Living Car Free - How many know?

In these forums we often interchange cycling with being green and car ownership as anything but green. How many in this forum have looked to see what their carbon footprint is compared to the state, Country and world average? I am contemplating joining the local Green Coalition and while researching the organization I ran across a calculator to test my green score. I can see the improvement over the last few years in my case has been drastic but I was surprised to find that my footprint is as small if not quite a bit smaller than the global average depending on the site. The PG&E site gave me the best rating, about 25 percent of the average Californian, and 20 percent of the average US citizen, and the Nature Conservancy gave me the worst because they included my diet and I took a hit on meat. Still even in the worst case I was close to the global average and about 30 percent of the US average. How is everyone else doing?

I've played with the online carbon footprint calculators a few times. Once, I did it figuring just me, alone, in the house. Since I have a large extended family living with me, it was purely for reference. My personal carbon footprint is about 6% of the family as a whole. (This was when there were 8 of us in the house.) I made the joke about having a carbon 'handprint'. But since my sister and her husband have this fixation about maintaining some sort of 'lifestyle', I have a hard time getting the overall to come down.

I'm at the 20% bracket for those in New Jersey. I suspect the numbers go way up if travel by auto instead of bus or tain. Still, I could do better but improvements will be marginal since I'm traveling about 400 miles per month on bus, train and tram.

Can we have some links so we're all using the same calculator? Please & Thank You!

Mine gets skewed because of the miles I have to travel for work. If I dropped the work miles I would be well below the national average. Add to the fact my wife is a Flight Attendant and flies some 500,000 miles a year and we are totally screwed.:notamused: We realize where we are as far as that aspect of it is concerned. If you run the home only and allow for the minimal personal mileage on vehicles we do pretty decent.

We live in a much smaller than average sized house that is very energy efficient, not being at home helps with the energy bills:rolleyes: We have gardens, buy as much local stuff as possible and seldom eat out, even on the road.

Aaron:)

I've given up on carbon footprint calculators because they always force selections not relevant to me or leave out selections that do relate to me. They are probably good tools to enlighten people who are just getting interested in environmentalism, but; they probably don't suit people who have already cut back on energy usage.

I walk, Xootr scooter, bicycle, and use a moped to get around. I fill a trash bag about once every two to three months. I do like to keep my apartment warm in winter, though I just keep my bedroom warm and keep the remainder of it cooler. I have no idea how I would put these facts into a carbon footprint calculator.

There is no real way to bring up my personal energy usage in regular conversation. Only my transportation choices sometimes get a comment. Sometimes when I tell people that cars cost $6000-$8000 per year to use they look at me as if I'm attacking them. They must think I'm judging them. I'm not. It just shows that many people who drive cars feel threatened when an alternative is right in front of them. They must be feeling guilty deep down on a subconscious level, thus they feel the need to justify their choice in their minds and instantly give me a look as if I'm attacking them when I'm not.

I was the same way a few years ago when a coworker rode his bicycle everywhere. I tried to get him interested in buying a small motor scooter because I felt it was a better choice. It took a while for me to understand the full possibilities a bicycle offered. I really don't know what it takes to trigger the magic switch in someone's mind to get them to consider lowering their environmental footprint. Would banner ads on CNN, ABC, and other large sites with links to carbon footprint calculators get people to change?

I would prefer an environmental footprint calculator instead of a carbon footprint calculator that focuses on all pollution sources.

I've given up on carbon footprint calculators because they always force selections not relevant to me or leave out selections that do relate to me. They are probably good tools to enlighten people who are just getting interested in environmentalism, but; they probably don't suit people who have already cut back on energy usage.

I walk, Xootr scooter, bicycle, and use a moped to get around. I fill a trash bag about once every two to three months. I do like to keep my apartment warm in winter, though I just keep my bedroom warm and keep the remainder of it cooler. I have no idea how I would put these facts into a carbon footprint calculator.

