Ecological footprint of the world
The fans travelling to a football game make up a large part of the carbon footprint. Photograph: Thomas Kienzle/AP
The carbon footprint the 2010 World Cup:
2.8 million tonnes CO2e
To put this headline figure in perspective, 2.8m tonnes is roughly equivalent to 6, 000 space shuttle fights, three quiet years for Mount Etna, or 20 cheeseburgers for every man, woman and child in the UK.
The figure (which like all carbon footprint estimates should be taken with a pinch of salt) comes from a study carried out last year by the South African department of environmental affairs and tourism and the local Norwegian embassy. The study looked at the players and their entourages travelling around, the construction of the sites, energy used at the stadiums, accommodation and fans travelling. Here's how the total breaks down:
The estimated carbon footprint of the 2010 world cup Profile Books
An estimated 1.2 million people will see matches live, so that works out at at a massive carbon cost of 2.3 tonnes per spectator – equivalent to more than four months' worth of gas and electricity use in the typical UK home. Luckily for the carbon credentials of the World Cup, however, each of the 64 matches will be viewed on the television by a guesstimated 93 million people worldwide. At two hours per match, including intervals, extra times, penalty nailbiters and the bit where they swap shirts at the end, that adds up to a massive 12 billion fan-hours of top-quality entertainment.
If these ballpark numbers are correct, the World Cup comes in at a much less shocking 230g CO2e. That would make watching a full game comparable environmentally to buying a couple of cappuccinos or a pint of imported larger. Of course, your own television will consume electricity and add to the footprint but even in the worst scenario (watching alone on a 42-inch plasma screen) your TV will only double the footprint.
By comparison, a Premiership match, at 820 tonnes, comes out at a tiny 45g per viewer-hour (plus televisions), with over nine-tenths of the entertainment being exported around the world.
Even greener still is a kick-around in your local park or street…
• This article is drawn from How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything by Mike Berners-Lee.
Biology Questionn .. Help ? | Yahoo Answers
The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It is a standardized measure of demand for natural capital that may be contrasted with the planet's ecological capacity to regenerate.[1] It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to assimilate associated waste.
The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person (gha/pers). In United States it is 8 gha/pers.
Why would african countries in general have a lower ecological footprint than the united states? | Yahoo Answers
The plain and simple answer is access to energy. Underdeveloped countries tend to have a lower ecological impact on their environment because they don't have access to cheap energy. Which is great for the environment, but an absolute horror for the people who don't have access to the basic necessities of life that abundant energy brings like food, clothing, medicine, education, etc.
Why is the ecological footprint for people in the United States so high
Humans in the U.S. consume so much fabricated and manufactured materials that we tend to waste things. Think about the amount of garbage produced in the U.S. and the amount of that garbage is recycled. on!
Overpopulation is a generally undesirable condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. The term often refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth, or smaller geographical areas such as countries. Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in...
@fusiliyyc I get that, but you can't write a piece that says there are no ecological limits and that the "footprint" concept is irrelevant.