View Full Version : 5.4 Earths!? Environmental footprint calculator results
Ultralight
9-11-15, 3:20pm
This environmental/ecological/carbon footprint calculator http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/ is really interesting.
Apparently for everyone in the world to live the life of The UltraliteAngler we'd need access to the resources of 5.4 Earths! Whoa!
Take a few minutes if you like and play with the calculator.
How many Earths do we need for your lifestyle? ;)
Yeah, I've done that calculator before and it's a huge wake-up call for people feeling all smug and sanctimonious about environmental efforts such as recycling and driving fuel efficient cars (like me).
I think Jim Merkel (Radical Simplicity) had something to do with the programming of this calculator--as many may know, he was a military engineer until he had a huge "conversion" moment when the Exxon Valdez accident occurred. It spurred him to change his life drastically so that he would no longer be forced to support the military-industrial complex via tax dollars, so he lived on $5,000 a year for several years.
We probably would ALL have to live in a cabin like he does, on $5k a year, in order to accomplish a truly sustainable footprint.
Ultralight
9-11-15, 3:48pm
Yeah, I've done that calculator before and it's a huge wake-up call for people feeling all smug and sanctimonious about environmental efforts such as recycling and driving fuel efficient cars (like me).
I think Jim Merkel (Radical Simplicity) had something to do with the programming of this calculator--as many may know, he was a military engineer until he had a huge "conversion" moment when the Exxon Valdez accident occurred. It spurred him to change his life drastically so that he would no longer be forced to support the military-industrial complex via tax dollars, so he lived on $5,000 a year for several years.
We probably would ALL have to live in a cabin like he does, on $5k a year, in order to accomplish a truly sustainable footprint.
My 5.4 Earths is just so many!
We probably would ALL have to live in a cabin like he does, on $5k a year, in order to accomplish a truly sustainable footprint.
There's another knob you can turn. Population level/density....
Ultralight
9-11-15, 3:50pm
There's another knob you can turn. Population level/density....
Whatcha mean?
So that model multiplies the load-per-individual by the number-of-individuals to come up with the total load for the population, then compares to the Earth's capabilities.
Fewer people, less total load...
Ultralight
9-11-15, 3:58pm
So that model multiplies the load-per-individual by the number-of-individuals to come up with the total load for the population, then compares to the Earth's capabilities.
Fewer people, less total load...
Okay, I see what you meant in the other reply.
So that model multiplies the load-per-individual by the number-of-individuals to come up with the total load for the population, then compares to the Earth's capabilities.
Fewer people, less total load...
Is that how that particular model is constructed? I'm not challenging.. just asking. I'm not an engineer, so help me understand whether or not a "footprint" model like this could compute one's footprint on an individual level as well: in other words, calculate the degree to which you are returning to the earth just what you extracted and no more.
I agree that the birth date (and the declining mortality rate) are not helping.. I'm not arguing that. But I also agree with Charles Eisenstein that sometimes the population argument is a red herring, and that we need the two-pronged solution of the birth rate and mortality rate matching up better as well as drastically reducing consumption.
http://charleseisenstein.net/concern-about-overpopulation-is-a-red-herring-consumptions-the-problem/
Ultralight
9-11-15, 4:19pm
Charles is quite the optimist!
The calculator may not be 100% accurate but it is interesting!
I am shocked the way you describe your lifestyle. I only require 4 earths. It would be interesting to share our detailed answers for understanding. I know if I would quit the "meat with legs" mine would be lower but I have some every day and occasionally twice. I know that takes a ton of earth and water.
But even the detailed answers are hugely varied. Car mileage 15-30 range? Well hell, that's half the mileage and that could be ginormously different carbon for folks who drive far regularly.
I think it's more a relative barometer for awareness and mindful choices rather than a valuable resource.
I have been somewhat crazy radical in the past, not so much any more. What I've always objected to in this calculator is that it starts out by asking where you live, and then you become responsible for a certain amount of footprint you have absolutely no control over. So if you live in Burkina Faso and behave like a radical lunatic you can get by with one earth, but if you live in Cleveland, according to this calculator, you're physically incapable of it. Try the calculator you brought up - apparently nothing you do short of dying will accomplish one-earth living if you choose this particular corner of earth. To me, whether I'm using up two earths or seven makes no difference, so I'm never motivated by this quiz.
It's a tough quiz to win at. If you and a partner live in a smaller free standing house with running water and electricity, but answered the least impact for every other category, you're still at 3.6 planets. I was 4.3 planets.
If you tried to answer every question with the "best" answer possible, you still wind up with 2.3 earths as long as you live in the US. If you live in India, .3 earths.
Ultralight
9-11-15, 10:55pm
I am shocked the way you describe your lifestyle. I only require 4 earths. It would be interesting to share our detailed answers for understanding. I know if I would quit the "meat with legs" mine would be lower but I have some every day and occasionally twice. I know that takes a ton of earth and water.
But even the detailed answers are hugely varied. Car mileage 15-30 range? Well hell, that's half the mileage and that could be ginormously different carbon for folks who drive far regularly.
I think it's more a relative barometer for awareness and mindful choices rather than a valuable resource.
