The Wheaton Eco Scale

Interesting thread. I have mentioned a little what we are doing, but I guess to see where we are on the scale, I will do a full disclosure, or close to it.

We have planted more than 150,000 trees, in Costa Rica, in order to bring back forest. These trees are owned (most of them) by others, to enable to to participate with us in bringing back forest. The land was pasture, how is a young forest, full of food for animals (and people), and much more wildlife. We are now starting to harvest some trees, but it will NEVER be clear cut. As we harvest what is needed to leave room for the rest to grow, we plant slower growing natives, so that we have more diversity - though we planted more than 40 different species. The land is protected from ever being anything other than a forest, other than some living places.

We use oxen to harvest when possible, which is nearly all the time. We recycle wood chips, by sending it to farmers, who buy more by exchanging "dirty" sawdust for clean. You wish you have my supply of organic material. 

I will use my legs to go from place to place, if feasible, if not, a horse or bike, and if not, a small dirt bike, and last resort, diesel car.

I weigh no more than 5 lbs than I should, which means I only eat what I need. (I think being overweight should knock you down a notch in the scale, so Sepp isn't at the top  )

All the energy for our home is renewable (Costa Rica is big into hydro, wind and thermal)

We grow nearly all our food, sustainably. Our meat of choice is mutton, because we have flocks of sheep who clean between the trees, thereby reducing the need to use weed whackers, etc. The waste from butchering mutton goes to two dogs, and to our catfish, which of course we eat.

My garden is pretty much LOTS of fruit trees, which we share with workers, neighbors, birds, etc. I do grow a few veggies, but try for vegetables that are native to the area and are easy to grow.

Our total expenditure, in money, for a year is generally less that 10,000 USD, though our asset base is more nearly 900 acres - with no debt. We could easily sell off what we are doing, and live very well out of four or five star hotels if we choose, but we like our simple life, though we don't live simply, because we have to.

Oh, and because we deal with forestry, our sustainable plans go into decades, not just years. And are carbon foot print is so light, and offset so much by our forest, that it is a wonder we don't float off into space. 

So, where would I be on the scale?

about the ecology I can't make scale as I can't put my self in position ..

I would rather say "eco" is natural "lifestyle" meaning maybe atm bushman live like that (I can hope/think .. I can't be aware of the fact) .. I would even exclude hermits cause majority still have interaction with civilisation so in a way they been/are part of it .. or vice versa

if we talking about life style .. imo everything out of that group is "non-eco" so ..

I find the idea of a scale interesting.

I think a scale like this should be used to assess the impact not only of individual people, but of families, communities, businesses, production methods / techniques, etc.

The scale should extend to below zero - not with the intent of berating people, but rather to provide a realistic assessment of the subject's ecological impact. Lumping together Dick Cheney with the average US or West European consumer would not make the scale very helpful (or fair).

Zero would represent the population average or median. The middle of the scale (five) would mean no ecological footprint, but no positive (regenerative) impact either.

Then every notch from 6 upwards would represent a positive contribution to the environment, the community, etc. - reforestation, soil building, regeneration.

The upper notches would be "reserved" to those who not only have a direct positive impact on their surrounding physical environment, but are also successful in persuading others to positively affect their environment, and teach effective methods for achieving that.

Alternatively, zero could be used to represent "zero impact", i.e., no footprint. In which case 1 to 10 would be the realm of people / activities / lifestyles etc. with a net regenerative effect on the planet. Obviously then most of us would fall in the negative realm...

L _

I think it's important to set a very good example and to positively influence
the 300 million people in the USA to become more responsible when using
resources that won't pollute. You might fail to be ecologically sound in doing so
but the end result will be worth it. They can then help "green up" the rest of the world.

Yesterday, I sent out "The Wheaton Eco Test". Something that lines up pretty good with the eco scale.

