Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Carbon Footprint Thread (merged)

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Re: total carbon impact

Unread postby OldSprocket » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 07:25:54

Life-cycle analysis may come closer for durable goods.

LCA looks at the energy used to create your toaster and the amount of energy used during the life of the toaster.

Getting a handle on your portion of your various insurance companies' energy use may be a bit more difficult. Or easier. For a company with 10 million policy holders does each need to take responsibility for one-tenmillionth of the CEO's corporate jet? How much of that ought to count in the CEO's footprint instead?

For food, your portion is the energy overhead of the kitchen divided by the number of customers plus the gas cost of a trip divided by the number of stops. (Again, do you pro-rate the gas based on each customer's distance?)

You may find a round-number-gestimate on the web for the toaster, but your other examples change drastically for each city and suburb. For insurance my portion may be small (2 claims in 30-some years) and another person's portion may be larger.
User avatar
OldSprocket
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri 24 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Maine

Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 08:44:01

Time was, about 20 years ago, when Global Warming first started making the headlines within the mass media, that Armegeddon came in the form of Chlorofluorocarbons. The Grim Reaper in gaseous form. If you weren't part of the solution you were part of the problem. So we all threw away our old fridges to see them crushed, we all rolled on our deodorant.

Oddly enough the act of crushing those killer fridges released more CFC's into the atmosphere than what they would have done had they been left to keep your beer chilled. But thats what a media induced mob mentality will do.

Nowadays Global Warming has metamorphosised into Global Climate Change, and there is apparantly nothing we can do so say the scientists. Or not as the case maybe if you happen to listen to the ever jading politicians, jumping on the green train in an effort to make us feel guilty about the very way of life they promise to deliver us. In making us feel guilty they initiate policies to combat the consequences of that lifestyle and make us feel good about ourselves. If we only vote for them come the next election. Who is the most caring party.

This is certainly the case in the UK right now. Each party zealously pursuing avenues in which we can make the World a better place. Al Gore; Blair and Cameron are not for the simple reasons that what they suggest boils down to the same thing. Tax, tax and you've guessed it more tax on the areas of life in which a Green agenda can be placed. Top of their list is reducing the Carbon Footprint which everyone leaves behind. Now I'm not against reducing these, but the common concensus is that the cure-all come in the form of whacking great tax tarifs on everything we burn, in an effort to reduce the Carbon Emissions. This smacks of lethargy in thinking on a criminal scale. This can be akin to Mafiosa style protection rackateering. Anyone can see that behind the money grabbing lies no real strategy to combat Global Climate Change, accept to restrict our movement using Fossil Fuels.

The problem with this is that these policies go against everything they will say in the next breath, being that these taxes and restrictions won't hinder economic growth. Come again? Do they not realise that the economy is powered by the use of fossil fuels?

And it is those Fossil Fuels that lie at the heart of what I see as a Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. Stupidly, having watched "An Inconvenient Truth" I went along with the Carbon Footprint line. Now I'm not going to argue that cutting down wouldn't be a bad thing...until I read this story about a new Government campaign for greener driving. This I almost missed as it was announced on the same day as the Tory party dry ran their proposal for heavy taxations on flying.

Now its about now you are wondering what this has to do with Peak Oil. Well having been on this site for awhile now and know that Peak Oil and the environment run along side each other. Had I not been peak oil aware then I would have taken that article at face value. But read between the lines and a different picture reveals itself.

Transport Minister Gillian Merron wrote:"We all know climate change is a big issue and if all motorists did their bit, we'll see a reduction of some five and a half million tonnes of CO2 in just a year, and also a reduction in motoring costs as people use less fuel. So for me it's a win win."


As you will see, I highlighted the crux of this "Drive Smarter" campaign. It's one sentence and to those watching the purse strings makes sense. Those however, that are Peak Oil aware will draw a completely different conclusion. However we drive, burning a tank of petrol will equal the same amount of Carbon released into the atmosphere. It's a no brainer that revving the engine for no reason will burn much quicker, and thats the clincher. This campaign is not about preserving the environment. It's about preserving our fuel.

Labour's own position is that peak won't start troubling us for another 30 years. But it seems quite apparant that the convenience of Carbon Emissions into the atmosphere is a useful premise to hide the fact that they are all to aware of the coming storm.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Twilight » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 17:29:29

Not news to me at all, anyone who thinks the urgency behind the new nuclear build is anything to do with "reducing carbon emissions" is a fool. It's because we know natural gas is going to give us a damn good kicking within 10-15 years, and internally that's the official word. The UK government has seen the supply/demand energy mix graphs for electricity going forward to 2020, and whether or not they know about peak oil, they know and are scared to death of peak gas/electricity. I'm pretty sure the carbon footprint BS is used deliberately as a euphemism in the transport sector too, but on that score I haven't seen confirmation personally.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby green_achers » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 20:58:51

Oddly enough the act of crushing those killer fridges released more CFC's into the atmosphere than what they would have done had they been left to keep your beer chilled.

