Saturday, March 24, 2007
Your Ecological Footprint
Think you're living lightly on the earth? Take this test, and you may be unpleasantly surprised to learn otherwise. (I learned that if everyone were as resource-squandering as myself, statistically speaking, we'd need 2.6 planets to sustain us all.) Warning: You need to think in metric on this website, or have a metric converter handy, to answer some of the questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Keep up the good work!
I took the test and I'd need 2.5 planets.
However it said the average ecological footprint in our country is 24 acres per person but worldwide there exists 4.5 biologically productive acres per person. I only use 11 total and I'd guess your total is about 11 also. So while we are impacting the world, we're doing great compared to our fellow Americans. But just by living in a freestanding house over 1000 sq. feet with running water, I use 5.2 acres. And even though our diet is best described as vegan we need to buy foods that are transported because we live in the snow belt.
Just think if you, I & everyone lived like the average American, we'd need about 6 planets to live on.
You're doing great and so am I...and we'll continue to do better because we care...I doubt the "average" American understands or even cares to understand ecological footprints.
Oy, 3.8 planets. I think I'll sleep for a year. I'd use fewer resources.
Well, if everyone consumed like me, we'd ONLY need 2.2 planets. I think it makes quite a difference if you've got several (in our case 4) adults in a small-ish house.
But I am a lunatic recycler and produce very little garbage (although vast quantities of compost).
I could do a lot better, though. I'd love to walk more and use public transit more, but it's time consuming, and time is something I have very little of. And I really should learn to ride that motorcycle that's been in my shed for 3 years...
okay, I'm clearly a bad person--we would need 6.1 planets if everyone lived like me! I suspect it has to do with travel and with the difficulty of buying local when you live in the upper midwest...but boy do I feel guilty. You know I'm going to be looking at my neighbors trash output tonight. I feel like I make so little trash and recycle so much...but maybe not.
5.5 planets. I am pretty sure the one about gas mileage did me in, combined with the fact that I am an avid carnivore. So, how accurate do you really think this is?
Oh, how I long to live where there's public transportation. But here in Minnesota, we're morally opposed to it, or something stupid like that. Needless to say, my farming community of 350 doesn't allow for anything like that.
2.8 planets was my total. But I'm also a lunatic recycler and will be planting a garden this year, so I have been composting quite a lot. Will it help? Not much - but it's what I can do right now. Thanks for this.
Till I read drcarrie's post I thought I'd trumped you lot, with my UK-based 1.9 planets! (That's 3.4 global hectares against UK average 5.3 gl. ha. (is that how you abbreviate that?))
We recycle more than the quiz gives us credit for though, I think. There's no entry for composting, and we use a proper digester.
We are on a main rail link to London, though, and I always TRY not to get off at Bournemouth and take the plane up North... but in this lunatic country it's not just quicker, it's cheaper. Oh, it was such a bright idea to privatise the railways. Not.
Fascinating stuff though LC - thanks loads!
3.3 planets. It seems simplification needs to continue. I don't know how to get past Often (eating meat once or twice a week) sharing life with a German who simply shakes his head at vegetarian approaches.
Post a Comment