Although something that isn't mentioned there, nor here, is that I think there are a lot of middle class, or upper class people that have a major impact on our laws that are brainwashed by the greenwashing, and are SURE that they are eco. but they are not. And then they push for changes that are not of benefit to the planet. So the test is based on one simple little metric so that hopefully, some of these people will come to the conclusion "oh my. I thought I was eco, but I am not eco."

digging it up from the internet graveyard...

recently i've been doing solar PV installations to fund my permaculture project, which is restoring bulldozed rainforest with bamboo/koa (high value timber)/food etc. i drive 100 miles each day - 3.5 gallons of gasoline, argh. the last installation we did was for a family that had been living off generator power for 18 years (!!!). if i didn't have chickens, dogs, cats, and a nursery to take care of, i could easily have camped out at work, and saved...um...150 gallons of gasoline in the last few months. not to mention wear on my car and body - i hate driving. but i have to keep my homestead running. it's a permaculture catch-22 for me - i can't move my project forward without some cash, and i can't find decent paying, interesting work without driving. ideally i'd be selling nursery plants and spend my days watching chickens chase bugs around the yard, building garden beds and hunting pigs, but damnit, i havent been able to hop that divide yet.

so im kinda wondering...is it more eco to travel a long distance to do good work that is a valuable learning experience and satifying, or to stay closer to home and scavenge paid work as it comes up, even if it is something like clearing the jungle for some richy rich who wants more lawn (that's the only work i've been able to find inside walking distance)? on the Kaiwiki Eco Scale, it's better to travel and learn. what about the Wheaton eco scale? i seek to learn from my better and wiser (thou no more perfect) permies

aloha

I think life itself is kind of a catch-22. Each decision we make is a compromise...a trade-off of some sort.

If your use of gasoline today, while it is cheap, makes you independent from it in the future, when it becomes a precious commodity, I believe you have gained in the long term eco-scale. Each gallon you 'spent' will be saved by them not running their generator.

Nothing is perfect, but each step we take towards it, the closer we become.

Level 1: is thinking about the environment. Bought fluorescent light bulbs. Is trying to do a good job of recycling. Reads an article or two. Buys some organic food. Their power bill is less than average.

I have thought about the environment, but I am not doing things to save the world, but because i am cheap. I have bought fluorescent bulbs and will keep using until LED is affordable, they have saved energy in my application, i am not going to argue with anyone the fact they contain mercury, however Southwest Texas contains more, it occurs there naturally.

Level 2: 30% of purchased food is organic

It depends on your definition of organic, everything comes from the earth, man processing or hybridizing food to be more productive has been done since the beginning of time. I prefer food that is what it is, meat is meat and not full of soybeans if I wanted soybeans I would roast them.

Level 3: Has an organic garden and 80% of purchased food is organic

No, garden yet but am working on it and refer to level 2 on food choices

Level 4: Grow 40% of their own food. Studying permaculture. Got rid of all fluorescent light bulbs

I am studying permaculture and am going to use old fashioned ways since I was trained in them as a kid on a farm. There is no point in being stupid about growing a garden there are natural ways to do things without spending money to make the weeds or bugs go away. I really like the idea of reusing stuff that would be trash to make gardens out of.

How an I doing I think not so well on the scale. I really hate labels anyway.

I'm not eco, and probably never will be.

The purpose of the scale is to introduce the idea that three people can be eco, and that one can be more eco than the other two, and one can be less eco than the other two. To show that there ARE levels of eco-ness. Then to talk about the relationships between the different levels, which includes some stuff I see as problematic.

I have a problem with holding back something from level 4...

Level 4: Grow 40% of their own food. Studying permaculture. Got rid of all fluorescent light bulbs

What if I keep them instead of breaking them into the nearest garbage container?
What if I delay that they die soon by never lighting them for short times?



And how many levels do you go down if your 1st reflex is to look into what level you will stand?

Steve Palmer wrote:
How an I doing I think not so well on the scale. I really hate labels anyway.

