This was a fun eye-opening little quiz. It’s called the Ecological Footprint Quiz. My new friends over at People Not Profit have posted some new thoughts on consumption. This is sort of what I was referring to when I talked about struggling with my “profession” and job that I do as a graphic designer.
Anyway, they discussed some statistics from the book Radical Simplicity. It’s estimated that there is about 4.7 acres of Earth available to everyone in the world if it was equally divided. This means that it would take 4.7 acres to sustain an equitable, fair quality of life for every human being. Even rising “first-world” countries like India (with the 2nd fastest growing economy behind China) only have 1.7 acre per person. Meanwhile, the average American needs 24 acres to sustain their lifestyle and consumption patterns.
According to the quiz (which is obviously a rough idea) it is estimated that Anna and I use 18 acres to sustain our lifestyle and consumption patterns. Which is 6 acres less than the average American. It takes 6.9 acres to provide my food. 1.2 acres for our car and driving. 5.4 acres to provide for our housing (utilities and construction). And 4.4 for all the “extra-curricular” things we consume like clothing, entertainment, etc.
If everybody lived like us, we would need 4.1 planets to sustain us.
So the guys at People Not Profit make this great point that I’ve been struggling with . . . that you can’t really buy yourself into a “greener” Earth. The only way is to avoid such gross over-consumption. Which obviously goes against our democratic and capitalist values. I mean for crying out loud, after 9-11 Bush made a speech where he said that we should go to the mall and spend to show the terrorists what’s up. Consumed (how ironic and odd is it that the quickest and easiest to give you the overview of a book is to link to it’s Amazon page – so check it out of the library) talks a lot about this, which I reviewed here.
Anybody honest enough to take the quiz and share? Or just share your thoughts?
[tags]Green Living, Ecological Footprint, Earth Day, Consumed, Radical Simplicity[/tags]
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
16 Comments
Only need 2.8 planets for me. . .
You talking to KIVA about a time?
i got a 16…i think it was 3.7 planets.
Hmm. The only way to get it down to 1 planet is to basically respond as if you are dirt poor, not consuming anything. Figures.
1.9 for me. and you have to score the lowest on everything to get it to one.
peace
imagine that derek.
Yea Derek – who would have thought that the poor consume less?
And I got a 17 – 3.9 planets.
It’s just that it’s indicative of the anti-capitalist nature of some of the green-crowd these days. The kind that doesn’t want to allow the poor in other countries to develop and expand electricity service (which would greatly improve their quality of life) because of the negative impact, while still enjoying their trips around the world in private jets.
The quiz seems to encourage the idea that we all have to live in stark poverty in order to survive.
just because you’re “green” doesn’t mean that you’re anti-capitalist. it just means you’re anti hyper consumerism. and i don’t know of any “green” people who don’t think those in 3rd world countries should go without electricity so that we can save the earth. if anything, they say that we should practice more moderation and restraint in our own country so that others around the world can share in the same type of things that we have. and again, i don’t know of any “green” people who fly around the world in private jets.
and i certainly don’t think that the quiz encourages the idea that we have to live in stark poverty to create a more sustainable and equitable planet. but maybe that’s just me.
Look up eco-imperialism. It’s the idea of western culture imposing their environmental views on developing countries, and preventing them from improving their quality of life. Placing the environment over people. For instance, consider how people react to the idea of using DDT in developing countries to fight malaria. Consider how people react to the idea of using nuclear power to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
The environmental movement has shifted in recent years, to the point where people are less important that the environment they live in. It’s subtle, but it’s there. And any time I see indications that the “solution” for the environment is for all of us to live in stark poverty, I see it. And that’s the point of that quiz, whose assumption is that the only way for us to all “fit” onto the planet is if we all live in stark poverty, consuming nearly nothing.
well as someone who is somewhat on the inside of this community, by practicing many of the things as well as reading many of the books and articles. i can tell you i know of no one in this current group who believes any of that. but if you would like to make judgments by standing on the outside looking in . . . that’s your prerogative.
i know of no one who believe “people are less important that the environment they live in” while i know of plenty of “environmentalists” who say “people are but stewards of the land and we should be wise stewards of it”. who say there’s no reason for us to practice mass over consumption so that the 3rd world can go without. everyone i know is simply about leveling the playing field. not about making people poor so the environment can be better. for such a conservative voice, i would expect a much deeper theology of creation from you.
For me, issues about over-consumption are more spiritual than they are environmental. It’s more about obedience, compassion, and sacrifice. You are right that we are stewards of this earth, and we should be ensuring that we are not damaging it. There is also a growing trend of environmentalists who see humans as a negative impact on this earth overall, and who place a higher priority on environmental concerns than on social justice and compassion. We must place an immensely higher value on what God created in His image (humans) than on the environment He created for us to reside.
I’m not trying to be judgmental of you (or the people you know) – but I will point out elements of eco-imperialism when I see them, as I did with the underlying influence of that survey. As you know, ideas can be subversive, and can subtly infiltrate thinking and influence perceptions without people being consciously aware of it. I believe that is how consumerism has become such a problem (particularly within the church), because it crept in without us being aware of it.
Do what you will with my observation – but even if you or nobody you know has that mentality, know that it exists, and that it is influential.
Derek = the snarky jackass of the blog, I am glad I no longer have that that title.
So believing that the value of human life is higher than the environment earns me the title snarky jackass? Perhaps I should take it as a compliment, then.
I have a shirt that I love to wear that shares my thoughts exactly – “forget the trees, save the kids.” I love the discussions that shirt generates.
No the title of snarky jackass doesn’t come from believing a certain thing, but rather how you are known for your response to posts. When you become the antagonist on the blog, you earn the title. It’s not a bad title, it is just one that I have held for some time on this blog and it seems that the torch has been passed.
Ah, well, Josh and I are close enough in thought, yet far away at the same time, so he inspires me to “stir the pudding” now and then.
I feel a similar way d-rock.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Ecological Footprint you can’t buy your way into a greener earth (tags: ecology evironmental_issues green) [...]
[...] with the rest of the family, this great big planet that we live on. Above is a picture of my ecological footprint. It’s an improvement from how I was living last year, but still double what I’d like it [...]