There is no real way to bring up my personal energy usage in regular conversation. Only my transportation choices sometimes get a comment. Sometimes when I tell people that cars cost $6000-$8000 per year to use they look at me as if I'm attacking them. They must think I'm judging them. I'm not. It just shows that many people who drive cars feel threatened when an alternative is right in front of them. They must be feeling guilty deep down on a subconscious level, thus they feel the need to justify their choice in their minds and instantly give me a look as if I'm attacking them when I'm not.

I was the same way a few years ago when a coworker rode his bicycle everywhere. I tried to get him interested in buying a small motor scooter because I felt it was a better choice. It took a while for me to understand the full possibilities a bicycle offered. I really don't know what it takes to trigger the magic switch in someone's mind to get them to consider lowering their environmental footprint. Would banner ads on CNN, ABC, and other large sites with links to carbon footprint calculators get people to change?

I would prefer an environmental footprint calculator instead of a carbon footprint calculator that focuses on all pollution sources.
I always thought the best calculator is cost:
My electric bill is about $20 a month. My gas bill was $130 in January. My water/sewerage bill runs about $40. My transportation costs about $110 a month.

These are terms that your co-workers can understand, and it gives them something to think about if your figures are a lot lower than their own.

I always thought the best calculator is cost:
My electric bill is about $20 a month. My gas bill was $130 in January. My water/sewerage bill runs about $40. My transportation costs about $110 a month.

These are terms that your co-workers can understand, and it gives them something to think about if your figures are a lot lower than their own.

The PG&E calculator was just for my area based on my usage and a little saving from recycling and florescent light usage with some appliance selection. I did very well in that because it was easy to plug in my therms, Kilowatts, and mileage plus the other things. http://www.pge.com/microsite/calculator/calc1.jsp
I was way under the global average on that scale. 4 years ago I would have been close to average for my state.
The second site was also concerned with what I ate and because I prefer meat now and then I took a hit. I tried a vegetable diet but my energy level plunged so bad I started dragging on group rides and developed leg and arm cramps after hard half centuries and Long Mountain climbs.
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/

I tried a few of the others and they all had me between the two.
The first one was simple. Get some gas and electric bills. Compute your mileage and average MPG and how you recycle use energy efficient appliances and it gives you the results as an estimate.
I only took the survey because I was looking into joining the green coalition in my area and I wanted to see who they were working with.
Still in both cases I am far greener than I expected.

Roody, your electric bill is about 5 bucks less than mine average but your gas bill is higher because my January bill was $35.00. My worst month was February because of and that was $38.00. And my transportation bill might be higher if I have to calculate my new Bike frame. :innocent:

Calculating off of utility bills is a good idea, but cost varies throughout the US.
Transportation cost is even more difficult. I rarely use a car these days, but take one or two airplane trips per year. Air miles are probably far worse than car miles in terms of CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption.

You can try http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/

I got the following points:
my average (right now with 4 people) 76
average US citizen (family of 4) 110
average world citizen (family of 4) 22

The questions are probably too vague to get a truly accurate estimate but give you a ballpark figure.

Calculating off of utility bills is a good idea, but cost varies throughout the US.
Transportation cost is even more difficult. I rarely use a car these days, but take one or two airplane trips per year. Air miles are probably far worse than car miles in terms of CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption.

You can try http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/

I got the following points:
my average (right now with 4 people) 76
average US citizen (family of 4) 110
average world citizen (family of 4) 22

The questions are probably too vague to get a truly accurate estimate but give you a ballpark figure.

That one gave me a score of 18 for a 2 person family. 53 for my fellow Americans and 11 for the global 2 person family. Not giving up meat however to get down to 11. Not interested in buying a new car considering how few miles my 92 compact has. And it is paid for. But my utility bills are a pretty good indicator in this area. And that site didn’t care what I ate.:lol:

Calculating off of utility bills is a good idea, but cost varies throughout the US.
True, but the question was how to talk to average people about conservation in terms that make sense to them. Dollars make the most sense of all! :D

I did real bad on the nature.org calculator--at 24, only slightly lower than the US average for a one person household. 88.1% of my energy usage is for home energy. I'm a renter, and I can't do much about the appliances I have, or the insulation, etc. I live in a cold climate, and most electricity in my area is produced from coal. But it's embarrassing to do so badly.

