=

Footprint Calculator Response

In Uncategorized on October 30, 2014 at 5:54 pm

After calculating your ecological footprint, comment on your footprint by:

(1)  Stating how many planet Earths you use, how many global hectares of Earth’s productive area are required for your global footprint, and what the breakdown is for your footprint (food, shelter, mobility, goods, and services).

(2)  Comment on how your footprint score compares to at least three other countries from three different continents.  (See:  http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/ and select three countries from the box on the lower right of the page.) How do these three countries compare in terms to the ecological footprint and biocapacity?

(3)  What do you conclude about your ecological footprint, especially as it compares to the ecological footprints for other countries?  Do you think your ecological footprint is representative of the entire U.S.?  Why or why not?

(4)  Now that you have done the ecological footprint calculation, what thoughts does it give you about your (our) lifestyle?  What questions do our scores raise in your mind?

Sign your reply with your initials followed by your class period and then “Fall 2014.”  Thus, a signature might be:  JAM 3rd Period Fall 2014.

Advertisements
  1. AC 3rd Period Fall 2014
    According to my footprint page, and if everyone in the world lived like I did, we would need 5.7 earths. Also, it would 25.3 global acres of the earth’s productive area. The most in energy land. Then the least in fishing grounds and grazing grounds. This is also equal to 26.4 tons of carbon dioxide. In the pie chart most of footprint is towards services, about 35%. With food being the second biggest slice of the pie chart.
    In Ukraine in 2010 the global hectar acres is about 2.7 while the bio capacity is a little bit under 2.5. In Vietnam the global hectar acres is about 1.6 making the ecological footprint much smaller than mine but the gap between the bio capacity and footprint is large. Before 1997 the bio capacity was a lot bigger than the footprint, but has switched around inversely. In Sweden they have an extremely good global footprint and their bio capacity is much larger than the footprint with a difference of 6 hectar acres between the bio capacity and footprint.
    According to this, I have a pretty bad footprint and all the other countries I looked at have better numbers. Mine 25.3 hectar acres is multiple times bigger than any of the other countries I looked at. I think my footprint number is pretty high but probably representative of the entire US. I think that my lifestyle is average with being in between not going to extremes to try to help the environment and not having single-handedly contributed to the ozone layer. My numbers are probably a little bit on the higher end, at least from what I’ve heard from other people in the class.
    It seems that most everyone had a number bigger than one, meaning that earth isn’t big enough to support us and our lifestyles. Although these numbers are high and it makes you think about the consequences to the environment, actually reducing these numbers would be extremely difficult. Having the general population switch over to green lifestyles would be hard to implement as it would require significant changes in the way we live our lives. It would mean giving up driving to work every day, taking shorter, colder showers and worst of all, no more delicious processed pizza. All these things sound a little bit frivolous and easily done, but asking America to give up their 1st world lifestyle would not go over well.

  2. So, we would need 5.2 Earths to provide for my lifestyle if everyone lived like I do. This is pretty surprising to me cause I imagine a lot of Americans live a very similar lifestyle to mine. I see myself as being a fairly modest consumer of goods and shelter, but I do drive my car everywhere and use lots of electricity and internet for my laptop, and I can’t live without light, so it makes sense I suppose.

    I also looked at the ecological footprint graph of China, India, USA, and Japan. They all, as I suspected, exceed the Earth’s bio capacity by a pretty large amount each. One interesting thing I noted was that prior to about 1970, China was actually under the bio capacity, and after that year their footprint began to grow exponentially.

    I guess the only wonder or question that I have about this whole issue of diminishing resources and global warming is why aren’t more people taking action? I know it’s a matter of economics, really, but maybe our world’s leaders need to take a step back and the see the world for how it really is: our home and our life source, and it’s dying due to our own negligence. Another and final question I have for everyone is would you rather have a temporary, short-term deteriorating refuge? Or a long-term, well-balanced and preserved oasis ensured to remain that way for future generations?

    -BA 7th Period Fall 2014

  3. 3.7 planet Earths would be needed if everyone in the world lived as I did. 16.6 hectares of Earth’s productive area is already in use solely for my household’s benefit, and to break that down: 53% are services, 20% is food, 9% is shelter, 7% is mobility, and 11% are goods. This was somewhat startling to me, although after hearing the results of some of my classmates I was both a bit relieved and more concerned. Based on results from the rest of the class and a general knowledge and common sense of how the rest of the U.S. operates, I’d say my results are not typical of the rest of my country. My location also provides special circumstances under which I operate my daily life. Sitka in general is a more eco-friendly compared to the rest of the U.S. considering there’s much hunting, fishing, and some gathering for our food. Commuting is done a great deal by bike and foot and the driving that is done is miniscule comparative to a majority of the U.S.
    Sweden’s Ecological Footprint has remained approximately six global hectares below their biocapacity of about eleven (thirteen in 1961). South Korea’s Eco Footprint was about one global hectare below their biocapacity until a little after 1968 when it steadily rose to be about four hectares above their biocapacity in 2010 at about 4.5 hectares. Brazil’s biocapacity with all their land area has steadily decreased over the years while their Eco Footprint appears to be very slowly increasing, but they still remain a good seven-ish hectares below their biocapacity. It’s then alarming to observe how the U.S.’s Eco Footprint has been well above its biocapacity since 1961, and though our Eco Footprint varies slightly from year to year, it’s apparent that our biocapacity is steadily decreasing.

    NMB 7th Period Fall 2014

  4. 1. I would need 5.6 earth’s thus meaning I would have 10.08 global hectares. Food takes up the most of everything, my food is 28%. Shelter is my next largest at 22%. Mobility, goods and services are all the same at about 16% each.
    2. In Afghanistan their average between people is way different than mine. They have about .6 per person as I have 10.08 hectares. For Costa Rica on the other hand is closer to me. They are around 2.5 per person. Last but not least there is Austria per person there they are at like 5 hectares per person
    3. I feel like it shows that the US doesn’t try to keep things clean for very often. We drive more than other places do also its harder to get fresh food.
    4. It makes me think that I need to at least recycle a little more and maybe drive a little less.

  5. the impact of my footprint would take 6.6 planets to provide me with enough resources. Food being the most at 40%, then services at 31%, after that is mobility with 11%, and the last two is goods, and shelter with 9%. The three I chose were Afghanistan, Albania, and Bangladesh, compared to my results they are very low with Global hectares per capita with being in the 0.5 and the highest being around 2.5. My results was around a 6.5. I honestly think my results are way to high passing up these three countries by a lot. I don’t think it’s representative for the entire U.S. there are worse people out there than me, and the things that I use. Makes me think about the way I use and neglect things like this. I should I better myself to better the environment? That’s the type of question that I’m thinking about. KY 3rd period fall 2014

  6. The amount of planets the whole world need if they lived like me it would take 4.6 planets to provide for everyone. The amount for global acres of the Earth that would support my life style is 20.6 acres. Also the amount of carbon admissions would be 20.4 tons. My first county is the United States of America and my footprint compared to theirs is significantly higher. And their global Hectares 6.5 per capita is lower than when mine is 20.6 per capita. Now my second country is Switzerland and it’s not as bad as it was with the U.S. but it’s still pretty high compared to them their Hectares per cap is 3.8 and mine is still 20.6 And now my third country in Brazil now there’s a big difference between us Brazil is 24 tons all the way till about 10 tons over time when mine is consistent with only about 20.4 tons but they got better by bringing it down a bit. Now comparing to our time now I say it’s about average even though I do know that most people are higher and some are even lower than I am. But yes I would say that my life style is basically average on a scale for the U.S. but one of the biggest question in my head that really got in there was “how much garbage do you produce?” and that’s true that plays a big factor on what we do in today’s life that can affect us in the long run.

