Printable View
WWF Footprint Calculator
The "challenge" is to come up with a score that doesn't make you look like some sort of environmental lout, with no need at all to sign up to "free" service.
Just blow away the cookie file for that site if you want to play again.
The lowest I've managed is 1.36
If a score <1 is in fact impossible on that site, then it's a scam.
2.55 putting in real values.
2.55 putting in real values where possible and best estimates otherwise. Example, our house has gas central heating which does base load, but we also have a wood burning stove to top up when it is cold - the quiz lets you pick one or the other.
[edit]Hmph, so I try to edit and end up duplicating.[/edit]
You should be ashamed. 2.31 being as much of a dick as possible and lying.
I realize now that this wasn't the challenge; my mistake :o
I got 2.0 being honest.
Trying to get as low as possible, I get 1.23, which implies that it is impossible to live in Northern Europe* without using a disproportionate amount of resources.
I imagine that's true, but I still think the survey is a little silly. For example, if it were applicable to a wider range of circumstances you could check and see what your footprint would be if you decided to go live in a shack in Venezuela. Certainly, it would be much more informative if the whole formula were explained. Rather dumb otherwise.
* the questionnaire could not apply to many places, because there was no "no heat" option, and bonus points for better insulation in the tropics is absurd -- also no questions about air conditioning, which is horrific in scale here in NYC
My footprint is 3.34. The shoe size of the abominable snowman.
Some of the questions clearly indicate this is aimed at industrialized countries with a high lifestyle. Fail! And probably why you don't get <= 1 in any possible way.
I think there is a for real bug/screw-up in the interface. If you look at the end, your "extra planet" is a total of all your points from each category, and you can obviously not get a negative score anywhere, you just get a lower positive one. My total was 100%, not 200%. Why the extra planet? It's a mistake.
If you subtract one from the result, the lowest possible score is actually 0.23, not 1.23.
All I got out of this test was a sudden urge to kill a hippie.
These things are nonsense. They neglect far too many
variables and assume far too much to provide an accurate
assessment of one's impact on the planet.
The dietary questions (Vegan, Vegatarian, Carnivore)
especially irk me
i got 0.69 meow.
You're a liar! You cannot get less than 1.00. I've already tried all the combinations. It's a mistake in the interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptkat
2.39. What a load of bull. I could live on this planet for four lifetimes and still not consume 2.39 planets worth of resources. Based on the panda bear logo this survey was done by the same idiots who say the panda bears are endangered when populations are higher now than at any point in history since we've been tracking numbers.
Clearly aimed at morons who believe their garbage. Some of the questions did not apply to the USA very well.
It's saying that if everybody lived the lifestyle you live,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
it would take 2.39 planets worth of resources to support
them.
This particular test seems kinda flakey, but if it's anythingQuote:
You're a liar! You cannot get less than 1.00. I've already tried all the combinations. It's a mistake in the interface.
like Ecological Footprint Quiz by Center for Sustainable Economy,
it takes countryof residence into consideration. If someone
who lives in the United States and someone who lives in
Angola enter the same choices, the United States footprint
will still be almost 3x as high.
I tried to pick the most environmentally detrimental answers
for the myfootprint.org quiz for both Angola as my country
and the US as my country.
Quote:
If everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle, we would need
Angola: 5.06 Earths
U.S.: 13.39 Earths
They are absolutely endangered due to habitat loss andQuote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
fragmentation. One of the reasons the populations are "higher"
now than at any other time in history is because past
populations were underestimated. Newer studies have
relied on better methods of measure. It's more a reflection
of better monitoring practices than actual organisms.
There's only about 1,000 - 2,000 Giant Pandas in the wild.
Useless, doesn't take offsetting into account :D
Quote:
Your footprint is
2.87 planets
18% 21% 30% 31% We've also calculated your carbon footprint, which is 11.59 tonnes per annum
The solution is simple... conquer more planets!
Hehe. That was my motto in Spore.Quote:
The solution is simple... conquer more planets!
I understood this already. Still a load of garbage.Quote:
It's saying that if everybody lived the lifestyle you live,
it would take 2.39 planets worth of resources to support
them.
