Unfortunately, the test has changed since I last took it. Before it was about acres needed to support one's lifestyle. The way this one is done it seems the more people on the planet the more planets are needed to sustain one's given lifestyle. An area number stays the same but the no. of Earth's constantly increases. Does that make sense?

No one's carbon footprint is in the negative. It is impossible for humans especially for Americans. Even in death we have a footprint.

So a professional tree planter still has a carbon footprint? Carbon offsets aren't possible?

@Empathiest Offsets are possible but not to cancel or negate one's basic footprint. We all need and use resources (especially in developed countries) and we all create pollution and waste.

I would like to know where you come up with those numbers?? With those numbers we would be standing on each other's toes. I guess nature has no say in this but my question is WHY??

no, we wouldn't be standing on each other's toes.50,000,000 trucks made in the USA alone since ww2. 2.5 million tons of pesticide used every year. 83,000,000 extra humans on the planet this year alone.270,000,000,000 tons of sand used this year alone. google it if you don't believe me or Sir David Attenborough, a man who has probably the most insight first hand by nature of his job into human encroachment on animals and habitat loss etc. actually mother nature will address it. the planet earth is a huge rock and doesn't care if it has life on it or not.

@LeighShelton "the earth could support 15,000,000,000..." & "...possible with 2,0000,0000,0000 humans on it..."

So when we are standing on one another's toes maybe we will say we should have stopped a long time ago. Again, the big question is WHY. Are we so stupid that we think we can continue breeding worse than rabbits and nothing will happen. Do we not see the importance of family planning programs? Do we think the Earth is made of rubber and will continue expanding to suite human needs? Oh yeah, God told us to "Be fruitful and multiply"!!

you obviously know more than Sir David Attenborough and you can get the whole world on family planning. you da man can't wait to see you famous very soon.

@LeighShelton I have seen all of David Attenborough films and he constantly talks about habitat loss which is causing species to go extinct.

Yes I do know more in certain areas than he. I have been actively studying them for over 25 years. I also know enough to be open minded to new ideas and practice critical thinking. Not everybody can say that.

there is an accidental 0 I meant 2 billion

what part of David Attenborough's programs did you watch? I have never seen him condone human expansion.

One thing with this test is that are lots of them and most just go over the basics. This one had some side tests that were a bit more detailed.

For me I live on an island which makes it easier to control one's impact. Water comes from a well and rain harvesting system. When my partner was alive we used about 35 gallons (140 L per day) now I am half that. I have a solar system and actually, in the summer, add to the net. My car is a small Prius (on profile) and it gets filled about once a month but with only 6 Gals. per fill.

12 myself.

We are fighting our Government, they have backed off on all the promises our country has made, yet private people have installed so much solar that it looks like we will hit our greenhouse gas reduction targets in spite of our Government that wants to destroy the planet.

my hero,

I am curious what you do to get that number. Maybe I need to retake the test.

@JackPedigo I live in an apartment complex build in 1993, I hardly ever drive anywhere, there is a bus or my bicycle. Sometimes go with a freind to shop, the stuff in a can that I buy are black olives, tuna and salmon. local apples and whatever organic vegies have the best price that week. Recycle paper and plastic - convient dumpster right next to trash dumpster. I think if I was in my own house the number would be higher.

@silverotter11 I retook the test and still came out as before. I have a solar system, well and rain harvesting, lots of insulation, thermostat down to 65, gardens and an orchard, hardly ever drive, smaller house, recycle most everything and on and on. Yet 1.5.

I have taken several tests and they are not all alike. Some are better and this one is average. Plus being single in a free standing house counts against me even though my resource is half of what it was before??

@JackPedigo 1.5 pretty good. Oh! almost no meat or pork like 4 times a year. I can not do 65 - I am 65 lol - I wish I could go to Arizona in the winter. I use to be able to take the cold better but anymore I like the heat. Ellensburg gets pretty toasty in the summer and I don't use the air conditioner. The air quality in winter sometimes gets bads and I have a air cleaner with a hepa filter. Came in handy during the forest fires this summer.

