What is your ecological footprint?

[horsemom]

Take this quiz:

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

[emily_in_nc]

Not good at all...and here I thought we were doing better than average (except for my admittedly long drive to work):

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4.7
MOBILITY 5.7
SHELTER 9.4
GOODS/SERVICES 10.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 30

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 6.8 PLANETS.

:(

Emily

[Pax]

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 2.5

MOBILITY 1

SHELTER 4.4

GOODS/SERVICES 3.7

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 12

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 2.6 PLANETS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Well crap. :(

[snapdragen]

Category Acres

Food 4.2

Mobility 1

Shelter 6.4

Goods/services 6.7

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.

[Trek420]

If Everyone Lived Like Me, We Would Need 4.7 Planets.

[LBTC]

Apparently I am completely average using 8.8 hectares :confused: And we'd need 4.9 planets. I should have counted the dogs and cats as people in the house - I bet that would help! Can we count the bikes as people, too? heehee

Hugs and butterflies,
~T~

[kiwi girl]

two of the questions related to car use - but didn't have the "I don't have a car" option that I needed:(

[RoadRaven]

I thought I did better than these results show - for example, I have about the same ammount of waste as others, but about 4/5 of our rubbish is recyled...

We also "grow" our own meat and milk... doesn't that count for something too?

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 3.1

MOBILITY 0.3

SHELTER 0.3

GOODS/SERVICES 0.6

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4.3



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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




IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.4 PLANETS.

[light_sabe_r]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.6
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 1.3
GOODS/SERVICES 1.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4.8

I don't think this is right. I mean I use my car once per weekend (usually to get to Tris :D ) and only use my bike during the week, I shop at the local green flea markets and our Recycling bin is OVERFLOWING compared to our garbage. PLUS our water restictions are so tight we're timing our showers.

they ask nothing about water.

[7rider]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.4
MOBILITY 1
SHELTER 9.4
GOODS/SERVICES 7.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 23

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 5.2 PLANETS.

Hopelessly average.
Somehow, this seems very simplistic, but interesting nonetheless.

[Bron]

Total footprint 5.6, average for Germany 4.7. Hmm, food for thought there.

I think it is easier for people to be green over here when there is already a good infrastructure for it - for instance the closest tram stop is about 200m from my front door, so I never use the car to get to work (anyway, I'm scared of our car).

Bron

[margo49]

two of the questions related to car use - but didn't have the "I don't have a car" option that I needed:(

Me too, and also did not include the unofficial multi-person point to point mini-bus /taxi's we have here.
We are vego's and have a small house and 4 out of the 5 of us are busy and work on our kibbutz so don't go many places. And the other 1 is DS#1 who is in the army so that he is not living extravagantly or individualistically and travels on leave by bus and train. (And isn't killing or oppressing people personally (*yet*))
So how come we are so broke?!

But it came out ok

Food - 0.8
Mobility - 0.1
Shelter - 0.4
goods and services - 0.4

total = 1.7
need 1.0 planets

[Pax]

Me too, and also did not include the unofficial multi-person point to point mini-bus /taxi's we have here.
We are vego's and have a small house and all 5 of us are busy and all 5 of us work on our kibbutz so don't go many places.
So how come we are so broke?!

But it came out ok

Food - 0.8
Mobility - 0.1
Shelter - 0.4
goods and services - 0.4

total = 1.7
need 1.0 planets

Way to go Margo!

[Blueberry]

Wow Margo! Very cool:)

Guess we could stand to learn a few lessons:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Blueberry]

Mine's bad too:

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4
MOBILITY 4.9
SHELTER 7.4
GOODS/SERVICES 8.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 25

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 5.6 PLANETS.

What's interesting is my commute doesn't seem to be what's nailing me - it's eating any animal product and shelter/goods services (how do they calculate that anyway?!)

Back to the drawing board on trying to be better:rolleyes:

[Pax]

...What's interesting is my commute doesn't seem to be what's nailing me - it's eating any animal product and shelter/goods services (how do they calculate that anyway?!)

