My ecological footprint, 5.9 planets

[His Divine Shadow]

Yup if everyone lived like me we'd need 5.9 planets to live on.

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

Sounds like enviromentalist scaremongering to me, didn't we once on this forum calculate(or atleast linked to) a truly staggering number for how many peole could live on this place? It reminds me of that Asimov book where he so unbelievably exaggerated the issue of overpopulation that I had problems with suspension of disbelief.

[dr. what]

Hmmmm....

This is my results:

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 3.1
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 4.3
GOODS/SERVICES 4.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11.8

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 6.6 PLANETS.

[Gandalf]

I was told they'd need 2.1 planets for me.

But the test is a bit flawed. There were ones about how much fuel my car used. I don't even drive.

[Darth Wong]

Yup if everyone lived like me we'd need 5.9 planets to live on.

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

Sounds like enviromentalist scaremongering to me, didn't we once on this forum calculate(or atleast linked to) a truly staggering number for how many peole could live on this place? It reminds me of that Asimov book where he so unbelievably exaggerated the issue of overpopulation that I had problems with suspension of disbelief.

That number probably assumed a much different lifestyle than we in the western world currently have. Our high meat consumption alone makes each person, particularly in North America, effectively consume vast tracts of land.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I needed 3.3 planets...

[salm]

I need 2.1 planets.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I need 4.3 planets. Yay!

[His Divine Shadow]

That number probably assumed a much different lifestyle than we in the western world currently have. Our high meat consumption alone makes each person, particularly in North America, effectively consume vast tracts of land.

But compared to all the available land it's not that much and accordingto what I read most of the land areas wouldn't be used for human farming anyway so grazing is only using a resource otherwise wasted.
http://www.agt.net/public/jross/JustFaqs.htm

Frankly I really doubt the honesty of that test, just like I doubt nuclear information messages from greenpeace, I think it's scaremongering to frighten people into being more conservative.

[Haminal10]

An even 4 planets for me!

[Darth Wong]

That number probably assumed a much different lifestyle than we in the western world currently have. Our high meat consumption alone makes each person, particularly in North America, effectively consume vast tracts of land.

But compared to all the available land it's not that much and accordingto what I read most of the land areas wouldn't be used for human farming anyway so grazing is only using a resource otherwise wasted.
http://www.agt.net/public/jross/JustFaqs.htm

"Wasted"? Because it can't be used for agriculture? Nature has its own uses for land, and natural development tends to be more ecologically sound than farming practices. As for his other claims, many of which fly in the face of other claims I've seen from people such as the "Union of Concerned Scientists" who do not have a direct vested financial interest (unlike the Alberta cattle farming organizations involved with this "FAQ").

Frankly I really doubt the honesty of that test, just like I doubt nuclear information messages from greenpeace, I think it's scaremongering to frighten people into being more conservative.

You honestly think that the most trustworthy source on such matters is an Alberta-based cattle farming advocacy organization? If you want to produce a convincing argument, go find a source which is not affiliated with the cattle industry. And until you do so, don't play games by pretending that this is the same as GreenPeace, whose claims have been refuted by scientists (not self-serving industry reps) on numerous occasions.

[TimothyC]

2.8 Planets.

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 1.2
SHELTER 1.7
GOODS/SERVICES 2.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 12

I'm a gutonous pig, the only reason that I think I got such a low number is that I'm in a rather small 2 bedroom apartment, and that I only drive (in my van which has piss-poor fuel efficiency, ie 20 mpg tops) to the grocery (2 miles out and back), warehouse club (3 miles out and back), and pharmacy (one mile out and back) (Other than my 6 250mile trips to Dayton and back each year).

[FSTargetDrone]

1.9 for me. My diet and the fact that I telecommute probably have a lot to do with it.

[His Divine Shadow]

"Wasted"? Because it can't be used for agriculture? Nature has its own uses for land, and natural development tends to be more ecologically sound than farming practices. As for his other claims, many of which fly in the face of other claims I've seen from people such as the "Union of Concerned Scientists" who do not have a direct vested financial interest (unlike the Alberta cattle farming organizations involved with this "FAQ").

You honestly think that the most trustworthy source on such matters is an Alberta-based cattle farming advocacy organization? If you want to produce a convincing argument, go find a source which is not affiliated with the cattle industry. And until you do so, don't play games by pretending that this is the same as GreenPeace, whose claims have been refuted by scientists (not self-serving industry reps) on numerous occasions.

Well I trust them more than the people behind that test, though if you are correct in that his claims are being contested then maybe I trust them about evenly.

[The Grim Squeaker]

7.4 hectares or 4.1 planet’s,
yippee- guess it’s because I cant drive a car

[Quadlok]

4.4 planets, because meat is tasty and my family really should buy a better car.

My two cents on why the numbers this thing is producing are so large is that its mostly coming from whatever vegetation they've assigned as cleaning up greenhouse gas emmisions. I have a feeling that they are ignoring oceanic plantlife and possibly agricultural and landscaped vegetation.

[His Divine Shadow]

Chicken farming by the way is much more area efficient than cattle and it gives healthy nutrious eggs as well, though cows give milk and other dairy products too, milk is like possibly the best thing ever.