My boyfriend and I recently decided we don't know what we are but it doesn't fit into ANY label we have seen so far, even permie. Labels suck, can't we all just be symbiotic
Also, I we fit multiple levels of Paul's scale but lack a few of some levels requirements too, lol

paul wheaton wrote:I think the eco witch hunt thread spells it out a bit.

Some aspects of this article are very true and I think there is definitely an Eco Scale of sorts. I think the best and most effective thing one can do is:

1: Not belittling or shaming or being intolerant in any way of people that are levels below you. All that does in the end is push people away. Elitism is obnoxious.
2: Make "precision strikes" at being Eco in your life. We are all busy people; raising families, working jobs, commuting etc etc. Where in our lives can we put the minimum effort and get the maximum return at being Eco?

One particular quote that rings true from the article:

Persuading your retired parents that it makes no sense for them to buy a GMC Yukon that seats six, given that they are only two, and neither works in construction. ...being generous to the parents who raised you

At a certain point the effort to attempt to persuade people that have lived for so long in a certain system becomes far too much to justify the possible gain.

As the Jesuits used to say:

Give me the child until he's seven and I care not who has him thereafter.

So trying to teach those that will actual make the change in the future is far more important than attempting to persuade people that are already 50+ and stubborn. Sometimes I think the key thing to remember is that no-one wants to do bad . People just have a different notion of what good is, and most of the time its based upon how they were brought up.

Elia Charalambides wrote:
I think the best and most effective thing one can do is:

1: Not belittling or shaming or being intolerant in any way of people that are levels below you. All that does in the end is push people away. Elitism is obnoxious.
2: Make "precision strikes" at being Eco in your life. We are all busy people; raising families, working jobs, commuting etc etc. Where in our lives can we put the minimum effort and get the maximum return at being Eco?

Nice points, Elia. I'm still looking for more #2 "precision strikes" in my life because I really don't think I'm doing enough yet. I think I'll read some threads for some inspiration, starting with frugality...

And hey, I'm actually just a few years from that 50 age though my plan is to keep growing, changing, learning and improving all the way to the end of my days!

Jocelyn Campbell wrote:

Nice points, Elia. I'm still looking for more #2 "precision strikes" in my life because I really don't think I'm doing enough yet. I think I'll read some threads for some inspiration, starting with frugality...

Great link! I keep discovering so many things on this site that I just need to bookmark or note for later, when I finally have some space for them. You guys are doing a great job amassing so much useful knowledge.

Jocelyn Campbell wrote:
And hey, I'm actually just a few years from that 50 age though my plan is to keep growing, changing, learning and improving all the way to the end of my days!

No offense meant at all to those 50+ . Or any age. I know many that have kept a child-like thirst for learning and experience that while collecting wisdom they still retain an open and receptive mind. I hope to be that way as well, since I think that is one of the best lessons you can pass on to younger generations.

Something that just popped into my head ...

Because three levels ahead looks crazy, and because 90% of the population is at level zero, that means the only stuff that can be shared on big media is level 1 or level 2 stuff.

Things at level 3 or above could be shared in big media, but it would need to be carefully crafted to be digestable.

paul wheaton wrote:
Things at level 3 or above could be shared in big media, but it would need to be carefully crafted to be digestable.

Sometimes the media shares things that do seem crazy or are way out there. With or without careful crafting.

I think that works a bit like a wrecking ball, breaking through the outer structure of society for those few who are ready to follow through the hole it makes. And then, with repeat exposure to this "new" craziness, others will eventually feel safer about making the leap, too.

I'm level 4!

Hey Paul!

Great thread!

First I did this version of the ten levels, without changing your Holzer top position
Then I commented something important below.


Level 1: think the organic word is cool but actually do little about it.

Level 2: is thinking about the environment. Bought fluorescent light bulbs. Is trying to do a good job of recycling. Reads an article or two. Buys some organic food. Their power bill is less than average.

Level 3: 30% of purchased food is organic

Level 4: Has an organic garden and 80% of purchased food is organic. Studying permaculture or has done a PDC. Has at least asparagus growing on its garden.