It was hard to take your post seriously enough to read much after this. I hope the rest made more sense, or maybe you have some documentation to back that up?
User avatar
green_achers
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Mississippi Delta

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Tue 20 Mar 2007, 08:51:15

green_achers wrote:It was hard to take your post seriously enough to read much after this. I hope the rest made more sense, or maybe you have some documentation to back that up?

Yes it is true you can chill beer in the fridge. Oh wait you were talking about the crushing of fridges. HMMM? that's right your one of those totally internet dependent sheeples aren't you, believing NO claim made on a forum can be deemed truth if there isn't a link. Get over yourself AND your complete reliance on the Internet for information. This is a forum NOT a Phd paper that requires a dissertation in footnotes alone to be deemed credible.
Oh and BTW: European legislation has reclassified fridges as hazardous waste because of the CFCs used in each units' insulating foam. It is no longer allowed to simply crush, scrap and landfill fridges
You may now carry on reading the rest of my post.

P.S: Try finding out information for yourself and learn something for yourself instead of relying on other people to link information for you. Ever heard of Google or Wikipedia to name but two.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: total carbon impact

Unread postby DarkDawg » Tue 20 Mar 2007, 11:47:46

A large diesel-guzzling garbage truck picks up my trash once a week and I pay for this service. It is a vital service for me because if I stop it, my property soon resembles a landfill. I can make smarter decisions on the stuff I buy so that I have less trash to begin with, but there is only so much that can be composted and/or burned in my back yard. I am still going to require a weekly pickup, and in fact if I lessen my trash output to less than weekly, the company doesn't even give me the option to be picked up less frequently. I also have this crazy idea that this company is actually recycling some of the trash that I separate out into bins that they pickup in a different large diesel-guzzling truck that follows the other truck every other week. My point is that it doesn't matter how much I reduce my consumption, the small act of signing up with a garbage hauler has a large carbon impact that cannot be easily reduced. What are my "greener" options here?

The same goes for buying online and having a package Fedex'd to me instead of driving to the mall. It has an impact that is not easily reduced except by NOT buying which will stop the economy dead in its tracks. What is the "greener" option to Fedex??

If I want my road to be clear of snow, the snowplows must have a carbon impact. I doubt my neighbors will be willing to go out and shovel the road the next time we get 17" of wet heavy snow like we did this past weekend. Otherwise, it's break out the cross-country skis, snowshoes and sleds. Again, unless my neighbors are willing to go without, this is something that will be difficult to reduce as an individual. What is the "greener" option for snow removal? Can somebody clue me in?

What about schoolbuses? I know districts are struggling with this one right now - enacting strict rules not allowing buses to sit idling, etc.. in order to save money. But as long as the majority of parents want their kids picked up intead of making them walk, the impact is still there and difficult to reduce by me as an individual. I can send my kids off to school on bikes but the bus is till going to come around my block, so are my efforts wasted? More ominously, how will districts be able to justify higher and higher taxes to support bussing? I as an individual have little choice but to pay the taxes even though it seems like less and less a "green-friendly" service to me.

I didn't even touch on the numerous other services like emergency services, sewage treatment and water delivery that communities need but have little if any power as a "green" consumer to lessen their carbon impact. I personally have required an ambulance in my lifetime and I don't know of anyone who would vote down the continued existence of a fire department, but as costs go through the roof, what "greener" options will we have to replace huge diesel-guzzling trucks that get to a scene in a hurry and can pump a ton of water real fast? Let the city burn? Yes there is a lot of waste and room for efficiency. Do cops need to sit in their cruisers for hours and hours idling with ac running or can they open their windows and turn off the engine? Don't even get me started on overtime pay for cops! It's off-topic anyway. Who can stop this practice? Not me. I see the waste but am powerless to change it.

Hoping that you are having an impact as an individual based only on your consumer decisions is extremely short-sighted. Yes, you can conserve and reduce your footprint, but your footprint extends much farther than you realize if you consider all the things I mentioned above.

