My ecological footprint, 5.9 planets

[Darth Wong]

I call supreme BS on this test

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4.2
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 1.5
GOODS/SERVICES 1.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 7


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.7 PLANETS

Ok, I walk everywhere, my entire world exists in a land area around eighteen square kms. I eat meat once a week.
Nevermind that FISH are MEAT

The "fish = meat" thing is not necessarily true. That's one thing they could have really clarified in their test.

I use electricity, live in a aparment complex as large as most houses but many stories, have less than 500 square feet of room.

Basicly EVERY single lowest possiple answear, all of it true thanks to my location.

And yet I still need 1.7 planets. Its not even TRYING to play fair.

What makes you say this? Do you really think the world can support 6 billion people living the way even a relatively energy-conscious westerner lives? Our baseline consumption is much, much higher than that of the third world. There is a problem with this test, but these "waaa waaaa, it thinks we're wasteful in the first world!" complaints completely miss it.

I don't know whether its numbers are exaggerated in general, but there is nothing wrong with assigning different values to different countries.

[Zero]

I gave the absolute lowest answers I could in a third world country or two, and it said we needed 1 world if everyone lived like me... how does THAt work?

[wilfulton]

Confirmed. If only everyone would live like a skid row bum in some fucked up third world nation, then the world could accomodate everyone. Well, I suppose then again, don't forget that the "take action" and "donate" buttons are right below the part that says "IF EVERYONE LIVE LIKE YOU THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM TO ACCOMODATE YOUR WASTEFUL WAYS YOU GLUTTONOUS ENGERY SUCKING PIG!!!"

[wilfulton]

EDIT: It appears that just changing gender greatly effects the outcome. Even if nothing else is changed, females use about twice as much resources as males, be it for the USA or Saudi Arabia or India. Does this strike anyone else as odd?

[tharkûn]

Do you really think the world can support 6 billion people living the way even a relatively energy-conscious westerner lives?

That depends on the production methods used. Nuclear power, efficient farming (none of the "traditional" slash and burn techniques and other fun crap in the third world), sure. One of the big problems here is that they are using the same production figures for everyone, using modern egineering and technology you can make more crap for the same ecological impact.

Our baseline consumption is much, much higher than that of the third world. ?

And our baseline efficiency is also much higher, and can go far higher if you are willing to pay for it. For instance nuclear powered reverse osmosis could double the amount of arable farmland in the world with minimal ecological impact, the problem being no one outside of the west and the Arab oil states could hope to afford it and the west already suffers from chronic overproduction.

I don't know whether its numbers are exaggerated in general,

I hazard a guess at yes. 7 or more people living in a 500 sq ft apartment require an entire friggen acre of land per person to provide shelter (in St. Louis). I defy anyone to give me a good reason how a 500 sq ft apartment requires seven acres of land - and no it is not a truncation artifact or rounding error. Even if you include all the carbon emissions inherent to heating (without electricity they still say it takes 4.9 acres) and whatnot - I simply can't see that figure panning out .

[Zero]

Can anybody actually get this test to give you a number lower then 1? Is there any way that a person could make it take less then 1 earth to sustain 6 billion people like them? If not, then I have to say that this test is crap. At the very least, the numbers are greatly exhagerated, from what I've seen of it. If anybody can actually get it to say less then 1, however, I'll change my mind.

[Darth Wong]

Can anybody actually get this test to give you a number lower then 1? Is there any way that a person could make it take less then 1 earth to sustain 6 billion people like them? If not, then I have to say that this test is crap. At the very least, the numbers are greatly exhagerated, from what I've seen of it. If anybody can actually get it to say less then 1, however, I'll change my mind.

I got 0.6 by giving it idealized answers. It's not that difficult to do, but you have to tell it that you don't use planes, motorbikes, buses, or cars to get around: just foot and bike power. You also have to live in a green dwelling (whatever that means; I assume it means it's either high-efficiency or simply lacks A/C and central heating), not eat meat, stick to locally produced unprocessed food, and share your household with several other people.

I suppose I should point out that this is actually the way many people in the world live, albeit not by choice. It just seems insanely unrealistic to us. But as I said earlier (and which the conservatives completely ignored for some reason even though it highlights a serious omission with the test's methodology), one of the biggest things the western world does for the environment is to keep our breeding rate down, which allows us to responsibly consume more resources per person than the rest of the world.

[SirNitram]

Confirmed. If only everyone would live like a skid row bum in some fucked up third world nation, then the world could accomodate everyone. Well, I suppose then again, don't forget that the "take action" and "donate" buttons are right below the part that says "IF EVERYONE LIVE LIKE YOU THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM TO ACCOMODATE YOUR WASTEFUL WAYS YOU GLUTTONOUS ENGERY SUCKING PIG!!!"

I'm sure in some deranged, illogical realm of stupid, thrashing around screeching about how 'wasteful' this accuses Westerners of being invalidates it.

Of course, back here in reality, we have to crunch the numbers. Like it or not, the 1st world consumes faaaar more than the third. That's what we like to call a 'No shit' conclusion. What it ultimately means is that for things to improve, we need to either use less(Always a logical idea; nothing's infinite except the arrogance of idiots), or get more. Getting more is hard. As in, 'construct orbital habitats in the LaGrange points' hard.

Unless, of course, one lacks all moral imperatives and just says 'Fuck 'em!' to those not in the 1st world.

[Zero]

Can anybody actually get this test to give you a number lower then 1? Is there any way that a person could make it take less then 1 earth to sustain 6 billion people like them? If not, then I have to say that this test is crap. At the very least, the numbers are greatly exhagerated, from what I've seen of it. If anybody can actually get it to say less then 1, however, I'll change my mind.

I got 0.6 by giving it idealized answers. It's not that difficult to do, but you have to tell it that you don't use planes, motorbikes, buses, or cars to get around: just foot and bike power. You also have to live in a green dwelling (whatever that means; I assume it means it's either high-efficiency or simply lacks A/C and central heating), not eat meat, stick to locally produced unprocessed food, and share your household with several other people.
I suppose I should point out that this is actually the way many people in the world live, albeit not by choice. It just seems insanely unrealistic to us. But as I said earlier (and which the conservatives completely ignored for some reason even though it highlights a serious omission with the test's methodology), one of the biggest things the western world does for the environment is to keep our breeding rate down, which allows us to responsibly consume more resources per person than the rest of the world.

Thank you Mr. Wong. 0.6 still seems high to me, but that's good.

[HSRTG]

Yay ... 5.9.

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 6.9

MOBILITY 4

SHELTER 4.2

GOODS/SERVICES 7.4

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 22

And honest (as far as I know) answers. I believe someone said something about building a fleet?

[Sea Skimmer]

Ok, I walk everywhere, my entire world exists in a land area around eighteen square kms. I eat meat once a week.
Nevermind that FISH are MEAT

Different kinds of fish and land animals can use enormously different amounts of food for every actual pound of weight they gain. Cattle IIRC need to eat more then ten pounds of grain to add 1 pound of weight, while a Chicken only needs around two pounds for the same. All of that of course makes their calculations meaningless.

[Zed Snardbody]

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 15.6 PLANETS.