Living Car Free - Carbon footprint

I've been trying to figure out if I have a good or a bad carbon footprint, and if there are things I could improve in my life.

What annoys me, is that all carbon footprint calculators I've come across seem to be based on the fact that you ride the car to work, the train, or you carpool.

I don't own a car, I don't carpool, and I use the train around 2 times a month when I really can't get myself to ride the bike to work.

Thus, the outcome of these calculators is probably wrong. Very wrong.

Does anyone of you know of a calculator that more accurately represents your carbon footprint?

Here's the calculator I prefer. It's based on how many kilometres you travel by car, train, bus or air. So human-powered or animal-powered transport are not included.

http://www.myfootprint.org/

I just took the test again and, although I'm significantly lower than my country's average in three of the four categories listed, it would still take 3.47 planets if everyone lived as I do.

The test I took yesterday claimed it would take only 1.5 planets if everyone lived as I do.

I'll take the test in a few minutes, I'm pretty curious what the outcome will be.

Here's the calculator I prefer. It's based on how many kilometres you travel by car, train, bus or air. So human-powered or animal-powered transport are not included.

http://www.myfootprint.org/

I just took the test again and, although I'm significantly lower than my country's average in three of the four categories listed, it would still take 3.47 planets if everyone lived as I do.
That does make the outcome a bit unlogical. As more people travel by let's say train, the CO2 emission per passenger would become less than if you would travel by train on your own.

Interesting.

The test I took yesterday claimed it would take only 1.5 planets if everyone lived as I do.

I'll take the test in a few minutes, I'm pretty curious what the outcome will be.

I once took the test, saw my results and then took it again, making just one change. Instead of listing my country as Canada, I listed it as Germany. All other answers were identical. The footprint was significantly smaller. Then I took it once more, changing the country to the United States, and the results were higher than in Canada.

Alright, I took the test. It would take 2.52 earths when everyone lives as I do?

I still think these tests aren't accurate. Besides public transport and about 2500km of riding my in-law's car, I ride 8000km a year on my bike. Seriously... A cyclist has a CO2 emission as well...

Cyclists eat more food.

Lately I've been pedaling twenty-six miles per day going to work in the mornings and going to school in the evenings. I'm getting hungry.

Carbon footprint calculators will never be accurate. They are just guides for people wanting to change their lives. People can check their current situation and then change things in their lives and then redo the calculation to see the change. The measurements are arbitrary.

Here's the calculator I prefer. It's based on how many kilometres you travel by car, train, bus or air. So human-powered or animal-powered transport are not included.

http://www.myfootprint.org/

I just took the test again and, although I'm significantly lower than my country's average in three of the four categories listed, it would still take 3.47 planets if everyone lived as I do.

With that test all you have to do is say you are from Mexico rather than the US and you will go from 3+ to 1+ earths. And decrease your income by $1000.00. How can that be? It seems as if they have a political slant.

I once took the test, saw my results and then took it again, making just one change. Instead of listing my country as Canada, I listed it as Germany. All other answers were identical. The footprint was significantly smaller. Then I took it once more, changing the country to the United States, and the results were higher than in Canada.

Canada has one of the biggest footprints in the world in part because of the climate. So make sure your house is well insulated and your furnace is efficient.

Carbon footprint calculators will never be accurate. They are just guides for people wanting to change their lives. People can check their current situation and then change things in their lives and then redo the calculation to see the change. The measurements are arbitrary.

Probably a better way to approach this is to get a list of concrete steps that you could/should take to reduce carbon footprint, stop wasting resources, pollute less:
http://www.grist.org/article/Today1/



Easy ways to cut your energy use, one day at a time
Day 2: Unplug Gadgets
Electronic equipment and appliances suck up energy even when they're turned off -- they've actually earned the nickname "vampires." Americans waste $1 billion a year powering items like TVs and DVD players while they're turned off. So unplug your TV, stereo, computer, microwave, and other equipment when you're not using them -- or plug a bunch of things into a power strip that you keep turned off unless you're using one of the items. And make sure to unplug your cell-phone and MP3 chargers as soon as the devices are powered up.


To me a carbon calculator is too abstract. As Robert and newspaperguy suggests, it appears to differ by the country you live in (which might make some sense...) and perhaps also by things that we as individuals take no part in.

I got 1.64 Earths. There were some problems such as, "what kind of vehicle best describes the one you do the most miles in," I chose "hybrid" because it was the lowest carbon option but there was no bike option or anything! Also, it asked how often I eat food that has been grown organically. In Korea, where I live, there is not really an "organic" movement. However, most of the food comes from relatively close by as food from abroad is heavily taxed.

