Well, I took the test. My score came out such that I guess I will not donate as I would do more good spending more on food as to be on an ecological sounder basis.
3 questions come to mind:
1. Is there anyone else on the list whose food budget is less than $100/mo?
2. Is their diet any better than mine?
3. Is there anyone on earth who uses the the term ecological who is not insane?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
P. J. Alling wrote:
I'll bet if you took all of the various regions, (notice that they don't
show you how they differ on that map), and weight them by the number of
people living in them we already need 3 planets according to the earth
day calculator. But maybe I'm just cynical.
Cotty wrote:
On 5/7/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
As we seem to be in the mood for answering questions, try this:
http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp
------------------------------------
FOOD
1.6
MOBILITY
9.7
SHELTER
0.5
GOODS/SERVICES
5.8
TOTAL FOOTPRINT
17.6
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 9.8 PLANETS.
---------------------------------------------------
Let's go find 'em.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/39 - Release Date: 7/4/2005