Back to the drawing board on trying to be better:rolleyes:

The article I posted here (http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=13462) talks a little about what is involved in food animal production.

[xeney]

I've taken this before and my results are a little different now: I am eating more dairy than I used to, but we are also working really hard to eat more locally-grown unprocessed foods. And I drive even less than I did a couple of years ago (when I drove about 10 miles a week to night classes).


CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 3.2
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 3.5
GOODS/SERVICES 2.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 10

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 2.2 PLANETS.

When I took the quiz before, I seem to remember that someone fudged around with answers and determined that the place you live affects your score -- there is a point where you personally can't change the outcome, just because of your location. Which doesn't mean the results are invalid; I think the point is really to make people in developed countries aware of how many more resources we use even when we try to be ecologically careful.

Just having electricity and running water means we are using more resources than people who don't have those things. Doesn't mean we should start hauling water from the rivers and posting on TE by candlelight ;) ... just that we should be aware of how relatively privileged we are to have access to all of these resources, and maybe to not take them for granted.

[Thorn]

I was disappointed with my results (vegetarian, drive a high mileage car, energy efficient house), but, alas, I live in a Northern clime and drive/fly too much.

But....has anyone figured out, yet, how to hook up our trianers to a generator? Shouldn't I be able to lurk at TE for free with the amount of spinning I do to ECT? :-)

[mary9761]

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 4

MOBILITY 0.5

SHELTER 4.7

GOODS/SERVICES 3.5

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 2.8 PLANETS.


I guess the fact that I live in a small home, don't own a car, so usually take bike or public transportation or even walk to the grocery for small things kept my numbers somewhat down.

[Blueberry]

The article I posted here (http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=13462) talks a little about what is involved in food animal production.

That's a very interesting article. I guess what surprised me is that it doesn't seem to have made a difference that I've cut out all beef and pork, and only eat meat at all on an occasional basis (1-2 times per week). Just having occasional meat in any form (for me, chicken or fish), and milk/cheese was enough to put me in one of the highest categories.

I stopped eating beef not too long after reading about the load on the earth (and I had some other very personal reasons). Same for pork.

Interesting....

[Bikingmomof3]

I have work to do. :(

FOOD: 5.4
MOBILITY: 0.2
SHELTER: 4
GOODS/SERVICES: 3.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT: 13

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3 PLANETS.

[uk elephant]

I have done this before too and my score is quite high. The main culprit is flying. Adds huge amounts of points, but is the only feasible way to see family...what to do? If only they would open a railway bridge from Siberia to Alaska. I would take the train to see Trek420 and the rest of the family....

[Trek420]

you could kayak :rolleyes:

There are different sites that offer "carbon offsetting" that is pay $___ ammount into technologies that offset the damage we do each day.

I don't have the money to simply say "Here, take this, now I feel less guilty" but I do have some to invest.

With the company profit share next month I plan to invest in companies that are finding ways to reduce our footprint. That way I'm saving, even maybe earning :o

[emily_in_nc]

I see I have the highest score -- by a lot -- of anyone posting here. :(

I do have a long drive to work (29 miles each way), but other than that I am not really sure why. I eat meat a few times a week but lots of veggie dishes, hardly ever fly (once per year, if that); but yes, I do have running water, electricity, and live in a 2100 sq ft house -- not large by US standards, but palatial by world standards, I am sure. I am not sure what else might have caused my score to be so high. I recycle, shop at the farmer's market and food co-op (though that's probably only 50% of my food), use compact flurescents....where did I go wrong?? :confused:

Emily

P.S. I'd be willing to bet most of my co-workers would score higher than me -- they all think of me as "super green". Ha!

[PAP103]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.2
MOBILITY 3.2
SHELTER 4.7
GOODS/SERVICES 7.2

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 4.6 PLANETS

Yikes! I guess I'd better make some changes.

