What size is your ecological footprint?

25- Probably because basically I am a carnivore.

14. I expected worse.

Dammit, only 32.

5.4

huh, me?

16. I was surprised.

Wow, Osso, good going.

good going edgar and osso!

Well, I don't have a lot of running around town to do..

I'm actually worse at recycling, for example, and re walking for errands, than I was in California, where walking was more do-able.

average canadian footprint in my area is 8.8, i came in at 6.6

I took it again and got a much lower number (16, I think) - some of the answers were hard to gage.

DJ, why is the number so low where you're at?

don't really know, it's a rural area, that may have something to do with it

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 2.2
MOBILITY 0.9
SHELTER 1
GOODS/SERVICES 1.5

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 5.6



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.1 PLANETS.

, i meant country i guess, not area

6.3

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 2.8
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 0.3
GOODS/SERVICES 0.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.7



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 4.1 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

Our (U.S.) results come back in acres, not hectares. If everyone lived like me at 16 acres, we'd need 2.7 planets.

Yes, rural living is automatically easier on the environment.

I just took the test and the results confirmed that I am personally responsible for the destruction of the planet.

Who knew?

We still lo- like you Gus.

Sorry, but the test is horribly skewed. It does not take into account rural economies and scales of production rather than consumership. The apparent assumption is that all people live in cities and produce nothing but trash and emissions. Come to think of it, that's probably true of just about everybody in the United States. Maybe it's closer to reality that I originally thought.

I agree with cowdoc that the test is simplistic and skewed, probably back and forth skewed.

I was not called on to say how many miles I drove, or how much I recycled.
As a person who used to grow a lot of her own - ok, blush, well, some, of her own food and buy from street markets - I now have those choices diminished*, so I'm getting more sympathetic by the day to people who just buy a burger. Planning and ecology are high on my interest list. I'm a sometime member of slowfood, when I can make the dues.

Actually, I think this questionaire was rather lame from varied points of view, including, as cowdoc says, from the agricultural. I'd like to see it developed.



* Street markets are more and more popular, but in my own life they've gone downhill by a lot, the second I moved. So, let me assume that street market availability varies.