Level 5: Grow 40% of their own food. Got rid of all fluorescent light bulbs. Has read nearly every book on permaculture, read most permies threads, and watch most videos and podcasts on it. Has a few perennial species on its garden, and most of them are annuals.

Level 6: Permaculture teacher and/or grows 90% of their own food. Probably generates its own energy. Has started a food forest garden. Probably experimented with greywater recycling, compost toilets, solar stoves, doing its own soap, etc...

Level 7: Living a footprint that is 10 times lighter than average. Maybe living in community. Maybe living in something very small.

Level 8: Doing things that are currently improving the world in big ways. Has a mature forest garden.

Level 9: masanobu fukuoka, paul stamets, art ludwig, bill mollison, ianto evans ....

Level 10: the mighty, the glorious, the amazing Sepp Holzer



What about those that do NOT have land or enough money? It is very nice to talk about these scales and how permacultural we might become, but people need food and shelter, and in all nations people must pay for it, and many people are poor or do not have enough money for it, and most must work in cities and use cars to provide their living. What about those people? We simply cannot criticize people for their needs and lifestyles.

And to those of us here: even if we have enough money and land, even then sometimes you have a very harsh climate for growing most of your food (say a desert or a polar climate as the one I live), or you live so isolated that you need a car and end up polluting. Then people like Bill Mollison, Fukuoka or Holzer travelled around the world, they were obviously having a footprint much larger than people down the scale. Yes, lots and lots of questions. The world is not easy.

However I do agree with getting rid of fluorescent bulbs. They have mercury gas: not nice to break them as once happened with me.


Regarding Holzer: once in Austria I was unemployed and I want to visit him. But he wanted to charge me about 200 USD for a day visit to his farm. I thought "this is insane" and from that moment I had always a dislike for Holzer. Yes, he does amazing great things but he wanted to charge me a lot of money at a time I couldn't afford. Permaculture must be easy to teach for all types of people, not only for privileged rich people. Otherwise it will never change the world. Because of this, I teach now permaculture for free.

Exactly what I think.

Actually I have never did a PDC and I don't feel that is significant for me, anymore. Because all I learnt the theory in all the books, podcasts, videos, articles, there is a ton of information on the internet. And then I practice it. Practice, practice, practice.

And actually most PDC courses I have seen only teach very generalistic knowledge. Too much money asked for too little new information for me. At least I refer to the ones in my home country Portugal: it seems everyone is giving courses every month, but these are teachers that do not even grow a perennial garden, just simple annual gardens. Is that really permaculture or worth of a PDC? I guess its more a money making thing.

Unless it is a course given by people like Fukuoka, Mollisson or Holzer; those I would very happy in doing.

gourd all mighty wrote:

paul wheaton wrote:
Permaculture Design Course.  Typically 14 very long days of intensive study in permaculture.

lol @ 14 days..

oh yeah, i'd love to learn from someone who has studied permaculture for 14 days!

pffft...

Those without land or money: you mean like the thousands of wwoofers that go to permaculture farms for the summer?

Sepp Holzer charges $200 per day to be on his farm: Yeah, and remember the time you wanted to learn about buddhism, rather than visiting with local buddhists, you sent an email to the dali lama saying "I'll be in nepal on tuesday. Can you get tuesday off to teach me what this buddhism stuff is all about?"

When you go to Sepp's place and shell out $200 you can take all the food and seed off of his land that you can carry. Probably worth more than $200.

Moving this one ahead. The other day, I read the --- Eco Witch Hunt --- link---- https://permies.com/t/1588/community/eco-witch-hunt

This thread and that one are related. I read all of this one today. ------ I'm not going to give myself a number on Paul's scale, but I'm doing much better than average. I've only recently begun producing my own food in any quantity, but my recycling and conversion of many others to reusing building materials cancels that many times over. Thousands of people have bought used building materials from me. Hundreds gather free firewood, plants and other stuff. Several people have become full time recyclers after first being my customer or relative. I've done some work to enforce bans on certain items in several landfills and to close down illegal dumps. The Minister Of The Environment showed up personally at a job site in January, to pick up a video that I made, which showed damning evidence against a major polluter. Legal wranglings are ongoing, but they (the guilty party) stopped what they were doing once they realized just how caught they were.