@silverotter11 E. Wash. is usually too hot in summer and too cold in winter for me. Here we don't need air conditioning so much. I open windows at night to cool off the house and close them during the day. It stays cool all day. I don't eat meat. We have a family that goes fishing in Alaska. They catch the fish, fillet it, vacuum pack it and freeze it all on board. Twice a year they come to the islands and I always buy some of their wild Salmon.

I have been thinking about the carbon footprint I sent. It is all wrong and our difference got me to thinking and I saw the flaws in that test. My conclusion is ay to long to print but I am going to look for another test.

@JackPedigo I look forward to running thru the questions when you find one. But just living is going to impact the planet. How do you tell people to stop having so many babies, stop using plastics, stop polluting the air and water, stop the chemicals, etc.?

@silverotter11 You can't, you can only be aware of these things yourself and try and plant seeds. So many groups I have been in try to get others to adopt a certain lifestyle but they seldom take the extra step, and do the extra hard but important things themselves. Unfortunately, the result will fall on the next generations (and it seems it is coming sooner than we expected). This is not negative but being aware and proactive.

The problem is, plastics don't break down fast enough so they accumulate. On land its not quite so bad but its causing real serous problems in the ocean and other bodies of water that is escalating rapidly.

I'm sure in a few million years the planet will absorb it, but in the mean time, we have a growing problem on our hands that is of our making.

I always wonder why they don't just turn the plastic back into oil. It is readily done from what I understand.

Unfortunately, that view is common and is an oversimplification of the whole idea. Basically there is a formula for this and it is I=PAT (Impact equals Population X Activity x Technology). Overpopulation has been an issue from the beginning of mankind and pretty much a given science for the last 100 years.

@azzow2 It is a very small part of the problem. Here we have a super transfer station with a recycling program and a take-it-or-leave-it building. Most plastics were recycled but most are recycled in China. Apparently, in the plastic bag department, a huge bundle of dirty diapers showed up (in China) and this was the final straw for this program. Recycled glass has become so common there is no longer any cost benefit for it. Here we grind it up and add it as a soil amendment. Paper is also recycled but it has to be separated into corrugated, regular and paper with chemical bindings. We are also looking into recycling concrete. Years ago in Seattle a massive area, in my neighborhood, had housing built to house workers for Boeing during the war. It was supposed to be temporary. By the turn of the century it was a subsidized housing project and there were lots of problems. The city contracted with a developer and the buildings were torn down and massive grinders were used to grind up the concrete (no re-bar because the all metal was used for the war) and actually use it for new concrete. Another big issue is the recycling of clothing. With 7+ billion of us all using stuff this is a recipe for disaster. This is just a small example of how complicated everything is. There are no quick and easy solutions.

@JackPedigo Instead of using new fuel why can't we use our coal plants for generating electricity from all our combustibles scrap , garbage because the coal plants have scrubbers and filters already in place to discharge clean-air. All we have to do is separate the noncombustible material from the combustible material this would also alleviate landfill problem and eliminate the production of methane from landfills.

@dc65 I once addressed a group when they were showing the 9 films in the "living life dangerously" series. My film was Climate Change and I said Climate Change was not a problem!! After waiting for the dust to settle I stated it is a symptom for a bigger problem which is all the assaults on our (and other species) life support systems.

@JackPedigo So tell me what we can do? People are not going to change their ways they want the luxury the energy and resources bring them.

@dc65 Whatever we were trying to do is being eroded by the insane people now in charge of our government.

If people are NOT going to change their ways it will be done for them. Either by others (as is happening now) or by nature. Again and again the more of us the worse the problem. Our only choice is to do or die. How many here think that mother nature cares for one paltry invasive species?

@JackPedigo Correct as a whole we are all a predatory virus.