Carbon - Are you getting better or worse long term?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 The New NickB 01 Nov 2021

I was having a think about my personal carbon emissions and started looking at personal changes over the last two decades.

Just based on travel I reckon I’ve been been pretty good. Miles flown 2012-2021 are only 28% of miles flown 2001-2011. Miles driven are around 40% of the total for the earlier decade.

I suspect the figures for other aspects of my life will be less impressive and harder to work out, but I might give it a go.

11
 MG 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Depending on what you do, consider you professional life too.  It may be that you have far, far greater potential to reduce emissions by decisions made there than  in a personal setting.

Post edited at 13:53
 neilh 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Does that factor in no flights during Covid?

My flights are way down,  because of Covid.....

 Si dH 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Good question.

I think I've also done pretty well on travel when compared to a decade ago. Throughout the second half of the 90s and 00s I think I used to fly on holiday on average twice a year but it's now more like once every two years. With my wife, we've also dropped our combined annual car mileage from around 20000 to 12000 over the last decade - maybe half of that reduction was initially due to covid but which I hope and expect to sustain. This is partly down to WFH and partly from using the train for some commuting.

Doing some quick calcs, at 90 kg CO2 per passenger hour in the air, we might be saving of the order of a tonne of CO2 per year in that sense (albeit, doing this on a per passenger basis obviously has issues.) At 100g CO2/km in the car, saving 8000 miles annually should be saving about 1.2 tonnes CO2. This will improve further in future as we have an EV on order which we'll do almost all of the remaining 12000 miles in. We can now get by with one car most of the time.

Unfortunately the above is all outweighed by our gas heating usage because we moved to a huge old draughty house two years ago. Our usage in the last 12 months is about 24000 kwh I think, which is more than double what it was in our old home, and if I understand correctly equates to about 5 tonnes produced of CO2 per year. I've put in a new boiler, some new insulation and some draught proofing measures (edit - and keep the thermostat at 18.5) but so far I think the impact is limited.

We also had two kids in the period. So, we are trying, but there is a long way to go.

As others have said, I think some of us have the opportunity to do more professionally. I changed career in part because I want to make a difference on this front, but I can't claim yet that it has borne fruit in that sense. Hopefully it will do in future.

Post edited at 15:04
2
OP The New NickB 01 Nov 2021
In reply to neilh:

Covid has probably made a slight difference, not much on flying, we probably would have had another European holiday, but been limiting the impact of those where possible. Trains etc.

Covid has probably hastened the reduction in our household mileage, this change will last. The biggest change though is going from 2 cars to 1, which we did 6 years ago.

OP The New NickB 01 Nov 2021
In reply to MG:

I don’t travel much for work, which helps. I’ve built a lot of stuff through work, which obviously has an impact.

A lot of my work is now around supporting sustainable solutions, be that public transport, walking and cycling, re-use of existing buildings or building to a highly sustainable standard if we do build new.

 MG 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> A lot of my work is now around supporting sustainable solutions, be that public transport, walking and cycling, re-use of existing buildings or building to a highly sustainable standard if we do build new.

This.  If you add up the likely CO2 reduction from that sort of thing, it will probably be many times anything you can do individually.  Of course, it is on behalf of many people so arguably each should get a bit of the "credit", but if it's you making the decisions, that is a key factor.

 Lankyman 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> I was having a think about my personal carbon emissions

I don't know about carbon but my personal methane emissions remain stubbornly high. Giving up baked beans will be a real wrench.

In reply to The New NickB:

I cant comment on specifics but overall Im much better on all fronts. Ive done about 4000 miles in 18 months too which is probably a fifth of normal. That's a 3ltr diesel too although I do get 40mpg normally.

 Rich W Parker 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Why isn't anyone talking about unsustainable population growth, because it's a difficult conversation to have?

There is a great deal of discussion about reducing carbon emissions by finding alternatives, but many of these involve exchanging one set of problems for another, albeit some way down the line. Ultimately what this planet needs from us is 'less'.

6
 steveriley 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Better, way less travel, loads of insulation work on the house, solar panels, plus natural tightness means I’ll put a jumper on before the heating. Ironically it’s the climbing let’s me down, I climb locally but will happily travel an hour or 2 to get my fix, often with an empty car.

OP The New NickB 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Rich W Parker:

> Why isn't anyone talking about unsustainable population growth, because it's a difficult conversation to have?

