Eco-quiz

I originally thought the site I linked might be of some interest and a bit of fun with a serious underlying message. If you are interested in the link please send me a d-mail.

This message was edited Mar 10, 2006 11:15 PM

It is a good quiz to provide an overall snapshot of a single individual's impact on the earth's resources. It is not precise, of course and after taking it, the results are naturally subject to ecological plea-bargaining.

If everyone lived as I did, we would need 4.1 planets. I was surprised. I don't eat meat, don't own a car, rely on public transportion for my few trips out of town, ride a bicycle or walk almost all the time except when riding with an occasional visitor.

The problem with the results for my lifestyle, I think is that I live alone in a very cold climate. What the quiz doesn't account for is that I work from home and therefore do not require the heat and other energy resources of the workplace and I do not buy very much new "stuff." That should shave a planet or so off my results, no?

Wayne

Hi Baa, I had a go on it and need 1.3 planets. There was a bit of guess-work as I don't know my house size in sq meters or how many litres my car uses. I'm afraid I don't think in metric yet - will I ever? I do try to grow most of my own fruit and veg, walk to the local shops, not use the dryer when I can hang the clothes outside, and recycle glass, plastic, metal, paper, and take my old clothes to the local charity shop. We have mainly energy saving light bulbs, and I try not to leave electrical equipment on standby. So I am trying to do my bit to save the planet.

I suppose there are quite a lot more things I could do, like going vegetarian and buying more second hand things, installing solar panels etc.

WHAT DOES EVERYONE ELSE DO TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY?

Pat

Well they didn't ask about second hand purchasing as far as I could tell. If I choose all the lowest energy choices I came up with one planet. But if I actually said my house is 2700 sq ft and it has electricity then suddenly my resouces for my house takes 1.2 acres???
Even though the house is not nearly on so much land. And my plant use doubled. This is keeping all other choices level.

The only way I seemed to get below is to not drive (I live down the street from work and don't drive usually), be a vegan (have tried many times but become ill from anemia) and have the electricity turned off (not likely for a computer professional who lives in a place that has winter).

Do the best I can I suppose.

Patbarr, I had trouble with the Kilometres to litres thing too, when I was at school we had to learn both systems and of course my elders were all used to imperial so I tend to think in that. Convert me.com was where I got my fuel consumption figure from.

I eat meat and I own a car so I was expecting to be using a lot of planets even though my mileage has more than halved since I started working from home. I agree it is just a snapshot and doesn't take everything into account.

Hampshire county council has a good recycling scheme so we have the luxury of not having to use mileage to recycle paper/plastic/tins etc, only glass and the local supermarket has bins there for that and things like tin foil too. I have a tendancy become attached to clothes so favourite shirts tend to live on as gardening/lounging around attire. Smart clothes that aren't ever going to be very comfortable go onto charity shops as do other things that are still useful. Old clothing can be used as a hanging basket liner and we've used old sheets as a weed barrier too, I don't knit well so unravelling a jumper for the wool is one of the things I don't do, perhaps I could unravel a hole riddled jumper and give the wool to the charity shop? Hmmmm............

The hens are pretty good at recycling food waste although there's precious little of that. I use food containers like yoghurt pots for seed sowing/cuttings, old crockery for pot drainage and the odd bent piece of cutlery as seed tools. Odd pretty bits of ribbon, paper, old cards, string etc is saved up because I'm 'going to make something with that'. For years I kept bits of greaseproof paper butter comes in, to use to grease or line pans, now they come in that foil stuff.

My mothers partner is far worse in keeping things, he made the hen and duck huts out of old tea chests covered in felt and the feed bin is made from doors covered with lino. Even their feeders are made from old plastic tubs, their pond an old kiddies sand pit and water holders are a washing up bowl and plant pot holder. He even made carnival costumes out of all kinds or odd bits, if I did out the photos I'll post a couple.

I'll shut up now, I'm beginning to sound like a rag and bone man! *G*

Oh yes, one last thing, gardening magazines and catalogues with lots of plant pictures makes excellent wrapping paper for gardening friends and family. Obviously it works with other types of glossies too so you can theme your wrapping paper. :)

Whew, mine scored 21 acres. Biggest hits are living alone, living remote and driving alone everywhere.

Holy Smokes, we require 4.2 planets....that's disgusting. I really thought we were pretty squared away and alas...NOT!

crestfallen,
don

Some good ideas Baa. I've tried old wool jumpers as hanging basket liners and they are quite good moisture retainers.