  7. If everyone lived like me we would need 6.2 earths and 27.7 global acres of Earth’s productive area. Services take up 32% of my footprint another 30% is food, 16% for mobility, 14% for shelter, and 8% for goods. America compared to me is slightly above where I am, at around 7.0 Earths. America is using around 2.0 more than their biocapacity is allowing them, which isn’t actually as bad as I thought it would be. Mine is about 2 Earths larger than Japans average which is around 4. Japan uses about 3 over their biocapacity which is pretty high. I was surprised to see China’s at around 2.2, about 4 under me. China used to be close to using their biocapacity but now they use way more than they have. I think my ecological footprint is too high. Compared to most of the rest of the world America, along with myself has an incredibly high ecological footprint. I think that the number I got and the number for America’s average represents most people in the country fairly well. I think there are obviously a few people who use much less than the average and people who you a lot more. I think my footprint is way too high. Based on this I should definitely slow down and the way I use and waste things. I should try many different things, like using my car less, to try to slow down my footprint.

    LKS 3rd Period Fall 2014

  8. My footprint said it will take 4.2 earths if everybody lived like me to keep everybody feed and have heat and electricity. It will take 18.6 acres to support my lifestyle and most of that is land energy. I would also release 18.8 tons of carbon dioxide. Most of my break down is services like electricity, my second biggest is goods then I goes to mobility and last food.
    My footprint to Brazil’s footprint is way different because most of the people don’t have money to pay for the services that I get. Brazil’s people only use about 3 acres mine it 18.8 way different.
    Afghanistan’s footprint is tiny compared to mine. The whole country is very poor and people do not have enough money to afford the way I live. They only use 0.6 acres compared to my 18.8.
    In the UK the people have more money to afford the way I live but still won’t have all the luxury I live with. Their people only need 5 acres for their lifestyle.
    My footprint is very bad I get a lot of services that lot of people don’t have in the U.S or the rest of the world I am very lucky. I use about twice what the average American uses for acres. If everybody lived like me it would destroy the earth very quick.

  9. My Foot print says I use a total of 3.6 planet earths. It takes 16.2 global acres of the earth’s productive area to support my life style. Most of these acres most of these acres go to energy and crop land. Here are the results when I compared my results to other countries.
    1. Afghanistan, the average person uses about 1 hectares. And I use 16.2 global acres
    2. Slovenia, the average person uses about 4.5 hectares. And I use 16.2 global acres
    3. USA, the average person uses about 7 hectares. And I use 16.2 global acres
    This shows that I live a much greener life style compared to most US citizens.
    CT 3RD period Fall 2014

  10. Let’s start with the end results, three point eight Planet Earths to sustain my lifestyle. But I would like to point out that if everyone lived like my lifestyle, we wouldn’t live as I put into the calculator, it asked for what I currently do now. Energy land takes the most global acres by far, a full three blocks more than the second highest, which was Forest land, whatever that means. My ecological footprint breaks down to have services at the highest at fifty three percent with food at second place with much less. I’ve chosen Austria, U.S.A., and Brazil. Austria’s biocapacity has stayed relatively at 3.5 but has dropped to 3 in 2010, while its ecological footprint has slowly risen from three to five since 1961. Crazily enough Brazil’s ecological footprint is less than Austria’s at a whopping 2.5-3 range, meanwhile it’s biocapacity has fallen from around 24 Global Hectares per capita to nearly ten. The U.S. on the other hand has it’s biocapacity drop from five to four over the course of time, while it’s ecological footprint has jumped up and down from seven to nine to seven to eight, hanging there for a about twenty years and then dropping down to seven again. I do not think that my scores accurately reflect the U.S. as a whole because we are rather crazy I our living habits and thus harder to generalize with all the outliers. I’m not sure, I’m too busy trying to finish this comment thing before that, and I’m not sure what questions it raises as I have little clue what we are doing with it (our lifestyle). G.L.H. Period 3. Fall 2014.

  11. If everybody lived the way I do, there would need to be 5.5 Planet Earths to provide enough resources. When filling out the survey, I felt like I lived an eco-friendly life. My ecological footprint says that food and services are each about a third of my lifestyle. Then, shelter, mobility, and goods take up a third all together.
    The only topic that I knew would be high was energy, like electronics. I go on my phone often and watch a lot of television. Crop land and forest land are about the same much being about a quarter of how much energy is being used. Then, grazing land, build-up land, and fishing grounds are fairly low. It says it takes 24.6 global acres of the Earths productive area to support my lifestyle and 25.8 tons of carbon dioxide.
    A country I selected was the Philippines. Their graph was fairly lower because of what resources they have the weather is different and they have adapted to their ways like their agricultural practices their ecological footprint ranges within .7 to 1.3. Another country I’ve selected was Brazil. Their ecological footprint stays pretty flat lined at about 3. It’s higher than the Philippines. Brazil’s bio capacity starts out high in 1961 at about 23 then it decreases to around 10 in 2010.
    MP 3rd Period Fall 2014.

  12. I use 4.6 planet earths to provide enough resources. It takes 20.5 glob acres of the earths productive area. My services is 43%, my food is 22%, my shelter is 14%, my mobility is 9%, and my goods is 12%. I picked Brazil, China, and Nigeria. All of them are very different graphs. To conclude I feel like my ecological foot print is a little bit lower than most peoples in the U.S. Some questions that have raised to me are: how hard is it going to be to lower everyone’s ecological foot print in the coming up years. BAC 3rd Period Fall 2014

  13. If everyone lived like me, we would need four and a half planets to provide enough resources. To support my lifestyle, it takes twenty point two global acres of the earth’s productive area. If you were to look at my footprint, you would see that its mostly made up of food and goods, next services, and lastly shelter and mobility. That would make since because I don’t have a car! I looked at Algeria, China, and Canada. Algeria and China were both above the bio capacity while Canada was well below. The bio capacity is around twenty four leaving me below it with Canada because I am only at twenty. So I conclude that my footprint might not be the best one out there, but it is definitely better than places such as China. I think the world in general needs to reduce their global acres but specifically countries such as China and Algeria.

  14. VC 5th Period Fall 2014

    1. I use 4.1 planet Earths, there are 18.4 global hectares of Earth’s productive area required for my global footprint, and the breakdown for my footprint is 48% Services, 18% Food, 16% Goods, 12% Shelter, and 7% Mobility.
    2. The three countries that I compared my footprint to were Austria, South Africa, and Brazil. Brazil is the only country where the biocapacity is higher than the ecological footprint; the gaps between the ecological footprints and the biocapacities for the other countries are all fairly similar towards 2010, which is the latest year on the graphs.
    3. My ecological footprint, compared to other countries, is quite large. I do not think that my footprint is representative of the entire United States, if only because of the factors of food; because of where I live, most all of my food is shipped in from another place, which greatly adds to my footprint. I don’t think that that is a factor which most people who live in the lower 48 have to deal with.
    4. My main thought while doing the footprint calculation was noticing how many factors are involved to make up what is considered a “normal” lifestyle. There are lots of everyday things that I know I don’t think about much, like how much I drive per day and whether my food is grown locally or brought in. The prevailing question in my mind while doing this assignment was that I wondered how much my results would change if I simply improved on my recycling habits. Or what if my whole Global Issues class improved their recycling scores? How would that affect our overall footprint?

  15. So according to this, if everyone were to live like me we would need at least 5 earths worth of resources in order to sustain the population. This was sort of a shock to me. I know I’m not living as green as I probably could be, but I always thought I was doing a lot better than 5 earths worth. I don’t drive a lot, and my car has fairly good gas mileage and doesn’t emit heavily, my family recycles everything we can, and the Hydro Electric system is, in my mind at least, pretty dang green. So why is my foot print still so huge? It may come down to how much meat I eat coupled with the fact that it’s not locally grown, as well as how much time I spend traveling on a plane each year.
    My family is a pretty carnivorous family, not a one of us is vegetarian. It’s not like meat is all we eat, it’s just there’s meat in basically every one of our dinners. The nature of island life requires that all this food be sent up from the lower 48, so it’s close to impossible to sustain a totally locally grown life here. Sure you can subsistence hunt, but hunting season isn’t year round. Another part of life in Sitka is travel. We’re all familiar with the Alaska Airlines system because is one of the only ways out of town. I also jump from home to home during school breaks to live with different parts of my family. This means regular 6 hour flights to Hawaii, among other things. So I spend a lot of time in the air.
    Basically, I think this data is a little skewed due to our not so average living situations. It doesn’t take into account that some of the attributes contributing to a footprint that are usually in people’s control, are out of our control. We can’t eat locally grown, there aren’t a whole lot of options for public transport because you can walk everywhere, and plane travel is part of our lives. So, while this is informational, it’s not a great measure.

