P. J. Alling wrote:
Which is an assumption that is just plain wrong.
What part of it?
mike wilson wrote:
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2005/07/05 Tue PM 02:57:13 GMT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT: another survey
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.
More likely, it's because many (80% according to the site) of the
world's population live much more modest lives in the material sense
than we do. To the point where it could be said _they_ are supporting
_us_.
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
_____________________________
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
-----------------------------------------
Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