My Dad used to make hen huts out of left over bits and pieces. He never threw any wood or anything which could come in handy away. Mum was the same she even used to take zips and buttons off clothes she was getting rid of to use again. I cleared out some drawers in the attic of old clothes acouple of weeks ago, and when I went shopping saw that half the stuff was back in fashion, especially the waistcoats and tank tops!

I just found this thread. My footprint is a little below normal for living in the United States (almost the highest impact country in the world). Transportation and heating are my biggest contributors. And actually, those have quite a bit more impact than eating animal products do (although I limit that also).

I've learned quite a bit about the Ecological Footprint model in school, and I read the book describing it by the man who invented the idea. The reason a big house makes your footprint go up is all the resources it takes to build and maintain your household. The footprint considers all natural resources you use to maintain your lifestyle: building materials, energy, food, goods, etc. and the land (and sea) it takes to produce the materials, and the land it takes to detoxify the byproducts. Therefore, a wood house needs lumber land, etc, etc, rather than just the property it sits upon.

I see it very much as an international justice issue, too. Obviously we only have one earth, so all the extra resources used by developed countries end up impacting developing countries disproportionally. Yes, calculators such as these aren't very accurate and can vary incredibly depending on what questions they ask you (mine can range from 9 to 30). But I think it's an effective tool to get people thinking about resource consumption, sustainability, and justice.

We are the worst of all, even worse than darius. If everyone lived like us, we'd need 5.4 planets!!! Apparently, the worst thing is the size of our house. But I think we should get some credit for walking around in a house that barely gets about 62 degrees in the winter. We sleep at about 58 degrees. Another negative is that we live in a rural region with mountains and do little highway driving, so gas mileage is low, and the medical specialists, the organic grocery, the pediatric dentist...they are all 50 miles away. The way the quiz is set up, I think we would have gotten a better score if we had more than 1 kid, but that doesn't make sense. We could do better. I think the worst thing I do is use lots of hot water for laundry and dishes. Propane heats our water.

Obviously it would be best for the earth if all human habitation were concentrated in large centers immediately surrounded by food-growing belts which could supply all the inhabitants' needs for food. OR better yet, it would be best for the planet if all humans would just go elsewhere and stop leaving footprints all over the lovely green Earth. A mass exodus of humans from the planet! Now, that would be eco-friendly.

missgarney, your stats in Cullowhee are not very different than mine (posted above) while I was living in Hayesville recently.

Welcome to DG!

Is living in the North an automatic eco-footprint punishment? Harsh.

Was eating meat a negative or a postive on the test? It was a negative, right? On what basis?

The FAQ provides an answer but no facts to support it. It uses a classic switch technique. It presents the opposing view briefly and then immediately shoots it down using a potential fear rather than a reality.

It is a fact that animals can better utilize land that can't be farmed. Think of areas with vast range country like western North Dakota and Montana in the US, Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada, the Patagonia region of Argentina. Food can best be produced there by means of animal meat. A hamburger may provide a protein source that could easily leave less of a negative eco-footprint than a soy-burger.

So is the survey based on fact or fiction? Statistics or politics? Logic or leanings?

I garden organically by choice. I think it is much superior. I think about my footprint every day and try to reduce it in as logical way as possible.

What is your opinion? Will a person with a tatoo, a nose ring, and a latte that has never grown a garden and then condemns meat eaters really ever appeal to the masses to make an effort to leave less of a footprint?

It's not based on fact or fiction, statistics or politics, or logistics or leanings. It's a model. It's a way of thinking about our lifestyles and consumption. All of our raw materials are found naturally, so it follows that increasing consumption has a larger impact on the earth. As with any model, however, it doesn't claim to be perfect and all-inclusive. It's a tool, and is quite useful and fascinating in my opinion, if used correctly.

If you truly are interested in learning about the model rather than putting it down, you can check out the book written by the man that developed the model in the first place. He explains how he came up with his footprint calculations in some detail. The book is called Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing the Human Impact on the Earth, by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees (New Society Publishers, 1996).

Another thing I didn't get a break on is the fact that my husband and I have only one child and that's all we're ever going to have. I think my footprint should be cut in half!

danak,
"It's a model. It's a way of thinking about our lifestyles and consumption."

The concept of gettting people to think is great. I am in total agreement. If I didn't care about the planet and reducing consumption I would have skipped this thread completely.

Here is the key point: Folks like Mathis Wackernagel preach to the choir. They do not appeal to nor do they impact the masses (the "average" consumer).

If person #1 is already using a composting toilet, has a gray water system, lives off the grid, drives a car that burns french fry grease (or better yet, only uses a bike), and eats only produce from his own garden, then great!

Do we really need to appeal to person #1 who has -- let's say a .5 acre footprint?