  16. Based off of the website’s ecological footprint calculator I would use 5.4 Planet Earths to provide enough resources. The majority of my ecological footprint is composed of services and food, with about 5/8ths. The other 3/8ths are composed of shelter, mobility, and goods. It takes 23.8 global acres of the Earth’s productive are to support my lifestyle with the majority being land for energy.
    If I compare my ecological footprint to countries I can see that my current lifestyle is using a leaving a huge footprint. The United States reached an ecological footprint of approximately 9 global acres whereas I use about two and a half times more. The United States bio-capacity is significantly lower than their ecological footprint sitting around 4-6 global acres. When I compared my results to Afghanistan I saw that I use over twenty times more global acres than them. Their bio-capacity, however, is about the same when compared to their footprint. At certain times their bio-capacity actually exceeded their footprint. The ecological footprint and bio-capacity of the United Kingdom is similar to that of the United States, although it is not as much. I use approximately 18 more global acres compared to their footprint and more than 22 global acres when compared to their bio-capacity.
    My ecological footprint is very high compared to that of the entire U.S. A lot of citizens of the United States don’t commute as much as I do, and many of them don’t have vehicles at all. Also, the United States is composed of many different types of environments that don’t put as large of a footprint compared to Sitka, Alaska. Many of the options on the little “game” aren’t realistic for us like the amount of locally grown food, for example. My lifestyle is rarer because of my location. My footprint may be similar to other locations around our country. It all depends on the environment around them. If you were to live in New York City you’re more than likely to commute on trains, buses, or on your two feet. That really isn’t an option for me. In order to travel to a different city a ferry ride or flight is required.
    A few questions while playing this game occurred to me. For example, where did they’re data come from? They only used generic responses to develop an ecological score, how do they know how much of an impact that I will be on the Earth? It’s possible that my lifestyle really isn’t as astonishing as I thought. I’m completely fine with my current lifestyle. I make conscientious choices about my impact on the environment. I know that not everybody can live the same lifestyle that I can. Many people, billions of people, live in shacks, tents, and even outside and don’t have access to electricity and commodities that I do. Would I like to live in a place electricity without electricity, heat, plumbing, and the foods that I have grown accustomed to? Of course not! But the way I see it, with the advance of technology and due to the fact that many people are barely placing an ecological footprint at all, I see it all evening out in the end.
    TJN 7th Period Fall 2014

  17. Once I finished, my ecological footprint said that my lifestyle for everyone needs to take over 4 Earths to support it, 19.5 global acres of productive area, and 20 tons of carbon dioxide will be needed, forest ground is only one bar, third is crops area needed, which is also one bar, and grazing land, build-up land, and fishing grounds have little to no use to me apparently. The break down for my ecological footprint is mostly services (45%), food (23%), shelter (11%), mobility (8%), and goods (13%).
    I chose Sweden as my first country to compare to. Their ecological footprint is much lower than their biocapacity. I’m guessing that biocapacity is how much environment and materials are available to them. It has trickled down in the past 70 years or so, but it hasn’t effected them much. They don’t take from the environment as much as other countries. I chose India as my next country. Their ecological footprint is actually higher than their biocapacity. They’re taking more than their environment can provide. Their demand for more materials and land grows over the past 70 years and their biocapacity goes down. My last country to compare to be Bolivia where their biocapacity is outstandingly high compared to the other countries I’ve looked at with their highest percentage in the last 70 years at 55% (1961). In 2010, it does drastically go down to about 20%, but their ecological footprint percentage is very low, the highest most likely at 1%.
    I don’t think my ecological footprint should represent the U.S. seeing that Sitka is drastically different from the lower 48. We don’t take much from the land like the lower 48 does and we use renewable energy sources. I’ve learned that I effect the planet more than I recently thought I did which was little to nothing, but now I see that I was wrong. I should probably recycle more often than I do now and not waste so much various materials.
    BS 7th Period Fall 2014

  18. I use 5.5 planet Earths and 24.5 global acres of the Earth’s productive area, the vast majority in energy land. A smaller proportion of the land I supposedly use is crop and forest land. Mobility and services together take up more than ¾ of my graph. Compared to most, however, I’m pretty much fine. Israel, in Asia, has a very high footprint to a very low biocapacity (probably due to being densely populated and small, and consisting of a significant portion of desert). The U.S. has a high biocapacity comparatively, but also a very high footprint to go along with it. Nepal is by far the best, having an equitable relationship between a high biocapacity and an only slightly higher footprint. I think my personal ecological footprint is probably lower than the average for the U.S. in some areas, and higher in others; overall, I think it still balances out to be slightly lower. Being kosher significantly impacts my animal product consumption, and living in Sitka is helpful because it ensures that all of the energy I consume is renewable. However, living in Alaska overall is not helpful, as my transportation consumption is relatively high to the rest of the U.S. and everything I consume has to be shipped here. In looking at the lifestyles represented by the different countries and by my own country, and in looking at the conclusions drawn by the calculator and the way it’s set up, I’m really not convinced that it is accurate or representative of actual sustainability. Simply asking whether or not your food is local or what type of food it is (dairy, pork, etc.) does not determine its sustainability, as it presupposes that I buy things grown unsustainably or farmed inefficiently – for example, organic produce takes up more land and provides fewer nutrients than fortified, engineered and industrially-grown produce, thereby increasing the ecological footprint of the buyer. Similarly, the materials of my house or the amount I pay for my electricity are dependent upon my environment and the climate of my area, and so may not accurately indicate my impact. This calculator is likely highly inaccurate considering all of the things it assumes or doesn’t ask; consequently, I reserve my opinion on its legitimacy in admonishing my lifestyle choices or in predicting the capacity of the Earth to support said lifestyle based on broad categories, generalizations and averages.
    A.P. 7th Period Fall 2014

  19. If everyone lived like me we would need 5 earths. It also takes 25.5 global acres to support my lifestyle. To me this is really weird because I would think a lot of people use the same kind of things I do, I eat meat, use electricity and use my car as much as other American does. I would think as a country we would use a lot of planets by how much people drive, eat, use electricity, and fly other places. My ecological foot print is very big, and consists of many things, some of the things it consists of I can use less of. I don’t have to drive so much, or eat as much meat, or use as much of electricity as I do.
    Afghanistan’s ecological footprint compares to mine by the fact that they aren’t making a huge ecological footprint, in the past 50 or so years they have been decreasing there footprint and my need for 5 planets is huge compared to them. My country compares to U.S.A. by a lot, America has been keeping pretty steady with how much of an ecological footprint we are making. It has been steady for a long time and so has the bio capacity, although the bio capacity has been slightly going down while the ecological foot print stays about steady. Lastly my global need compares to Cuba by very little, while I need about 25 acres to live, Cuba only needs about 2.5 at the most.
    I would say that looking at the other countries in how they little they need to survive, it’s amazing, but I also have to look at the fact that I needed more planets because we travel more because we are on an island and we can’t drive other places. I still have to look at how my global acres compares to America, Americans on average only need about 10 acres and I need about 25 global acres, that makes me curious on what i do that makes my global acres so much bigger than Americas on average.
    My ecological footprint is very big, I needed 5 planets to cover it! Some things that I could look at changing could be how much I use planes, and how much meat we eat, my family eats meat pretty much every day, and other some other country’s don’t eat meat as often or ever. Some questions I can think of are about placement, I need more planets because I travel a lot and eat meat a lot, not because of trash, cars, houses, electricity or anything else. The reason we travel a lot to because we can’t drive to other cities or countries from where we live. For America changing some of the things we do can help save us from using so many planets. We could change how often we use our cars when we could carpool, use public transportation, walking, biking, or even running. We could also help change it by not using so much electricity, or using so much trash.
    END 7th hour fall 2014

  20. Ellie Cagle
    Footprint calculator
    Global issues
    I got 4.4 planet Earths and to support my lifestyle I takes 19.8 global acres of the Earth’s productive area. If I break down my footprint I would have 25% food, 45% services, 10% shelter, 10% goods and 10% mobility.
    I compared my footprint with Greece and saw that their biocapacity is low and says the same their ecological footprint has significantly grown to at least a 5.5. Brazil was completely opposite their ecological footprint was low and stayed about the same over time and their biocapacitly started off high then slowly started decreasing. Zimbabwe’s graph shows that both the biocapacity and the ecological footprint are decreasing however the biocapacity rate is decreasing faster than the ecological footprint.
    Compared to these other countries my ecological is a little high espeacially compared to Zimbabwe. I think that my footprint isn’t a good representative of the entire U.S. because I feel like if you took an average footprint from everyone you would get a higher ecological footprint. I also don’t think my footprint would be a good representative because I live in Alaska where our roads aren’t long and flying is expensive. I think the questions that involve transportation and electricity are one of the bigger factors that make your ecological footprint weigh high or low.

