How many planets would we need if everyone was to live like you?

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/quiz/

think this was posted here a many months ago but in light of recent weather disaster I think its time we all took that quiz again

my results

If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.6 planets.

Category - global hectares
Food 1.4
Mobility 0.3
Shelter 1.4
Goods/Services 1.5
Total Footprint 4.6

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9 global hectares per person.
Worldwide, there exist 1.8 biologically productive global hectares per person.

 

[FoBoT]

sounds like a bunch of greenie bs

 

[SpongeBob]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 3.4 planets.

Category - global hectares

Food 2

Mobility 0.4

Shelter 2.1

Goods/Services 1.7

Total Footprint 6.2
In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9.7 global hectares per person.
Worldwide, there exist 1.8 biologically productive global hectares per person.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

They don't even look at the fact that my PC, monitor and room fan stay on 24/7 or that I take 45 min long hot showers and leave the hot water running when doing the dishes.

 

[B00ne]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 3.2 planets.

Category
global hectares

Food 1.6

Mobility 0.2

Shelter 1.8

Goods/Services 2.1

Total Footprint 5.7 ---> ooops and I thaught I live halfway environmentally friendly - and I dont leave my water running when brushing my teeth or doing the dishes but I do take long hot showers (no 45 min though , heck I just bought a washing machine with the lowest water and energyy consumption available (at my pricerange)

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 4.7 global hectares per person.

anyway this quiz is bull....

edit it is totally stupid I retook it and all i changed was my appartment size ->4.something, then I retook it saying I was US and the smallest home size they offered was 500sqm dunno if they think Hollywood is a real picture of whole America but when I was there I havent seen many ppl living in even 500sqm homes so how could that be the smallest ... such a bullcrappola. Everything might be bigger in the US but I heard housing cost even them money

 

[hoihtah]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 9.2 planets.

Category
global hectares

Food 2

Mobility 1.7

Shelter 5.1

Goods/Services 7.7

Total Footprint 16.5
In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9.7 global hectares per person.




Worldwide, there exist 1.8 biologically productive global hectares per person.

 

[ToBeMe]

Absolute worst case scenario.............

If everyone lived like you, we would need 8.4 planets.

Category
global hectares

Food 2.8

Mobility 3.8

Shelter 2

Goods/Services 6.6

Total Footprint 15.2
In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9.7 global hectares per person.




Worldwide, there exist 1.8 biologically productive global hectares per person

 

[iamwiz82]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 4.2 planets.

Category
global hectares

Food 2.5

Mobility 2

Shelter 0.7

Goods/Services 2.4

Total Footprint 7.

WOOHOO!

 

[jjones]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 28.1 planets.

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
sounds like a bunch of greenie bs

I second that. While it's true that citizens of "industrialized" nations use more resources than citizens of third-world countries, there is no way that we would need more than just one Earth to support us if everyone lived as we do. This kind of propaganda flies in the face of human intelligence. We can adapt to the environment just fine.

Does anyone here subscribe to the mentality that we need to reduce the human population to prevent damage to the environment?

Jacques Cousteau: "In order to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."

Ted Turner: "A total world population of 250-300 million poeple, a 95% decline from present levels would be ideal."

A. Gregg, Mankind at the Turning Point: "The world has cancer, and the cancer is man."

Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth's husband: "If I could be reincarnated, I would wish to return to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

WTF are these people thinking??

 

[Amused]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 21.1 planets.

 

[glenn1]

This "test" is idiotic. It treats population, economic, and environmental concerns all as a zero-sum game.

Quick question for all you tree-hugger types out there. Let's take two groups of 100 people. One is a conclave of earth-first environmentalists, live in some old growth forest, walk or take public transportation wherever they go, and don't use air conditioning or any of the other "evil" convieniences of modern life that use electricity, oil, wood, or any other sort of resources, and produce small handmade crafts to support themselves. The second group takes full advantage of modern convieniences, drives to work every day, make large use of oil and electricity resources, and otherwise do all the things which would get them a low score on this test from the BBC. Which group would you rather choose?

The reason why you always get this question wrong is because you never bother to ask WHO the people in the second group are. Let's say that they are scientists working on hydrogen powered fuel cells. Or doctors who help treat and cure thousands of people. Or engineers working on new, more fuel efficient vehicles. Now which group do you think is better for the environment, the first group or the second?

What's good for the environment cannot be untied from what's good for society in an economic sense. Economic growth is a prerequisite for being able to be a better steward of the environment. That's why the anti-growth agenda that the "Earth First" crowd is pushing is so frightfully, dreadfully, and deadly wrong.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: FoBoT
sounds like a bunch of greenie bs

I second that. While it's true that citizens of "industrialized" nations use more resources than citizens of third-world countries, there is no way that we would need more than just one Earth to support us if everyone lived as we do.

