"If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.1 planets"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― thing of thing, Thursday, 20 May 2004 08:55 (twenty-one years ago)

2.6

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:01 (twenty-one years ago)

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.6

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2 PLANETS.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2 PLANETS.
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2 PLANETS.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:02 (twenty-one years ago)

(some of my answers were a bit of a guess - I've no idea what the area of my flat is, for example)

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:03 (twenty-one years ago)

4.6, BOO YA

― Aaron A., Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Is that footprint or planets needed??

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Planets. I think it was the food part that did it.

― Aaron A., Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:05 (twenty-one years ago)

'how often do you travel by animal power?'

― pete b. (pete b.), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:08 (twenty-one years ago)

"You are a libertines fan. Your answers relate to being at a libertines gig. If everyone lived like this, we would need 0.3 planets"

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:09 (twenty-one years ago)

TOTAL FOOTPRINT: 5.1
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.8 PLANETS.

this is not cool. i thought i was a pretty eco-friendly guy. i guess i'm just a regular, run-of-the-mill planet-killer.

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:11 (twenty-one years ago)

North Americans be overconsuming.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't even own a car though!

― Aaron A., Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I should hope not!

(I have no idea if I put the right thing on the food question, either. I said half the food I ate was processed, but I don't really know what counts as processed. Is pasta processed? A jar of pesto sauce? Breakfast cereal? Bread?)

To be honest I think the test is a highly dodge.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Footprint: 16
If everyone lived like me we'd need 3.5 planets.

that sucks.
I think it's mostly cause I drive a car.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:15 (twenty-one years ago)

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.8
1.6 PLANETS

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:15 (twenty-one years ago)

7.3

'IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.1 PLANETS. '

but i think i estimated the size of my house badly

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:18 (twenty-one years ago)

my clones would need 3.2 planets. but the food, housing and transport questions are all a bit dodgy i think. it doesn't even ask about recycling!

― pete b. (pete b.), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Hm. Apparently the only way to get it down to 1 planet is to live in a hole in the ground with 7 other people eating only what you grow in your garden and never setting foot in anything motorized.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:20 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't trust my footprint at all - and with two thirds of the planet being water it seems a bit daft citing how many duplicates of Earth would be needed to sustain 6 billion stevems. i would be happy to evolve gills.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Jeez, well pardon me for using public transport. Changing my entry from 200km/week to 1-25km/week reduced my global impact from 2.6 to 1.8 planets (with motorbike/car set to zero in both cases). I guess I should move closer to the office, cut out diary and processed food and get a smaller place.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:22 (twenty-one years ago)

..."and if everybody looked the same, we'd get tired of looking at each other."

― Barima (Barima), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:24 (twenty-one years ago)

4.3 = 2.4 planets. I am below average though for my area, that was 5.3.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:27 (twenty-one years ago)

it doesn't even ask about recycling!

I guess it does if you interpret the 'how much waste to you generate' question as 'how much non-recycled waste do you generate'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I walk to work, don't have a car and don't eat meat, but I think my air travel fucks things up somewhat.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't recycling largely a nod to guilty consciences though? I remember some northern European country apologizing to a scientist who had claimed it was actually worse for the environment to recycle alumin(i)um after they (supposedly) found out he was right.

xpost

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:31 (twenty-one years ago)

rob, try it again but without flying...mine went from 5 to 2.1 when i stopped trips back to the states. do you think that's a good enough excuse to give my mom?

xpost

― colette (a2lette), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I walk to work, don't have a car and don't eat meat, but I think my air travel fucks things up somewhat.

Oh, yeah. Must remember to trade in my American friends and relatives for some chums in my own postcode.

(Actually we were both well below the UK average, weren't we?)

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Air travel is really really bad, environmentally - I'm glad the test weights it so heavily. A couple of years ago, when I took about 30 flights in one year (mostly v.short haul, but still), it was probably tantamout to running a fleet of Rolls Royces.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

The internet is clearly an environmental hazard, encouraging people to make fwiends with foreigners.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Footprint: 13
Planets: 2.8

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 20 May 2004 11:43 (twenty-one years ago)

That doesn't look right.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 20 May 2004 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Footprint: 3.9
Planets: 2.2

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 20 May 2004 11:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Cripes, I just posed as a vegan, walk-everywhere, I-live-on-a-commune, no electricity generatiing, composting fool, and I still get:

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.2 PLANETS.

Do we just kill ourselves now or what?

