# How many planets?  Ecological Footprint



## myzamboni (May 31, 2008)

3.5 planets for me.  Far better than I anticipated

http://www.myfootprint.org/en/visitor_information/


----------



## begreen (May 31, 2008)

3.3 for us. We did well with carbon footprint (10.4), but not as well in housing (9.2). All numbers were good by US standards, but wimpy by world standards I guess.


----------



## mayhem (Jun 1, 2008)

I would need 6.47 earths.


----------



## mikeathens (Jun 2, 2008)

Cool site...3.45 earths.  Looks like I have a bit of work to do.  Food footprint was the biggest...


----------



## myzamboni (Jun 3, 2008)

What's interesting is if you answer all the questions the same, but say you live in Europe, they account for that with a different footprint.


----------



## billb3 (Jun 3, 2008)

3.1

Do I have to move into a cave ?


----------



## MishMouse (Jun 3, 2008)

2.77 earths.
Largest is my carbon footprint.
I am going to go through it again and figue out what I would need to do to get my planets down to < 1.

If I read between the lines here is the message I get:
Looks like everyboby should move into government run apartments so big brother can take care of us and reduce are carbon footprint. If we allow the gov to feed us cloth us and furnish our living spaces we could all drastically reduce our impact on the environment. All we would have to do is send in all the money we make to them and they will take care of us like the helpless stupid little children we all are. And on the subject of children we should institute a program similar to China only 1 child per family and anyone who has more then one is punished servery. As for the elderly eliminate them, they are a burbon on our world and a carbon waste, children should be sent off to gov camps so they can learn how to properly maintain this wonderful planet we infest.


----------



## mikeathens (Jun 3, 2008)

MishMouse said:
			
		

> 2.77 earths.
> Largest is my carbon footprint.
> I am going to go through it again and figue out what I would need to do to get my planets down to < 1.
> 
> If I read between the lines here is the message I get:



The message you are getting is one of a person who wants to deny anything that suggests that your lifestyle is not sustainable if everyone on the planet wanted to live the same way.  I live on 85 acres, and it is a no-brainer that if everyone on this planet wanted to raise their family on 85 acres, there would be absolutely NO WAY.  If you walked to work or didn't even own a car, the "number of planets" drops way down.  If you give up meat, same thing (if I remember correctly, it takes about 10 gallons of water and some obscene amount of grain to get one pound of conventionally-raised meat.  Using that grain and water for human consumption goes a lot further than that pound of meat).

You don't have to read between the lines, we consume so much in this country compared to many other cultures, and that is a proven fact, it's unsustainable.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that you move to a government-run apartment, or kill your grandparents.  In fact, your angry response reminds me of when Dick Cheney said that american's shouldn't have to make do with less.  The majority of people in this world don't have cars, and most live well.  We have built this infrastructure in the US around oil, and now it's turning out to be a not-so-good idea.  I mean, what else makes it possible for one to live 50 miles from a job they go to 5 days a week?  In the good old days, walking, biking, or horse riding were the modes of transportation.  Those long commutes resulted from the invention of the car.  Which in turn tore apart our communities, which in turn destroyed our local-based food production.  I think if we could work closer to home, not drive (or even own a car), and get our food locally, we'd be on a pretty good path.  

Our society needs to move back toward the old ways of doing things, not some future "soylent green" scenario like you are implying.  At least we could get some better cars on the road, if nothing else.  Of course, they might be smaller, and if it's not a ford excursion, it's probably not practical to many  :roll:   I guess that's where things get tripped up in trying to make changes...


----------



## fossil (Jun 3, 2008)

Well, we're at about 4.75 on a first run-through.  Interesting site.  Lots of food for green thought there...I'm quite sure that there's much we can bo better.  Thanks for that thought-provoking link, Zambo.  (I've always loved watching the Zambonis groom the ice.  A few years back, I remember an article in the Washington Post about a couple of guys who were working in an ice rink overnight who decided to drive a Zamboni or two over to the local drive-through for a snack.  Don't remember just where that took place, but it was certainly an amusing true story.)  Rick

EDIT:  Here it is, it happened in Boise, Idaho in 2006:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-11-22-zamboni_x.htm


----------



## titan (Jun 4, 2008)

No fear of being labelled a tree-hugger:7.83 earth's.......needs work I guess.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 4, 2008)

Over 6.5.  I would guess that my flying 25K+ per year for work has something to do with it


----------



## Vic99 (Jun 4, 2008)

4.55

Try this one, if you're into this stuff.  It also factors in connection to your community and quality of life:  http://www.itint.co.uk/hpisurvey/


----------



## colsmith (Jun 13, 2008)

Haven't tried it yet, am guessing mine will be lower than most in this country.   We don't have jobs, so we don't commute, we grow a lot of food, do home canning, don't buy new stuff hardly ever, hardly eat meat and then it is usually venison, etc.  But I just wanted to point out one easy thing to do to cut back your water and carbon footprint.  Someone mentioned this but their number was way low.  Cut out beef or cut way down on it.  It is actually about 1500 gallons of water needed to make one pound of beef in our country.  Has to do with all the extensive irrigation of corn and the water they are drinkiing, the processing and shipping, and so on.  It is much lower for pork and poultry, so if you can't give up meat, aim for a different kind.


----------



## Telco (Jun 14, 2008)

I use 7.38 earths.  I'm not impressed with it either, because it would rate my next door neighbor the same as me.  Looks like I have a 4 earth penalty for living in a new US suburb, and no other reason.


----------



## tinkabranc (Jun 14, 2008)

4.3 here.


----------



## colsmith (Jun 21, 2008)

Mine came out at 2.53 earths.  I didn't think they asked nearly enough questions, though.  The fact that I buy almost nothing new didn't really come up, using rags instead of paper towels and things of that nature were not addressed.  I am sure they think I shop more than I do because I live in the U.S.  And I don't think they adequately asked about heating with wood!  We hardly use our furnace at all, but they didn't ask such specific questions.

The other web site someone listed asked slightly more detailed questions, that one said my ecological footprint was "2.09 planets. This is equivalent to the average in Italy or Slovenia."  Funny, because if I hadn't been to Italy and Slovenia last year my number would be lower.   Occasional air travel is my only big weak area, plus of course that there is no public transportation where I live, although I do mostly get around in a hybrid car that gets 50 MPG.

Some of the advice was funny, like leave your car in the garage.  As if I could get my car into my garage . . .


----------

