My Footprint calculates how many global hectares you use for food, transport, shelter and services. The average for the UK is 5.3 hectares. I came out with 3.3. “Worldwide there exists 1.8 biologically productive global hectares per person.” Pre-packaged food seems to be my biggest problem here, which I knew. Must try harder.
Search the Archives
About this site
In June 2000 I started blogging at peteashton.com and 10 years later in June 2010 I decided to stop. Blogging here, that is. I started a clean slate over on I Am Pete Ashton and maintain all manner of other web presences which are all listed here along with my contact details.
You probably came here via a Google search or from following a link on some old blog post somewhere. I hope what you find is useful in some way, though do check the publication date - it might be rather old now.
Thanks for your eyeballs.
Pete Ashton
The bait lured me – I visited “footprint” and even took the test. According to their logic I am definitely a threat to society. But am I? Surely the point is that some give to society more than their share, perhaps because of certain skills, such as education. They may take more than their share in order to accomplish the good. I had to check the box that says 100 hours of flying a year. I guess this means I am a bad person, using up all that fuel, but the fact that most of those hours are spent in pursuit of business that helps to keep the plane flying, this computer whirring and so on, is conveniently overlooked by the elitists who have set themselves up to determine whether or not each of us has the right to a certain sized footprint. Their analysis pointed out that if everyone was like me we would need 7.4 planets. Guess what, they can go live on one of the other 6.4!
I feel much better now!
So your flying help to keep the plane flying, so really your footprint is actually way bigger than the test would indicate. But hey, fuck the planet over by flying about in the upper atmosphere and spreading pollution about, it’s only some dumb fuck piss poor Bangladeshi who is going to drown due to climate change. I’ve seen some stupid fucking comments posted to web sites but yours is up there near the top of my list! Or of course you may have been using a very subtle form of humour, the lack of emoticons would indicate otherwise.
What it really comes down to is this. We get to live privilaged lives in the rich west because we are lucky enough to have been born in the rich developed 1st world (unless you wish to claim that some divine intervention put your here for a purpose) and some poor schmuck in the poor gets to live a rather shit life in the 3rd world. Over simplistic? I don’t think so. Most poor countries do not lack natural resources, they are poor because they are exploited. Oil companies supplying helicopters to death squads in Nigeria, global food corps growing cash crops in africa and leaving native farmers downstream with no water, rain forest destroyed to grow cheap coffee….the list goes on.
Because we are so dependant on screwing the rest of the world we in the west will fall further and further into a moral black hole where we justify more destruction and exploitation in the name of progress. Either we stop consuming at this rate now or we won’t have much of a planet to hand over to the next generation, and the generation after than.
When offered something which we believe to be, or have been convinced is better, most of us desire it. We can always justify our need for it in some way or another.
Whether it makes us wiser, more compassionate, more at peace with ourselves and with our greater environment, only our inner voice can give us that answer.
Dave – no emoticons because I am not being emotional about this. Using statistics to prove a point is one of mankind’s greatest follies. The emotionalism is there for all of us to see on sites like footprint.org – an emotional reaction that doesn’t actually do anybody in the 3rd or 4th world any good, but simply makes the originators feel better about themselves.
I help to find and produce oil so that the world can be a better, more efficient place for all of us to live in. You have every right to decry what I do and what I stand for but I just wish that comments about death squads in Nigeria and screwing the world were made with a bit more thought. I have witnessed numerous examples of improvements to the lives of ordinary people in remote lands just as I have seen bribery and corruption among the politicians who run those countries. I have not been able to stop the corruption but I have been able to make numerous small differences that add up to something meaningful. I believe this because I know I was born in a privileged society where my parents strove to get me a good education. I sincerely believe that there are people in Indonesia, India, Myanmar, Colombia, Venezuela, Tunisia, Morocco, Equatorial Guinea and Senegal who have been influenced in some positive way by what I do when I fly all those hours a year around the globe.
The face of capitalism takes two forms – one the amorphous corporation, the other the individuals who take what they know and try to transform the lives of others.
As for climate change – Gaia knows all about climate change – ask her.
Okay, everyone calm down!
I find things like the footprint.org site interesting not because they’re right (and there’s no way a simplistic test like that can really be accurate) but because they help give a new perspective on things. There are lots of hidden costs floating around and while you often can’t do much about them it’s good to be aware of them. To take a minor example, discounted books (such as a 3 for 2 offer) seem like a win-win situation for the customer and bookseller, but in order to participate the publishers have to give a larger discount and if this goes over 50% (which it often does) the author loses half their royalty payment for that sale. Fine for those who double their sales but not so good if they don’t.
There’s a hidden cost in pretty much everything – air travel is heavily subsidized at nearly ever level (I’ve seen the invoices for airplane parts and there’s no way they could operate on a level playing field) and causes more pollution per passenger than any other form of transport. I’m still going to fly, though, and I have no problems with other people flying. The point is I’m aware of what’s going on.
Same goes for food. I could spend more time sourcing my food from local producers and relying less of pre-packaged food (for the record I generally use fresh vegetables for main meals but have processed meat in my sandwiches) but I do tend to use Tescos more than I’d like. The food I buy travels all over the world and the costs are hidden from me. And at the end of the day while I know that the cheaper food cost more in real terms I only have so much money in my pocket. But I’m aware of this. Most people, it seems, aren’t.
It’s probably impossible to live and function in a major city or town and have a footprint of 1.8, but it’s essential to be aware of the implications of your actions. It’s also essential not to get defensive or feel guilty about it.
My footprint is 2.7, aren’t I a hero? But Pete, I actually *couldn’t* have such a low footprint if I didn’t live in a city.
See, I don’t own a car, I eat locally-produced organic where possible, I cycle, don’t go on holiday much, and most mornings, I walk to work.
None of that would be possible were I living in the country — weirdly, even the locally-produced organic stuff, because I’d have to do one big shop a week during a window of time which wouldn’t allow me to pick and chose. Oh sure, I’d pick up the odd thing from a neighbour, but that’s not the *bulk of what I eat*.
Presumably (given that I wasn’t doing much else bad) my enlarged footprint must be a result of eating meat. I’m left suspecting that additional ethical issues have snuck into the quiz around the edges.
http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000122.html
The development of sustainable energy technology has been held up long enough by Oil companies and their paid puppets in the American political system. This of course might be the silver lining to the very dark cloud that is current US/UK imperialism in Iraq, if we make the whole region unstable and dangeous enough cheap oil production will be reduced and so the alternatives will *have* to be developed. Somehow I doubt this will happen, the US/UK forces will just keep killing more and more Iraqi’s (nobody seems to count dead Iraqi’s btw) in a vane attempt to maintain the predominance of Oil.
Ah, yes, the politics of oil. So much more interesting than talking about using the stuff for the good of humankind.
Got it down to 2.8 (or 1.6 planets). Go me.
2.6 (1.4 planets)!
We Win!
Get In!