FOOTPRINT
And here I thought I was a size 13. . .
The latest of the internet poll crazes is the Earth Day Footprint Quiz. If everyone lived like me, we’d need 4.4 planets which, oddly, is easily the most frugal result of any of the bloggers I’ve seen. This is depressing. I am apparently living in relative poverty. I must start consuming more. I mean, most of the world consists of underachievers who can’t even manage to feed themselves, let alone have a car, use massive amounts of electricity for simple entertainment, and have a large domicile in which to pile vast amounts of unnecessary possessions. So, really, I’m not doing my fair share of consuming the resources of this planet.
Damn it, I need a Porsche. And not one of those puny little Boxsters, either. A Carerra GT ought to be enough to get myself to at least 6 planets. That’s the least I can do.
I’m Bummed!
ONLY 2.9 Planets????
What can I say, I’m a slacker!
I needed 4.7!
I’m at 7.2, helped by the fact that I drive a big Jeep over 15 miles to work each way, and live in a house over 2500 sq ft. So we need 7.2 planets (assuming no increase in technological efficiency or a whole host of other questionable assumptions). I’m cool with that. Hell, look how easily we took care of Iraq. Mars will be a friggin’ cakewalk!
OK, I got myself down to 1 planet (score of 0.6). All I had to do was forgo eating meat or process foods (or foods from 200 miles away), never travel anywhere, live in a 20 sq meter house (?!) lacking electricity with at least 6 other people who are under the age of 12. And in a town of over 1,000,000 people.
Sounds comfy, don’t you agree? Now why can’t we all just live like that? Don’t you think the Green movement could sell people on this alternative lifestyle. Perhaps we start with Barbra Streisand.
6.9 for me. I observed elsewhere (Acidman and Michele’s) that we’ll have to start locating these extra planets soon.
I’ve also seen one comment posted from a person who scored a mere 1.7; I think that’s the lowest I’ve seen.
His URL isn’t working this morning, but James Lileks played with that test and found out some interesting stuff. Where you live, for example, can have an impact on the score. I don’t recall the particulars, but he pretty much tore the instrument to shreds. When he gets back online, someone should post the link. It’s one of his little classics.
Interesting all around. And, yes, I take it for granted that the methodology is whacked. For one thing, it employs the metric system. Who uses that anymore? Certainly not any of the hyperpowers.
The fact that I now live in a place that forces me, by dint of my meager income, to live in a smaller domicile than I’d prefer is certainly part of my low score.
It’s old news now, but for the record here is the Lileks link:
http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0403/042303.html
He says, in part…
“The survey notes that Bangladesh citizens’ lifestyle has one of the smaller footprints on the earth, and by the standards implied by the survey they would seem to be the most eco-holy. Okay: here are two glasses of water. One is from the Topeka Municipal Water System, drawn from a water cooler in a government building. The other is tap water from Bangladesh.
“Which would you give to your child? Keep in mind that a grave has a very small footprint. Compared to a living, breathing child. They tend to eat, after all.”
—