Ecological Footprint

[sir archely]

http://www.myfootprint.org

This is an interesting site. I had to do this for one of my classes this semester. It takes some basic questions about your lifestyle and calculates how many planets we'd need if everyone lived by your lifestyle.

Just select your country and answer the questions.

Oh, and don't worry, no personal information is required; you don't have to drop an email address or anything. They ask for your zip code, but that's even optional.

I ended up at 2.8 planets, with a total footprint of 12 acres. I thought this was pretty decent, since the average for an american is 24 acres. (but obviously, it's still not exactly great.)

If you have some time to burn it's quite interesting to see the impact of location on your footprint. I redid it using a less developed country and tried to use the same answers (as much as i could anyway) and it spit out a 1 planet result then.


And....i just know someone probably wants to say, "well, that think is bunk, how did they get it anyway? that's not me." To you i say, i'm just the messenger, i make no claims about the veracity of the quiz. Go read stuff in the "more about the footprint" link.

Averages from that:
average world citizen: 2.9 global hectares
average german: 6.0 global hectares
average american: 12.5 global hectares

the earth has 2.1 global hectares of biologically productive space per person.

[LaughingTurtle]

2.7 PLANETS

12 Total footprint


Think it's pretty accurate as a college student...regularly eating meat (food by far was the biggest), living with 2 roommates, and using public transporation and carpooling a lot with a civic ;) (transportation lowest).

Interesting arch... :thup:

[QuirkyTemplate]

2.8 w/ 12

Would have been much more if I had not started taking the metro so often lately. Pretty much same as what LT said.

[Anita Blake]

3.5 planets, with a total footprint of 6.3

crazy that, totally crazy.....

[sir archely]

heh, it'd be a good idea to put the units in there...or else it looks like it isn't the same calculation for both. it uses different units for those of us who don't use metric. LT and QT both have total footprints of 12 acres while i'm guessing that Anita's is in hectares. That's why it looks so funny.

[Dregs]

heh, it'd be a good idea to put the units in there...or else it looks like it isn't the same calculation for both. it uses different units for those of us who don't use metric. LT and QT both have total footprints of 12 acres while i'm guessing that Anita's is in hectares. That's why it looks so funny.


Is there such thing as a metric planet?

[sir archely]

Is there such thing as a metric planet?
:p the planets are obviously the same. i'm talking about the "total footprint."

[Dregs]

:p the planets are obviously the same. i'm talking about the "total footprint."

I know. I was just being trite. :p

[Cloric the Cleric]

5.1 planets and 23 Acres.... :grumbles: So, I drive an older car, that doesn't get as good gas milage, I eat meat with nearly every meal, and I put over 300 miles on my car every week. Meh. Strangely enough, when I decided to live in Kenya, and answered the questions the same way (or near enough with the conversions) it dropped to 1.6 planets.

[epiph]

don't worry cloric...i'm not too far behind you... :umm:

that's worrisome...if i HAD a bike, and the money to buy a bike, i'd use it...but i have a car...and so i use that...

21 acres and 4.6 planets :eek:

[~KA3AK~]

Is there such thing as a metric planet?
Amen to that. Unfortunately most americans prefer to be the only nation stupid enough to have enlish units. :dozey:
Anyways, I'm close to Cleric and epiph and the nations average.

CATEGORY ACRES
----------------------
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 5.4
SHELTER 3.2
GOODS/SERVICES 7.9
----------------------
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 23

That comes out to be 5.3 planets. :cool: Yay me!

meh, that's still a little less then average for the US. I have no idea how this test is calculated, but I think this is a little off. According to this, only my food footprint is bigger then the average productive acers per person. Hmm, I don't eat that much. Also the goods footprint seems unreasonably high. I have to hand it to you, the website is well-made.

~searches for the rep button~

[Buck]

You know... this quiz is biased and fixed.

The food acres doesnt take into account that you dont eat it all at once nore that you can reuse the same soil. Also, why would I need 4.5 acres for shelter? I put in 1000 sqare feet. And why would 5.7 acres be required for goods and services? Is there a power plant just for me?

[wiggin]

8 acres. 1.8 planets.

[sir archely]

You know... this quiz is biased and fixed.

The food acres doesnt take into account that you dont eat it all at once nore that you can reuse the same soil. Also, why would I need 4.5 acres for shelter? I put in 1000 sqare feet. And why would 5.7 acres be required for goods and services? Is there a power plant just for me?
Read the "more about the footprint" link.

They actually say that this is a conservative estimate.

-Counting each area only once, even if the area provides two or more ecological services at once.
-Choosing the more conservative estimates when in doubt.
-Including current agricultural practices as if current industrial yields would not cause any significant long-term damage to the soil productivity.
-Leaving out some human activities for which we have insufficient data.
-Excluding those activities that systematically erode nature's capacity to regenerate. They consist of:
--The uses of materials for which the biosphere has no significant assimilation capacity (e.g. plutonium and other radioactive elements associated with nuclear energy production, polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)).
--Processes that irreversibly damage the biosphere (e.g. species extinction, aquifer destruction, deforestation, and desertification).


Umm...i'm guessing that your shelter is not just a 1000 square foot box. Electricity requires energy, burning of fuel, acres are needed to absorb the emissions, etc.

As far as food goes, i'm not sure what your point is about eating all at once... You are going to continue eating throughout your life, yes? You still need a certain area to produce food for you. I would think that the goods and services thing takes into account your country, and the averages for that. The only question related to this is the question where you try to rate yourself against your neighbors. ~shrug~

[epiph]

i'm actually better than i thought. i put that i drove a lot more than i actually do before (i looked at my odometer).

13 footprints and 3 planets.

[Amos]

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.5 PLANETS
food was my worst at 3.3. i need to eat less.

*stops eating*

*starts shakin*

aaaagggh, can't take it!

*rushes to fridge to get ice cream*

[Dingdin]

6.7 ha

3.5 planets

*shudder*

/Ding

[Amos]

the earth has 2.1 global hectares of biologically productive space per person.
I took this quiz again just now, and interestingly that number seems to have dropped down to 1.8 global hectares of biologically productive space per person. So, for whatever reason, the earth can support even less people now than it could three years ago.


If everyone lived like you, Amos, we would need 2.1 planets
Actually, if everyone lived like me, we would be extinct by now, as there would be nobody tilling the fields, making the babies, or being sober. But that's kind of beside the point. I know that this score is much better than average (the average for my people in my country is over twice as high) but still, that's a pretty horrifying figure, isn't it? 2.1 planets! And I live damn sparsely. Probably the real figure is lower, but even such a vague estimate is enough to disgust both the irrational lover and the rational thinker in me. It feels like a judgment: like I'm not fit to live on this planet.

Since I'm not alone in this, though, I was wondering if we perhaps should do more as a community? Us Quillers, I mean. We have discussion forums for Deep Thoughts, Literature, and Whatever. Why not have one for Environment? It seems to me that if real-life communities can take action on environmental issues, then the least we could do is try to encourage awareness among ourselves. Any thoughts? Do we think it's important enough?

[Amelia]

ooooh Im so bad!

I need 4.1 planets.

[Kenya]

FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 5.7
GOODS/SERVICES 5.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 19
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.2 PLANETS.
----------
Not sure if I agree with their numbers... but being both mathematically *and* scientifically deficient, I am in no position to argue with them. Hm, I better stop eating cheeseburgers. :(

[Amelia]

at least Im in the lead as the most wasteful!

[Eyreplenh]

Food 1
Mobility 0.5
Shelter 1.3
Goods/services 2.1

Total Footprint 4.9


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.7 PLANETS

Apparently I'm no walk in the park, sigh... And I thought I was a good boy!



Any thoughts? Do we think it's important enough?

Is there anything more important?


Hey, what about yesterday
(What about us)
What about the seas
(What about us)
The heavens are falling down
(What about us)
I can't even breathe
(What about us)
What about the bleeding Earth
(What about us)
Can't we feel its wounds
(What about us)
What about nature's worth
(ooo,ooo)
It's our planet's womb
(What about us)
What about animals
(What about it)
We've turned kingdoms to dust
(What about us)
What about elephants
(What about us)
Have we lost their trust
(What about us)
What about crying whales
(What about us)
We're ravaging the seas
(What about us)
What about forest trails
(ooo, ooo)
Burnt despite our pleas
(What about us)
What about the holy land
(What about it)
Torn apart by creed
(What about us)
What about the common man
(What about us)
Can't we set him free
(What about us)
What about children dying
(What about us)
Can't you hear them cry
(What about us)
Where did we go wrong
(ooo, ooo)
Someone tell me why
(What about us)
What about babies
(What about it)
What about the days
(What about us)
What about all their joy
(What about us)
What about the man
(What about us)
What about the crying man
(What about us)
What about Abraham
(What was us)
What about death again
(ooo, ooo)

Do we give a damn ?


