That is a good question. I would assume this has to do with the hunt of productive land required to support an individual. Some use more than others. This ties into sustainability and how we are using more resources than can be supplied by the planet. Some countries need to import more resources than others to support their populations.
Yes, there are lots of things you can do to lower your ecological footprint, like choosing a more fuel efficient car or eating vegetarian once a week. Basically it is calculated by looking at all the things you use and then calculating the resources needed to create those things.
Why is the ecological footprint different per country? Does it just depend on the resources available in each place as well as the development of each place?
It has more to do with the lifestyle of people in different parts of the world. For example in the US, almost every adult has a car, we eat food and wear cloths shipped from all over the world, and we eat a lot more meat. In the developing world, most people don't have a car, eat food they grow themselves, and eat a primarily vegetarian diet. As a result, the ecological footprints of an American is much larger than the ecological footprint of person from the developing world.
The governments of the countries where these forests exist would have to impose the regulations, and in many cases they are more concerned about economic development than conservation of rainforest.
Where does the data come from supporting acres of land per person? Makes me think of AUMs.. Also, is that per lifespan? So in the US it takes 23 acres of production to support one human for the duration of their life? A year?
I'm not sure of the citation for that data, but there is a lot of research about estimating ecological footprints. That area of land is continuous, because the land area has continuous production over the lifespan of the human.
Is there a way to prevent the mass extinctions from occurring? For example 20% of present day species will be extinct by the middle of the century, is there a way to stop or slow this down or are mass extinctions something that needs to occur for life on earth to continue as it is (like with the previous natural 5 extinctions).
There are things that humans can do to reduce extinction, like preserving habitat for organisms. There is some concern that we won't see new diversification after the extinctions are over because humans are occupying all the ecological niches.
Since we have had such an impact on the environment that we named a new era after it, how else will the era's be based off, possibly global warming or catastrophic event?
I don't know. It's a very hard problem because it is hard to tell people not to have children. One thing that would help a lot would be to make birth control easily accessible to everyone everywhere, because then there would be fewer people having kids when they didn't want them.
With regulations that help with the conservation of ecosystems or species, the end result can be positive? If so, why are there not more regulations while using limited resources and leaning towards reusable or renewable resources? Is it more costly initially to start this form of regulation (like with the salmon) and profits occur later or what?
Yes, it is initially costly and in the short term it is possible to make more money without regulations. So for example, with no regulations fishermen could fish without limits and make a lot of money for a few years. But once the fish are gone, then they won't make any more money. With regulation, they make less money per year, but they can continue to make money on salmon long into the future. Often times humans focus mostly on short term outcomes rather than long term outcomes.
They haven't done that yet, but there are some scientists who are considering bringing back extinct animals. The question is whether it is worth the expense or whether we should use that money to save species that haven't gone extinct yet.
does the ecological footprint vary culture by culture? person by person? How is this determined?
That is a good question. I would assume this has to do with the hunt of productive land required to support an individual. Some use more than others. This ties into sustainability and how we are using more resources than can be supplied by the planet. Some countries need to import more resources than others to support their populations.
Yes, there are lots of things you can do to lower your ecological footprint, like choosing a more fuel efficient car or eating vegetarian once a week. Basically it is calculated by looking at all the things you use and then calculating the resources needed to create those things.
How would our species be affected if a nonrenewable source of fuel hypothetically were to run out. Would we be too reliant on it?
Why is the ecological footprint different per country? Does it just depend on the resources available in each place as well as the development of each place?
It has more to do with the lifestyle of people in different parts of the world. For example in the US, almost every adult has a car, we eat food and wear cloths shipped from all over the world, and we eat a lot more meat. In the developing world, most people don't have a car, eat food they grow themselves, and eat a primarily vegetarian diet. As a result, the ecological footprints of an American is much larger than the ecological footprint of person from the developing world.
Why are there nor regulations to stop the deforestation in thee rainforest if it is infarct effecting that area to such a high extent?
The governments of the countries where these forests exist would have to impose the regulations, and in many cases they are more concerned about economic development than conservation of rainforest.
Where does the data come from supporting acres of land per person? Makes me think of AUMs.. Also, is that per lifespan? So in the US it takes 23 acres of production to support one human for the duration of their life? A year?
I'm not sure of the citation for that data, but there is a lot of research about estimating ecological footprints. That area of land is continuous, because the land area has continuous production over the lifespan of the human.
Is there a way to prevent the mass extinctions from occurring? For example 20% of present day species will be extinct by the middle of the century, is there a way to stop or slow this down or are mass extinctions something that needs to occur for life on earth to continue as it is (like with the previous natural 5 extinctions).
There are things that humans can do to reduce extinction, like preserving habitat for organisms. There is some concern that we won't see new diversification after the extinctions are over because humans are occupying all the ecological niches.
Since we have had such an impact on the environment that we named a new era after it, how else will the era's be based off, possibly global warming or catastrophic event?
Usually each era is millions of years, so we need to worry about naming another one for a while.
What is the best approach one can use to overpopulation?
I don't know. It's a very hard problem because it is hard to tell people not to have children. One thing that would help a lot would be to make birth control easily accessible to everyone everywhere, because then there would be fewer people having kids when they didn't want them.
With regulations that help with the conservation of ecosystems or species, the end result can be positive? If so, why are there not more regulations while using limited resources and leaning towards reusable or renewable resources? Is it more costly initially to start this form of regulation (like with the salmon) and profits occur later or what?
Yes, it is initially costly and in the short term it is possible to make more money without regulations. So for example, with no regulations fishermen could fish without limits and make a lot of money for a few years. But once the fish are gone, then they won't make any more money. With regulation, they make less money per year, but they can continue to make money on salmon long into the future. Often times humans focus mostly on short term outcomes rather than long term outcomes.
Is there anyway it would ever be possible to genetically engineer an extinct species and get it to some how rehabilitate the species?
They haven't done that yet, but there are some scientists who are considering bringing back extinct animals. The question is whether it is worth the expense or whether we should use that money to save species that haven't gone extinct yet.
Why is population growth much higher in developing countries compared to developed countries?
Mostly because the birth rates in developing countries is much higher than in developed countries.