I didn’t have any kids 2001-2011, I didn’t have any kids 2012-2021, so I guess I’m neutral on that.

 Si dH 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Rich W Parker:

> Why isn't anyone talking about unsustainable population growth, because it's a difficult conversation to have?

To be fair, I have seen/heard a lot of people talk about the importance of women's education in the developing world to efforts to combat climate change, in articles and in podcasts. Apart from all the other benefits, improved education of girls results in significantly lower birth rates in those countries because of more women getting in to work, etc. This is a way to significantly reduce global population growth significantly in a way that has other benefits rather than that causes societal upheaval.

Eg

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p091cq66

Post edited at 18:27
 Moacs 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Loads better

Gave up flying 4 years ago

Eat no red meat and chicken/fish 1-2/week rather than veggie being exception

No longer buy flown in stuff if I can identify it (out of season asparagus from Peru etc.)

 Rich W Parker 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Fair point, but my wife made me think the other day when she said that, per capita, most carbon emission is coming from developed countries, or rapidly developing countries. And of course men's education is as important, it takes two tango!

 

 Si dH 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Rich W Parker:

>. And of course men's education is as important, it takes two tango!

It's not primarily about sex education, it's about women's education in general (ie, getting away from a situation where most girls leave school at a relatively young age.) This leads to societies in which there is greater gender equality with far more women in work and women's roles in life no longer seen as primarily/only being mothers. As I understand it, this leads to significantly lower average birth rates. So, men's education is not really relevant in the same way. Worth listening to that podcast.

Post edited at 20:21
1
 midgen 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Rich W Parker:

> Why isn't anyone talking about unsustainable population growth, because it's a difficult conversation to have?

Increasing numbers of people isn't a problem. We have the technology and ingenuity to live sustainably on (and off!) this planet.

The problem is increasing numbers of people living the profligate and wasteful lifestyle we have got used to in the Western world.

20
 summo 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Rich W Parker:

> Why isn't anyone talking about unsustainable population growth, because it's a difficult conversation to have?

Indeed, those pesky scientists creating a covid vaccine. A 50% fatality rate sars virus and there wouldn't be any need for cop27, 28, 29....

In answer, because as soon as you mention larger families various groups think you are deliberately targeting certain religions, ethnicities, cultures etc... rather than targeting population growth as a whole. 

 bouldery bits 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

My flights are well down. I eat a lot less animals. 

However,

My personal horsepower collection is significantly up. 

So swings and roundabouts. 

Post edited at 20:56
 RobAJones 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> To be fair, I have seen/heard a lot of people talk about the importance of women's education in the developing world 

Not just the developing world. The conception rate for under 18`s in the UK fell by over 60% between 2007 and 2018

 Forest Dump 01 Nov 2021
In reply to Rich W Parker:

Not only a difficult conversation to be having, but an erroneous one. Majority of emissions (both historical and current) arising from a minority of people. Biodiversity loss or maybe a different conversation

In answer to the original questions, I travel far less (both domestically & internatinally) than 20 or even 10 years ago

Diet is OK ish, dead animals once or twice a week, couple of veggie/vegan days a week. But then I was a full veggie for 13 years, broadly speaking when i travelled a lot

I work in a sustainability related field, so hopefully multiplier effect there

My rented accommodation is awful and leaks heat like a sieve, and I keep meaning to a) switch bank account, 2) put more pressure on work regarding their supply and finance chain impacts

 Dax H 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

No definite numbers but I think mine is getting better. I no longer motorcycle for the sake of the ride so I'm down from around 10k miles per year to 1k. Haven't flown since 92, replaced my work van with one that does the same mpg but is supposed to be much cleaner. Dropped my speed on the motorway from 75 to 65 (mpg up from 28 to 35). I also invested in some new workflow software that amongst other things optimises the route between sites. It's not perfect but most days it cuts 20 to 30 miles off my day. Finally spend far more time walking the dogs in the local woods rather than driving somewhere for a day out.

