Ecological Footprint

Interesting. I had a 4 acres each person, which would mean a need of 2.2 planets. But I can hardly imagine what to do to reduce it next to a safer bet: stop having electricity? I don't have a car, use mostly common transportations or walk, don't eat meat as often...

I answered the questions in a way that I thought would minimize my footprint and on got down to 1.3 planets. I guess I need to stop eating or something. Has anyone even gotten down to one planet ?

I got down to 1.0 planets, assuming that I never drove or flew and could find six roommates for my little working-class house.

if everyone lived like you, we would need 1.8 planets.

I am carfree, and walk nearly everywhere. For many Americans, going car free is not possible. If this test is correct, it is not sufficient to use less; we must also become far more efficient.

Eric Juve asked: Has anyone ever gotten down to one planet?

Tonight I happened to see an episode of 30 Days called "Off The Grid" where a man from New York and a woman from New Jersey go to live at the Dancing Rabbit Eco-commune for a month. At the start, their lifestyle required the equivalent of 12.5 planets. Tensions ran high especially since he was a hard-core carnivore adjusting to a vegetarian diet and she thought "products" (soap, shampoo, conditioner and the like) were a must. The commune was a fossil fuel free zone so electricity was derived from solar power and cars were fueled with vegetable oil. This way of life only needed the equivalent of 1.3 planets, but it also resulted in infrequent bathing, eating pizza with soysage on it, dumpster diving and everyone literally making garden fertilizer. It would be quite a feat for anyone living in an urban area to get down to one planet. I use public transit almost exclusively and I recycle. Even so, my ecological footprint is 18 (3.9 planets).

I was 3.2, with 1.8 planets needed. I guess this relatively low score is probably because I go everywhere by public transport. This is simply because I live in London.

More precisely:

FOOD 1.3
MOBILITY 0.7
SHELTER 0.5
GOODS/SERVICES 0.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.2

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 5.3 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

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

Apparently, the score is using mean consumtion rates according to where you live... Therefore it does not really represent your true score.

If you want to be sure, redo the test at some other place around the world...

I discovered it because I tried to redo the test using my home country in EU and my score felt from 2.2 to 1.8 despite the answers being the same.