Up until this month, when I started biking all distances of 8 miles or less round trip I had been driving more than 1360 miles per month. I think that did it. I also do not recycle at all.
ApatheticNoMore
9-11-15, 11:19pm
Well I got 5.1. I kind of expected it to get on me for commuting to work (yes I know .... >8)).
But nonetheless the biggest category wasn't transportation but services (I'm like wtf is services is that the buying books thing even though I seldom buy *new* books? no it was living in the u.s.). And the next category was food maybe for eating some dairy most meals (cheese on salad etc.) and beef or lamb once a week.
I won't go there. We've got population, pollution, and waste issues that need to be dealt with, but I feel no guilt about the relatively modest life I lead. Sorry, not sorry. :devil:
I live in a house made of local wood, in a low-population density area, I heat with wood from my own land, most of my food comes from within an easy bicycle ride, I drive about 3000 miles a year, when I fly it's usually in a small Cessna for 30 minutes, my electricity come from renewable sources, and I still got 3+ ish Earths...
I filled out the numbers for my completely-off-the-grid friend who almost never leaves his very small island, and got about the same.
So, I don't see much to improve there, other than throwing ourselves on the compost pile and having our belongings recycled.
I'll be compost soon enough. Doing my part! rrrrr
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-15, 4:05pm
Most of the questions could be answered multiple ways and you will answer them one way if you are interested in getting a good score. For instance do you buy new furniture question? It will be answered probably based on what you bought last year. So furniture no, and not even trying to buy *new* furniture (half of what I have in my 1 bedroom apartment came from thrifts anyway), but some bedding yes as last year or two for the first time in my entire existence (I mean I took bedding with me when I moved out of my parents house) I bought some new sheets and blankets. And in the last several years for the first time in my life I bought a bed. For 30+ years before then I had the same bed although a new mattress was added when I was a child, it was older than me, and may have been the bed I was conceived on for all I know.
But really who is trying to get a good score, to seem this or that or the other thing, when the point is day to day being. Some of the advice on reducing carbon usage may have been useful but the raw score itself = NOT useful. Some people like to answer tests to get good scores. But I pick the middle answer. I like potato chips, uh you shouldn't have asked me last week, twice I hit the vending machine and it was for ding ding ding potato chips! So yes I do suppose I eat some processed foods though I try to resist them.
There's another knob you can turn. Population level/density....
Reduce the number of consumers? I don't think our current economic system could handle that.
Then again, a huge economic crash would do a lot to reduce our total footprint.
Ultralight
9-12-15, 8:04pm
I'll be compost soon enough. Doing my part! rrrrr
Just throw my body to the sharks!
Ultralight
9-12-15, 8:06pm
Reduce the number of consumers? I don't think our current economic system could handle that.
Then again, a huge economic crash would do a lot to reduce our total footprint.
This is probably a better question for another thread, or maybe a topic for a dissertation by someone way smarter than me. But I don't get why everyone suddenly becoming super frugal would crash the economy...
Williamsmith
9-12-15, 8:28pm
This is probably a better question for another thread, or maybe a topic for a dissertation by someone way smarter than me. But I don't get why everyone suddenly becoming super frugal would crash the economy...
Our economy is based on growth. Growth is influenced by the movement of money. The movement of money is facilitated by debt and money created by lending......therefore a frugal society slows the movement of money, slows growth and creates a recession type environment. So saith some economists.
Ultralight
9-12-15, 8:33pm
Our economy is based on growth. Growth is influenced by the movement of money. The movement of money is facilitated by debt and money created by lending......therefore a frugal society slows the movement of money, slows growth and creates a recession type environment. So saith some economists.
Right. But if everyone was frugal, would we even be able to tell we were in a recession?
Right. But if everyone was frugal, would we even be able to tell we were in a recession?
Possibly the most awesome comeback to the "frugality will kill the economy" harangue I've ever heard. :D
-- WilliamSmith, I understand you're just explaining how our current economy works, no criticism to you, you're right. I'm just sooooooo tired of hearing how important it is to maintain that particular status quo.
Williamsmith
9-13-15, 7:08am
The idea of frugality killing the economy may be a little too simple an explanation. IDK I'm not an economist. I'm an observer. I observe this.
There is a great disparity in wealth which seems to be growing. And the growth of the poor seems to be coming out of hard working middle class people of all races and religions. And those who are well off are seeing these people turning their eyes toward them and accusing them "the wealthy" of being the cause. Greed.
The wealthy say, "Oh no. It isn't our greed, it is your politics, your laziness and your gaming of the system." The middle class says, "We are working 60 - 70 hrs. Per week, for stagnant paltry wages, when prices of consumer goods are going up.....how can we work any harder and how can we pay anymore tax or withstand the theft of money from our retirement plans."
And the capitalist is saying to the middle class, "work harder......buy more.......take out more debt.....you deserve it.....get it now........"
All of this happens right in plain view of all of us. The advertisers are very crafty at making you believe in their things. To me....when you say well it's easy we need to all just become frugal. Well, if you reduce your footprint....you need to do it because it's how you begin a revolution.