This quiz is BS but still, if everyone on earth lived like us (industrialized western nations) our earth would certainly not be enough - be it because earth doesnt have that many resources, be it because the environment couldnt take it, be it because we wouldnt have nearly enough food- but if everyone would really live like we do, earth would be in the most serious trouble imaganable...

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: B00ne


This quiz is BS but still, if everyone on earth lived like us (industrialized western nations) our earth would certainly not be enough - be it because earth doesnt have that many resources, be it because the environment couldnt take it, be it because we wouldnt have nearly enough food- but if everyone would really live like we do, earth would be in the most serious trouble imaganable...

i disagree

the US itself has huge untapped spaces and resources

it really bugs be when urbanintes who never visit BFE say we are "running out of space" and need to stop population growth

last month on vacation i drove from Norfolk VA back to Kansas City on I-64

i challenge anyone to make that drive and argue that the US is "running out of space" and needs to limit its population

 

[LuNoTiCK]

What a buncha crap

If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.9 planets.

Category
global hectares

Food 2.4

Mobility 0.5

Shelter 1

Goods/Services 1.4

Total Footprint 5.3



If everyone lived like me, we would only need 1 planet the size of jupiter or the sun.

 

[IGBT]

What ever happened to the concept of zero population growth? In 1959 California had <9million people. We now have nearly 35 million and will hit 50 million in 20 years. So in liu of those numbers..what do you think the real ecological/enviromental problem is??

 

[shiner]

I second that. While it's true that citizens of "industrialized" nations use more resources than citizens of third-world countries, there is no way that we would need more than just one Earth to support us if everyone lived as we do. This kind of propaganda flies in the face of human intelligence.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: B00ne


This quiz is BS but still, if everyone on earth lived like us (industrialized western nations) our earth would certainly not be enough - be it because earth doesnt have that many resources, be it because the environment couldnt take it, be it because we wouldnt have nearly enough food- but if everyone would really live like we do, earth would be in the most serious trouble imaganable...

i disagree

the US itself has huge untapped spaces and resources

it really bugs be when urbanintes who never visit BFE say we are "running out of space" and need to stop population growth

last month on vacation i drove from Norfolk VA back to Kansas City on I-64

i challenge anyone to make that drive and argue that the US is "running out of space" and needs to limit its population

Well u might disagree, but u cant judge from looking at the US. For once the US is importing vast amounts of resources be it in ore, goods, whatever. Then the US are a special case (like Canada, Australia and other very low populated countries) your population is very small compared to the area that u have at your disposal. Most countries ( at least the ones that contribute alot to the world population have a much higher population density. Heck if we (Germany) were driving SUVs and Pickups and our fuel efficiency (energy we get out of 1 unit of fuel(whatever type)) was as bad as in the US we would probably be running in gas masks or with oxygen bottles on our back already now.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: IGBT
What ever happened to the concept of zero population growth? In 1959 California had <9million people. We now have nearly 35 million and will hit 50 million in 20 years. So in liu of those numbers..what do you think the real ecological/enviromental problem is??

The US like most fully industrialized nations is at zero population growth if you subtract immigration. Most of Europe is in negative growth (the US will be in a few decades), Japan is in negative growth. You wanna reduce global population? Support globalization.

 

[kami]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 4.9 planets.

 

[Leetman]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 4.7 planets.

Category
global hectares

Food 2.4

Mobility 1.8

Shelter 1

Goods/Services 3.2

Total Footprint 8.4
In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9.7 global hectares per person.




Worldwide, there exist 1.8 biologically productive global hectares per person.

 

[BlueApple]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.2 planets.

Total Footprint 4

^ BEAT THAT, BIATCH!!!!!!!!!

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Only 4.8 planets here... Footprint of 8.6.

I need to try harder to get the most out of the planet before I die.

 

[Nemesis77]

If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.8 planets.

Food 1.6
Mobility 0.1
Shelter 1.7
Goods/Services 1.6
Total Footprint 5

 

[ElFenix]

arrrg! metric!!!

trying to convert mpg to liter/100k is frickin' hard!

lets see.. 60 miles... is this highway or city driving? both? i'll use the mix... 25mpg... about 2.4 gallons... almost 4 liters a gallon... 10? i'll go with 9.5.



If everyone lived like you, we would need 3.9 planets.

Category
global hectares Food 2.2 Mobility 1.9 Shelter 0.6 Goods/Services 2.3 Total Footprint 7

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9.7 global hectares per person.

changing flight time to 100 hours (i did 50 last year)
If everyone lived like you, we would need 5.8 planets.

Category
global hectares Food 2.2 Mobility 3.7 Shelter 0.6 Goods/Services 3.9 Total Footprint 10.4

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 9.7 global hectares per person.