Our 'carbon footprint'

Here in the UK we are being constantly told that we have a 'carbon footprint' - that every decision we make in life - where our food comes from - how often we fly - how energy-efficient our homes are: all this makes a difference to global warming - the greenhouse effect - you name it and we are doing it wrong.

Of course we have to minimise the problems our earth faces, and every one of us can do something to help. But just occasionally I would like to take a weekend away, by plane, to experience a different culture, visit some galleries - just take a break - without feeling I am a sinner.

Your thoughts?

I find the topic of Carbon output and Global Warming in general to be a difficult to to judge on one hand I know I should walk more not fly and recycle my cans but on the other hand compared to the outputs of countries like China there really seems little point. It's a bit like turning up to an earthquake zone with a dustpan and brush and offering to help.

What the world has to do is develop alternatives, especially to fuel and the way cars and planes run. But more importantly, those things have to be affordable. I would love for my family to get a hybrid car, but we’re not rich – and those things are expensive.

Same for energy saving light bulbs. Here in Canada, incandescent bulbs will be banned in four years. That’s great, and we’ve already replaced many of ours. However, if the prices of those bulbs aren’t reduced by the time the ban comes into effect, it won’t be fair to expect low income households to be able to afford them.

As important as governments of developed countries taking action is, like unconvinced says, dramatic steps must be taken with countries that are just going through an industrial revolution now. It’s a bit incredulous that we’ve come so far from the first steam locomotives, yet for some countries the amount of carbon emissions being produced today is the same amount that was produced in England in the 19th c.

Being a student is really helping my carbon footprint. It does show how easy some things are though, like walking where you'd normally drive or catch the bus, and turning off lights when you leave a room. It's things I notice more now I'm trying to save money. And stuff that might not seem like much, but if everyone else did it it would make a difference.

I just saw a reduce your carbon footprint advert on tv, it's the first time I've seen it and it's almost 2am and it was on ITV2...not exactly the best time to advertise something important :rolleyes:

What the world has to do is develop alternatives, especially to fuel and the way cars and planes run. But more importantly, those things have to be affordable. I would love for my family to get a hybrid car, but we’re not rich – and those things are expensive.

Here's a secret, we've already developed most of these things. Like cars that run on vegetable oil and even water. The governments need to persuade the market that environmentally friendly products should be an industry standard, not simply commodity.

Cars running on veggie oil reduces dependance on nonrenewable fuels...not the carbon footprint. The byproduct of the combustion is still CO2 (carbon dioxide). Taking trips by non-car means; carpooling, and using more efficient vehicles all work better. The renewable fuels do help some, don't get me wrong, but they don't help all the way.

If you're in a mode of transportation that doesn't emit carbon dioxide as a byproduct of combustion, that does cut way down on the carbon footprint :). From what I understand it the primary "impediment" to large-scale use of such vehicles is cost...only wealthy people can afford to use some of the alternative means. Technological breakthroughs making the technology cheaper are needed, IMO, for large-scale implementation.

And, if you're watching TV at 2 AM, maybe the carbon footprint commercial is hinting you should turn off the TV? :p

And, if you're watching TV at 2 AM, maybe the carbon footprint commercial is hinting you should turn off the TV? :p

yes I thought that too :lol:, but Pretty woman was on

yes I thought that too :lol:, but Pretty woman was on

Ah, well, we'll forgive it. Just this once.

Although those who look @ the global warming thread will note that I have an interest in the matter, I'm not blind to the somewhat double standard that Al Gore is showing. He's a great spokesman, but flying from place to place on a private jet does have its own carbon footprint.

Anyone working directly on these issues around? I am in a different field of science myself - so I understand the lingo, but the day-to-day thinking about it I'm not as "up" on.

Isn't their a test that tells you how big your Carbon Footprint is?I Had to take one at my School (only it was called an Ecological Footprint) , but i forget the results.I think it would be interesting we all took it, and then posted te results.If their is one,of course.

Isn't their a test that tells you how big your Carbon Footprint is?I Had to take one at my School (only it was called an Ecological Footprint) , but i forget the results.I think it would be interesting we all took it, and then posted te results.If their is one,of course.

A quick google search turned up this one:

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.html

Haven't really evaluated it to see if it's accurate or if it has a corporate agenda.

I find the topic of Carbon output and Global Warming in general to be a difficult to to judge on one hand I know I should walk more not fly and recycle my cans but on the other hand compared to the outputs of countries like China there really seems little point. It's a bit like turning up to an earthquake zone with a dustpan and brush and offering to help.
Why pick on China? China is only the largest CO2 producer because it has the largest population. However, this thread is about an individual's contribution and the average Chinese person's contribution to CO2 emissions is tiny. The average Chinese family does not own a car but travels by bike, bus or train. The average Chinese family doesn't have air conditioning. The average Chinese market contains meat and vegetables grown relatively close to the market.