The answer is not looking outward and changing the world. It is looking inward and changing yourself.
The idea of frugality killing the economy may be a little too simple an explanation. IDK I'm not an economist. I'm an observer. I observe this.
And the capitalist is saying to the middle class, "work harder......buy more.......take out more debt.....you deserve it.....get it now........"
Kinda funny. While having breakfast yesterday I said to DH (he with his business degree)......I wonder what would happen in this country if we switched to a flat tax and Advertising became illegal?
And I really do wonder that often.
My last hourly wage increase was spring 2009. My employer sold us to a larger local organization so no more bonuses either. We paid off our home and our cabin so that represented a significant change in take-home in come as far as we were concerned so we're doing fine and savings increased significantly.
But we are lucky through good planning and commitment. This is not so for most of the middle class.
Any economists out here willing to theorize on my query?:~) I would love to hear some thoughts......should this be a new thread? Moderator???
I think a correlate question is, what would a no-growth economy look like? That's the same thing, because if everyone were as frugal as the people on these forums, we'd be pretty close to a no-growth economy. I've been interested in no-growth economies, and it does take a little bit of mind-stretching to think of the possibilities, simply because we believe we HAVE to have growth for property, environment be damned.
I've actually been interested in the one-step-further approach, and that is the idea of demurrage--or negative interest. So, you are penalized for holding money, basically, because it loses value over time. Interesting to consider, and counterintuitive to frugality--seems demurrage would spur consumerism rather than deter it, but at least it would get the money flowing.
Here's a basic article that explains some of the possible benefits of a no-growth economy: and why it would be a good thing to challenge the growth/consumer paradigm: "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-end-of-the-growth
Most of the questions could be answered multiple ways and you will answer them one way if you are interested in getting a good score. For instance do you buy new furniture question?.
When the questions were about purchasing "new", I made the assumption that was literal. If I buy at thrift store or a resale store for that category I said 'no' .
I think a correlate question is, what would a no-growth economy look like?
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-end-of-the-growth
Thank you! I am listening to the embedded youtube in the replies. "is limited government an oxymoron?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI It is 5y old but an interesting 30minutes none-the-less. Yes, the whole system is screwed up! .....says the Nurse-not economist:~)
I find that as our simple living choices have moved over time and become stronger, our spend is services. Frankly, we eat out a great deal and we tip well as earned. It puts $ into our local economy and community members paying their own bills. We go to locally owned a fair amount but we could do a better job of that choice. We have moved toward spending more when we need to make a new purchase as we choose a local business owner rather than a national chain. We hit Farmer's market rather than the chain store for food needs.
This makes me think back to "the Bush rebate" to promote spending thus stimulating the economy. Mom, who lived on a fixed income of about $24k, asked me if we needed it. i said no. She said she didn't either and she thought it was dumb (and she was staunch Republican/conservative her whole life). Well frankly we did finally spend it. Our 23yo tube TV was dying so DH went and bought a new fangled flat screen spending every penny of that $1200 gift. That TV is still here and working fine.
i dont' have answers but I certainly have plenty of questions and wonderings!thumbsup!
The idea of frugality killing the economy may be a little too simple an explanation. IDK I'm not an economist. I'm an observer. I observe this.
All of this happens right in plain view of all of us. The advertisers are very crafty at making you believe in their things. To me....when you say well it's easy we need to all just become frugal. Well, if you reduce your footprint....you need to do it because it's how you begin a revolution.
The answer is not looking outward and changing the world. It is looking inward and changing yourself. What I'm saying (and maybe what you're saying too??) is that there seems to be a very self righteous attitude about growth being essential. That attitude is understandable coming from those at the top, but it's mystifying and, frankly, idiotic coming from those in the middle / bottom who keep giving more than they get. It IS essential for the system we're currently struggling with, but I think it's time to look beyond that system. Which begins with the individual, but at some point if we're going to stop the growth of resource disparity, the world attitude / process needs some change too.
ETA: the reason I eschew the calculators is not that I disagree with personal change, but almost the opposite; because this calculator seems designed to illustrate the idea that personal change is pointless.
I wouldn't mind stagnant growth at all--if it meant consumer goods built to last, instead of planned obsolescence and downright shoddy construction.
And while I was getting lost this morning on the way to our community recycling event, with styrofoam and oversized slabs of cardboard, I noticed a shiny new Goodwill store. Growth I don't mind if it keeps stuff out of the landfill.
I like this quote from Catherine's article:
"This vast cognigitve surplus could be better employed, he argues, by using our time creatively rather than consumptively. The creative awakening enabled by the internet is transforming some of us from consumers to producers and sharers of music, video, knowledge and so on."
A maker's revolution sits well with me.
ApatheticNoMore
9-13-15, 1:28pm
What I'm saying (and maybe what you're saying too??) is that there seems to be a very self righteous attitude about growth being essential. That attitude is understandable coming from those at the top, but it's mystifying and, frankly, idiotic coming from those in the middle / bottom who keep giving more than they get.
who haven't seen any real growth in income in 30-40 years anyway supposedly, but fear they must keep the growth treadmill going to not lose what (little?) they have (and never mind their struggles may be due less to lack of growth than jobs being outsourced etc.).
