4 ms·

> There are many websites that calculate your “earth footprint”. Ie how many earths are needed if everyone lived the same as you. My earth footprint was 4 earth

by ttt0 6y ago

> There are many websites that calculate your “earth footprint”. Ie how many earths are needed if everyone lived the same as you. My earth footprint was 4 earths ! What kind of metric even is that? What does it even mean, Google doesn't say anything.

ttt0 6y ago
Found this cutesy site ( https://www.footprintcalculator.org https://www.footprintcalculator.org ), did the test and apparently just because I eat a decent amount of meat and heat my house so I don't freeze to death, I'm using two point something Earths (whatever that means). Everything else is way below average. When I clicked on "How do you feel" about my Earth footprint, it presents me only with the choices: Shocked, Inspired, Helpless, Intrigued, Worried, Embarrassed and Confused. Nice propaganda, but I feel okay about myself. If this is in any way accurate and what I'm doing is too much for the climate to handle then I officially don't care about the climate. I'm not going to just roll over and die for the greater good, sorry. As a bonus, I throw in a recently fired MA official, saying that most emissions come from residential heating and they need to "break our will" for doing that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muxVGmgykA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muxVGmgykA4
- thewarrior 6y ago
  I’m not judging anyone’s choices. But I think it’s difficult to think about the kind of world we maybe leaving behind for our grandchildren. If your lifestyle needs 2 earths that point will be hit for the whole earth pretty soon. Wars are the most likely outcome. The first world will have to maintain their living standards by force and keep out the climate refugees.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    I already live a minimalist lifestyle, not because of the climate, but because I simply prefer it that way. If this is not enough, then the climate will be the least of concerns for our grandchildren. > Wars are the most likely outcome. Yes, that should go without saying. Not cooperation, but endless wars between nations over scarce resources. Or being subjegated by the world elites and basically soviet style communism. Millions starved to death, because one commissar decided that one particular country eats too much and it's bad for the climate. Assuming any of this is true, which I'm told it is.
- shmageggy 6y ago
  Wow, that site is trash. How did I “feel” after taking the quiz? Pretty annoyed that it was trying to guilt trip me into regressing to subsistence farming levels rather than thinking in any critical way how our industries and economies might be making a reasonable lifestyle much less sustainable than it could be. I went back and adjusted the responses to get 1 earth level, and the result is ridiculous. There’s zero chance we’ll convince 7+ billion people to be zero-waste vegans who live crammed into a tiny apartment and essentially never travel anywhere. And I don’t think we need to! Even assuming their math is correct (of which I’m highly suspect), why should we accept that the solution is to roll over and die (as you nicely put it) rather than improve agricultural methods, energy generation efficiency and sustainability, transportation efficiency, policies that fail to discourage inefficiency, etc, etc, etc. It’s such a thoughtless and uninspired (and uninspiring) take. edit: ok, after poking around a bit more it seems their proposed solutions are more inline with common sense than it appeared initially. But wow what a terrible way to communicate and inspire people.
anemoiac 6y ago
It’s based on some estimate of sustainable consumption, i.e. the earth can sustainably support everyone if their average footprint is “1 earth.” Any higher level of consumption is unsustainable. I’ve seen multiple variations on this concept, so you’d likely have to consult their specific methodologies to figure out how they determine what is sustainable.

by ttt0 6y ago

ttt0 6y ago

Found this cutesy site ( https://www.footprintcalculator.org https://www.footprintcalculator.org ), did the test and apparently just because I eat a decent amount of meat and heat my house so I don't freeze to death, I'm using two point something Earths (whatever that means). Everything else is way below average. When I clicked on "How do you feel" about my Earth footprint, it presents me only with the choices: Shocked, Inspired, Helpless, Intrigued, Worried, Embarrassed and Confused. Nice propaganda, but I feel okay about myself. If this is in any way accurate and what I'm doing is too much for the climate to handle then I officially don't care about the climate. I'm not going to just roll over and die for the greater good, sorry. As a bonus, I throw in a recently fired MA official, saying that most emissions come from residential heating and they need to "break our will" for doing that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muxVGmgykA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muxVGmgykA4

thewarrior 6y ago
I’m not judging anyone’s choices. But I think it’s difficult to think about the kind of world we maybe leaving behind for our grandchildren. If your lifestyle needs 2 earths that point will be hit for the whole earth pretty soon. Wars are the most likely outcome. The first world will have to maintain their living standards by force and keep out the climate refugees.
- ttt0 6y ago
  I already live a minimalist lifestyle, not because of the climate, but because I simply prefer it that way. If this is not enough, then the climate will be the least of concerns for our grandchildren. > Wars are the most likely outcome. Yes, that should go without saying. Not cooperation, but endless wars between nations over scarce resources. Or being subjegated by the world elites and basically soviet style communism. Millions starved to death, because one commissar decided that one particular country eats too much and it's bad for the climate. Assuming any of this is true, which I'm told it is.
shmageggy 6y ago
Wow, that site is trash. How did I “feel” after taking the quiz? Pretty annoyed that it was trying to guilt trip me into regressing to subsistence farming levels rather than thinking in any critical way how our industries and economies might be making a reasonable lifestyle much less sustainable than it could be. I went back and adjusted the responses to get 1 earth level, and the result is ridiculous. There’s zero chance we’ll convince 7+ billion people to be zero-waste vegans who live crammed into a tiny apartment and essentially never travel anywhere. And I don’t think we need to! Even assuming their math is correct (of which I’m highly suspect), why should we accept that the solution is to roll over and die (as you nicely put it) rather than improve agricultural methods, energy generation efficiency and sustainability, transportation efficiency, policies that fail to discourage inefficiency, etc, etc, etc. It’s such a thoughtless and uninspired (and uninspiring) take. edit: ok, after poking around a bit more it seems their proposed solutions are more inline with common sense than it appeared initially. But wow what a terrible way to communicate and inspire people.

anemoiac 6y ago

It’s based on some estimate of sustainable consumption, i.e. the earth can sustainably support everyone if their average footprint is “1 earth.” Any higher level of consumption is unsustainable. I’ve seen multiple variations on this concept, so you’d likely have to consult their specific methodologies to figure out how they determine what is sustainable.