Personal use of resources

[Ken Ibold]

Found this website: http://myfootprint.org/

Supposedly it shows how much we Americans are hogging the planet's resources. For example, humans would require 4.7 Earths if everyone lived like me.

While there is little to judge the validity of the methodology, it does make you think ...

Which I suppose is the point.

 

[tonycondon]

im a 5.8

 

[jesse]

8 planets for me...and I rarely use my car.

I think my number was driven up by the fact that I live alone, and 95% of my driving is by myself...and the amount of flying I do.

 

[AirBaker]

I think the 'flying' part assumes commercial flight and really screws up that curve.

I got 7.3 planets. However, as far as consumables go, I don't think I use much produced outside the US besides oil. (Not including my Nike shoes made in...).

I'd be curious to see a chart of available resources per continent. Do we live in the land of Milk and Honey or Sand and Oil?

 

[AirBaker]

FYI:
CATEGORYACRES

FOOD3.7

MOBILITY6.4

SHELTER10.6

GOODS/SERVICES11.6

TOTAL FOOTPRINT32

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

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I think my number was driven up by the fact that I live alone.

I went back and answered all of the questions exactly the same, except I killed off my three kids so my household was 2 instead of 5. I went up to 7.7 planets. So there's a little bit of a problem here.

 

[JasonCT]

8.7

~Jay

 

[AirBaker]

I went back and answered all of the questions exactly the same, except I killed off my three kids so my household was 2 instead of 5. I went up to 7.7 planets. So there's a little bit of a problem here.

I'm guessing they stack kids on top of you, taking up less space!

It is interesting that there are 24 acres of resources here per person vs 4.5 world wide; probably due to our farming industry. Of course they assume that these resources belong to the global community...

 

[RotaryWingBob]

11.6 here also

 

[Everskyward]

11.6 here also

I guess we're tied for the high score. That's not really winning though, is it?

My score would be even higher if they hadn't capped flying at 100 hours.

 

[poadeleted3]

Darn it!!! I only got a 6.7... I wanted to win. They didn't ask about the styrofoam cups I use daily, sometimes just throwing empty ones away to clog the landfills. They didn't ask about me idling my car an extra 5 minutes at each destination, just to further deplete the oil reserves. They didn't ask about me borrowing neighbor's lawn mowers, with the diritiest engines around, and running them just to contribute to global warming.

The darn contest was rigged!!

 

[wsuffa]

8.4 here. Bogus quiz.

 

[infotango]

4.1 w/ flying (but I think that its supposed to be commercial, and all mine is private)
1.9 without any.

 

[AirBaker]

Ok,
Choose the most 'ecological' answers. You'll get roughly the following:

CATEGORYACRES

FOOD1.7

MOBILITY0

SHELTER1.5

GOODS/SERVICES1

TOTAL FOOTPRINT4

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

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.


What does this mean? The EARTH IS ALMOST FULL!!! Reserve your spot on Mars ASAP!

 

[woodstock]

14.8

I think I tipped it by saying I flew more than 100 hours a year. I think that's accurate if you figure several commercial flights (I bet 20 a year lately) as well as lessons.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I guess we're tied for the high score. That's not really winning though, is it?

My score would be even higher if they hadn't capped flying at 100 hours.

Me too... but the good news is that we own lots more land than our footprint

 

[fgcason]

Even if you're Amish and living in the barn it takes 1.9 planets. Total hogwash. They're making way too many generic assumptions.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, ...they wouldn't have been breeding like mice and building 10 acre houses to the point that they need half a dozen planets to keep up.

 

[NC Pilot]

8.4 here. Bogus quiz.

I got down to one by living is a grass hut and living off the land. Highly biased... and very bogus.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Even if you're Amish and living in the barn it takes 1.9 planets. Total hogwash. They're making way too many generic assumptions.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, ...they wouldn't have been breeding like mice and building 10 acre houses to the point that they need half a dozen planets to keep up.

A true American Pilot here:
76 & 17.1 planets
...unless there were 17.1X less mass breeders on this planet -that's the real footprints!
In my defense, I wouldn't be so "bad" if I didn't like so much space, mobility and freedom.

 

[infotango]

The survey unfairly charges you for owning land, or living in a large space. My 900 square foot apt (hey its huge for NYC), helps my score a whole lot.
Arguably, people who own a lot of land are actually better for the environment since they are more apt to keep it full of plants, which is good for everybody.
Really, the best solution is ending over breeding in some parts of the world.

 

[judypilot]

There is so much wrong with the methodology it's not worth the time. I can tell just by reading your posts. The real fallacy is that the system is self-adjusting. As the living standards of people in some places rises, the living standards of others will drop except that neither will probably be perceived as a rise or a drop--just different. If my guesses about the methology judging from the posts are correct, Americans have probably been lowering their footprint over the years.

Judy