I guess I tire of the question because it seems that very few asking it are sincerely interested in finding an answer anyway (as opposed to just a knee jerk defense). So I'm supposed to be some grand poobah expert on things I'm not in order to satisfy people for whom it's more a rhetorical question than anything. I mean sure if people wanted to start study groups on a no growth economy or something it would be one thing I guess, I would applaud such sincere interest, but they might hit up against the hard wall that the existing system needs to change radically though.
Seems to me that population growth is a driver of economic growth, so you'd probably want to do something about that if you are trying to construct a no-growth economic system. I know my community is issued population growth projections by our state, and required to do our economic, land-use, and infrastructure planning/development to account for that growth.
Seems to me that population growth is a driver of economic growth, so you'd probably want to do something about that if you are trying to construct a no-growth economic system. I know my community is issued population growth projections by our state, and required to do our economic, land-use, and infrastructure planning/development to account for that growth.
Yes, here are several suggested policies (http://steadystate.org/discover/policies/) for establishing stead-state economies: Population stabilization is #3 on CASSE's list and #9 on Herman Daly's.
ApatheticNoMore
9-13-15, 1:48pm
Population growth on a local level is immigration (is there even net population growth in this country without it? Of course I suppose people could have even less kids to offset it). Of course population growth on a global level is birth control, empowering women to not just have kid after kid etc..
We'd have to up-end the profit uber alles system first--the idea that corporations owe nothing to the country that birthed them, nothing to the citizens whose taxes paid for their infrastructure and subsidies, nothing, certainly nothing to the environment we all live in.
Colossal greed is the sticking point, it seems to me.
Immigration may be the only way our economy will grow, but I'm not sure that's important. If people buy fewer "consumer goods" in this country, corporations can always export them elsewhere. As long as the money keeps flowing. It's really a global problem.
Williamsmith
9-16-15, 1:01am
The carbon footprint is a useless metric for changing human behavior. In fact, it is counterproductive. Yes, we need to be more mindful of our impact on others and the environment. But yes, we also need to continue growth, meaning research and development of promising technology. We once thought moon exploration was silly. How about colonizing Mars? There is no point in being satisfied with less. None.
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-15, 1:45am
The carbon footprint is a useless metric for changing human behavior. In fact, it is counterproductive. Yes, we need to be more mindful of our impact on others and the environment. But yes, we also need to continue growth, meaning research and development of promising technology. We once thought moon exploration was silly. How about colonizing Mars?
I don't think this footprint was purely carbon. Demoralizing if your using 2 or 3 earths no matter what you do, but who knows what changes people's psyches if that's the question (someone may have studied whether these things are motivating). We've got the whole world in our hands?
Mars seems pretty dubious for colonization, but even if humans should colonize another planet, they have to survive to that point first (and meanwhile many other species will die well yea that's the way things are going).
We'd have to up-end the profit uber alles system first--the idea that corporations owe nothing to the country that birthed them, nothing to the citizens whose taxes paid for their infrastructure and subsidies, nothing, certainly nothing to the environment we all live in.
Colossal greed is the sticking point, it seems to me.
yes basically agree. Though sometimes visions of change through vast human transformation are attractive, of everyone deciding to have no or one kid for instance because they're suddenly like "woah the planet is way overpopulated, this is a total disaster, it's never going to work, what were we thinking?" :)
Ultralight
9-16-15, 7:43am
We'd have to up-end the profit uber alles system first--the idea that corporations owe nothing to the country that birthed them, nothing to the citizens whose taxes paid for their infrastructure and subsidies, nothing, certainly nothing to the environment we all live in.
Colossal greed is the sticking point, it seems to me.
Immigration may be the only way our economy will grow, but I'm not sure that's important. If people buy fewer "consumer goods" in this country, corporations can always export them elsewhere. As long as the money keeps flowing. It's really a global problem.
Frugality and simple living must go global then?
Ultralight
9-16-15, 7:44am
The carbon footprint is a useless metric for changing human behavior. In fact, it is counterproductive. Yes, we need to be more mindful of our impact on others and the environment. But yes, we also need to continue growth, meaning research and development of promising technology. We once thought moon exploration was silly. How about colonizing Mars? There is no point in being satisfied with less. None.
How will humans fuel and fund such massive operations?
Williamsmith
9-16-15, 8:05am
How will humans fuel and fund such massive operations?
Exponential growth in technology....new ideas. A willingness to take risk. We are going to have to accept that as individuals we have short lives. We push the human race into the future. The Earth will be fine. We will continue to explore and exploit.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 8:18am
Exponential growth in technology....new ideas. A willingness to take risk. We are going to have to accept that as individuals we have short lives. We push the human race into the future. The Earth will be fine. We will continue to explore and exploit.
How are technology and energy different?
Exponential growth in technology....new ideas. A willingness to take risk. We are going to have to accept that as individuals we have short lives. We push the human race into the future. The Earth will be fine. We will continue to explore and exploit.
