Obviously, some carbon reduction actions are much easier than others. We've found not flying easy, because our only child lives within train travel distance and flying is pretty unpleasant. But we have friends in Maine with two kids and four grandkids in Colorado. They aren't, and shouldn't, giving up flying.
We've found not eating meat easy too. We both like to cook and giving up meat has lead us to more creative cooking and better and healthier meals. We're not completely vegan, but rarely eat fish and only occasionally eat shellfish. The only dairy is about a pound of Parmigianno Reggiano every year.
Having no car is impossible when you live in rural Maine. We've got heat pumps, mostly powered by rooftop solar.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that anyone can employ carbon reduction actions, but what those actions are will vary with people's individual situation.
It'd be interesting to see what we'd do if we all had a per capita carbon budget. You want to fly to Europe, go ahead, but no steak for you!
So several things in your stack recently had me thinking about what actions might have the biggest bang for the buck. Then I was speaking to my daughter who lives close by in a 3 storey 1950's apartment nearby. The heat has finally been turned off. Their unit is the top floor & faces south. The owners got some kind of grant to put exterior insulation on the 3rd floor. I'm sure they have ONE ZONE for the gas powered baseboard radiators. I lived in one of these places only much taller in Toronto almost 50 years ago. You freeze on the main floor in the winter & the upper floors have the windows open when it's -20.
So were we to just add a couple of HVAC controls & say 2 zones per floor to most of these older apartments, it would save gazillions in CO2 every year. In Ontario, I believe one is required to have have the heat available Sept 30 - May 30 so many of these buildings are just wasting heat supplied by Gas or in some cases they still heat with Oil!
Not eating hamburgers is great but it's a personal choice. Getting these old buildings to better save on GAS would pay for itself & save LOTS of emissions.
I'm lucky in living in a place where I don't need to own a car (and can't recall the last time I even rented one), but I know others here (NYC) that do need a car. My in-laws lived in a transit desert in NE Queens where you have to drive to get groceries, etc. When I helped them replace their car a few years, we determined that, because they drove so little, the extra cost (no rebates then) of even a hybrid to get relatively little gas savings didn't make sense financially. Point being, from the data you show, it wouldn't have made sense in terms of carbon emissions either. An ICE (that abbreviation is a problem now) comes out better if you don't drive much: lower embodied carbon emissions and, because of the low mileage, relatively minimal operating emissions.
The pets issue is probably one of the things that will make most people defensive, myself included. My dog is also one of the reasons I don't use the bike and public transport more, since I can't take her along. On the other hand, I've got no kids (either to consume resources or pay taxes and look after me and others in old age), she (the dog) keeps me at home and curbs my travel and other consumption, gets me out walking, helps me create community and solidarity, eats largely organic chicken and plant based food, and she was a rescue so we didn't cause her to be created for our amusement, if that makes any difference.
As Stephen says above, the actions we take will vary with our situation. All these data don't seem to take into account the possibility of compromise, veganism and going car/pet free might not be possible for everyone, all the time for a number of reasons, but cutting back when and where you can might help.
The pet issue is a real thing. It's an example of extremely poor messaging. The environmentalist/Green movement has a long history of not understanding this. However, it's not just them who don't understand.
An up-and-coming right-wing party here in New Zealand was doing quite well and making progress until the head and creator of the party had a brain fart and decided one of their policies would be anti-pet.
Their ratings properly fell to 0.1% in the polls, and by doing so he affectively terminated his political career. Fact there's a possibility that are deregistered, which means the New Zealand registration law they've got less than 500 party members.
Messaging is important, focus on the important stuff, not the trivia.
Aren't there restrictions in NZ already about the numbers of animals you can keep, I seem to remember? Which seems reasonable, people don't need to have packs of dogs without good reason, and indeed I'm not sympathetic to irresponsible breeding of pet animals, or their acquisition as lifestyle accessories when one's lifestyle isn't even suited to it ( though as someone would of course say, who gets to decide that?)
In fact I'd be quite open to a carbon budget and would happily trade my dog for no flights and less meat and car use, but I can see it's not going to happen.
The only restriction that I'm aware of is that if you are an urban area you need a license to have more than two dogs. If you are not in an urban area then you do not need a license. There are no restrictions regarding cats.
There are various regulations regarding the type of dog, and in general all animals have to be registered microchip and in some cases neutered.
Not crying. Well aware of contradictions (like that I really shouldn't be giving you the compliment of rational opposition but I'm doing it anyway). Not quite sure what I'm supposed to be going and figuring. You seem to be confusing me with that straw man over there.
The impact of pets is something my husband likes to remind me of (with love) - as two cats eating a typical diet pretty much cancelled out my vegetarianism. (We've since switched to kibble made from insect protein: a very cool idea I'm hoping takes off.)
Like other commenters have already pointed out, our choices aren't made in isolation. Having pets means that we stay home more and are perfectly happy not creating human children.
Love the concept of a carbon budget (with some allowances for those in truly remote communities) - have a goal, determine your priorities, and accept trade-offs.
Obviously, some carbon reduction actions are much easier than others. We've found not flying easy, because our only child lives within train travel distance and flying is pretty unpleasant. But we have friends in Maine with two kids and four grandkids in Colorado. They aren't, and shouldn't, giving up flying.
We've found not eating meat easy too. We both like to cook and giving up meat has lead us to more creative cooking and better and healthier meals. We're not completely vegan, but rarely eat fish and only occasionally eat shellfish. The only dairy is about a pound of Parmigianno Reggiano every year.
Having no car is impossible when you live in rural Maine. We've got heat pumps, mostly powered by rooftop solar.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that anyone can employ carbon reduction actions, but what those actions are will vary with people's individual situation.
