Myfootprint.org. What do you think of this survey?

This is an interesting web site. You take a quick and easy survey to see how much resources your life style consumes. At the conculsion of the survey there is an estimate of how many planet earth’s would be required if everyone lived with the same resource consumption as you.

Also at the end of the survey there is a link to another page that talks about world population, or the estimated population in the year 2100. The estimated population growth and resource consumption is interesting (maybe even alarming). What concerns me is that it could start a lot people think about limiting family sizes and possibly even euthanasia.

What do you think?

GOD Bless,
John

myfootprint.org

My results:

CATEGORY ACRES

FOOD 4.2

MOBILITY 1.5

SHELTER 7.2

GOODS/SERVICES 7.9

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 21

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 4.7 PLANETS.

I think alot of this is bull cray. People would need 7 planets to live like me??? I eat some meat and cheese, loads of fruits and vegitables. I don’t have a car. I live on campus and walk everywhere.:shrug: I refill my plastic water bottles. I am barley a consumer!

Some of the footprint is from factors you can’t control. For example, your footprint is smaller if you eat food grown locally (less than 200 miles away). Where I live, that is only possible for two months out of the year (because of the climate), and then, only if you’re a vegetarian.

Some factors are omitted. Part of your footprint is based on your usage of home heating fuel. They base this on the size of your home and the climate, but they ignore thermostat settings. If my next door neighbor and I have identical houses, and the neighbor sets the thermostat at 75 degrees, and mine is set at 60 degrees, I think we will have very different fuel usage.

Yeah, but they are multiplying your usage by all the billions who currently have nothing.

Here’s mine:

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 4.7
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 3
GOODS/SERVICES 3.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11

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

          WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST               4.5               BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE                ACRES               PER PERSON.
          http://www.earthday.net/footprint/images/spacer.gif                                    http://www.earthday.net/footprint/images/spacer.gif                              http://www.earthday.net/footprint/images/spacer.gif           

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.6 PLANETS.

Now I don’t drive, I take the bus or walk everywhere. I think they nailed me because I eat a lot of meat and processed food (the preservatives make you live longer).

ADD:
I think I like this calculator better:
climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/

It says I have a CO2 footprint of 0.85 tons as opposed to 7.5 tons for the average American. Just for fun I threw in driving a Honda Civic 20K miles a year and it jumped to 6.3 tons. A Honda Odyssey raised it to 10 tons.

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 3.3

MOBILITY 0.7

SHELTER 0.8

GOODS/SERVICES 1.5

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6.3

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 7.6 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.5 PLANETS.

So start building 2 and a half more planets then!

It seems to me that even people living very modest lives come out with very high footprints using these calculators. Maybe the people who design these calculators think we should all be living in a ditch, with no heat, electricity, or running water (or jobs), never traveling more than walking distance from our ditch, and eating only what edible vegetation we can find growing within 200 feet of the ditch (which in this climate, is nothing for 10 months out of the year).

If that picture is supposed to make us care more about the environment, it is totally the wrong approach.

And if many people in the world currently do live under those conditions, then we should be thinking about what we can do to help them, rather than wishing for everyone in the world to have to live like that.

Carol, EXACTLY.

I think that natural gas is probably more efficent than wood-burning 90% of the time. The output of wood-burning alone is worse than a freeway of cars.

It seems to ignore the fact that in some places its far below 60 degrees for 8 months a year.

I also think stating that processed foods are a blame is SO completely wrong. Mass production has helped feed more people on less land.

Same with meat and cheese. Although in the US we eat more meat than many times in history, cheese and dairy (not just from cows) were HUGE points of consumption. s

It seems like a pretty limited quiz. For example, there is only one question for the goods footprint. I wonder how accurate it can be with so little information.

Ya’ll have to realize that these kinds of “surveys” are designed to get the answer the originator is looking for. Any survey or poll can get pretty much any outcome that you want just by the wording of the questions etc.
That’s why you don’t trust polls and don’t vote according to polls.

It is easy to mock, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong. Of course we would all rather believe that we can keep living as we are because we are rich – compared to the rest of the world and especially compared to human history. And of course, no privileged class has ever willingly given up its advantages, so no one is going to cut back until it is too late.

And if many people in the world currently do live under those conditions, then we should be thinking about what we can do to help them, rather than wishing for everyone in the world to have to live like that.

We could try some stewardship and sacrifice. We could offer our children something besides shortages and wars over resources.

Of course, you are right. I should know this; I’ve read the book “How to Lie With Statistics”. :wink:

These surveys are dripping with vinegar, but no honey, and won’t catch many flies.

It’s ironic that we sometimes have to bop people over the head to get them to understand that bopping us over the head will never work. And I do mean NEVER.

“Rich” and “privileged” are very relative. Yes, we are all rich compared to people in some of the developing nations, but by American standards, I could hardly be described as either “rich” or “privileged”. I’m doing my share, whatever I can; now I’m waiting to see the truly rich and privileged lead the way by changing their lifestyle. Should I hold my breath? Or is it only the “little” people who are supposed to do the sacrificing?

Maybe I should go without food ten months out of the year, for the sake of only eating what can be obtained locally. :smiley:

My results:

Food: 4.2

Mobility: 0

Shelter: 4

Goods/Services: 2.7

Total Footprint: 11

If everyone lived like me we would need 2.4 planets.

Kind of a dumb quiz.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.