I have to agree with gerv that these calculators are just an abstract. But one thing is constant in my case with most of these tests. I have a smaller foot print than my average citizen in some cases than the average world citizen though not as often. Most of the credit goes to driving so few miles and recycling.

I am skeptical of calculators that debit me for my income and where I live. If I am frugal and use what I have till I have to replace it my foot print should be no larger than someone that is just as frugal but has less in savings or income.

I got 3.84 earths. :(

Probably my air miles, which are annually about 6000 miles.

When answering miles in the car, did everyone answer for themselves or the family? I answered for the household.

I got 3.84 earths. :(

Probably my air miles, which are annually about 6000 miles.

When answering miles in the car, did everyone answer for themselves or the family? I answered for the household.

I answered household as well. Now simply pick another country like Mexico and put in the same answers. You will have improved 100 percent just by moving your location and nationality. And you didn't even have to do anything.

But enough making fun of that test. Some seem better than others but none seem to fit everyone. I keep looking however to see if I can find one that doesn't have a slant.

Perhaps there's a reason why the score changes depending on the country. There are a lot of residual services, which all contribute to the total footprint, out here. These could include street lights, the quality of paving, energy used for snow removal and sanding of roads in winter, public water and sewer systems and more. Even if my personal consumption is as low as possible, I have a share in my country's national footprint.

Here's the calculator I prefer. It's based on how many kilometres you travel by car, train, bus or air. So human-powered or animal-powered transport are not included.

http://www.myfootprint.org/

I just took the test again and, although I'm significantly lower than my country's average in three of the four categories listed, it would still take 3.47 planets if everyone lived as I do.

What business is it of theirs what the household income is?

These are complex issues. A good example is how EU recently outlawed "energy wasting" incandescent lightbulbs in favor of the "energy efficient" compact fluorescent bulbs, LEDs and so forth. The "energy efficient" bulbs produce less heat compared to incandescents. The real question is of course, do you have use for the extra heat, and if you do, how are you going to produce it after you change the bulbs.

Where I live, we need a heat source for good 8-9 months of the year, some years more. In my case that heat source is electricity. During those 8-9 months, it makes exactly zero difference in terms of energy efficiency whether my home is kept warm partly by "vampire appliances" that "suck up energy" :rolleyes: or whether I use the electrical heaters. There are other considerations of course, but they can effect both ways. For example, compact fluorescents contain hazardous waste so existing recycling programs had to be tuned up to make recycling points more widely accessible. I'm sure hauling bulbs around in small patches is "energy efficient" indeed. And I have no idea how many of them end up in the landfill anyway, just because people don't bother disposing of them properly.

Overall, there's no short answer as to how much they effect energy consumption. I've not seen a good analysis on that yet, and now that it's a closed deal I doubt I ever will. Someone in the light bulb industry pulled off a nice piece of lobbying.

Rant over, this is one of my pet peeves. :)

--J

Perhaps there's a reason why the score changes depending on the country. There are a lot of residual services, which all contribute to the total footprint, out here. These could include street lights, the quality of paving, energy used for snow removal and sanding of roads in winter, public water and sewer systems and more. Even if my personal consumption is as low as possible, I have a share in my country's national footprint.

I think your on to something. I was just thinking about diet and where the average American's food comes from (probably from all over the planet by way of petrol) and were the average Mexican's food comes from (probably within a few hundred miles). I know this tends to be true where I am living with the exception of beef that is shipped from Australia which is why its so expensive here.

I think your on to something. I was just thinking about diet and where the average American's food comes from (probably from all over the planet by way of petrol) and were the average Mexican's food comes from (probably within a few hundred miles). I know this tends to be true where I am living with the exception of beef that is shipped from Australia which is why its so expensive here.

In the case of the test we are discussing if the country makes that big of a difference it seems that the only solution wold be to move. If the biggest difference is where you live and driving, heating, home size and every other thing of the test is the same. Think of it. If you live in El Passo all you would have to do is move about a mile and your carbon footprint would improve close to 100 percent. The houses look the same, the fast food places and even the stores look the same right over the border. You could sell your sub compact and buy a SUV like they drive over the border and burn diesel 1 rather than clean diesel or even diesel 2 and still have a smaller carbon footprint than someone living in the US only a mile away.

I am sorry for the hyperbole but that simply doesn't wash. There may be some small difference but one of the questions was if we lived where the weather was like Mexico City. I have been to Mexico city and it is as modern as most cities in the US. We need to stop thinking of Mexico like it was in the 1800s and realize it looks a lot like the US at least in the South.