We will continue to exploit? The Earth will be fine? The development of the human did fine when it lived cooperatively with nature, with no exploitation. The natural world does not have to be collateral damage in the quest for the next "big step for mankind"
I agree with self-development, I agree in development and growth, but not growth for the sake of growth, and not growth that "exploits"--in fact, Williamsmith, I'm so surprised you said this, that I'd like to ask you for some elaboration. With your background and love for nature, I'm sure I'm not reading you correctly.
We did not create the world. We have inherited a world that had already grown to such prolific diversity and beauty before we even got here. It's a true miracle. And what has happened over the past 150 years with our technology--our exploitation? The world has given to us, and it's not wise to just take from it. We are poisoning soils, so that arable land becomes desert, we are poisoning plants and destroying habitats, killing off species at record speeds. The balance of nature is out of whack. This is not our planet to mess up and throw in the recycling basket while we go find another.
I am not against new ideas and creative use of our hearts and brains. Pushing the human race into the future can mean new strides in many things--creative ways to live in peace and prosperity--creative ways to stem the consequences of human greed. It doesn't have to mean exploitation.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 8:55am
I become rather dubious when I ask how we'll fuel and/or fund major projects (like terraforming Mars) and I get this answer: "Dude...we've got, like technology!"
Frugality and simple living must go global then?
That would seem a logical endpoint, I guess. We can get rid of massive waste and plunder (and stabilize population), and start from there.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 9:22am
That would seem a logical endpoint, I guess. We can get rid of massive waste and plunder (and stabilize population), and start from there.
I wonder how open people would be to this globally. I am part of a simple living group in my area. The group is almost entirely retirees -- aged 55-70, give or take a half-decade (I am considered young because I am 36). They talk about how people should consider going car-lite or car-free, how people should have fewer children (perhaps none), how people should use less water/oil/gasoline/resources of all kinds, quit "pleasure-shopping," etc.
But these folks grew up and came of age in an era of American triumphalism and mass abundance. So to younger people -- ones with Master's degrees who work at Starbucks -- this sounds like: "We baby-boomers used up all the good stuff. Now you all must be wise how you consume the crumbs we left you."
I fear that many in the third world who want to drive SUVs, buy all sorts of stuff on Amazon, have 4 kids, jet-set to sweet vacation spots, etc. will have a similar reaction: "You got yours. Why can't I get mine?!"
But all this reminds me of that old maxim: "Everyone knows money can't buy happiness, but they insist on finding out themselves."
Thoughts?
I fear that many in the third world who want to drive SUVs, buy all sorts of stuff on Amazon, have 4 kids, jet-set to sweet vacation spots, etc. will have a similar reaction: "You got yours. Why can't I get mine?!"
But all this reminds me of that old maxim: "Everyone knows money can't buy happiness, but they insist on finding out themselves."
Thoughts?
You are right. There's a really good book by Gary Cross called "An All-Consuming Century: Why Consumerism Won in Modern America" Very well-written and researched, but it pretty much stated what you said. People need and want tangible signs of success, especially if they are coming out of subsistence and into comfort and relative wealth. So this is the nouveau riche and the waves of immigrants and countries in the Third World.. the pattern you describe of Aspire, Acquire, Satisfy, Reject is a predictable one.
The book had literally no insights for how this might change in the future, which I found to be kind of disappointing. You could probably trace the same patterns back to Greece and Rome and the Enlightenment and the Tower of Babel and all other rise/fall historical precedents.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 9:42am
You are right. There's a really good book by Gary Cross called "An All-Consuming Century: Why Consumerism Won in Modern America" Very well-written and researched, but sadly it pretty much stated what you said. People need and want tangible signs of success, especially if they are coming out of subsistence and into comfort and relative wealth. So this is the nouveau riche and the waves of immigrants and countries in the Third World.. the pattern you describe of Aspire, Acquire, Satisfy, Reject is a predictable one.
The book had literally no insights for how this might change in the future, which I found to be kind of disappointing. You could probably trace the same patterns back to Greece and Rome and the Enlightenment and the Tower of Babel and all other rise/fall historical precedents.
"Aspire, Acquire, Satisfy, Reject" -- Whoa! Mind is blown! That is really it, condensed.
This was a topic of discussion at one of the Columbus Minimalists meetings I attended last year. There were a few people from the working-poor class and them some from the upper-middle class at the meeting. The working-poor seemed to have a harder time convincing themselves to let go and minimize, even though it made sense to them logically. The upper-middle class folks seemed more at ease about letting go.
I was the anomaly. I grew up working poor but I really never went too far with my acquiring. Since I was a kid I felt like having time was better than having stuff. Now, I don't think that I am special or anything great because I always kind of knew this, and I am not saying I haven't bought some stuff I regretted (pricey archery equipment, for instance). What I became curious about during the minimalist meeting discussion was why. Why did I not need to go through the predictable cycle like most people seem to?
catherine
9-16-15, 11:41am
This environmental/ecological/carbon footprint calculator http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/ is really interesting.
Apparently for everyone in the world to live the life of The UltraliteAngler we'd need access to the resources of 5.4 Earths! Whoa!
Take a few minutes if you like and play with the calculator.