[Blueberry]

Emily-

Looks like I'm nailed because I'm not vegan, live in an 1800 square foot condo and drive 35 miles each way to work.

I really think they nail you (rightly or wrongly) for eating any meat and consuming any dairy products. That and the house size are what got me.

I really wonder whether this really takes everything into account:cool: We do the same - all compact fluorescents, just replaced our furnace for more efficiency, turn off lights when we're not home, and keep the thermostat high in summer and low in winter. That and we bike everywhere we can. I'm not sure any of that really shows up in the survey. Still....it does give food for thought....

Edit: I ran my number with a 2100 square foot home for 2 people and that kicked me up to 29.

[Blueberry]

The FAQ: http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/index.shtml#accuracy1

This actually tells you a lot about the assumptions made in the footprint, and explains that some is based upon your area, not your habits.

CA

[Kitsune06]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 3.5
MOBILITY 1
SHELTER 6.7
GOODS/SERVICES 5.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 16
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 3.7 PLANETS.

ok... so... crap. oops. My biggies were probably flying, eating meat (even occasionally?!) etc. I almost totally cut out eggs and dairy and have meat more often than either but they don't account for that. My shelter one sucks because I live alone... and 'g/s' is figured to be proportionate to the above 3. *however* my electric bill is <$100/mo, I use very little water etc (generally... :p :o ) and I always recycle... Grr. Oh and I need to get my vermiculture box going again. I was so happy having my own compost in my own garden.

[kelownagirl]

OK, mine is pretty bad. I'll have to read more to find out why.

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 2.8
MOBILITY 0.7
SHELTER 2.1
GOODS/SERVICES 2.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8.5

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.


IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.7 PLANETS.

[stacie]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 3.7
MOBILITY 1
SHELTER 4.2
GOODS/SERVICES 4.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14


would need 3.1 planets. :(

[Grog]

Even if they're important things to do, high-efficiency appliances, bulbs, etc., being careful with electricity and hot water, etc., having a high-efficiency car, etc. are marginal when compared to the ENORMOUS amount of resources we use by just living in big houses and apartments (compared to the rest of the world at least), heating them up (or cooling them down, or both), owning a car (even the most efficient ones have to be constructed, which requires a HUGE amount of energy and resources), eating food that comes from faraway, buying all that stuff (clothes, toys, electronics, furniture, and so much more) that we own (worst illustration of it might be the dollar store phenomena), etc.

The actual sacrifices we have to do if we want to live sustainably are MUCH bigger than the ones we make on a daily basis. It would indeed include, for example, foresaking family visits... or forsaking the reason why we live far from our family to begin with.

Clearly, we're not anywhere near that. However frugal I try to be (I'm down to 2.4 planets according to that web site), I still am extremely far from a sustainable lifestyle. It haunts me so much at times it prevents me from sleeping. This just can't work out. And I know that if only a significant portion of the population started living a simpler lifestyle tomorrow, then it would mean a catastrophy for the economy, and lots of people among the poorer in our societies would suffer from it.

I'm sorry I have no solution right now. I hope nobody gets discouraged from doing small things because of the size of their footprint, thinking nothing can be done about it. But I find it a good wake-up call that, hello, we'll have to be a little more serious about changing our lifestyle if we want positive changes to happen on this planet.

[Kitsune06]

The simple fact of the matter is that we are looking at this all wrong. There is a point where we must consider not whether we can sustain life, but what quality of life there will be for the survivors. We could all theoretically exist in closet-sized Japanese apartments, eating very small meals and moving very little to reduce caloric expenditure, etc etc and just keep having children etc etc who will grow up to live in smaller boxes and eating less...

There is going to be a point at which we realize it's not how sustainably we live, not how much we give up, not now conscious we are, but a matter of how *many* of us there are. A single locust does not eat much, but a swarm will desolate an entire valley.

