Results:

Global Footprint Network

Test #1 – 2.9 Earths / May 5th

Test #2 – 2.5 Earths / May 28th

 

The Nature Conservancy

Test #1 – 13 Tons / 28% better

Test #2 – 11 Tons / 39% better

 

Response:

Using the tools offered to us by The Nature Conservancy and the Global Footprint Network sites, we were able to detect what our carbon footprint on the earth is equivalent to. The Global Footprint Network’s site gave us test results that indicated how many Earths would be needed to sustain a whole human population like me, as well as how long into a new year I would last on all of Earth’s yearly renewable resources. The Nature Conservancy site’s test also gave us two different answers. The first one being the tons of CO2 that my “footprint” produces in a year; and the second result being the percentage, either better or worse, than average.

As I said before the Global Footprint Network’s test determined how long a yearly supply of Earth’s resources would last for me, and also how many Earths are needed to supply for a whole population of people like me. After taking the test for the first time I was quite shocked at the results. It said I would barely make it to the month of May with Earths yearly renewable supplies and nearly 3x the Earths resources would be needed to sustain of world population of all people like me. Going in to this test I had always considered myself a person that was mindful of doing small things to help the environment, but after taking this test I had been shown that even with those little things done the overall damage is still very severe. When I had retaken the test, incorporating in some life changes that I could see as sustainable, I was able to produce a more positive answer. I was able to shed half an earth off of the 3 Earths needed from before and I also extended my survival deadline to now nearly the end of May, on whole month added.

The Nature Conservancy test I think was a bit more positive in its results. While 13 tons of CO2 per year seems like a lot it was still nearly 30% better than average, and even when I incorporated my sustainable life changes it only went up to nearly 40% better. This in comparison to the other test speaks much more nicely as to the type of environment caring person that I am.

In both of the tests, to try and produce some better results I was able to pinpoint some things that I felt were unnecessary or too much and cut it out to get a better rating. These targeted areas included how much meat I eat, the amount of processes food I eat, the total miles I put onto my car, and so on. These were things that I actually didn’t need all together or didn’t need the amount I am used to having to live, and small changes like these were able to help truly improve my score to an even better place. Sometimes just riding an extra bus or two a week can make all the difference, especially if everyone across the world did it.