Let's say person #2 is that non-recycling, huge SUV driving, meat-eating typical target. He has a footprint of 20.

What will have more impact on the environment? Appealing to #2 to drop 5 acres, or appealing to #1 to drop .01 acres? The answer should be obvious.

When a model immediately indicates that it contains a glaring flaw and contains an unsupported philosophy rather than fact, it turns off the "average" consumer. He throws out the rest of the information because it just sounds like "hippy-speak" or those "wacko environmentalists" talking.

My goodness what have we done?! The word environmentalist is now usually used by the average consumer along with the word wacko! As soon as the messge appeals to the average consumer and makes it easier for him/her to reduce the footprint, the sooner that person will do it.

The only truly sustainable thing in our culture is something that will make a profit for someone."

This message was edited Mar 9, 2006 11:25 AM

Yes, I agree that it speaks to the choir, as does almost any "environmentalist"-type thing. But it is something I think about regularly when I make choices in my life. I think the idea is helpful. Maybe it would capture some on-the-fence people as well. And I certainly hope it would get the attention of anyone who cares about social justice.

I'm a student of Environmental Studies and am interested in the worlds of Political Ecology and Environmental Toxicology. I think that linking environmental health to human health is another area that can get the attention of the non-environmentalist type, and it's one of the reasons I feel strongly about the health of the environment. Everyone wants to be healthy and wants their children to be healthy. But already we're doing things that impact health (my paper, for example, is on the effects of toxins in breast milk). It's an interesting thing to examine and sure gets lots of questions whenever it's brought up-- by all kinds of people!

It is up too each individual (everyone in this country at least) as to how they want to live, work etc.... I want my children & grandchildren (ok there are a few) to have an earth that they truly enjoy .... & at the same time I am thankfull That I have been permitted to see soo much of the world in the pristine condition that I have found it.

Dyson, probably not as pristine as you imagine, LOL. But certainly better than what they will inherit.

True around here - but some of the sites I was fourtunate enough to visit in Alaska were truly pristine.

Ahh, I'm envious.

Darius - I called they people w/the land and house for sale (the 27 acres) unfortunetley Not Good w/the price that they are asking.

This message was edited Mar 10, 2006 2:36 AM

Ooops, too bad. But, Thanks for asking!

danak:

The thought of toxins in breast milk scared me when I had my baby. I read that exposure to sun, through the action of Vitamin D, could cause transport of dioxin or PCBs out of one's fat stores into the bloodstream and thence into one's breast milk. So until my baby was weaned at nearly two years old, I wouldn't go out into the sun!

I read that Dutch women had the highest concentration of these toxins in their breast milk...so I got to thinking, what about their cows? I stopped eating Edam and Gouda and other Dutch cheeses.

I like Jeff's concept whereas: Getting 100 million people to make small incremental changes will give more result than a few people going over the edge fanatically will. My own path of eco awareness has been a slow one. ....but one small step lights the path for another one.

missgarney,
Unfortunately there are toxins in most of the food we eat that is grown commercially. I guess that is why we are so interested in learning from each other on organic solutions.

danak,
Every fence-rider that starts thinking about the choices, at least will have the chance of making a few better decisions, right? It is sure a start. It may not be a long-term solution, but at least it won't hurt.

As far as linking health to the environment, it is an idea...but people won't even quit smoking for the sake of their health. It will be quite a task indeed.

To be more successful, there are several disconnects that need to be made in the eco-footprint message:

**I would still like to see a dramatic disconnect between being a vegan and being environmentally concious and reducing your ecofootprint. Linking the two will continue to send the wrong message to the average Joe and the fence-rider. Connecting a vegan agenda to reducing the ecofootprint is to assure failure.

**Another important disconnect is to get rid of Hollywood and the music industry from any and every plan to promote conservation. Today's star is tomorrow's has-been.

**Disconnect USA bashing from the message. Connecting politics to conservation always will result in polarization and turning off the masses. Besides, anyone who regularly travels outside of the USA and Canada is usually shocked by how most other nations seem to be actually worse than the USA when it comes to conservation (if you take into account what is being produced.)

**Disconnect the hippy from the conservation message. Inventors and engineers need to start making products that make it easier to conserve than it is to waste. Successful business people need to start linking environmental benefits and conservation to profit.

Some good news on toxins in breast milk: breast milk contains ingredients that can counteract some of the toxic effects. It's still better to breast feed BY FAR! Unless perhaps you've had some extremely high occupational exposure or something. The Dutch do have slightly higher levels than the average US resident, but not by a whole lot. Good for you for breastfeeding for so long! That increases the corrective effects of the PCBs I've been studying. :)

The bad news is, however, that organic farming now doesn't reduce the persistant toxins such as PCBs, dioxins, and DDT (although indeed it decreases other toxins from pesticides). These are found in the environment globally, probably having been manufactured even decades ago but persisting even now. They're spread in the atmosphere and have found their way into the food chain. It's probably impossible to find even organic milk that's free of DDT, for example.