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita) a list of CO2 emissions per capita. China is down at number 99. Countries near the top of the list tend to be large oil producers, or large producers of other kinds of energy (although some I find surprising- Luxembourg? US Virgin Islands?). As most of these countries tend to be net exporters of oil, coal etc I think it's not really fair to blame them for excess CO2 production. I think it would be interesting to see a list of the top 10 net importers of oil etc.

It is important to try and protect our world, although isn't it decades too late? We should have been trying to protect this amazing source of life for years and our efforts now just aren't good enough. Changing lightbulbs and turning off standby isn't going to bring back those extinct species we have already lost. Global Warming has opened our eyes to the problem, and that is only because it is the first time human life is at risk. That is the only reason why it is such a problem.
Personally I think this is Mother Natures way of cleansing our over-populated planet. Places like China and California are asking for trouble. Why build one of the biggest cities in the world on one of the biggest faultlines and a waiting earthquake?
Too little too late, more needs to be done.


As for the lightbulbs being too expensive... the cheaper lightbulbs only last about a month, they have to be changed all the time. The new energy saving lightbulbs come with anything from a five to a ten year guarantee. It seems obvious to me to use them, especially because they cut electricity bills too.

Cars running on veggie oil reduces dependance on nonrenewable fuels...not the carbon footprint. The byproduct of the combustion is still CO2 (carbon dioxide).

However, bio-fuels like veggie diesel emit CO2 which moves through the cycle from gas, trapped in plant, released when burnt, trapped in plant adding little to the overall atmospheric CO2 load. Fossil fuels release carbon which has been trapped and out the cycle for millions of years.

However, bio-fuels like veggie diesel emit CO2 which moves through the cycle from gas, trapped in plant, released when burnt, trapped in plant adding little to the overall atmospheric CO2 load. Fossil fuels release carbon which has been trapped and out the cycle for millions of years.

True; I still think it's better to not emit it at all :). The carbon offsets i have similar problems with; I'd rather people not "buy" themselves extra emissions :).

I think it's too late now.

The Earth is changing, maybe because of us, maybe not, but there's not much us mere humans can do about it. The world has been changing for millions of years. We've had ice ages and droughts. I think earth is just going through another one of those cycles.

And, come on, when is the world going to cut down on C02?

I find the topic of Carbon output and Global Warming in general to be a difficult to to judge on one hand I know I should walk more not fly and recycle my cans but on the other hand compared to the outputs of countries like China there really seems little point. It's a bit like turning up to an earthquake zone with a dustpan and brush and offering to help.

There seems little point? I hate to sound like a vigilante, and I'm not, but it's that kind of thing that stops progress. There seems to be little point, and I entirely agree that one person cannot fix THIS problem, but no one can be exempt either. Everyone shoudl have to try. Jeez, you won't know what you can do till you actually go to it.

Do you know that using the google search engine is actually using a lot of energy? There are other, low output, energy efficient search engines out there. Problem is, not namy people know about them.

It requires advertising, and that seems hypocritical, since advertising too wastes energy.

But the fact remains that if a slice of ice roughly the size of the weakest sector of Greenland broke off, which is highly, highly possible, in the next number of years, as opposed to part of the Antarctic breaking free, downtown New York is gone. All the retained land in the Netherlands is back under water. In truth, hundreds of thousands of people are killed, injured, drowned, hundreds of thousands of people lose everything they ever owned, and we're faced with a worldwide crisis. Incidentally, the figuring goes that if that large section of ice were to break off, it would only take a 1 degree change. We are so, so, so close to that one degree.

It's like, looking at the third world and saying we can't save that. Well, we didn't try hard enough, because "one person can't make a difference", and nobody was willing to make the effort. Now look at what we see in Darfur.

Kyoto seems to be rather a waste of time and energy too, America will not ratify it, and as a large exporter and problem causer (though the blame falls everywhere, I'm no anti American), it too should have to face up to it's responsibility. America, and the member states of the EU, and other European countries, and Asian countries, and the Middle East are made up of those "one" persons that can actually make the difference.

History is full of peopel who tried. They're recognised for actually going against the crowd and doing what they KNEW they had to.

Is it so beyond people now to try?

Do you know that using the google search engine is actually using a lot of energy? There are other, low output, energy efficient search engines out there. Problem is, not namy people know about them.