What I plan to do to improve it is to eat less meat and reduce the heat (natural gas) more.

That one gave me a score of 18 for a 2 person family. 53 for my fellow Americans and 11 for the global 2 person family. Not giving up meat however to get down to 11. Not interested in buying a new car considering how few miles my 92 compact has. And it is paid for. But my utility bills are a pretty good indicator in this area. And that site didn’t care what I ate.:lol:

Try this site (http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/)

Roody, your electric bill is about 5 bucks less than mine average but your gas bill is higher because my January bill was $35.00. My worst month was February because of and that was $38.00. And my transportation bill might be higher if I have to calculate my new Bike frame. :innocent:
Well, Michigan vs. southern California. My summer gas bills are only about $8 (hot water only, for just one person).

My transportation bill incloudes a monthly bus trip of 400 miles round trip. Luckily (for me, not the planet) the carbon footprint calculator didn't include the bus trip, although it probably should have.

Try this site (http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/)
I love this site! It showed me as a 17, using only 49% of carbon of an average comparable household. And it included my 5200 miles on the bus.

I think this calculator takes into account the "simple living" practices I follow, and relies less on the type of appliances or insulation in the home, etc.

I took the Nature Conservancy test and my most valuable observation is that as an apartment dweller, I have little say in how efficiently the management heats the water (probably not solar-enhanced). There also is no concentrated or serious effort at recycling at my apartment complex, which houses about 150 persons in three, five-story, brick buildings.
There needs to be separate carbon footprint tests at the sites that offer them; one for home owners and one for apartment dwellers. The one for apartment dwellers should ask questions about whether we, as renters, have approached the management and shown them viable energy options that would help lower the carbon footprint of all. Apartment complexes that are subsidized, to varying degrees, by the U.S. government would be most willing to comply because of government enforcement capabilities.
I'll get back to this thread on this, after having researched extant and pending legislation.
There is certainly plenty of room to plant solar panels on these big, flat roofs. Enforcement of a recycling program would present more of an on-going need for monitoring and enforcement, but it can certainly work. I feel the people in my complex are more concerned and interested in recycling than the management. That will have to change. Paul

I love this site! It showed me as a 17, using only 49% of carbon of an average comparable household. And it included my 5200 miles on the bus.

I think this calculator takes into account the "simple living" practices I follow, and relies less on the type of appliances or insulation in the home, etc.

I got a 17 on that site as well. My transportation was 3.7, Housing 4.7 and shopping was 8.2 and I still took a hit because of my choice of meat. I was surprised it had so few questions about housing footprint but yearly utilities must be enough. Still they all show me well below the average US consumer. I haven't got a bad score on any of them so far.

I find that these types of sites make too many assumptions and generalizations. For instance the last site told me its #1 recommendation was to buy a more fuel-efficient car when it didn't have anywhere to enter I didn't own one, and I did state I drove zero miles so why would fuel efficiency matter? After adding the square footage of my space, there was a figure in the footprint for construction. However the space I live in is 100 years old, is there no differentiation between frequent and infrequent construction? There was also no differentiation between buying new or used furniture - obviously used still has an impact but less so. Or did you make many of your own furnishings from things rescued from trash? Some sites just ask number of bedrooms, and obviously there is a difference between an urban 3 bedroom rowhouse on a small footprint without garage or parking, or a sprawling 3 bedroom bungalow on an acre-lot. Food questions rarely ask if you eat local in-season.

Rant aside, I figure where I am doing well: bicycle as primary transport, do not own a car, drive one rarely (1/year?), mostly vegetarian (very occasional fish) - try to eat as much local and organic as possible, lower than average consumerism, try to buy second hand, rescue things from garbage to repurpose etc., backyard compost, generate little trash, do not air condition in an area where most do, live in a smaller than average space which was constructed 100 years ago and attached on one side, try to choose sustainable materials when renovating, buy energy efficient appliances.

