| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2006 01:42:30 AM |
| Object: |
Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6033407.stm
"Rising consumption of natural resources means that humans began
"eating the planet" on 9 October, a study suggests. The date
symbolised the day of the year when people's demands exceeded the
Earth's ability to supply resources and absorb the demands placed upon
it. The figures' authors said the world first "ecological debt day"
fell on 19 December 1987, but economic growth had seen it fall earlier
each year."
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
11 Oct 2006 05:44:36 AM |
|
|
In article <1160530950.322914.98700@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6033407.stm
"Rising consumption of natural resources means that humans began
"eating the planet" on 9 October, a study suggests. The date
symbolised the day of the year when people's demands exceeded the
Earth's ability to supply resources and absorb the demands placed upon
it. The figures' authors said the world first "ecological debt day"
fell on 19 December 1987, but economic growth had seen it fall earlier
each year."
Budikka
Interesting graphic. With less than one fourth the population, the US is
eating up resources almost seven times as fast as China.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
11 Oct 2006 06:07:04 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
Interesting graphic. With less than one fourth
the population, the US is eating up resources
almost seven times as fast as China.
HUH?!
The population of France is like 60 million, almost a
fifth of the United States, yet have an "eco footprint"
more than half as large as the United States.
The U.K. has about the same population as France,
and an even larger "eco footprint"!
The two combined -- France and the U.K. -- don't
match 50% of the U.S. population, but easily
exceed the U.S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
11 Oct 2006 03:11:16 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160546823.938003.298850@i3g2000cwc.
The population of France is like 60 million, almost a
fifth of the United States, yet have an "eco footprint"
more than half as large as the United States.
The U.K. has about the same population as France,
and an even larger "eco footprint"!
The two combined -- France and the U.K. -- don't
match 50% of the U.S. population, but easily
exceed the U.S.
Someone is repeating the old "Ain't-nothing-bad-about-the-USA" *****
again. The truth, as usual, is precisely the opposite:
Quote:
"USA is the country with the largest per capita footprint in the world - a
footprint of 9.57 hectares. If everyone on the planet was to live like an
average American, we would need 5 planets, or our current planet's
biocapacity could only support about 1.2 billion people."
http://www.worldcentric.org/stateworld/footprint.htm
Footprints (in global hectares per capita):
USA: 9.57
France: 5.74
UK: 4.72
Now go back to your cartoons.
*Sheesh*...!
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
11 Oct 2006 07:37:28 PM |
|
|
Mark D J. wrote:
Someone is repeating the old
"Ain't-nothing-bad-about-the-USA" *****
again. The truth, as usual, is precisely the
opposite:
Someone was going by the graph, actually.
Quote:
"USA is the country with the largest per capita footprint
in the world - a footprint of 9.57 hectares. If everyone
on the planet was to live like an average American, we
would need 5 planets, or our current planet's
biocapacity could only support about 1.2 billion people."
Okay, it's still not that big a deal. Not too long ago there
were stories making the rounds saying that if everyone
were like the British we'd need four planet earths.
Considering the difference in per capita income, roughly
33%, that's hardly surprising. And considering how
skewered the figures are, all we'd have to do is shoot
something like the top 10% in both countries to even
things out.
Don't confuse raw data with conclusions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
12 Oct 2006 05:37:27 AM |
|
|
In article <1160546823.938003.298850@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
Interesting graphic. With less than one fourth
the population, the US is eating up resources
almost seven times as fast as China.
HUH?!
The population of France is like 60 million, almost a
fifth of the United States, yet have an "eco footprint"
more than half as large as the United States.
The U.K. has about the same population as France,
and an even larger "eco footprint"!
The two combined -- France and the U.K. -- don't
match 50% of the U.S. population, but easily
exceed the U.S.
Yeah. I didn't calculate those. Europe does have to import a lot more
stuff on a per capita basis than the US.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
11 Oct 2006 07:18:51 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
johac wrote:
Interesting graphic. With less than one fourth
the population, the US is eating up resources
almost seven times as fast as China.
HUH?!
The population of France is like 60 million, almost a
fifth of the United States, yet have an "eco footprint"
more than half as large as the United States.
The U.K. has about the same population as France,
and an even larger "eco footprint"!
The two combined -- France and the U.K. -- don't
match 50% of the U.S. population, but easily
exceed the U.S.
Last time I checked mean yearly CO2 emission per individual was about
25 tonnes in the US and Australia and about 15-20 in Europe.
So you would need to put together almost the entire European Union to
match the footprint of the USA. We make fewer internal flights on the
whole, and tend to use more efficient cars, and make better use of
railways.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
11 Oct 2006 08:11:24 PM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
Last time I checked mean yearly CO2 emission per
individual was about 25 tonnes in the US and
Australia and about 15-20 in Europe.
And right now the United States spends about as much
on its military as the rest of the world combined.
There are a lot of factors here.
Some years ago it was water. That is to say, we (all us
Americans) were wasting far too much water. Anyhow,
if you did the numbers you could see that if every
American cut out 100% of their water use it would have
reduced consumption by about 30%. Industry was
using about 70% at the time.
Except for their car, the average American really isn't
all that different from your average European in energy
use.
So you would need to put together almost the entire
European Union to match the footprint of the USA.
We make fewer internal flights on the whole, and
tend to use more efficient cars, and make better use
of railways.
London & Paris kick ***** as far as public transportation
goes. About the only American city that could compare
in New York. European rail is much better than in the
United States, but the difference in flights may or may
not exist in a few years. European air service is still
evolving from the pre E.U. days of state airlines and
"International flights" from Brussels to Berlin.
