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.

Any one household can have only an extremely microscopic impact on aggregate CO2 emissions. I try to reduce mine (because, as I said above, it seems crazy to just go on making things worse knowingly), and I wish others would do the same, but this is not a problem well-intentioned citizens can solve on our own.

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.

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.

The most important thing I have ever done on this front is to lobby Congress for the increased use of nuclear power in the US.

Energy production is about trade-offs. Nuclear power will be there for us when we get tired of all the histrionics and get serious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In North Arlington, my wife and I feel like we are completely alone in our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. We have just one car that we use sparingly, and we use bicycles for our local errands. We keep our thermostat at 65F in the winter (and wear sweaters) and 79F in the summer, using ceiling fans to make the bedrooms more comfortable. We greatly limit our international and domestic travel. We eat mostly vegetarian meals, and we never eat beef.

All of our neighbors have multiple large SUVs, and many neighbors have knocked their 2000 square foot houses down and replaced them with 5000 square foot homes. Some neighbors with 5000 square foot homes have only 1 child, so they don't truly need a huge living space. Many neighbors drive to work in their SUV without any other passengers to accompany them. They go on multiple international vacations a year (lots of CO2 per flight). Huge amounts of garbage are generated each week and placed on the curb, presumably to make way for yet more stuff that they are buying for their homes -- stuff that will probably end up on the curbside, destined for the landfill, a year or two down the road.

I've posted my frustrations in the "car and transport" section of this forum, only to be told by other posters that I'm jealous of my neighbor's SUVs and large homes. Despite a high level of education among DCUM posters, most don't appear concerned about the consequences of their consumerism, and can't even conceive of a high-income family exercising some restraint.

We are, in fact, a high net worth family, but we are striving to reduce our carbon footprint. We feel completely alone, like strangers in a foreign country. I'm curious if anybody else here feels the same way.

OP, you are taking so many positive steps and should be applauded for them but until you do more than just "limit" your domestic and internatinal air travel (esp the international) you are doing far more harm to the environment than all the good you are doing put together. It is just the facts.

Living in a sfh and flying internationally already makes you a top 1% human carbon emitter op. No amount of thermostat adjustment or car downsizing can make up for that. You are engaging in pure absurd performance art.

OP here. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Our household has reduced its CO2 per capita per year from over 10 metric tons down to just 5 metric tons. This is a 50% reduction, and, at 5 metrics tons per year per capita, we are now at about one-third of the USA average. So while I'd like to do even better, I don't think the changes we have made are trivial.

Just because a household can't achieve net zero emissions isn't an argument for not making at least some emissions cuts. Your black-and-white logic is analogous to saying that there is no point in eating a healthy diet if one is going to periodically eat hot dogs. True, its better to avoid hot dogs, but eating hot dogs 1 day a month is much healthier than eating them 3 times a week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In North Arlington, my wife and I feel like we are completely alone in our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. We have just one car that we use sparingly, and we use bicycles for our local errands. We keep our thermostat at 65F in the winter (and wear sweaters) and 79F in the summer, using ceiling fans to make the bedrooms more comfortable. We greatly limit our international and domestic travel. We eat mostly vegetarian meals, and we never eat beef.

All of our neighbors have multiple large SUVs, and many neighbors have knocked their 2000 square foot houses down and replaced them with 5000 square foot homes. Some neighbors with 5000 square foot homes have only 1 child, so they don't truly need a huge living space. Many neighbors drive to work in their SUV without any other passengers to accompany them. They go on multiple international vacations a year (lots of CO2 per flight). Huge amounts of garbage are generated each week and placed on the curb, presumably to make way for yet more stuff that they are buying for their homes -- stuff that will probably end up on the curbside, destined for the landfill, a year or two down the road.

I've posted my frustrations in the "car and transport" section of this forum, only to be told by other posters that I'm jealous of my neighbor's SUVs and large homes. Despite a high level of education among DCUM posters, most don't appear concerned about the consequences of their consumerism, and can't even conceive of a high-income family exercising some restraint.

We are, in fact, a high net worth family, but we are striving to reduce our carbon footprint. We feel completely alone, like strangers in a foreign country. I'm curious if anybody else here feels the same way.

OP, you are taking so many positive steps and should be applauded for them but until you do more than just "limit" your domestic and internatinal air travel (esp the international) you are doing far more harm to the environment than all the good you are doing put together. It is just the facts.

Living in a sfh and flying internationally already makes you a top 1% human carbon emitter op. No amount of thermostat adjustment or car downsizing can make up for that. You are engaging in pure absurd performance art.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the key point that should, to borrow a phrase, be obvious to intelligent people. Even if every single person reduced their carbon footprint by 50%, it's a very small drop in a very large bucket.

I'm not following your math. If every single person reduced their individual carbon footprints by 50%, the result would be a 50% reduction of aggregate emissions.

If the point you are trying to make is that emissions by industry is larger than household-level emissions, keep in mind that industry exists to serve households. If we consume less, then industry must produce less (or be stuck with surplus goods that lead to financial losses).

