SOUTHAMPTON residents
have used up enough resources to plunge the
city into ecological
debt.
According to a new report
Southampton has already consumed
its fair share of the earth's
resources for the entire year as of
today.
The report was compiled by
WWF-UK, formerly the World
Wildlife Fund, who claim
Southampton has the seventh
largest footprint out of 61 cities
across the UK.
Based on the data, Sotonians
would need nearly three-and-a-halfplanets
to sustain their lifestyle.
The news comes just 11 days after
Winchester became the first city in
the country to go into eco debt'.
Southampton Test MP Alan
Whitehead, said: "It is in the clear
interest of Southampton to reduce
our ecological footprints, as much
of the city could be hit by rising
sea levels caused by climate
change."
advertisement
Click here to read more from Greenwatch.
One Southampton resident who
reduced her carbon footprint is 27-
year-old Nicola Sims who has a
footprint of just 2.27 planets which
is below the UK average of three.
She said: "Although my footprint
is less than the national average
and one planet under the average
for Southampton it is still quite
high. I am trying to reduce my footprint
even more by negotiating
with my boss so that I can work
from home one day a week."
Colin Butfield, head of campaigns
at WWF-UK, said: "Even the
most green city resident can, on
average, only reduce their footprint
by one third - moving from a
UK average of a three planet
lifestyle to a two planet lifestyle.
This clearly indicates that the one
planet challenge is not just about
consumers - government and business
must also play their part to
avoid the most devastating impacts
on the environment."
The data comes from a WWF
report, Ecological Footprint of
British City Residents, which calculated
the average ecological footprint
of cities' residents.
An individual's ecological footprint
relates to the land and sea
area required to provide food,
resources and energy, as well as
absorb waste and pollution. The
main factors affecting this are
housing, food, consumer goods,
public and private services and
transport.
To calculate your footprint and
devise a plan to reduce it visit
wwf.org.uk/calculator
Posted by: vicky, Southampton on 2:10pm Mon 21 Apr 08
Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.
Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.
Posted by: Anon, Southampton on 2:22pm Mon 21 Apr 08
How can the council help to reduce their footprint? First, consider the environmental impact of some of their decisions - traffic lights use energy, lit up walls use energy, slowing traffic down wastes fuel and pollutes the atmosphere more. They could cut down on the paper they send out to residents (although only replace with online services if the trade-off is worth it). They could reduce their building footprint by moving offices to less buildings and converting vehicles to hydrogen powered etc.
Individuals can do their bit, but leadership should come from those we pay to provide our services.
As for me, I'm reducing my footprint by driving less, reusing what I can and recycling over 75% of the household waste.
How can the council help to reduce their footprint? First, consider the environmental impact of some of their decisions - traffic lights use energy, lit up walls use energy, slowing traffic down wastes fuel and pollutes the atmosphere more. They could cut down on the paper they send out to residents (although only replace with online services if the trade-off is worth it). They could reduce their building footprint by moving offices to less buildings and converting vehicles to hydrogen powered etc.
Individuals can do their bit, but leadership should come from those we pay to provide our services.
As for me, I'm reducing my footprint by driving less, reusing what I can and recycling over 75% of the household waste.
The footprint calculator linked from the Echo website is so poorly constructed that it can never provide any meaningful answer. If the report is based upon this calculator in some way the report can safely be ignored.
The footprint calculator linked from the Echo website is so poorly constructed that it can never provide any meaningful answer. If the report is based upon this calculator in some way the report can safely be ignored.
Posted by: Big Clem, planet earth on 2:49pm Mon 21 Apr 08
My footprint is a size 9,no more no less. What the heck is a "footprint of 2.27 planets"? Be aware people, of the Eco-police and the "ready to tax anything" brigade. We cannot change the evolution of nature!.
My footprint is a size 9,no more no less. What the heck is a "footprint of 2.27 planets"? Be aware people, of the Eco-police and the "ready to tax anything" brigade. We cannot change the evolution of nature!.
[quote][bold]Big Clem[/bold] wrote:
My footprint is a size 9,no more no less. What the heck is a "footprint of 2.27 planets"? Be aware people, of the Eco-police and the "ready to tax anything" brigade. We cannot change the evolution of nature!.[/quote] I take the view that taxes are the equivalent of a license to continue doing whatever you are being taxed for.
