The real cost of going green (BBC) {for one "average" family}

[eppur_se_muova]

By Emil Petrie
BBC Money Programme

Is it really possible to cut your carbon emissions enough to save the planet?

As part of the BBC's Climate Chaos week, The Money Programme conducted a unique experiment.

It asked the Hutchinson family from Teesdale - the area in the UK with the highest carbon emissions per household - to try and cut back their energy use.

But it was a tough task. The Hutchinsons use a lot of energy.
***
According to Dr Boardman, an average family of four have a carbon footprint of about 13.5 tonnes a year. The Hutchinsons were almost double that.
***
However, they actually managed to beat their heating oil target. They used on average 3.4 litres a day, compared to their target of 3.5 litres. Their carbon footprint went from a colossal 26 tonnes of CO2 a year, to just 14.4 tonnes CO2 a year.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5017196.stm

Fairly basic stuff: Don't drive an errand to do just one thing--combine trips. Don't leave the lights on. Don't leave the thermostat up. Close the refrigator door. All the stuff your dad is supposed to yell at you about. :think:We don't need a nanny state -- we need a "dad state" !

[MADem]

1. Dammit!!! Close the front door, I'm not made of money!

I'm not paying to heat/cool the great outdoors!!!!

Turn out these damn lights You wanna pay the electric bill every month???

Ah, memories!

[xxqqqzme]

2. ah yes...can hear my mom/dad saying those

very words.

[Nay]

5. Me, too.."Close the door! Do you live in a barn???"

[Beaverhausen]

9. Uh oh. I say those things myself

My boyfriend leaves doors open with the air conditioner on. God I hate that! I constantly yell at him to close the door.

I live in a small place and it doesn't take long for it to heat up on really hot days even if the AC is on.

[texastoast]

3. I just wonder how much less our energy deficit

would be now if we had all listened to dad instead of getting addicted to the convenience of it all?

:think:

[bennywhale]

4. Its true, we all make choices about the way we live, by

getting into the habit, on mass of doing those things CO2 emmissions would plummit. However thats only part of the problem. The food we eat accounts for about a 1/5 of our carbon emmissions due to its transportation. So choices when buying groceries make a difference. choose the fruit, vegetables etc from the place nearest (in Britain its always labelled so its quite easy), when i realised this i discovered i was buying oranges grown in Australia when i could have bought them from Spain. The difference is literally tons of carbon.

Fly as little as possible and drive as little as possible. Also, adjust the way you drive, always have revs stable and low. Anticipate when you are likely to stop so you don't break overly sharply, or accelerate in the same way.

This however does need a government programme of encouragement. A nationwide media campaign to get people to adjust their lifestyles would make an immense difference.

But alas i beklieve this is only a 1/4 of the problem. The rest is industry.

If we don't act now, we will reach a tipping point which would be catastrophic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/programmes1.shtml

America needs to act now or face the wrath of their kids and grandkids

[XemaSab]

10. The trick here in Southern California:

Is it better to buy Washington apples or Mexican papayas? :shrug:

[jwirr]

6. It certainly would be a good idea to have a list of things like

this the ordinary people can do. I think teachers would be delighted to give students something to do about the things they are learning. As I read the list I realized I do many of those things thanks to my father. How about turning off the computer when you are not using it?

[NNadir]

7. These are not ordinary people.

The ordinary person lives in a hovel in a third world country.

[jwirr]

8. And they are definitely doing their part to save the environment.

I read somewhere that a family of 10 living in Mexico uses less of the worlds resources in a lifetime than one US citizen in a day.

[Massacure]

11. Seems extreme to me.

[jwirr]

12. It is but it is us that are living extremely beyond our needs.

[dcfirefighter]

13. Per capita mexico: 0.9T/y; US 5.5T/y

in 2001. So a family of 10 mexicans uses less carbon in a year than two americans use in a year.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/mexenv.html

[NNadir]

14. But Mexico's carbon intensity per unit of GDP is higher than that of the

US.

Mexico's carbon intensity is 0.69 tons of CO₂ per $1000 USD (2000USD = 1). The corresponding (also depressing) figure for the US is 0.56.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls

[dcfirefighter]

15. I looked at carbon intensity

but decided not to include anything about is because:

1) neither one is good, they're not very far apart.
2) GDP, as a measure of productivity, has it's issues, though I'll concede we're stuck with it.

A lot of the DP of the US is derived from manipulating privileges, and not actually creating wealth. IOW, there are many billions of dollars worth of 'wealth' created that will not feed, clothe, house, care for, or even employ anyone. I tend to think that a larger proportion of Mexico's GDP is actual productivity.

Some more liberal economists suggest using a Human Development Index in addition to the GDP. In a moment, I'll post a list of countries by HDI normalized by per capita carbon emissions.

[NNadir]

16. That will be interesting to see.

[dcfirefighter]

17. HDI / per capita CO2 emissions

I don't know how to attatch a table.

The extreme with the best ratio of HDI / per capita is populated with countries with extremely low CO2 emissions: Congo, Chad, Cambodia, Burundi, Uganda, Laos, Ethiopia, etc.

The extreme with the worst ratio of HDI / per capita CO2 emissions is populof ated with countries with extremely high CO2 emissions: Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain

The US had a HDI / KT CO2 per capita of around 0.048, in the neighborhood with Czech Republic, Canada, Australia, Luxembourg

It's not a particularly revealing look, as the CO2 emissions tend to screen any differences in HDI.

Of countries with HDI > 0.8, the countries with the lowest CO2 emissions are:
Tonga, Costa Rica, Panama, and Uruguay each have CO2 emissions of less than 2000 Tonnes per Capita

Of countries with HDI > 0.9, the countries with the lowest CO2 emissions are:
Sweden, Switzerland, and France with emissions of less than 6000 tonnes per capita.

There are 26 countries with HDI > 0.9, the US is the worst CO2 emitter, followed by Luxembourg, Australia, and Canada, each emitting more than 15000 tonnes per capita.

Countries with HDI > 0.9, and their CO2 emissions in 1000 tonnes CO2

Sweden 5.4166
Switzerland 5.5801
France 5.9925
Portugal 6.1342
Slovenia 7.4926
Iceland 7.5208
Spain 7.5576
Italy 7.6862
Norway 7.6882
Austria 7.8658
New Zealand 8.0875
Greece 8.6380
United Kingdom 9.2358
Denmark 9.4478
Japan 9.6120
Israel 9.9918
Germany 10.159
Netherlands 10.654
Ireland 10.661
Finland 10.840
Belgium 12.063
Singapore 13.813
Canada 15.894
Australia 16.544
Luxembourg 17.977
United States 19.483

[NNadir]

18. This is interesting. Can you explain the determination of the HDI.

Can you offer us a link?

Thanks.

[NNadir]

19. I googled it, and found this Wikipedia link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Thanks for pointing this approach out to us.