I think your on to something. I was just thinking about diet and where the average American's food comes from (probably from all over the planet by way of petrol) and were the average Mexican's food comes from (probably within a few hundred miles). I know this tends to be true where I am living with the exception of beef that is shipped from Australia which is why its so expensive here.

Mexico gets it's food from many of the same sources the US does. A lot of it is grown in Mexico or in the border states, so no it doesn't have to travel quite as far. Interestingly enough I was reading a gripe article about the Chinese exporting jalapeno peppers to Mexico and underselling the local suppliers...

As far as the carbon foot print calculators, you have to take them with a grain of salt. No single one is going to be perfect for every person. Ours is royally skewed because my wife flies for a living...try plugging in 500,000 air miles a year.:eek: Then I have to drive as part of my job, that is another 40,000+ miles a year.:twitchy: If you back those two items out we fall to very low levels.

Aaron :)

These are complex issues. A good example is how EU recently outlawed "energy wasting" incandescent lightbulbs in favor of the "energy efficient" compact fluorescent bulbs, LEDs and so forth. The "energy efficient" bulbs produce less heat compared to incandescents. The real question is of course, do you have use for the extra heat, and if you do, how are you going to produce it after you change the bulbs.

Where I live, we need a heat source for good 8-9 months of the year, some years more. In my case that heat source is electricity. During those 8-9 months, it makes exactly zero difference in terms of energy efficiency whether my home is kept warm partly by "vampire appliances" that "suck up energy" :rolleyes: or whether I use the electrical heaters. There are other considerations of course, but they can effect both ways. For example, compact fluorescents contain hazardous waste so existing recycling programs had to be tuned up to make recycling points more widely accessible. I'm sure hauling bulbs around in small patches is "energy efficient" indeed. And I have no idea how many of them end up in the landfill anyway, just because people don't bother disposing of them properly.

Overall, there's no short answer as to how much they effect energy consumption. I've not seen a good analysis on that yet, and now that it's a closed deal I doubt I ever will. Someone in the light bulb industry pulled off a nice piece of lobbying.

Rant over, this is one of my pet peeves. :)

--J

Are you familiar with life cycle assessment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_assessment)?

In the case of the test we are discussing if the country makes that big of a difference it seems that the only solution wold be to move. If the biggest difference is where you live and driving, heating, home size and every other thing of the test is the same. Think of it. If you live in El Passo all you would have to do is move about a mile and your carbon footprint would improve close to 100 percent. The houses look the same, the fast food places and even the stores look the same right over the border. You could sell your sub compact and buy a SUV like they drive over the border and burn diesel 1 rather than clean diesel or even diesel 2 and still have a smaller carbon footprint than someone living in the US only a mile away.

I am sorry for the hyperbole but that simply doesn't wash. There may be some small difference but one of the questions was if we lived where the weather was like Mexico City. I have been to Mexico city and it is as modern as most cities in the US. We need to stop thinking of Mexico like it was in the 1800s and realize it looks a lot like the US at least in the South.

A lot has to do with how the country produces electricity. The US uses mainly coal, so our footprint is larger than a country's where natural gas or nuclear is the main source.

It also has to do with things like cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc PER CAPITA. In this case, Mexico would be much lower than the US, since they have many fewer consumer goods.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, a country's climate has a big impact on its footprint. Most parts of Mexico require less heating of buildings, compared to our country or Juha's country.

So yes, you could in fact emit a lot less carbon if you moved from El Paso across the border to Mexico.

What business is it of theirs what the household income is?

In general, the more money you have the more stuff you have. More cars, more electric appliances, bigger house, etc. Naturally that will have a major impact on your carbon footprint.

This is one of the worst things about global warming. A few people (mostly North Americans, East Asians and Europeans) are causing most of the carbon emissions. So far, most of those fortunate people are unwilling to even consider the impact their privileged lifestyle is having on everybody else.

A lot has to do with how the country produces electricity. The US uses mainly coal, so our footprint is larger than a country's where natural gas or nuclear is the main source.

It also has to do with things like cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc PER CAPITA. In this case, Mexico would be much lower than the US, since they have many fewer consumer goods.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, a country's climate has a big impact on its footprint. Most parts of Mexico require less heating of buildings, compared to our country or Juha's country.

So yes, you could in fact emit a lot less carbon if you moved from El Paso across the border to Mexico.

Having been to El PAso and haveing been right over the border I don't believe that in "fact" One house hold has a smaller footprint than another 6000 feet away. The climate is the same. The fuel is the same. The vehicles are the same and the questions asked in the test are the same. The energy produced is the same. The only difference between the two towns is the border. Because much of my electricity comes from nuclear and the fuel source has a half life close to 250,000 years I bet my energy source is cleaner than the ones in Mexico city. While I know it was simply an assumption on your part it is hard to swallow based on the testing questions.