If something were to happen (think Peak Oil etc) we would all be proper f*cked. Especially those of us in the cities. We have hardly got the means to produce enough food from our apartments. Millions would starve and die. ...that's nature's counterbalance. Like a cold winter, it will cull the excess of our population and those who do remain will have greater hope for the resources available. It's harsh, and it's tragic, but it's natural and the reverse swing of the pendulum.

It just p*sses me off and sickens me to occasionally see Hotmail or CNN headlines that say something like "Germany going extinct?" when population growth dips into the negatives for once. As if people need encouragement. :rolleyes:

[emily_in_nc]

The FAQ: http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/index.shtml#accuracy1

This actually tells you a lot about the assumptions made in the footprint, and explains that some is based upon your area, not your habits.

CA

That was interesting, thanks. I think our house size (which is actually smaller than our two previous houses; we keep downsizing!) and having only a two-person family hurt us as much as my long commute to work (and the fact that I drive a Honda Element - to tote bikes and kayaks! - instead of a Prius). But they don't ask or know that we heat primarily with wood from our own land, so that our heating bill is extremely low, and we keep the thermostat at 80 degrees during the summer instead of 72 or 76 like most people I know, so the A/C rarely comes on. We also compost and recycle EXTENSIVELY so that we only have a couple bags of actual trash per month to take to the dump (no trash pickup out here in the boonies).

We do the best we can for now, but definitely want to do better in the future!

Emily

[Trekhawk]

A great book to read that will boggle your mind with ugly facts is Affluenza by John De Graaf, David Wann and Thomas H. Naylor.

Read it if you get the chance - you wont be disappointed. It really made me take a good look at my life and the way I live.

Here is part of the blurb off the back
"Now revised and expanded, this bestselling classic shows how problems ranging from loneliness, longer working hours and family conflict to rising debt, environmental pollution, and rampant commercialism are all symptoms of the disease affluenza".

[MomOnBike]