  21. I use 4.1 planet Earths, with 18.1 global acres of the world’s productive area. My footprint breaks down to 49% services, 17% food, 12% shelter, 11% mobility, and 11% goods.

    China’s ecological footprint seems to be increasing exponentially in the last few years (approaching 3 hectares per capita), but its biocapacity has stayed constant at around 1 hectare. The same has held true for Bangladesh but its footprint and biocapacity are much lower than China’s. Meanwhile in El Salvador, the ecological footprint has been increasing up to 2 hectares per capita while the biocapacity is shrinking to .5 hectares. It appears that my global footprint is larger than the per-person resource demand in all three of these countries.

    I think the reason why my footprint is higher than those three countries’ is probably because a lot of people in those area are living in poverty in developing nations, as opposed to the majority of the US, which is developed and generally doesn’t suffer from such extreme poverty. I think that my ecological footprint is probably somewhat smaller than the rest of the US, mostly because we in Sitka can’t drive as much as someone in the lower 48, and I don’t eat as much meat as the general population. Also, we are able to utilize hydropower here, which many areas in the continental US don’t have. It seems like a huge part of your score depends on where you live and what you may or may not have access to. The idea that if everyone lived the way I do, we’d need 4.1 earths is kind of mind boggling.

    We as Americans, and even as Alaskans, are certainly using more resources than the rest of the world. It seems like we don’t think about how much of the world must be developed in order for us to maintain this comparatively comfortable lifestyle. Our consumption of commodities (oil, meat, crops,) and space (landfills, houses, roads, planes) is not something I can imagine changing significantly in the next few decades; I don’t think people are motivated enough to make changes. More consumption may be good for business or signal a decline in poverty, but it’s scary to think about what harm an increase of developed and rich countries could cause to the planet.

    -CML 7th Period Fall 2014

  22. When I used the environment foot print calculator I learned that if everyone in the world lived the same lifestyle as me we’d need 3.5 to provide enough resources. It’s a really jarring and unexpected result. You wouldn’t expect that not recycling or eating certain types of food would have as much of an impact as they do until you see it. I’m not going to change my lifestyle now, because I’m still currently living with my parents, and they do most of the trash management and shopping and what not in my house. When I grow up how I effect the environment might come into play with how I live my life alone. It’s not going to be a major change, but I could defiantly see myself doing something as small and simple as recycling at the very least.

  23. If our population all lived as I do, we’d need 4.5 Earths to provide the resources. It takes up 20.2 global acres to provide my resources (energy land being the most by far). My footprint breaks down with services using the highest percent (43%), food using 17%, goods using 15%, mobility at 14%, and shelter at 11%.
    Calculating my footprint in their measuring system, I take up about eight global hectares.
    Brazil’s ecological footprint has been extremely low and essentially unchanging, while its biocapacity has been consistently much higher (starting at about 23 global hectares per capita in 1961) but dropping. The footprint, down at about 2.5 Global Hectares per capita, is strikingly lower than mine. The UK has an average footprint of 5 hectares, a smaller difference to me, and a low biocapacity of about 1.3 hectares. It uses more resources and produces much less than Brazil. Interestingly, Afghanistan’s biocapacity has mirrored its footprint for the last fifty years, dropping with it from 1.3 to about 0.5 hectares per capita. This is drastically smaller than not only my footprint, but also that of the UK and Brazil. I realize that while my lifestyle may be average or even slightly conservative for the US, it is far above that of many other countries. Finally, I don’t quite think my footprint is completely representative of the rest of the US—yes, my family is middle-class so we are fairly average, but there are still large amounts of people living with significantly less (and some living with quite a bit more). All in all, my footprint is fairly typical but there are other factors.
    I’ve always known that many Americans live in excess, though it’s striking to see it compared to other countries like that. We are most definitely a capitalist society. One thing I was curious about is if being a vegetarian affected my footprint hugely. The resources needed for herds can’t be inconsequential, but I don’t know how much of a difference it makes. I’m also very conscious of our gas usage. We use cars to get to everything, and I’ll admit that I need them as much as the next person, but it can’t be good for our resource usage. Another concern is the fact that our biocapacity is consistently smaller than our intake, and dropping. There are a lot of disheartening ideas associated with looking at the huge intake of our country, and a disheartening ignorance of the issue.
    KJD 7th Period Fall 2014

  24. If people were to live like me, we would need 4.5 Planets to sustain my lifestyle. The part of my life that is the biggest is energy usage, because of the amount of people in my house (3) and all the technology that follows every person. Also because of the lack of locally grown food that is consumed in our house also raises that number of planets that would be needed to support each person that had a lifestyle like mine. I’m sure that if I practically lived on a farm and had little to no electronics, ate less processed foods like HoHos and Twinkies and such of the like, that the number of planets that would be needed to support human life if everyone in the world lived like me, would surely decrease to 1 or maybe even 2.5 planets required to sustain human life forever and eternity.

  25. 1. If everyone lived like me, we’d need 4.5 Planet Earths to provide enough energy sources. It takes 20.2 global acres (8.17 hectares) of the Earth’s productive area to support my lifestyle.
    The way that my footprint breaks down is: 21% food, 44% services, 7% shelter, 8% mobility, and 21% goods.

    2. It takes about 8.17 hectares of the Earth’s productive area to support my lifestyle. The biocapacity for the United States is about 5 hectares per capita, making my ecological footprint about 3 hectares higher. Canada’s ecological footprint is around 5 Hectares on average. Canada’s ecological footprint is far below its boicapacity, whereas mine is far above the biocapacity. In South Africa, the Ecological footprint is around 3 hectares per capita and its biocapacity is about 1 hectare per capita. Although the ecological footprint it far above its biocapacity, my ecological footprint was far larger in relation to the biocapacity of the United States. The ecological footprint in Japan is around 4.5 hectares per capita and its biocapacity is around 1 hectare per capita. There is a difference of about 3.5 hectares between Japan’s ecological footprint and its boicapacity. My ecological footprint is about 3 hectares higher than the boicapacity of the United States making Japan’s ecological footprint pretty close to mine.

    3. I think my ecological footprint is representative of the entire US because I live a pretty average lifestyle for the United States. As it is compared to other countries, I think it is pretty bad seeing as it would take 4.5 earths to provide enough energy sources, and if everyone in the United States lived like me we would use an incredible amount of resources.

    4. After doing my footprint calculator, I realize that I live a very fortunate lifestyle although it does not seem to be safe for the environment. It raises many questions for me including what we could do to have a healthier lifestyle for the environment as well as how long we will be able to live this way until the consequences start catching up.

