3 ms·

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2007.2164 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2007.216... It is actually higher: https://ro

• tomrod 5y ago
  I'm not disputing the claim. I simply didn't know it. Consider me one of today's "lucky 10,000". https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ It is a shame this information is locked behind a paywall though. Telling people "your ecological footprint is massive" is fine, but better to understand how to reduce said footprint. I'm guessing this calculation is taking into account production fuel costs, food production, commuting gas, etc. North America, and the US in particular, has enjoyed externalized transaction costs for a long time.
  • freshpots 5y ago
    You're right I was being a bit terse as I am constantly bombarded with climate deniers and those actively trying to make things worse in my line of work.
• bryanlarsen 5y ago
  That's based on some pretty flawed assumptions, it mixes cause and effect. We use ~all of our arable land for growing food because that's how much land we have. If we had more land, we'd use it for growing food too, to make our food cheaper. If we had less land, we'd use our land more intensively to grow the same amount of food more expensively. For example, if we grew all of our food in greenhouses, we'd use about 0.1% of the land but food would be about 10x as expensive.