Where I could be doing better - I live in a relatively cold winter climate which uses a lot of heating fuel and I could make the house more energy efficient by ripping down walls to insulate them - but where does the tradeoff between the energy of construction/destruction meet the energy gains?, there are foods I like that come from afar (mangoes, bananas, coffee), could gain efficiency by living in a multi-unit dwelling instead but I value privacy, I did fly twice this year (once for pleasure and once for business), I have cats (which are carnivores and make waste), I probably buy some things I would be better renting (tools etc.)

Also a curious question - how much does the carbon footprint factor into people's decision to be car-free? I consider it a good side effect, but my primary reason is I consider cars to be a personal waste of money (I'd rather spend money on other stuff than a depreciating hunk of metal), and I believe cars create a negative impact on public space because there is so much space in city infrastructure that have been dedicated to them. Not to mention cars kill a whole lot of people. So even if they created a zero emissions vehicle I would still not drive a car (in its traditional form). What about you - if there was such thing as a zero-impact car would you drive it?

I find that these types of sites make too many assumptions and generalizations. For instance the last site told me its #1 recommendation was to buy a more fuel-efficient car when it didn't have anywhere to enter I didn't own one, and I did state I drove zero miles so why would fuel efficiency matter? After adding the square footage of my space, there was a figure in the footprint for construction. However the space I live in is 100 years old, is there no differentiation between frequent and infrequent construction? There was also no differentiation between buying new or used furniture - obviously used still has an impact but less so. Or did you make many of your own furnishings from things rescued from trash? Some sites just ask number of bedrooms, and obviously there is a difference between an urban 3 bedroom rowhouse on a small footprint without garage or parking, or a sprawling 3 bedroom bungalow on an acre-lot. Food questions rarely ask if you eat local in-season.

Rant aside, I figure where I am doing well: bicycle as primary transport, do not own a car, drive one rarely (1/year?), mostly vegetarian (very occasional fish) - try to eat as much local and organic as possible, lower than average consumerism, try to buy second hand, rescue things from garbage to repurpose etc., backyard compost, generate little trash, do not air condition in an area where most do, live in a smaller than average space which was constructed 100 years ago and attached on one side, try to choose sustainable materials when renovating, buy energy efficient appliances.

Where I could be doing better - I live in a relatively cold winter climate which uses a lot of heating fuel and I could make the house more energy efficient by ripping down walls to insulate them - but where does the tradeoff between the energy of construction/destruction meet the energy gains?, there are foods I like that come from afar (mangoes, bananas, coffee), could gain efficiency by living in a multi-unit dwelling instead but I value privacy, I did fly twice this year (once for pleasure and once for business), I have cats (which are carnivores and make waste), I probably buy some things I would be better renting (tools etc.)

Also a curious question - how much does the carbon footprint factor into people's decision to be car-free? I consider it a good side effect, but my primary reason is I consider cars to be a personal waste of money (I'd rather spend money on other stuff than a depreciating hunk of metal), and I believe cars create a negative impact on public space because there is so much space in city infrastructure that have been dedicated to them. Not to mention cars kill a whole lot of people. So even if they created a zero emissions vehicle I would still not drive a car (in its traditional form). What about you - if there was such thing as a zero-impact car would you drive it?

I don’t know but it seems many of our conversations move towards how green we are quite often when we talk in these forums. So it seems as if we need some reference point to measure who is blowing smoke and who is being green. That is why I asked the question and it seems as if many do indeed know or have compared themselves with their fellow citizens. I have met and know so many Prius owners who thump their chest and proclaim how green they are only to discover that their home is five times less efficient than their neighbors. And while they get pretty good fuel mileage they drive everywhere. If they were to know their footprint maybe they will see they have to do more and talk less before they get the green stamp of approval. If we are going to move beyond our 100 mile circle we will have to have some kind of transportation, car, bus, train, plane or boat and the avoidance of those forms of transportation doesn’t make someone green if the other things they do give then a Mc-mansion sized footprint. Some have gone beyond giving up cars and have experimented with getting off of the grid themselves. Some seem not to be much greener than their neighbors even if they are car free or car light. One thing doesn’t seem to be enough.

