What is YOUR ecological footprint?

[Arwon]

I'm at 6 earths. Although the housing questions were totally irrelevant. What in the hell is winter? Why would I want insulation? Why would I weather proof? And why should I be worried about water? I will cut down on meat though. That's a decent suggestion.

I'm also pissed that I'm being grouped with the coal states.

Interestingly, small apartments here are worse for the environment than big old houses. The former need air conditioning, my big old louvred place doesn't. New houses tend to be worse than old houses too.

If you cared enough, you could enter about 45% for renewable sources for your electricity and that'd punt the carbon factor of your electricity use down to about what the NT's grid *actually* is.

 

[Mise]

Judging by the massive scores all the Australians are getting, even those of us who are living in inner city apartments, this is clearly based on specific national factors for carbon, energy, land, water, etc. The data exists to support such a thing in energy, via publicly available IEA data. It presumably exists in some form for things such as land use and water use, too (maybe via the FAO?).

It'd be trivially easy to figure out a per capita use of each type of resource. My guess is the lifestyle entries would then apply fixed ratios modifying those national factors (for example assumed energy use for apartments being half that of a medium home, or whatever).

Boom:

Right, yeah - figures. Useful to figure out your quick wins and comparisons within countries but not so useful to compare to other people in different countries.

 

[Masada]

If you cared enough, you could enter about 45% for renewable sources for your electricity and that'd punt the carbon factor of your electricity use down to about what the NT's grid *actually* is.

Yeah, I suppose. But this is a nice prompt to get a decent solar array installed in my new place. The designs are all mediocre at best for the tropics though. Concrete boxes with tiny windows are not going to work. Heh.

 

[really]

I just moved from an apartment on the edge of the city centre where I walked everywhere to a one off house in the country where I will be car dependent so I guess that won't improve my score.

 

[Zelig]

It is when you have a family to support. You go where the money and jobs are. And the place we live now is the only place we could afford at the time, so we have to wait until out lease is up before moving somewhere else.

So you've chosen priorities.

I wouldn't have kids if it meant downgrading my lifestyle.

And in most jurisdictions, leases don't mean a whole lot. If you break a lease here, landlord's are legally obligated to make a good faith effort to fill the rental (i.e. advertising its availability, accepting applicants), and can only recoup losses for the time period the rental went unfilled. And they can't deny subletters without reasonable grounds, so one could always just sublet it out for the remainder of the term.

I wonder how much national average affects this? I mean if I lived the exact same lifestyle in my native South America, would I end up with a higher or lower carbon footprint (a) in reality and (b) according to the model used on this website? It's worth considering whether moving to the Philippines or Brazil will help the environment long term. It would certainly be viable in a world of teleworking and service sector self-employment.

Well depends what you mean by "exact same lifestyle". How much stuff do you currently import from South America? How much stuff from the UK would you import to South America?

You know. My net footprint might be lower since I commonly teach people my Eco friendly ideas. Any good ideas I pass on effectively decease the net contribution every time they're adopted.

This is probably more effective than actually implementing anything yourself.

 

[Borachio]

The most significant long-term thing you can do to minimize your ecological footprint is not to have any children.

 

[Zelig]

The most significant long-term thing you can do to minimize your ecological footprint is not to have any children.

Not if you train your children to have a net negative ecological footprint by discouraging others from having children.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm.

Shocking news: mass murderers are ecological saints.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's why I mack on women during their prime breeding years. By the time they realize I'll never settle down, they're too old to have kids. Not only am I not having kids, I'm also stymieing other breeders.

This is probably more effective than actually implementing anything yourself.

It has real exponential potential. An incredible number of things in the quiz are asking about stuff I'm already incentivized to do. Drive less? Fly less? Insulate the house? These things are all about my budget, so I'll already try to have savings here. Exceptions might be taking the bus or eating vegetarian, but that's about it.

So, the net social benefit of helping people drive less might not actually be all that high. They'll do it if it's convenient, already.

It's the other things, the educating regarding things that aren't already 'fiscal'. Turning off the lights at work, eating vegetarian(ish), letting our yards grow more wild ... these are all things that can really compound the more people you get 'on board'.

 

[civvver]

Hmm.

Shocking news: mass murderers are ecological saints.

It's funny, historical co2 levels dropped dramatically after Ghengis Khan's invasions because he killed like 30 million people or about a quarter of the world's population off so they stopped breathing which is kind of a small impact I think, but all those farms in russia and asia grew over with trees since the people were dead.

Talking about doing away with suburbs scares me though, it's like agenda 21, let's force everyone into small compartmentalized self contained urban areas where we can easily control them. No one is allowed to own land, the epitome of owning property. Let's all become worker bee drones, cogs in the machine. I want my space, I want my freedoms!

Also isn't this all regional anyway and kind of overblown? The fact is there is space in the united states, so why not use it? The fact is there's plenty of food for chickens and cows here so why not eat them?

 

[classical_hero]

Agenda 21 is an evil piece of work.

 

[El_Machinae]

The fact is there's plenty of food for chickens and cows here so why not eat them?

That's fine, as long as you're not reducing the productivity of people elsewhere. As soon as your cows start to kill my fish, you can see there's a problem, yeah?

 

[Borachio]

And if cows and chickens are eating grain that people could eat, the problem's even worse.

(In fact, I think, chickens convert grain into animal - well, bird - protein really quite efficiently. Cows are extremely inefficient at the same job.)

 

[El_Machinae]

well, that's a weird one. Your cows are bidding up the price of grain, which sucks if you're trying to buy grain but is great if you're growing it. It's hard to say it's outright 'an issue' vs. pollution straying across borders.

 

[Zelig]

Depends what you consider "quite efficient". Chickens are about as inefficient vs. humans eating grain directly as cows are vs. chickens.

For better efficiency you need to look at stuff like tilapia.

 

[Borachio]

I understood the ratio for 1kg of chicken meat was an input of 1.75kg grain (it does vary quite a lot on the quality of the chicken meat, I'll agree).

Whereas for cattle it's about 10kg.

(I think. I'd have to check these figures out, before I get properly argumentative. I'm just relying on an unreliable memory at the moment.)

I mean, look how long it takes for a chicken to reach marketable weight. Six weeks?

While a cow takes 6 to 18 months?

 

[El_Machinae]

You're quite right. Compared to cows, chickens ain't all that bad. As you say, it takes about 2 kg of grain to get 1 kg of chicken, so obviously there's room for improvement, but still 'not bad'. Beef eaters moving to chicken would make a bigger difference than chicken eaters going vegetarian.

 

[Spidernova]

I got 1.5 earths, eating on a budget (lots of pasta and potatoes) and not being able to afford a car, along with simply not being able to replace stuff that breaks cuts down on a lot I guess.

Hurrah for poor college students?

 

[classical_hero]

Live like the North Koreans and we will be saving the earth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Save the Earth, or we'll all be living like North Koreans.