  26. If everyone in the world lived like I do we would need 4.3 planet Earths to provide enough resources. To support my lifestyle it takes 19 global acres of the Earth’s productive area. My Ecological breaks down to services having a majority, almost 50%. Then food, taking up almost a quarter. Shelter, Mobility, and goods having fairly equal parts to make up the rest of the graph. I use almost double the area compared to Spain per capita. I use nearly three times that of China’s per capita, which makes sense, even though they have a lot of pollution they also have a large population. Compared to an average Brazilian I use almost three times the amount again. I conclude that I use quite a bit of energy when it comes to my lifestyle. I do not think that my footprint represents the rest of the U.S. because there are all kinds of people in the U.S. and some of them use much more than I do, but I’m sure some use much less, and are aware of the amount of energy that they use every day, unlike me. The question that is most prevalent in my mind is, how can I make my footprint lower? It is about average when compared to the rest of the U.S. but it can still be lower.
    -BNV 7th Period Fall 2014

  27. 1.
    According to my data, if everyone lived the way I did, the population would need 4.6 planet earths to support it. In addition it would take 20.6 global acres of earth’s productive area to support the things I use and need such as energy and food. 43% of my ecological footprint comes from services, 26% comes from food, 21% comes from goods, 6% comes from mobility, and 5% comes from shelter.
    2.
    In comparison to the USA my ecological footprint is a bit larger sitting at 20.6 acres (8.3 hectares) where the US average per capita is about 7. This makes sense because many people do not own their own home nor can they afford things maybe as well as I can. In relativity to the graph, the ecological footprint surpassing the bio capacity is logical since the US relies a lot on foreign trade and imports to suffice the population and produce enough energy for everyone living in urban zones.
    Even larger still is my footprint in comparison to China’s global hectares per capita which is at about 2 but quickly growing at what seems like an exponential rate. This large jump makes sense in terms of China since they have quite recently shot up in technology and increased their overall evolution as a country. China, having the minute amount of farm land it does, is represented by the bio capacity already being surpassed.
    The final country I will compare my footprint to is Brazil. As stated before my footprint is about 8.3 hectares which in comparison to the average footprint in Brazil (sitting at about 2.5) is a little over 3x bigger. Brazil is obviously not as developed as the US which makes the big jump reasonable for not all Brazilians can live like Americans due to their still growing country.
    3.
    My footprint in comparison to that of other countries is a lot bigger especially in countries that are not as developed as the US. I noticed a trend in these sorts of countries located in Africa, South America, and some parts of Asia and Europe. That trend being that my footprint was 2x’s sometimes 3x’s bigger in comparison to that countries average. When I did compare it to the United States however, I noticed that I was only about 1 hectare off from the average which in comparison to other data is pretty close. With this information I believe I could represent a majority of the US since I’m a generation progressing into the future work force of the US. This means that if the US trend stays constant we should see an increase in the average ecological footprint; that average would be close to mine plus or minus a bit which is why I think my data could represent the US.
    4.
    By looking at the data collected, I can see that our lifestyle as Americans surpasses that of other countries in some cases by a long shot. It brings to mind how lucky we are to have the income we have and availability of resources whereas other people in the world lack that luxury. This however comes with a price which brings up the question how will the future hold if we see increases in ecological footprints? And how will these coincide with other problems such as food scarcity, overpopulation, and urbanization?

    TV, 7th Period, Fall 2014.

  28. 1. If everybody lived like my family and I we would need 4.5 earths to produce enough resources. The services in our town are all imported dew to the fact that we live on an island in Alaska. All of our food is all imported but our transportation is very minimal because we have 14 miles of road.
    2. I chose Afghanistan and Brazil. I chose because it is pushing 1.5 hecters per capita. That is on the lower end of the spectrum. Comparing it to the U.S. it is just a fraction of the impact the human race is inflicting on the earth. I chose Brazil because it is higher than the U.S. and Afghanistan the U.S. is pushing 9 and Brazil is pushing at least 23 hecters per capita.
    3. Compared to other countries my style of living is among the higher class. I think the U.S. is a little lower then my living style I think the average American family is using around 3.5 maybe 4 earths.
    4. I think I have it really well some U.S. families can’t even afford any food let alone any internet or major utilities.

  29. According to the footprint calculator, I use about 5.7 planet Earths, 27 tons of carbon dioxide, 23.4 global acres of the Earth’s productive area, and the majority of my ecological footprint comes from services with 38%. 25% comes from food, 16% comes from mobility, 13% from goods, and shelter contributes to 9% of my footprint. I was surprised by how many Earths would be needed if everyone lived like me, as I didn’t realize how much energy I consume. I found that realization a bit scary.

    China’s ecological footprint is around 2 global hectares, while mine was about 9.5. Japan’s is about 4 and Mexico’s is about 3.5. This is a bit of a scary scenario for me, as I think of these countries as being fairly large consumers, but according to this data their footprints are pretty small compared to mine. I find this pretty surprising because I thought that a country like China, with such an enormous population would have more people.

    This data is definitely an eye-opener for me, as I did not realize how much of the earth’s resources I use and how many planet Earths would be needed if everyone lived like me. Also, I didn’t realize how much greater my ecological footprint is than those of other countries. Before this activity I felt like I used less of the Earth’s resources than most Americans, but now I’m not so sure, as the data for the ecological footprint of the U.S. as a whole is only about 7 hectares.

    This data causes me to realize that what may seem like small daily choices, like driving to school or buying food from other parts of the world actually do have an impact on the world. This makes me feel more aware of the normal decisions that I make and how those actions do have a significant impact. I find it a bit scary and unnerving, as most of these things are viewed as ‘necessities’ that most Americans would have a pretty hard time giving up. I wonder how minimal my lifestyle would have to be in order to use only one planet earth and what the ‘services’ are that contribute so heavily to my ecological footprint.
    TS 7th Period Fall 2014

  30. My global foot print I believe is average for someone who lives in America. It would take 5.8 planet earths to be able to sustain the people on this planet if everyone lived like me. I think one of the biggest impacts on this earth is living with electricity and driving a car. On the pie chart the two biggest pieces of data were the services and food. The fact that Alaska gets almost all of the food imported and processed made a great effect in the results. We would need 25.7 global acres to be able to sustain all of the energy land, crop land, grazing forest, and build up. Madagascar is drastically lower than my foot print. The foot print is at 2 because they don’t use nearly as much resources as we do here in America. Japan is closer to my footprint. With a 4.0 it’s not quite there. The Uk really close to my foot print it is about 5 when mine is 5.8.I think that my foot print is about average for the United States. The majority of the class had a foot print of about 5-6. I think that our foot print here in the United States exceeds the requirements to live a happy life. Almost all of other countries are far below us. In the future when countries continue to develop and advance we are defiantly going to need more resources.it is just a matter of time for the earth to run out of recourses. I truly believe it’s going to happen if we don’t do something about it.
    JB 7th period Fall 2014

  31. If everyone had my life style it would take up 3.8 planet earths.
    52% is from services. I assume this is from planes and traveling on school trips. Living in SE Alaska makes it so that the only way to travel is by plane or boat.
    17% Food
    5% Shelter
    15% Mobility
    11% Goods
    To support my lifestyle it takes 16.9 global acres (6.84 hectares) of the earth’s productive area and produces 16.6 tons of carbon dioxide, mainly from energy.
    2. My amount of hectares: 6.84
    America: 7
    Brazil: 2
    South Africa: 3
    Indonesia: 1.5
    Bangladesh: 7.5
    The amount of hectares I use compared to other countries is near the middle. There are some countries that use a lot more than I do, and some that use a lot less.

    3. I found my ecological footprint to be near the middle of most countries. I am higher than places like Brazil and Indonesia and lower than the rest of America and Bangladesh. I do not think my bio footprint is a good representative of the U.S. I am a bare necessities person. I don’t have a lot of extra stuff that most people do, i.e. phones, internet, newspapers, cable, car, etc. I also do a lot of recycling and reusing compared to the majority of the U.S. population.

    4. Through this project I found that I am well off and need less bio capacity than the majority of the population in the U.S. and more bio capacity than smaller countries. In order to decrease my bio capacity I should have a house that is greener and uses more solar energy. I wonder how living in a different part of America would affect my bio capacity because living elsewhere would make my life style different. I would probably not fly as much and I would probably take more buses if I lived south of Alaska in the U.S.