How many Earths do we need for your lifestyle? ;)
So back to the OP: I finally re-did the quiz (I had done it a long time ago and can't remember how I did). I'm surprised at how big your footprint is! How is it over 5? My footprint WITH the business travel I do for work is 5.6, BUT when I took that out to just look at my personal impact, it was 3.9. And I have a car, live in a single-family house, etc.
I ran a scenario for what it would be if I downsized, and I went from 3.9 to 3.3.
What were your biggest impacts? I'm just curious, because you definitely seem to be a simpler-living person than I am.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 11:46am
So back to the OP: I finally re-did the quiz (I had done it a long time ago and can't remember how I did). I'm surprised at how big your footprint is! How is it over 5? My footprint WITH the business travel I do for work is 5.6, BUT when I took that out to just look at my personal impact, it was 3.9. And I have a car, live in a single-family house, etc.
I ran a scenario for what it would be if I downsized, and I went from 3.9 to 3.3.
What were your biggest impacts? I'm just curious, because you definitely seem to be a simpler-living person than I am.
I drive something like 1630 miles a month. I don't recycle at all. I think those two issues really dinged me. I also eat a fair amount of fish and poultry, so I think they got me on that too.
catherine
9-16-15, 11:55am
I drive something like 1630 miles a month. I don't recycle at all. I think those two issues really dinged me. I also eat a fair amount of fish and poultry, so I think they got me on that too.
Gotcha. Well, goes to show that this isn't a perfect tool to measure lifestyle and ecological impact, but it's still a good awareness tool. Makes you think about what you're doing.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 11:58am
Gotcha. Well, goes to show that this isn't a perfect tool to measure lifestyle and ecological impact, but it's still a good awareness tool. Makes you think about what you're doing.
Right, I kind of think the tool does not realize that I don't buy or consume much; I also don't think it factors in that I catch my own fish.
Not a perfect tool, but I agree. It makes you think about your environmental impact in a comprehensive way. I know many people (myself included) tend to zoom in on our "green fetish" and not think about everything else we do. My green fetish is reducing. For others it is recycling or solar panels or planting trees, etc.
...I wonder how open people would be to this globally. I am part of a simple living group in my area. The group is almost entirely retirees -- aged 55-70, give or take a half-decade (I am considered young because I am 36). They talk about how people should consider going car-lite or car-free, how people should have fewer children (perhaps none), how people should use less water/oil/gasoline/resources of all kinds, quit "pleasure-shopping," etc. ...
People in developed countries are already having fewer children. Much of Europe--like Italy--is in decline. (I would think the refugees would be a godsend for those countries.)
I keep my fuel usage (I'm at about 1500 miles a year) in check partly by buying "all sorts of stuff on Amazon."
It's my position that conservation can be done on an individual basis without trading in stereotypes, and I don't believe we have to live like penitents to cut way back on waste.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 12:10pm
People in developed countries are already having fewer children. Much of Europe--like Italy--is in decline. (I would think the refugees would be a godsend for those countries.)
I keep my fuel usage (I'm at about 1500 miles a year) in check partly by buying "all sorts of stuff on Amazon."
It's my position that conservation can be done on an individual basis without trading in stereotypes, and I don't believe we have to live like penitents to cut way back on waste.
World population growth still looks like a hockey stick though. And we're over 7 billion, so that is a massive amount of overshoot.
If you buy stuff on Amazon, aren't you simply outsourcing your gas mileage to someone else?
But with the above said, I think we can have great lives without consuming too much or being wasteful. But I think some aspects of transitioning to this way of life are tricky in our current paradigm. Some aspects are really not that hard though.
World population growth still looks like a hockey stick though. And we're over 7 billion, so that is a massive amount of overshoot.
If you buy stuff on Amazon, aren't you simply outsourcing your gas mileage to someone else?
But with the above said, I think we can have great lives without consuming too much or being wasteful. But I think some aspects of transitioning to this way of life are tricky in our current paradigm. Some aspects are really not that hard though.
I'm outsourcing my gas mileage to a corporation with large trucks full of packages. I bet UPS uses their fuel far more efficiently than I do. I'm not only outsourcing my fuel use, I'm saving automotive wear and tear and arguably supporting a local company.
That hockey stick shouldn't require everybody everywhere to render their genes extinct. We're just barely replicating ourselves here. Most of the people I know have one child or none (like me), and rarely do they have more than two.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 12:30pm
I'm outsourcing my gas mileage to a corporation with large trucks full of packages. I bet UPS uses their fuel far more efficiently than I do. I'm not only outsourcing my fuel use, I'm saving automotive wear and tear and arguably supporting a local company.
That hockey stick shouldn't require everybody everywhere to render their genes extinct. We're just barely replicating ourselves here. Most of the people I know have one child or none (like me), and rarely do they have more than two.
Both valid points, especially in our current paradigm.
