I am very surprised with my footprint results because I expected around 4000 kgs, not 6334. And all of the values were normal, except for transportation, where I got 3157, almost half of my entire footprint and almost 5 times bigger than the average in my country. This was due to the fact that I took 6 flights this year. I didn't realise it would produce so much CO2. But after some research, I found out that going on planes for long distances is quite cheap. On the other hand, carpooling to those destinations affects the environment way less than flights. So, which one is better? Harming Mother Nature, or spending more money?

You brought up an interesting point, indeed. I myself have been taken aback due to my results, having 2134 kgs for transportation, despite not flying this year. The prices for gas should not be as high as they are currently, if we ever hope to protect Mother Nature by driving instead of flying.

Hi, Lidia, I can definitely relate to this post because a lot of my footprint also came from my transportation methods! The way that I try to cut down on my affect in mother nature is by carpooling because it does seem to have many benefits. Carpooling to destinations as you know means fewer cars on the road which in turn creates less GHG (greenhouse gas emissions) but it is hard to think about helping mother nature when you are going across the country. So I think that if we start carpooling and helping mother nature out in little ways in our hometowns when we go on small trips we might be able to come up with a travel option that does not cause so much CO2!

Hi Lydia, Reading your post was very interesting. I too was quite surprised by my footprint result as it was well over the average for my demographic of 9,727kgs, at nearly 16,000kgs. Similar to you, I believe the majority of my excess carbon production comes from transportation as well as the many lights in my house. Interestingly, I believe both of these categories are more heavily influenced by the behavior habits of my family rather than my own. In a rather larger household, I have a lot of lights, many of which I do not monitor and often travel on long-distance family flights and road trips. In comparison, if I lived alone, I could limit my amount of emissions by going on less long distance trips. Overall, in response to your question, I believe finding a balance between expense and harming nature is the best answer. This is simple if one commits the maximum amount of money towards saving mother nature not only through limiting their carbon footprint but also by donating what they can to other foundations that commit to protecting mother nature.

Although, I understand that there are often many seats open on planes, I would think that this would raise the carbon footprint on average, the more aboard the plane, the lower everyones actual consumption of fossil fuels!

I'd like to add that we already don't pay the "real" cost for our gas, here in the US. If gas went up to what it should be (and what it is in other places in the world), maybe people would make more of an effort to carpool. And if gas went up, plane tickets go up too!

Oh dear, plane tickets do not need to go up anymore, ha.

Oh really? I would figure that the mass amount of traffic in cities is more than planes produced. I didn't know planes harmed the environment that much until recently. I think that alternatives to driving ( other than bikes) are years away from now, and with the minimal amount of people that care compared to those that don't, adds even more time. Honestly, I do not feel there is any other way to fly than planes, and an environmental aircraft is probably less likely to happen than winged hamsters, sadly.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I love to spend time in nature however I couldn’t believe how much I’m harming the environment I love so dearly. After learning about how much my average footprint is compared to others around the world I felt terrible. I’m going to really try from now on to reduce my footprint as much as I can in order to keep the earth healthy.