Unfortunately, I don't have any solutions. I guess we'll all need to get more involved with community decision-making so that leaders are thinking "green" with every decision they make. But with our political system such that it is, I'm not optimistic of those efforts either at least until fuel costs go way way up and we have no choice but to make cuts or go bankrupt.
User avatar
DarkDawg
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon 17 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Saratoga County, NY

Re: total carbon impact

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 20 Mar 2007, 12:44:55

Great points, darkdawg--all things we should remember.

But because there are relatively intractable areas, we shouldn't let ourselves off the hook on more do-able adjustments--in fact, it makes it even more clear how much we need to cut back on other areas to be sure that emergency vehicles...can keep running.

The biggest impacts you can have are good: for your health, for global health, and for local community--a triple win. But that doesn't mean that they don't feel like sacrifice at first.

1. Stop flying--simply not a sustainable luxury. See articles and now the book _Heat_ by George Monbiot for details. I know, I know--realtives and other obligations press on us all. It is time for our obligation to a livable future to trump these. Not zipping off to other time zones may leave yo more time and money to inves in your local community.

2. Reduce or eliminate meat and dairy, and what you do eat, be sur it is grass fed organic, and local. In this and every area, localize as much as possible. Commercial meat uses many many tims the resources of locally grown organic not-meat products with comprable nutrient content. Eating lower on the food chain has been shown over and over to have multiple health benefits.

3. Reduce driving to a minimum--ideally less than ten miles a week. Yes this is extremely difficult for many given our car oriented infrastructure. But mos of us can walk, bike, and public transit far more than we do now. And we can all car pool more than we do. Again, more exercise, better health, and more chances to meet neighbors.

4 Generally reducing how much we buy is the other major point. If the original poster wants a very detailed estimate of ecological consequences of various purchases and possessions (flows and stocks), check out the book Radical Simpliciy (sorry, I forgot the author's name.)

Sorry for the long post.

5. But maybe even more important than all of these is talking about these issues to friends, loved ones, neighbors, politicians, coworkers, schools... everybody. I only will really work if everybody (or nearly everybody) is working toward sustainability together. There definitely needs to be much higher taxes on everything that generates carbon, but even this won't work in the absense of widespread education and encouragement.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: total carbon impact

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 20 Mar 2007, 12:47:05

Jim Merkel is the author of _Radical Simplicity_.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby green_achers » Tue 20 Mar 2007, 13:20:43

that's right your one of those totally internet dependent sheeples aren't you, believing NO claim made on a forum can be deemed truth if there isn't a link. Get over yourself AND your complete reliance on the Internet for information. This is a forum NOT a Phd paper that requires a dissertation in footnotes alone to be deemed credible.

Back in the old days of something called "literacy," is was possible to contemplate the concept of "documentation" to mean something besides a "link." Something that apparently escapes you. (We also knew how to punctuate a sentence.) I was just hoping to see if you were basing your post on something other than pulling it out of your ass. Apparently not.

So exactly how many refrigerators were retired for environmental reasons? How many of those were disposed of improperly? You can give your sources in any form you wish.
User avatar
green_achers
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Mississippi Delta

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 22:56:08

green_achers wrote:So exactly how many refrigerators were retired for environmental reasons? How many of those were disposed of improperly? You can give your sources in any form you wish.

OK TROLLNo I won't as I feel no need to suck up to a sanctimonious little gobshite like yourself. And I can qualify this statement with your already given attitude. "I've never heard of ....... therefore ....... cannot be true without X amount of links".

Like I said if you got off your fat lazy ASS and looked for the information yourself you will readily find it. But no you have to be bottle fed. Besides it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate how many fridges were destroyed from data given for years 1998-2001 in one European report. (Which you can go find yourself). This was before the 2002 European legislation which made it illegal (as mentioned), to simply crush fridges without removing the CFC's prior to crushing. If unsafe disposal wasn't taking place then trust me, the European Parliament wouldn't have found the need to ratify such legislation. Which led to a £40m Fridge Mountain in the UK.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Revi » Wed 21 Mar 2007, 23:06:02

I agree with you, Gazzatrone. The carbon thing is a great way to get people to accept restrictions in fossil fuel use. I am all for it. Green sounds a lot better than poor. It's cool to be green, where it's not cool to be poor.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby green_achers » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 03:10:01

I was just hoping to see if you were basing your post on something other than pulling it out of your ass.

I have my answer.
User avatar
green_achers
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Mississippi Delta

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 11:16:57

green_achers wrote:
I was just hoping to see if you were basing your post on something other than pulling it out of your ass.
I have my answer.