Category Acres

Food 5.9

Mobility 0.2

Shelter 8.6

Goods/services 5.9

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.

````````````

We can't win for losing. The food is killing us, not only do we eat meat and dairy, but most of our food is from far away. We've got to work on that.

And yes, now that the girls are gone, we really should be looking into a smaller, more efficient house. I wish that they had asked thermometer settings, summer and winter. We'd have scored better.

I'm proud of my transportation footprint, however.

[Pax]

We can't win for losing. The food is killing us, not only do we eat meat and dairy, but most of our food is from far away. We've got to work on that.

And yes, now that the girls are gone, we really should be looking into a smaller, more efficient house. I wish that they had asked thermometer settings, summer and winter. We'd have scored better.

I'm proud of my transportation footprint, however.

Peoples perceptions of the size house you "need" are mind boggling. My co-workers keep telling me that I'm out of my mind if I consider any house with less than 1400 square feet. We currently live in a 950 sq ft condo...there's only two adults in our household what on earth would we do with 1400 sq ft?? :eek:

[Kitsune06]

My appt is 690 sq feet and it actually seems really big for me. I feel like I rattle around in it... then again my first 'place' was 20x10, a shop made for drying flowers, refurnished (by me) to be a small studio. It had about everything I needed, 'cept a bathroom, but that was shared. I actually really liked the place.

[Blueberry]

Peoples perceptions of the size house you "need" are mind boggling. My co-workers keep telling me that I'm out of my mind if I consider any house with less than 1400 square feet. We currently live in a 950 sq ft condo...there's only two adults in our household what on earth would we do with 1400 sq ft?? :eek:

We've been trying to buy a smaller place (mostly because there would be less to clean). Long story (and bad seller's agent), but we didn't get the one we wanted. Smaller houses in nice neighborhoods around here are hard to find. The one we wanted was 1250 square feet. The folks at work thought I was certifiable.....

Disease affluenza indeed - I can relate:cool: :cool:

[emily_in_nc]

I wonder why the quiz doesn't give credit for not having any children? Without children, we generate less trash, use less energy, and consume less food and all sorts of goods. I can't take credit for making a decision not to have children for ecological reasons -- we were infertile. It's just a bit surprising that that fact doesn't lower our "footprint". :confused:

Emily

[Grog]

I wonder why the quiz doesn't give credit for not having any children? Without children, we generate less trash, use less energy, and consume less food and all sorts of goods. I can't take credit for making a decision not to have children for ecological reasons -- we were infertile. It's just a bit surprising that that fact doesn't lower our "footprint". :confused:


Kids have their own footprint.

The calculation is just for yourself (ex: if there's four people in your household, then each has its own footprint).

[emily_in_nc]

Kids have their own footprint.

The calculation is just for yourself (ex: if there's four people in your household, then each has its own footprint).

Ah, I see. So even though my individual footprint is high, my DH's would be lower (since he's retired and rarely drives), and since we have no children, our total "household footprint" could be lower than a larger family's.

I feel a tiny bit better now. :o

Emily

[mimitabby]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4.9
MOBILITY 0.7
SHELTER 5.7
GOODS/SERVICES 4.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 16



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

we'd need 3. some planets if everyone lived like me!!!

I've been avoiding this thread because I know i could do better.

[mimitabby]

Ah, I see. So even though my individual footprint is high, my DH's would be lower (since he's retired and rarely drives), and since we have no children, our total "household footprint" could be lower than a larger family's.

I feel a tiny bit better now. :o

Emily

no, Emily the more people per house the better.
so you need to have 8 kids. :D

[lph]

My appt is 690 sq feet and it actually seems really big for me. I feel like I rattle around in it... then again my first 'place' was 20x10

We (2 adults and one child) live in a 2 story apartment ("chained" house?) about 70 sq metres, which I guess is about 750 sq feet. It's plenty large enough for us. We could always USE more space, but we don't NEED it. Sure my bike would like to spend the night indoors, but she gets to perch in the hall if it's really cold :)

We're moving now, up the hill to get a better view and more sun - to an identical apartment. Everyone thinks we're out of our mind for not "upgrading"...

We're planning on exchanging bedrooms, so that our soon 10 yr-old will get a bedroom with room for a sofa. It means that my bf and I will be crammed into an itsy-bitsy tiny bedroom with juuuust room enough to squeeze past our (king-size, I insist) bed... Ok, so we are slightly nuts...

My point being - it's not that hard to take a little less space, but it takes a little motivation. I would have more trouble not using a car for vacations and weekend trips, not going on plane trips, and not buying the vegetables I want even though they come from the other side of the globe.

[IFjane]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4.2
MOBILITY 2
SHELTER 6.9
GOODS/SERVICES 8.2
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 4.8 PLANETS.


I agree with Emily - there is nothing that takes into account how we heat or cool our houses. I got nailed (as I'm sure you did, too, Emily) for not using public transportation - it's REALLY hard to use public transportation when it doesn't exist out in the sticks! We don't use our air conditioning in the summer unless it gets really really really hot - and our temps and humidity are like NC - but it's just the two of us and we are outside most of the time anyway - so why waste that energy....yet no way to get credit for that. Our house is smallish as well (1200 sq. ft.)...:( oh well...

[Grog]