Paul's scale is heavily slanted toward food, as would be expected on this sort of forum. My personal scale has more to do with total environmental footprint and my affect on the footprints of others. Some of how I affect how others behave has come from me supplying them with reclaimed resources, some has come from educating them, with cost savings being the motivating goal, and finally, I have cost the bad guys massive amounts of money and caused some change in behavior as a result. I expect this part of my contribution to increase. I used to do this stuff covertly, but was recently outed by a loose lipped bureaucrat(not the Minister Of The Environment, someone much lower on the food chain blabbed to a colleague who is related to a polluter) . Now that I've been exposed, it's time to start a YouTube channel concerning local environmental issues.

If this new venture goes half as far as I hope it will, it will place me near the top of the Dale's Eco Scale. People who seriously mess with society's worst environmental offenders and cost them buckets of money, get to start out at #5 on my scale.

Well, firstly, anyone who breaks out of level zero is doing better than the average.

================================

I have level three covered without even having a garden (if you don't count my 206 shiitake logs).

I'm surely some level six.

I hope I have some level eight in me.

================================

Now, with all that, I, with all the good intentions, loaded up on CFLs years ago when the next county over's PUD offered them for $2 each. I'm still using from that cache. I have found much the same results in my own experience with them as Paul reported. Should I shitcan them before they quit working or get what use is left in them (at least before I go off the grid next spring as I presently am planning)?

It's hard to find much linearity in the levels as they could apply to this individual. It could just be my hurky jerky style. But then, I am untreated ADHD and an OCD hoarder of anything that could still have a use to justify its initial creation/resource load.

At 66, and with 37 years of being spoiled by being on the grid (blame my ex-wife), this is going to be a big adjustment for me. I will make my footprint even smaller than it is now, after I burn a little diesel to make some boards from salvage and/or sustainably gathered logs (one tree out of 30 was a living tree, and it came down because it shared a stump with a dead tree). I am going to use whatever resources, financial and practical, to aid my immediate intentional community to Holzerize and Fukuokize themselves and their land base.

================================

(What's Stamets doing on that list, with all his Disneyesque intellectual property defense and corporate relations? We can fix the world his way if he gets his piece of the action. {Sorry, but that's just the way it looks to this reporter [and I borrowed and read his books, and have bought from his catalog.]})

Bob Louis wrote:
(What's Stamets doing on that list, with all his Disneyesque intellectual property defense and corporate relations? We can fix the world his way if he gets his piece of the action. {Sorry, but that's just the way it looks to this reporter [and I borrowed and read his books, and have bought from his catalog.]})

You noticed that too, did you?

Someone who would make my list, in the vein of Masanobu Fukuoka, would be Edward H. Falkner, author of Plowman's Folly, published in 1943. Their life stories, if of slightly different eras, were somewhat parallel.

Elia Charalambides says :

"1: Not belittling or shaming or being intolerant in any way of people that are levels below you. All that does in the end is push people away. Elitism is obnoxious"

I understand Paul Wheatons Eco-Scale a bit differently . I would say :

1 : Not belittling or shaming or being intolerant in any way of people that are levels below you . Sepp Holzer is the Elitest of the Elite . Constructive elitism being the whole point of having an eco-scale.

As I read the OP, brave new world came to mind. There were 3-4 classes of people, engineered in a DNA lab. Using that to describe this:

Level 3 people are happy cause they can look down at level 2 people and say " I eat organic and they don't. This makes be better, so I feel better about my self"

Level 2 are happy cause they look down at level one cause the 2s use cloth bags made in china and level one uses plastic.