Big Clem wrote:
My footprint is a size 9,no more no less. What the heck is a "footprint of 2.27 planets"? Be aware people, of the Eco-police and the "ready to tax anything" brigade. We cannot change the evolution of nature!.
I take the view that taxes are the equivalent of a license to continue doing whatever you are being taxed for.
Posted by: Creature Void of Form on 3:26pm Mon 21 Apr 08
lol, what a load of gobbledigook.
I wish the Echo would stop encouraging these people by putting these stories in the paper. As Anon says, most of the problems with any damage to the environment are caused by the beloved council.
'Eco debt' is a daft expression used to scaremonger but actually means jack sh!t
lol, what a load of gobbledigook.
I wish the Echo would stop encouraging these people by putting these stories in the paper. As Anon says, most of the problems with any damage to the environment are caused by the beloved council.
'Eco debt' is a daft expression used to scaremonger but actually means jack sh!t
As I have commented in the past, this is no more than a bunch of tree huggers jumping on the warming bandwagon. When are people going to realise this is another con which has been promoted by the scaremongering media. When the press & TV start to get tired of reporting same old, same old, there will be another agenda which emerges. Salmonella, SARS, avian bird flu to name but a few. Al Gore has alot to answer for! His footprint would stomp all over a normal neighborhood
As I have commented in the past, this is no more than a bunch of tree huggers jumping on the warming bandwagon. When are people going to realise this is another con which has been promoted by the scaremongering media. When the press & TV start to get tired of reporting same old, same old, there will be another agenda which emerges. Salmonella, SARS, avian bird flu to name but a few. Al Gore has alot to answer for! His footprint would stomp all over a normal neighborhood
Posted by: TreeHugger, Southampton on 4:07pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]vicky[/bold] wrote:
Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.[/quote] <quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote>
Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point?
The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.
vicky wrote:
Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.
<quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote>
Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point?
The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.
[quote][bold]TreeHugger[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]vicky[/bold] wrote: Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.[/quote] <quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote> Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point? The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.[/quote] But the science being used here is bad and isn't based upon the truth.
Next please...
TreeHugger wrote:
vicky wrote: Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.
<quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote> Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point? The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.
But the science being used here is bad and isn't based upon the truth.
[quote][bold]TreeHugger[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]vicky[/bold] wrote:
Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.[/quote] <quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote>
Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point?
The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.[/quote] Who gives a toss.
TreeHugger wrote:
vicky wrote:
Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.
<quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote>
Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point?
The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.
[quote][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote:
Pity Whitehead's been very quiet over the abolition of the 10p tax rate[/quote] i bet he votes to keep taxing the poor - git
Condor Man wrote:
Pity Whitehead's been very quiet over the abolition of the 10p tax rate
Posted by: Heckler, A treehouse on 5:56pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]TreeHugger[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]vicky[/bold] wrote: Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.[/quote] <quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote> Er, hello, we\\\'re ALL involved - that\\\'s kind of the point? The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can\\\'t face the truth.[/quote] Well you better start facing the worlds inevitable doomed future, young treehugger, as many have already started kissing their sorry backsides goodbye.
TreeHugger wrote:
vicky wrote: Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.
<quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote> Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point? The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.
Well you better start facing the worlds inevitable doomed future, young treehugger, as many have already started kissing their sorry backsides goodbye.
Posted by: St. Ray, St.Elsewhere on 7:14pm Mon 21 Apr 08
Who gives a toss?
Global warming is an unproven myth promoted by politicians in order to shaft the people for even more taxes. Why don't the politicians devote the same amount of "effort" on the illegal immigrants pouring into the uk?
Who gives a toss?
Global warming is an unproven myth promoted by politicians in order to shaft the people for even more taxes. Why don't the politicians devote the same amount of "effort" on the illegal immigrants pouring into the uk?
