Searching \ for '[OT]:: Ecological footprint quiz' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=ecological+footprint
Search entire site for: ': Ecological footprint quiz'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:: Ecological footprint quiz'
2007\10\07@012516 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
One for James

   http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index_reset.asp?pid=379818142458096

Assesses (or attempts to) the amount of viable area in hectares
required to sustain you.

Available world hectares of biologically productive land is 1.8 per
person.
My score was 4.8 hectares.
My country's average was said to be 7.6.
I was surprised to be rated so low wrt my country average and not at
all surprised wrt world average.

I've never attempted to assess my "carbon footprint".
I'm not at all convinced, as you might expect, that such measures are
meaningful or useful, although I'm happy with the idea of attempting
to reduce resource utilisation.
My hope long term is to have a large and negative one, regardless of
the usefulness of the measure.

If things work out as I hope they may in the near future then I should
be on the way to producing a personal extremely large negative carbon
footprint. Probably arguably a large negative ecological one too.
Working on the theory that if one aids a large number of people in
reducing theirs then one is due a percentage of the "spoils". I'll
tell you about it if it comes to pass.



       Russell



2007\10\08@134600 by James Newton

face picon face
19 with a country average of 24. I do well on food (we grow and buy local)
and shelter (solar panels, wood heat) and very poorly on mobility (because I
commute 30 mies each way 4 days a week to work) and not very good on
"goods/services" although I'm not sure what that is about.

We need to work on water use: I have 5 55 gallon barrels for water storage,
but I do not have then connected to the rain gutters and to a drip watering
system as I have planned for years to do. My county has outlawed gray water
systems (how moronic) and so we have not implemented that.

Best wishes and hope for that sterling project. If you make a useful one,
I'll try to buy it. So far I haven't even convinced myself to pay for a heat
engine fan for my wood stove...

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2007\10\09@070138 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:25:19 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:

> My country's average was said to be 7.6.

That's a surprise - ours is 5.3.  I always thought of NZ as being a "greener" place than the UK!

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\09@074628 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I MAY have been deemed an Australian due to an entry error on my part.
They have lost of long distance travel.


> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:25:19 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> My country's average was said to be 7.6.
>
> That's a surprise - ours is 5.3.  I always thought of NZ as being a
> "greener" place than the UK!

2007\10\09@094051 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:46:28 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:

> I MAY have been deemed an Australian

Ugh!  Can you sue?  ;-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\09@103005 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > I MAY have been deemed an Australian
>
> Ugh!  Can you sue?  ;-)
>


Sue?  Hardly, being considered an Australian is the highest possible honour
a Kiwi can aspire to.  That goes for the rest of you too (including
Tasmanians).

Australia has a long tradition of claiming useful foreigners as their own
(your meaning of useful may vary!).  Living here for a while helps your
cause, but if you're sufficiently useful then you may be claimed whilst just
passing thru.

The reverse (we disown you) holds true, although it generally applies only
if you turn into a complete ratbag, becoming less useful is perfectly
acceptable.

For example, Nicole Kidman is still an aussie, Tom Cruise was up for
consideration but was passed over due to A) Divorce, and B) He's gone nuts.
Mel Gibson is being slowly unclaimed because he's gone nuts too.  Russell
Crowe is still an aussie, but his status hangs in the balance as he can be a
complete tosser at times.

One day we'll just say 'bugger it' and require that NZ be called its proper
name - 'Eastern Australia'.  If nothing else, it'll give us somewhere to put
the rest of the possums.

Tony

2007\10\09@192912 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:
> Russell,
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:46:28 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>  
>> I MAY have been deemed an Australian
>>    
>
> Ugh!  Can you sue?  ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>  
Hey i resemble that remark :-<

2007\10\09@213553 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Sue?  Hardly, being considered an Australian is the highest possible
> honour
> a Kiwi can aspire to.  That goes for the rest of you too (including
> Tasmanians).

Each year a certain percentage of disaffected NZers emigrate to Oz,
thereby increasing the average IQ of both countries.

> Australia has a long tradition of claiming useful foreigners as
> their own
> (your meaning of useful may vary!).  Living here for a while helps
> your
> cause, but if you're sufficiently useful then you may be claimed
> whilst just
> passing thru.

It's not just people they claim.
Oz's greatest racehorse, Pharlap, was actually NZ born.

And food.
Oz's great dessert (as opposed to desert) experience, The Pavlova, is
a NZ creation.

