do you know anyone in this affluent area that has altered their lifestyle to reduce CO2 emissions?

[Anonymous]

These threads get heated because deep down we know the situation is very serious, especially for our children. We love them and know we have a responsibility to them. But, we don't want to give anything up, be inconvenienced, or reduce our status and acceptance-seeking. This creates an intense and uncomfortable inner conflict, which causes us to lash out, especially at the messengers.

We aren't facing it even though it's the elephant in the room. It's a relief when someone says there's nothing we can do anyway, it's someone else's fault, and anything we do doesn't matter. We have a vague plan of defense should anyone call us on it in the future, "oopsies, we didn't really know, everyone else was doing it, it was just the times". But we know this is a lie, and living a lie is stressful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, passenger vehicles of all types make up only about 7% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. All residential energy use is something like 11%. So you can try all you want but the reality is that industry is responsible for almost all global emissions and you're just making your life harder to not even put a dent in this.

^This is true.

Industry serves households. Without households, there are no end consumers. If all households were to cut their consumption of all goods and services by 10%, aggregate output (and industrial activity along with it) would also have to be cut by 10%, or businesses would be stuck with surplus goods that cannot be sold.

A household's ability to adjust its carbon footprint isn't limited simply to adjusting the thermostat or installing solar panels. Altering one's consumption patterns can lead to a large % reduction in a household's total CO2 footprint. This is particularly true in this affluent area, where much of our footprint is devoted to non-essential or luxury items -- stuff we don't really need, 4 vacations a year instead of just 1, a new car every 4 years instead of trying to get as much use out of a vehicle as possible, huge SUVs often driven without any accompanying passengers, lawn services that involve tons of chemicals produced via fossil fuels, high consumption of meat, excessive consumption of calories (obesity = more calories per day = more CO2), using furniture for just a few years and then tossing it to the curb, etc.

Long story short, I disagree with your view that households can have only a tiny impact on aggregate CO2 emissions.

The size of the problem is magnified even further if we get the basic math wrong. On this thread we have had people say something to the effect that (1) if every household reduced their footprint by 50% then it would have almost no aggregate impact and (2) that households can have little impact because residential energy emissions are a small fraction of total emissions.

Both of these lines of reasoning are flawed. In regard to idea (1) -- if each individual reduces their footprint by 50%, then the aggregate footprint is also cut by 50%. This is basic math -- the individual parts must sum to the whole.

In regard to idea (2), while emissions by industry are greater than residential emissions, households are the final destination of goods. Without household-level consumption, industry would have no buyers for its products. So if households reduce their consumption by X%, then industry must also reduce its production by X% or be faced with surplus goods and services than cannot be sold. It follows, therefore, that household-level consumption is the determinant of industrial production. If we consume less -- or consume products that are less CO2-intensive -- then it will have an impact on industry. Households and industry are not separate islands -- we are two sides of the same coin.

So let's at least state the problem correctly. Households can indeed have a massive downward impact on CO2 emissions. Currently, in 2023, there aren't enough people and households taking action, but if this movement can continue to grow -- if each year, more and more households install solar panels, cut back excessive use of fossil fuels, reduce leisure activities that involve excessive CO2 emissions, etc -- then we can gradually begin to make a real dent in CO2 emissions. Yes, it may be too late to meet the Paris Accord target of 2 Celsius, but perhaps we can move fast enough to avoid an increase of 3C or 4C.

[Anonymous]

My boyfriend rides a bike to work. (10 miles.)

We own one car (not two.)

We own a hybrid Prius Prime and charge it all the time.

[Anonymous]

I have (and use) family furniture that is 300 years old.

[Anonymous]

I've reduced Amazon BS purchasing to nearly nil.
I have fun shopping for used top quality leather, cashmere and designer stuff when I need something.
I go to conferences every other year not every year, makes it more special.

[Anonymous]

We got solar panels and a volt. Now, we can run the heated floors continuously in winter and still have an energy deficit.