Posted by: murphatsoton, Southampton on 10:28pm Mon 21 Apr 08
It's not green it's GREED. By generating these obscure and unprovable statistics, it gives national and local authorities the opportunity to squeeze even more in so called Enviro-tax and pretend the money is going to some good cause to minimise these "eco-footprints". Suggest to the council that they turn of half the lights in Multi-story Car Parks (very few use them now they have introduced a night time charge)and they will scream health and safety. Businesses should be forced to turn off lights at night and the money they save could be used on decent security measures. Remember Murph says [bold]"It's not green, it's Greed"[/bold]
It's not green it's GREED. By generating these obscure and unprovable statistics, it gives national and local authorities the opportunity to squeeze even more in so called Enviro-tax and pretend the money is going to some good cause to minimise these "eco-footprints". Suggest to the council that they turn of half the lights in Multi-story Car Parks (very few use them now they have introduced a night time charge)and they will scream health and safety. Businesses should be forced to turn off lights at night and the money they save could be used on decent security measures. Remember Murph says "It's not green, it's Greed"
Posted by: Lord Ikea, Ikeaville on 10:30pm Mon 21 Apr 08
If the Daily Echo stopped printing every day think of the energy saved. no trees being cut down for paper. no trucks delivering the paper to the pressess. no staff driving to work no completely mad and dangerous Echo delivery vans speeding to your local shops ( the driver to my shop drives like a d*ck every day). Save the planet ban the Daily Echo !!!
If the Daily Echo stopped printing every day think of the energy saved. no trees being cut down for paper. no trucks delivering the paper to the pressess. no staff driving to work no completely mad and dangerous Echo delivery vans speeding to your local shops ( the driver to my shop drives like a d*ck every day). Save the planet ban the Daily Echo !!!
[quote][bold]Heckler[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]TreeHugger[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]vicky[/bold] wrote: Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.[/quote] <quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote> Er, hello, we\\\'re ALL involved - that\\\'s kind of the point? The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can\\\'t face the truth.[/quote] Well you better start facing the worlds inevitable doomed future, young treehugger, as many have already started kissing their sorry backsides goodbye. [/quote] Thankfully these sorry backsides are being kissed on foreign shores but I thank them for their sacrifice anyway.
Heckler wrote:
TreeHugger wrote:
vicky wrote: Just how were these figures arrived at.Not by doing any meaningful constructive work but by assumptions and guess work.As usual another complete waste of money serving no other purpose . why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved and then maybe the figures would have some meaning.
<quote>why not do a proper survey by talking to the people involved<unquote> Er, hello, we're ALL involved - that's kind of the point? The responses are all so predictable: buck-passing and reactionary cos you can't face the truth.
Well you better start facing the worlds inevitable doomed future, young treehugger, as many have already started kissing their sorry backsides goodbye.
Thankfully these sorry backsides are being kissed on foreign shores but I thank them for their sacrifice anyway.
Posted by: me, in the kitchen on 11:08pm Mon 21 Apr 08
i live in southampton and i would love to be able to reduce my carbon footprint - and where would be a good place to start? by recycling? well according to southampton city council i cant do that - i have one wheelie bin into which i am expected to put all my rubbish - there are 23 properties where i live and there is no recycling service available - 5 people live in my house and we go through the average amount of recycable goods yet i have to just throw it in with the normal waste and hen i rang the council about this they just told me to "stick a binbag next to my wheelie bin with recycables in it but when i did this it was left behing as per the councils rules on loose bags so i called again and they said that there was not really enough room for a recycling bin outside my property (i think there is plenty) but that they would order me a recycling bin anyway - that was 3 months ago and im still waiting come on council stop talking rubbish!
i live in southampton and i would love to be able to reduce my carbon footprint - and where would be a good place to start? by recycling? well according to southampton city council i cant do that - i have one wheelie bin into which i am expected to put all my rubbish - there are 23 properties where i live and there is no recycling service available - 5 people live in my house and we go through the average amount of recycable goods yet i have to just throw it in with the normal waste and hen i rang the council about this they just told me to "stick a binbag next to my wheelie bin with recycables in it but when i did this it was left behing as per the councils rules on loose bags so i called again and they said that there was not really enough room for a recycling bin outside my property (i think there is plenty) but that they would order me a recycling bin anyway - that was 3 months ago and im still waiting come on council stop talking rubbish!