And rather more ...

But, they can't be all bad. They once had a Prime Minister named
McMahon :-)

And, it goes the other way too.
A number of our "native" birds were undoubtedly seeded from Oz when a
few poor unfortunates got blown out to sea in a major storm and stayed
aloft rather than die long enough to make landfall here. eg "Zosterops
Lateralis" aka Silvereye/Waxeye. Not the Kiwi though :-).



       Russell

2007\10\09@214516 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jake Anderson wrote:

> Howard Winter wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:46:28 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> I MAY have been deemed an Australian
>>
>> Ugh!  Can you sue?  ;-)
>>  
> Hey i resemble that remark :-<

Are you an Aussie -- or are you trying to fake one? :)

Gerhard

2007\10\09@233120 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Jake Anderson wrote:
>
>  
>> Howard Winter wrote:
>>    
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:46:28 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
>>>      
>>>> I MAY have been deemed an Australian
>>>>        
>>> Ugh!  Can you sue?  ;-)
>>>  
>>>      
>> Hey i resemble that remark :-<
>>    
>
> Are you an Aussie -- or are you trying to fake one? :)
>
> Gerhard
>
>  
A fake aussie? the very idea is abhorrent. 100% original here ;->

2007\10\09@233618 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
I think they have it the wrong way around. Its not that you need 7.4
earths to sustain you, there needs to be 7.4 times fewer people on this
earth.
Any government (like my own) espousing population growth should be shot,
as a first step towards correcting this problem.
If you halved the population of the earth then everything would become
so much more "sustainable".
If everybody lived like a kiwi we could have a population of 1.25bn (i
think?) provided you like mutton and wear lots of wool that wouldn't be
such a bad way to live.
Everybody would have so much more room, Russell and I could fire rockets
off with reckless abandon and not have to worry so much about dropping a
stage on mexico city or something ;->

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\09@235807 by Peter P.

picon face
Russell McMahon <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:
> I've never attempted to assess my "carbon footprint".

Well, I think that you should, because it puts the b**s of the present
'calculations' used by politicians in perspective.

As a starter, a human (at rest!) needs about 400kg of oxygen per year to
breathe (based on 0.5l/min), that's about 12kmol. Assuming one is 'burning'
methane (least C/H ratio possible), one would produce about 270kg of CO2/year.
With higher C/H ratios such as those of sugars the CO2 output increases and
can be considered double for most higher fats and other solid food. So a
man-on-couch-CO2 footprint is around 500kg CO2/year.

That also works out to 96kg CH4 equivalent energy / man and year. At 802kJ/mol
this is 4.8E9J/year or 150J/sec (W) which is more or less correct for a person
at rest. It is known that metabolism rate can triple under effort. That would
increase CO2 output (triple it to at most 1.5 tons/person and year).

Now the recent environment conferences the carbon footprint of people in
developing nations was found to be 2 tons/year, in EU 11t/yr and in the US
20t/yr.

And THEN the stated goal was, to reduce the carbon footprint of the EU to 2
tons/year. Given what is known about the population of this planet, about 300k
people produce 20t/yr, another 300k 11t/yr and the rest to 6.5 billion 2t/yr.
So world CO2 footprint is about 2.11E10kg/yr and after achieving the grandiose
set goals it will be 1.8E10kg/yr, about the level produced in 1985, when hgw
was allegedly well under way already. Does this make sense ? Oh, and should the
cousins join in, the levels would decrease to 1970ish levels, when hgw was also
already under way, according to information from relevant (?) sites.

Conclusions: my 'numbers' are as bad or as good as any. But I consider the
people who set the 2t/yr goal to be lunatics. As a good strategy to reduce
carbon footprint, as an individual, get a low power lcd tv and a couch, and
move as little as possible to minimize metabolism, while feeding on short chain
sugars such as sweets and tv snacks, and to allow cows and decaying vegetation
to still outdo your CO2 footprint by orders of magnitude, while feeling good
about it for a change. Anyway, if the CO2 production by source is anywhere near
accurate, cutting electricity consumption by 50% and cutting transportation by
50% should almost get there.

No, I am not serious.

Peter P.


2007\10\10@002340 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Russell McMahon <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:
>> I've never attempted to assess my "carbon footprint".

> Well, I think that you should, because it puts the b**s of the
> present
> 'calculations' used by politicians in perspective.

I didn't do it because I already have a reasonably good idea of how
useful it is likely to really be.