For instance the cutting down of the south american rain forest is having a tremendous impact on the air and there is no way the US or Asia or Europe has any responsibility for that.

But you are correct that Asia, and China in particular is rapidly producing more smog and Acid rain than we would have ever imagined. I read this in a world travel guide
"This may not come as any surprise to you. Acid rain affects 38% of the Chinese cities. The main cities where acid rain occurs is Beijing, Shanghai as well as Guangzhou, Shanzhen and Hong Kong." And no Mexico doesn't escape. Mexico city is considered one of the smoggiest, if that is a word, cities in the world.

OK, not too sure about that quiz and the site it's from.

I'm presently sharing my house with my extended family; they are not, by any means, low maintenance. Under those circumstances, the quiz says 4.59.

Under my ideal conditions, with energy-saving measures and being on my own, it went UP, to 4.89!

I'm the only one in the house who turns off lights/TV's/appliances/etc. when leaving a room. I trickle water instead of stream it when shaving/brushing teeth. I wash my clothes in cold water. The house is full of CFL's, I won't buy anything else. I'm car-free, for god's sake! How can my CF go UP?!?

Whatever.......................................................

Having been to El PAso and haveing been right over the border I don't believe that in "fact" One house hold has a smaller footprint than another 6000 feet away. The climate is the same. The fuel is the same. The vehicles are the same and the questions asked in the test are the same. The energy produced is the same. The only difference between the two towns is the border. Because much of my electricity comes from nuclear and the fuel source has a half life close to 250,000 years I bet my energy source is cleaner than the ones in Mexico city. While I know it was simply an assumption on your part it is hard to swallow based on the testing questions.

For instance the cutting down of the south american rain forest is having a tremendous impact on the air and there is no way the US or Asia or Europe has any responsibility for that.

But you are correct that Asia, and China in particular is rapidly producing more smog and Acid rain than we would have ever imagined. I read this in a world travel guide
"This may not come as any surprise to you. Acid rain affects 38% of the Chinese cities. The main cities where acid rain occurs is Beijing, Shanghai as well as Guangzhou, Shanzhen and Hong Kong." And no Mexico doesn't escape. Mexico city is considered one of the smoggiest, if that is a word, cities in the world.

Remember that the size of the divisor is important when working with population statistics.

Remember that the size of the divisor is important when working with population statistics.

Yes, but what would be the difference between Minneapolis and Saint Paul? Think El Paso and Juarez. The two cities look just alike and between the two have a population of 2 million. People live in Juarez and work in El Paso. Some even send their children to school in the US. I have been there and you can pretty freely pass from one city to the other. Same type of houses, same fast food places, and Juarez has even more ¾ ton diesel pickups if you can imagine. People will go to the pharmacy in Juarez because drugs are far less expensive. You can hit a house in Juarez with a sling shot from El Paso so there is no way someone with the same answers on that test would have a 100 percent decrease in their carbon foot print.

Well if you don't like one calculator, use a different one. Certainly no screening tool can capture all the nuances of real living. They just do the best they can to point out areas in which people in different countries can make their own footprint a little smaller. Major improvement will require concerted efforts to actually change the way energy is produced and consumed on a society-wide scale.

I suspect the calculators that include your nationality take in to consideration the entire nation's standard of living. I know in Mexico that there are cities like Juarez, but there are also towns like Piedras Negras which is much smaller and has a very small carbon footprint compared to the larger American style cities. They have minimal power on their houses, no mass transit and only a small percentage of the families in the town actually own motor vehicles. Mexico is quite poor once you leave the larger cities, unlike the USA.

Aaron :)

I suspect the calculators that include your nationality take in to consideration the entire nation's standard of living. I know in Mexico that there are cities like Juarez, but there are also towns like Piedras Negras which is much smaller and has a very small carbon footprint compared to the larger American style cities. They have minimal power on their houses, no mass transit and only a small percentage of the families in the town actually own motor vehicles. Mexico is quite poor once you leave the larger cities, unlike the USA.

Aaron :)


You may have a point but I suspect that such calculators are pulling numbers out of thin air. I live between a Nuclear Power plant and one of the largest electric wind farms anywhere. Like I said there is a big difference between a calculator that simply tries to take in how you live and give you ideas on how to make it better and ones that are politically motivated. If the site has a political agenda like the one we are discussing seems to then any information gained seems suspect.

But I will agree with Roody there are other calculators and some take into account what the individual does rather than the nation. But then my perspective has always been from the individual and their personal responsibility rather than the collective.