I'm not sure how I got 4 percent in travel since I answered no to all the travel related questions. I also got 45 percent in "Stuff" for some reason even though I haven't bought anything in the past year.
I would consider myself an environment friendly person, but organizations like these are just clueless most of the time.
no. the game would not click through to the rest of the questions. it did not work. if the game had worked it might have been diff. meow.
Apparently you do not understand. The US represents 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 33% of the resources. So someone or something accounts for that. Maybe it is someone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
The point is, if everyone lived like you, the world would have to produce 139% more stuff. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that, it is undeniably true that most people in the modern west, and America in particular, live a lifestyle far, far above the global average.
This is not even a question of whether you want to "believe" it or not. It is basic and irrefutable math -- although this survey may or may not represent it accurately, it is still true that the earth does not produce enough to provide your lifestyle to everyone. 2+2=4.
But "everyone" doesn't use 33% of the world resources. So your math is useless. As is this whole exercise. Math is not irrefutable. It lies. And its ability to lie is entirely defined by its axioms. The fact that people are taking as irrefutable truths, untested axioms is what makes math lie with all its teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Furthermore, as far as I know there is no global shortage of resources. That thought is so 90s. On the contrary, we keep stockpiling resources. It is very clear to anyone who cares to look with their eyes open that globally we aren't consuming more than our planet can give us.
Then you should probably read more. Oceans are over-fished;Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
fertile land for agriculture is almost gone to the point where
wealthy nations have even been leasing land from poorer
nations in order to grow food for their people. Aquifer depletion
is a huge problem itself.
It's actually terrifying how little people seem to know about
not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has
had on it. There are examples of past civilizations collapsing
because their populations exhausted their resources; yet
for some reason, people think it can't happen to us simply
because we've invented iPods and are obviously smart enough
to solve every problem! They've put too much faith in the
capabilities of man, and it's ultimately going to lead to their
downfall.
Hmm... maybe you should do the reading. Where's your sources for this information, btw?
You are right. It is indeed "quite terrifying how little people seem to know about
not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has
had on it. [sic]". And I'll add, it's sad how much misinformation people like to spread from hearsay and "well known studies".
Heh. If it was up to these types they wouldn't allow us to hunt deer in my home state. Talk about running out of resources. The deer are so dumb that they would overpopulate to the point they would consume every last source of food and water in the area and then would begin to die off due to starvation. Human induced population controls are what keeps them alive or they would just breed out of control.
Math can lie when the formula is wrong and the inputs are wrong. If those are wrong, or one of those is wrong then all the outputs are wrong. But if it is more convenient for people to think that humans are destroying poor earth then so be it. For me I believe technological advances pave the way to a brighter future. Others may feel that sticking our head in the sand, building mud huts, not using electricity and eating dirt is the wave of the future.
Everything you've spouted has been ill-supportedQuote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
and anecdotal. So if anyone is spouting "misinformation"
it's you (such as the huge impact turbines have on
bird populations; or the deforestation that results)
Here's a fantastic, well-sourced, free book that not
only recognizes problems, but provides elegant
solutions to them. It's updated yearly with new
data. One of the versions was required reading in
one of my Biology (ecology) classes.
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/u...es/pb4book.pdf
Or maybe you should try the Jared Diamond books,
notably Collapse. Right now I"m reading 1491 by
Charles C. Mann about pre-Columbian American
civilizations' impacts on the environment.
There's plenty of sources regarding overfishing and
soil erosion.
But not that it matters; because you probably won't
accept anything that is in opposition to your viewpoints
as valid. You see a pile of fish at your local grocery
store and assume all is well. Your "eyes are open" eh?
That's not true at all and you shouldn't stereotypeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
people. No Wildlife Biologist or Ecologist is against
all forms of hunting (certain animals, of course). First,
Wildlife Biologists are more often than not employed
by governmental organizations which rely on hunting
usage fees for revenue.