As I said, I wan't to produce such a large negative carbon impact
personally that measuring my personal part of it is irrelevant :-).

That way, whether it matters or not, as long as what I do to achieve
this is worthwhile in its own right, then I win all round.



       Russell

2007\10\10@073753 by Peter P.

picon face
Russell McMahon <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:
> That way, whether it matters or not, as long as what I do to achieve
> this is worthwhile in its own right, then I win all round.

Yes, the best way to win all round is to define the control volume to include
only the positive parts and disregard the others. >;->

Peter P.


2007\10\10@080325 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Australia has a long tradition of claiming useful
> foreigners as their
> > own (your meaning of useful may vary!).  Living here for a
> while helps
> > your cause, but if you're sufficiently useful then you may
> be claimed
> > whilst just passing thru.
>
> It's not just people they claim.
> Oz's greatest racehorse, Pharlap, was actually NZ born.
>
> And food.
> Oz's great dessert (as opposed to desert) experience, The
> Pavlova, is a NZ creation.
>
> And rather more ...


Yep, we pinch anything we find useful.

After all, what do you expect from a nation of convicts?  :)

Tony

2007\10\10@080504 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Peter P. wrote:

It seems a few numbers got skewed...

> And THEN the stated goal was, to reduce the carbon footprint of the EU to
> 2 tons/year. Given what is known about the population of this planet,
> about 300k people produce 20t/yr, another 300k 11t/yr ...

That probably should be 300M people in both cases, if those are the
approximate populations of USA and EU.

> ... and the rest to 6.5 billion 2t/yr. So world CO2 footprint is about
> 2.11E10kg/yr ...

If "billion" here means 1E9 (please don't use "billion" -- there are so
many of it :) and the "k"s above meant M (1E6), I get (13 + 3.3 + 6)
Gt/year = 22.3 Gt/year = 22.3E9 t/year = 22.3E12 kg/year = 2.23E13 kg/year.

Not sure how this affects the rest of the argument, as I don't know the
original data.

> ... and after achieving the grandiose set goals it will be 1.8E10kg/yr,
> about the level produced in 1985, ...

If your numbers (considering my assumptions above) are correct, the current
level is about 1000 times the level produced in 1985.

Gerhard

2007\10\10@095024 by Tony Smith

picon face
 
> >>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:46:28 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> I MAY have been deemed an Australian
> >>>>        
> >>> Ugh!  Can you sue?  ;-)
> >>>  
> >>>      
> >> Hey i resemble that remark :-<
> >>    
> >
> > Are you an Aussie -- or are you trying to fake one? :)
> >
> > Gerhard
> >
> >  
> A fake aussie? the very idea is abhorrent. 100% original here ;->
> --


I devised a test for that a while back, much better & long before the Oz
guvmit came up with their lame version.

Q1) Do you like Vegemite? (this is the oral part - i.e. you must eat a
Vegemite sandwich)
Q2) What are the words to the Oz national anthem?
Q3) There was a third one, but I've forgotten what it was.  Probably 'Do you
like sport?'

Answers accepted on the back of a lamington or a Phar Lap betting slip.

Tony


(Russell should add 'Useful enough to be considered an Australian by some'
to his list of references.)

2007\10\10@160305 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

1.    Yes

2.    I can whistle the tune and parody half the words with a few
correct ones here and there. More than many reel Ozzies. " ... for we
are young and freeeeeeeeee ... advance Oztralia Fare.!" What about all
the old geezers then ??

Also, I can sing all of Wltzing Matilda, which is the REAL national
anthem. Does that count.

3.    Who?

Maybe that should be one/some of

What's a Billabong?
Where is Didgeredoo?
Can you Gundagie?
What sits on the tuckerbox?
What is across the bay from Luna Park (or where Luna Park was? [Gone
now?].
Who was the SH Bridge's most (arguably) famous painter, and is that a
knife?

__

We do seem to have a large number of either may have been convicts or
convict keepers on both sides of the family at the children's level.
So my children are more Ozzie than I. The other major alternative is
often enough pure British stock come direct. Doesn't seem to make much
difference long term.

If any of the preceding sounds Irish, note my surname and yes, I do
like potatos*.



           Russell

* There was no potato famine, or so Siobahn would have you understand.