Seriously though, things should be done. But it's not going to happen as long as people are just sitting around on their asses like me. Sadly. I say yay to increased environmental focus around the quill. And everywhere else for that matter. Nice initiative:thup: *nudge, nudge*

[Dregs]

Hectares.
Food 3.5

MOBILITY 1.3

SHELTER 1.9

GOODS/SERVICES 2.5

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 9.2

5.1 Planets

[ChronoDmin]

food :3.5
mobility :1.0
shelter: :4.2
goods/ services :3.5

2.7 planets

not too shabby.... thank the Gods i recycle everything i can get my grubby little hands on

[Jennifer]

Hectares.
Food 3.5

MOBILITY 1.3

SHELTER 1.9

GOODS/SERVICES 2.5

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 9.2

5.1 Planets

Bad conservationist! :p



CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.9
MOBILITY 2.5
SHELTER 5.4
GOODS/SERVICES 7.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 21



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 4.7 PLANETS.

edit:
There are plenty of scientists and science educators on the Quill. I'm sure we could have some lively discussions. But would it be just that...discussion? I'm sure most of us try to do our part by recycling and trying to be energy-efficient, but I don't know if discussion is enough to really change how someone lives their life. Communities who do things for their environment usually live in a shared area and can get together...I don't see how the Quill can impact the environment as a community unless it's through some kind of donation system.

[AquaFizz]

Well..donations are a start. I mean..we could see about having a whole bunch of trees planted together named after each of us..lol..it could be the Quills magical forrest.

..there's also that commune idea. :D

Or maybe its just a matter of making an effort to look up new ways to be green and then sharing them with each other...besides just recycling cans and plastic. I'm always interested in green houses, products that are made from salvaged goods (I've seen whole houses built from salvaged wood and other products).

..James Taylor is on CET, though. So thats all you're getting from me. :love:

[Buck]

I said it before in this thread and I will say it again. The math behind the calculator is flawed and obviously biased toward sensationalism. As an aside, being nicer to mother earth is always a good idea, but I wouldn't trust that site to provide anything 'real'.

[Daspar]

I love it!

You answer 15 questions, including some about gender and weather in your area.

Next thing it tells you you're so bad at living, chewing through planets like it's nobody's business, then says "TAKE ACTION!!" or "DONATE".

Simple, ineffective, guilt-ridden... sounds like the green movement has taken to the web! :)

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 4 MOBILITY 0.6
SHELTER 1.1 GOODS/SERVICES 1.3
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 7

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 7.6 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.9 PLANETS.

[Daspar]

..... The math behind the calculator is flawed and obviously biased toward sensationalism.

How can the maths behind a calculator be flawed? How do/can you know that? :)

I imagine you just don't feel comfortable with your entire lifestyle being judged with a few questions and ending up with a single number. With that I agree with! :D I don't know if I'd call it scientific, but like most feel-good industries, it makes us feel "bad". And guilt drives us all to do amazing things, like donate money. Guilt is sometimes an effective way to get change, but not a wholesome or long-term viable one.

That's why discussion is good. Neocons will tell you that economics will drive science to make greener technologies, but nothing beats good old public awareness. For example, in Australia, we cut down 20% of our plastic bag usage(a major environmental issue over here), with no incentives and at a cost to the consumer. Purely a results of public discussion and awareness, and public activity. (though possibly a few elements of guilt were used! :) )

[wiggin]

*has helped plant forests*

So there. ;)

Ender

[AquaFizz]

~tried public transportation, decided it took too long, now drives all by herself almost everyday, forgets to recycle cans, or cut the little plastic holders, leaves the water on while she brushes her teeth AND stands in the shower WAY too long..also enjoys baths.~

So there. :p ~But...doesn't litter?~

[Dregs]

~tried public transportation, decided it took too long, now drives all by herself almost everyday, forgets to recycle cans, or cut the little plastic holders, leaves the water on while she brushes her teeth AND stands in the shower WAY too long..also enjoys baths.~

So there. :p ~But...doesn't litter?~

I hope you're kidding.

[AquaFizz]

I am. In reality, I also litter.

No! I got 5.1 planets on the test. And I don't understand the other stuff. I was partially kidding. The cans thing doesn't apply to me bc my family doesn't get cans often, we're plastic people...and we recycle them..most of the time.

...I do use a lot of water, though. I can't help it. I enjoy it immensely, and am stubborn in understanding how water could be considered a dwindling resource.

Also, because this is funny,...I'm very against the wasting of paper. I actually made Katey quite upset the other day. She kept taking postit notes and scrunching them up. I said, "Did you know paper comes from trees? In order to make paper, you have to KILL trees. You're KILLING trees" ..I'm evil. But she stopped. So...I win.

[Amos]

Or maybe its just a matter of making an effort to look up new ways to be green and then sharing them with each other.
That's more or less what I was thinking. It would be nice to bully, extort, and marginalise each other, but there's a dangerous possibility that we would become pro-active, and we don't want to look like we're trying too hard. My personal approach to conservation is to just do less. Eat less, remove lightbulbs, commit less arsons and start fewer wars, etc.

As to the whole water thing: technically there is probably more water these days, thanks to the ice caps melting, but I would refrain from celebrating that if you don't want homeless polar bears knocking angrily on your doorstep. And hey, all the ways you use water require energy, especially when you heat it, but even just to get it to your home. The more you use, the more energy you burn/waste.

Oh, and I'm all for guilt :)

[wiggin]

Water is a question of available uncontaminated freshwater reserves. Those levels are dropping precipitously. Rising sea levels have little effect on this... in fact, they reduce the overall level of freshwater, as the Antarctic ice cap is mostly freshwater, which is slowly chipping away and diluting into the oceans.

Ender

[Anita Blake]

can we just make this thread about environmental discussion? i mean, it already has an apt title, and we're already talking about it here. Wouldn't it be wasteful to start a whole new thread?

anyway, my effort: i replaced the christmas lights in my living room, the ones i use for every day lighting purposes, with energy efficient LED lights a couple weeks ago. I'm not totally satisfied with the light-replacement, but i feel good knowing it's less energy being used. (i'm repurposing the old lights into a kind of lamp, or at least i would, if i could make the damn things work now...)

i don't return my bottles. I mean, we go through a lot of empty wine bottles in this household, so i could potentially make a few bucks back from my drinking habit, but frankly, i don't know where to take them, nor do i have the motivation to return them. however, there is a high incidence of panhandling/recyclists in my neighborhood, so i usually just leave my bottles neatly in a bag or box outside my dumpster for someone to pick up and return. What's the consensus on this? I feel like i am a) donating to people and making it easier for them, preventing them from needing to dig through my dumpster, and b) getting the bottles back to the recycling center. But i sometimes wonder, is it wrong to be basically encouraging dumpster divers? i figure, they'll do it anyway, what's wrong with giving them more work? am i being arrogant? i worry about that sometimes...

anyway: here's my "green" tip: buy local produce when possible. produce from foreign countries had to be trasported, using a large quantity of fuels to get there. By purchasing local produce, you are encouraging your own local economy, as well as reducing the amount of fuel used to deliver your food.

In my grocery stores, it's quite frequent for there to be, for example, apples from BC (local), apples from washington, apples from california, apples from new zealand. A green choice for me would be to buy BC apples over NZ apples, even though the NZ apples make me feel like i'm closer to the summer in this silly winter.

also, you can sign up for the Nature Challenge (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/), which is 10 easy ways to reduce your environmental impact. :)

[Daspar]

anyway: here's my "green" tip: buy local produce when possible. produce from foreign countries had to be trasported, using a large quantity of fuels to get there. By purchasing local produce, you are encouraging your own local economy, as well as reducing the amount of fuel used to deliver your food.

This smacks of the 100 mile diet (http://www.100milediet.org/). :) And a darn good thing, for all and sundry I reckon!

[sir archely]

I said it before in this thread and I will say it again. The math behind the calculator is flawed and obviously biased toward sensationalism. As an aside, being nicer to mother earth is always a good idea, but I wouldn't trust that site to provide anything 'real'.
you said it before, and you didn't provide a reasoning for it then either.