If I am frugal and use what I have till I have to replace it my foot print should be no larger than someone that is just as frugal but has less in savings or income.

Maybe they are giving you "credit" for what the bank is doing on your behalf in order to grow your investments, when your money is in a bank.

(see Bank Like Appalachia Matters (http://youngphillypolitics.com/don039t_be_fossil_fooled))

Read this from that calculator site http://www.myfootprint.org:

"I live a fairly green lifestyle but the quiz shows that it is unsustainable. Why is this so?

If you already live a sustainable lifestyle, do not be discouraged by your results. There are some portions of your footprint that are not the direct result of your consumption habits. For example, each resident of a city is "responsible" for a portion of the city's infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and government offices, regardless of whether the resident uses those services. In addition, some options that could make your footprint smaller are not available to you as a result of choices on the part of local decision makers, such as reliable and efficient public transportation as an alternative to driving. Therefore, an important path to reducing your footprint is to advocate for more sustainable decisions at all levels of government. This will make it easier for you and many others to reduce ecological footprints."


This site is blaming everybody for the sins of their brothers. Apparently this site holds everyone accountable for everything bad that ever happened. Sure they don't say it outright, but that is what they are doing. Why don't we all go to jail for all the crimes of others and also why don't we all get Nobel Peace Prizes for all the great works of peace throughout the world? They can't have it both ways. They have chosen to blame us all for the bad and not credit us for all the good.

The site claims to have many corporate supporters and is used for teaching students about the environment. This is sad that nobody from those corporations has bothered to use any logic regarding sponsoring them. Didn't any of them actually read that site? I guess not.

Read this from that calculator site http://www.myfootprint.org:

"I live a fairly green lifestyle but the quiz shows that it is unsustainable. Why is this so?

If you already live a sustainable lifestyle, do not be discouraged by your results. There are some portions of your footprint that are not the direct result of your consumption habits. For example, each resident of a city is "responsible" for a portion of the city's infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and government offices, regardless of whether the resident uses those services. In addition, some options that could make your footprint smaller are not available to you as a result of choices on the part of local decision makers, such as reliable and efficient public transportation as an alternative to driving. Therefore, an important path to reducing your footprint is to advocate for more sustainable decisions at all levels of government. This will make it easier for you and many others to reduce ecological footprints."


This site is blaming everybody for the sins of their brothers. Apparently this site holds everyone accountable for everything bad that ever happened. Sure they don't say it outright, but that is what they are doing. Why don't we all go to jail for all the crimes of others and also why don't we all get Nobel Peace Prizes for all the great works of peace throughout the world? They can't have it both ways. They have chosen to blame us all for the bad and not credit us for all the good.

The site claims to have many corporate supporters and is used for teaching students about the environment. This is sad that nobody from those corporations has bothered to use any logic regarding sponsoring them. Didn't any of them actually read that site? I guess not.


I agree. There is a big difference between information and propaganda.

Smallwheels, I follow what you're saying. Some decisions were made by others, without our consent. I understand. But we still benefitted from what was done, even if we were not the ones responsible. Does accepting a benefit also include accepting the blame if that benefit was derived through unethical or unscrupulous means?

Even the most frugal and conservation-minded American probably uses more energy than the average Chinese person--let alone a person from Africa.

Smallwheels, I follow what you're saying. Some decisions were made by others, without our consent. I understand. But we still benefitted from what was done, even if we were not the ones responsible. Does accepting a benefit also include accepting the blame if that benefit was derived through unethical or unscrupulous means?

I think not, we do what we can collectively, but we can only do as much personally as we can and the rest is up to others. Otherwise it would probably be guilt by association. You vote with your conscious, if it works out for the best, great, if not we try again the next year.

The old Earth Day slogan comes to mind too; Think Globally, Act Locally.

Aaron :)

;=
Smallwheels, I follow what you're saying. Some decisions were made by others, without our consent. I understand. But we still benefitted from what was done, even if we were not the ones responsible. Does accepting a benefit also include accepting the blame if that benefit was derived through unethical or unscrupulous means?

I don't think I'm benefiting from clear cutting forests and I don't believe that I'm benefiting from removing gray wolves from the endangered species list. I could go on and on. Yes roads do benefit me but one lane roads with a bicycle lane would benefit me more than four lane roads. There are many things done by the US government that have benefited me, but; most of those things were done in concert with some big business that was going to make a lot of money from whatever was done.

Someone created the word corporatocracy that denotes the government working for the benefit of corporations. That is how I see the government operating. If somebody can't profit from a law then it won't happen. This carbon footprint calculator has failed to separate what an individual can do from what they believe his government is doing with the individual's consent. That is crazy and wrong.

