For this exercise, you will use a footprint calculator to estimate your ecological footprint. Go to this ecological footprint calculator and use it to figure out your ecological footprint. You may also find and use another online footprint calculator if you choose. You will be asked to answer a series of questions related to your lifestyle. Complete the exercise based on your current life in the United States. Then repeat the exercise under the assumption that your lifestyle is the same, but that you live in a different country. Pick a country that you think will make a difference compared to the results based on the United States. Make sure you indicate which website you used.
Then post an entry on the size of your US footprint (in numbers of planet Earths) and the size of your footprint in another country, and why you think it changed. Reply to at least one posting by another student. Make sure you complete your postings by 11:55 pm on Saturday. The posting is worth 3 points and the reply is worth 2 points. Refer to instructions for discussion boards posted separately on the course Moodle site.
Here is one post from student you need to replay:
According to Footprint Network, if everyone lived like me (when using the US as my location), we would need 4.7 Earths to provide enough resources. When using Brazil as my location, it would take 0.9 Earths to provide for everyone. Since I noticed the large change, I decided I wanted to do one more simulation, so I picked India as my location. It would take 0.7 Earths to provide for everyone. I was surprised by how many Earths it took when my location was the US. I had assumed since I carpool often and recycle everything, that I would be more “environmentally friendly”, but now I know that that’s not the case. I believe the reason why there’s such a difference between my first location and the other two is because the US is much more industrialized than Brazil and India. Also, the US relies on cars more often than public transport, which affects the environment negatively.