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-15, 12:32pm
That hockey stick shouldn't require everybody everywhere to render their genes extinct.
you could preach not having kids until the cows come home and some people will still have kids (so maybe: one should keep preaching!), the human species going extinct through deciding not to breed isn't going to happen. One's genes? Meh most of one's genes were probably already passed on by some cousin who did procreate anyway, and in 1000 years your genes will be so intermingled it won't matter anyway. The vanity about one's precious genes is such narcissism. All we are is dust in the wind :~) Most people in the U.S. may not have many kids but maybe very few is too many given global population growth (and u.s. resource use, well that too).
If you buy stuff on Amazon, aren't you simply outsourcing your gas mileage to someone else?
Pretty much what Janev2.0 says. When you buy from Amazon your packages are essentially car pooling. Plus I get stuff from Amazon that I might have driven all over heck and back trying to find locally. The thing that gets me about Amazon is all the packaging materials.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 12:42pm
I am not preaching, I am merely lamenting. ;)
The intersection of breeding and consumption is an issue though too. So each couple only has two kids instead of seven. If those two kids are major consumers, it leads to a similar end.
But these folks grew up and came of age in an era of American triumphalism and mass abundance. So to younger people -- ones with Master's degrees who work at Starbucks -- this sounds like: "We baby-boomers used up all the good stuff. Now you all must be wise how you consume the crumbs we left you."
Thoughts? That sounds crappy because it IS crappy. But I also think it's true. From personal and very flawed experience, accepting truth rather than starting a movement to protest it is usually a good beginning toward a workable life.
ETA:
Thank you, baby boomers and Gen X, for inventing things that took our lives beyond the imagination of our grandparents. For technology that allows at least the privileged practically unlimited access to knowledge and to each other, almost immediately. Thank you for medical advances, thank you for creature comforts.
Thank you (not so much), baby boomers and the generations immediately before you, for planned obsolescence and throw-away culture based on maximizing profit, period. Thank you (not so much) for ignoring indigenous wisdom regarding how to treat the planet, and the rights of those societies.
To be fair, it was the (hippie) boomers who raised consciousness about the environment and simple living, following in the footsteps of early conservationists. (Not to mention being passionately anti-war and pro a lot of fun activities.)
Ultralight
9-16-15, 1:41pm
Didn't they also become yuppies and capitalists in the 1980s? ;)
To be fair, it was the (hippie) boomers who raised consciousness about the environment and simple living, following in the footsteps of early conservationists. (Not to mention being passionately anti-war and pro a lot of fun activities.) Yes ... but we lost. :(
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-15, 1:57pm
To be fair, it was the (hippie) boomers who raised consciousness about the environment and simple living, following in the footsteps of early conservationists.
before that people were frugal because they had lived through the Great Depression!
before that people were frugal because they had lived through the Great Depression!
Yes. and even in the 50's of my infantile youth consumption was less. The came the two working spouse families who thought two incomes were required to keep up. Take home pay increased as did the size of homes and the things to fill them. I'm sure there is more to the snowballing effect of consumption, but people have been just as happy on less.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 3:04pm
If we ask ourselves: "Could I be just as happy with less?" and the answer is "yes" then why don't we act upon that?
I could ask myself this. I would answer in the affirmative. But yet, I still don't act (or I act at a snail's pace).
Yes ... but we lost. :(
But we tried.
Unfortunately, IMO, what the trying accomplished was to create a conservative backlash of money-worshiping, materialistic mindlessness we're still digging out from under. But yes, we did try.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 3:40pm
Unfortunately, IMO, what the trying accomplished was to create a conservative backlash of money-worshiping, materialistic mindlessness we're still digging out from under. But yes, we did try.
I think that every generation tries, or rather some portion of every generation tries. Thus far: All have failed!
ApatheticNoMore
9-16-15, 3:56pm
I generally find the Boomers the hardest of all generations to personally relate to, I just vibrate on a very different frequency, it's very alien to me. Even though I'm very hippy idealist at heart and like some of the ideas from that era.
But it's not any generation's fault entirely, it's always been a stacked desk (the odds are long, the path uphill, best to understand that). They had advertising, hippies had communes, enough said. They had assassinations (just civil rights leaders alone), hippies had protests.
Some interesting stuff has been written on how the social (and economic) support structure for such radical change didn't exist. It's easy to be a hippy on a college campus where such structures do exist (or did to some degree then), but that's one phase of life, people don't stay on college campuses, they get jobs, they get married, some will have kids, a structure to support radical change given that is what was needed some say.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 4:06pm
I get along with the unrepentant 60s radicals pretty well. But they are few and far between.
I'm a tail end boomer, one of the last years. Not crazy about the designation because it spans such a long time, technically my mother could have been a boomer too, and if I was a 60's radical, I was a 5 year old one, not terribly impactive on the movement.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a8/2f/00/a82f00bbe4970ae7b81eaaaa4c16bb95.jpg
I agree with the idea that the social support wasn't in place to implement a lot of lasting change - and we did get some changes, the 1970's women's movement got its start with the idea of upending social norms. The fact that there wasn't support for radical economic overhaul proposed by the hippies can probably be laid at the feet of the generation my parents were actually part of, I think it was both their fear of the conditions during the WWII and the Depression, combined with the post war prosperity boom, that made them rise up against the idea of Less is More. Too bad.