Second, they know the benefits of hunting and
recognize that man is, indeed, a hunter. Don't lump
all Environmentalsts in with the pseudo-activist PETA
puppets. I, for one, totally support the right to hunt,
although I do take issue with sloppy hunters that rely
on high-tech gadgets and weapons to get their kill
and have absolutely no appreciation for the life they're
taking. You know, the people who call animals "dumb"
The deer overpopulate because man has eitherQuote:
The deer are so dumb that they would overpopulate to the point they would consume every last source of food and water in the area and then would begin to die off due to starvation. Human induced population controls are what keeps them alive or they would just breed out of control.
fragmented their habitats (suburban sprawl) or
removed their natural predators from the ecosystem
completely. It has nothing to do with the IQ of
the animal (lol).
I find it hilarious, however, that you're calling Deer
dumb because their population tends to exceed
carrying capacity sometimes; while not reflecting on
the current human population.
Hehe. I do like bantering with you but your posts are soooo annoying. I know you explained why they appear to be from a newspaper column but could you please at least attempt to fill up the window just a bit?
Anyways I've said enough and we are getting off the topic a bit here. We could banter back and forth all day and end up in the same place so why do it other than it's fun. Back to the issue I really feel that the 'survey' is mathematically flawed.
I have to agree with that. I hate it when people go "hunting" with all the fancy little gadgets that technology brings us. What is the challenge of that? You call that hunting?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Give me a break...
The Indians used to hunt with nothing more than a bow and some arrows, and wearing nothing but a loincloth. Now people are using high-powered sniper rifles with customized scopes, tree stands, full-camo, and the whole works. Then they call deer dumb because the people are too far away for them to detect the danger in time (though people still miss all the time) and escape. If you want to hunt for real, ditch the modern crap, and go stalking some deer trying to make as little noise as possible, and see how easy it is.
I bet you 2-1 that the deer detects you long before you're able to line up a good shot with a bow and arrows.
What a lazy bunch of people the modern age has brought us...
I agree totally. :DQuote:
The deer overpopulate because man has either
fragmented their habitats (suburban sprawl) or
removed their natural predators from the ecosystem
completely. It has nothing to do with the IQ of
the animal (lol).
True, very true...Quote:
I find it hilarious, however, that you're calling Deer
dumb because their population tends to exceed
carrying capacity sometimes; while not reflecting on
the current human population.
Humans tend to group together in one place, and before long, the population has grown to way too more than the piece of land that was selected can support, resulting in all sorts of issues and problems.
I never mentioned how I hunt in any of my posts. You assumed I use sniper scopes and land mines to kill my prey.Quote:
The Indians used to hunt with nothing more than a bow and some arrows, and wearing nothing but a loincloth. Now people are using high-powered sniper rifles with customized scopes, tree stands, full-camo, and the whole works. Then they call deer dumb because the people are too far away for them to detect the danger in time (though people still miss all the time) and escape. If you want to hunt for real, ditch the modern crap, and go stalking some deer trying to make as little noise as possible, and see how easy it is.
I bet you 2-1 that the deer detects you long before you're able to line up a good shot with a bow and arrows
'Hunting' is far more adventurous when you don't rely on the gadgets. I stand by my statement that deer are pretty dumb animals. Cows certainly come in first as the dumbest of them all. Good eating in both cases, though.
But, whatever, back to the survey.
Actually, I wasn't really talking about you at all. I was speaking (typing) in a general sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
I know about the way most Americans hunt, and I was just expressing my own feelings on that subject.
And just the thought of hunting (or trying to hunt) a deer with a land mine made me CUAL (Crack-Up-And-Laugh). Hahaha, made my own acronym...
EDIT: But if the shoe fits, wear it... :p
This post is dedicated to Bubba.
Some Hunter-Gatherer societies (The San) hunt through persistence hunting, which is thought to be the oldest method used to hunt. Basically they chase their prey until their prey becomes too exhausted to run any further and collapses. Then they stab it with a spear say a prayer, and eat it. There's a hypothesis that human features were selected for because they allowed us to endurance run. We can't run as fast as other species, but we can run much further. Less energy is required to move two legs than four, so we can keep it up.
Here's a David Attenborough segment from the documentary Life of Mammals explaining it.
YouTube - Human Mammal, Human Hunter - Attenborough - Life of Mammals - BBC
Now that's awesome.