I think I'm winning but as was discussed on a similar thread a few months ago if I remember correctly someone worked out that my 9k less miles on the bike works out about the same as owning to small to mid sized dogs.

 mutt 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

sure is, last decade I installed solar panels and they are still generating 3200KWh/year of sustainable energy. I signed up for a green energy deal with Pure Energy which means that even though I'm still burning gas for space heating and using some unsustainably generated energy the carbon credits support installation of sustainable energy sources. I returned to vegetarian diet and gave up dairy products completely. I also gave up flying late in the decade which sadly meant the end of winter climbing trips on the continent, though I haven't flown intercontinental since the 00's. I've toughened up and winter climbing is now in Scotland to where I travel by train. But during the 10's I still drove to work, which is a backward step as in the 00's I cycled. I got my house insulated with a greener homes grant but I did not change my boiler. And I extended my house which has a whole heap of embodied carbon especially in the 2.5m foundations that building standards insists on even for 1 storey extensions but I'm hoping that the embodied carbon can be shared with all future residents.

Some good and some bad. 

in the 20's I've, with the help of covid been able to WFH which has completely wiped out my  work mileage. For the remaining I have bought a small electric car (zoe). It meets my family of 4's needs admirably and I waited until my old diesel was broken beyond repair. I bought the smallest car I could to minimise the environmental damage and embodied carbon.  (if anyone is currently thinking about getting a electric car please consider the environmental damage caused by carting around heavy batteries that are never used. I don't think many people need more than 200miles range in a day.) 

Pure energy have recently gone out of business and I have been put on to Shell. Shell are the big Satan so I will be leaving them as soon as I can.

Early in the decade I realised that its not fair to push the blame onto people when it is governments that make pretty much all the decisions. I'm lucky as I am rich enough to afford solar panels and an electric car, but that isn't true for the majority. Its apparently from 40years of inaction capped off by the latest budget offering absolutely nothing new that government is still in denial and most likely in the pocket of the carbon industry. So this decade I have joined the green party (costs only £3 / month), Attended protests at parliament and done some light non-arrestable duties for extinction rebellion. The purpose of all that is to push those who can make meaningful action at government level to act. This is something meaningful that anyone can do no matter what their economic situation is. I intend to continue this until government delivers on its promises and rhetoric.

 RobAJones 01 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Definitely better than 10nyears ago, but mainly as a result of not commuting to work. Doubt either of us will fly again having moved to taking  fewer but longer trips. No kids or pets. Still have ICE car and van, next car will be EV, although if I was eligible for a free bus pass I wouldn't bother. More time and Mrs J's ebike mean we make far fewer short car journeys. Some things I'm a bit conflicted on. Heating wise the house is now much better insulated but I still use a wood burner, but have never paid for wood and all the trees I've felled would have come down anyway. Food wise Mrs J is a keen gardener and we try not to buy anything that was grown or raised more than 10 miles away. However we still eat too much meat, does it matter that the fish in the freezer was bought straight from the boat, the pheasants would have been shot anyway and I helped feed the pig, I'm not sure. 

 Misha 03 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

> In answer, because as soon as you mention larger families various groups think you are deliberately targeting certain religions, ethnicities, cultures etc... rather than targeting population growth as a whole. 

I think it’s a lot wider than that because it makes all parents uncomfortable. Should we have had 3 children rather than 2? 2 rather than 1? None rather than 1? It’s personal freedom (to do something which is obviously quite natural) vs what’s good for the planet. Easy for me to say as I don’t have and don’t want children (which is always going to be my biggest contribution to the environment).

Reducing the impact of our existing population is important but not increasing the existing population is also important, especially in richer countries. Of course the other factor is people in poor countries becoming more affluent and thus having a greater impact (also entirely natural), which is where sustainable development comes in. For example, China is growing rapidly but they don’t have to do that based on electricity from coal when other options are available and affordable. 

 neilh 03 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

And then of course allowing migration to the developed world as basically you need young people to keep the wheels turning so to speak.Having an ageing population is not good.

Difficult balancing act.

 summo 03 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

1,2,3 is almost irrelevant, if in some cultures it's 4,5,6.... or even some fake shepherdess who the media adore has 9 kids! 

1
 summo 03 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> China is growing rapidly but they don’t have to do that based on electricity from coal when other options are available and affordable. 

Only that's the misconception, China has more green energy than Europe as a whole, but it's also building all our $hit so it needs even more energy. China's pollution is arguably ours, not theirs. 

 RobAJones 03 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

> 1,2,3 is almost irrelevant, if in some cultures it's 4,5,6....

China and India being just above 2 seems important along with the world average coming down an now being at 2.4. Many African countries are at 4,5,6 but most are coming down significantly. Unfortunately one of the biggest changes over the last 20 years is likely to be undo, Afghanistan moving from 8 to 4. 

