digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

How many earths would we need if everyone lived like you?

ecofoot.org — Take this quiz and find out how many earths we'd need to get resources from if everyone in the world lived like you. Personally I got 5...thank god for Africa.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+513.5 for me. They forgot to ask how fat I am.
    • aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I'm just 2.6. I figured it'd be higher.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+99Wow, you guys have small footprints. I need 8 planets, mainly because I use my car to get to work. Would 5 billion people get off this planet so I can continue living the way I'm used to plz?
    • carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -8/+998.9, now pass me another styrofoam cup
    • stonedslacker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+71Only 1.0 for me. :-) I'm from India so guess that gave me an edge.

      CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
      FOOD 0.3
      MOBILITY 0.2
      SHELTER 0.6
      GOODS/SERVICES 0.4
      TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.5

      IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 0.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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

      IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.
    • Nerfdude, on 10/12/2007, -11/+707.7 just doesn't seem high enough. i'm gonna go vent a 15 pound tank of Freon i found in the garage to the atmosphere, and hopefully attain an even 8.0.
    • eolite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32i need 1.0 earths ... i'm from india too
    • theOster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+228 acres

      1.8 earths

      NYC

      hopefully staten island would be left out of the 0.8...
    • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3aaaaand, the site's down for the count, folks.
    • superal1394, on 10/12/2007, -8/+204.9 planets... I LIKE MY V8!!

      I use CFL's! and I turn off my computer when I'm not at it, I even set my thermostat down to 68 this winter, it failed to ask that.


      how does eating meat adversly affect the environement? I mean, I love the earth and all, but I love my cheese burger more.
    • pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+191 planet for me... I'm from Argentina.

      It helps that I work at home and mainly walk when I have to go to another places.

      Also that I eat local products mainly.

      1.8 foot print from a mean of 3 in my country.

      Now... what does this tell us about economics?

      Would it be a better world if people in the 1st World consumed less resources or would that make poor countries poorer (you know, less exportation).
      Would production be more or less efficient if we used less resources?

    • pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -10/+112Oh... and I think I should get a bonus for the gay thing... you know, if everyone were like me humankind would only survive 1 generation.
    • hirak99, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31.3
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+111 acres
      2.5 earths
      WashDC

      Although, when I lived in TX, I *know* I'd have scored a little higher. But, my footprint was pretty low there, too.
    • mrops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The question is not home many earths we need to survice,
      The question is home many servers does the site need to survive (digg)
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -18/+24Wow, do people actually beleieve in this kind of nonsense? Way to build an overgeneralization calculator that does not take into account any advances in modern technology or market demands creating solutions to problems.
    • Krmby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+68.2 for me.

      because of the city that I'm living in i guess. Istanbul, population nearly 20.000.000.
    • Flanker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1stonedslacker: Actually, if everyone lived like you, we'd need
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I havent changed my lifestyle since coming from India, and it made a difference from 1.0 Earths to 4.7 Earths....
      Then again, I said I drive everywhere with someone else, but he was a driver.
      I never walked places, always using a car... Just living in a country and doing what they do is really efficient...
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Edit time ran out:
      Looks like it is rigged. Everybody from India is getting 1.0 Earths...
      I tried everything at most efficient, and it was a footprint of 0.9, compared to my actual of 1.3.
    • rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10pozzoe's comment best illustrates the true intent of the survey. Infer what you wish from my comment.

      But what I think is skewed here is that the majority of the respondants are from large cities. If everyone lived like people lived in rural areas, we'd all need only 1 Earth. So, ironically, it's Blue States that are the cause of the Inconvenient Truth!

      So, consume less and eat your own *****. Do it for the children.
    • 98acura, on 10/12/2007, -7/+128.4 for me... woohoo! America! ***** yea! /end montage
    • cruxop, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42 This test is biased against US residents. I live in Ghana and the US. When I entered my information as a US resident, it reported that I would use 3.5 earths. When I enter my info as a Ghanain---the exact same input except for the location, it outputs that if everyone lives like me, we will only need a single planet.

      So if you're American, don't worry about the results. It won't need 8, 9, or 10+ earths to support the population if everyone lives like you... it'll need that many earths if everyone lives like you AND everyone lives IN THE USA.
    • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2yea but technological advances are happening all the time, e.g. higher buildings with more apartments and less energy costs.

      (while it's obviously inaccurate, if we assumed it is)
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I got "Page can not be displayed" did I win?
    • dissident, on 10/12/2007, -1/+86.7... once I move into an apartment that will drop to 4.4

      It's not my fault that other peoples in other nations breed like rabbits.
    • Surreal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31.5

      Chicago
    • Fighterspj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18wow i suck i got 17.2

      oops time to go and burn more tires!
    • Organisciak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I got 1.5 earths in Canada. Maybe because I mostly walk and am vegan?
    • wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42.2 ... im in college
    • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I would've had a nice, low 3.0 but I eat too damn much meat and it added an extra 5.4 to my score giving me 8.4!