― m.e.a. (m.e.a.), Thursday, 20 May 2004 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

the sooner they can CLONE ENTIRE PLANETS the better

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 20 May 2004 11:55 (twenty-one years ago)

http://raptor.physics.wisc.edu/map/genesis2.jpg

― m.e.a. (m.e.a.), Thursday, 20 May 2004 11:57 (twenty-one years ago)

1.4 planets. Phew.

I'm just lucky they didn't ask me about the fridge mountain in my back garden, the acres of leather and fur I wear, or my conviction for salting the soil in old people's allotments.

I realise the test isn't supposed to be exactly scientific, but this is ridiculous.

― Huey (Huey), Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:17 (twenty-one years ago)

13.7 footprint
7.6 planets.

seems i am the highest consumer so far, although i did guess the huose size thing. i thought not driving would keep my score low, but the v high public transport, and air fares have bumped that up a lot i think

― gareth (gareth), Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:25 (twenty-one years ago)

3.6 planets -- I suspect it was the food and flying that does me in!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:34 (twenty-one years ago)

ha ha, gareth and his air fares will destroy us all

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)

2.9 planets, mainly due to air travel and meat eating as well.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:39 (twenty-one years ago)

This is stupid and misleading and inaccurate. I THINK THEY ARE PUSHING SOME KIND OF CRAZY ANTI MEAT AGENDA

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 7.2 PLANETS.

Now I will do it for how I lived a week ago.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.8 PLANETS.

― 24 hours with the King of Snake. (SNAKE!) (ex machina), Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:39 (twenty-one years ago)

we never got enough planets anyway. i mean the people running this whole shoddy operation need to do some serious reconvening.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 0.5
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.7
GOODS/SERVICES 0.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.9

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.1 PLANETS

I went back to check what I could easily tweak to get it down to 1.0 planet and did it by buying very little imported food. I'll do my best to take this habit from now on.

Other stuff I would like to work on:
for a month or two, write down every items I waste and see how I could optimize the waste reduction.
Also, move into a green-design residence (but for many reasons that will have to wait for a while I'm afraid).

That quiz was made by redefining progress. They have other good ideas, like the genuine progress indicator:

"In 1995, Redefining Progress created a more accurate measure of progress, called the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). It starts with the same accounting framework as the GDP (gross domestic product), but then makes some crucial distinctions: It adds in the economic contributions of household and volunteer work, but subtracts factors such as crime, pollution, and family breakdown."

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 20 May 2004 13:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Eep. 24 acres, 5.3 planets

― Vinnie (vprabhu), Thursday, 20 May 2004 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't eat meat, and my number was high? I travel less than 25 miles to and from work, and my household generates very little trash.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 20 May 2004 13:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Total footprint: 17
Planets: 3.8

Southern California living folks

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Friday, 21 May 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

This kinda sucks. It, like, totally ignores some really important lifestyle choices. I mean, if everyone lived like Jeffery Dahmer, the world population would be shrinking by more than 3% per annum and we could all eat meat and drive cars and shit.

― Aimless (Aimless), Friday, 21 May 2004 23:50 (twenty-one years ago)

The thing I find kind of strange is that the results are weighted differently based on the country you say you're from. I tried giving the exact same answers for the US, Poland, and Nigeria and came up with very different results: 3.5 planets, 2.6 planets, and 1 planet, respectively.

Obviously, the average American uses more resources than the average Pole, etc., but shouldn't that be completely irrelevant if this is supposed to be based on individual habits?

― the krza (krza), Saturday, 22 May 2004 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

31 acres, 7 planets

I drive a lot, eat meat and live in a city with no public transport.

I couldn't decide what city was most like DFW - Atlanta or Phoenix? Hot and humid vs. extra hot.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Saturday, 22 May 2004 03:40 (twenty-one years ago)

3.9

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Saturday, 22 May 2004 06:15 (twenty-one years ago)

My message to everybody is

"Don't live like me. If you do we will need 5.5 planets!"

― martin m. (mushrush), Saturday, 22 May 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

2.4. It was the damn meat thing I bet.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 22 May 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

2.2. I need 1.2 planets.

I didn't aske me about the nuclear reactor in the back garden, so I didn't tell them...

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 22 May 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

2.4 planets. the meat and processed food didn't help. I could walk to work I suppose. I'd find this somewhat easier than going vegetarian.

― MarkH (MarkH), Sunday, 23 May 2004 13:19 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.