How many planets would we need if everyone on Earth lived like you?

[Nubclear]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 1.3 planets.

Category
global hectares

Food 1.3

Mobility 0

Shelter 0.6

Goods/Services 0.4

Total Footprint 2.3

[Sikander]

Food 2

Mobility 0.3

Shelter 7.3

Goods/Services 5.2

Total Footprint 14.8
In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9.7 global hectares per person.

I think I'm being penalized pretty heavily for a few assumptions that aren't true. I'm getting killed on the shelter, but perhaps that is in part because I don't have a roommate at the moment. I don't even have air conditioning, and I built my house so efficiently that the starter on my furnace broke a few years ago and I didn't bother to fix it for 2 years (after my GF insisted). My house eats up solar heat through it's 6 large south facing windows, and doesn't give it back easily.

I don't have a car, I walk or bus to work. I also mainly save my money, I have no debts. Much of what I buy is intellectual property like software and books. I can't stand cheaply made stuff, and pay more for things that will last. I do eat meat almost every day though, and fly a couple of times a year.

[axi]

There are people who get less than a planet, but this is shown only if you divide the footprint with 1.8

I did the test as an under 13yo Ethiopian girl that lives in a village in a under 20sqm shack with 7 or more people, no water, no electricity, easting only homegrown veggies, using only animal transport, blah blah and here it is:

Food 0.2
Mobility 0
Shelter 0.5
Goods/Services 0.2
Total Footprint 0.9

Ethiopian avg:0.8

I am amazed at the importance of shelter. A person who has less than 3sqm of his own is taking less space than the average animal. Perhaps it's the village thing. I'll try to move to Addis Abeba next time...

[axi]

I moved the girl to Bangalore, India and it got even less:

Food 0.2
Mobility 0
Shelter 0.4
Goods/Services 0.1
Total Footprint 0.7

Indian avg 0.8

This is between 1/3 and 1/2 of a planet.

[Clear Skies]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.3 planets.

Hectares:
Food 1.3
Mobility 0.8
Shelter 0.8
Goods/Services 1.2
Total Footprint 4.1
In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 5.3 global hectares per person.

[David Floyd]

I'd need 12.1 planets.

And damn proud of it!

It doesn't matter, because it all averages out due to starving people and stuff I would think, so I'm not worried.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'd need 12.1 planets.

And damn proud of it!

It doesn't matter, because it all averages out due to starving people and stuff I would think, so I'm not worried.

I hope to God that's a troll, because if it isn't then you are quite possibly the single most heartless unethical person I've ever met....

[David Floyd]

Yes, it's mostly a troll, but my point is, like most other Americans, I'm not going to change my standard of living because of some shock value statistic about how many planets we need.
Looking at it another way, I'm richer than people in Africa or the Amazon basin, so of course I have a car, of course I don't take public transportation, and of course I eat better. If I wanted to live like people without those things, I'd move to a country like Namibia or Cambodia or someplace.

Oh, and my total footprint was like 21 or something.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, it's mostly a troll, but my point is, like most other Americans, I'm not going to change my standard of living because of some shock value statistic about how many planets we need.
Looking at it another way, I'm richer than people in Africa or the Amazon basin, so of course I have a car, of course I don't take public transportation, and of course I eat better. If I wanted to live like people without those things, I'd move to a country like Namibia or Cambodia or someplace.

Oh, and my total footprint was like 21 or something.

In one sense, thank goodness for that. I agree it's unlikely that people are going to start living like hermits just because they've been told they're using up too many resources. Human selfishness, unfortunately, leads the rich to want to stay rich and keep their lifestyles as they are.

It's an interesting question as to whether human selfishness is inherent or learned. I'd kill to find out...

[David Floyd]

Human selfishness, unfortunately, leads the rich to want to stay rich and keep their lifestyles as they are.

Exactly. Why in hell would I decide to starve, or get sick of malnutrition, just because someone tells me I'm hurting "the environment"? That's what environmentalists don't get - no one really cares, at least not in the US.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Exactly. Why in hell would I decide to starve, or get sick of malnutrition, just because someone tells me I'm hurting "the environment"? That's what environmentalists don't get - no one really cares, at least not in the US.

Enviromentalists care.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Exactly. Why in hell would I decide to starve, or get sick of malnutrition, just because someone tells me I'm hurting "the environment"? That's what environmentalists don't get - no one really cares, at least not in the US.

But if you were asked to do something sensible and not extreme, would your reaction still be the same? America is very 'onward and upward at anyone else's expense' and that's what I dislike about it... Moderation would be nice

[David Floyd]

Osweld,

Enviromentalists care.

And how many of those do you think are in the US? Not all that many

CS,

But if you were asked to do something sensible and not extreme, would your reaction still be the same? America is very 'onward and upward at anyone else's expense' and that's what I dislike about it... Moderation would be nice

Well, I would have no problem recycling, if a box was delivered to my doorstep and picked up from my doorstep.
On the other hand, I would not cut down on food consumption or car use or 15 minute showers or anything of the sort.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I would have no problem recycling, if a box was delivered to my doorstep and picked up from my doorstep.
On the other hand, I would not cut down on food consumption or car use or 15 minute showers or anything of the sort.