      I'm gonna start drinking more protein shakes and eating less cheeseburgers.
    • ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30I took the test twice. Once saying I was from America, once from Thailand. I answered the questions exactly the same, only converting feet to meters and gallons to liters.... As an American, I need 3.5 planets, but as a Thai, I only need 1...

      Same home, same size, same driving habits, etc...

      If this is a global thing, why is the test so skewed against America? Someone in another country living in the same house, driving the same, eating the same, same size family, etc should have the same "footprint" as me.
    • Amnesia10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mine was 1.3 for the UK which was less than half of UK average, but this test is really simplistic as my carbon footprint is less than one tenth of the average Brit. I guess that my true cost would be lower still as my energy usage is very low, all low energy gadgets. I guess that because I live in a large though well insulated house I got hammered for that. Overall though I am very green so am not that worried.
    • feralwombat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@cruxop and @ProximaC

      It makes perfect sense that the United States would have a larger footprint for the same selections. Think about what goes into those selections, such as a house. The items it takes to build a house in the United States travel much further distances than in Ghana or Thailand. Same goes for food. With waste, the type of waste created in the United States is different than in other places. These--and many other factors--greatly increase the footprint of the United States even with the exact same selections. Not skewing it higher toward the United States would result in miscalculations, not the other way around.
    • adm58, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@superal1394:

      Meat is a sign of wealth, most people in the world do not eat it daily. Many are lucky to eat it once or twice a week. It's figured into the footprint because of the amount of grain needed to produce the meat. We could feed many more people with the grain we feed to livestock. Many view grain-fed livestock production as unsustainable. For beef, the energy input to protein output ratio is 54:1.

      (I got 3.8 earths)
    • obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Yeah, this is rigged against the U.S.

      I put everything to maximum, and got 69 hectacres when U.S. is selected.

      I did the same, and got 21 hectacres when Japan is selected.
    • akira117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2CATEGORY ACRES
      FOOD 3.5
      MOBILITY 11.4
      SHELTER 10.6
      GOODS/SERVICES 20
      TOTAL FOOTPRINT 46
      IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 10.2 PLANETS.
      I fly alot, live in a larger size house, and don't have time for a unprocessed food (collage and work)
    • knutslie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So if everyone lived like me we would need 2.2 earths. Ok.
      Obviously, we don't have 2.2 earths nor 2 earths and if everyone is to live like me, that means someone has to die.
      So let's just kill off a few of those people we don't need (like you fat people) and feed them to our pigs, so that we can enjoy all that extra fatty bacon.
      Or not.
    • Cause_of_death, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"Looks like it is rigged. Everybody from India is getting 1.0 Earths"

      Nope - 1.0 and from a large city in England here

      However the test seems to take into account average wealth. Greater wealth implies greater consumption which has a greater impact on the environment. It is indeed biased, but not wrongly so.
    • noobieee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+210.2 for me. Lots of flying, no commuting with others, or on mass transit, too large of a house, and using electricity really did me.
    • dude187, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"If this is a global thing, why is the test so skewed against America? Someone in another country living in the same house, driving the same, eating the same, same size family, etc should have the same "footprint" as me."

      Because this test has not a single tiny shred of scientific significance in any part of it whatsoever. It's simply a test that asks incomplete and vauge questions about your daily habits and tells _Americans_ they are using too much energy, and tells the entire rest of the planet there doing a.ok.
    • endgames, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@superal1394

      There are many factors why eating meat can have a greater impact on the environment.

      http://digg.com/environment/The_Carbon_Footprint_of_a_Cheeseburger
    • coit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+225.6 earths! Top that!!!

      Not really, I just guessed at what would max it out. My real score was only 19... ;-)
    • elsupergringo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4To address the issue of people claiming there is a US bias:

      There is a great difference in ways of life involved in a comparison between US and Kenya or any other developing country. There's food distribution, typical construction of shelters, distribution of retail goods, etc. Also there's a whole bunch of government-run infrastructure (highway construction, fibreoptic lines, police departments, armed forces, electric lines, etc) that each citizen shares a per capita distribution of.

      Also, this is not relegated to large cities only. One of the biggest contributors to a global footprint is car transportation and trucking -- most of which is done outside of large cities that can often have better public transit systems and closer locales for walking.
    • facialtissue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i got 2.4
    • Superthug, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I don't quite understand the meat part. If you don't eat meat, but eat a lot of soy, you are using up the same amount of space and doing the same amount of damage.
    • catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Junkyarddawg put his finger on it. There are five billion people too many on the planet if they were to enjoy a decent standard of housing, food and water.