I still believe in the link between environmental health and human health. Perhaps the message is lost on people such as smokers, but I know a lot of people who care deeply about the health of themselves and their children (I get a LOT of questions about toxins in breast milk, for example). Also, the fact that environmental exposure occurs involuntarily tends to make people less comfortable with the exposure than something they choose, such as smoking.

Also, I think your problems with the footprint message, JQ, are in part due to your interpretation. If you look at the calculations, you'll see that transportation is a larger part of the footprint than diet. It's also one of the reasons the US has higher footprints. There's nothing in the calculations that target anyone specifically. There's a reason the US comes out higher, and that's because we're among the biggest consumers. There are proposals, however, to count both production and consumption, and indeed the footprint model only represents the consumers. (But did you know the US still produces one ton of DDT a day and sells it to other countries?) I also know personally several people working in fields such as architecture and economics to drive forward environmental concerns. It's not just a "hippy" thing, whatever you mean by that, and unless people from many disciplines unite to confront the problems, it will not be a progressive effort.

Message to mothers -- yes, they are a group that will generally listen. Good point. They are a great target group.

"…problems with the footprint message" -- danak, it really isn't a "problem" with the message so much as a desire. I have a desire for the maximum amount of people to be affected to the maximum amount by an appealing and practical conservation message.

US export of DDT -- It is a fact. I saw it being sold in shops in Brazil. Wonderful, right? Export DDT. Import bananas with toxins. You'll note on other threads that I freely and frequently bash the herbicide and pesticide industry (petro-chemical industry). These companies are filled with lying scum isolated by worse lying scum (attorneys that protect them). It is not about a conspiracy. It is about greed. But, danak, do you think that the Swiss, Germans, French, Chinese, and other nations don't do these things? Do you see why the USA bashing becomes somewhat irrelevant and also serves to kill the message to USA citizens?

It's not just a "hippy" thing – I know that. You know that. But does the average Joe know that? That is my point. Why do so many people in the USA associate conservation and concern about an ecofootprint with out-of-touch “hippy” concepts or “wacko environmentalists?” One of the quickest ways to turn people off is to associate the message of conservation with what they consider extreme ideologies (e.g., no meat eating). That is why I suggested the various “disconnects” above.

Think about this. Maybe, just maybe a person accused of being an old hippy wrote this message. (sly grin)

JefeQuicktech, we ARE on the same wave-length!

Yes, it looks like we actually are on similar wavelengths too. I doubt, however, if there can be as single model that appeals to everyone. The ecological footprint model is about consumption. It's not about USA-bashing, but it points out that Americans consume a lot (which we do). So that's why there are numerous models, so that hopefully there's one that each person can identify with (if they have an open enough mind to hear it in the first place). Ecological footprint is a model that makes sense to me, which is why I defend it I guess. :) Obviously I don't waste my time "preaching" it to people who would find it offensive. I like linking environmental issues to human health, because I've found that to be a way to reach some people who otherwise don't see the environment as an issue. I also have written papers that evaluate Biblical references to the earth, many of which support environmental concerns.

Now I feel compelled to look further into this. It's always been an interest to me. I wonder if I could even turn it into a thesis: determining different ways of introducing environmental ideas to appeal to different types of people? Hmm, I'll have to think about that one...


This message was edited Mar 11, 2006 1:42 PM

That's interesting danak.

I often notice a large cluster of trash on pick up day. ....so much more might be done there. Of course it could get to the other extreme like me. I normally have so little that $40 a month would be rediculous to pay...plus having a big lumbering truck come down my less traveled road every week.

I find as I have gotten older and less interested in expansion of materials [actually desirous of simplifing] that I have become more enviromentially aware.

I'm not sure just what channels would open more eyes.........money ?, conscience?, duty?, necessity?, force?, rewarding experiences?.

I think money would be a big one! At least there already are monetary incentives for some "green" practices, at least in some areas, such as buying a hybrid car for example. I think money could become bigger in the future, as/if necessity begins to play a larger role.

(Edited for typo.)

This message was edited Mar 11, 2006 1:43 PM

The non-green lifestyle has to become something to despise; it has to to look ugly, stupid, and extremely "non-cool"; it should be associated with everything young people reject and result in fewer dates with the opposite sex. Then the NEXT generation will be green.