;=

I don't think I'm benefiting from clear cutting forests and I don't believe that I'm benefiting from removing gray wolves from the endangered species list. I could go on and on. Yes roads do benefit me but one lane roads with a bicycle lane would benefit me more than four lane roads. There are many things done by the US government that have benefited me, but; most of those things were done in concert with some big business that was going to make a lot of money from whatever was done.

The clearcut forests may have allowed you access to cheap wood or cheap pulp and paper, or they may have opened up land for grazing cattle for cheap beef. You benefitted. Even if you didn't partake of those things, they affected the economic structure. You benefitted. The four-lane roads allowed the cheap and easy transportation of goods and people. You benefitted, even if you didn't use those roads. Even if a decision was made which directly benefitted big business, you also stood to gain, if for no other reason than that the company was able to produce the goods that were made available to you. You might not use the goods and services provided by a business. In fact, you might boycott that business on a personal level. But if you live in the community where that business has its operations, you will benefit, perhaps only in a small degree, from the taxes it pays into your community.

To use a related example that is not environmental in nature, the Canadian prairies and U.S. plains were opened to farming in part because the aboriginal people who had lived there were displaced. Many of the people who started farming that land came long after this was done and they were not party to the decisions that were made. But they and their descendants benefitted from what happened. Those people are not to blame for the decisions that were made. But they still gained at the expense of others.

Even the most frugal and conservation-minded American probably uses more energy than the average Chinese person--let alone a person from Africa.


That doesn't make them green. Did you see the Olympics in China? Well I should have asked could you see the olympics from 1/2 mile away and how many people were wearing masks to walk down the street? That air wasn't caused by us.

I did a quick search and discovered that during a Yale Research study the US rates higher at being green that either China, Africa or Mexico. In the case of China and Africa the US rates quite a bit better. The US Rated 39 out of 149 countries and the first African nation on the list was the Congo at 93. Mexico was at 47 and China was at 105. So if my personal carbon footprint is being measured because of my country moving to Mexico or China would make things worse not better.

What was interesting was to find out that even with all of our driving California was rated greener than more than half of the other States in the US, 16 out of 50.

Some of our assumptions often seem reasonable but when held up to study sometimes the results will surprise us.

But you are correct that Asia, and China in particular is rapidly producing more smog and Acid rain than we would have ever imagined. I read this in a world travel guide


Smog (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/20/tech/main6120513.shtml) doesn't just effect Asia and China alone, with findings that a portion of their toxins make it all the way to the West Coast of the US.

I understand North America also gets a good amount of the sand that is blown around in China's growing western desert. Sandstorms in that and neighboring areas are pretty frightful.

Who knew we were all so interconnected? It's like we were living on one planet!

I understand North America also gets a good amount of the sand that is blown around in China's growing western desert. Sandstorms in that and neighboring areas are pretty frightful.

Who knew we were all so interconnected? It's like we were living on one planet!

Or maybe who knew that the problems of the world shouldn't all be laid at the feet of the citizen of the US? Just maybe a wasteful person in China or Mexico is as much if not more of a problem to the world carbon footprint as someone living in Colorado, Georgia or even New York?

I have always rejected the idea of grading harsher on one person because someone believed they had the potential to do better and relaxing the standards for others because they couldn’t do any better. When a standard is set for something like a test there is a pass and there is a fail. To move that line is a disservice to the person taking the test.
My carbon footprint should be measured strictly on what I do in my daily life. If I lived in Mexico or China the measurement shouldn’t change simply to be politically correct. In fact the very idea of political correctness just may be the most dishonest concept we have ever come up with. It is simply not based on reality.

Or maybe who knew that the problems of the world shouldn't all be laid at the feet of the citizen of the US? Just maybe a wasteful person in China or Mexico is as much if not more of a problem to the world carbon footprint as someone living in Colorado, Georgia or even New York?

I have always rejected the idea of grading harsher on one person because someone believed they had the potential to do better and relaxing the standards for others because they couldn’t do any better. When a standard is set for something like a test there is a pass and there is a fail. To move that line is a disservice to the person taking the test.
My carbon footprint should be measured strictly on what I do in my daily life. If I lived in Mexico or China the measurement shouldn’t change simply to be politically correct. In fact the very idea of political correctness just may be the most dishonest concept we have ever come up with. It is simply not based on reality.

Reality is that the USA is one of the largest if not the largest consumer of energy per capita in the world. We are also probably one of the most wasteful nations in the world. There are several countries with higher standards of living that don't consume the way we do.

