Heartland

I know, I know, these things can be irritating , and they're inevitably very approximate. But have a look here, and you can calculate your relative ecological impact:

http://www.lead.org/leadnet/footprint/intro.htm

I'm faced with the unpalatable fact that even though I consider myself ecologically aware, and am vegetarian, and recycle, we would still need three planet earths if everyone lived like me

What about the rest of you?

as a vegan who shops locally and tries to buy as much locally produced fruit & veg as possible, and doesn't drive (ie: always get bus or am passenger in shared car journeys), i got these:

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1.1 hectares or 2.8 acres
Transportation Footprint 0.7 hectares or 1.7 acres
Housing Footprint 1.3 hectares or 3.2 acres
Other Footprints 1.2 hectares or 2.9 acres

Total Footprint per person 4.3 hectares or 10.6 acres

IN COMPARISON:
Your Eco-Footprint measures 42.1 % of an average American Footprint.

Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres.

Interesting.

My results:

Food Footprint 1.3 hectares or 3.2 acres
Transportation Footprint 0.1 hectares or 0.4 acres
Housing Footprint 0.5 hectares or 1.2 acres
Other Footprints 0.7 hectares or 1.8 acres

Total Footprint per person 2.7 hectares or 6.6 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 26.4% of an average American Footprint.


I'm not vegetarian but rarely eat meat, live in a very small flat (mostly lit by Eco-tone lightbulbs!), and only use public transport (and within a fairly close locality).

Still room for improvement, I'm sure, but not too bad a result.

I'm 1% off quiffy

Food Footprint 1.5 hectares or 3.7 acres
Transportation Footprint 0.4 hectares or 0.9 acres
Housing Footprint 0.9 hectares or 2.3  acres
Other Footprints 1  hectares or 2.6 acres

Total Footprint per person 3.9  hectares or 9.5 acres

IN COMPARISON:
Your Eco-Footprint measures 37.9   % of an average American Footprint.

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 0.9 hectares or 2.3 acres
Transportation Footprint 0.2 hectares or 0.4 acres
Housing Footprint 1.3 hectares or 3.2 acres
Other Footprints 0.9 hectares or 2.2 acres

Total Footprint per person 3.3 hectares or 8.1 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 32.2% of an average American Footprint.
----------------

Another non-driving vegan (buying veg from the local farmers market when I remember), another small flat. If I lived in a slightly larger house with a partner (less area per person) I'd probably reduce the "Housing Footprint". (Note to self: must get girlfriend in order to help the environment).

Your Eco-Footprint measures 167.7 % of an average American Footprint

Hmm, must stop boy racing down to the kebab shop.

Anyone know where I can find another eight planet earths just in case ..?

'Kinell John! How d'you manage that? You drive a fleet of Hum-Vees or something?

JB wrote:Anyone know where I can find another eight planet earths just in case ..?

I'm sure the gravity of your gut will attract at least one soon

markfiend wrote:'Kinell John! How d'you manage that? You drive a fleet of Hum-Vees or something?

Nah, just a second-hand motor. WWII Panzer mark IV with 75mm cannon. Desert camouflage.

My personal life comes in at:


YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1 hectares or 2.5 acres
Transportation Footprint 0.5 hectares or 1.1 acres
Housing Footprint 0.9 hectares or 2.3 acres
Other Footprints 0.9 hectares or 2.2 acres

Total Footprint per person 3.3 hectares or 8.1 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 32.2 % of an average American Footprint.


But when I add in the flights I take for work it jumps up to:

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1 hectares or 2.5 acres
Transportation Footprint 2.9 hectares or 7.1 acres
Housing Footprint 0.9 hectares or 2.3 acres
Other Footprints 1.8 hectares or 4.4 acres

Total Footprint per person 6.6 hectares or 16.3 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 64.8 % of an average American Footprint.

Worldwide, the biologically productive space available per person is 2.2 hectares or 5.4 acres.

So if I quit work the planet is better off!

Food footprint 0.9 hectares or 2.1 acres
Transportation 2.3 hectares or 5.6 acres
Housing 4.2 hectares or 10.4 acres
Other 2.7 hectares or 6.7 acres

Total footprint 10.1 hectares or 24.9 acres

Your Eco Footprint – measures 98.9% of an average American Footprint


Hey, what can I say?! I like my SPACE ...