2007\10\10@164225 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> > Q1) Do you like Vegemite? (this is the oral part - i.e. you
> must eat a Vegemite sandwich)

Is this what "the men at work" are singing about? I always heared them
singing "veganite" which I interpreted as "vergetarian"...

A little googling - but I know that stuff, we call it "marmite" -
delicious stuff!

> Also, I can sing all of Wltzing Matilda, which is the REAL national
> anthem. Does that count.

I can sing the Eric Bogle song, and I can probably find most of the
chords on a guitar, but not quickly enough though - does that count too?

> Q3) There was a third one, but I've forgotten what it was.  Probably
> 'Do you like sport?'

I guess any syntactically correct answer is OK?

Did I pass? (or should I remove .nl from my signature first?)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\10\10@183627 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Is this what "the men at work" are singing about? I always heared
> them
> singing "veganite" which I interpreted as "vergetarian"...

> A little googling - but I know that stuff, we call it "marmite" -
> delicious stuff!

Bzzzt.
Fail.
Fell into trap set for furriners.

Vegemite and Marmite MAY look and smell and even perchance taste the
same to the uninitiated, but true devotees will fight duels at dawn
over which is superior.

Marmite has a somewhat sharper stronger taste.
I personally like both.

Marmite is, I believe, named (with suitable speech marks added) for
the ?French ?Belgian ?both "always on" traditional soup pot.

VEGEmite is making the point that it is a non-meat product - BUT
Marmite is too.
Bovril used to be beef based but went quietly vegetarian sometime
during the BSE scares.




       Russell




2007\10\10@185636 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Vegemite and Marmite MAY look and smell and even perchance taste the
> same to the uninitiated, but true devotees will fight duels at dawn
> over which is superior.
>
> Marmite has a somewhat sharper stronger taste.
> I personally like both.
>
> Marmite is, I believe, named (with suitable speech marks added) for
> the ?French ?Belgian ?both "always on" traditional soup pot.
>
> VEGEmite is making the point that it is a non-meat product - BUT
> Marmite is too.
> Bovril used to be beef based but went quietly vegetarian sometime
> during the BSE scares.

From Wikipedia: "Vegemite is made from leftover brewers' yeast extract,
a by-product of beer manufacture, and various vegetable and spice
additives."

Being a brewer, I prefer to get mine directly, thank you.  Pour out a
pint of the finest holding back the dregs in a fingers depth of brew;
swirl it around and down the hatch - know what good health is.

2007\10\10@185825 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Q1)  Yes, of course.  Non-partakers get exiled.

Q2)  This is a trick question, the correct answer is 'um....'.  Australians
don't have much in the way of national pride (well, sport perhaps), but we
are proud of the fact the no-one knows the words to the anthem.  The bit
quoted above is more than enough, any more, especially knowing the 'girt by
sea' (who's Gert?) is a fail.  It's like the guy trying to light up his
flagpole in his garden the other day, an Australians response to that is 'eh
wtf mate?  Can't you remember what it looks like?  Keep forgetting what
country you're in or something?'.  A flag at the local RSL is ok, this sets
the 'flag to suburb' ratio at about 1.  (Grumbling about the Union Jack
being on it is another matter.)

Q3)  No.  This is personal bias, I feel we've quite enough of those people.
If Yes, don't mention any sports Australian lose at, or recently lost.  For
example, the 'Americas Cup' was last mentioned just before Australia lost
it, and never since.  Thank $deity.  The current discussion is dictated by
what's on TV, and your expert (naturally) opinion is required by all
present.

That's probably a pass, let down by Q2 a bit.  A few less words and a bit
more 'ummm' will bring the grade up  :)

Tony

2007\10\10@190246 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Q1)  No no no, marmite and promite are far lesser items, no substitute for
Vegemite.  Weird, actually, since they're all supposedly the same thing.
And yes, that is what Men At Work were on about.

Q2)  Possibly, although you need to know the anthem is 'Advance Australia
Fair', you don't need to know the words.