      People are hardwired through thousands of generations of social evolution to not see their growth as a problem. Growth is survival, growth is god(s)ly, growth is prosperity. Don't grow? Someone else will, and you are dead.

      But that need to grow is killing us now.

      It isn't that we in the U.S. or wherever there's enough food are hogging the table. The table is plenty big, even in our own nations, to feed and house us. What's happened is that the poorest people in the world have removed the brakes on their population growth, through improved nutrition, natal care (half of all newborns died within the first 2 years a century and more back) and of course, technology that enabled trucking and better farming. The population in the third world is doubling every 27-33 years. This is *impossible*. In less than five thousand years, the biomass of the human race would be comprised of every particle of matter in existence. The problems engendered by the impossible attempt to grow infinitely are already apparent: the slash and burning of the rain forests to make farmland. The pollution of the water. Chemical pollution. Increased global warming is a direct result of too many people burning way too many carbon compounds. War is mostly increasing populations vying for dwindling resources. Doesn't take too long to think up examples. For one, Iraq is a squabble over the US trying to throttle petroleum supplies to China and Asia in general (we don't use oil from Iraq - Asia and Europe does. We get most of ours from Canada). For that to happen, China grew to over a billion people and is now trying to become the US -- a situation that can't happen without it locking down material from the third world.

      The old industrialized world has pretty much stabilized their population growth, and even started shrinking in some cases. This is a *good thing*.

      The bad thing is that no one else has come to that tipping point yet, locked into economic or religious/cultural models that require maximum children per family. They are becoming desperate as they see their rivers die, their land choked with garbage, their food production prove inadequate. They have to export their surplus population to more population-controlled nations to prevent unrest at home. And of course there are other effects: teenagers, most of their population is under 20 (result of arithmetic) and always will be until they arrest their growth. A teen-aged, hungry, underemployed and increasingly desperate population of teenagers is what cults and wars grow from. They will lash out in all directions. Wahabism, for instance, feeds off the anger and resentment of the very poorest of the Arab world, channeling their anger against the West, which is blamed for their oppression. The resentment grows into insanity, attacks start, the West goes nuts and demonizes the Arab world, which feeds into the population growth fueled madness, positive feedback loop begins, and BOOM. A century of war.

      We either control the growth of humans, or the four horsemen ride out, one way or another. The fab 4 ride out against bacteria overgrowing their petri dishes, against deer in the winter, and of course against silly humans trying to grow infinitely in a confined space. We don't get a pass because we don't like it.
    • vampares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure if there is a way to win in America on this thing. There are are some vague choices but if you ride in a car or on a bus that requires roads and from there you kind of have to take responsibility for the poor local planning. Simply participating in the economy condemns you to paying taxes and thereby some government lump to eat fast food and process greasy 1040's.

      Answer: "Do you bicycle, walk, or use animal power to get around?"
      Isn't livestock bad?

      Answer: "Very little. Most of the food I eat is unprocessed, unpackaged and locally grown."
      Doesn't this imply an inefficient means of cooking and distributing the food? This also implies I might buy overly packaged food.

      In addition I think most American homes qualify for energy efficient homes compared to the rest of the world mud-n-rockpile world. It doesn't ask about cooking over open fires etc. which are known in some countries to be destroying greenspace. Like the Amish, now theres a waste of space.

      The crime of America is the love of cars. They stopped at 400 miles/week. I know people who commute 800 miles/week. I ride a bicycle everyday but I have to drive sometimes to get to where I can ride. I got 5.5 planets.
  • marcuschi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51I got 6.2. What do I win?
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+130Mars.
    • tmattoneill, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11@klayborg that literally made me laugh. Thanks.
    • daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+67KlayBorg, that metaphorically made me laugh.
    • OrlyonokEaglet, on 10/12/2007, -16/+31.5 Milkyways
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"1.5 Milkyways"

      Damn! You've got that low footprint thing DOWN!

      Because I know I'd need more than 1.5 candy bars.

      >.>
    • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -8/+113.3. I easily beat your score, and I'm damn proud of it.