Let's say it did consider how the houses are cooled or heated... It would, maybe, make a difference of about "half a planet".

This is not just about individual choices, it's about collective choices. Regarding public transportation and urban sprawl, for example. Of course some people live in places where there is no public transportation: over the past century all we've done in North America is encourage urban sprawl, individual housing construction, more roads and more cars. That's what our economy eats for fuel.

Reversing those trends will feel like a significant sacrifice to many, and I think most won't make it, at least not in this generation, not until forced by, say, penury of fuel for their cars. It would also need a revolution in urban planning, not one city at a time, but with all cities working together. Some cities are making progress by at least noticing the problem. But to tell you the truth, I'm not holding my breath...

[xeney]

I actually think you LOSE points for taking public transportation, just not as many points as you lose for driving a car. When I last took the test I scored worse on my transportation footprint, and I was taking the bus fairly regularly. These days I don't take the bus at all, but I haven't replaced those bus trips with car trips, so my score went down.

[lph]

One of the things that makes it difficult for most people to radically change their ecological footprint is that the big differences come from, well, radical changes...

I'm not going to put myself up on a pedestal here, but we chose where we wanted to live by planning out public transportation and biking distances first, then setting a budget, then house hunting. Which means we live where we can both use public transportation OR bike to work, because we set that as a condition before moving. It's a lot harder to change the public bus route (or change jobs) after you've moved ;)

Ditto for various activities, we chose a place to live that has a reasonable amount of sports activities available for our son nearby, because we refuse to drive him around more than necessary. Most of this we did to buy us more time and less everyday stress, but it sure cuts way down on our car use.

Come to think of it - we didn't HAVE a car when we moved here. Hm, maybe that had something to do with it... :p

Now, if only I could get away from the idea that I truly deserve a trip to Thailand next winter.

[Grog]

Great example LPH...

I was thinking about this conversation last night and came up with that trick for those who already live in less urban areas or even rural areas and are unlikely to move anytime soon, but want to reduce your footprint.

What you have is land. If you use it to grow your own vegetables and fruit, or even hold a little bit of livestock for your eggs, you'll reduce your footprint because that part of your daily food intake will be taken for locally... very locally. And it gives you a clear feeling of what your footprint actually is.

Like those who are lucky enough to burn wood from their own land, well, it makes it easy for to measure what their footprint is: how much forest (and work to pick up the wood and prepare it for burning) does it take to fire a woodstove so that the house is warm in the winter? Now if every house in the country was heated by the same means, how much forest would it take? Do we have enough trees left, relatively accessible, to do that sustainably, so there's some forest left for our kids to heat up their house? The current answer is of course no, which is why we dig for natural gas and coal, and import oil from abroad.

Now of course Emily please don't stop heating your house for this reason!!!!!! What I mean by this whole story is that when we move our footprint closer to ourselves, we realize how much space we need on this planet to cater to our modern needs. It doesn't really take the footprint down to know how big it is, but it certainly makes us more conscious of our weight on this planet. And more careful when we make our next choices about how we live, how we travel around, who we vote for, etc.

To be sedentary in the North, we'll always need to have a bigger footprint because, well, it's cold in the winter. Is that a reason to make it bigger and bigger, as we're currently doing (collectively, not necessarily individually)? I hope not. Yet that's what's happening right now, right here in Canada and certainly down there in the USA too. In those circumstances, every decision becomes important.

[emily_in_nc]

Now of course Emily please don't stop heating your house for this reason!!!!!!

Not to worry, we only use wood from dead trees, trees that fall in wind or ice storms or hurricanes, etc. On eleven acres of large hardwoods, we have plenty to go around. We originally burned wood from trees that fell in Hurricane Fran (lots, sadly) in 1996, but since then, natural attrition of the trees here and there all over our property has given us more wood than we could ever even burn, so some that die we just leave as snags for the woodpeckers to live in or lying on the ground out in the woods. Other than the trees we cut to build our house, we never cut live trees for firewood. Of course, because of that, we don't have enough sun around our house for much of a vegetable garden, but we do grow a few tomatoes, peppers, and herbs. And in the summer we bike to the farmer's market to buy most of the rest of our veggies -- organic or pesticide-free about 95% of the time. Locally grown, of course. :D We also belong to a food co-op so we can buy as much local and sustainable produce and other groceries as possible. DH bakes all our bread (with wheat berries he's ground!), etc. We didn't get credit for many of these habits in the footprint quiz, which is my beef with it....I'm not trying to say that we're perfect -- far from it -- but I do think we're better than the quiz results show.

Emily

[iFKA]

My country isn't even on the list :o But if I'd live in my neighborhood like
Austria it would be...

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.2
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 3.4
GOODS/SERVICES 4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8.7

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 4.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.8 PLANETS.