My life in SF was <2 planets, My current life over 5. It doesn’t really feel that different.
Egads! I tried taking the test multiple times during slack times over the weekend… my high end was 7.1 and that was probably an entry error playing with variables. So in the clear light of sunset with fog…I just took it 6 times with some variations, and here’s what I got.
5.3 based on surfing once a week, 10 hours flight time, over 200 miles in a car, and eating meat “very often”.
4.4 with no surfing, no airplanes, 10-100 miles in a car per week.
3.6 reducing meat to 1-2 times per week, changing to local food to 3/4 of time, and getting a new car with 35-50 mpg.
Changing my age down 2 decades to 30 made virtually no difference across the board.
I can’t “pass” (at 4.5 planets) at all if I surf even once a week, unless perhaps I go vegan.
Motorbike and surfboard= death, which has a nice low planet impact.
There is no viable public transportation where I live.
Based on this I would have to say my initial misgivings about the whole thing seem valid. To go low impact (50% below the sustainable levels) I would have to go completely vegetarian with locally grown produce, buy a new car and try not to use it, and move to a beachside city…and all that is $$$$, not to mention the impact of mass migration to create dense coastal populations.
To live even the most basic active (3 surfs a week) surfing life with travel even including living on the beach - and make it at or below the 4.5 planet sustainable level- is impossible unless you are a vegetarian trustafarian rich kid living on the beach and you only surf within walking or bicycle distance of surf and everything else. That is a recipe for stunted human growth, but probably for a good “green” consumer.
Yes, the test is shot full of holes (no gas mpg options for just one example), but still an incredibly interesting mental exercise.
