- My Ecological Footprint is six global hectares, and according to the Global Footprint Network, the Earth itself contains approximately 12 billion hectares. (Global Footprint Network, 2016). The Earth’s population is estimated to be approximately 7.5 billion people (Worldometers, 2016). Therefore, if each person on Earth had the same Ecological Footprint as me, then we would require 45 billion hectares, or 3.75 Earths to support our lifestyles.
- My current consumption requires an area of productive land equivalent to 7.4 Canadian football fields. The typical size of a Canadian football field is 110 yards long, plus two 20 yard end zones, and a width of 65 yards. Therefore a Canadian football field is 9,750 yards squared. Since one square yard is equivalent to 0.000206612 acres, this means that a typical Canadian football field is 2.014463 acres, or 2 acres rounded down (Metric Conversions, 2016). Therefore, it takes approximately 15 acres of Earth’s productive land to support my lifestyle. [Need an essay writing service? Find help here.]
- The categories that most account for my ecological footprint is “Services”, closely followed by “Mobility”. This makes sense, since throughout the day I use a lot of electronics, and I have a considerable commute to work and school.
- The three changes that I can make to give myself a smaller ecological footprint is to reduce the amount I drive each week, possibly by moving closer to where I work In addition to this, I could begin car-pooling with friends and coworkers to further reduce my footprint, as I currently only drive myself. The last change I could make would be to reduce the amount of water I use on a day-to-day basis. According to this quiz, it takes quite a bit of energy to heat up and cool down the water I use at home. By changing my weekly transportation from over 480km a week to 140-230 km a week, car-pooling to work half the time, and changing my household water usage from 25-40 meters cubed, to 15-25 meters cubed, I would be able to reduce my Ecological Footprint from six hectares to five hectares. Going back to the first question, this would mean that 2.80 Earth’s would be required to support our lifestyles if everybody lived like me, down from 3.75. [“Write my essay for me?” Get help here.]
The five nations I picked to analyze the Ecological Footprints of include: Canada, The United States, China, India, and Norway. Through this database, Canada has had a fairly consistent Ecological Footprint of between 5 and 9 global hectares per person since 1961. However, the Biocapacity of Canada has been gradually decreasing over the last five decades, as it was approximately 27 global hectares per person in 1961, and in 2012 resided around 15 global hectares per person. The United States has a higher Ecological Footprint than Canada, varying between 8 and 11 global hectares per person. Unlike Canada, the United States has seen their Biocapacity remain consistently at 4-5 global hectares per person since 1961. Unlike the consistent levels of Ecological Footprints seen in Canada, China has seen a drastic increase in Ecological Footprints, resting around 1 in 1961, and sitting at 3.5 global hectares per person in 2012. Their Biocapacity is quite a bit lower than the United States and Canada, consistently resting around 1 global hectare per person. Like China, India is also seeing a consistently increasing Ecological Footprint, as their economies and industries grow, however their overall value is quite a bit lower than we have seen in the other 3 countries, sitting at 0.6 in 1961, and increasing to 1.2 by 2012. [Click Essay Writer to order your essay]In addition to this, they have seen a consistently low Biocapacity, resting at approximately 0.5 global hectares per person since 1961. Norway has a very interesting and varied Ecological Footprint, as they dropped from 8 to 7 between 1961 and 1966, then rose to 11 between 1966 and 1971, then fell back to 10, then rose again to 12 between 1971 and 1976, before falling back to 10 again around 1980. Since that point, Norway has been rising and falling between 8 and 5 global hectares per person up to 2012. Unlike their varied Ecological Footprint, Norway has seen a consistent Biocapacity resting around 10 global hectares per person and falling to around 9 in 2012.
Global Footprint Network. (2016, August 26). Glossary. (Global Footprint Network)
Metric Conversions. (2016).
Worldometers. (2016, December 1). Worldometers