How Big Is Your Eco-Footprint

[JimC]

4.17

I thought it would be lower!

And they didn't even look at my gin consumption

[mistermack]

2.08. Not that i give a toss.

Stupid quiz anyway. The important question wasn't asked, which makes the quiz stupid, pointless and worthless.

How many children have you had? Nothing else in that survey is actually relevant to the planet, in comparison to that.

[Hermit]

The important question wasn't asked, which makes the quiz stupid, pointless and worthless.

How many children have you had? Nothing else in that survey is actually relevant to the planet, in comparison to that.

Crap. A subsistence farmer with 12 children, no electricity, an ox for transport and for farming and so on has less of a footprint than a childless person living in air-conditioned comfort and travels from conference to conference in his private jet. Lifestyle matters.

[mistermack]

The important question wasn't asked, which makes the quiz stupid, pointless and worthless.

How many children have you had? Nothing else in that survey is actually relevant to the planet, in comparison to that.

Crap. A subsistence farmer with 12 children, no electricity, an ox for transport and for farming and so on has less of a footprint than a childless person living in air-conditioned comfort and travels from conference to conference in his private jet. Lifestyle matters.

No, that's crap. The childless person's footprint ceases with his death. The one with 12 children's footprint will be expanding for the next thousand years.

[SteveB]

Mine was 3.34 Earths.

No children either and not planning on any.

[Hermit]

The important question wasn't asked, which makes the quiz stupid, pointless and worthless.

How many children have you had? Nothing else in that survey is actually relevant to the planet, in comparison to that.

Crap. A subsistence farmer with 12 children, no electricity, an ox for transport and for farming and so on has less of a footprint than a childless person living in air-conditioned comfort and travels from conference to conference in his private jet. Lifestyle matters.

No, that's crap. The childless person's footprint ceases with his death.

Not necessarily. Zaharie Ahmad Shah's daily carbon footprint has increased by many multiples since he presumably died five weeks ago, but that totally pales into insignificance when compared to the likes of Henry Ford and oil bosses. They were the instigators for the destruction of public transport infrastructures all over the USA.

The one with 12 children's footprint will be expanding for the next thousand years.

Actually, the children, assuming they survive long enough, are no more nor less responsible for their own footprint than their parent.

[JimC]

I agree partially with mistermack, in the sense that the number of offspring should be a factor in eco-footprint calculations, perhaps only if more than two (i.e. replacement). But Hermit's point also remains, that it takes a very large number of third world peasants to equal the footprint of a wealthy westerner...

[FBM]

1.94. Probably would be less if I could have gotten credit for using waste veggie oil for diesel fuel in warm weather. Which reminds me that it's time to start looking for another supplier...

[cronus]

I agree partially with mistermack, in the sense that the number of offspring should be a factor in eco-footprint calculations, perhaps only if more than two (i.e. replacement). But Hermit's point also remains, that it takes a very large number of third world peasants to equal the footprint of a wealthy westerner...

Since we lack knowledge of future demographics and the change required to offset 'crisis/civilization collapse' is generational, best to ignore the negligible impact of future generations on the now?....a superfluous distraction with a wide variance of outcomes, looks like we settled Mars and got ourselves another planet after dealing with the climate change issues here?

[mistermack]

I agree partially with mistermack, in the sense that the number of offspring should be a factor in eco-footprint calculations, perhaps only if more than two (i.e. replacement). But Hermit's point also remains, that it takes a very large number of third world peasants to equal the footprint of a wealthy westerner...

I'm surprised. As a mathematician, it's not good maths to discount negative quantities, as if they have no effect.
Having no kids isn't the same as having two.

And third world peasants can easily become first world consumers and drivers and polluters, within one generation. Like hundreds of millions have, in China and India.

[Blind groper]

3.6

But it is all bullshit, anyway.
In my own case, I reported a yard of 1.8 hectares, and I bet that was the main reason for my low score. What the question did not ask was what I did with my yard. In fact, most of it is regenerating rain forest (which I encourage and protect), which would probably have given me a negative score in an honest test.

The ecological footprint measure is horribly misleading.

[mistermack]

I still think the quiz is meaningless, without factoring in your reproduction.

You can live like a hermit, for all of your life, and have no effect at all on the environment, but a minute drop of semen can produce someone who will undo all of that.
And of course, you feed, house and educate them, and drive them all over the fuckin place. And buy them dogs and cats.

If nobody reproduced, the planet would be back to nature in one generation.

[Blind groper]

On reproduction and population.

If I was a mass murderer, would that give me a better score?

[Scott1328]

I am American and I scored 7.0 goddammit. I'd've scored higher if the damn spouse hadn't bought that silly hybrid.

[Drewish]

7.29 Earths. I am the problem