Eli_Damon
05-06-07, 06:37 PM
http://www.myfootprint.org/
Living Car Free - ecological footprint calculator
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : ecological footprint calculator
Cosmoline
05-06-07, 07:14 PM
Like a lot of these on-line footprint calculators, this one is too general and asks far too few questions to give anything more than a very rough estimate.
Eli_Damon
05-06-07, 08:24 PM
Like a lot of these on-line footprint calculators, this one is too general and asks far too few questions to give anything more than a very rough estimate.
They a more detailed version that you can download as an Excel spreadsheet.
They a more detailed version that you can download as an Excel spreadsheet.
bragi
05-06-07, 11:26 PM
I tried this calculator a few times, and even when I picked the "greenest" choice for every question, while still admitting I used electricity, I was informed that if everyone on the planet lived like me, we would need extra planets. Either there's something wrong with the calculator, or we're going to have to conduct a lottery to see who has to leave the earth. Also, I was annoyed to discover that a few of the questions had answer choices that didn't allow for a car-free lifestyle.
cowtown_cowboy
05-06-07, 11:46 PM
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 2.4
MOBILITY 5
SHELTER 0.8
GOODS/SERVICES 6
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14.2
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 7.9 PLANETS.
yikes! and I'm conservative with it!
FOOD 2.4
MOBILITY 5
SHELTER 0.8
GOODS/SERVICES 6
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14.2
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 7.9 PLANETS.
yikes! and I'm conservative with it!
Cosmoline
05-07-07, 01:53 AM
I have to wonder if this test is deliberately designed to "spur action" by cooking the numbers. The sad thing is it's more likely to make people want to give up.
Autokat
05-07-07, 02:01 AM
I have to wonder if this test is deliberately designed to "spur action" by cooking the numbers. The sad thing is it's more likely to make people want to give up.
+ 1
+ 1
cerewa
05-07-07, 09:11 AM
Cosmoline, I think you're right. I don't really know whether they intentionally cooked the numbers.
A couple of observations, though: Having a lifestyle like that of the world's median-income people would mean one's income was too small to pay for a lot of things like natural gas heating, cars, and a home that Americans think is normal. What's "average living" for the world today would seem bizzarely cheap by developed countries' standards.
If you answered the questions like average people from India, Bolivia, or Algeria would, I suspect you'd find that the system says you're pretty low-impact.
The quiz's numbers come out differently based on what country you say you're from, too. I tried the same answers to all questions except that once I answered completely truthfully and once I said I was from France, and it made the difference between "you need 1.8 planets" and "you need 3.2 planets". Things over which we Americans have no direct control affect that and I'm sure we'll be getting greener in some respects as the decades go by. I suspect France's agriculture is greener and I know that france produces almost as much fossil-fuel-free power as it uses and that seems to be reflected in the eco-quiz calculations.
A couple of observations, though: Having a lifestyle like that of the world's median-income people would mean one's income was too small to pay for a lot of things like natural gas heating, cars, and a home that Americans think is normal. What's "average living" for the world today would seem bizzarely cheap by developed countries' standards.
If you answered the questions like average people from India, Bolivia, or Algeria would, I suspect you'd find that the system says you're pretty low-impact.
The quiz's numbers come out differently based on what country you say you're from, too. I tried the same answers to all questions except that once I answered completely truthfully and once I said I was from France, and it made the difference between "you need 1.8 planets" and "you need 3.2 planets". Things over which we Americans have no direct control affect that and I'm sure we'll be getting greener in some respects as the decades go by. I suspect France's agriculture is greener and I know that france produces almost as much fossil-fuel-free power as it uses and that seems to be reflected in the eco-quiz calculations.
AlanK
05-07-07, 01:08 PM
CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 3.5
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 2.5
GOODS/SERVICES 1.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8
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 1.8 PLANETS.
Not bad for an indulgent US resident.
FOOD 3.5
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 2.5
GOODS/SERVICES 1.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8
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 1.8 PLANETS.
Not bad for an indulgent US resident.
CdCf
05-07-07, 01:25 PM
Got 1.7 planets.
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.1
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.9
GOODS/SERVICES 0.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 6.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.7 PLANETS.
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 1.1
MOBILITY 0.1
SHELTER 0.9
GOODS/SERVICES 0.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 6.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.7 PLANETS.
Wogster
05-07-07, 06:36 PM
CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 2.4
MOBILITY 5
SHELTER 0.8
GOODS/SERVICES 6
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14.2
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 7.9 PLANETS.
yikes! and I'm conservative with it!
Guess that makes me green, answered all the questions honestly, and I got 5 hectares.....
Also faked out the test with a Mexican peasant, who lives in the smallest home with no running water or electricity, who doesn't drive, but walks or bikes everywhere, and got it down to .6.
Fortunately there are more peasants the average Americans.....
FOOD 2.4
MOBILITY 5
SHELTER 0.8
GOODS/SERVICES 6
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14.2
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 7.9 PLANETS.
yikes! and I'm conservative with it!
Guess that makes me green, answered all the questions honestly, and I got 5 hectares.....
Also faked out the test with a Mexican peasant, who lives in the smallest home with no running water or electricity, who doesn't drive, but walks or bikes everywhere, and got it down to .6.
Fortunately there are more peasants the average Americans.....
Roody
05-08-07, 01:39 PM
I did terrible!! :eek:
I need 19 acres or 4.3 planets.
