Footprint - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #16 10-02-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

A hectare is 10,000 square meters, or 2.47 meters.

Not sure of the origin of acre but I believe a section (one square mile) is 625 acres, so 25 acres on the edge of a square mile. Sounds about right since an acre is a square roughly 208 feet long on each side. 208 x 25 = 5200.

I had a hard time getting the button to chose country to work but eventually pressed "English." I got hectares.

Closer still.

A township = 36 square miles (or sections), a square mile = 1 section = 640 acres. Thus, an acre is about 43k ft^2 or 209 ft on a square side. Whodafuk thought that was a good idea, I don't know.

A hectare is 100 m on a side resulting in 10,000 m^2 or about 2.5 acres.

Anybody for a BTU?

Kuan · #17 10-02-2006, 04:02 PM

20 acres for me. We gotta be more productive per acre that's all. Squeeze more chickens into that henhouse Foghorn!

Botnst · #18 10-02-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

20 acres for me. We gotta be more productive per acre that's all. Squeeze more chickens into that henhouse Foghorn!

More fish! More chickens! More cows! More spinach!

Okay, hold the spinach.

That's the danger of industrial ag. As productivity increases the chances for large-scale problems increases. The need for invasive QA/QC increases.

B

A264172 · #19 10-02-2006, 06:51 PM

by claiming my house was electric efficient (whats that? I do use a lot of compact florescents and got rid of the fish) and loosing the running water... (I am digging up my sewer line as I write this.) I got from 20 acres down to 15, a mere 3.4 earths... and they didn't even ask about my new wood burnning stove.

P.S. If I shop at Wall Mart dosen't that give me credit by subtraction of the store's employee's ability's to exploit said acres to same degree?

Dubyagee · #20 10-02-2006, 06:59 PM

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 5.4

MOBILITY 8.4

SHELTER 4.4

GOODS/SERVICES 11.6

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 6.7 PLANETS.

Thank god, More planet for me.

300EVIL · #21 10-02-2006, 07:23 PM

It's a dumb survey.... Worthless questions = worthless answers. I live in America and I'm going to take advantage of living the way I want. I don't live like an Ethiopian because I don't live in Etheopia... Imagine that.

Whats this "Do you have running watter?", "Do you have electricity?"
HELLO! This is an Online Survey!..... Stupid.

BTW, I scored 31 acres.

Pete Geither · #22 10-02-2006, 07:28 PM

8.5 earths. I guess these people know to the last drop just how many resources this earth has.

Zeus · #23 10-02-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300EVIL

It's a dumb survey.... Worthless questions = worthless answers. I live in America and I'm going to take advantage of living the way I want. I don't live like an Ethiopian because I don't live in Etheopia... Imagine that.

Whats this "Do you have running watter?", "Do you have electricity?"
HELLO! This is an Online Survey!..... Stupid.

BTW, I scored 31 acres.

lol...I looked at your avatar while reading this reply and it sounds even better coming from Dr. Evil...

And, I basically agree.

cmac2012 · #24 10-02-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300EVIL

It's a dumb survey.... Worthless questions = worthless answers. I live in America and I'm going to take advantage of living the way I want. I don't live like an Ethiopian because I don't live in Etheopia... Imagine that.

Whats this "Do you have running watter?", "Do you have electricity?"
HELLO! This is an Online Survey!..... Stupid.

BTW, I scored 31 acres.

Well, get it while you can cuz our trade deficit is going up and up and up, in the running with our foreign indebtedness (fancy that). My pet hobby horse theory is that part, if not most, of the reason for this is that most of the world is way more efficient at living than we are, and our productivity per unit of consumption is so far out of whack that they're running circles around us.

Now try and splain to me why that is wrong.

Botnst · #25 10-02-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A264172

...
P.S. If I shop at Wall Mart dosen't that give me credit by subtraction of the store's employee's ability's to exploit said acres to same degree?

Great insight. Perfect!

Kuan · #26 10-02-2006, 10:09 PM

What can we take away from that though, useless as it is? We realize how damn lucky we are, but also how our lives are so controlled by the establishment. Granted, the physical breadth of our nation and location of growing areas require that we live a little large, but I have to ask myself: Is there true happiness to be found underneath a corporate thumb?

Botnst · #27 10-02-2006, 10:22 PM

Back when we subscribed to Mother Earth News (M.E.N.), Mrs B and I raised goats, chickens, honey bees, a large garden a huge woodlot and a neighbors pasture full of Psilocybe cubensis. Goats provided milk and yogurt (and underbrush control), chickens provided meat and eggs (and bug control), bees provided honey and pollination (and exercise when you accidentally f**ked with the bees), woodlot provided fuel (and squirrels & deer and woodcock), and Psilocybe did a fine job of eliminating the need for TV. Our footprint was probably somewhere over 5 acres--we still burned a lot of petroleum products.

Is this reasonable?

It depends on how one measures the acre-equivalency. If we use the Sahel or Siberian tundra then we were probably way ahead of the energy curve where it takes a huge amount of acres just for food production. If one used an intensively farmed region then the estimator shifts a different direction and we look like gluttons. the website uses the average, but they are skimpy on what the average comprises.

In other words, I think this website is insightful and instructive, but not definitional.

B

t walgamuth · #28 10-02-2006, 11:06 PM

i only used two earths.

i must have inadvertantly cheated.

tom w

kamil · #29 10-02-2006, 11:13 PM

Here is mine....

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 8.2
GOODS/SERVICES 7.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 24

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 5.3 PLANETS.

Botnst · #30 10-03-2006, 07:29 AM

The ocean is biologically productive but I suspect that this computation is referring strictly to arable acres. If I'm right that should cut our feet prints by 2/3.

B