Uh oh. I can see myself descending into bleeding-heart environmentalism, which will make me nauseous and certainly not endear myself to you I'm just curious as to whether you intend at some point in the future to have children, and if so what sort of world you'd like them to live in.

[MOBIUS]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.4 planets.


Food 2.4

Mobility 0.5

Shelter 0.6

Goods/Services 0.8

Total Footprint 4.3

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 7.6 global hectares per person.

Australia. Wow, I got whacked on the food despite not eating much processed/packaged foods and eat a lot less meat these days?

Mobility - I live a ten minute walk from the centre of town, my job is a nice twenty minute walk to the CBD. Occasionally I take a ferry or a bus when I'm visiting an attraction - less than once or twice a week though.

OK, so the test is wonky - hopefully it gets you thinking!

Malaysia is quite a developed country BTW - not exactly a good country to try getting a low score...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Osweld,

And how many of those do you think are in the US? Not all that many

Enviromentalists aren't a sub-species of humans. My point was that people are capable of caring and thinking of something else other then themselves - despite what you may think. Of course, you're probably so self-centered that you can't even realise this.

On the other hand, I would not cut down on food consumption or car use or 15 minute showers or anything of the sort.

Why in the world would you even need to spend longer then 15 minutes in a shower?

[Q Classic]

how odd...
as a korean, only 3.6
as an american, 4.2

this with the same options, mind you.

very odd.

[Illyrien]

This must be the most rigged test I have ever taken.

laughable.

What can I say, I am not Green enough to believe it

[David Floyd]

CS,

I'm just curious as to whether you intend at some point in the future to have children, and if so what sort of world you'd like them to live in.

Why, the kind where they have everything they need and want to eat, their own car at 16 or 17, reasonable gas prices, and basically all the creature comforts I enjoy, with added benefits due to technology.

Osweld,

Enviromentalists aren't a sub-species of humans. My point was that people are capable of caring and thinking of something else other then themselves - despite what you may think. Of course, you're probably so self-centered that you can't even realise this.

No, I can realize that. I just tend not to worry about things and let problems I don't understand or can't do anything about solve themselves

Why in the world would you even need to spend longer then 15 minutes in a shower?

Why, because hot water is relaxing, of course.

[Sandman]

My number of planets is 1.6. Not too bad.

Food 1

Mobility 0 (I simply walk everywhere)

Shelter 1

Goods/Services 0.8

Total Footprint 2.8

[Imran Siddiqui]

8.4 planets - 15.2global hectares

[Lefty Scaevola]

Hmmm. 98.6 planets. I guess I am going to have to kill all of you to make enough room.

Tata, mortals.

[Flubber]

wow -- shelter size is huge in this thing-- I increased apartment size from a middle setting to the largest one and saw the score go from from 4.2 to 6.5 planets


Its a funny test-- I live in canada and of course we will use more energy than most of the world-- you know to avoid Freezing to death-- Thats accounted forin the numbers somehow . . . but if Everyone in the world lived like me . . . well thats illogical since there is no way someone in a tropical rainforest would ever have our heating and shelter needs

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
2.6 hectares, requiring 1.4 planets. I got major reduction in points due to my transportation situation and living in NYC.

Same here, I got exactly the same.

[Rogan Josh]

Food 1.2

Mobility 0.2

Shelter 2.3

Goods/Services 2

Total Footprint 5.7


Its a bit of a crappy quiz because so much of the score is for a big house. But clearly this depends on where you live - someone living in Tokyo is clearly going to have a different sized place from someone living in Siberia.

[Gibsie]

Poorly designed test. Question 10's options are particularly ridiculous.

5.3 Hectares for me, 2.1 planets total. Not bad.

[chequita guevara]

The test makes certain assumptions it shouldn't make, but given that it's particularly short, let it slide. I'd like to see a more in-depth, more balanced view, but this is kinda fun and gives you an idea.

BTW, Flubber living in more Southerly climes doesn't mean you have lower energy bills. Where I live, we may only have to turn the heat on for a month or so, but for six months of the year, the air conditioning is on.

[dunk]

7.4 hectares and 4.1 Earths.

[orange]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 3.2 planets

[dunk]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
how odd...
as a korean, only 3.6
as an american, 4.2

this with the same options, mind you.

very odd.

Not so odd.

Compare a rural area in the US to one in Korea. In the US, there will be lights along the roads, more paved roads. There are probably better sewage systems, etc.

I don't mean to imply that everyone in Korea is poor or anything, but the average American's car has air-conditioning, electric radios, etc.

I would guess that travelling 5 miles in the US consumes more resources than travelling 5 miles in Korea.

I'm guessing that the country selection somewhat reflects that.