Does that count?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We got solar panels and a volt. Now, we can run the heated floors continuously in winter and still have an energy deficit.

Does that count?

It counts!!

Curious about the heated floors. I'm not familiar with them. Are they the primary source of heat? Or just a bit of extra heat to supplement the main source?

[Anonymous]

np. I've spent almost my entire career working in and advocating for the nuclear power generation industry. Despite one or two PPs on here, this gets almost no attention or support from the people who are the most concerned about climate change. I've never quite understood why, but there you have it. They would much rather talk about solar and wind, which are orders of magnitude more expensive when you account for capacity factor, and require far more land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:np. I've spent almost my entire career working in and advocating for the nuclear power generation industry. Despite one or two PPs on here, this gets almost no attention or support from the people who are the most concerned about climate change. I've never quite understood why, but there you have it. They would much rather talk about solar and wind, which are orders of magnitude more expensive when you account for capacity factor, and require far more land.

I agree with the points you make above. The optimal approach, IMO, would use nuclear as the dominant source of our energy, with solar and wind playing a supporting role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:np. I've spent almost my entire career working in and advocating for the nuclear power generation industry. Despite one or two PPs on here, this gets almost no attention or support from the people who are the most concerned about climate change. I've never quite understood why, but there you have it. They would much rather talk about solar and wind, which are orders of magnitude more expensive when you account for capacity factor, and require far more land.

What is the best way to help push for nuclear power? I'm interested in helping with the effort, but I don't know the best way to get involved.

[Anonymous]

Bought a rowhome in a centralish part of DC instead of a detached home in Upper NW DC/MoCo. Went from 2 cars to 1 (Sold the gas only and kept the hybrid). Bought a couple ebikes and stopped driving for work. Put up solar panels. Started following the actual recycling rules. Wrote a letter to our ANC saying we should allow an apartment building in the neighborhood and that we should get rid of a couple travel lanes for bikes/sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think about it. Some people have turned it into a moral game, the modern version of the cardinal sins. My attitude towards anything with quasi-religious followings is to shrug and just get on with life. We are not extravagant but we live well. I have no intention of regressing into some sort of stone age lifestyle to make the ideological happy because I also know no matter what I do, it will also never be good enough.

I don't think "quasi-religious" is a fair term. The desire to reduce CO2 emissions is based on science, not religion.

Emotions, feelings and morality come into the picture only because of the enormous risks that science has revealed with respect to rising concentrations of greenhouses gases.

The situation is not hopeless. The primary obstacle is that we, as individuals, feel small compared to the size of the problem, and we feel that our own actions are inconsequential. Yet aggregate CO2 emissions are nothing more than the sum of individual-level emissions (and the emissions tied to the products and services we consume). So our individual actions do matter. If increasing numbers of us make an effort to alter our behavior, it will indeed make a difference at the aggregate level.

I'm willing to make the effort for the sake of my children and grandchildren, and I believe that with each passing year the number of like-minded people will increase, until, I hope, aiming for a small CO2 footprint becomes part of mainstream culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:np. I've spent almost my entire career working in and advocating for the nuclear power generation industry. Despite one or two PPs on here, this gets almost no attention or support from the people who are the most concerned about climate change. I've never quite understood why, but there you have it. They would much rather talk about solar and wind, which are orders of magnitude more expensive when you account for capacity factor, and require far more land.

Really? When solar or wind plants fail, you don't have to evacuate the area for decades.

I'm not saying it's an accurate analysis of the relative risks/benefits, but I don't think you can be completely in the dark about why people are skittish about nuclear power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think about it. Some people have turned it into a moral game, the modern version of the cardinal sins. My attitude towards anything with quasi-religious followings is to shrug and just get on with life. We are not extravagant but we live well. I have no intention of regressing into some sort of stone age lifestyle to make the ideological happy because I also know no matter what I do, it will also never be good enough.