I generally find the Boomers the hardest of all generations to personally relate to, I just vibrate on a very different frequency, it's very alien to me.
Really? How so? As a full-blown Baby Boomer (b.1952, came of age with Beatles, civil rights, hippie counterculture, MLK/RFK, moon landing, Vietnam), I'm always interested in learning how younger generations relate to "my kind"
Ultralight
9-16-15, 5:03pm
I am a tail-end Gen Xer.
I'm a boomer, born during Ike's first term. I'm often amused by people asserting people like me somehow damage them by rising above my humble beginnings. If you haven't lived in a house without running water, your only source of heat being a dirty coal stove in the center of the house, no insulation in the walls or floors and being able to see through the floors to the ground below, whole families sleeping in the same bed during winter in order to share body heat, no opportunity or ability to travel outside the circle of your own poverty and despair until you become old enough to take responsibility for yourself. We had a very small environmental footprint living that way, now, it's much bigger, and by design.
If you've never been there, don't expect me to agree that I should return to a reality you've never experienced.
I'm not suggesting you return to that reality. But I think the reality for people living the good life in the 50's, with their little Levittown houses and their one car and one tv, was a pretty nice set up with a significantly smaller footprint. With modern technology we could probably cut that energy and resource use by at least 25%. I could see a world like that, although I wouldn't want the social constraints of the era.
Ultralight
9-16-15, 9:27pm
There is only so much good stuff to go around...
Perhaps not. :D go check out "paradise or oblivion". http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/paradise-oblivion/
Williamsmith
9-17-15, 12:25am
We will continue to exploit? The Earth will be fine? The development of the human did fine when it lived cooperatively with nature, with no exploitation. The natural world does not have to be collateral damage in the quest for the next "big step for mankind"
I agree with self-development, I agree in development and growth, but not growth for the sake of growth, and not growth that "exploits"--in fact, Williamsmith, I'm so surprised you said this, that I'd like to ask you for some elaboration. With your background and love for nature, I'm sure I'm not reading you correctly.
We did not create the world. We have inherited a world that had already grown to such prolific diversity and beauty before we even got here. It's a true miracle. And what has happened over the past 150 years with our technology--our exploitation? The world has given to us, and it's not wise to just take from it. We are poisoning soils, so that arable land becomes desert, we are poisoning plants and destroying habitats, killing off species at record speeds. The balance of nature is out of whack. This is not our planet to mess up and throw in the recycling basket while we go find another.
I am not against new ideas and creative use of our hearts and brains. Pushing the human race into the future can mean new strides in many things--creative ways to live in peace and prosperity--creative ways to stem the consequences of human greed. It doesn't have to mean exploitation.
The word "exploit" has gotten a bad name. Of course, it is often thought of as abusive. But there is a proper use for it when it means to use to its fullest benefit. Don't worry for the Earth. The Earth has been around a long time and will continue.....perhaps with many more Walmart bags floating in the seas but it will continue. However, Mankind.......is threatened.
Humankind threatens itself. But also has the capacity to right wrongs. I see the future brightly. It is in our dreaming. I am not an animist but I don't have to be to be a good conservationist. What I conserve today is undone by the waste of my neighbor. Yet, it is worthy of me to try.
Peace and and prosperity has always been a football tossed around by the corporate political controlling parties. Always their idea of peace and their prosperity at the cost of the rest of the population.
i do not see the world coming together in one wonderful choreographed hand holding circle. I change only what I can and that is what is in me. The others are ......the others.
Just found this article (http://collectivelyconscious.net/articles/overpopulation-fact-or-myth/?utm_source=cc-articles2) and it is very much in sync with my beliefs regarding human behavior vs. overpopulation. I realize I'm preaching to the choir here. If they multiplied our group a billion times--as different as we are, with only a desire for simple living to define us--oh, what a wonderful world it would be! :)
What if we used all of our manpower, creativity and intelligence for the betterment of all life instead of using it solely to empower the few at the top? What if we united forces not for war and destruction, but for peace and creation? What if we instead used this same potential to create sustainable technologies, beneficial products and harmonious systems that would allow humanity and the earth to thrive? Imagine if we united as a people, stopped complying and created a more beautiful world—not because of some piece of paper we would get in return but, because it only makes sense.
I have mixed feelings about that article, Catherine. I absolutely love the paragraph you quoted. My skepticism comes from the idea that "what we can do" with the planet starts with humans and then extends to other life forms. As in, "we still have habitat for 150 Bengal tigers even after we take what we need." (I'm not quoting the article, just giving an example of a humans-first mindset.) But who knows whether the interactive life web of earth requires 150 Bengal tigers, or 15000. The living planet is not a zoo, these other creatures, in balance, all have a role in the functioning of the whole. The number isn't totally static, but it's not totally arbitrary, either. I wish we had a better understanding of how everything else fits together before proclaiming that there's plenty, Plenty! for billions and billions and exponentially increasing billions of humans.
I'm admittedly no expert, but I doubt the population is going to increase substantially. I believe it will peak at a billion or so more than we have now, then decline as nations develop. I would definitely like to see more tigers, fewer people though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.