Hehe. Propaganda much. Exactly the type of books doomentalists like to quote. But no quote? You should quote. Doomentalists love quotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Yeah. And I throw back at you the "regional" argument. just because some fool decides to make a mess of their resources, doesn't mean everyone is or, for that matter, the world resources are shrinking.Quote:
There's plenty of sources regarding overfishing and
soil erosion.
It's one way to put it. Another way is that -- catch this, it's profound -- you probably won't accept anything that is in opposition to your viewpoints as valid.Quote:
But not that it matters; because you probably won't
accept anything that is in opposition to your viewpoints
as valid. You see a pile of fish at your local grocery
store and assume all is well. Your "eyes are open" eh?
You see that's the problem with fundamentalists. Their arguments come back in a full circle to bite them in the face.
But more to the point of your argument. No. Piles of fish tell me little. But thtis is what tells me more:
- Fishing quotas in most industrialized countries with scientific backing that is responsible for government regulated fishing and the protection of species and their numbers.
- Dairy farmers going bankrupt all over Europe because there's a surplus of milk.
- World market prices for farming products being determined by floods, hurricanes, droughts, bad or good seasons and not by scarcity of arable soil.
- etc.
You know, we have a saying around here: The dogs always bark when the caravan is passing.
I got 6.09
*Note to self: Conquer Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and Mercury*
*P.S. conquer them before they are denounced from planets*
I don't see why we have to group every single thing. Some resources are decreasing other are increasing. Oil for example is decreasing, if you consider that it is not created as fast as we consume it.
Will humans decrease all the resources? I am not a foreteller. It depends on a lot of things. I always think that sudden deaths are more likely than slow deaths. Slowly decreasing our resources until we die is something I don't think we will do. Humans adapt. And they adapt well. And when they adapt they adapt some more. If water is reduced in critical levels we won't keep taking a bath everyday... We will also strongly focus on using the ocean water, gathering more rain water etc etc. The same that we suppose to do when we run out of oil. There are ways. And lets not forget that technology focuses more and more on low-resources. They could care less about the environment, but recourses cost.
What are my feeling about fanatic environmentalists? I might laugh at them because I am a bad person, but I find them doing far more good than bad. The ideal is to have non-fanatic people that are as "passionate" as necessary. Because that is simply impossible, you should have fanatics in both sides to achieve a balance. The one-sided thing is what causes major problems. And the scale is towards high-consuming today and not caring about that much about the environment. Even if people cannot actually do any harm to it, which I doubt, the truth is that they simply don't really care that much.
I don't say don't drive your car because of pollution, but if we had a way to create a more efficient non-high polluting car, I would support it. The idea that we should protect the environment is obvious.
Well I personally don't think humans can run out of resources, simply because everything on Earth is an available resource, even the waste, if you can find a use for it. To completely deplete any resources means to tear the planet asunder. Although, we can certainly decrease all resources -- that's what using them means.
I managed 1.35 (of course not all answers are true). I guess a big assumption is that the person lives in a house in the first place. I wonder what would be the footprint of a homeless guy whose entire livelyhood comes from recycling the wastes of others?...Quote:
Just blow away the cookie file for that site if you want to play again.
The lowest I've managed is 1.36
If a score <1 is in fact impossible on that site, then it's a scam.
Some of the questions seem somewhat poor: e.g "do you regularly turn off lights and not leave appliances on standby?" - so if I do the former but not the latter?
Funny...
It claims that I'm living like we have 2.35 planets to support us, and that is utterly ridiculous.
I'm below poverty level right now in terms of how much money I have, and don't use up that much of energy. A ridiculous calculation, and I gave it truthful answers too...
I would think it's more a reflection on world populationQuote:
Originally Posted by Programmer_P
than it is on one's specific lifestyle. There are so many
people that even if you were to live just with the essentials,
there still wouldn't be enough to go around to support
everybody equally.
Thankfully, however, 82% of the world's population live
in less-developed countries and the other 18% have
more than their fair share.
Yes. It's exactly the type of books we like to quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Science books written by scientists who have done
research.
