What is your ecological footprint?

[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??

[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.

[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...

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

[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??

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

[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".

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".

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.

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.

Emily

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