>or even some fake shepherdess who the media adore has 9 kids! 

Great grandad was real shepherd, grandad was youngest of 14.

 summo 03 Nov 2021
In reply to RobAJones:

>  grandad was youngest of 14.

Similar 12, factor in ww1, flu, child mortality..  many never made it to 25.

 mrphilipoldham 03 Nov 2021
In reply to midgen:

We may have the technology to live off the planet with our numbers, but can everything else co-exist with us? Aren’t we one of the most nature depleted countries in Europe/the world? That would suggest not. 

 oldie 03 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> I think it’s a lot wider than that because it makes all parents uncomfortable. Should we have had 3 children rather than 2? 2 rather than 1? None rather than 1?......Reducing the impact of our existing population is important but not increasing the existing population is also important, especially in richer countries.....<

Even "green" politicians and activists seem to avoid mentioning the necessity for smaller families. They would probably lose a fair amount of support. IMHO we don't just need to stop population increase but need to reduce it.

Some time ago on these forums I discussed the usefulness of advising friends (who might well be upset if they already had several kids) to have less children. Some replies were fairly convincing in saying that this would not have the a rapid enough effect on carbon emissions etc.

However I was not convinced by a statement that having less children (each with an additional life of  environmental footprint) was not a major contribution that an individual could make since it would have an insignificant effect on the average, but you could say that about any measure such as reducing travel.

Post edited at 19:28
 ebdon 03 Nov 2021
In reply to oldie:

As others have said population size is a total red herring when it comes to carbon. A family of 10 in rural Africa for instance probably have a smaller carbon footprint than most peoples pets.

3
 tjhare1 03 Nov 2021
In reply to ebdon:

True, but the potential offspring of those on UKC aren’t likely to lead carbon-light lives in rural Africa. So in the context of UK(C) citizens’ personal decisions it probably does have some merit even if it doesn’t extrapolate well to a global scale.

 summo 03 Nov 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> As others have said population size is a total red herring when it comes to carbon. A family of 10 in rural Africa for instance probably have a smaller carbon footprint than most peoples pets.

Life is interlinked, they won't ever be wealthy, but that family in Africa could be chopping down forest to make what it can growing palm oil or rearing beef for Western markets. 

In reply to The New NickB:

I'm much better now than earlier in my career.  I used to work for a multi-national and then spent some time working for patent lawyers and VC firms that involved a fair bit of travel.  Now I work from home and do near zero business travel and I switched from holidays in Europe to camping trips. 

I'm probably very low carbon, but it's not because I set out to be low carbon, it's just getting older and finding new hobbies.  

1
 ebdon 03 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

As you say... for western markets

The issue isnt really overpopulation (although that does have environmental issues) it's the massive resource consumption that goes with affluent lifestyles.

 Misha 03 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

There aren’t many people with more than 3 children. Some of these people will be very wealthy and so their carbon footprint will be huge. However I suspect most of these people will be relatively poor and their carbon footprint would be relatively low even with more children.

 Misha 03 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Suspect you’ve got the wrong continent for palm oil and beef rearing but in any case the real issue there is the demand side. 

 Misha 03 Nov 2021
In reply to oldie:

Totally. Each time someone has a child, they essentially double their lifetime emissions / environmental impact (assuming the child lives into old age, which most people in developed countries do). In fact possibly more than double as they start needing a larger car and a larger house and so on. How much could an average person save on their lifetime emissions / impact? Depends when in life they start trying to reduce it and how far they can reasonably go but I’d have thought it can’t be more than 90% and would probable be at most 50> (this is for an average person). So you can do all sorts of stuff to reduce your impact by say 50-90% - then blow it all out of the water by having a couple of children. 

 Misha 03 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Agree re China to an extent, though they have a huge internal market now as well. 

 Misha 03 Nov 2021
In reply to neilh:

Yes, to an extent. There is also automation and efficiency gains. Easier in some areas than others. Supermarket cashiers is not a growing occupation these days, to take an extreme example. Nor will we be having issues with lorry driver shortages in say 20-30 years’ time. Whereas doctors will be even more in demand with an ever ageing population.

 mbh 04 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

I don't buy much stuff. I still wear clothes I bought 20-30 years ago.We've got one small car, and whenever I can WFH I do. I rarely fly - I think 3 times in the last decade. I rarely eat meat, and never eat red meat, and chair an allotment society.