I, for one, would like to see your examples of where the quiz is not calculating correctly. Not based on your opinions either. If you read the FAQ and the "calculating" links, you'll see plenty of reasoning and explanation that you appear to have skipped. they even provide a link for a way more detailed spreadsheet calculator if you wanted.

i mean, it's not my calculator, and i'll agree it's not perfect, but how could it be? if you can point out some major (or even minor) flaws that they haven't taken into account, then good for you.

[Dregs]

I don't think anything (certainly nothing on the internet) can give you a truly personalised snapshot of your environmental impact. What I think that it's particularly useful for is highlighting some of the areas where a person can make changes. I don't see it as a finger pointing exercise at all, more a vehicle about making people think about how they live and its impact.

Having said that, my overall impact is high (and in fact is probably higher given my current job), and there's not a great deal I can do about it. I live 800km from the nearest large city (and by large I mean popn over 1million), with no public transport whatsoever, no real oppurtunity to buy locally grown produce, and I spend a lot of time driving my big 4WD.

[Alexia]

CATEGORY / GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD / 2.2
MOBILITY / 0.3
SHELTER / 1.5
GOODS/SERVICES / 1.8
TOTAL FOOTPRINT / 5.8

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 7.6 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON. WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.2 PLANETS.

I'm not sure what this all means yet so I'm feeling guilty by default. I was a little defensive about the trasnport questions because where I live is technically semi-rural and to get to public transport we need to drive there anyway. <shrug> Still, if we're chatting environments, I can say the drought and subsequent water shortage scares me to my soul. Can you believe if I drive five minutes down the road, I enter the next shire and water restrictions no longer exist? Ahhh.

[Buck]

I am not sure evn where to begin arch, Ive read the 'FAQ' and it doesnt really go into many specifics if any for everything.




CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4
MOBILITY 1
SHELTER 7.4
GOODS/SERVICES 5.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 18



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 4.1 PLANETS.


From what I have been able to interpret, some of the numbers are ridiculous.

Food: 4 acres.

I have lived off of farmland and I can tell you that 4 acres is too high. My best guess is that this calculator assumes you grow everything you eat on your plot. That means you grow your own apples, oranges, herd your own beef, chicken etc..

This is unreal. Even in extremely rural environments, farmers specialize. One land owner grows nothing but string beans, one grows nothing bit corn, one person grows nothing but wheat, while another livestock farm specializes specifically on pigs etc.

This is high efficiency and you can trade quite a bit for what you need using what you have.

I would guesstimate my food acre to be closer to 1 acre and that is based off of real personal experiences.

MOBILITY 1

I am guessing this accounts for the area I move around in for work and what have you. I put in an extremely low commute in my quiz becasue I live right next to my school but I can see this figure being quite out of control for people who have a large commute.

What I laugh at is that this mobility tracker doesnt seem to account for communal property. If my neighbors and I all live in the same apartment complex and we all work at school, we all utilize the same roads, highways etc. Does this number account for this?

When I lived in an isolated town with its own farmalands each person did not need their own 1 acre devoted to just walkways. Sure this is only 1 acre I arguing here, so it is almost not worth mentioning this.

On to the interesting numbers..



SHELTER 7.4

"he Housing Footprint covers the spaces for built-up land, the energy and resources for constructing the building, and the energy for operating it. In our accounts, this category does not include the furniture, appliances, or cleaning equipment, which are accounted for in the "Goods and Services" section."

So by the FAQ, even though I live in one apartment in a large complex, the calculator does the math to build the whole building. It does not take into account other tenants and neighbors.

It does account for energy services to sustain it. So I guess that vague term implies utilities.

But 7.4 acres? For what? My own personal power plant? Water plant?

Where is the communal aspect? A power plant can supply power to millions of people, as can water treatment plants. Seriously.


7.4!?

No.

GOODS/SERVICES 5.7

I guess, if I had a factory build JUST for me so I can have my desks, tables, chairs, forks, knives, television etc, then yea I can see 5.7 acres. But again the same re-occurring issue is happening here again. Where is the communal aspect?





And now for the coup de grace, the source of my groaning:

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.1 PLANETS.
TAKE ACTION
DONATE

Which directly links to a form to fill out to give earthdaynetwork your money.

Here is sensationalism and guilt take off like a rocket. I don't even know where to begin. 4.1 planets? I am not a hog of that magnitude, I don't care what the quiz says. Instead of concentrating on the number 4.1 and how wrong it is, Ill let my above statements peck away at that number while I talk about EarthDayNetwork.


How many cents for every dollar I give them actually goes toward fixing the environment? Most non-profit places are pretty good about providing info like that. Anything along 70-80% carry over is pretty reasonable.

I checked out their site, and aside from spreading awareness, what is their goal? Dont get me wrong, awareness is a great thing. but if my money would just be given to some people at a desk, no thanks.



As for the quiz itself, in a nutshell if grossly over estimates the amount of actual land you use, and does not account for community which is at the heart of how humanity exists. Is that detailed enough for you Arch?

[Buck]

On a side (double post) note, writing that up made me feel and no doubt makes me look like some seal clubbing anti-conservationalist, To speak up and question a site like that I have to be some sort of mother earth hater, right?

Catch-22

[Anita Blake]

This smacks of the 100 mile diet (http://www.100milediet.org/). :) And a darn good thing, for all and sundry I reckon!

got me! i have read about the 100 mile diet, and while i respect it for it's inherent good idea, i've also spent too much time in rural canada to believe that it's truly possible for large swaths of the population. I mean, there are places where the only food that grows in commercially viable quanities is grains, and more than half the year is spent under snow and scouring frozen winds. for several hundred miles around. Unless people in those areas were to go on a sudden gardening spree (which many of them do) and freeze all their veggies (which i'm sure lots do) and then only eat bread, frozen garden veggies, and meat year round... well, ok, actually that doesn't sound so bad, but i don't think it's feasible all the time.

For me, following the 100 mile diet would mean i never got to eat rice, which i consider a staple, or orange juice, though i could have apple and cranberry juice, so that would be alright, i guess... i guess it's just something that bears a lot of thinking about, which is good, because we should be thinking consumers, not wanton buy everything we want consumers.

the 100 mile diet is much easier to commit to in the summer, but not so simple in the barren winter months...

[AquaFizz]

Anita, what don't you like about the lighting with the new LED lights?

..just thinking. Lighting is boyfriend's area of expertise. He might be able to reccomend something. :D

ALso, I like turning lightbulbs into mini hanging vases and/or plant holders.

[sir archely]

For the record, again, it's not my quiz, and i'm not saying it's perfect. I am saying, similar to dregs, that it's a decent tool, especially compared with nothing. psst, if you read the FAQ, the very first item is the "intent" of the quiz, and it states just that.

To respond to Buck, first i'll quote part of my last post:

I, for one, would like to see your examples of where the quiz is not calculating correctly. Not based on your opinions either.



As for the quiz itself, in a nutshell if grossly over estimates the amount of actual land you use, and does not account for community which is at the heart of how humanity exists. Is that detailed enough for you Arch?

In a word, no.


I am not sure evn where to begin arch, Ive read the 'FAQ' and it doesnt really go into many specifics if any for everything.

are you reading the same FAQ as i am? it basically tells you what goes into each item.



From what I have been able to interpret, some of the numbers are ridiculous.

Food: 4 acres.

I have lived off of farmland and I can tell you that 4 acres is too high.
I would guesstimate my food acre to be closer to 1 acre and that is based off of real personal experiences.

from the FAQ: "The Food Footprint includes areas to graze animals, fish, and grow food as well as the energy to process and transport the food."

and hence the question about your diet. so there you go. Based off of governent or peer-reviewed data, not, "so i lived on a farm, and my best guesstimate is..."


MOBILITY 1

I am guessing this accounts for the area I move around in for work and what have you. I put in an extremely low commute in my quiz becasue I live right next to my school but I can see this figure being quite out of control for people who have a large commute.

What I laugh at is that this mobility tracker doesnt seem to account for communal property. If my neighbors and I all live in the same apartment complex and we all work at school, we all utilize the same roads, highways etc. Does this number account for this?

from the FAQ: "The Mobility Footprint includes all aspects of personal mobility, from walking to riding bicycles, taking trains, driving cars and flying planes. These activities occupy space for road infrastructure, energy and resources for building the infrastructure and manufacturing the vehicles, and energy for operating them."

so yes, of course it accounts for communal space. i'm sure it isn't putting the entire cost of building a sidewalk on just you Buck, but you surely receive a portion of it.