Aaron :)

Reality is that the USA is one of the largest if not the largest consumer of energy per capita in the world. We are also probably one of the most wasteful nations in the world. There are several countries with higher standards of living that don't consume the way we do.

Aaron :)

Yes, but as I posted we aren't as bad as several countries either. Not if being green is a goal. If it isn't then the whole carbon footprint idea is moot. Do we give a pass to those tha aren't rated as green simply because they aren't working on it and have less resources? As I posted about the Yale Study the US rates as being greener that Cuba, China or Mexico and Africa. energy wastefullness or not there has to be other issues we need to take into account. That was my objection to getting a worse carbon score simply because I live in the US even if everything on the test was the same except for my country.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/98010 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/98010)
But if we reject the contention of the study because of how high they rate the US we could just as easly reject the position of the countries rated as greener than the US. That is why I said I felt the calculator was political rather than simply a test. Can or should I believe there are countries rated higher if I can't believe there are nations rated lower?

Reality is that the USA is one of the largest if not the largest consumer of energy per capita in the world. We are also probably one of the most wasteful nations in the world. There are several countries with higher standards of living that don't consume the way we do.

Aaron :)I disagree with this. The USA does use a quarter of the worlds oil but we are one of the most productive societies on the planet if not at the very top. Business productivity is higher here than anywhere else in the world.

The USA has led the world in every way for decades. Now we're slipping in some areas but we're making up for it in other ways. We use the energy in good ways for the most part.

It is the automobile industry that wastes energy. If most of the citizens of the USA would agree to use mass transit and bicycles the claim that the USA is wasteful would just die.

I've read that one third of our energy consumption at home could be saved if we just insulated our homes properly. As the older electronic appliances break the newer ones that are energy star rated will continue to save more energy. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are doing a great deal of energy saving for us. When LEDs get cheaper they will have an even greater energy saving impact.

Americans do live in a society based on consumerism. Most people do want bigger and better things but that trend has begun to swing the other way since the big recession started in 2008. It is consumerism that drives innovation in many areas. Faster computers are made for consumers. There aren't enough scientists in need of fast computers to justify all of that research into faster processors.

Rare diseases don't get much research either. There aren't enough people with those rare diseases to make the research profitable. Consumerism isn't all that bad. It is such consumerism that drives innovation.

That carbon calculator isn't rewarding Americans for living in the most productive society. It is penalizing us even though we have been the innovators for the planet for as long as we've been a nation.

I disagree with this. The USA does use a quarter of the worlds oil but we are one of the most productive societies on the planet if not at the very top. Business productivity is higher here than anywhere else in the world.

The USA has led the world in every way for decades. Now we're slipping in some areas but we're making up for it in other ways. We use the energy in good ways for the most part.

It is the automobile industry that wastes energy. If most of the citizens of the USA would agree to use mass transit and bicycles the claim that the USA is wasteful would just die.

I've read that one third of our energy consumption at home could be saved if we just insulated our homes properly. As the older electronic appliances break the newer ones that are energy star rated will continue to save more energy. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are doing a great deal of energy saving for us. When LEDs get cheaper they will have an even greater energy saving impact.

Americans do live in a society based on consumerism. Most people do want bigger and better things but that trend has begun to swing the other way since the big recession started in 2008. It is consumerism that drives innovation in many areas. Faster computers are made for consumers. There aren't enough scientists in need of fast computers to justify all of that research into faster processors.

Rare diseases don't get much research either. There aren't enough people with those rare diseases to make the research profitable. Consumerism isn't all that bad. It is such consumerism that drives innovation.

That carbon calculator isn't rewarding Americans for living in the most productive society. It is penalizing us even though we have been the innovators for the planet for as long as we've been a nation.

+1

That doesn't make them green. Did you see the Olympics in China? Well I should have asked could you see the olympics from 1/2 mile away and how many people were wearing masks to walk down the street? That air wasn't caused by us.

I did a quick search and discovered that during a Yale Research study the US rates higher at being green that either China, Africa or Mexico. In the case of China and Africa the US rates quite a bit better. The US Rated 39 out of 149 countries and the first African nation on the list was the Congo at 93. Mexico was at 47 and China was at 105. So if my personal carbon footprint is being measured because of my country moving to Mexico or China would make things worse not better.

What was interesting was to find out that even with all of our driving California was rated greener than more than half of the other States in the US, 16 out of 50.

Some of our assumptions often seem reasonable but when held up to study sometimes the results will surprise us.

It's confusing--you keep mixing up "carbon footprint" with "being green in general". Since this thread is about individual carbon footprints, I suggest we limit it to that. Please quit dragging in all these unrelated and dubious figures about "greenness."