And yet, it's still more literature than what you can come
up with. Instead you cherry pick fragments of information
you personally observe (or misinterpret; or just make up
on the spot) and assume that it's indicative of healthy,
responsible resource usage.
I would hardly call Jared Diamond's books propaganda.
They're well-sourced history books and have received
numerous positive reviews and awards from both literary
and scientific organizations. Jared Diamond is an actual
scientist and a well respected professor of Geography at
one of the highest-ranked Universities on the planet.
Do you consider Richard Dawkins books propaganda?
Because you should. Simply for the sake of staying
consistent.
How about you offer me some literature so I can have
a chance to call that propaganda. Actually, I won't even
call it propaganda. Depending on the source, I would
probably read it myself and weigh it against other things
I've read instead of just dismissing it simply because it's
in opposition to my current viewpoint. You know, like you
have done. I would actually love to be proven wrong.
When it happens at multiple regions all across the world,Quote:
And I throw back at you the "regional" argument. just because some fool decides to make a mess of their resources, doesn't mean everyone is or, for that matter, the world resources are shrinking.
I would consider that global resource exhaustion.
70% of all the fisheries on the planet are operating above
sustainable levels.
The North China Plains Aquifer, the Saudi Aquifer, and the
Ogallala Aquifer (United States) are all being over pumped.
Absolutely this will have a huge effect on global grain
production.
First of all, Milk isn't a natural resource. In fact, theQuote:
- Dairy farmers going bankrupt all over Europe because there's a surplus of milk.
consumption of it is completely unnatural. But even ignoring
that little bit of biology...
lol. Milk surplus. phew. For a minute I was worried!
The scarcity of arable land is what's causing wealthyQuote:
- World market prices for farming products being determined by floods, hurricanes, droughts, bad or good seasons and not by scarcity of arable soil.
countries to procure land in poor countries in order to
grow food for their own population. That's absolutely
true.
But, hey, here's a quote for you. I love quotes. I never
expected you to actually read that book I gave to you.
So I'll just highlight a passage from the first chapter. I
love quoting. Quoting is fun.
Quote:
From mid-2006 to mid-2008, world prices of wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans roughly tripled, reaching historic highs. It was not until the global economic crisis beginning in 2008 that grain prices receded somewhat. But even then they were still well above the historical level.3
The world has experienced several grain price surges over the last half-century, but none like this. These earlier trends were event-driven—a monsoon failure in India, a severe drought in the Soviet Union, or a crop-shrinking heat wave in the U.S. Midwest. The price surges were temporary, caused by weather-related events that were usually remedied by the next harvest. The record 2006–08 surge in grain prices is different. It is trend-driven. This means that working our way out of this tightening food situation depends on reversing the trends that are causing it, such as soil erosion, falling water tables, and rising carbon emissions.
Wow... maybe I should not have bought a new TV after 10 years? Or maybe I should spend 10 hours a week in a crowded bus instead of 3 hours in my car? Or maybe I should live at "comfortable" 14° room temperature? Or maybe I shouldn't answer surveys from people that make a living based on the fact that I'm supposed to feel guilty?Quote:
You're living as if we had 2.84 planets to support us but we only have one.
Today I heard it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Lactose intolerance is part of mammalian evolution. AmongQuote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
all mammals, lactase (enzymes that break down lactose)
production is reduced after weaning; and among humans
in non-dairy societies, the vast majority of the populations
are lactose intolerant. People that can consume milk can
do so because of a mutation on the chromosome which
controls lactase production.
Interspecies milk consumption is absolutely unnatural because
it doesn't happen anywhere else except among humans.
Milk exists for one purpose only: to feed the young of the
same species.
If there is something worst that an know-it-all, is a know-it-all that distorts the truth in order to produce an argument. And there's too many of those little gremlins around. You just being yet another one of them. I disagree with Bubba. It's not fun to argue with you -- making statements that are technically correct but omit important details, is at the core of intellectual dishonesty. Something that will invariably remove you from any serious debate if you keep doing it.
You not only bring lactose tolerance which have nothing to do with milk being or not being a natural product, but also completely ignore genetic mutation, which is a natural phenomena, to construe a case that milk is not a natural product to human beings.