    AZ 7th Period Fall 2014

  32. 1. If everyone lived like me, we’d need 7.7 Planet Earths to provide enough resources. The breakdown of my Ecological Footprint is 13% Food, 36% Shelter, 20% Mobility,6% Goods, and 26% Services. To support my lifestyle it would take 34.2 global acres of the Earths Productive acre and produce 44.1 tons of carbon dioxide.
    2. My Foot print is different from the other Countries that I compared too. Both the Ecological footprint and the bio capacity stay about the same throughout the years. Costa ricas Footprint stays the same while the bio capacity decreases. Belgiums Foot print increases while the bio capacity decreases. Brazils capacity stays the same while there footprint stays the same.
    3. I think my footprint is high on demand compared to other countries. Not very many people live like I do around the world. In the United States, my foot print is still high compared to other people. All of my expenses are tremendous compared to other peoples. I don’t think my foot print represents the rest of the United States because most people don’t need that many earths or resources as I do and don’t have such high electricity and fuel bills.
    4. To have this lifestyle you need to have a high paying jobs which usually means an education. I don’t pay the bills yet, but I am close to doing that. When I start paying my own bills I defiantly will not have such a big house, and I will probably eat more wild game meats that I can harvest from around here to cut back on food costs. A few questions that I have are, what the average foot print for the world is, and what the average foot print for the United States is. I want to know how much the average person spends on fuel for their home and cars per month.
    ACM 3Rd Period Fall 2014

  33. According to the ecological footprint, “if everyone lived like me, we would need 6.1 Planet Earths to provide enough resources.” 27.3 global acres of the Earth’s productive area would be used to support my life style. Also, 30.2 tons of carbon dioxide would be produced each year. By breaking down the different resources, the pie graph shows that food is 28%, shelter is 10%, mobility is 20%, goods is 9%, and services is 33%.
    I compared my footprint scores to Sweden, China, and Brazil. Sweden’s bio capacity has gone down a little bit in the past 70 years. It is still larger by 6 hectares then Sweden’s ecological footprint. Even though Sweden ecological footprint is much lower than it’s bio capacity, the footprint is really good. China’s ecological footprint has increased in the past years. It’s about to approach 3 hectares per capita. China’s bio capacity on the other hand is staying constant at about 1 hectare. Brazil ecological footprint is really low and rather constant as well. Brazil’s bio capacity started at around 23 global hectares per capita, which is really high, but it is now dropping. After looking and comparing my footprint to the other three counties, I can conclude that I have a rather terrible footprint. Other then Sweden my footprint is much larger then China and Brazil. My 27.3 hectares is also, much much larger then any of the other counties I looked at. I believe that my footprint is relatively similar to other Americans. In fact, it might be a little bit higher, because I like to eat a lot of meat and I fly almost every weekend.
    After researching different countries and comparing them to my life style, I believe that I should probably ease up on things. If everyone lived like me, there would be know way to support all of us. I use a lot of resources that are becoming scarce. Not just because of me, but because many of us need and use these resources in our daily lives. Don’t get me wrong my life style isn’t crazy. No country that I looked at had a number smaller then one, which proves that our planet cannot support all of us. My question for us as a planet, is that is there a way to reduce the amount of resources we use on a day to day basis that would possible reduce our scores by even the tiniest margin. I know there is no possible way we could reduce every one’s number to one, because that would make us do things that are inhumane. Reducing every ones number by just a little bit will still help.
    SRR 7th period Fall 2014

  34. My ecological footprint would use about 4.6 Earths if everyone lived like me, and 20.4 global acres to support my lifestyle. The services I use take up the most, roughly 43 percent. Everything is fairly low, with mobility at 13 percent, food at 19 percent, shelter at 12 percent, and goods at 14 percent. From what I’ve gathered from the link provided, Belgium and the U.S. have similar living styles as me, while Germany uses less hectares. My scores are definitely closer to the U.S. than Belgium, but if they went down a little bit I’d be right where Belgium is. My ecological footprint definitely represents the U.S. My footprint is pretty big, and most countries have smaller ones. It’s easy to see that I’m a U.S. citizen on mine, rather than being from Germany, where much less energy is consumed. I can now see that my footprint is large, and I should probably cut down on it. That way, more energy would be saved. Now I’m curious to see how quickly the Earth’s resources are depleting.
    NJS 3rd Period Fall 2014

  35. If everyone lived like me, we’d need 5.2 Planet Earths to provide enough resources.
    To support my lifestyle, it takes 23.1 global acres of the Earth’s productive area.
    My Ecological Footprint breaks down to Food 24%, Shelter 10%, Mobility 10%, Goods 22% and Services 35%.
    For Greece, the ecological footprint decreases and their biocapacity stays steady. For Thailand, their ecological footprint went from 1.0 decreasing to 2.3 and as for their biocapacity it went from 2.0 increasing down to 1.1. And lastly, Italy, for their ecological footprint started from 2.0 then decreasing up to 4.6 then slowing back down and as for their biocapacity its in the range for 1.1.
    The ecological footprint for US have a very interesting graph because of how each year it has different data and that some of the countries that I compared to US has a steady graph. And also for I observed that in the year, 1961, 1982, and 2010 almost have the same number of data (6.9) for the biocapacity for US started from 5.1 then back down to 4.0.
    As for my ecological footprint I don’t think it represents the entire US. My ecological footprint result was basically very low or in the middle range. As for my question How much are we willing to do just to provide enough resources for our planet and for everyone?

    KL Period 3 Fall 2014

  36. My ecological footprint would use about 3.9 Earths if everyone lived like me, and 17.4 global acres to support my lifestyle. The services I use take up the most, roughly 50% percent. Everything is fairly low, with mobility at 10 percent, food at 20 percent, shelter at 3 percent, and goods at 7 percent. I can now see that my footprint is large, and I should probably cut down on it. That way, more energy would be saved. Now I’m curious to see how quickly the Earth’s resources are depleting.

    LS Period 3 Spring 2015

    • The bio capacity footprint from the USA goes down (5-4) while the footpint from Germany goes up (4-6), also the bio capacity footprint from Finland is very high it is at 14 and goes down to 13.5. The Ecological footprint of Finland is at 5.5 and goes up to 6. The ecological footprint of Germany is at 3.5 and goes up to 5. The ecological footprint of the USA is at 6.9 and goes up to 7.3. So you can see that the ecological footprint of the USA and Germany is higher then the Bio capacity footprint. What is in Finland different.
      LS Period 3 Spring 2015

  37. If you were to live on my planet like me, we would be needed a total of 3.8 planets to provide enough resources for us inhabitants to live. What’s needed to support my lifestyle is 17 global acres of the Earth’s productive area. These 17 global acres would produce 16.9 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). My Ecological Footprint for the Will Borcy lifestyle planets is made up of five sections. Starting from greatest in percentage to least in percentage, Services at 52%, Food at 17%, Mobility at 13%, Goods at 11%, and Shelter at 7%. My planet is influenced by my current living circumstances in Sitka AK. As we all know, we don’t have long vast roads that we travel like persons living near a highway, or an interstate highway. We inhibit an Island, more specifically, Baranof Island. The need for transportation is not much of a concern based on the minute length of Halibut Point Road (HPR) and Sawmill Creek Road combined. A con for living on Baranof island is the immense need to have goods shipped to our city. This explains the reason why Services is at 52%. We rely on mainland services and not on local produce. Local produce in the land side is low. Sitka has a low percentage of farmland, and probably too much rain that could over water crops which would result in many negative aspects. Food is based on my personal diet. I’m not anorexic or fat, but physically fit. My planet wouldn’t require a larger diet due to the main influence (me) being fit and healthy. Mobility. I don’t drive, i walk or hitch a ride or bike the little roads that Sitka has. I commute on my own energy or on the energy of someone else. (Their car). I don’t have a job…which explains goods being at 11%. I live with what i have happily and contently. Money isn’t spent because i don’t earn money too often. This planet is one that is comfortable with what is given, and only makes a purchase at the convenience of wear and tear. If an appliance or shirt is in need of replacement, it shall be replaced. My planet won’t be the one to be overbuying. This planet would be conservative with it’s money. (Except for ventures to Highliner). Shelter. This planet will not be the one living in RV’s. Each inhabitant will be in a comfortable home or apartment. Condos are a bit “at-large.” If this planet were to have condos, more than one family would will the potential capacity. In short, living space wouldn’t be wasted, nor would it be crammed.

    William Borcy Period 3. 3-31-2015 Tuesday.

