I am pretty sure that the primary method of CO2 removal from the atmosphere is by dissolving in the oceans and reaction with silica, not through plants. So to handle your CO2 waste, what you need is shoreline, not trees.
Achernar, I am curious about the figures you posted. Do they show the net CO2, or do they ignore the fact that plants both remove and produce atmospheric CO2?
The net.
I thought you all might be interested in this as it certainly relates to the topic at hand.
The following is from the United Nations’ Human Development Report of 1998:
The world consumed more than $24 trillion in goods and services in 1997, six times the figure for 1975.
Of the world’s 6.8 billion people, 4.4 billion live in developing countries, the rest in rich industrial and transitional countries.
The 3 RICHEST PEOPLE in the world own assets that exceed the combined gross domestic products of the WORLD’s poorest 48 COUNTRIES.
Among the 4.4 billion people who live in developing countries, THREE/FIFTHS have no access to basic sanitation; almost ONE/THIRD are without safe drinking water; ONE/QUARTER lack adequate housing; ONE/FIFTH live without basic health services; ONE/FIFTH of children do not get as far as grade 5 in school and ONE/FIFTH are seriously undernourished.
BASIC EDUCATION for ALL would cost $6 billion a year - $8 billion is spent annually for cosmetics in the US alone.
Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 billion plus moderate annual costs - Europeans spend $11 billion on ICE CREAM annually.
Reproductive health services for all women would cost $12 billion a year. The US & Europe spends $12 billion annually on PERFUME.
Basic health care and nutrition would cost $13 billion a year - $17 billion is spent of PET food annually in the US.
$35 billion is spent on business entertainment in Japan
$50 billion is spend on cigarettes in Europe
$105 billion is spent on alcohol in Europe
$400 billion is spent world-wide on narcotic drugs
$780 billion is spent on the world’s military forces.
That’s pretty cool, violet9, but there’s no way that there were 6.8 billion people in 1997, right?
Just wanted to say:
Footprint: 18
3.9 planets.
But I had to go with the 10-100 miles per week for my car. In reality, it’s more like 25, but I assume they base results on the highest number in the group, which means I’m going to be skeptical about these results.
I cut this out of the Washington Post newspaper, and it resides on my refrigerator. I copied it verbatum. I just checked it, and that’s what it says. I haven’t confirmed that number with other sources.
Okay, I believe you. I thought it might have been a typo. Wow, it’s getting crowded.
According to the US Census Bureau, 1997 world midyear population is 5.8 billion (based on the update timestamp, I assume this is a real number rather than a projection), so the Washington Post article may have been a typo.
I was unable to find a total population figure from the original 1998 UN Human Development Report, but that may just be because of my impatience coupled with lousy dial-up connection speeds. According to the 2001 Report, though, 2.8 billion in the world live on less than $2 a day (Chapter 1). Compared to that, living 4 to a 1000 sq. ft. house doesn’t sound so bad.
I went to the UN site, but nothing would download - just blank pages that said “done.” I have a dsl, so that shouldn’t be the problem.
I made like a 29 on that ecological footprint quiz. It’s very frustrating, because I AM conscious of trying to minimize my impact. I recycle, don’t buy a lot of processed food, have a fuel-efficient car which I usually drive less than 100 miles per week, I’m an antique dealer and almost everything I buy is on the secondary market, but none of this makes any difference. I’m sorry, but I’m just not willing to live without electricity and running water.
Mine’s 45, but mainly because I fly so much. I actually use an incredibly small amount of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline, other than flying about…300+ hours a year.