Using your computer also uses a lot of energy. And if you're looking at Google's predominately white screen on a flat screen monitor then it uses no more energy than looking at the same thing with a black screen. There is only a significant differnce when using an older style monitor.

People in Britain, I don't know about anywhere else are being made to feel guilty by politicians trying to pander to the green lobby. Cameron says he's going to replace Inheritence Tax with "green taxes" which will try to force people off the roads and out of the air with very little actual results. I think it's too late to change anything and people should accept what is likely to happen instead of trying to reverse damage that has been long done.

i don't really care what my 'carbon footprint' is and I certainly won't be trying to offset any of my carbon emissions by planting trees or whatever. It has also been suggested than certain foods which are home grown have a bigger 'carbon footprint' than ones which are flown in or shipped over from other countries.

There seems little point? I hate to sound like a vigilante, and I'm not, but it's that kind of thing that stops progress. There seems to be little point, and I entirely agree that one person cannot fix THIS problem, but no one can be exempt either. Everyone shoudl have to try. Jeez, you won't know what you can do till you actually go to it.

I'm not saying I don't try and be as energy efficient as I realistically can, I'm just saying that since I started recycling my cans I haven't noticed any reduction in global warming.
The whole issue is one which will have to be achieved through a political agreement which includes the US and China, whilst those two governments continue to allow global warming in their industries me using Google is unlikely to make any difference.

I'm not saying I don't try and be as energy efficient as I realistically can, I'm just saying that since I started recycling my cans I haven't noticed any reduction in global warming.


Besides being a pretty specious argument recycling is about resource conservation and reducing landfill not climate change.

I'm not saying I don't try and be as energy efficient as I realistically can, I'm just saying that since I started recycling my cans I haven't noticed any reduction in global warming.


recycling isn't really preventing global warming, it's just lowering rubbish levels and preventing even more landfill sites. To be honest, with the hige amount of money, time and effort going into it, it's rather a paradox that it's not entirely contributing to the whole "get rid of global warming" camp...


The whole issue is one which will have to be achieved through a political agreement which includes the US and China, whilst those two governments continue to allow global warming in their industries me using Google is unlikely to make any difference.

My only answer to that is, who votes the government in?
Obviously not in China, the Republic in Taiwan is only becoming more democratic now, and the People's Republic is still under the Communist Party, so it is up to the Communist Party to decide to help everyone. Realistically, and I'm not being cynical here, it would actually benefit the state, which is kind of... a principle rule...of communism..

But that's probably neither here nor there.

If we want to cut our emissions in half (well not half, I don't know the actual statistic) we could drive with more than one person in the car. If you're driving on an interstate or whatever with a carpool lane you realise that the majority of cars have only one person in them. There's no way that all of those people are going to different places. Another thing, does every single teenager with a license need a car? They could carpool too.
On top of that, there is public transit. We could ride the bus, that's like a huge carpool.

One thing about China having large CO2 emissions, they have a lot of people living there. They also grow a lot of rice which gives off more tahn 66 million tons of the greenhouse gas methane every year....just thought I'd add that.

One thing about China having large CO2 emissions, they have a lot of people living there. They also grow a lot of rice which gives off more tahn 66 million tons of the greenhouse gas methane every year....just thought I'd add that.
That's a much smaller amount than what is produced from livestock farts.

As I've already said in this thread, China is 99th on the list of C02 production per capita (I don't know what it is for methane, but I guess it's comparable) because the average family (let alone person) doesn't have a car, doesn't have air conditioning and is more likely to buy local. There isn't a lot the average Chinese person can do do reduce his or her carbon footprint. In contrast, most people in the West can do quite a bit.

That's a much smaller amount than what is produced from livestock farts.

As I've already said in this thread, China is 99th on the list of C02 production per capita (I don't know what it is for methane, but I guess it's comparable) because the average family (let alone person) doesn't have a car, doesn't have air conditioning and is more likely to buy local. There isn't a lot the average Chinese person can do do reduce his or her carbon footprint. In contrast, most people in the West can do quite a bit.


Oh yeah, I know, I'm just enforcing that you can't blame China. I apparently didn't do it too well, though.



Over the last 150 years the levels of some of the most important greenhouse gasses have raised by 25% and during the past 20 years 75% of the CO2 emissions were from burning fossil fuels. There is our reason right there. If we want to cut down on CO2, carpool and the like. We really need to get the get the government behind this whole issue and endorse plans for better fuel sources.

Kindly continue in our brand new general environment thread.
The Environment (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=111382)

I'll close this to avoid having the same discussion running parallel in several threads. :)