  38. 1.) If everyone on planet earth were to live as I do, each person would need 5 ½ planets to sustain a lifestyle like mine. 24.4 hectares of earth would also be needed and about 1/3 of the ecological footprint would be dedicated to services, while food (19%) and mobility (23%) are the 2nd and 3rd priorities.
    2.) Compared to other countries across the globe, especially 3rd/2nd world ones, my lifestyle makes an insanely larger impact on the planet. If you look at Croatia, a southeastern country in Europe, their ecological footprint is only 3.1 hectares, only 12% of the hectares my lifestyle requires! However, Indonesia and Brazil require even less! Brazil using only 2.5 and Croatia a measly 1.5 hectares! In terms of biocapacity, only Brazil comes anywhere close at 11 hectares, while Indonesia and Croatia retain low numbers (1.4 & 2.5 hectares).
    3.) It’s quite ridiculous how much of the earth’s resources it actually takes to live the lifestyle I thought was somewhat moderate. Granted, I know there are millions of people who live without a car to drive every day, Wi-Fi in their home, or even enough food to eat; but I never thought I was living so outside of a lot of countries’ average norms. Although the calculations may be a little off, you can definitely tell that I come from a country where we don’t have too much out of the reach of our fingertips. I don’t know if I necessarily represent the entire US, because I know that there’s a great number of people who live even more extremely than I do, but I’d say that I do a well enough job.
    4.) The biggest question in my mind is, “How long does everyone think this planet will actually last for us?” It can’t be that much longer can it? There are so many people, and a small percentage of them are already using way more than their share of what the earth has to offer, shouldn’t a lot more people be worried? It may not be for hundreds of years, but humans haven’t really been here all that long, and there are more of us than ever before, with that number rapidly increasing each year.

    SCM 3rd Period Spring 2015

  39. My footprint estimates that if everyone lived like me, we would need 4.9 Planet Earths to provide the resources. To support it each person would need 22 global acres (8 hectares) of the Earth with energy land as the chief proportion. My footprint break down goes as follows; 40% services, 30% food, 12% goods, 10% shelter, and 8% mobility.

    Ireland has an ecological footprint of 5 hectares and a biocapacity of just under 4 hectares (it is trending to go up though), Syria (as of 2011) has a footprint of 1.5 hectares with a biocapacity of 0.6 hectares, and Switzerland has one of about 4.5 hectares with a biocapacity of 1.5 hectares. My personal footprint is 8 hectares and is at least 3 hectares more and at most 6.5 hectares more than the average in these countries. It seems like the trend in these countries has been an increase in the ecological footprint while the biocapacity for it goes down. Only Ireland had a trend that looked like the footprint would go below the biocapacity.

    I believe that my footprint was falsely higher than it should have been. Here in Sitka we get most of our electrical energy from our fully renewable source, the blue and green lake dams. The lower 48 doesn’t always get their energy from renewable sources, however, and I was averaged with them. Their footprint will be much higher than that of ours here.

    My lifestyle is not one I would call wasteful, although the footprint calculator would say otherwise. I found it surprising that it would take so much from the planet if everyone was to live as we do in the U.S. I wonder what the world would be like if the world lived with U.S. standards? Would it be easier to solve issues like food scarcity and energy consumption with more countries out of third-world status? Will I live to see it?

    EM Spring 2015

  40. It would take me about 4.7 Planet Earths to provide enough resources if everybody on Earth lived like me. It would take about 21 global acres of Earth’s productive area to support my lifestyle. About 1/3rd of my ecological footprint was food, another third was services and the rest were just miscellaneous stuff.

    I took a look at the ecological footprint of large countries such as China, India and the USA. They all exceed the Earth’s bio-capacity. It seems that over time, this change is occurring at an exponential rate. The ecological footprint is becoming larger than ever. It appears that China’s footprint increased around 1970.

    Compared to third world countries, my footprint is obviously larger than theirs. People with running water, houses to live in, and stores to shop in obviously have larger footprints than people without it. As for my own footprint, I don’t think that we can conclude that my footprint is representative for the entire U.S. I cannot represent the population as a whole since there are millions of people with different life styles.

    I think that most of people’s lifestyles will obviously change when they move to different places. My own lifestyle doesn’t involve a ton of transportation since we do currently live on an island with only 8 miles of road. If I were to move down to the lower 48, my ecological footprint would increase due to more driving.

    LC 3rd Period, Spring 2015

  41. 1.)If everyone were like me we would need an entire 6.2 earths to support my lifestyle. My lifestyle requires over 27.5 global acres of the earths productive area to support it. My ecological footprint breaks down to 42% food, 32% services, 10% mobility, 9% goods, and 7% shelter.

    2.)Australia has a decreasing biocapacity but a steady ecological footprint. Argentina has a slowly decreasing biocapacity and ecological footprint but the two match up very closely.Afghanistan has a very different graph. It has a very similar biocapacity and ecological footprint but at some points the two lines cross each other meaning occasionally the biocapacity was lower than the ecological footprint and then other times it is flipped.

    3.)My ecological footprint was much higher than the scores of the other countries I compared myself to. I think that my score was fairly similar, if not a little lower than that of the U.S. average for an ecological footprint.

    4.)My scores caused me to think about what it would be like if everyone had the same ecological footprint as me. There would not be enough productive area on the earth to support everyone. Needing 6.2 earths would be very troublesome.

  42. If all of the people chose to live like me, we would need at least 5.7 planet Earths. To support such a life style, we would need 25.2 global acres of the Earth’s productive area, as well as 27.4 tons of carbon dioxide.
    On the ecological footprint breakdown of my lifestyle, the highest resource needed at 35% is services. After that, the breakdown shows food at 33%, shelter at 14%, goods at 10%, and mobility at 8%. This is strange because I thought my breakdown would go in an order of: Food, Shelter, Services, Goods, and Mobility.

    While looking at three different countries on different continents, I found that Guatemala has a global hectare of just around 2. This was not absurd to me because I know that Guatemala is such a poor country. Next, I looked at Indonesia which has a GHA of around 1.5. This seemed a little odd to me because I thought Indonesia, being larger than Guatemala, would have a larger GHA. Lastly, I looked at Greece and found that it’s GHA is at around 4. Although the US is much larger than these three countries, it was still frightening to me that my GHA was at the least 2 times bigger than each country.

    I do, however, feel a bit ashamed that my global hectare is larger than what the GHA in the US is right now. As of now it is at 7, and my global hectare is 10.2. To support such a lifestyle like mine we would need to have the people of the US get higher paying jobs. But to do so could cause more issue because to get a higher paying job, you may possibly need a higher education and to get a higher education you need more money, which comes right back around to a higher paying job. So really what I am gathering from all this is that if we lived the way I lived, we’d cause more issues than there already are, so maybe America should just slow it down a little bit…before anything else becomes a problem.

    KRK, 3rd Period. Spring 2015.

  43. If everyone lived like me, we would need 6.3 planet Earths to provide enough resources, and my lifestyle takes about 28 acres of Earths productive areas. Food was the highest percentage of my footprint breakdown, at 41%, followed by services which took 31%, and shelter, mobility and goods all came in at 9%. The first country i compared my scores to was Egypt, which by 2011 was barely under 2 hectares per capita, where as my personal score came in at about 12. Second i compared myself to Germany, and i was still a ways ahead of their per capita usage. They are now sitting at about 4.5 global hectares per capita, where my score was more than 2 times that. The third country i compared myself too was Canada, which has a very high bio-capacity, and a much lower ecological footprint. Per capita hectares for Canada still came in under my score of 12, but it was much closer than Egypt or Germany, coming in at about a 9 for 2011. Compared to other countries my ecological footprint is pretty big, more than doubling that of many of the countries I looked at. I for starters would say my lifestyle is slightly above the US average, which for 2011 comes out to around 7 hectares per capita, where as mine was about 12. I don’t think as an individual i represent the entire US very well as clearly I have a significantly larger footprint. Doing these exercise raised a few questions in my mind, but most importantly it made me curious about how ecological footprints in the US would vary on a state by state basis. I think it would be interesting to see which states had higher average footprints, and even more interesting if you could pinpoint why those states had their higher footprints.