Q3)  'No' is much preferred, but I'm biased  :)

Tony

2007\10\10@193818 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Tony Smith wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1) yeah
2) dunno
3) sorta


;->

2007\10\10@201153 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
> 1) yeah
> 2) dunno
> 3) sorta
>

Your post reminded me of the awesome time I had on a trip to Australia
a few years ago, going from Perth to Broome by plane and back down the
coast by Grayhound.
I was completely thrown by the fact that a single word (other than
F#$%) can be so  versatile - "cheers" this, "cheers" that... very
efficient, I suppose.
Great times, though. AND I learned all about Aussie Rules Football.
Cheers,
- Marcel

2007\10\10@204905 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Marcel Birthelmer wrote:
>> 1) yeah
>> 2) dunno
>> 3) sorta
>>
>>    
>
> Your post reminded me of the awesome time I had on a trip to Australia
> a few years ago, going from Perth to Broome by plane and back down the
> coast by Grayhound.
> I was completely thrown by the fact that a single word (other than
> F#$%) can be so  versatile - "cheers" this, "cheers" that... very
> efficient, I suppose.
> Great times, though. AND I learned all about Aussie Rules Football.
> Cheers,
> - Marcel
>  
no worries ;->

2007\10\11@033950 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> > Is this what "the men at work" are singing about? I always heared
> > them
> > singing "veganite" which I interpreted as "vergetarian"...
>
> > A little googling - but I know that stuff, we call it "marmite" -
> > delicious stuff!
>
> Bzzzt.
> Fail.
> Fell into trap set for furriners.

I don't have no st*ng fur!

> Marmite has a somewhat sharper stronger taste.

OK, so Vegamite is for weenies. I'll stick to the real stuff. (Stick
might be taken literally)

> VEGEmite is making the point that it is a non-meat product - BUT
> Marmite is too.

I don't get it. That stuff is 100% salt - is there room for anything
else?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\10\11@053331 by Tony Smith

picon face

{Quote hidden}

Onya cobber.

Tony

2007\10\11@060959 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > 1) yeah
> > 2) dunno
> > 3) sorta
> >
>
> Your post reminded me of the awesome time I had on a trip to
> Australia a few years ago, going from Perth to Broome by
> plane and back down the coast by Grayhound.
> I was completely thrown by the fact that a single word (other than
> F#$%) can be so  versatile - "cheers" this, "cheers" that...
> very efficient, I suppose.
> Great times, though. AND I learned all about Aussie Rules Football.
> Cheers,
> - Marcel


Australian tourists discussing the Grand Canyon:

       Aussie 1 - 'Big.'
       Aussie 2 - 'Yeah.'

Substitute 'Grand Canyon' & 'big' with $object & $thebleedingobvious and you
have almost all Australian conversations, regardless of the number of people
present.  In fact, $thebleedingobvious is often left out with little
reduction in the quality of the conversation.

Whew, that's a few years worth there!

Cheers,

Tony

2007\10\11@073419 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Substitute 'Grand Canyon' & 'big' with $object &
>$thebleedingobvious and you have almost all
>Australian conversations,

I remember the fun we had getting some ozzies to count ...

'one', 'two', 'three', 'four', 'five', 'sex', ...

2007\10\11@075608 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>> Substitute 'Grand Canyon' & 'big' with $object &
>> $thebleedingobvious and you have almost all
>> Australian conversations,
>>    
>
> I remember the fun we had getting some ozzies to count ...
>
> 'one', 'two', 'three', 'four', 'five', 'sex', ...
>  
That would be the kiwis

2007\10\11@081929 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >Substitute 'Grand Canyon' & 'big' with $object & $thebleedingobvious
> >and you have almost all Australian conversations,
>
> I remember the fun we had getting some ozzies to count ...
>
> 'one', 'two', 'three', 'four', 'five', 'sex', ...


They may just have been Kiwi's pretending to be Australians.  Or maybe we
all look the same.  :)

Did you send them off to get some fush 'n' chups with a slab of bear to wash
it down?

Tony

2007\10\11@091558 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I remember the fun we had getting some ozzies to count ...
>>
>> 'one', 'two', 'three', 'four', 'five', 'sex', ...
>>
> That would be the kiwis

Only if the Ozzies come from the Seeeeedneee area.
My daughter, a Kiwi (KeeeWeeee to the Seeedneeee ozziieees) is living
in Canberra and says that the Ostralian preoccupation with hearing
NZers saying "sex"  irregardless of what vowel is placed between the s
and the x, is limited to said Seedneeey area. In Canberra they are
apparently more rounded of speech. Amazing what a few hours travel
remove can achieve.

She previosuly spent some time at the YWAM base in Perth and reports
that when there are USAites around, as there were there,  that the
familiar Kiwi response "Sweet as"*  had better not be uttered
verbally. Shocked faces and sudden shock all round apparently.



       Russell

* Fine. No problem. All's OK. That's good. I've got it. ...






More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...