What a great idea for an assignment! Looks like it was an eye-opening exercise for everyone. Another interesting exercise would be to get multiple students to research the upfront carbon of the same thing and then see how consistent, or inconsistent, their results are. Being a relatively new form of science with limited sources of information, it seems like there is still a lot of room for interpretation on how you calculate your numbers. Mass timber is one example I can think of in the building industry which is my area of practice.
Interesting. What are your thoughts on that? With such a large variability in the results, it's hard to hang your hat on any given result. I guess it would require a deeper investigation into how people arrived at their results.
As a "semi-retired" OK still working conservation ecologist ... I always wonder about the costs related to irrevocable habitat destruction and direct loss of species from all of these issues. Yes, would add another layer of complexity for sure in the analyses.
One critical issue in my military studies over the years has involved the question of varied maintenance demands for comparable pieces of equipment, I.e. how many hours must that aircraft spend being serviced and maintained as compared to a similar but different aircraft? Sometimes the difference is substantial and can be a deciding factor in a procurement choices. But also it often turns out that more experience with an aircraft or vehicle shows that the maintenance burden can be reduced as mechanics get experience or improve techniques. So should considerations of after purchase care be factored in for clothing, or machines?
Isn't obsessing over a cookie's CO2 just a bit much? Especially as China is:
"Throughout 2022, China granted permits for 106 gigawatts of capacity across 82 sites, quadruple the capacity approved in 2021 and equal to starting two large coal power plants each week, said the report.
Last year, China experienced its worst heat wave and drought in six decades, dealing a blow to hydropower-reliant provinces -— and prompting authorities to turn toward coal instead.
To ease the power crunch, coal plants boosted their output, with daily thermal coal consumption hitting a record high in August." (CNN)
And 2023 will exceed that planned/build coal fired plants.
NPR ""Everybody else is moving away from coal and China seems to be stepping on the gas," she says. "We saw that China has six times as much plants starting construction as the rest of the world combined."
And you all are worried about the West's making T-shirts to wear and cookies to eat?
Eyes being averted on purpose on the REAL problem here? Toss in India as well. This is just an exercise in self-flagellation.
No, it was an exercise in teaching my students that everything has carbon emissions; nobody was obsessing about them. Now, Chinese cookies, that would be a problem.
Actually, Lloyd, you are the one who obsesses about Carbon. Certainly here at CU than at TH, but that's the purpose of this site. Just as I obsess about individual Liberty and Freedom. Fine and Dandy on both of us.
That said, when I watch and study what India and China are doing for their coal usage and the carbon they are emitting, it's rather bizarre to see how the West flagellates itself in niggling over the very smallest "carbon things" and deliberately refuses to take on the largest problems.
Or does the 80/20 Rule (or its variants) no longer hold sway and only those swipes at the West's standard of living must be decreased? I know of several variants of CRT (like Childism) - I'm beginning to see another one around Carbon.
A large portion of China’s carbon footprint and India’s growing carbon footprint is created in the production of goods shipped to the United States, Canada, and Europe. We have effectively exported part of our carbon footprint abroad. This is reflected in the example of the sweater. It was made in Cambodia from fabric produced in China and then shipped to Canada. This is reflected in the measurement and is indeed useful. Apportioning “blame” for the carbon is a philosophical question. Is it the producer or the purchasers responsibility? That is separate from the amount of carbon embodied in the making of an object. This is important when future architects decide say insulating with cellulose versus petroleum based fibers.
So you are saying it is the people of United States, Canada, and Europe? I thought it was the corporations fault. So is it cheaper to make a sweater in another country and does that reduce the carbon footprint. Or would the carbon footprint be less if it was made in the United States, Canada, and/or Europe? And if it would be less of carbon in the United States, what would the actual cost of the sweater be then? And would we be able to export it to other countries as it is now? Probably not, because we are not the center of the universe. The "maker" of the sweater will also send it to other countries at different prices since the sweater sold here at 50 dollars is sold somewhere else for 25 dollars.
I am not talking about blame I am talking about facts. Everything we make wherever we make it pays a carbon debt to the atmosphere. What energy we use to make that item whether coal or hydropower etc. plays a role in how much carbon is used to make an item, but in the end all that matters is how much carbon goes into the atmosphere not where that carbon is produced. We have a carbon budget -- the amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere before the results are catastrophic. Knowing how much carbon goes into the things we buy and letting that knowledge influence our decisions is an important tool for reducing the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere. The carbon cost of a cookie is trivial but calculating it is a lesson in calculating a carbon budget. This was a lesson for students. Knowing the carbon cost of different choices when building a house or purchasing a car is not trivial.