On a per capita basis, the United States has the largest carbon footprint by far among China, Africa and even western Europe. IOW, the individual American has a MUCH larger footprint than the Chinese person.

I disagree with this. The USA does use a quarter of the worlds oil but we are one of the most productive societies on the planet if not at the very top. Business productivity is higher here than anywhere else in the world.

The USA has led the world in every way for decades. Now we're slipping in some areas but we're making up for it in other ways. We use the energy in good ways for the most part.

It is the automobile industry that wastes energy. If most of the citizens of the USA would agree to use mass transit and bicycles the claim that the USA is wasteful would just die.

I've read that one third of our energy consumption at home could be saved if we just insulated our homes properly. As the older electronic appliances break the newer ones that are energy star rated will continue to save more energy. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are doing a great deal of energy saving for us. When LEDs get cheaper they will have an even greater energy saving impact.

Americans do live in a society based on consumerism. Most people do want bigger and better things but that trend has begun to swing the other way since the big recession started in 2008. It is consumerism that drives innovation in many areas. Faster computers are made for consumers. There aren't enough scientists in need of fast computers to justify all of that research into faster processors.

Rare diseases don't get much research either. There aren't enough people with those rare diseases to make the research profitable. Consumerism isn't all that bad. It is such consumerism that drives innovation.

That carbon calculator isn't rewarding Americans for living in the most productive society. It is penalizing us even though we have been the innovators for the planet for as long as we've been a nation.

No matter how productive we are, this has nothing to do with carbon footprints. Obviously, using a backhoe is more productive than digging a ditch by hand--but the backhoe has a larger footprint.

I believe that most innovations in alternative energy, for example, are coming not from the US, but from Europe and Asia.

Europe has an equivalent lifestyle to North America, but uses about half as much carbon energy per capita.

It's confusing--you keep mixing up "carbon footprint" with "being green in general". Since this thread is about individual carbon footprints, I suggest we limit it to that. Please quit dragging in all these unrelated and dubious figures about "greenness."

On a per capita basis, the United States has the largest carbon footprint by far among China, Africa and even western Europe. IOW, the individual American has a MUCH larger footprint than the Chinese person.

If we are talking about the individual carbon footprint I contend one person In China burning coal for cooking and driving a diesel truck mush have had something to do with the smog in china. If on the other hand someone living in the US is using energy from the wind farms in Palm Springs and doesn't drive and lives frugely they will have a lower carbon footprint thaty the person in China, Mexico, Africa or Russia. If we are going to be penalized for what other people in our country does then teh average Chinese person must be penalized for what their government is allowing their manufacturing to do as well. It can't be both ways. The test we are talking about is so political it would contend that an American Indian living in a Hogan without power would have a bigger carbon footprint because they were living in a free standing home.

If we are talking about the individual then we need to measure against the individual. If we are talking about the nation then we need to use data comparing nations. If China rates 103 out of 149 nations in being green then someone is making a larger carbon footprint than the average US citizen. Becaus if they all had a smaller carbon footprint they would get a better score on being green. Yale university had to use some criteria to make the survey and publish it. Something more then supposition. If the average Chinese citizen had a smaller carbon footprint it should translate to a greener China. Forbes, Yale and others indicate China isn't being very green so they have to have something to base that on don't they?

No matter how productive we are, this has nothing to do with carbon footprints. Obviously, using a backhoe is more productive than digging a ditch by hand--but the backhoe has a larger footprint.

I believe that most innovations in alternative energy, for example, are coming not from the US, but from Europe and Asia.

Europe has an equivalent lifestyle to North America, but uses about half as much carbon energy per capita.


Ok I get your point. Even if China produces a higher carbon footprint than the US their citizens do not benifit from the cause of that carbon footprint. A minority is producing more carbon than any other nation in the world but they are exporting the goods mostly and so the majority isn't responsible for that footprint. The footprint is transfered to the consuming nation and most often that is the US. But that is a two edged sword because Europe consumes even more "imported" goods from China and if the were charged for the imports they would have a higher carbon footprint than we do. http://www.greenfudge.org/2010/03/11/europe-has-much-bigger-carbon-footprint-%E2%80%93-when-trade-is-factored-in/

See what happens when I join a green coalition? And do you realize China uses as much coal as almost the rest of the world? The US uses only about 4 percent of the worlds coal and China uses closer to 40 percent. You don't even want to see a graph of China's increase in foot print since 2002. They were well below the US and surpassed us in less than 9 years in carbin or CO2 production. So I still contend it is the individual not the country that should be reflected in the Calculator.