Ecological Footprint Quiz

[Provost Harrison]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.5
MOBILITY 1.8
SHELTER 1.8
GOODS/SERVICES 2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 7.1



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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



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

And I thought mine was high, but compared to some of the ones I have seen here it is low. Yet nowhere near low enough...

[child of Thor]

For me it was that i had given up my car three years ago and cycle everywhere(i like it as a means for getting around london on the backroads). And eating most of my food fresh/local/organic, and living in a flat. Still i want to make my own green electricity, and maybe grow some tomatoes on my window ledge

being green is fun - it really is. even if this is a silly game, and not very scientific, its fun to see peoples lifestyle choices and their effects and that according to the game - we all need to live in tents in the darkness eating worms
(which i've had to do to also in RL - Oerdin might have an idea why )

[Odin]

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 5.4

MOBILITY 0

SHELTER 7.7

GOODS/SERVICES 6.9

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 20



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 4.5 PLANETS.



Like I said in another thread a while ago, if we want everyone to have a 1st world standard of living, we need to reduce our population. The eco-luddites are nuts for thinking that developed countries are going to reduce consuption by a large amount, less people is the only realistic way we can achive sustainability.

[Provost Harrison]

What are you doing with all that energy?!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

total footprint: 2.9

1.8 planets.

[Dinner]

I've found an obvious bull**** example in this "quiz". I choice two different countries, USA & India, then took the exact same choices yet India resulted in 1.4 while the US resulted in 14.

Total crap.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've found an obvious bull**** example in this "quiz". I choice two different countries, USA & India, then took the exact same choices yet India resulted in 1.4 while the US resulted in 14.

Total crap.

Did the same with Denmark and an african country - suddently I dropped to 1,4 world

Worst thing is that some may take this joke seriously.

[mrmitchell]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.9
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 4.4
GOODS/SERVICES 4.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 15



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 3.3 PLANETS.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've found an obvious bull**** example in this "quiz". I choice two different countries, USA & India, then took the exact same choices yet India resulted in 1.4 while the US resulted in 14.

Total crap.

While it shouldn't have that much of an effect it should have some effect.

[chequita guevara]

Didn't I post this four or five years ago?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've found an obvious bull**** example in this "quiz". I choice two different countries, USA & India, then took the exact same choices yet India resulted in 1.4 while the US resulted in 14.

Total crap.

You're forgetting about the infrastructure behind being an American. Our power and food networks use up far more resources than India's. I mean, ****, India's got tigers living in the parks of Mumbai! Can you imagine grizzlies living in Central Park?

[Meticulous Man]

The quiz is based on national consumption averages and is meant to give you an idea of your Ecological Footprint relative to other people in the country you live in. It is not highly detailed, but should give most people an idea of where they stand.

If you already live a sustainable lifestyle, do not be discouraged by your results. There are some portions of your Footprint that are not the direct result of your consumption habits. For example, each resident of a city is ‘responsible’ for a portion of the city’s infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and government offices, regardless of whether the resident uses those services. In addition, some options that could make your Footprint smaller are not available to you as a result of choices on the part of local decision makers, such as reliable and efficient public transportation as an alternative to driving. Therefore, an important path to reducing your Footprint is to advocate for more sustainable decisions at all levels of government. This will make it easier for you and many others to reduce Ecological Footprints.

Ecological Footprints document a given population's consumption and waste production expressed in biologically productive land and ocean areas necessary to maintain these services. By aggregating data on the consumption of various resources and on the ability of the earth to provide them, the Ecological Footprint accounts provide a means to compare various components of consumption and ultimately serve as an indicator of sustainability - or, in the case of deficits, of unsustainability

I got 3.6 planets myself, btw

[KrazyHorse]

3.8 here

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I took the quiz twice, once reflecting the way I live when I'm home, and once reflecting the way I live in Manila.

I'm a much better American (3.4 planets) than I am a Filipino (5.9 planets).

All the more reason to get out of this sh!thole.

[Adagio]

[q=Stupid quiz]
13. How many liters per 100 kilometers does your car consume?[/q]

Where's the option "I don't have a car" ???


[q=Stupid quiz]We just need 3.6 planets for everybody to live like you"[/q]