SHELTER 7.4

"he Housing Footprint covers the spaces for built-up land, the energy and resources for constructing the building, and the energy for operating it. In our accounts, this category does not include the furniture, appliances, or cleaning equipment, which are accounted for in the "Goods and Services" section."

So by the FAQ, even though I live in one apartment in a large complex, the calculator does the math to build the whole building. It does not take into account other tenants and neighbors.

It does account for energy services to sustain it. So I guess that vague term implies utilities.

But 7.4 acres? For what? My own personal power plant? Water plant?

Where is the communal aspect? A power plant can supply power to millions of people, as can water treatment plants. Seriously.


7.4!?

No.

Actually, if you reread that portion, a bit further down it explains why you answered a question about your type of housing. in fact, the apartment complex is a choice of answer in the quiz itself. changing that will have an impact on your results. ie, you already took that into account.

and again, your reasoning here is...? apparently just that your gut reaction says that's too much.


GOODS/SERVICES 5.7

I guess, if I had a factory build JUST for me so I can have my desks, tables, chairs, forks, knives, television etc, then yea I can see 5.7 acres. But again the same re-occurring issue is happening here again. Where is the communal aspect?

buck, you really think they are giving every person who takes this quiz the entire cost of building the factory and maintaining it for just a single fork? give them a little credit. of course you don't receive the entire cost, if that was the case, the numbers would be astronomical. you receive a portion.

and again, reasoning here is... buck says too big. therefore wrong.



And now for the coup de grace, the source of my groaning:

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.1 PLANETS.
TAKE ACTION
DONATE

Which directly links to a form to fill out to give earthdaynetwork your money.

Here is sensationalism and guilt take off like a rocket. I don't even know where to begin. 4.1 planets? I am not a hog of that magnitude, I don't care what the quiz says. Instead of concentrating on the number 4.1 and how wrong it is, Ill let my above statements peck away at that number while I talk about EarthDayNetwork.

How many cents for every dollar I give them actually goes toward fixing the environment? Most non-profit places are pretty good about providing info like that. Anything along 70-80% carry over is pretty reasonable.

I checked out their site, and aside from spreading awareness, what is their goal? Dont get me wrong, awareness is a great thing. but if my money would just be given to some people at a desk, no thanks.

so you don't like the donate thing. great, i don't care, don't donate. but don't let that color your attitude on a quiz that may be helpful. you still haven't provided any real reason why that number isn't close to what they're saying, aside from the "i don't think so" and "this doesn't seem right to me" and "they're requesting donations, so it must be wrong."

[Anita Blake]

Anita, what don't you like about the lighting with the new LED lights?



well, mostly, i went out of my way to find "warm white" LED lights, which are actually a very cool tone of warm, and they give off about half the amount of light as my previous incandescent christmas lights, which gave our living room a really nice, candle-lit ambient glow. Now, it's a very dim, moon-lit kind of light. It's nice, i just prefferred the candle-y nature. I might add a couple more strands of LEDs to up the quantity of light, after i get a job. (which, by all accounts, might even be today!)

[dark fuschia]

I tend to agree with Buck, that this quiz is a farce in terms of even slightly providing a degree of accuracy. Basically something like this is trying to make people take personal responsibility and we KNOW that it doesn't work because we do not decide many of the factors that are damaging the planet. It's government and industry who has to take responsibility. We can ask all the questions we want about where our electricity comes from, but that doesn't change the fact we can't change to a greener provider, because the alternatives simply don't exist yet to an acceptable degree. I think the reason this site stinks is because people need to be offered the choice before they can make the choice.

Of course we all bear a level of personal responsibility for the state of the planet but feeling guilty about it and being aware of it doesn't help while people are still going to be getting rich off destroying it (and lets face it, none of us here have shares in an oil company do we? None of us here own farms that grow rice in dry and drought constricted areas? none of us here are logging old growth forrest to make toothpicks are we? to name a few things...).

Government policies through-out the western world (to differing degrees) is designed to support the misuse of resources for the ultimate economic gain. Once policy and profit start to include environmental ethics in their margins THEN we'll start solving things. THAT is what needs to be changed.

So basically I am saying something like .... Its the man getting the planet down!! Lets get em!!

[Amos]

If we take all the responsibility on ourselves, then we are more likely to effect a change, because that responsibility then becomes our priority. So I think changing our personal policies is just as important as changing governmental ones, if not more so.

It's not like people have been quick to embrace or even look for alternative fuels and such, because many people are irresponsible, ignorant and lazy. That is not entirely the fault of government or marketplace policy. Their policies may have been designed to some degree to exploit that fact, but that means that changing their policies is only at best a half-solution, at worst a temporary one.

As far as the site goes, why beat on the site? It's only offering ideas and encouragement. No one is saying this site is in perfect, but the general message, that we are consuming more than is healthy for the future of the planet, is in agreement with the relevant data. I don't think we can have too many wake-up calls.

[sir archely]

I tend to agree with Buck, that this quiz is a farce in terms of even slightly providing a degree of accuracy.

Until someone, anyone, steps up to provide some sort of reasonable doubt beyond 'it doesn't feel right' i'm going to tend to side with the people who actually have the figures.



Basically something like this is trying to make people take personal responsibility and we KNOW that it doesn't work because we do not decide many of the factors that are damaging the planet. It's government and industry who has to take responsibility. We can ask all the questions we want about where our electricity comes from, but that doesn't change the fact we can't change to a greener provider, because the alternatives simply don't exist yet to an acceptable degree. I think the reason this site stinks is because people need to be offered the choice before they can make the choice.

i think the entire point of the site is to show that there are ways you can reduce your own footprint. ie, adjust your diet, travel habits, living situation... all of these things have an impact on your footprint. there are plenty of choices there. the idea that we shouldn't do anything because there's no opportunity for a huge profound shift is like saying we shouldn't stop any murderers because we can't stop them all.


Of course we all bear a level of personal responsibility for the state of the planet but feeling guilty about it and being aware of it doesn't help while people are still going to be getting rich off destroying it (and lets face it, none of us here have shares in an oil company do we? None of us here own farms that grow rice in dry and drought constricted areas? none of us here are logging old growth forrest to make toothpicks are we? to name a few things...).

none of us have shares in an oil company, or own farms practicing unsustainable agriculture, or log old growth forest... BUT not being informed and aware about what we consume and how makes us that much more likely to be an active participant in consuming the products that are directly resulting from those poor environmental practices. i may not own shares, but i definitely could be improving my transportation habits so as to not give so much profit to those companies. and i own a small, fuel efficient car.


Government policies through-out the western world (to differing degrees) is designed to support the misuse of resources for the ultimate economic gain. Once policy and profit start to include environmental ethics in their margins THEN we'll start solving things. THAT is what needs to be changed.

So basically I am saying something like .... Its the man getting the planet down!! Lets get em!!

again, we are part of that. and like james said, your own practices are a good place to start. how can you rail against the man and be resistant to a little change in your own life?

i mean, i 100% agree that capitalism is not a sustainable form of economy, and it basically exists on waste. that is excessive waste is good for our economy, and yes, that definitely needs to change. but that and each of us reducing our own individual wastes are not mutually exclusive, nor are they unrelated.

[Dregs]

i mean, i 100% agree that capitalism is not a sustainable form of economy, and it basically exists on waste. that is excessive waste is good for our economy, and yes, that definitely needs to change. but that and each of us reducing our own individual wastes are not mutually exclusive, nor are they unrelated.

Thing about capitalism and democracy is, if enough people demand it, then it will happen. Market forces and all that. The argument "but what can I do?" doesn't wash because we need to be part of the "enough people".

Can we, an internet community start to make a difference? Don't know. But fuck me, I'm willing to give it a try. There's got to be a starting point somewhere, why not here? I'm going to set myself the challenge of halving my footprint by next year.

[Vivacia]

Food 6.9
Mobility 0.2
Shelter 1.2
Goods... 1.2

TOTAL 9
with 2.2 planets needed for me

I've been thinkning a lot about how bad of an example I've been setting for my child. I stopped recycling years ago. I think I stopped because my laundry basket broke and I started using the bin as a dirty clothes hamper. I drive everywhere, I throw out at least one bag of trash every day, and I shower or bathe twice a day every day. I doubt the accuracy of this calculator too, but if it makes people think for a moment, then it's a good thing. I am going to at least start recycling again and go from there. I'm not giving up my hot baths though.