Hysterical climate change deniers should be put into a locked room and made to look at the evidence. Who says Global warming is occurring, and is man made? The Royal Society, the Met Office, NASA, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, British Antarctic Survey. Whho says its isn't? The producer of that C4 programme and a telly botanist from the 70s
Hysterical climate change deniers should be put into a locked room and made to look at the evidence. Who says Global warming is occurring, and is man made? The Royal Society, the Met Office, NASA, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, British Antarctic Survey. Whho says its isn't? The producer of that C4 programme and a telly botanist from the 70s
[quote][bold]henry poole[/bold] wrote:
Hysterical climate change deniers should be put into a locked room and made to look at the evidence. Who says Global warming is occurring, and is man made? The Royal Society, the Met Office, NASA, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, British Antarctic Survey. Whho says its isn't? The producer of that C4 programme and a telly botanist from the 70s[/quote] It's NOT that simple. The whole CO2 conspiracy (and that's basically what it is) started from someone looking at recent industrial activity and CO2 emissions and comparing them with recent (20th and 21st century) global temperatures. Saw a parralel and Bob's your mother's brother. That's all they did. Unfortunately, no one tells you that there have been similar CO2 spikes previously in history, pre-industrialisatio
n, pre-aerosols, pre-cars, pre long haul flights, going back to ancient times and the world hasn't ended over it! There is a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger correlation between activity on the sun and global temperatures but this is kept quiet. Perhaps it's something to do with the sun being outside mankind's control so it doesn't give the policitians and ruling elite an excuse to impose more control on us (unlike CO2). It might help to know that temperatures on planets throughout our solar system have increased in line with coronal activity, but that's conveniently glossed over. Or perhaps at some point the politicians will try and have you believe there are industrialisation and congestion problems on Venus and Mars! Yes we should look after our environment but don't believe the crap you're told about global warming. It's an excuse to control you, not save the planet.
henry poole wrote:
Hysterical climate change deniers should be put into a locked room and made to look at the evidence. Who says Global warming is occurring, and is man made? The Royal Society, the Met Office, NASA, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, British Antarctic Survey. Whho says its isn't? The producer of that C4 programme and a telly botanist from the 70s
It's NOT that simple. The whole CO2 conspiracy (and that's basically what it is) started from someone looking at recent industrial activity and CO2 emissions and comparing them with recent (20th and 21st century) global temperatures. Saw a parralel and Bob's your mother's brother. That's all they did. Unfortunately, no one tells you that there have been similar CO2 spikes previously in history, pre-industrialisatio
n, pre-aerosols, pre-cars, pre long haul flights, going back to ancient times and the world hasn't ended over it! There is a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger correlation between activity on the sun and global temperatures but this is kept quiet. Perhaps it's something to do with the sun being outside mankind's control so it doesn't give the policitians and ruling elite an excuse to impose more control on us (unlike CO2). It might help to know that temperatures on planets throughout our solar system have increased in line with coronal activity, but that's conveniently glossed over. Or perhaps at some point the politicians will try and have you believe there are industrialisation and congestion problems on Venus and Mars! Yes we should look after our environment but don't believe the crap you're told about global warming. It's an excuse to control you, not save the planet.
Henry ;Poole, you forgot that the UN science committee have recently said that there has been NO climate change since 1998, There are also many thousands of scientists worldwide who do not agree with "man made warming". Mike above points out that we are being controlled, the only saving grace is that nature controls us, we are on a fools errand if we think we can control nature.
Henry ;Poole, you forgot that the UN science committee have recently said that there has been NO climate change since 1998, There are also many thousands of scientists worldwide who do not agree with "man made warming". Mike above points out that we are being controlled, the only saving grace is that nature controls us, we are on a fools errand if we think we can control nature.