It'd be interesting to see what we'd do if we all had a per capita carbon budget. You want to fly to Europe, go ahead, but no steak for you!
'It'd be interesting to see what we'd do if we all had a per capita carbon budget. You want to fly to Europe, go ahead, but no steak for you!'
Cue the cries from the usual suspects of 'you can't tell me what to do you authoritarian socialist'.
You absolutely nailed it, friend. I love learning from you and watching you continue to make this accessible for a lot more people.
This vegan, bike-riding, dog-loving Seattle gal is with you! I attack on the fronts I can!
So several things in your stack recently had me thinking about what actions might have the biggest bang for the buck. Then I was speaking to my daughter who lives close by in a 3 storey 1950's apartment nearby. The heat has finally been turned off. Their unit is the top floor & faces south. The owners got some kind of grant to put exterior insulation on the 3rd floor. I'm sure they have ONE ZONE for the gas powered baseboard radiators. I lived in one of these places only much taller in Toronto almost 50 years ago. You freeze on the main floor in the winter & the upper floors have the windows open when it's -20.
So were we to just add a couple of HVAC controls & say 2 zones per floor to most of these older apartments, it would save gazillions in CO2 every year. In Ontario, I believe one is required to have have the heat available Sept 30 - May 30 so many of these buildings are just wasting heat supplied by Gas or in some cases they still heat with Oil!
Not eating hamburgers is great but it's a personal choice. Getting these old buildings to better save on GAS would pay for itself & save LOTS of emissions.
I'm lucky in living in a place where I don't need to own a car (and can't recall the last time I even rented one), but I know others here (NYC) that do need a car. My in-laws lived in a transit desert in NE Queens where you have to drive to get groceries, etc. When I helped them replace their car a few years, we determined that, because they drove so little, the extra cost (no rebates then) of even a hybrid to get relatively little gas savings didn't make sense financially. Point being, from the data you show, it wouldn't have made sense in terms of carbon emissions either. An ICE (that abbreviation is a problem now) comes out better if you don't drive much: lower embodied carbon emissions and, because of the low mileage, relatively minimal operating emissions.
Ice and trump are two words we cant use anymore
And you tell me not to go all political...
The pets issue is probably one of the things that will make most people defensive, myself included. My dog is also one of the reasons I don't use the bike and public transport more, since I can't take her along. On the other hand, I've got no kids (either to consume resources or pay taxes and look after me and others in old age), she (the dog) keeps me at home and curbs my travel and other consumption, gets me out walking, helps me create community and solidarity, eats largely organic chicken and plant based food, and she was a rescue so we didn't cause her to be created for our amusement, if that makes any difference.
As Stephen says above, the actions we take will vary with our situation. All these data don't seem to take into account the possibility of compromise, veganism and going car/pet free might not be possible for everyone, all the time for a number of reasons, but cutting back when and where you can might help.
"Cue the cries from the usual suspects of 'you can't tell me what to do you authoritarian socialist'."
And the first thing you do is cry about the pet issue. Go figure.
The pet issue is a real thing. It's an example of extremely poor messaging. The environmentalist/Green movement has a long history of not understanding this. However, it's not just them who don't understand.
An up-and-coming right-wing party here in New Zealand was doing quite well and making progress until the head and creator of the party had a brain fart and decided one of their policies would be anti-pet.
Their ratings properly fell to 0.1% in the polls, and by doing so he affectively terminated his political career. Fact there's a possibility that are deregistered, which means the New Zealand registration law they've got less than 500 party members.
Messaging is important, focus on the important stuff, not the trivia.
I put that in with tongue in cheek and it was probably a mistake...
I think that was understood, Lloyd! They're coming for your dogs and cats is sometimes an irresistible way of grabbing attention...
Dilly is lovely, glad she's getting used to you.
"We have to attack on all fronts. Bike-riding heatpumpified vegans without pets have very low carbon footprints."
Ayup - a mistake. At least you admitted to it but wasn't surprised you said it. A Kinsley Gaffe?
My comment was not meant to be a criticism of your writing in this article.
I was talking more about in the general mode of communication. And it was more of a comment to coj1 than anything else.
Funny and cautionary tale!
Aren't there restrictions in NZ already about the numbers of animals you can keep, I seem to remember? Which seems reasonable, people don't need to have packs of dogs without good reason, and indeed I'm not sympathetic to irresponsible breeding of pet animals, or their acquisition as lifestyle accessories when one's lifestyle isn't even suited to it ( though as someone would of course say, who gets to decide that?)
In fact I'd be quite open to a carbon budget and would happily trade my dog for no flights and less meat and car use, but I can see it's not going to happen.
The only restriction that I'm aware of is that if you are an urban area you need a license to have more than two dogs. If you are not in an urban area then you do not need a license. There are no restrictions regarding cats.
There are various regulations regarding the type of dog, and in general all animals have to be registered microchip and in some cases neutered.
Not crying. Well aware of contradictions (like that I really shouldn't be giving you the compliment of rational opposition but I'm doing it anyway). Not quite sure what I'm supposed to be going and figuring. You seem to be confusing me with that straw man over there.
Thread muted.
The impact of pets is something my husband likes to remind me of (with love) - as two cats eating a typical diet pretty much cancelled out my vegetarianism. (We've since switched to kibble made from insect protein: a very cool idea I'm hoping takes off.)
Like other commenters have already pointed out, our choices aren't made in isolation. Having pets means that we stay home more and are perfectly happy not creating human children.
Love the concept of a carbon budget (with some allowances for those in truly remote communities) - have a goal, determine your priorities, and accept trade-offs.
It's almost like this whole carbon thing is a little bit complicated, misunderstood and perhaps variable depending on where you live?