      Also, this is why I'm in favor of space exploration.
    • stonedslacker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Klayborg. That literally made me LOL. Coz I got the pun 2 seconds later. Which always makes it funnier.
    • echoforever, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10.9 for me :)
  • pbs1914, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26I wish there was a little more transparency in how the calculated the final number. I don't think it does as much as it could to show the resources the everyday choices we make consume.
    • shanimal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I agree- how am I supposed to know that living in a multi-story apt. building is bad? And what exactly am I supposed to do about it?!
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Go ahead and make your own, pal.
    • elsupergringo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@shanimal

      Therein lies the problem. Even if this were transparent, there's not much you can do, as a US citizen, to make your global footprint even come down close to 1.0. Too much of our infrastructure and our marketing and distribution systems are reliant on systems that are antithetical to green living.
    • vampares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Take action -- emigrate.
  • MrDiggle, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7Digg needs a bury as FUD option.
  • MF03, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25This isn't very realistic. It fails to account for income distribution and the fact that we will NEVER have everyone consuming the same amounts of things.
    • coditza, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33That test is to see what would happen if EVERYONE will do exactly what you do. It's not about YOUR impact on the world.
    • ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16What if public transportation is not a viable option in my area?
    • markr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25@ngmcs8203 - get a bike, move closer to work, campaign for more public transport
    • aguynamedben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30@ngmcs8203 - use "animal power"
    • dralezero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's saying if everyone lived just like you. Of course it's unrealistic but it's just there to show our impact on the earth by spreading awareness with a fun game.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I tried using "animal power" once - those mice just weren't up to the task. Think I'll try ants next time - they're supposed to be really strong..
    • superal1394, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@ngmcs8203:
      Get a prius and carpool.
    • foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Priuses are harmful to the environment, they produce too much smug.
    • jeff303, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@markr

      Many people cannot afford to live close enough to walk/bike to work, if their workplace is in an expensive area.
    • rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7oh, but it does factor in income. The test is designed to punish city dwellers and anyone who doesn't live in mud huts, subsisting on what you grow. Maaaaaaan.
    • cndc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@jeff303

      Try getting rid of your car and you've got another $300+ in your pocket a month. Think about it...

      - Payments
      - Insurance
      - Gas
      - Maintenance
      - Depreciation
    • jeff303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cndc

      I'm digging you because you have a great point about the high "TCO" for a car. Unfortunately in my area (western Chicago burbs) public transportation is poor if existent. I used one of those trip planners for my daily 10-mile commute - it had me doing 4 transfers, 2 miles of walking, and $8 worth of bus fares over a 2.5 hour period each way. I can drive in 15 min for probably $2-3.

      To make matters worse, often times these cities don't even have sidewalks! To walk from my workplace to any restaurant (even as close as half a mile) is an arduous affair that involves jumping ditches and up/down to different level parking lots. It's frustrating when such a simple thing that could easily improve the traffic/environmental situation isn't available.

      Having spent about 3 months in New York I learned to appreciate and embrace public transit. Unfortunately, in many area of the US it's just not "there" yet. And as long as we have (relatively) cheap gas and cars that situation will never change.
    • vampares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I did this for a little while -- commuted by bicycle to get food, go to work etc. It is possible, just barely however. You need a job within ~8 miles or good public transportation which there rarely is. Highways and rivers are arduous to navigate, cars are pissy and you have to breath their *****. If you live alone then you save more than $300. If not -- maybe you live in a commune -- then you save money but you can use the car less and share costs. If public and private transport wasn't such an after thought it would be easier.
  • MF03, on 10/12/2007, -40/+18This is just liberal hippie douches doing their activist *****. STHU.
    • Seruphim, on 10/12/2007, -39/+11took the words right out of my mouth, I'm going to start burning Styrofoam for heat because of this crap while yelling "TAKE THIS ENVIRONMENT" and for every digg down I get, I'm going to burn another, so I dare everyone to digg me down, because you'll all pay when I make a hole in the ozone above your house!
    • Cubicz12321, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Yeh! MF03, fight for your right to consume mindlessly!
    • ActivitY, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7yeah? well I'm going to burn down the local green house.
    • tmattoneill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@activity if you live in humbolt county, that could be a very mind-altering action. Please let me know when you plan to take action if this is the case.
    • davidpack01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@@Seruphim

      Burning styrofoam huh? Enjoy the toxic fumes!

      http://www.terragenesis.co.uk/infopages/page173.html
    • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -5/+9at first, the link wasn't working, and i read over some comments thinking it wouldn't be so bad.

      then i get to the question about how much of my food is "processed, packaged AND locally grown". that's such a stupidly presumptive question because there are astronomically too many factors that go into this. short of living on a farm, or personally growing all of your own food (which is MUCH more wasteful for both the environment and my time), you pretty much have to answer at least half.

      i'm a vehement libertarian, and i do think global warming is happening because of man, but this survey goes beyond normal (and respectable) liberal rhetoric into the zone of flaming hippie.
    • Spankov, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Do you even know what liberal means? Either the dictionary definition or the political definition will do.
    • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"you'll all pay when I make a hole in the ozone above your house!"