What a great idea for an assignment! Looks like it was an eye-opening exercise for everyone. Another interesting exercise would be to get multiple students to research the upfront carbon of the same thing and then see how consistent, or inconsistent, their results are. Being a relatively new form of science with limited sources of information, it seems like there is still a lot of room for interpretation on how you calculate your numbers. Mass timber is one example I can think of in the building industry which is my area of practice.
that kind of happened organically when students did t-shirts or the best was coffee, with wildly different results.
Interesting. What are your thoughts on that? With such a large variability in the results, it's hard to hang your hat on any given result. I guess it would require a deeper investigation into how people arrived at their results.
As a "semi-retired" OK still working conservation ecologist ... I always wonder about the costs related to irrevocable habitat destruction and direct loss of species from all of these issues. Yes, would add another layer of complexity for sure in the analyses.
One critical issue in my military studies over the years has involved the question of varied maintenance demands for comparable pieces of equipment, I.e. how many hours must that aircraft spend being serviced and maintained as compared to a similar but different aircraft? Sometimes the difference is substantial and can be a deciding factor in a procurement choices. But also it often turns out that more experience with an aircraft or vehicle shows that the maintenance burden can be reduced as mechanics get experience or improve techniques. So should considerations of after purchase care be factored in for clothing, or machines?
Do you offer this class online (or any other class)?
Isn't obsessing over a cookie's CO2 just a bit much? Especially as China is:
"Throughout 2022, China granted permits for 106 gigawatts of capacity across 82 sites, quadruple the capacity approved in 2021 and equal to starting two large coal power plants each week, said the report.
Last year, China experienced its worst heat wave and drought in six decades, dealing a blow to hydropower-reliant provinces -— and prompting authorities to turn toward coal instead.
To ease the power crunch, coal plants boosted their output, with daily thermal coal consumption hitting a record high in August." (CNN)
And 2023 will exceed that planned/build coal fired plants.
NPR ""Everybody else is moving away from coal and China seems to be stepping on the gas," she says. "We saw that China has six times as much plants starting construction as the rest of the world combined."
And you all are worried about the West's making T-shirts to wear and cookies to eat?
Eyes being averted on purpose on the REAL problem here? Toss in India as well. This is just an exercise in self-flagellation.
No, it was an exercise in teaching my students that everything has carbon emissions; nobody was obsessing about them. Now, Chinese cookies, that would be a problem.
Actually, Lloyd, you are the one who obsesses about Carbon. Certainly here at CU than at TH, but that's the purpose of this site. Just as I obsess about individual Liberty and Freedom. Fine and Dandy on both of us.
That said, when I watch and study what India and China are doing for their coal usage and the carbon they are emitting, it's rather bizarre to see how the West flagellates itself in niggling over the very smallest "carbon things" and deliberately refuses to take on the largest problems.
Or does the 80/20 Rule (or its variants) no longer hold sway and only those swipes at the West's standard of living must be decreased? I know of several variants of CRT (like Childism) - I'm beginning to see another one around Carbon.
A large portion of China’s carbon footprint and India’s growing carbon footprint is created in the production of goods shipped to the United States, Canada, and Europe. We have effectively exported part of our carbon footprint abroad. This is reflected in the example of the sweater. It was made in Cambodia from fabric produced in China and then shipped to Canada. This is reflected in the measurement and is indeed useful. Apportioning “blame” for the carbon is a philosophical question. Is it the producer or the purchasers responsibility? That is separate from the amount of carbon embodied in the making of an object. This is important when future architects decide say insulating with cellulose versus petroleum based fibers.
So you are saying it is the people of United States, Canada, and Europe? I thought it was the corporations fault. So is it cheaper to make a sweater in another country and does that reduce the carbon footprint. Or would the carbon footprint be less if it was made in the United States, Canada, and/or Europe? And if it would be less of carbon in the United States, what would the actual cost of the sweater be then? And would we be able to export it to other countries as it is now? Probably not, because we are not the center of the universe. The "maker" of the sweater will also send it to other countries at different prices since the sweater sold here at 50 dollars is sold somewhere else for 25 dollars.
I am not talking about blame I am talking about facts. Everything we make wherever we make it pays a carbon debt to the atmosphere. What energy we use to make that item whether coal or hydropower etc. plays a role in how much carbon is used to make an item, but in the end all that matters is how much carbon goes into the atmosphere not where that carbon is produced. We have a carbon budget -- the amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere before the results are catastrophic. Knowing how much carbon goes into the things we buy and letting that knowledge influence our decisions is an important tool for reducing the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere. The carbon cost of a cookie is trivial but calculating it is a lesson in calculating a carbon budget. This was a lesson for students. Knowing the carbon cost of different choices when building a house or purchasing a car is not trivial.