[GoodScott]

3.1 planets, 14 acres . . . I like meat and dairy products.

[Eyreplenh]

Time to buckle up for the new year. Let us all deal a bit less damage to the planet than we did last year, be a bit nicer and all that. At least I'll try to do my bit. And as far as I'm concerned, that's really what it's all about. There are some things I "do good" when it comes to being nice to the environment, but sadly there's great room for improvement. My three biggest baddies are:

1 Flying. I fly around quite a bit, first and foremost because it's cheap. Flying is too cheap. I don't have the exact number, but a plane pollutes as much as about 50'000 cars or something a little less exaggerated. I'm afraid I'll probably still use this method of transportation for my abroad trips, but I will try to go by train when travelling around sillyland. It is triple the time moving from here to there, but all in all this is a small sacrifice. Most of the time I don't have to hurry anyway. Big yay to the european who are reputedly going to increasy

2 Warm water. I love my warm showers. I really do. But have decided to shorten them. Again, really a small sacrifice, but if enough people were to do so...who knows where we'll end up, eh?

3 Garbage disposal. I'm going to start recycling. I haven't done it before, because...er...I'm lazy. That just won't do. Recycling too is real easy, so there isn't any good reason not to do it.

I started workin with these major flaws of mine in the middle of desember, and so far I've done quite good. The challenge for me though, is not to lose focus and slip out of it, so I'm hoping putting them down here will help staying on track. If anyone else has something they are good or bad at, please put it down. Maybe you've got a point, small or bad, that will work as a reminder for the rest of us. If you do real good you'll give a lot of people guilty consciences. And that is a victory in any case.

It's time for a change people. Make Environment your fight. (hehehee. but seriously, this is important.)

[Dregs]

CATEGORYGLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD3.1
MOBILITY2.4
SHELTER1.2
GOODS/SERVICES2.8
TOTAL FOOTPRINT9.5
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN
YOUR COUNTRY IS 7.6 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 5.3 PLANETS.

Still not too good, eh?

[Eyreplenh]

Here we are again. Another year another dollar. What have I been up to in 2007 is scant little, but I do believe I've managed to improve a bit. I've been paying more attention to my electric shit, swiching things off in stead of standby etc, I've been really good with my showers, they're not half of what they used to be. Plus, for six weeks in central america I had about three hot showers:p Also I have been keeping a lookout for locally grown green stuff, but I have to admit that hasn't got so much to do with the environment, it just tastes so much better! Still don't drive much, don't eat much meat...

My really bad sheep is flying. If anything I've been flying more the last year, even if I have been using the trains for my domestic travelling.

This year I'll try to continue to improve, especially household planning is something I'll try to pu a little effort into. I throw away a lot of food, simply because I plan like a rabbit on mescaline. I really can't see me flying any less this year, even though I probably wont have to do it in my work, because I like travelling so much.

I'm not quite sure about this whole global warming thing anymore, I get constant input from both sides but don't know enough to debate it properly. I will say that I believe it though, and ashamed to do so. What is an undeniable fact though, is that there is a crazy waste going on in the western world. Myself I got more than I need of just about anything! And I'm nowhere close to the worst.

Try to improve, people!
Cheers! :D

[Amelia]

ooooh Im so bad!

I need 4.1 planets.

I decided to retake the quiz just to see how or if I changed.

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 5.4

MOBILITY 0.5

SHELTER 3.7

GOODS/SERVICES 3.7

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 13
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 PLANETS.

So I guess I have. I think its because Im using my car less now.

[Arianna]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 1.7
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 3
GOODS/SERVICES 2.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 7


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 1.6 PLANETS.


obviously this is a good thing if only b/c it makes one think about their impact on our world. it is really lacking in some categories that i think make a HUGE difference.

1. buying products: do you buy mostly new products? used? from locally owned/produced stores and products? or from the cheap (slave laboured) box store?

also, do you work for a store like this? do you perpetuate the status quo in a neg way? etc etc. don't even get me started....

but...
one of the most important things i think that an individual can do is to vote with their money. (since, especially here in the usa, voting for our national leaders has become a joke).

think about it: if everyone used their money to support people, stores, products, ideas, etc that they beleived in, we could make serious change worldwide. money (like it or not) makes the world. spend your money only on what you support (and i mean spending money for goods and services, not donating) and you will be dramatically impacting what you agree with in a positive way as well as what you disagree with in a neg way. think about if everyone did this. it could totally change the world. all it takes is commitment to your ideals.

i think, in reality, my footprint (though not as small as i'd like it to be) is less than this quiz seems to think. i'm vegan/raw foodist, i get my food only (95% anyways) from the local farmers market or grow it myself - and always organic, and most things i own were either homemade (from recycled materials) or purchased from a locally owned charity thrift store or salvaged from other peoples' garbage (both garage sale and literally). i recycle everything i can (even carrying a package with me while i'm out to recycle later rather than throwing it away). i buy bulk on nearly everything, bring reusable bags with me everywhere (or refuse a bag when i don't have one), and bring a reusable mug for when i get a drink anywhere. i have central heating/cooling (b/c i live in an apartment) but i do not use them except in drastic circumstance (maybe a few days a year). most of my entertainment is outdoors; hiking, camping, digital photography, etc. when i do use appliances i always unplug them when not in use (especially cellular chargers!)

i try not to be preachy about stuff. though it is very important to me. so i only put it here since it applies to the thread and i hope that from reading it you see something that you could easily change in your life for the better. many of these things don't take that much extra time and soon become second nature. and think about the impact you can make. even the way i live we would (by this quiz) need more than one earth. and that's just it: we've only got one. please make it last.

[Tipiman]

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 4.9

MOBILITY 3

SHELTER 6.9

GOODS/SERVICES 6.7

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 22



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 4.8 PLANETS.

Let me jump on this one and agree with those of you who have found it's obvious flaws (such as a constant for air travel regardless of the size or occupancy of the plane), but let me also agree that change begins with each individual. There are lots of things that we can do to reduce our footprint. And many of them should be considered. But I, like many of you, enjoy a certain quality of life which includes taking warm showers. And I enjoy it that YOU take warm showers too. I have been places and with people for whom that is not as important and it certainly affects MY quality of life negatively.
I think that there are things that we can do to make a difference, such as to ensure that recycling actually happens in our community. Too many times have I heard that if the recycling bins are not sorted "just so", it all goes to the landfill anyway. If/when that becomes the case, we have failed. Changing your lightbulbs from incandescent to energy saving types seems trivial, but I did that a long time ago and it has saved me a lot of purchase power in lightbulbs alone. The energy savings is something that is hard to measure, but I want to believe the research that supports it.
Thus ends my "sermon" for today.

[Eyreplenh]

So people, a new year (bound to be somewhere), new possibilities. Or? Is it going down the drain? YES! YES, YES, YES! We're fucked. Maybe. That's my current position. I think.

Are we past the point of recovery? I cannot say, I haven't got the debthy kind of knowledge to say either way, but can we pretend I do? Then I'd say for sure. Past the point of recovering our own asses, maybe not. To transcribe that Smith fellow from that film; some viruses are hard to kill. Ask the dodo, some random glacier or another of the numerous species or small lakes, patches of fainforest or just about anything not human, however, and I'm sure they'd tell you to please stop sodomizing them. Post-mortem probing of dead dodos, hmm? Tsk tsk! But then again, according to the best idea anyone ever had, we are the fittest, and maybe the world really is our brothel, to screw over as we damn well please. But, but... then there is this thing about us, this little phenomenon noone fully has been able to explain so far, that supposedly puts us at the top of everything regardless of our relative fitness, and doesn't that, if nothing else, instill a certain responsability on our frail and neer sightless bodies? (that colour test really was a blow for me!)

The reason I think we're past the point of any kind of return I will dive down to individual level to examine. Lets do something fun, I'll talk about me! First, a little praise for Bjørn the human being. Granted, it's going to be the kind of praise you get for shooting your little sister to stop her smoking habit, but still. What have I been up to since the last time? Because I have been thinking about this, it comes more naturally as time progress, it's a sort of habit I guess. I've been making discoveries too, oh yes, I'm way too wizened for my meagre twentytwo years. Like for instance how good things for the environment is usually good things for me as well.