Level one is happy cause they are so stupid that they don't know people are talking about them.

Paul and I have been talking a bit about this and he has decided that he wants to flush it out much more. He would like some feedback from all of you about what you think people would be doing at each level.

Whattya think? What is a level 1 person doing? What is a level 2 person doing? etc.

Sorry for my inactivity in recent months ...
Firstly let me start by answering the post with "It's the Wheaton Scale" he can make it what ever he damn well wants !!! That being said ....
With the responses I have seen are vague and cant just "box" someone in... And I think with some of the replies A person could be on multiple levels at the same time....
What i have done
I haven't posted recently because in my "absent time" I set up a face book page with near 400 people, On this page we inform people of their choices, Discuss ideas, give them alternatives, Post pictures of their projects and progress.....
We only focus on the positives while understanding the negatives off solutions rather than harp on the "Bad shyt" ..... Empowering people in Suburban area's to make change .....

I have doubled my chicken flock , Quadrippled my growing space, Made several upgrades to the house including reducing the power expense and CFL's ect ... Better utilize the resources at hand and gearing up for larger scale home production .....
Currently upgrading my AP system to 4X the volume and production aswell ....and looking at setting up a 3m3 anaerobic biodigester at home ..... I now hugel kulture..... And i have developed a hate for the term "organic"
What i haven't done
I have not had the resources to invest in wind or solar .... I have not done completely away with CFL's , I have never undertaken a certified course ...

I think Dale Hodgins nailed it with "Paul's scale is heavily slanted toward food, as would be expected on this sort of forum. My personal scale has more to do with total environmental footprint and my affect on the footprints of others. Some of how I affect how others behave has come from me supplying them with reclaimed resources, some has come from educating them, with cost savings being the motivating goal, and finally, I have cost the bad guys massive amounts of money and caused some change in behavior as a result."

Through my own actions I have stopped several hundred acres from being sprayed and educated and opened the door for those who are "The new farmers" , Empowered those who felt powerless , Offered solutions ... And not looked down on anyone either for being "crazy" (high on the wheaton scale) or belittled them (being lower on the wheaton scale) ... This is by far more achievement i could do on my own personal 613m2 ... I support my local farmers , not by "Buy a Bale" keeping a flawed system afloat.... If they have bad practices and cant survive even with subsidies they dont deserve to "farm" .... Those who have embraced a more "Permie" approach gets my $$$$
Peace and Love Dave OXOXOXO

I'm trying to flesh out this list:

Level 1: is thinking about the environment. Bought fluorescent light bulbs. Is trying to do a good job of recycling. Reads an article or two. Buys some organic food. Their power bill is less than average.

Level 2: 30% of purchased food is organic

Level 3: Has an organic garden and 80% of purchased food is organic

Level 4: Grow 40% of their own food. Studying permaculture. Got rid of all fluorescent light bulbs

Level 5: has taken a PDC and/or grows 90% of their own food

Level 6: Living a footprint that is 10 times lighter than average. Maybe living in community. Maybe living in something very small.

Level 7: Permaculture teacher

Level 8: Doing things that are currently improving the world in big ways

Although I think I should probably take out the light bulbs stuff in "level 1".

Keep in mind that level 1 is, roughly, 20% of the population. And level 2 is roughly 2% of the population. And level 3 is roughly 0.2% of the population.

I like the idea of coming up with a list of, say, 20 things that might be the attributes of people at level 1, 2 and 3.


At level 1, their power bill is less than average.

At level 2, their power bill is less than 30% of average.

At level 3, their power bill is less than 10% of average.

I suppose another factor might be reduction in petroleum footprint - mostly with driving and travel. Maybe it could even include a factor for persuading others to reduce their petroleum use.

Another factor could be waste generation. How much of your stuff fills the local landfill?

Another factor could be in reducing the toxicity of your environment - stuff like paints, glues and plastics.


I'm not sure if this applies: what about a financial component? Something where your residual income stream relative to your monthly financial needs.