Ofcourse in the US and such you can't eat too many eggs because of all hormone crap we've got banned here, I refer you to that guy Darth Wong mentioned once.

Is an gricultural college a biased source?
http://ars.sdstate.edu/animaliss/beef.h ... nvironment?

[Dooey Jo]

When I go to school:
5.7 planets
FOOD 1.6
MOBILITY 4
SHELTER 0.6
GOODS/SERVICES 4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 10.2

When I don't
1.5 planets
FOOD 1.6
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.6
GOODS/SERVICES 0.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.7

If I had let someone drive me to school rather than take the bus:
1.6 planets
MOBILITY 0.1


Uhmm, apparently it's way better to take the car than the bus. How does that make any sense?

[wolveraptor]

The test probably doesn't account for the fact that bus's carry multiple people, and instead looks only at its poor mpg.

[Mr. T]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 3.5
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 1.2
GOODS/SERVICES 1.3
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6.1

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.

Interesting, I'm one greedy bastard

[Surlethe]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.9
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 5.4
GOODS/SERVICES 5.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 17

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.8 PLANETS.

Muahahahahah.

[Losonti Tokash]

2.7 for yours truly.

[Solauren]

4.6

Some of those questions are VERY slanted

[Civil War Man]

At school:
FOOD 5.7
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 1.5
GOODS/SERVICES 1.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.9 PLANETS.

Largely due to the fact that I consume a lot of animal products, but I live in a small apartment and I walk everywhere because everything I need is close by.

At home:
FOOD 4.9
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 5.9
GOODS/SERVICES 5.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 17

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.8 PLANETS.

Mostly since most of the food we buy here is grown locally, the house is bigger than my apartment, and I drive more because a) I have access to a car here, and b) it's counterproductive not to use a car since it's a relatively rural town.

The way I see it, this thing is using predominantly scare tactics to try to guilt trip the people taking it because they eat meat or have a large house. Which is sad, really, because underhanded tactics like that (along with some of the misinformation that less reputable "environmental" groups tries to spread) can generate a pretty severe backlash, because people may stop supporting environmental programs we actually need because they get tired and suspicious of the bullshit that gets thrown in with it.

[Noble Ire]

4.7 Planets

I guess I'm just evil.

[tharkûn]

Deliberate overstatement at work, from their FAQ:

A plant-based diet generally requires less land, energy, and other resources. Crop-based food requires an average of 0.78 global hectares per ton of food, compared to 2.1 global hectares required to produce one ton of animal-based food. It is true that pasture and rangeland, the products of which humans can't directly consume, may be better suited to animals. Unsustainably managed grazing, however, can have degrading impacts on biodiversity and soil health.

Yes it requires less land, energy, etc. - however looking at the average acreage per ton is BS. What you need to do is compare the results of using the same chunk of land either way. If you grow soy beans out where they graze cattle in the Rocky Mountains you will have far higher land use. The truth is that the most productive acreage is being used to grow plants - meat grown in the Australian outback is going to require much more acreage than meat grown in Iowa. Hell if you tried to grow human edible plants on most grazing acreage you'd have less efficiency.

Not to mention the fact that they ignore the productivity value of manure. For being organophiles it is duplitious not to look at the fact that manure production offsets the inefficiency of meat production.

As with all food, the size of the Footprint depends largely on how it's grown. Look for "free-range" animal products that have been produced by local, small-scale organic or sustainable farmers.

Utter BS. Free-range means that per chicken you require MORE land. Not to mention the energy costs of herding and egg collection.

All electric power sources have a Footprint for their construction and operation. The combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generates carbon dioxide, among other wastes and serious environmental effects. Coal-powered electricity generation has a bigger Footprint than electricity from natural gas. Using electricity from renewable "green" sources like wind, solar, and small-scale hydropower substantially reduces your Ecological Footprint.

More BS. Solar panels pollute the ever loving crap out of mother earth during the fabrication process. Silicon etching is energy intensive, requires a dozen nasty chemicals, and requires loads of fresh water.

The Ecological Footprint of nuclear power is more controversial. On the on the one hand, nuclear power does not generate carbon dioxide emissions, aside from the energy embodied in a nuclear plant's construction and maintenance. On the other hand, it does create wastes that must be dealt with over many thousands of years. Accidental contamination from nuclear energy, such as at Chernobyl, has made sizeable areas of productive land unfit for human use. In addition, there is a security concern, since radioactive material can be used for weaponry. Our current approximation of these variables gives each source an equal impact per energy unit. Taking nuclear energy out of the Footprint accounts would reduce the worldwide Footprint by less than four percent.

On this board I don't think I need to do more than point out the fallacy of talking about Chernobyl and then generalizing the rest of the nuclear industry.

Recycling diverts materials from the solid waste stream and landfills. Using recycled materials to make new products saves energy and resources. For recycling to work, people will need to buy recycled products.

I get so sick of this recycling BS. Yes some products make sense to recycle and that is the most ecological choice. For others it actually takes MORE energy to recycle the damn thing (think white paper or melting glass) than to just make it new (incinerating paper or dumping glass into a landfill have smaller environmental impacts recycling them).

They make enough common errors, include few hard cites, and engage in blatantly dishonest rhetoric I'm safely going to call it a healthy dose of fear mongering.