The first thing I sort of have been obsessing about is plastic, wrapping and whatdoyacallit, the things that surround the things we buy, for slim reason. This summer, when I was working more regularly for the grocery store I was often unpacking various foods. Like fruit. So there I am, opening a box of apples, that has found it's way to norway all the way from argentina. Fair enough. Then I open the box, and what do you know? Each goddamn apple is wrapped in some padding to keep from getting bruised. Individual apples with their own small houses! Madness. So positive number one for me is I've been actively purchasing local(er) grown vegetables, and shying away from products that are wrapped to hilarity in plastics or other things. This is good for me because, well, try an apple picked that morningagainst one picked ten days ago as a baby apple and that has gone through puberty on a hull in some ship. Fair enough, the garden apple from John Doe next door might not be as big, it might even have a small wormhole,but don't judge it before you taste it! Mmmm... And for the wrapping, I've cut myself various times on that awful pressed plastic people like to wrap around anything. What does a stainless steel pair of scissors need protection from anyway? Itself? The big bonus here is there will be a lot less garbage around your home! Your room will be cleaner, you wont have to take out the trash so often, wondrous wonder! Another food/grocery-related thing I've been doing is halving my eating of meat. This does not make any impact on any things at all, since my meateating habits are meagre to start with, but it's worth mentioning. The meat I use is for the most part the minced kind you grind some more and put in a casserole of some kind, or in some tacos or whatever. I've been halving it and replacing it with beans mostly. Meat is extremely cost-ineffective in terms of food. Plus, your heart will love you for it! Granted, you might live a few years longer and thus end up exacting a bigger toll on the world in any case, but hey, good for you!

Another thing I've been doing more actively is purchasing second-hand things, adn using a local taylor to refit my old clothes in stead of buying new ones. A few yards of thread is much more affordable for the world than a whole new denim creation. And for the fashionistas complaining; trust me on this, anything that has been refitted to you by knowing hands, say a towel, looks better than the one-size-fits all walmart slacks. I never even considered using a tailor before recently because I thought it would be really expensive, but it's not! Even here, where the cost of labour is regulated and expensive as hell in contrast to more exploit-governed areas. Run to your local handsman for a handjob. Opps:blush: You know what I mean.

My most enlightened moment of all was a zel-like morning about a month ago. My mind-senses were probably heightened from the hammering they had taken on the night before, and as I was looking in my fridge, on my fridge and even under my fridge for a bottle of soda, or anything that I might put into my water to make it more tasty, that it hit me; maybe the water has enough flavour as it is? Okay, that was a poorly made zen-moment. I like water the way it is and have always helped myself to lots of it, but I felt some narrative was needed. Quick, someone talented, write me up a believable story about the prowess of the taste of water. Some of it were true though. I didn't have any soda left. So I drank water. And have been since. Because what do you know? Everytime I fail to put something in the water I'm doing my teeth a very good service. Less acids leads to helathier teeth that leads to whiter teeth that saves you that whitening job you'd been planning to get which leads again to healthier teeth which could lead to massive savings in the whole oral budget. Replacing your coke with water will make you MORE RICH and LESS FAT! Other things good about water is that if you drink enough of it, every day covering your bodys need, you'll have less wrinkles, better urine and probably less smelly sweat. Combine this with some other watersports, and you'll cut that makeup-budget in two! For dig this, a lenghty warm and delicious shower will feel good, but nonetheless wreak havoc on your skin. The only reaon you need that moisturizer on your shelf is because you are working chernobyl miracles on your own body. Stop it. You'll be PRETTIER and look YOUNGER, probably even BARELY LEGAL in a matter of weeks. To sum up the water-section, I have been massively cutting back on the showering. Probably the change I've made that makes the most impact.

In general I've found that buying less can be very good for you. As I've pointed out before, not buying the coke will make you richer and less fat, and the same goes for the snickers bar, the crunchies bag and actually, most other things we throw our monies at. Fail to do this and you'll be rich, which ultimately is the final measure of man we have today:rolleyes:

Yes, that was the good bit about my own little self so far, with a few subtle hints and tips threwn in. They should be sellable to, some of them are capitalized, many are porn related and that stuff sells! Here's the reason why I'm still a part of the problem, and not the solution.

It's not the fact that I still go binge-drinking and flying around the world displaying a most despiccable and waisteful apperance, that is bad, but not, in the end, the worst. Because I would actually be happy to reduce that sort of thing. I'm going to Thailand and the Phillipines soon, (hooray) and I was actually appalled as well as please at the low rate at which the tickets were available. I would acknowledge and accept a fair bit of regulation upon me to control energy-use, whatever, or something like that. But, and here's the thing. Only if everyone else is subject to the same. I preach a lot of shit about saving the world, but in the end, that attitude I see and moan about in others is very much present in me as well. I think we need someone at the front, someone with appeal, maybe a hot Gandhi (that hunchbacked bald style is so last season), that would do the martyr thing and show the rest of us the way. Maybe.

As a side note, I think, that if it's not too lenghty, this recession we're just about seeing the contours of (oh yes, my bruthas, we have a long way to fall before we can start climbing again. Or so I the pessimist think) might offer a chance for us. In the short run things might get worse as the price of oil goes down, money is pulled away from research and whatnot, but when it's time to start that climb I think we'll be forced to build a slightly different system. Something not quite so dependant on constant increase of everything at explosive rate (that sort of thing will put a strain on you), a system that is not based solely on the idea that incresed spending and purchasing power is the way to go. Did that sound commy? Unintended. Anyway, I think it might.

As an ender I was going to say, "come on people, lets put coca cola out of business", but that's not really that healthy. 50 million or so suddenly without a job? Not that good. So okay, "come on people, lets drink soda on the special occasions only, not only will it taste better and more special, it will also force a lot of energy away from a field that in itself is quite useless, but let us hope the decline in coke-output is even and slow so that the people working there have the time to find other things to do".Well, it's an example, at least.

*up, up, and away*

[Arianna]

i haven't had soda in years. (i think its going on 10 years now, actually).
after the first year (maybe less) i didn't want to drink it anymore. it began to taste mind numbingly sweet.

[Eyreplenh]

http://www.myfootprint.org

If everyone lived like me we would need 2.25 planets. Don't remember if this is the same quiz as before, but I thought I'd do it again, and hey, I've improved a little :)

Now, I now we are all very busy minding our own business as well as awaiting the impending doom (the recent catastrophes and volcanic eruptions have to be a sign, right?), making fun of catholic priests with their robes down to their ancles or playing with some investments in different aspect of communications as airtraffic is suspended, but... Have we forgotten about the environment? I don't think we should. I read a pretty interesting article the other day, or maybe I heard it on the radio; either way there was this guy taking a look at the world today and he made a point of the environment and why this isn't a hotshot theme as much as it could be -especially since the sensationalists could make good use of current wordly events to rack up some columns. Anyway, what he said was that with so many immediate and simple worries, the environmental issues is just too complicated and far off we cannot deal with it. It's like a major school assignment -you know it's coming a long way off, but actually getting started and stayig ahead is enormously difficult. And as with those school assignments this guy speculated that some way ahead there would be a time where we had to act, in an Calvin-like last minute panic through the night-haul to get it done. Now, the problem with the last minute panic work is that sometimes it works and other times it... fails. While the guy who's been steady working for a long time, he never fails.

Now the concept is not new, but I felt I could relate to the school analogy and well, the problem is still there. Lets not dwell on the problems though, better to focus on solutions, no? What I have been up to lately is improving my recycling habits. It even got to the point where I told the landlord/shark about the possibility of a compost thingy in the backyard. Now, of course he only shrugged, mumbled something about smell and shied off, but that's improvement for me actually speaking up at all. I might have pursued it too if it hadn't been for the facts that I am a) lazy and b)moving soon. Anyway, most things are recycled properly, as well as I've continued focusing on my water habits. The goal for this summer is to increase my own awareness about locally grown food and general groceryhabits.

I'm kind of surprised that my footprint was smaller this time around seeing as I've drastically increased my travelling, both by plane and car, but I don't know. Maybe all those other things add up. What I'm most pleased about and proud of is my shopping/spending habits, which have become virtually nonexistent when it comes to things I don't need. (Mind you that will change as I'm planning to get a tv and soundsystem the next few months)

From the areas covered by this quiz the areas I can improve on is mostly travel, of course, and also buy shopping greener. The travel will be the hardest one for me to change, whilst the shopping thing is really just a question of being less lazy.

Anyone who still gives a damn? :)

[sir archely]

I definitely still give a damn. Largely the reason I'm doing this (http://www.enchantedquill.net/forum/blog.php?u=8&blogcategoryid=8).