As for pulling things out of ones arse, I haven't seen you produce anything to refute my claims, surely from your standpoint, the proper way to prove your arguement. But you haven't have you? Is that because...
a) you don't know how to
b) Nobody has done it for you
or c) you are just plain lazy to do it?
I suggest you practice what you preach. It might add a modicum of weight to your pathetic, childish rantings.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby green_achers » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 13:40:34

Oh you are such a punk. You're the one who started this thread with half-baked conspiracy theories and ridiculous blanket pronouncements. I simply asked for some evidence for the thesis you were basing your stupid theory on and you call me names ask ME to "look it up?" I'm just looking for some sort of rationale for the rest of what you have to say other than a juvenile assertion. I really didn't think I was asking for too much. How old are you? 14?
User avatar
green_achers
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Mississippi Delta

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Revi » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 14:24:57

Could you two quit having a hissy fit and talk about the subject at hand. Did you see Gore yesterday? It'll be the perfect way of talking people out of their gas guzzlers. Global warming is real, and really powerful politically. Thank you! Maybe we'll be able to do something about peak oil at the same time. Roscoe Bartlett is going to be pleased.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby threadbear » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 14:38:29

Twilight wrote:Not news to me at all, anyone who thinks the urgency behind the new nuclear build is anything to do with "reducing carbon emissions" is a fool. It's because we know natural gas is going to give us a damn good kicking within 10-15 years, and internally that's the official word. The UK government has seen the supply/demand energy mix graphs for electricity going forward to 2020, and whether or not they know about peak oil, they know and are scared to death of peak gas/electricity. I'm pretty sure the carbon footprint BS is used deliberately as a euphemism in the transport sector too, but on that score I haven't seen confirmation personally.

I totally agree, but this goes beyond fundamental arguments involving motivation. I've thought for a couple of years that the real big drivers of awareness about carbon footprints would turn out to be the nuke industry. However, carbon emissions ARE a problem. Natural warming is also a problem. The two together will destroy the planet. We have to work against this eventuality by focussing on what we can actually change, and that is our carbon footprint.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby green_achers » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 16:44:37

For the record, if you are going to start a thread with such drivel as claiming anyone ever linked GW with CFCs, and making indefensible statements about how much gets released in landfills, you ought to be able to defend yourself with something a little more substantial than name-calling. But with that, I'm done.
User avatar
green_achers
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Mississippi Delta

Re: Carbon Footprint Conspiracy. A Convenient Truth?

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Sat 24 Mar 2007, 09:27:42

threadbear wrote:I totally agree, but this goes beyond fundamental arguments involving motivation. I've thought for a couple of years that the real big drivers of awareness about carbon footprints would turn out to be the nuke industry. However, carbon emissions ARE a problem.

I wasn't suggesting that C.E's weren't a problem. Anyone can firgure out that we will have run out of oil way before the media-hyped doom events of Global Climate Change start really kicking in if in fact they will. As Revi said "It's cool to be green, where it's not cool to be poor."
From a UK perspective, too many initiatives have been proposed or developed that focus on fuel consumption and cite Global Warming as a reason for cutting down not the fact that we are running out of oil, and running out of oil fast.

I just wish, though it will never happen, that there was a bit more transparency in policy and motive when Government start dictating how we live our lives.
threadbear wrote:We have to work against this eventuality by focussing on what we can actually change, and that is our carbon footprint.

Unfortunately we have ignored the eventuality of energy depletion and disabled ourselves with the means to work against Climate Change.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Eco. Footprint Energy Consumption & the Looming Collapse

Unread postby Leanan » Wed 16 May 2007, 11:30:52

Great article: TOD

It explains how our economic system is like a chain letter. :lol:
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 17 Mar 2009, 09:46:42, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Carbon Footprint Thread.
"The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place." - Albert Einstein
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Eco. Footprint Energy Consumption & the Looming Coll

Unread postby MrMambo » Wed 16 May 2007, 12:00:30

Interesting that the article find that the only country in the world where people have both a fairly high human development index and has an ecological footprint for each person that is in line with what the ecosystem can sustain is Cuba.

In the old days it was important for USA to destroy the communist regime of cuba so that there would not be an excample of a functioning communist country in the neighbourhood. Now it seems like cuba is not just an excample of communism, but also an excample of ecological sustainability combined with a fairly high development index.

Maybe the communist dictator fidel Castro will go down in history as a more people-friendly and earth-friendly leader than all other democratically elected leaders in the the western world, through the last 50-years.

I think people in democratic countries ought to see this as a challenge: "To be able to elect leaders and promote policy that will make us more eco friendly and with a higher human development index than what was achieved in the communist dictatorship of Cuba".

I strongly belive that democracies ought to be able to outperform dictatorships on those two parameters. Currently though we be embarrasingly behind.
User avatar
MrMambo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests