After taking the “ecological footprint quiz”, it has occurred to me that human beings are no longer living in a sustainable world. The footprint analysis is one of the best tools that can help people reexamine their assets and resources. The obtained results explain that human beings are consuming more resources than their planet can produce. Individual from different parts of the world can use the model to assess their ecological impacts on the universe. This model can individuals take appropriate actions in order to make the world sustainable.
Different businesses and policymakers can use the “footprint” to design programs and interventions that can make the world sustainable. The other good thing about this analytical model is that it explains how different human activities continue to put humankind in an “ecological overshoot” (Ecological Footprint Quiz, 2014). This overshoot occurs when human beings deplete all the available resources. However, I believe there is an exaggeration in the model because it fails to offer conclusive explanations about the final figures.
Personally, I believe the footprint analysis could be “somehow” realistic. To begin with, the analysis offers a clear picture of how human activities and economic practices continue to affect the sustainability of the universe. The footprint analysis also mirrors most of the studies completed in the recent past. For instance, human activities contribute a lot to global warming. Such activities also explain why the world might have a shortage of resources.
On the other hand, the analysis fails to explain how human beings can deal with the situation. The model also fails to explain how the current rate of civilization contributes to this “overshoot”. That being the case the footprint analysis fails to consider how companies and businesses contribute to this “overshoot” and depletion of resources (Ecological Footprint Quiz, 2014).
The footprint also omits a couple of things. To begin with, the model assumes that every person consumes meat and other animal products. The footprint also fails to give appropriate options and countermeasures that can help people conserve their environment. The analysis fails to consider certain practices such as recycling certain materials in the house.
The footprint analysis also omits things like drainage, farming activities, and water consumption. The analysis does not put water usage and electricity consumption into consideration (Ecological Footprint Quiz, 2014). It assumes that every person with running water and electricity in his or her house will use the resources in a similar manner.
According to the footprint, humankind would need four or more “Planet Earths” to support life if every person lived like me. These statistics are erroneous because many people have a similar lifestyle. That being the case, I would improve the model by including more questions in order to have a clear picture of a person’s lifestyle. This will give a true picture of a person’s ecological footprint.
The footprint analysis should also present more insights and strategies to help people reduce their ecological footprints (Ecological Footprint Quiz, 2014). I can also improve the model by including more ideas, measures, and skills to help people live sustainably. By so doing, more people will embrace the best practices and countermeasures to conserve their surrounding environment. In conclusion, this “footprint analysis” is a one of the best models because it can make a major difference towards a sustainable universe.
Ecological Footprint Quiz. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.earthday.org/take-action/footprint-calculator/