• It would take 3.9 Earths to sustain everybody on Earth if they lived my lifestyle. It would also take 17.2 global acres to support my lifestyle
• 
• For the diet parameter, I maximized the amount of meat I eat and the number of Earths required jumped to 6.2.For the transportation parameter, I minimized the public transport parameters, the mpg parameter, and the rate of carpooling parameter. I also maxed out the amount I use a car and ended up with a required 16.3 Earths.

  For the waste/recycling habits parameter, I maxed out all parameters that had to do with purchases and minimized those having to do with recycling. This caused my required Earths to jump to 5.7.

Discussion Questions

1. My value of 3.9 Earths required is 1.1 lower than the national average, a fact that I was pleasantly surprised by. I never really thought of myself of the most eco-friendly person but I was happy to find out that my lifestyle was not overly lavish. My 17.2 global acres is slightly higher than the national average of 17 but I’m still pleased that it’s not much higher.
2. I think that I could definitely start recycling more paper and plastics. It would probably be a big help if we kept a recycling bin at home so that I would naturally have a place to put recyclable items. Another thing I can do is to perhaps cut down on the amount of meat I eat. This would allow me to also eat for more fresh, unpackaged foods, decreasing my carbon footprint even more.
3. I feel that as a society in general, Americans could be more moderate with their habits. For example, Americans eat 270.7 pounds of meat per person, a figure that ranks second in the world to only Luxemburg. That is an insane amount of food, especially considering that the United States has close to 600 times more people! I feel that a significant amount of this food is not needed in the US and can be better served in countries where food is not as plentiful. We also use much more electricity than we need to. Small things like unplugging chargers and turning off the lights when leaving the room can really add up to make a difference. I think a greater push by the government to incentivize going green can help people break these bad habits and allow the country as a whole to use fewer resources.

1. I require 4.9 Earths while the national average is 5. I am very close to average. It’s disappointing because I always thought my life style was fairly sustainable, as it turns out it isn’t.
2. I chose to maximize Transportation, Food and Shelter. Transportation had by far the biggest impact; it pushed the Earths I required to 14.7. Food and Shelter seemed fairly close, food was 6.9 Earths and shelter was 6.6 Earths. I found these statistics surprising, I assumed that the resources that go into building a large house where more ecologically expensive, also I’m not sure if the calculator takes home heating and cooling into account, the average home takes about 500-600 gallons of oil to heat during winter, a house several times bigger than average have a much larger impact. In the future I can make an effort to live closer to where I work, living within walking distance of most of my needs should bring transportation costs near zero. I expect that lowering the heating and dressing warmer while at home should have make a sizable impact.
3. To make a sustainable society we’d need to live closer to work, there are too many people especially in America who commute from suburbs everyday, driving a total of 60 miles. I even know a couple who drive 200 miles a day. Car-pooling and public transportation can minimize those cost but they are unnecessary if we all live within walking distance or even biking distance. If a commute doesn’t include highways a bicycle is just about as fast as a car but not many people choose to use this form of transportation. As a society we should decide how much shelter we really need, small apartment takes much less energy to heat then a house with no adjacent structures. As a world we can also put an emphasis on making longer lasting products. Most electronics are useless within a few years, cars breakdown after 10 or 15 years, even homes start to fall apart after 40 years. Obtaining the resources to construct all these things is very costly, life would be much more sustainable if we didn’t have to replace our belongings every few years.

I read the piece, “‘Fracking’ wastewater that is treated for drinking downstream produces potentially harmful compounds” dated 9/24/2014 on Science Daily. The piece rested on the assumption that a common practice for dealing with fracking’s highly radioactive and heavy in metals and halides waste water was to purify it and release it into rivers. The main conclusion of this article was that even after being initially purified, should the water be purified for drinking purposes down the road, the typical method of purifying could lead to the formation of toxic byproducts. The author cites a study from the American Chemical Society. The study took samples of waste waste from fracking operations, diluted it with river water, and then used drinking water disinfection methods on it. The result was the formation of toxic compounds. It was further concluded that either fracking waste-water should not be released into rivers or drinking purification should include halide-removal techniques.

The author didn’t seem biased at all. Overall, this was just reporting on one study. No further evidence was offered. The study itself should be further looked at. The American Chemical Society could very well be a special interest group against fracking entirely. That said, off of only a single study, not much can be firmly concluded. Multiple studies really should be run to get a fuller picture of what’s going on.

Link to article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140924113521.htm