I wrote and launched a degree course in renewable energy 18 years ago, and ran it for over a decade. That launched many talented people into a career in doing something about carbon. 

On the downside, I live in a draughty old Grade II listed house that is hard to keep warm without large expenditure of energy, one of those three flights was to Hong Kong to see my daughter a couple of years ago and I have little idea of the carbon impact of my digital life.

 summo 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> There aren’t many people with more than 3 children. 

I meant globally.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

 summo 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Suspect you’ve got the wrong continent for palm oil and beef rearing but in any case the real issue there is the demand side. 

Of course Brazil is the poster child bad boy, but central Africa isn't much better. Even Poland or Russia isn't great. 

Curiously China has doubled it's forest coverage to low flood risk, but china's the medias enemy so they'll ignore that. Yeah I know china's has many many other faults.

 oldie 04 Nov 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> The issue isnt really overpopulation (although that does have environmental issues) it's the massive resource consumption that goes with affluent lifestyles. <

Perhaps then we may at least agree that having larger families in countries such as the UK where many people have "massive resource consumption that goes with affluent lifestyles" will not improve the overall carbon footprint in those countries?  Smaller families would be better in this respect.

 Flinticus 04 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

What's the best carbon calculator for the UK?

I've tried a few but either they are too light on detail or too heavy. Many don't allow for specific mileage or car engine carbon emissions which are easily available figures, or specific flight details. My results vary from 3.5 to 10 tonnes pa (for our household of two).

 mbh 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Flinticus:

You could use the UK.GOV Greenhouse gas conversion factors spreadsheet

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-convers...

 mutt 04 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Another thing I did this decade was to spend a year buying absolutely nothing other than food and cleaning products.  That was fine until  shoes started to get holes in them. I dug into my cupboards and found shoes that were perfectly good but had been discarded for one reason or other. My trainers looked good so I wore them but the glue failed a d they fell apart. So I wore see old leather shoes. Other than that not buying anything at all for a year was easy. I got skilled at repair. At the end of the year I bought one pair of approach shoes and a good waterproof jacket. I had broken the habit of replacement and acquisition. So I have continued not buying anything / very much at all. I have repaired many many items of clothing, bought underwear. My wife has just bought me a new pair of climbing trousers. I choose the hardest wearing ones I could find so that they last as long as possible. 

My father always said to wait two years before buying anything. It works. After two yearsi I have either repaired something, learned to live without it or just plain forgotten I wanted it. It's a very successful tactic.

 mbh 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Whereas doctors will be even more in demand with an ever ageing population.

I wonder. Nurses yes, of doctors, I am less sure, and if so, then in a very different, possibly diminished role, mixed up with AI.

 Robert Durran 04 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Probably about the same to be honest.

 mutt 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

All I can find on the internet is that there is a demographic crisis in china. So let's not lay the blame on other nations, most of which have a tiny environmental footprint anyway. It's western country's that have to act and control their acquisitional instincts. And I am very uncomfortable about those who for their own reasons don't have children excusing them serves from tidying up their contributions. Everyone is an individual. And their own choices are owned by themselves and not inherited from future or past generations. The best we can do is try and educate the next generation to try and live a little more like an Indian or Chinese citizen and a little less like a capitalist consumer. 

 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to mutt:

I’m not saying people without children shouldn’t try to reduce their impact.

China is actually the largest emitter of CO2 now, although of course per person they are a lot lower than developed countries. That said, some of the measures China could and should take, like reducing coal use, are relatively easy to achieve because alternatives are available and the changes can be mandated and subsidised centrally. The UK has already completed that aspect of the energy transition - hardly any coal is used now and soon none will be. Now we need to focus on other areas, where progress is harder - particularly those involving behavioural change.  

 oldie 05 Nov 2021
In reply to mutt:

> And I am very uncomfortable about those who for their own reasons don't have children excusing them serves from tidying up their contributions. <

I don't think such posters on this thread have tried to excuse themselves from tidying up their contributions. One should not assume that they are childless (I'm not) without knowing.  Some, including myself, are pointing out that larger families are likely to result in a larger environmental impact, especially in the long term and in richer countries. In no way should that mean anyone is "excused". What is often apparent is that this is a sensitive subject in which people are easily upset, but that does not mean that we can afford to ignore it.

 Forest Dump 05 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

I'll leave this here too:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59157836


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...