I don’t know but it seems many of our conversations move towards how green we are quite often when we talk in these forums. So it seems as if we need some reference point to measure who is blowing smoke and who is being green. That is why I asked the question and it seems as if many do indeed know or have compared themselves with their fellow citizens. I have met and know so many Prius owners who thump their chest and proclaim how green they are only to discover that their home is five times less efficient than their neighbors. And while they get pretty good fuel mileage they drive everywhere. If they were to know their footprint maybe they will see they have to do more and talk less before they get the green stamp of approval. If we are going to move beyond our 100 mile circle we will have to have some kind of transportation, car, bus, train, plane or boat and the avoidance of those forms of transportation doesn’t make someone green if the other things they do give then a Mc-mansion sized footprint. Some have gone beyond giving up cars and have experimented with getting off of the grid themselves. Some seem not to be much greener than their neighbors even if they are car free or car light. One thing doesn’t seem to be enough.

I went to http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx , a site that includes questions about diet and entertainment habits, along with the usual vehicle and household questions, and my footprint is much smaller than I expected: I produce about 4.53 tons of CO2 a year, compared to a worldwide average of 4 tons, and a US average of 20 tons. I own a car now, and I thought this would be a big factor in my CO2 production, but it's not (probably because I only drive it a few times a month). The biggest two factors in my carbon footprint were the fact that I eat out a lot and the one or two flights a year I take. Airplanes apparently leave a huge carbon footprint, and living it up a few times a week is even worse. Even more interesting is the fact that heavy red meat consumption produces more CO2 than daily driving. I have to wonder what assumptions these calculations are based on, though.

Prius drivers are funny. As a cyclist, I've had more conflicts with them than with almost any other group of motorists. The cars get good mileage, but I would think their high cost is only justified if you drive a lot of miles, which can't be that good for much environmental chest-thumping. Also, I wonder if they realize the environmental cost that is involved in dealing with the manufacture and eventual disposal of the massive batteries that those cars use.

I don’t know but it seems many of our conversations move towards how green we are quite often when we talk in these forums. So it seems as if we need some reference point to measure who is blowing smoke and who is being green. That is why I asked the question and it seems as if many do indeed know or have compared themselves with their fellow citizens. I have met and know so many Prius owners who thump their chest and proclaim how green they are only to discover that their home is five times less efficient than their neighbors. And while they get pretty good fuel mileage they drive everywhere. If they were to know their footprint maybe they will see they have to do more and talk less before they get the green stamp of approval. If we are going to move beyond our 100 mile circle we will have to have some kind of transportation, car, bus, train, plane or boat and the avoidance of those forms of transportation doesn’t make someone green if the other things they do give then a Mc-mansion sized footprint. Some have gone beyond giving up cars and have experimented with getting off of the grid themselves. Some seem not to be much greener than their neighbors even if they are car free or car light. One thing doesn’t seem to be enough.
I suppose that for most of us, being green is only one of several reasons for being carfree or carlight. For some it isn't a reason at all.

Living alone in an 800 sq. ft. apartment, in a cold climate, boosts me up into the low average range on carbon consumption for an American. Eating meat contributes also. But if I owned a car, I would go over into the high range on carbon. So not driving helps, even if it's only part of the solution.

I'm not doing it to be green. I'm doing it because I enjoy it. I hadn't even bothered to consider anything but personal and financial considerations.

I'm not doing it to be green. I'm doing it because I enjoy it. I hadn't even bothered to consider anything but personal and financial considerations.

Same here, but for me there's some political overtones thrown in as well, especially on the lines of stuffing the coffers of certain foreign oil producing nation leaders and their cronies.