63.3% of average US footprint. Possibly helped by not living in US.

A few interesting issues: most of my car journeys (I do drive) are unaccompanied (v bad). But most of my long journeys are accompanied (better). So in terms of mileage I'm probably accompanied for about my half the distance, but not half the time (especially if you factor in SE congestion fun).

Fairly committed carnivore (I think we've had this argument before) so get no points for that. Interestingly, the more I try to eat non-meat products the more rotting veg I end up binning. I just don't like it very much. Which is the worse crime?

Small flat (coz I'm poor), about 10 hrs/year flying time (one foreign, one or two trips home on average). I could drive home, but that would be another unaccompanied long journey (Southend - Durham) rather than a short (Southend - Stansted) solo drive and an accompanied (by my parents) drive from Newcastle to Durham.

So, on the one hand I consume enough to require an extra 2.75 planets or so (accepting the 'meagre' 12% for other species). On the other hand, I live in the developed world - what are my choices?

If we accept that travel is a major issue for the environment the only way to resolve that in the UK is to get away from a culture which accepts absurdly long journeys to work.

Southend to central London (Westminster Bridge to be precise), for example, is about 40 miles. So, working in Whitehall and living in my flat would generate 400 miles/week of commuting. That type of work pattern is not uncommon.

The justification is usually "can't afford property in central London", though if you calculate the cost of the commute (rail season ticket = £3k, give or take, not allowing for the value one might place on one's time) and look at the gap in house prices it may not be quite as extreme as people imagine. Surely the answer, if we are serious about this, would be a variable taxation scheme based on proximity to place of work.

Create an agreed "acceptable" commute (say 10 miles for sake of argument - slightly less than I currently do, but a round number). Factor in zero taxation on that figure and apply a sliding scale to penalise commuters over a longer distance.

Two things will happen, according to the laws of economics. Companies will find it hard to attract staff without raising salaries. In the short term prices around major business/commercial centres will rise to reflect increased demand for "tax-dodging". Initially that's a big problem, but it won't last.

In the long term, relatively depressed areas can benefit. Firstly, companies will move out of city centre sites, especially in London and the SE, prompting a de-centralisation of the UK economy and a boost for regional growth.

Secondly, areas like Basildon (where I currently work) will become far more attractive to live. There is a sizeable white-collar commuter base coming into the town which would not dream of living there because it's Chavsville (I'm very much in that group, even if Southend isn't much better). By giving a real cash incentive to move in you generate a demand for a higher standard of living within the town. It may then become possible for things like bookshops and restaurants (OK, there's one bookshop, but no non-chain eaterie) to survive because there will finally be a market for it. As quality of life improves, hopefully the ever-growing ghettoisation implied by the term Chavsville starts to recede and life gets better for a significant majority of people.

At the same time, we stop commuting so far and improve the environment. Our roads become quieter, our rail and bus services more reliable. People have more free time outside of work and its related travel commitments. Birds sing, flowers bloom etc.

Sadly, an absurdly conservative (with a small 'c') electorate means this will never happen. Pity.

116% of US, mostly transport and housing

but it's a big house in the country, i work in town, what can i say.

why doesn't it ask how many people live in the house ?

YOUR RESULTS:
Food Footprint 1.7 hectares or 4.3 acres
Transportation Footprint 1 hectares or 2.5 acres
Housing Footprint 3.5 hectares or 8.7 acres
Other Footprints 2.3 hectares or 5.7 acres

Total Footprint per person 8.6 hectares or 21.2 acres

IN COMPARISON:

Your Eco-Footprint measures 84.3 % of an average American Footprint.



Driving a car, never use public transport (try to when you have two synths, an amp, a laptop, various cables and DI boxes and a small mixing desk to transport!).

I eat and drink normal, which means meat, poultry, fish, a lot of vegetables (mostly home-grown). Leftovers are frozen in whenever possible.

I do not use these energy-saving things, since I want light whenever I need it (eco-lights start giving off 'normal' light after a minute, you know?)

I do live in an old apartment, no double-glass for me, that's too expensive and besides, the front of the apartment is classified and cannot be renovated that easily. So turn up the central heating.

I try and do my best, but will somebody please give me a worthy alternative for transportation?

And big bucks for the insulation of my apartment?

IZ.