Mostly from shelter, as I live alone in a 650 sq. ft. dwelling.
But I did pretty good on transport-- 0.5 acres. I ride in a bus about 400 miles per month, otherwise virtually no footprint.
I need 19 acres or 4.3 planets.
Mostly from shelter, as I live alone in a 650 sq. ft. dwelling.
But I did pretty good on transport-- 0.5 acres. I ride in a bus about 400 miles per month, otherwise virtually no footprint.
natelutkjohn
05-08-07, 02:22 PM
:roflmao: , that is a biased as can be quiz.
I did the gave the same exact answers (converted house size, etc between units) for America and Kenya.
If I lived in Kenya, I have a footprint of 1.3 - only one planet needed
If I live in U.S., I have a footprint of 18 - 4 planets needed.
That is defintily not a scientific quiz :rolleyes:
I did the gave the same exact answers (converted house size, etc between units) for America and Kenya.
If I lived in Kenya, I have a footprint of 1.3 - only one planet needed
If I live in U.S., I have a footprint of 18 - 4 planets needed.
That is defintily not a scientific quiz :rolleyes:
Buglady
05-08-07, 02:37 PM
Yes, it's a bit weird that there were no options for never driving a car (I ride in cars once a week or so, but don't currently drive), no options for not owning a car (question on the fuel effieciency of one's car), nothing on alternative energy use (eg passive solar heating, solar-rechargeable batteries), and no questions regarding water use/conservation, growing one's own food, or composting waste. Also very little on goods that one buys, other than food. That was for Canada.
lima_bean
05-08-07, 02:41 PM
Category Acres
Food 1.7
Mobility 0.2
Shelter 4.2
Goods/services 3
Total Footprint 9
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 2.1 PLANETS.
Looks like as long as I want electricity in a small apartment, im ****ed.
Food 1.7
Mobility 0.2
Shelter 4.2
Goods/services 3
Total Footprint 9
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 2.1 PLANETS.
Looks like as long as I want electricity in a small apartment, im ****ed.
HardyWeinberg
05-08-07, 03:41 PM
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 7.9 PLANETS.
yikes! and I'm conservative with it!
You must live on a different planet from me...
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14
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
I don't know if I should be care that it assumes my meat is not locally grown and pastured, but maybe it dings me for keepiing it all in a freezer rather than trucking it and its food all over...
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 7.9 PLANETS.
yikes! and I'm conservative with it!
You must live on a different planet from me...
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14
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
I don't know if I should be care that it assumes my meat is not locally grown and pastured, but maybe it dings me for keepiing it all in a freezer rather than trucking it and its food all over...
Roody
05-09-07, 01:29 PM
:roflmao: , that is a biased as can be quiz.
I did the gave the same exact answers (converted house size, etc between units) for America and Kenya.
If I lived in Kenya, I have a footprint of 1.3 - only one planet needed
If I live in U.S., I have a footprint of 18 - 4 planets needed.
That is defintily not a scientific quiz :rolleyes:
Maybe it is more scientific than you think.
The quiz is based on average consumption in the respective countries. If you lived in Kenya, you wouldn't need to heat your house (biggest single use of resources by consumers is home heating). Most people there also don't have air conditioning, refrigerators, computers, TVs, blenders, gas lawn mowers, etc. They probably use less energy and less water to grow their food (second biggest use of resources is food production and distribution). I imagine they also produce much less waste per capita, even the few people with an income similar to ours.
I did the gave the same exact answers (converted house size, etc between units) for America and Kenya.
If I lived in Kenya, I have a footprint of 1.3 - only one planet needed
If I live in U.S., I have a footprint of 18 - 4 planets needed.
That is defintily not a scientific quiz :rolleyes:
Maybe it is more scientific than you think.
The quiz is based on average consumption in the respective countries. If you lived in Kenya, you wouldn't need to heat your house (biggest single use of resources by consumers is home heating). Most people there also don't have air conditioning, refrigerators, computers, TVs, blenders, gas lawn mowers, etc. They probably use less energy and less water to grow their food (second biggest use of resources is food production and distribution). I imagine they also produce much less waste per capita, even the few people with an income similar to ours.
Cosmoline
05-09-07, 02:06 PM
And, not to put too fine a point on it, they don't live as long and they tend to die very quickly with minimal resources spent to save them. But I don't think those are really goals we should be trying to shoot for.
Eli_Damon
05-09-07, 07:40 PM
I tried this calculator a few times, and even when I picked the "greenest" choice for every question, while still admitting I used electricity, I was informed that if everyone on the planet lived like me, we would need extra planets. Either there's something wrong with the calculator, or we're going to have to conduct a lottery to see who has to leave the earth. Also, I was annoyed to discover that a few of the questions had answer choices that didn't allow for a car-free lifestyle.
According to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", the earth is capable of sustaining at most two billion people. This threshold was reached in 1975 and is now at 6.5 billion. So it makes sense that even if the entire world population lives in a reasonably "green" manner (in a short-term sense), the earth will not sustain them. I think it would makes sense for an ecological footprint calculation to include a term relating to the resources consumed by the subject's biological children.
According to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", the earth is capable of sustaining at most two billion people. This threshold was reached in 1975 and is now at 6.5 billion. So it makes sense that even if the entire world population lives in a reasonably "green" manner (in a short-term sense), the earth will not sustain them. I think it would makes sense for an ecological footprint calculation to include a term relating to the resources consumed by the subject's biological children.