4 does reducing the size of our footprint necessarily mean reducing our quality of life

Discuss about health of ecosystems and biodiversity Discuss about health of ecosystems and biodiversity Consider the following questions: What are the 3 everyday products and practices that contribute most to your environmental footprint? What impacts might result if everyone in the world enjoyed the same lifestyle? For example, what might the impacts be on:

4 does reducing the size of our footprint necessarily mean reducing our quality of life

A first-term Democratic president struggles with unemployment, malaise, high energy prices, and embassy trouble. Where did they go? Now that crappy times are here again, where are the paper-thin truck beds and wheezy-but-indestructible four-cylinders to pull them?

But to understand why this has happened, we need to view product decisions through the lens of CAFE and its incentives. The choices of American consumers are a factor; we like to buy pickups and SUVs, no doubt.

Over the last four decades, the standards have evolved, with the latest iteration being the targets set for fuel economy in the year The targets were released this summer, and comprise a 1, page tome full of arcane language and legalese that, while essential for understanding CAFE, are totally inaccessible to the general public.

A decade ago, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was the most egregious example of this. Despite being based on a Neon platform and retaining the dimensions of a compact car, it was classified as a light truck by NHTSA.

At the time, the minimum fleet average for passenger cars was The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFE, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe.

How the fix is in On the surface, the footprint requirements can be viewed as logical; a compact, fuel-efficient car like the Honda Fit, should be able to hit tougher targets, by virtue of its small size, aerodynamic profile and powertrain choices.

The Ford F has a very different mission; it must be large, durable, powerful and able to meet the needs of a full-size pickup, and will naturally be less conducive to achieving the kind of fuel economy that a Fit can. Wagons are what put Volvo on the map in North America. The rear-driveand wagons held universal appeal for their durability and sportiness, while the and V70 cemented their place in the mainstream, as a car for those who were upper-middle class, or aspiring to be.

The fuel economy of the entire XC lineup is far from stellar. All three vehicles have footprints of 48 square feet. The key difference is that while the V70 is a passenger car, the XC models are light trucks, and of course, given an easier time regarding CAFE compliance.

Mazda is another company that must also play against the stacked deck of CAFE. The Mazda6 wagon was offered here for a few years, and axed after it sold poorly.

The wagon, with its footprint of 48 square feet, is subject to the same standards as the Volvo V On the other hand, the Mazda CX-5, with a footprint of For a model that must be sold over years as previous generations werethe Mazda6 wagon starts out having to achieve a CAFE mpg figure in the high 30s.

Assuming the model lasts untilthe Mazda6 would have to achieve fuel economy figures in the high 40 mpg CAFE range. Engineering a low volume, niche market wagon for sale in America that would be subject to increasingly tough targets is arguably beyond their means, especially given the small volumes the car would sell in.

Instead, Mazda offers the CX-5 crossover. Aside from being classified as a crossover, with all the CAFE advantages built in, the CX-5 is able to sell in economically viable volumes not just in the United States, but across the globe. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint.

The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. Bya theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. Ford has decided to offer full-size trucks exclusively, with the V6 options as a means of attracting economy-minded buyers, and perhaps taking advantage of CAFE regulations not to mention, sell more F-Series, which are immensely profitable.

If Ford offered a Ranger, it could theoretically cannibalize sales of the lower end Fs, while muddling their marketing message.

GM will presumably have no such conflict. Chrysler is rumored to be taking a third route; offering advanced V6s in their RAM trucks, while exploring a car-based compact pickup, possibly based off of a Fiat product.

A truck like that would be a huge boon as far as CAFE compliance goes, and put a decisive nail in the coffin of the Dakota, which offered a V8 engine in a compact body. When examined side by side with European emissions standards, the economics of CAFE become more transparent.

EU are relatively straight forward by comparison. There are no footprint formulas or regulatory loopholes that can be manipulated, though there are different standards for diesel and gasoline engines. Either way, the principle is the same; if you want a bigger, more powerful engine, you will have to pay for it via increased taxes.

The most tangible examples of these policies in effect are the newly downsized motors being fitted in American-sized cars, like the 1. On the other hand, a consumption tax related to the profligacy of their vehicle would be disastrous to the Big Three.

Full-size trucks, rather than cars, are the profit-makers for the Big Three, and no segment has more to lose from tough CAFE standards. The official line is that the big pickups and SUVs have to make up the most ground when it comes to fuel economy, so they are given more leeway with the regulations.ISO Clause 4, Context of the organization, Organization and its context,needs and expectations of interested parties, scope of the EMS, by Pretesh Biswas, APB Consultant.

Squamish CAN is a community action group that operates many environmental projects in Squamish, British Columbia, Canada. OUR MISSION Squamish CAN strives to educate, support, and empower the community of Squamish by developing, promoting, and implementing sustainable strategies to .

Recycling is just part of the picture. Reducing the amount of waste you generate and reducing your reliance on disposable convenience products are other facets of waste reduction.

Does reducing the size of our footprint necessarily mean reducing our quality of life? Why or why not? Are there ways of enhancing quality of life while lowering impact?

4 does reducing the size of our footprint necessarily mean reducing our quality of life

We review all the best LED Grow Lights for >>> From full spectrum down to the cheaper models. Just a couple of years ago the thought of growing weed under LED lighting would have been laughable. The more a person consumes, the larger that person's ecological footprint, but consuming more does not necessarily mean a better quality of life.

Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, , available from New Society Publishers. This is a very easy-to-read book that explains how to calculate the footprint.

What does quality of life crimes mean