mroboz wrote:
>
> In case anybody is intrested, I got a nice low Ecological Footprint
> total of 4.92, well below the average for the US (and presumably
> Canada). Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robin Duchesneau
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Eco-Footprints
>
> Roger,
>
> I got 7.1 from the quiz.
>
> Although it seems like eco-footprints might also have a
> different meaning. I'd learned that an eco-footprint was
> the legacy that nature left behind at the moment of human
> intervention. For example, if you open a clearing in a
> forest for agricultural purposes, then the ecological
> footprint would be that of a forest along with all its site
> factors (e.g. high pH...). The historical account of a site
> under ecological influence.
>
> I guess, as in many cases, this is another example of a word
> having different meanings.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Pye
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 13, 2002 6:48 PM
> Subject: Eco-Footprints
>
> You might like to check this out - even if you
> don't live in Oz:
>
> http://www.global.rmit.edu.au/
>
> link on right hand side of page.
I believe New Zealand is the only country that has a higher Eco
footprint rating higher that the US (8.7). NZ is 9.2 I understand
GA
--
Garuda Biodynamics - for BD Preps, Consultations, Books & Diagrams
See our web site @ http://get.to/garuda