That one gave me a score of 18 for a 2 person family. 53 for my fellow Americans and 11 for the global 2 person family. Not giving up meat however to get down to 11. Not interested in buying a new car considering how few miles my 92 compact has. And it is paid for. But my utility bills are a pretty good indicator in this area. And that site didn’t care what I ate.:lol:

On that calculator, I come up as 16. No car (for either of us). While we do eat meat, it's about 2-4oz servings not 8-12, and it's not every meal. We don't quite hit meat at one meal a day, but that's the goal I shoot for... and we don't hit it because we eat a lot of soups and other meals where the meat is a seasoning. Kinda hard to magically take the meat out.

It's probably slightly overestimating our housing and utilities. 750 sq foot apartment for two people, in a building with heat included, so it's *very* well insulated. (in fact, I need to open a window soon, because once the outside temperatures start hitting 50F, the building can easily hit 75F just off solar. we generally don't need the heat on unless it's below freezing outside) The electric bill is typically under $30/mo in the winter. Our two worst offenders for energy inefficiency are the fridge (landlord provided), and the air conditioner, which can cost a dollar a day to run. If we could find a building with better ventilation design, eliminating the air conditioner would be a huge plus. It rarely gets above 85 here in the summer, so no A/C could work very well.

My biggest potential gain would be eliminate air travel... which is not easy. I much prefer train travel, but the nearest train station is Chicago's Union Station. Most years, I end up taking about 2 trips by plane. Eliminating those would get me down to 12 (according to them).

I suppose that for most of us, being green is only one of several reasons for being carfree or carlight. For some it isn't a reason at all.

Living alone in an 800 sq. ft. apartment, in a cold climate, boosts me up into the low average range on carbon consumption for an American. Eating meat contributes also. But if I owned a car, I would go over into the high range on carbon. So not driving helps, even if it's only part of the solution.

FWIW, the calculator thinks average for Michigan on an apartment comparable to ours is about 3 tons of carbon per year. In WI, it rates as 6.8. So it is definitely worthwhile to look for buildings where the landlord is covering as many utilities as possible, so that they've got reason to keep their building up to date. (same deal in Oregon can bust 9 tons... so location matters too)

I'm not doing it to be green. I'm doing it because I enjoy it. I hadn't even bothered to consider anything but personal and financial considerations.

I am not car free but I attempt to reduce my energy consumption because it gives others less financial control over me. Anything that is financially feasible and prevents a catastrophic increase in my energy bills frees me from worry and the control of others. I'll still get an increase but if I use 7500 kwh/yr vs say 15000 kwh/yr any increase will have less of an impact. Same goes with taxes. If the government chooses to tax energy the less I use the less control they have over my behavior. In an ideal world I would be able to produce all the energy I needed for myself and my family. Those of you who are car free have gone a long way towards that goal.

My biggest potential gain would be eliminate air travel... which is not easy. I much prefer train travel, but the nearest train station is Chicago's Union Station.

Train travel in Little Rock is a joke unless you are going to Chicago or San Antonio. To go to Memphis, I'd have to go through Chicago. It would literally be faster to pedal to Memphis than take the train. :lol:

Train travel in Little Rock is a joke unless you are going to Chicago or San Antonio. To go to Memphis, I'd have to go through Chicago. It would literally be faster to pedal to Memphis than take the train. :lol:


I have enjoyed the few train trips I have taken. But they don't seem to be much of a solution to travel right now. They have schedules that are even worse than busses.

I wanted to know what my carbon footprint was so I would have something to judge myself against and to see what I could easily do to make it better. The problem most often is the work or effort required doesn’t give enough return to make it worth it. I also wanted to know so that if I do get involved with the green movement in my area I can tell the difference between doers and posers. There is one major cycling group I never work with because I have discovered they are mostly posers.

I have enjoyed the few train trips I have taken. But they don't seem to be much of a solution to travel right now. They have schedules that are even worse than busses.

As well trains have a higher carbon footprint per person than long distance travel by bus does. Of course, the train is generally more comfortable than the bus, and is not subject to getting stuck in traffic like a bus can.

One site quotes 520 lbs of CO2 bussing from New York to San Francisco, versus 1220 on the train. Driving in a Prius with 3 other people works out to only 305 per person. So bus is not always friendlier than carpooling though you think it would be!

Site: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/plane-train-automobile-travel.html