I took this quiz again and ended up with 3.65 planets. :(

Just out of curiousity, I switched to say I lived in Norway and entered the same habits. Apparently 99% of Norway's energy comes from renewable sources? The figure in that box for the US was just under 9%. Sad. Ended up with 2.19 if I had the same habits in Norway.

I was curious, so I also went through as if I lived in the US and did everything 'right'. Ended up with 1.05 earths. That was for a large family living in a rural situation where they basically didn't use electricity. Doesn't give me much hope for the future.

[Eyreplenh]

How are things going with the garden? To early to tell yet? Thumbs up though :)

Basically all our energy comes from water running down all our mountains, so we're very lucky there. We also do love our money though, so I wonder if this takes into account the fact that in peak energy seasons (winter) we sell alot of our clean energy abroad and buy alot of energy from Sweden, which is mainly nuclear power. I'm not sure how bad nuclear power is, I mean, in Civilization it's alot cleaner than say, coal, but as I have no other sources that that I'll let it lie ;)

Edit: Actually Wikipedia had quite alot to say for it and it seems as though alot of numbers speak in favour of the scary-ass plants, with lower co2 emission total and more power produced per co2 by far.

But as you say, 9% only in the US, there has to be a possibility for improvement there? Is Obama up for this or has he pissed off enough people with his healthcare?

But it's really inevitable that the numbers are different from place to place, maybe south of Sahara your habits would run up to less than a planet -for instance I ran my habits through Bangladesh (the country listed with the smallest ecological footprint) and came up with 0,36 earths! I know, if the calculator is flawed to begin with this for sure is, but it's a funny experiment anyway. And I think that when you say that it leaves you with little hope for the future I think that's where you are wrong. Because say that for an american, it will "never" be possible to get below that one earthe we do have -we'll maybe that's not necessary. There will be other places that could cover up. Some areas in the world is bound to be harder than other to carve out a sustainable living, there might be other places making up that demand. Kind of like in a demand and supply way.

But it would be nice to make that difference as small as possible, that's for sure. In addition to this, fossil fuel sources will be exhausted (over here, for instance, awareness is rising due to a report that indicates we might have a lot less than the preciously imagined fifty years of oil and gas) and that makes an advance in renewable, cleaner energy sort of inevitable, no?

[Buck]

1.87 Earths. I guess working in a climate studies lab for a year taught me a couple things.

I set up a similar calculator on my old boss's website last summer. A couple things to note about the quiz, there is at least one error. In the recycling question, if you don't recycle electronics you have a smaller footprint than if you do. Surely, that can't be right. Also, a recent study shows that omnivores have a smaller footprint than vegans. I can't remember all the specifics, but it has something to do with proper use of manure vs need for fertilizers.



Arch, you should have the option to ask your power company to allocate your power with Green sources (wind, solar, etc..). At least it is an option with our company. You end up paying just about the same amount, the price hike is practically negligible and you're then "100% green" powered. In NJ, most of our power is nuclear anyway, so it's pretty green regardless.



My biggest worry with this whole sustainability thing is our dependence on oil. There's no getting around how we need it for so many ubiquitous things. It's not just fuel, even if all the fuel was replaced with Solar/battery tomorrow (and assuming it all works wonderfully), we still need petroleum for pharmaceutics, plastics, and food stuffs. There have been some truly amazing developments in the chemistry industry to reduce our needs on oil, but it'll never be zero.

And since we're beyond peak oil, we'll be seeing some serious shifts in lifestyle in our lifetime. We need a massive breakthrough in materials production and recycling to get around it, imo.

[Eyreplenh]

Here's a pretty neat side to look at some beautiful places and learn a little bit about climate change. Also, if you have a an HD screen, you can also see the pores of Kofi Annan ;)
http://www.google.com/landing/cop16/climatetours.html

[Eyreplenh]

a-brief-history-of-knowledge-about-antarctic-temperatures/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/a-brief-history-of-knowledge-about-antarctic-temperatures/)

The link is self-explanatory, I think ;) Pretty funny/sad though :p

[Eyreplenh]

So, you know, I'm still going about this becoming greener thing. One interesting thing that has been going on over here is that a recent conflict has brought to the surface that the fight for the environment often is not the same as the fight for nature. Over here, we have a neat little something called fjords (consult Hicthikers guide for further details), and they are beautiful and quite spectacular. One thing that is a bugger with them, though, is that they are damn impractical. Some times, see, there's a fjord between a city and the main powersupply systems up in the mountains. Now, from old times there has been a pretty good grid going around the fjords, but it so now happens that the city (not to mention the oil pumps located in the citys outer waters) need more power. The two alternatives has been to throw up some lines in the air, going across the fjord, so to say, or to put down a cable on the bottom of the fjord sea. The air cable's are ugly, says the naturalists, they will destroy a beautiful piece of nature irrevocably and might affect the species of birds in the area. They are supported by tourist associations and people living in the fjords that make their livelihood off people who don't have nature of their own. Go by sea, they say!

Now, the environmentalists say that a cable by air at least is quick, and the city needs power now. If they go by sea, it will take a few years to get done and probably the city will need to pull extra power from a polluting gasplant while waiting. The power from the grid is waterbased, green and renewable. They also say that the lines by air will be quick to immerse themselves in the surroundings, and they support this with surveys from other places with power lines in the air that say people don't really notice them. Also, they say, damn you bigot naturalists for valueing the birds more than the lifeforms at the bottom of the sea, which, more likely, will be more affected than the birds ever will.

I think it is sad that two groups of people that both do important and good work go at eachother like this in stead of standing side by side. After all, there is a third option here, that is so free it hurts and that should fit in with both the naturalists and environmentalists; moderation. The city in question is not growing at such a rapid rate that the demand for power is crucial yet, and most of the increased demand come from a few big offshore oil facilities. The warmongers cry out that if there comes a really cold winter then it will be REALLY expensive to keep houses warm. Not that there will be a shortage, no, that the prices will go up. Well, put on a warm sweater, douchebag! Sigh, I really cannot understand why the two biggest green groups over here couldn't gather around a meaningful message in stead of discussing whether to shit or piss our own pants.

It is the problem I have with most of the groups I come across. I've tried attending a few meetings, but I am always dismayed by a few things. The latest one featured a speaker that advocated that we as students started buying and wearing hemp in stead of cotton or whatever. Everything is rooted in the same belief that we can continue to shop and waste in the same rate as today, only in different materials. I'm not so sure technology, like Buck was saying in a previous post, will go that quickly. Sure, hemp might be better than cotton, I don't even know. But isn't it a more valid point to make that another alternative is to stop shopping altogether (and no, I don't actually mean dead stop, again, I like the word moderation)?

As an example, last year I first set a real goal not to consume more than I had to. Now, take clothes as an example. I have never really enjoyed getting new clothes anyway, so you could say it's not that big a sacrifice for me, but lets go with t-shirts. I enjoy wearing them and have always liked to find somewhat uniqe ones that not many others around me wear. I decided not to get a new one before I'd worn out and gotten rid of two old ones, since I have too many already. You know, I've tried. I've tried really hard, but it is near impossible to wear out a t-shirt! I've been going at my least favourite ones, and always put them on top rotation. As soon as they're clean, I wear them. When I work out, when I hike around, sometimes tripping and falling on the ground, but the bastards wont give up. Even the cheap, thin things I used to have to wear when there was something special going on in the bookshop, even those wont buckle to hard wear.

Clothes might be a small point, but it goes for most other things. We're spammed with commercials these days for different blends of hybrid fuels and new, fancy, hybrid cars. Part of me want to say fuck that, keep your old diesel monster, just drive less damnit! Large offices spend millions on different things to cut expenses and waste to a minimum, bot most of them run their lights and aircon all night even though the workers go home at five.

It's when even the environmental groups and orgs try to live and compete within the same set of rules and doctrines as profit-driven financial institutions that it turns sour in my eyes. But hey, who's going to make an effort if it wont turn a buck, eh?

Okay, so... A challenge, for those of you that dare. Find your most hated t-shirt. You're now going to wage a silent war against it. See if you can wear it down, see how long time it takes. And if you are able to do it, let me know ;)

[sir archely]

I see this a lot too, Eyre. Green groups working at cross-purposes, that is. Or at best, not working together even where their interests overlap and mesh.