      Go for it dude, I for one am ***** sick of all this snow. Hell, I may help you. Then my trailer park lot in Illinois can be ocean front property, and that's a plan worthy of Monty Burns himself.
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47Well, it looks like if I'm a 12 year old vegan who grows his own food and lives in a 500sqft green designed house with 7 relatives and no electricity, and I don't ride in any motor vehicles, ever, it'd only take 1 earth to sustain us if everyone else lived the same. I'm curious how they arrived at their numbers.

    Honestly, if you look at Google Earth, almost the entire planet is undeveloped.
    • keegan3d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Yeah I am curious too as to what math they are doing under the hood, what about the studies that show there is not enough farmland for everyone on the planet to be a vegan?
    • b3mus3d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8my guess is that if you get less than 1 it rounds up.
    • DuxDucis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@dtfinch;

      Actually 50% of the earth's population live in urbanised areas, whose footprints are becoming larger and larger.
    • psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Urban areas are far more space efficient and have a smaller impact on the environment. Suburban areas, on the other hand, are low density, and require massive use of automobiles. Suburbia is destroying the planet.
    • rogueman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Yup, I call *****. Plus there is a "Donate" button right after they tell me i eat kittens for breakfast.

      Lots of this just tells I'm rich. After working damn hard to get a car, of course i'm not gonna use public transportation. DUH. (it's pretty fuel efficient though). And yes I have electricity. I'm on the Internet. Jeesus.
      Also I'm reasonably sure my country (Eastern Europe, Romania) is self sufficient in most respects. Food definitely (well, we import soy sauce but export lots of wheat to make up). We do import some of the oil and gas, but export nuclear electricity.

      I don't really get all this mania with "living clean". Most of the big polution comes from industry. I still can't believe US uses *burning oil* as a main energy source. Damn rich people. Here it's just for temporary peaks or drought. Most energy is hydro or nuclear.
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2true; compare the towns of germany or canada with those of the USA. you'll notice that US towns sprawl out and cities gradually end, whereas others just are compact and come to a sudden halt, which is much better for preserving the environment.
    • jercraigs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Honestly, if you look at Google Earth, almost the entire planet is undeveloped."

      Way to miss the point entirely there. The capacity of the earth to support human populations is not related to how much of the earth is "undeveloped". Those undeveloped sections are helping to offset the requirements of the "developed" areas.
    • imsoclever, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3rogueman:

      I guess this whole "mania" is from people who don't have the large sense of self entitlement that you have.
  • ttread, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It doesn't account for how many children you procreate. Each person you add to the planet means another 70 or so years of consumption and pollution.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, so kill the babies! Kill the babies! Stop procreation! Save the animals! Kill the humans! Save the earth! Humans are just an infestation of the planet!
      /sarchasm

      This ecoprint thing is designed to sensationalize by misdirection. I'm sure their "calculations" are really accurate! (damn, more sarchasm, I really have to stop that)
    • freddo411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ttread: It doesn't account for how many children you procreate. Each person you add to the planet means another 70 or so years of consumption and pollution.

      You've got a biased assumption. Humans are not net resource detractors as the world is not a zero sum game. People CREATE resources.

      Take water for example. When I have a glass, or wash my car that water goes almost immediately into a local waste treatment plant and then to the Pacific Ocean. The ocean feeds the storms and I'm probably drinking the same water next week. The same is true (with different time scales) for most other items - aluminum, iron, food, wood etc.

      While it is an interesting thought experiment to hypothesize what sort of limits to growth might exist, we are long, long, long way from even having to make even modest adjustments to our current ways of living.

      It is a little known fact that in the US (and the rest of the modern world) we are becoming more energy efficient per capita. That means we are using even less energy per person even while increasing our standard of living. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate a world in the future where 5+ billion people are living at current US standards of living (assuming we avoid the political prescriptions of the global warming nay-sayers).

      One of the great challenges of the future is DECLINE of population. Japan and Western Europe are already in steep decline. The US would be if not for immigration. This may create serious disruptions in our patterns of living due to the changing ratio of retires to workers. There's a real problem to ponder.

    • PaperMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You are absolutely right! It doesn't account for your procreation (well unless you count the question where it asks how many people live in your household)(or you know.. if you don't count your children as people, rather as pets.... since it doesn't account for them either)(and frankly, your goldfish fluffy is hogging all of the planets water.)(bad fluffy!)
    • catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3People don't create resources, they consume them. It IS a zero sum game. We can't grow forever. We can't even grow much past what we have now. We are starving. We are warring. We are running out of water.