PS - one more thing. Try the following article on the sun and it's effects on our climate. I personally don't subscribe to the fear that we're at greater risk of an ice age but the point is that it's the sun that's driving our climate not pollution. That ISN'T to say we shouldn't take care of our environment - we most definitely should - but the scaremongering about manmade global warming is just that, scaremongering. As I've said already, it's intended to control you and nothing more. Anyway, here it is - http://www.theaustra
lian.news.com.au/sto
ry/0,25197,23583376-
5013480,00.html
PS - one more thing. Try the following article on the sun and it's effects on our climate. I personally don't subscribe to the fear that we're at greater risk of an ice age but the point is that it's the sun that's driving our climate not pollution. That ISN'T to say we shouldn't take care of our environment - we most definitely should - but the scaremongering about manmade global warming is just that, scaremongering. As I've said already, it's intended to control you and nothing more. Anyway, here it is - http://www.theaustra
lian.news.com.au/sto
ry/0,25197,23583376-
5013480,00.html
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 3:12pm Tue 3 Jun 08
[quote][bold]henry poole[/bold] wrote:
Hysterical climate change deniers should be put into a locked room and made to look at the evidence. Who says Global warming is occurring, and is man made? The Royal Society, the Met Office, NASA, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, British Antarctic Survey. Whho says its isn\'t? The producer of that C4 programme and a telly botanist from the 70s[/quote] you are wrong henry,the met office do not say co2 gas is making are planet warmer,british antartica survey (bas)dont say it to, and nasa is sitting on the fence on the subject but has they say there more edivence to sudjest that its the sun and solar winds that controll the heating up the planet,
to under stand how the weather works you need to look at the galaxy movement,and the fact thats another galaxy getting closer to ours then when you done that now look how our solar system moves though our galaxy then after that look at our sun and see how many sun flares there are the more flares the hotter the weather and clearer the skys, or like it is now few or none the wetter and winder the weather, after that look at the weather history off this planet the very first ice age on this planet,there was over 80% co2 gas atomshere the earth was like a great big snowball and there reason why this happen to,has andy all ready knows i can go into great detail on this subject,if you look at the name on that list that was giving to the un on globale warming,you will find that there onlt technicion sicencest name on the list only plus greenies.take it from me ex-bas member
henry poole wrote:
Hysterical climate change deniers should be put into a locked room and made to look at the evidence. Who says Global warming is occurring, and is man made? The Royal Society, the Met Office, NASA, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, British Antarctic Survey. Whho says its isn\'t? The producer of that C4 programme and a telly botanist from the 70s
you are wrong henry,the met office do not say co2 gas is making are planet warmer,british antartica survey (bas)dont say it to, and nasa is sitting on the fence on the subject but has they say there more edivence to sudjest that its the sun and solar winds that controll the heating up the planet,
to under stand how the weather works you need to look at the galaxy movement,and the fact thats another galaxy getting closer to ours then when you done that now look how our solar system moves though our galaxy then after that look at our sun and see how many sun flares there are the more flares the hotter the weather and clearer the skys, or like it is now few or none the wetter and winder the weather, after that look at the weather history off this planet the very first ice age on this planet,there was over 80% co2 gas atomshere the earth was like a great big snowball and there reason why this happen to,has andy all ready knows i can go into great detail on this subject,if you look at the name on that list that was giving to the un on globale warming,you will find that there onlt technicion sicencest name on the list only plus greenies.take it from me ex-bas member
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 5:37pm Tue 3 Jun 08
ps henry i hope your not refering to david bellamy has that 70's botanist because he more than just an ordery botanist his job look in the past of plants and see what happen and why,the present,and see what may or could happen to plants in the future,he was on the goverment think-tank in 1980 but left because the goverment off the day would not use all the facts only what suited them,with him leaving 3 others left for the same reason.
if any goverment was serius about it you would not be charge the full fuel tax for running your car on a bio-fuel whitch is about £0-60 per ltr/£2-70 per gal is fuel tax and where do all this money the goverment makes on fuel tax its not the roads,so when you hear people saying its just away for any goverment to gab money belive them its true
ps henry i hope your not refering to david bellamy has that 70's botanist because he more than just an ordery botanist his job look in the past of plants and see what happen and why,the present,and see what may or could happen to plants in the future,he was on the goverment think-tank in 1980 but left because the goverment off the day would not use all the facts only what suited them,with him leaving 3 others left for the same reason.
if any goverment was serius about it you would not be charge the full fuel tax for running your car on a bio-fuel whitch is about £0-60 per ltr/£2-70 per gal is fuel tax and where do all this money the goverment makes on fuel tax its not the roads,so when you hear people saying its just away for any goverment to gab money belive them its true
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