Another ridiculous thing: I donate enough to be a "member" of each of three environmental organizations. Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and Arbor Day Foundation. I won't get into the overlap there, but the ridiculous thing is that they each send me at least one piece of mail a month, and usually it's more like 2 or 3 a month. I found that my name was also shared on a list for many different "environmental" groups, so I get stuff all the time from these other groups as well. I get mailings of this sort probably 10 times monthly, always asking for money. Which is fine, I don't begrudge them their effort to raise funds for their mission. However, it is a colossal waste of resources to do it like they are. There's a ton of paper involved, and some of it is plastic-y or sticker-y, which I can't even recycle. I mean, c'mon, Arbor Day, paper = trees you know. Then I try to add up the possible postage costs that these organizations are spending combined, in an era of much, much cheaper electronic communication, and it's, well, ridiculous.

[Eyreplenh]

(...) and it's, well, ridiculous.

I know. I don't have the same problem, as the couple of orgs I support actually send their newsletters and requests by mail, but around campus there's mountains of leaflets lying around, often with the glossiest and heaviest leaded paper available. Now, I'm not against spreading the word, by no means. But leaflets? Thrown in heaps on "hotspots" in the hallways in the hope someone will pick them up? One poster makes up for two hundred leaflets, in my (granted; limited) experience.

The dilution of funds and resources is a problem in any ideal organization, it seems. A critical look at Save the Children a couple of years back showed that of the funds gathered, around ten percent ended up directly benefiting the area in question. Not sure if that was the whole org or just the norwegian branch, but...

A recent glimmer of positivity up here in the mountains is a small coalition of politicians and organizational leaders have gathered around a message to show restraint in the yearly sitdown between workers orgs and employers orgs. It is mainly because of the economically gloom situation around the world, but they also point out some positive things for environment and general health as well. The main idea is that they suggest workers to request more time off in the place of a pay raise, and I like the idea. In stead of buying more stuff you don't need, you can spend some more time with your kids, browse some books and get educated at a local library or university, and not least: spend some time out in nature. It will do you good (for your mental health, time spent simply outside is about as beneficial as a daily workout) and raise awareness for the greens. I spot... A goodnatured cycle!

[sir archely]

Huh. Over here, instead of, you know, sensible ideas and good faith bargaining seeking common ground, instead they're basically just telling workers to go shove it. If that weren't bad enough, it's usually coupled with massive tax breaks for large corporations. Fodder for a different thread, I think, but one that i'm not going to start.

The topic at hand: At least over here, the information about how much of a donation goes to administrative costs and to actually serving whatever it's being donated to is usually pretty easily found. It may even be required by law, but I don't know that for sure.

[Dregs]

I really hate to say it, but I no longer give a shit. I've substantially changed the way I live: I have solar-thermal hot water, solar panels and grey-water recycling systems installed, I travel by bus to and from work, I don't fly as much, I (the wife in reality) grow my own vegies and minimise resource use. But none of this was really for environmental reasons. It was all pretty much done so I can reduce my bills in the long term.

I still think we're pretty much fucked. I just don't care enough to make a difference beyond my own life. I assist the government in protecting areas of Australia, not because I particularly believe it's worthwhile, but because I have the skills they need and it pays really well. This might be a repugnant to some, but I just don't have the energy to care.

Sorry for the downer.

[Eyreplenh]

On the other side though, if all the people not having the energy to care anymore lived like you, there wouldn't be a problem ;)

I too believe we are pretty much fucked, but I also believe we are not fucked all the way. Our uteri has not been poked yet. Uhm...

There was this grand old philosopher man from france that was supposed to give a speech at our uni the other day, Edgar Morin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Morin), about the way ahead of us. The bloke is old as a mountain, and unfortunately his health didn't cooperate, so that he couldn't make it. However, our own Eva Joly was there to take over and she tried to put into words some of his thoughts, which lately have sentered around a metamorphosis that will be necessary to turn this ship around. We cannot change course, as it were, we need to find a new boat. I'll try to get ahold of his new book and take a closer look, but it's expressing thoughts that has some resonance in me. Now, I am waiting to see if this change is going to come along by itself or if I'll have to be it myself :p

[Dregs]

On the other side though, if all the people not having the energy to care anymore lived like you, there wouldn't be a problem ;)



Not really. Despite all my work and expenditure, I'm still using 3.5 planets worth of resources. In the words of Mother Teresa, "You can't win, don't even try."

[AquaFizz]

I sort of care. The things I care most about are cars, though. Not nessicarily the use of cars in general, but just the cars that people chose to drive. Today I was on the drive-thru line at Chik-Fil-A and two Honda Pilots (SUVs) pulled in right next to each other. In one was a guy and in the other was a mom with two kids. They ended up being a family. I will give them that they were probably meeting dad there and he was coming from work and they were coming from home/soccer practice...it wasn't that they showed up in two vehicles that pissed me off. It was that they showed up in SUVs! TWO! It's not like they have 4, 5 or 6 kids. They have TWO kids! That's it! Two kids doesn't even warrant ONE SUV, much less two! WTF? I wanted to leave a note on their windows that said, "Hey, Gas-Guzzling ASSHOLES! Thanks for killing the planet for my children AND yours!" SUV's in general piss me off. I mean, when they're beat up and rugged, I'm a little more laid back. Obviously they use it the way it's meant to be used, not just as a sportier version of a minivan (which you STILL don't need if you only have two freaking kids!) But most of the time they're shiny, new & pristine. Also, most of the time one blonde-bobbed mom hops out and that's it. Nothing in her life warrants owning an SUV.

...Of course, what pisses me off more than that is when she gets back into the SUV and tries to back it out.

[sir archely]

Sorry for the downer.

Don't worry about it dregs, I'm pretty much to that point myself. Yeah, we're pretty much fucked. I would say fortunately, and I can't remember where I heard this (it may have even been someone on here?) but when the lobster is getting boiled, the pot doesn't give a shit. That is, we're fucked, but chances are life will go on, no matter what we do to the earth. So that's some solace... sort of... maybe? We are an extinction event, but it's not like that hasn't happened before. There will come a point in the not so distant future when we either come out the other side by developing technology which allow us to come out into a post-scarcity society, or we're forced to accept the enormous changes in lifestyle. That isn't to say those possibilities are mutually exclusive, but we can only deny the state of things so long. I guess the lobster is free to deny the boiling water all it wants though.

Also, as a partial response to dregs' by addressing fizz's comment... I do think that small actions really do add up. Even though all driving as we know it is unsustainable, at least making a more sustainable choice would do some good. And little stuff does add up when you get a few million people doing it. I was recently reflecting on the fact that just in my neighborhood, tons of people spend a lot of resources (time, money, water, nutrients, etc) to grow decorative gardens. Which is fine, I like flowers too. But if they were simply to change a few plants in a yard square portion of their decorative garden into food producers, my neighborhood within a few blocks would be producing hundreds of pounds of food each year, and doing a great deal to offset a lot of this stuff. I was recently reading about drought conditions in the southern portion of the United States, and the situation is worsening. I wonder how many millions of gallons of water are dumped on golf courses, suburban grass yards, and decorative beds, among other things, in this region each year.

Also, Mother Teresa was a messed up sadistic fucker. No, I'm serious.

[Eyreplenh]

I still think we're pretty much fucked.


---Despite all my work and expenditure, I'm still using 3.5 planets worth of resources

Ah, two things I forgot the other day. One is, obviously, that we cannot assume anyone would or could make much of a greater personal effort than you have, nor can we expect anyone to settle for a other/lower standard of living than what you have in Australia. That being said, there is a simple solution, a mathematical one, even -nominally that there should be roughly 3.5 times as few people around. It's not elegant, it's probably not doable and it's the most politically dead thing since national socialism in Germany (which is coming back, might I say), but it's true. Now, while a big reduction like this is not feasible in any non-genocidal ways, it is a fact that things like democracy and standard of living have great impacts on birthrates. In Europe there's only a couple of countries, Ireland is the only one I can think of offhand, that has a birthrate above 2 (and that is likely to change now that they are so financially roughed up the butt they cannot sit with a straight face). Latvia, on the other hand, is down on the 1.2 number, whereas my own country, the so-called best country in the world, are at 1,7. So... a gradual shift in these things in the third world combined with some technological improvements will lead to a place where we are still pretty much fucked.

Yeah. I think that is true. But the point I had forgotten and that is pretty important, is that even if the human race are heading towards, or even isan extinction event, there's a huge difference for any population if that event kills 90%, 70% or 40% -and I believe, like Arch said, that even individual effort, small things, can work towards shifting that percentage.