Acidman's ecological footprint is a mere 5.7 planets. Mine is a hearty 9.1. That's ok, Acidman, I'm sure you realize (and hear quite often) that size doesn't matter.

The premise, of course, is that if everyone on the planet lived the cushy and wasteful lifestyle that I lead, we'd need 9.1 planets. Of course, market economics are never even factored in to their silly exercise. I guess the enviroweenies don't realize (or don't care) that with fixed resources, the higher the demand, the greater the cost. Naturally, as price goes up, demand and usage will taper off and decline because less people would be willing (or able) to pay the price.

I don't expect the environmental wackos to be able to comprehend free market economics with their pea brains and narrow view of the world, I just wish they wouldn't keep trying to guilt me into changing my lifestyle. As long as I can pay for it, what's the big deal? If we all lived the meager 1 planet (or less) lifestyle they want us to lead, we'd put millions of people out of work, and plunge the earth into abject poverty.

If they want to live in the third world, that's their business. But don't expect me to follow suit.

UPDATE: I retook the quiz, and found that the lowest score I could get was a 1.0. To do so, you need to live in rural Africa, walk everywhere, never drive, never fly, live with 7 or more people, in a tiny house that has no water or electricity, and grow your own food.