I don't think "quasi-religious" is a fair term. The desire to reduce CO2 emissions is based on science, not religion.

Emotions, feelings and morality come into the picture only because of the enormous risks that science has revealed with respect to rising concentrations of greenhouses gases.

The situation is not hopeless. The primary obstacle is that we, as individuals, feel small compared to the size of the problem, and we feel that our own actions are inconsequential. Yet aggregate CO2 emissions are nothing more than the sum of individual-level emissions (and the emissions tied to the products and services we consume). So our individual actions do matter. If increasing numbers of us make an effort to alter our behavior, it will indeed make a difference at the aggregate level.

I'm willing to make the effort for the sake of my children and grandchildren, and I believe that with each passing year the number of like-minded people will increase, until, I hope, aiming for a small CO2 footprint becomes part of mainstream culture.

Well no. It is not based on science. Science would tell you this is a China/India problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, passenger vehicles of all types make up only about 7% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. All residential energy use is something like 11%. So you can try all you want but the reality is that industry is responsible for almost all global emissions and you're just making your life harder to not even put a dent in this.

^This is true.

Industry serves households. Without households, there are no end consumers. If all households were to cut their consumption of all goods and services by 10%, aggregate output (and industrial activity along with it) would also have to be cut by 10%, or businesses would be stuck with surplus goods that cannot be sold.

A household's ability to adjust its carbon footprint isn't limited simply to adjusting the thermostat or installing solar panels. Altering one's consumption patterns can lead to a large % reduction in a household's total CO2 footprint. This is particularly true in this affluent area, where much of our footprint is devoted to non-essential or luxury items -- stuff we don't really need, 4 vacations a year instead of just 1, a new car every 4 years instead of trying to get as much use out of a vehicle as possible, huge SUVs often driven without any accompanying passengers, lawn services that involve tons of chemicals produced via fossil fuels, high consumption of meat, excessive consumption of calories (obesity = more calories per day = more CO2), using furniture for just a few years and then tossing it to the curb, etc.

Long story short, I disagree with your view that households can have only a tiny impact on aggregate CO2 emissions.

The size of the problem is magnified even further if we get the basic math wrong. On this thread we have had people say something to the effect that (1) if every household reduced their footprint by 50% then it would have almost no aggregate impact and (2) that households can have little impact because residential energy emissions are a small fraction of total emissions.

Both of these lines of reasoning are flawed. In regard to idea (1) -- if each individual reduces their footprint by 50%, then the aggregate footprint is also cut by 50%. This is basic math -- the individual parts must sum to the whole.

In regard to idea (2), while emissions by industry are greater than residential emissions, households are the final destination of goods. Without household-level consumption, industry would have no buyers for its products. So if households reduce their consumption by X%, then industry must also reduce its production by X% or be faced with surplus goods and services than cannot be sold. It follows, therefore, that household-level consumption is the determinant of industrial production. If we consume less -- or consume products that are less CO2-intensive -- then it will have an impact on industry. Households and industry are not separate islands -- we are two sides of the same coin.

So let's at least state the problem correctly. Households can indeed have a massive downward impact on CO2 emissions. Currently, in 2023, there aren't enough people and households taking action, but if this movement can continue to grow -- if each year, more and more households install solar panels, cut back excessive use of fossil fuels, reduce leisure activities that involve excessive CO2 emissions, etc -- then we can gradually begin to make a real dent in CO2 emissions. Yes, it may be too late to meet the Paris Accord target of 2 Celsius, but perhaps we can move fast enough to avoid an increase of 3C or 4C.

This is jibberish. If each individual in the country reduced by 50% the impact is not impactful. But each household would not do this because some already have and some will never so even if it was impactful it would not be. Also we will not consume less just more. No one will cut any activities. These are not the solutions we need. We will never get anywhere by cutting. We need a new approach. Science based that does not involve cutting. Maybe it is better battery technology. That is 25 years away but reachable.