I just found a site where you're able to calculate your footprint on earth.
An ecological footprint is the amount of land and water area a person or a human population would need to provide the resources required to sustainably support itself and to absorb its wastes, given prevailing technology Now, the ecological footprint is arguably the most accurate indicator of a person's, group's or country's engergy consumption.
Who has the highest footprint?
I scored a royal 5.5 square kilometers, just 3 times more than the [on this earth] available footprint.
I scored 4.4 but I think this test is BS and based on pseudo science.
ReplyDelete"Calculated footprints can be inaccurate due to simplifying assumptions. Many factors of the calculations are based on crude estimates and the numbers may not be applicable to all places (the method is biased to Northern Hemisphere lifestyles). Also, the model generally does not count multiple uses of land: a forest is a carbon sink and the same area is not counted for food production.
The per-person nature of footprinting is questionable. For example, the model favors households with more children: A large house with ten children has a smaller per-person footprint than a house half its size with only one person. This is a perverse result, since having more children adds to global overpopulation, with high ecological costs in the future.
To counter these uncertainties, the models of ecological footprinting are constantly being refined."