In the mean time, the world could slash U.S. oil consumption
tomorrow if it wanted to. Simply agree to a "nuclear
freeze" on oil, where no nation can import more than it
is already importing. Net consumers -- like the United
States -- would have to cut waste & luxury simply to
make room for future growth, while net exporters (like
the U.K., Mexico & Venezuela) would have capacity to
spare.
Right now, if the United States cut out 4 million barrels
of oil that would simply free up another 4 million barrels
for China or India. There is no "Gain," no "Savings."
There's the exact same amount of CO2 being spewed
in the air, and the well goes dry just as quickly as it
would have. Put a freeze on oil imports though, and
every drop that the United States cuts out is another
drop that doesn't get burned... doesn't add to the CO2..
doesn't get pumped out of the ground.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
11 Oct 2006 11:17:27 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
johac wrote:
Interesting graphic. With less than one fourth
the population, the US is eating up resources
almost seven times as fast as China.
HUH?!
The population of France is like 60 million, almost a
fifth of the United States, yet have an "eco footprint"
more than half as large as the United States.
The U.K. has about the same population as France,
and an even larger "eco footprint"!
The two combined -- France and the U.K. -- don't
match 50% of the U.S. population, but easily
exceed the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4897252.stm
from back in April this year touches on Britain's heavy use of
resources.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
12 Oct 2006 12:00:34 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
JTEM wrote:
johac wrote:
Interesting graphic. With less than one fourth
the population, the US is eating up resources
almost seven times as fast as China.
HUH?!
The population of France is like 60 million, almost a
fifth of the United States, yet have an "eco footprint"
more than half as large as the United States.
The U.K. has about the same population as France,
and an even larger "eco footprint"!
The two combined -- France and the U.K. -- don't
match 50% of the U.S. population, but easily
exceed the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4897252.stm
from back in April this year touches on Britain's heavy use of
resources.
The current British lifestyle would require about three worlds, if
everyone were to live it. The currnt US one about five. Both countries
need to cut down, but at least we are making an effort right now with
wind power, more recycling etc. What is needed now is an international
treaty to tax airline fuels.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
12 Oct 2006 05:30:47 AM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
The current British lifestyle would require about
three worlds, if everyone were to live it.
I'll explain to you some of the stupidity here.
Cut more than $100 billion from the economies
of western Europe say -- say an even 100 billion
euros.
Keep in mind, the jobs go with the cash.
Anyhow, that pretty much represents the U.S.
trade deficit with western Europe.
Or when the nuts whine about the United States,
are they saying they want us to not use as much
of our own resources but we should keep buying
theirs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
12 Oct 2006 12:23:03 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
The current British lifestyle would require about
three worlds, if everyone were to live it.
I'll explain to you some of the stupidity here.
Cut more than $100 billion from the economies
of western Europe say -- say an even 100 billion
euros.
Keep in mind, the jobs go with the cash.
Anyhow, that pretty much represents the U.S.
trade deficit with western Europe.
Or when the nuts whine about the United States,
are they saying they want us to not use as much
of our own resources but we should keep buying
theirs?
We should mvoe to renewably generated electrical energy, that way, the
footprint is decreased for the same lifestlye. Both sides of the
atlantic should do that.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
12 Oct 2006 12:51:48 PM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
We should mvoe to renewably generated electrical
energy, that way, the footprint is decreased for the
same lifestlye. Both sides of the atlantic should do
that.
Without an immediate cost savings, there's no incentive.
And that's true on both sides of the Atlantic.
Unless the economics favored a move away from
fossil fuels, there would be no point in actually
switching. The oil we cut out would simply be burned
by China and India (and other developing nations),
with ZERO net savings in CO2 (not to mention
oil spills, exploitation of land & sea for fossil fuels
and all the other negatives).
We could do it, sure, but we need a freeze. If every
nation was frozen at it's current level of imports,
alternative (including renewable) fuels would have to
be found simply to keep things from collapsing.
It also completely redefines the whole 'cost' issue.
Example:
Going for a big number here, imagine a renewable
alternative to oil that costs 1000% more. Switching
to it from oil would multiply everyone's cost by
ten.
Now, take that same alternative, but instead of
replacing oil it only has to cover a 1% increase
in demand over the next year. Now prices only have
to rise, what, just under 10 percent?
Mind you, that's with a 1,000% increase in cost
for the alternative.
So you see, with a import freeze, even alternatives
which are NOT cost effective (nor even close to cost
effective) could instantly become viable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Who *Is* Eating Up Earth's Resources? |
12 Oct 2006 06:13:31 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
We should mvoe to renewably generated electrical
energy, that way, the footprint is decreased for the
same lifestlye. Both sides of the atlantic should do
that.
Without an immediate cost savings, there's no incentive.
And that's true on both sides of the Atlantic.
Unless the economics favored a move away from
fossil fuels, there would be no point in actually
switching. The oil we cut out would simply be burned
by China and India (and other developing nations),
with ZERO net savings in CO2 (not to mention
oil spills, exploitation of land & sea for fossil fuels
and all the other negatives).
We could do it, sure, but we need a freeze. If every
nation was frozen at it's current level of imports,
alternative (including renewable) fuels would have to
be found simply to keep things from collapsing.
It also completely redefines the whole 'cost' issue.
Example:
Going for a big number here, imagine a renewable
alternative to oil that costs 1000% more. Switching
to it from oil would multiply everyone's cost by
ten.
Now, take that same alternative, but instead of
replacing oil it only has to cover a 1% increase
in demand over the next year. Now prices only have
to rise, what, just under 10 percent?
Mind you, that's with a 1,000% increase in cost
for the alternative.
So you see, with a import freeze, even alternatives
which are NOT cost effective (nor even close to cost
effective) could instantly become viable.
Might work. Whatever's done needs to be done internationally though,
otherwise yeah, someone else will just burn it instead.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