Maybe something about clothing choices?

What am I leaving out?

First, I want to update the list to:

Level 1: (about 15% of the population) is thinking about the environment. Is trying to do a good job of recycling. Buys some organic food. Their power bill is less than average. Drives less than average, flies less than average, has removed a lot of toxic things from their home. Maybe start to dabble in composting.

Level 2: (about 1.5% of the population) 80% of purchased food is organic. 15% of their food comes from organic gardening and/or wildcrafting. Has heard of permaculture. Drives/flies about half of the average person. Probably has an interest in minimalism and repair. Probably owns a bicycle and uses it. Probably poo-less. Got rid of all fluorescent light bulbs. Dreaming of natural building some day. Avid composter.

Level 3: (about 0.15% of the population) 98% of purchased food is organic. 50% of their food comes from organic gardening and/or wildcrafting. Implemented hugelkultur. Studying permaculture. Has eliminated 95% of the toxic gick from their home. Participated in several natural building workshops. No longer composts.

Level 4: 99% of purchased food is organic. 75% of their food comes from organic gardening and/or wildcrafting, and they sell or give away another million calories of food.

Level 5: has taken a PDC

Level 6: Living a footprint that is 10 times lighter than average. Maybe living in community. Maybe living in something very small.

Level 7: Permaculture teacher

Level 8: Doing things that are currently improving the world in big ways

I suppose for some of this stuff there could be some sort of calculator that comes up and you could then start to get an idea of where you sit.

One of the issues is petroleum. So I found one thing that suggests that the average car uses 500 gallons of fuel per year. So, I suppose if you are driving a prius, that is cut about in half.

One flight from, say, missoula to LA would use about 100 gallons of fuel. From LA to new york would be about 300 gallons and chicago to germany would be about 500 gallons.

hi Paul

just a few comments from +/- level three

Sepp travels everywhere by airplane, uses big fossil fuel driven machinery, makes lots of money...
Geoff travels everywhere by airplane, uses big fossil fuel driven machinery, makes lots of money...
Paul......etc

But they are Doing things that are currently improving the world in big ways

So, when you talk about travel and fuel usage
are you traveling to go to a "planet benefiting event" or the Superbowl?

if someone due to circumstances can't do big splashy things but are changing things for the positive on a local level
I think this should be should be included in addition to reducing their own footprint

Starts/works a community garden,
works on community stormwater runoff projects,
waterways clean-up projects, etc
organizes local/organic farmers markets

it seems, permies often isolate themselves from the community
rather than working to improve it

so part of the "selector" should ask
"what type of things do you do to help your community?"

btw, did you catch the post in meaningless drivel about "B corporations"? (make money and do good)

Paul I don't think this is negative feedback per se because it's your list that's being crafted for your rhetorical purposes. But my efforts to engage with it fall apart very quickly every time I think about it, due to the inextricable entwining of wealth or poverty with the behaviors on the list at most of the levels.

I see and "get" the simplicity of a scale that focuses on effective practice. Call it the Yoda scale: Do or do not, there is no try. Poverty, weariness, and family obligations merely make everything harder, but if eco-ness drives you hard enough you'll find a way.

But at the same time I see so many things on that list that don't signal "eco" to me, they just signal "rich" -- whether rich in money or rich in free time or rich in freedom from family obligation.

I don't have a good suggestion about how to fix that, and indeed I percieve ambiguity about whether it needs fixing from anybody's perspective but my own. But it's what I bounce off of when thinking about this.

Don't want to be a downer but until holzer permaculture loses its relience upon deisel sucking excavators, I would think your Eco Scale is flawed.

Only fully 100% self-sufficient souls could be a 10 and that would likely have to be a non-contacted tribe in the amazon.

Dan i think your logic is a little out of balance .... I make biodiesel and it's used by those who landscape using diesel machines .... I'm not sure where Sepp's fuel is from , but it's 100% possible to do it in a manner that is "Permie"