      The tech won't save people -- the people who need the tech most won't be able to afford it. They can't afford the water purifiers, the AIDS medications, meds of all sorts, the food shipped from elsewhere. They just die quietly, for the most part. For the worst part, they war, and they die noisily.
  • ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14.9 planets here....not too good it seems...
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.1 PLANETS."
      Pretty close...
  • 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Um, I'm one of those "idiotic liberals" the conservative nutjobs keep bitching about, and I'd have to call whatever math they use *****
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+429.3 planets might be the maximum score.
    • coollettuce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12nope, its 30.

      http://i18.tinypic.com/4bza1a8.png
    • scallon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5how in the ***** does one require thirty earths? Do you have to like burn a hectacre of rainforest every other week or what? This pro-vegan thing is *****. I mean, do whatever you want, but let me enjoy a steak every once in a while. Besides, everyone knows that if we stop eating meat, the cows will eventually outnumber us and take over.
    • scallon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Nope, it is at least 31.1 I just took it and thats the number i got. My total footprint was 138.

      CATEGORY ACRES
      FOOD 6.9
      MOBILITY 27.9
      SHELTER 33.6
      GOODS/SERVICES 69.7
      TOTAL FOOTPRINT 138

      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 31.1 PLANETS.
    • M1THR4ND1R, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i managed to get 31.6

      CATEGORY ACRES
      FOOD 6.9
      MOBILITY 28.9
      SHELTER 33.6
      GOODS/SERVICES 70.9
      TOTAL FOOTPRINT 140
    • Narpas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aw, my high score was a 29.4. :-(
  • wiredclimber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+317.7 planets...

    Quick, sell your car, ride your bike, grow your own food;

    Watch 10 Hummers drive by on the freeway and realize it's all for naught :(
  • Whelo10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Silly hippies...when will they learn, this didnt even take in2 account how electricity i use up whilst browsing around digg!!
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8According to this, we all need to become vegans to make it so we only consume one planet. Therefore, we become overrun with animals, thus taking up more land, thus decreasing our land area, therefore increasing our general foot print.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11How about if we eat all the vegans? Won't that help?
  • booozeninja, on 10/12/2007, -22/+12pity americans are such lard-assed consumo-bots. then the human race might actually have a chance.
    • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You would be different?
      Interesting show on PBS recently.
      Family from India. Parents, G-Parents all vegan. Wouldn't eat tomatoes 'cause it looked like blood

      Now the dad eats meat, and the kids hate veggies. They like hamburgers.
      All-American consuming family does just like the rest of us.



    • insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11What are you retarded? American technology and wealth is probably the only chance this planet has.
    • booozeninja, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7@insomniac8400
      kinda like saying lets remove that bullet with another bullet. You are the retard.
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Its not just America....most Western Countries have the same lifestyle. (ecofoot.org is down for me but...) I drive a car 6/7 days a week (about 300-400km a week), run 5 computers, rarely eat food not from the supermarket or take-away (ie. home grown, from the farm, organic etc.). There are 3 TV's in my house for 2 people, there are two bathrooms and two cars. I do however save water, because we have to in this drought. I'd like to work out my footprint....it cant be good.

      Is there a mirror?
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yay...it works now. I got 5.2! Wow...I should try and change that.
    • digggggggggg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The damn thing is biased against Americans. I got 1.0 if I put myself in any other country with the exact same responses.
  • OSXTiger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I had to use this site a few months ago for a homework assignment in Environmental Class.
  • nekteo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10that link redirect me to "Laser Hair Removal New York"...
    why?
  • TheElectricMonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26 for me, guess i should work on my eco-friendliness a little
  • CatalystDM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Woot... only 2.5.
  • howzitgoin88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I dont know how much waste i have in relation to my neighbours! Its not like i'm out there going through their garbage on bin nights!!!
    • sp0rk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Do your neighbors put out empty trash cans to deceive you?
  • Genobawt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+411.6 ... Damn my 11mpg getting 300zx... i thought jap cars were fuel efficient.
    • sinbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've got a 1980 280ZX and I get at worst 20mpg and around 33-38mpg on the freeway and I got a 1.4 planets. I'm not vegan, I don't carpool, I have 1 roommate and I've driven about 10,500 miles in the last month. Most of my food is produced locally and I use energy efficient appliances/electronics both of which save me money.
    • sinbot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I've got a 1980 280ZX and I get at worst 20mpg and around 33-38mpg on the freeway.
    • RedRummy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2fuel efficient?

      They can be, but the twin turbo nutter cars tend to be a bit thirsty...

