If everyone lived like you, how many planets would we need?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
With two to three billion of the world's people without running water or electricity and over one billion in poverty, ever wonder exactly how much of planet Earth is required if everyone lived like you?



Well now you can find out!



http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp



My results:



Quote:



TOTAL FOOTPRINT 10 [acres]



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 2.2 PLANETS.





«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 55
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Wow. Is 4.9 planets bad?



  • Reply 2 of 55
    ibrowseibrowse Posts: 1,749member
    2.6
  • Reply 3 of 55
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    FOOD

    2.2

    MOBILITY

    1.7

    HOUSING

    1.7

    GOODS/SERVICES

    2.5

    TOTAL FOOTPRINT

    8



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

    WORLDWIDE, THERE EXISTS 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.



    IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.8 PLANETS TO LIVE ON



    this does not calcolate the previous stuff... like i have no electical crap except the mac, or that i have lived nn yeas in south america and europe ... so i take that 1.8 as if i would have lived HERE all my life.
  • Reply 4 of 55
    jesperasjesperas Posts: 524member
    5.8 planets.



  • Reply 5 of 55
    xionjaxionja Posts: 504member
    2.8 worlds. . . gulp.
  • Reply 6 of 55
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    2.1



    but, the quantity of planets required is one thing...

    (extrasolar planet total is over 100 known worlds now)

    i'd rather we get the quality of planets improved, too.



    and not nearly enough recycling questions, which car/suv, etc.
  • Reply 7 of 55
    1.8 planets. I guess not owning a car and living in a flat helps somewhat?! Unfortunately I'm not even sure our 1 planet is up to the task of managing what it used to. I bet the standard of what 1 planet has been equal to has changed over time...
  • Reply 8 of 55
    4.8



    Bastard French Judge gave me lower marks.







    FOOD

    3.7



    MOBILITY

    1.2



    SHELTER

    8.2



    GOODS/SERVICES

    8.4



    FRENCH JUDGE:

    -0.3



    TOTAL FOOTPRINT

    22
  • Reply 9 of 55
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Here's the FAQ for the quiz.



    Some interesting highlights:



    Quote:



    How accurate is the Footprint Quiz?



    We consistently use conservative estimates in Footprint calculations. As a result they tend to underestimate human demand on nature. Also, as discussed under "pollution and toxics," various aspects for which data is scarce are not yet included in footprints, making them appear smaller than they really are.



    Our most accurate and comprehensive Footprint accounts are the national ones, since consumption and trade flows are best documented at the national level. Thereby, national Footprints can assess the demand on nature by all sectors of an economy, as well as the Footprint of the nation's consumption (link to Footprint Methodology Flowchart coming soon). The quiz computes your personal Footprint based on data from the national consumption Footprint. Although the quiz is not flexible enough to account for all possible lifestyles and circumstances, the 15 questions provide a reasonable estimate for most people. Adjusting your entries or playing with the "reduce your footprint" calculator on the results page of the Footprint Quiz will show how lifestyle changes affect the Footprint size.



    Here is exactly how they calculate it.



    Highlights:



    Quote:

    Ecological Footprint calculations are based on five assumptions:



    1. It is possible to keep track of most of the resources people consume and many of the wastes people generate. Much of that information can be found in existing official statistics.

    2. Most of these resource and waste flows can be converted into the biologically productive area that is required to maintain these flows.

    3. These different areas can be expressed in the same unit (hectares or acres) once they are scaled proportionally to their biomass productivity. In other words, each particular acre can be translated to an equivalent area of world-average land productivity.

    4. Since these areas stand for mutually exclusive uses, and each standardized acre represents the same amount of biomass productivity, they can be added up to a total?a total representing humanity's demand.

    5. This area for total human demand can be compared with nature's supply of ecological services, since it is also possible to assess the area on the planet that is biologically productive.



    And,



    Quote:

    Conservative Estimates



    The results underestimate human impact and overestimate the available biological capacity by:



    * Counting each area only once, even if the area provides two or more ecological services at once.

    *Choosing the more conservative estimates when in doubt.

    *Including current agricultural practices as if current industrial yields would not cause any significant long-term damage to the soil productivity.

    *Leaving out some human activities for which we have insufficient data.

    *Excluding those activities that systematically erode nature's capacity to regenerate. They consist of:

    ------The uses of materials for which the biosphere has no significant assimilation capacity (e.g. plutonium and other radioactive elements associated with nuclear energy production, polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)).

    ------Processes that irreversibly damage the biosphere (e.g. species extinction, aquifer destruction, deforestation, and desertification).



  • Reply 10 of 55
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    1.9 for me. I'd have expected more.



    I wonder what the mean result would be if this test met global census results: less than or greater than one?
  • Reply 11 of 55
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    This is assanine. This is a perfect example of disconnected, semantical process devoid of any common sense. Oh, and it is from the Earth Day Network. Hmmmm, I wonder what their agenda is?
  • Reply 12 of 55
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    if i don't reproduce kids, i require less space in 50 years than i would do if i had some kids that would have some kids that would have some kids ...
  • Reply 13 of 55
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    If everyone lived like me there wouldn't be 6 billion people in the world.



    And the quiz thing doesn't quite work for me. It just wasn't loading anything up.
  • Reply 14 of 55
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mulattabianca

    if i don't reproduce kids, i require less space in 50 years than i would do if i had some kids that would have some kids that would have some kids ...



    They use averages. People like you are offset by people with three or more children.



    They aren't ignoring it. Here's their take on it.
  • Reply 15 of 55
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This is assanine. This is a perfect example of disconnected, semantical process devoid of any common sense. Oh, and it is from the Earth Day Network. Hmmmm, I wonder what their agenda is?



    Probably conservation.



    Duh!
  • Reply 16 of 55
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    Probably conservation.





    Yea, SDW2001, stop blasting those who are conservative.
  • Reply 17 of 55
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    If everyone lived like me there wouldn't be 6 billion people in the world.



    And the quiz thing doesn't quite work for me. It just wasn't loading anything up.




    neither did for me. click on the low bandwidth thingy.
  • Reply 18 of 55
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Yea, SDW2001, stop blasting those who are conservative.



    Exactly.



  • Reply 19 of 55
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    CATEGORY ACRES

    FOOD 4.2

    MOBILITY 1.7

    SHELTER 2.5

    GOODS/SERVICES 3

    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.





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



    Damn, 4.2 acres of food... i eat meat pdts at least twice a week but we are talking fish or foul not some free roaming head of cattle... bow before the free roaming head of cattle...





    ah well, anybody take advantage of the ben and jerry free ice cream cone today? (does that still happen?)



    mmm free roaming cattle and ice cream....



    bruce
  • Reply 20 of 55
    ibrowseibrowse Posts: 1,749member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This is assanine. This is a perfect example of disconnected, semantical process devoid of any common sense. Oh, and it is from the Earth Day Network. Hmmmm, I wonder what their agenda is?



    Those bastards! I bet they don't speed up when bunny rabbits cross the road in front of them either! The nerve of some people.
Sign In or Register to comment.