Milk is a natural product. It comes from nature. It's not man-made. It's natural. End of story!
As for your lactose intolerance rubbish argument, three things:
- By the same account, most farming products today would not be natural because thousands of years of domestication and inter and inbreeding of plants and animals have changed both their genes and our own. No doubt our wheat today would poison a paleolithic man. And their wheat then would probably poison us today.
- Lactose intolerance is not dominant across the globe, if we exclude China.
- Lactose intolerance on these countries only affects unprocessed milk. Milk derived products are consumed (and have been consumed by humans for longer than milk itself) without concern, even on these countries or regions. Sicily, for instance, has some of the most famous sheep cheese of Italy. People that are intolerant to cheese or chocolate suffer from pathological lactose intolerance and not the recessive genetic form. And Pathological Lactose Intolerance, as the name suggests, has absolutely nothing to do with human adaptation to milk. It's a condition.
I'm not a know-it-all. I know nothing about programming (anymore) or technology or linux or any of that stuff. I don't offer (many) opinions on politics & such either. But I do formally study Biology (Ecology) and am deeply interested in it. When the opportunity arises, I chime in on topics that relate to it. I mean, the entire reason why I decided to go to college was so I could argue with people on the internet. I'm not going to let my education go to waste.Quote:
If there is something worst that an know-it-all
I'm not being dishonest at all. I speak what I know. I'm not purposely omitting details. If there are other details, I may not know what they are. Feel free to enlighten me. Seriously. I want to know more stuff. I'm completely fine acknowledging I don't have all the facts about everything.Quote:
making statements that are technically correct but omit important details, is at the core of intellectual dishonesty. Something that will invariably remove you from any serious debate if you keep doing it.
The problem is, however, is that a lot of the stuff others, such as your self, have said can't even be considered "technically correct." A lot of it is illogical, anecdotal, ill-supported assertions and generalizations. Most of my replies have been in response to these. You even called me a "Doomentalist!" That itself shows your bias against people of the opposing viewpoint. Argue however you wish; but don't think for a second that your methods lend themselves well to "serious debate."
I never said milk itself was unnatural. I said interspecies consumption of it is; as well as its continued consumption long after one has been weened. The purpose of milk is to provide nourishment for one's own offspring during the period in which they're unable to procure food for themselves. That's why it exists. It doesn't matter that some humans are capable of consuming it; the milk isn't intended or required for them. Lactose tolerance was a region-specific adaptation which offered a slight advantage over the norm. The fact that people outside of those regions (such as urbanites) continue to consume it is absolutely unnecessary and unnatural. What I did say was that milk wasn't a natural resource. However, I will admit I was wrong and say that it is indeed a natural resource. Even though it isn't essential and could easily be disregarded by most of humanity. It doesn't need to be a resource.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
So we're gong to exclude groups of people simply to satisfy your argument. I don't know what you have against the Chinese people, man; but they're humans, too! They should be included in any global statistic!Quote:
- Lactose intolerance is not dominant across the globe, if we exclude China.
Talk about "distorting" truths.
"Hey guys! If we choose to not count 1/6 of the global population, the numbers will lend themselves better to my argument!"
I don't care about milk anymore. It's stupid. You can have the milk argument! Congratulations. Score one for you. Still doesn't change the fact that resources are being depleted rapidly and people are living far above the carrying capacity of the planet.
I'm at 4.42 planets, and they didn't even ask me about the extra beer fridge, or the boats and jetski. Thing is, I'm not changing a darned thing.
I don't even recycle anymore since they eliminated the "Comingled" bin. The hell if I'm going to keep 10 different cans in my house to sort that crap.
To wet my cornflakes in the morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Oh man don't even get me started on corn production.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Good...don't get me started on it either since I've worked on both sides of that industry....on the farm that grows it and at the processing plant that converts it to be used in..um...just about everything you touch.Quote:
Oh man don't even get me started on corn production.
God creates teosinte. God creates man. Man creates corn. Corn kills man.
Take it easy, Ian.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
I just watched it recently. One of the best movies ever.
The special effects have held up amazingly well.