. The high cost of oil has made the entire wood pellet industry take off. There is huge demand for their product because a rural home can be heated in the winter with wood pellets at about 60% of the cost of coal or heating oil.

A side effect of this transition from consumption to net-zero consumption is a whole new industry that is being called the conservation industry. Companies are paying big money to consultants and experts who can help the company cut resource consumption. A company that consumes less per unit produced has better margins. Companies are investing heavily in recycling and restoration. Mining and logging companies that were forced by the government to restore ecosystems that they exploited are now realizing that they own millions of acres of restored forest that demand top dollar on the real estate market, or can be harvested a second time.

Capitalism is based on a “survival of the fittest” mentality just like natural ecosystems. Therefore, it makes sense that the same balance you describe between predators and prey will eventually be the balance capitalism pushes us to as an economic ecosystem where we roughly contribute as much as we take because if we don’t we will drive up prices and destroy our own economy.

Planting trees (in a Carbon Trading sense anyway) is entirely pointless. They won't have soaked up an appreciable amount of Carbon until they are fully grown, they'll release all that Carbon again when they die and rot and they exhale an appreciable amount of the Carbon they absorbed during the day at night.

Interesting point, it has simply been too long since college for me to remember the details of photosynthesis and respiration. I know that a tree is mainly composed of carbon and should remove tons of carbon from the ecosystem over the course of its life. If I remember right trees are not the best pound per pound carbon eaters. I think kelp or some marine organisms hold that crown. I wonder how many acres of kelp I have to plant to rationalize driving my truck.

[unriggable]

four point four. I should stop taking public transportation.

[got tonkaed]

I guess part of the reason that i dont have a whole lot of faith in the capitalist system protecting resources indefintely is fairly intertwined between capitalist criticism by marx along with current philosophy of corporations coupled finally with a general lack of caring by the general public.

Marx argued in one of his writings...im pretty sure it was in Capital something that is fairly relavant here. Things which we might determine as simple resources, air, water, land resources all of these things were called use-values. In his era there were seen typically as things which the general public used, since industry wasnt that great yet at figure out how to use some of the general public resources, though they were fine at getting some of the industrial necesities. He argued that capitalist, being primarily concerned with profit motive, will never care as much about the use value of something in the sense that someone will be satisfied wiht the product, only they will care about its quality in so far as it is guaranteed to sell. Marx probably could not have predicted the long term applications of some of this, but to be fair he lived when he lived....

Theres a quote from the documentary the corporation that has always stuck with me. To be fair it is not favorable toward corporation (the entire doc) but there are many interesting elements. Essentially one executive argues, that someday corporations should own the rights to all of the land and resources on the earth. He argues they would use it more effciently and that as the dominant species on the planet, who better to allocate the resources than us? Well in many cases this is already being done, with rights to water and air and obviously other resources bought and being fought for daily. However the ownership in holdling the rights to these will only be concerned with teh public as long as things are selling.

Which is why im concerned. Take any topic such as global warming or environmental safeguarding and you will find heavy opposition. Right or wrong, people do not feel that they necesarily have to take drastic steps or make lifechanges in terms of safeguarding resources. Therefore, companies in the long run will not have to make these choices. I actually believe that if public sentiment stands up in enough anger (see the water riots in bolivia along with food riots in many countries) maybe there could be change. However since this seems to be unlikely as a whole, i feel the companies will contiue to purchase rights and use resources and resources rights as they see fit...which is dangerous in the long run.

[Harijan]

I do not disagree, but corporations are driven by the need to be profitable, and at some point non-consumption business models are more profitable that consumption business models. When we hit that point (like what is currently happening in the energy industry) then the industry shifts to net-zero consumption. We cannot say corporations are greedy profit whores and then ignore the logical conclusion that sooner or later profit whores will shun consumption because it is too expensive.