      My RX7 drinks about 18mpg
    • lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2300zx isn't just 20 more zx's.....it's usually two more turbos. Comparing a 280zx to it isn't achieving anything. Also I thought it was 300z with no x.
    • Genobawt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My 300zx TT gets between 11-15mpg. It is ZX. There's 350z, and the 280z etc etc... but both 300's were ZX.
  • basictheory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23.6 - don't know how that happened though. expected more.
  • Rcdriver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+77.8... I need to install a Mr Fusion.
  • crashnburn275, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22.1! I'm a poor college kid who lives in a tiny dorm who almost never drives and seldom spends much money. Woo!
  • Sintra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31.3 Planets, although I wasn't sure about my house size.
  • KriTenKs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OMG, i got 1.0! Yes! I should get something for this. My total foot print was 1.8 Global Hectares
  • dvdcpu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Can anyone beat 2.4?
  • scatteredbomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42.5 for me.

    I kinda wish i would start being more environment friendly. I told myself i would start riding my bike to school, but it never happened. I said I'd try eating a vegetarian meal at least once a week, never happened. I also said I'd start cooking more of my own food, so went out and bought frozen pizza....

    Maybe i need Al Gore to come yell at me to get me motivated.
  • xsecretfiles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Algore is very happy driving his hummer right now, meawhile his home computer is collecting some pretty data

  • HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31.6 planets, proberbly because I never use a car when I'm at College.

  • waynejkruse10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I tried my hardest to do it accurately and got 1.6

    Mainly because we don't have a car. Works great when you live closely to most things :)
  • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45.7
    Do I win a bigger house?
  • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31.4 planets. Probably because I walk everywhere.
  • bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+61.8 , thanks to being a piss poor grad student
  • zelowlifeaiss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I got 8, I'm idsappointed. great site
  • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Uhmmm, if we were still using the technologies used in the mid 20th century things would be even worse. Of course we have to make something to loose the burden on earth but if technology remain the way it is now we will never be able to save this planet. However, since technology is the ONLY factor that changes -concerning humans- the last 100000 years, not taking in account its future advances is like not taking in account the sun to describe the solar system. Whatever the case if the revolution of the nanotechnology becomes true then self-grown veggies AND meat wouldn't be that of an impossibility.

    If there is a reason I believe we have a chance not to destroy this Earth is not Greenpeace or affiliated organizations (their impacts actually is minimal), it is out technological civilization ......
  • RareSaturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Clearly the Earth is not big enough, and we need to expand the space program to find other habitable planets.
    • kaffinator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Typical wasteful American thinking. We just need to terraform the planets we already have. Reduce Reuse Recycle!
  • coredump79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I only got a 6.5 .. and then .. there was this link for take action.. I'm like, yea.. perhaps they have a link to help terra form other planets! But no, they wanted me to reduce my "ecological footprint". What kinda communism is that?

    I figure .. hell .. there are like a billion trillion trillion stars out there, If all it takes is 6.5 planets for every one on the earth to live like me.. seems like a small price to pay..

    Perhaps we can send these rainbow loving, "low fat", hippies to the moon.. at least there they will have a ledgit reason to be "enviro-friendly".
  • frostmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+413.9....cuz i just dont give a *****.
  • NeilSkoglund, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2 CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
    FOOD 1.5
    MOBILITY 0
    SHELTER 1.4
    GOODS/SERVICES 1.1
    TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4

    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 2.2 PLANETS.

    i walk mostly, me and my friends walk allot too, cos im a random stoner and have army shooting ranges near me with loads of land, so we tend to walk up there and round there, i walk to work i pwn u all lol
    • scatteredbomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You walk around Army shooting ranges? Sounds smart.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, he is a stoner...

      Woo, look at those pretty fireworks. Where's that weird whistling sound coming fro....*BOOM*
  • NeilSkoglund, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2 CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
    FOOD 1.5
    MOBILITY 0
    SHELTER 1.4
    GOODS/SERVICES 1.1
    TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4

    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 2.2 PLANETS.

    i walk mostly, me and my friends walk allot too, cos im a random stoner and have army shooting ranges near me with loads of land, so we tend to walk up there and have a spliff :D

    i pwn u all lol
  • Photoblog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1 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 1.9 PLANETS.
  • paulbjensen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yes, let's thank the Africans for remaining poor, and hope that the Indians and Chinese follow suit and give up their aspirations to become rich.

    Because then at least the developed world can continue to live comfortably at the expense of others.
    • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2have all the richer countries like us (australia, USA, UK, etc)
      convert to use LED or Fluroescant light bulbs
      and use water saving shower heads
      The Australian Government is already doing it
      all traffic lights are being upgraded to use LEDs
      street lights have been fluroescant as far as I can remember
      and the Gov and many other electric/water/green companies are giving away free fluroescant lightbulbs and water saving shower heads
    • jarrydm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the water saving shower heads are only being handed out because due to our goverments lack of foresight over the last however many years and a massive drought we have run out of water in our dams
    • jordan314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah seriously. Thank god other people are suffering! Yay!
      What a horrible thing to say.
  • Zreitan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6oh bitch bitch bitch....they are missing the point...everyone isnt like me and that's a good thing, the human race wouldnt survive if everyone was the same. There's no reason to go trying and make me feel bad because i throw out some plastic bags and i eat every cow i lay my eyes on..

    stupid guilt trip idea...stop doing crap like this please..
  • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Let's not forget that the food miles theory is nonsense. Locally grown foods, those that are typically trucked in small vehicles to local markets, actually emit more carbon per unit of food.