  44. From my data i found out that in US, if everyone lived like me, we would need 4.4 Planet Earths to provide enough sources. I have 14% on Food expenses, 10% on Shelter, 7% on Mobility, 23% on Goods, and 45% on other Services. To support my Lifestyle in US it takes 19.5 global acres to the Earth’s productive area 19 tons of carbon dioxide, mostly on Energy land and forest land. I believe that my Ecological footprint it is interesting on how i only need 4.4 Planets however, the amount of energy i spent is a lot bigger in US.

    Japan, has an amazingly increased amount of Footprint Ecology over the years, however is a lot less than US. The graph shows that the numbers differ from year to year but they don’t go over 5.0 whereas in US is up to 10.0. I believe i could be able to live in Japan maybe with some changes on how i waste my energy. However in Japan the Bio-capacity is very ow compared to the Ecological Footprint.

    Egypt, has a very low rate on Ecological Footprint starting in 1961 and over the years it increases from 0.4 to 1.7 Hectars per Capita in 2011. According to my data i would not be able to live in Egypt with the same rate of Footprint. However the graph shows that in 1961 both the Ecological Footprint and Bio-Capacity were very close with each other, but over the years the Bio-Capacity almost stayed the same and the Ecological Footprint increased.

    Greece, for a small country has an increased rate of Ecological Footprint. Compare to the other bigger countries such as Japan, Egypt and US, Greece over the years has amazingly increased from 2.0 in 1961 to 5.0 in 2011. It might not be a huge number but for a small country it can have different effects. With my data i might be able to live there however i would most likely make some changes on how i spent the energy and food. The Bio-Capacity mostly stays the same but in a very low rate throughout the years.
    Comparing all this countries from all over the world it is logical that it would make a lot of difference on how all of this 4 countries differ from each other on using the Footprint resources.With my data i would most likely live in 3 out of 4 countries that i compared however there was still a need to change some of my ecological data and the way i waste the land. The Ecological Footprint in US is really high for me so i believe with my ecological information i could really live in every State in US. USA is a big country and the data of the Ecological Footprint that i had was logical.
    Now that i have done this calculations i believe that i need to be more concerned about how i waste my energy and water. The information that this page gave me made me understand that there are a lot of things that we should be concerned in US and as a big country we need to think more on how we waste energy or our trash and of course recycling.
    As for the questions that came up to me they were mostly questions like : Are other countries involved in Environmental projects? Are there any particular improvements that a country such as those that i saw need to take advantage of? I believe that US needs to start making some changes on the way that we think about the environment.

    3d Period
    Spring 2015

  45. If everyone lives as I do, we would need 4.7 planets to provide enough resources, and to support my lifestyle it would take 20.8 global acres of earths productive area.
    My ecological footprint breaks down to Food 16%, Shelter 27%, Mobility 7%, Goods 8%, and Services 43%.
    For France their Ecological footprint in 1961 it starts at at least like 3.6 for global hectares then it starts to increase and hits the highest mark approximately 1973 hitting just above 5.0. And their Biocapacity slowly increases.
    For Israel, their Ecological footprint isn’t very steady and it seems to jump around a lot throughout the years of the data. The Biocapacity, starts lower than the other graphs I have looked at and then it starts to slowly decrease and continues to get closer to zero.
    For the US their biocapacity seems to slowly decrease throughout the decades and their Ecological footprint seems to either decrease or increase, this graph seems to be at much higher on the global hectare than France and Israel, but they all seem in the Biocapacity they all slowly start to decrease. France and US seem to have the same type of data as each other. No I do not believe that my ecological footprint isn’t represented by the entire US mine was lower than the united states. And for my question, How much are we willing to do to provide enough resources for the planet and provide enough resources for every body?
    MAC Period 3, spring 2015

  46. If everyone lived like me, we would need 5.6 earths to support everyone’s lifestyle. It takes 25.1 global acres to support mine. Services take up most of my lifestyle at 35%, Mobility takes up 23%, Shelter at 23%, Food at 13%, and Goods at 6%. The country that I think I relate to most is Germany. Germany’s average global footprint is around 5.5 global hectares per capita. I was also close to Ireland, and Spain closer to 2011. I think it makes sense where I with my lifestyle. I also think my footprint would be pretty close to everyone’s in the United States. It would be easier to tell if someone is from the US than a different country by looking at their footprint because to me it seems like everyone in the US would have a larger footprint than someone from another country. On the website it gives us options that we can do to lower out footprint but, I wonder what else we can do to lower it even further. I always wonder how fast we our running out of resources in the world when a lot of different countries have different people with different footprints.

    KK Period 3 Spring 2015

  47. 1.) If everyone on earth lived like i do then we would need 5.5 planet earths to be able to provide enough resources for everyone to live. We would need 24.6 global acres that would be used mainly as energy land, crop land and grazing land. With all the use of the land it would create 26.5 tons of carbon dioxide. The main cause of that would be because of the land being used for energy. If you break down my ecological footprint it is 39% food, 36% for services, shelter 9%, mobility 8% and 8% for goods.

    2.) My ecological footprint is 9.9 hectares
    Italy’s ecological footprint was 4 hectares
    Guatemala’s ecological footprint was 2 hectares
    Japans ecological footprint was 4 hectares
    All the hectares i used were from the year 2011

    3.) When comparing my hectares to the other 3 places i chose mine was significantly higher. if you added the 3 places together it would amount to how many acres the world would need to live like i do. After i compared my ecological footprint to the United States footprint there it wasn’t that much higher. The United States ecological footprint was about 8 hectares in 2011. I’d say my ecological footprint isn’t much different from the United States because they’re ecological footprint used to be about at the same number of hectares at me only a couple years back.

    4.)After creating my footprint I kind of wonder why the shelter percentage is so low as well as why is most of the land used for energy? In order for this lifestyle to work we would need to figure out a way to create less carbon dioxide that is produced using land as energy. And also have to figure out a way to be able to constantly have enough food for everyone.
    AG 3rd Period Fall 2014

  48. According to my footprint test, if everyone lived like me, we would need about 5.4 earths to support the lifestyle that I live. My Ecological Footprint is as follows: My services would be around 36%, mobility 23%, food 18%, goods 16%, and shelter would be 7%. The way this is broken down is to show you what you depend on most in your life. This is one way to open your eyes and decide if you want to change your lifestyle and have your priorities in different places.
    In Australia the ecological footprint is 8 earths and the bio capacity is 16. This is slightly larger compared to the U.S.’s at 7 earths but much bigger when comparing bio capacity which is at 4. In Denmark the footprint is 4 earths and the bio capacity is 4.2. In India the footprint is .9 earths and the bio capacity is .5. And lastly in New Zealand the earth count for the footprint is 5, but the bio capacity is 9. Australia is has the largest, but is also one of the richest. I am surprised that India is so low, I was expecting them to be much lower.
    Before I took this test I thought my lifestyle was pretty simple, but now in my mind my footprint is pretty big. One reason that this is so is because living in Sitka we have to fly everywhere but also when in town we drive everywhere and it takes normally no more than 10 minutes. In other small towns in the lower 48 their footprint would be much smaller, but in the cities, it would be about the same or larger. I do think that overall I have an average score for Americans.

  49. if everyone lived the way i live, we would need 5 Planet Earths to provide enough resources. to support my life style , it takes 22.3 global acres of the Earths productive area.and it would produce 19.7 tons of carbon dioxide.
    food 38%
    services 38%
    shelter 9%
    goods 9%
    mobility 6%
    Afghanistan ecological footprint and biocapacity has been dropping since 1961. Canada’s biocapacity has been slowly dropping from 24.0 to 16, and its ecological foot print has been been steady the past fifty years. US biocapacity and ecological footprint has been steady at 7.0 and 5.0 from 1961.
    the average person in the US uses about ten acres and I use 22.3 acres of the Earths productive area.this makes me wonder because I don’t drive a car or a motorcycle but i do take the bus to school nearly everyday.
    My ecological footprint is very big, I needed 5 planets to cover it! Some things that I could look at changing could be, how much i eat meat, my family eats meat pretty much every day, and other some other country’s don’t eat meat as often or ever. and recycling more often
    JAM 3rd period spring 2015

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: