how very common that type of behavior is

One interesting figurative way of comparing different social impacts on our global ecosystem is the 'ecological footprint' required to sustain our current way of life. Essentially this measures all the biologically productive land and sea on the planet, allows a 12% provision for other species (generous, ain't we!), and divides this by the teeming millions it has to sustain: this gives an average "earth share" of 1.87 hectares per person. This can be reckoned the maximum footprint allowance without depriving either future generations or those now living in more disadvantaged areas of the world. It does not account for all human impacts on the environment, but it analyses the portion of global resources required to provide food, energy, assimilation of waste, and reabsorption of fossil fuel CO2 by photosynthesis.

The footprint analysis reveals that each person living in Wales requires an earth share of 5.25 hectares. In other words, if all of humanity's millions were to live like consumers in Wales, we would need around 1.8 extra planet Earths to sustain ourselves.

Here are the comparative figures for a few communities that I have been comparing recently:

Overall personal earthshare: 1.87
Welsh consumption: 5.25
Liverpool consumption: 4.15
London consumption: 6.63
UK average: 6.00

oh, and one other (which unfortunately declines to sign up to the Kyoto protocols...):

USA current consumption: 9.60 hectares per person

Never mind, Dubya, we love you anyway. Not. :)


http://www.redefiningprogress.org/programs/sustainabilityindicators/ef/