    So in terms of land usage, factory farming and mass production are actually environmentally friendly.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1So the apples in my kitchen (grown
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5arse.

      So the apples in my kitchen (grown 20miles away, cardboard-packaged, non-pesticide, bought from the local farmers market) have a bigger carbon footprint than the Persimmon fruit next to them (plastic-wrapped, and flown from Israel)?

      I call bull
    • Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well no, but good job missing the point. What he was meaning was that locally grown foods are less efficient with their emissions due to the fact that it takes more individuals delivering to produce the same amount...of...produce (ahem). Although long distance sources do have to travel further, they usually do so via a single large truck as opposed to several smaller vehicles. The overall footprint through this becomes smaller.

      I only apply this to produce due to the fact that large meat farms are very destructive (not to mention cruel) to their local environs. This doesn't stop me from eating meat (ohhh too good) but it does lead me to try to find local sources.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Sorry, still call bull.

      And I'm not missing the point at all. If I add up all the emissions, etc of the local farm, inc delivery, etc, divide it by the amount of produce (say in weight terms), and do the same for the Persimmons on the plane/boat/hovercraft/whatever, there is NO WAY the farm is worse for the environment. one journey from Israel by itself will outweigh the whole year on that farm. No contest.

      I admit, per unit, the small farm is less efficient, but the distances involved are so great for some mass-produced things, it destroys any benefits.

      And if you check the general travel distances of supermarket goods, it would blow your mind. My local (tesco) was in the papers recently, because they were buying veg from within 150miles of the store, trucking it 300+miles to a processing plant, another 100+ to a packaging plant, another 150+ to the warehouse, to then send it to the store (another 100-odd I think)

      How is that ***** better for the environment?
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1http://www.slashfood.com/2006/12/09/the-economist-talks-food-politics/
      http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8380592
      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0609/S00340.htm


      It's not bull. Factory farming is better for the environment. When food is tranported overseas, it is usually in large cargo ships or planes, with tons of food. When organic food is transported, it is usually in small trucks that burn a disproportionately higher amount of CO2 than the worldwide distribution does from farm to supermarket. Organic food is less efficient to grow, requiring more space to be used, and is thus worse for the environment than most factory farming methods. If you are pro-environment, you should shop at Whole Foods a little less...
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21 I'm talking about the average local farm, not specifically organic
      2. You state that food imported is in bulk, therefore less damaging per unit. What happens when the boat/plane reaches the port, eh? Does all the food magically appear in my fridge? The fact is,it still has to be distributed around the country, just as the local food does.
      3. The report is based on NZ farming techniques, which are better then UK farming techniques, because they use less pesticide. If both UK and NZ used the same farming techniques, these results would change.
      4. These NZ farms still tend to be relatively small compared to some mass-production farms elsewhere.
      5. The study is too specific to be anything more than a statement that 'certain products grown using certain methods in a certain country (NZ) can be produced with less environmental impact than those same products produced using a more environmentally destructive method in the UK'
      6. The most important one, so deserves to stand out.....

      A study done by the AgriBUSINESS and ECONOMICS Research Unit of NEW ZEALAND, sponsored by a conglomorate of NEW ZEALAND FARMS and FARMERS, concluded that NEW ZEALAND produce is better for the environment than UK produce.

      WHODATHUNKIT???
  • tmattoneill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I got 6.7. Ouch. I don't even own a car!
  • hsbsitez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1
    IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.6 PLANETS.
  • curryml, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12.9 planets.

    I live in an apartment with another person, live five miles from work, carpool there often with my roommate, and generally live a pretty light lifestyle.

    In my situation, it takes less in gas costs to use my car than it would just to take the public transit back and forth every day. Also, and quite unfortunately, one cannot bike from here to there unless they do not value their life.
  • KZM104, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.3 PLANETS.
  • kezze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Hmm. Makes me feel bad - 2.1 planets - and I don't even drive a car! I can hardly believe it.
  • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16.3 oh well
    I guess I could bike to the train station more...
    Its too hard to bike all the way to the university (1hr train and bus ride away)

    I only use flurescant bulbs
    I want to convert all my CRTs to LCD screens
    I store rain water aswell
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.