+1 Exactly. The person or persons making this argument is/are just trying to find a way to justify continuing to do whatever the heck they want without having to give any thought to the consequences.

Well, no -- I made a version of this argument above, and I also have gone to some considerable expense and effort to reduce my household's carbon footprint (installed solar panels, heat pump, bought an electric car, etc.). I do all that because it strikes me as absurd not to go to at least some lengths to try to cut back on how much I'm contributing to the problems of climate change. But at the same time, I think it's sort of silly to pretend I'm making any real difference. We need massive government action at this point if we have any hope of changing the course of human-caused climate change; what I do really isn't going to have any noticeable impact on the problem.

My interest in CO2 reduction began about 5 years ago when a neighbor installed solar panels. Curious, I investigated to learn more -- to understand the costs and also the benefits. For the first time, I calculated my carbon footprint (and was shocked to see how large it was), and estimated the reduction in that footprint that I could achieve with panels. Now, 5 years later, I've made many adjustments to my lifestyle, and my carbon footprint is only 50% its prior size. This sequence of actions was triggered by my neighbor's installation of solar panels. Perhaps I never would have gone down this path were it not for the example set my a neighbor.

So when assessing your impact on carbon reductions, don't forgot that your good example might inspire others to follow. Perhaps you are the neighbor who inspired me. Every big wave must begin, initially, with tiny ripples. Without the initial tiny ripples, perhaps a big wave would never come into existence.

In all likelihood, the world will not meet the 2C goal set by the Paris Agreement. We aren't moving fast enough to meet the goal. But perhaps we can limit warming to 3C or 4C. If we extract all of the fossil fuels from the ground and burn them, atmospheric CO2 may shoot upwards from its current level of 420 ppm to over 2000 ppm. At 2000 ppm, the impact would be devastating (close to 10C or 18F of warming), perhaps even threatening our survival as a species.

Long story short, it is better if society responds slowly to the challenge of global warming than to not response at all. Maybe our sluggish response will be good enough to avoid long-run catastrophe. And people like you are needed to get us started on the right path, even if it turns out to be a slow walk along the path, instead of a fast run.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the key point that should, to borrow a phrase, be obvious to intelligent people. Even if every single person reduced their carbon footprint by 50%, it's a very small drop in a very large bucket.

I'm not following your math. If every single person reduced their individual carbon footprints by 50%, the result would be a 50% reduction of aggregate emissions.

If the point you are trying to make is that emissions by industry is larger than household-level emissions, keep in mind that industry exists to serve households. If we consume less, then industry must produce less (or be stuck with surplus goods that lead to financial losses).

+1 Exactly. The person or persons making this argument is/are just trying to find a way to justify continuing to do whatever the heck they want without having to give any thought to the consequences.

Well, no -- I made a version of this argument above, and I also have gone to some considerable expense and effort to reduce my household's carbon footprint (installed solar panels, heat pump, bought an electric car, etc.). I do all that because it strikes me as absurd not to go to at least some lengths to try to cut back on how much I'm contributing to the problems of climate change. But at the same time, I think it's sort of silly to pretend I'm making any real difference. We need massive government action at this point if we have any hope of changing the course of human-caused climate change; what I do really isn't going to have any noticeable impact on the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

This is the key point that should, to borrow a phrase, be obvious to intelligent people. Even if every single person reduced their carbon footprint by 50%, it's a very small drop in a very large bucket.

I'm not following your math. If every single person reduced their individual carbon footprints by 50%, the result would be a 50% reduction of aggregate emissions.

If the point you are trying to make is that emissions by industry is larger than household-level emissions, keep in mind that industry exists to serve households. If we consume less, then industry must produce less (or be stuck with surplus goods that lead to financial losses).

+1 Exactly. The person or persons making this argument is/are just trying to find a way to justify continuing to do whatever the heck they want without having to give any thought to the consequences.

This is the key point that should, to borrow a phrase, be obvious to intelligent people. Even if every single person reduced their carbon footprint by 50%, it's a very small drop in a very large bucket.

I'm not following your math. If every single person reduced their individual carbon footprints by 50%, the result would be a 50% reduction of aggregate emissions.

If the point you are trying to make is that emissions by industry is larger than household-level emissions, keep in mind that industry exists to serve households. If we consume less, then industry must produce less (or be stuck with surplus goods that lead to financial losses).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

This is true, but still -- and I say this as someone who has made a lot of of changes to my own life for climate reasons (installed solar panels, heat pumps and a rain barrel, bought an electric vehicle, commuting by bike or Metro almost exclusively) -- it is also true that none of those changes will actually make any real difference on their own.

I'm curious if you have calculated your carbon footprint before and after the various lifestyle changes that you implemented. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you reduced your carbon by 50%. This demonstrates that an individual can indeed have a big impact on their own footprint. And since the aggregate footprint is simply the sum of our individual footprints, this suggests that a widespread CO2-reduction effort by most individuals and households could indeed have a non-trivial impact on aggregate emissions.

I haven’t calculated any of that, though I’m sure our household emissions are lower than they’d be otherwise. But all or most individuals aren’t going to do all that — and even if we did, the effect would still be insignificant compared to industrial and corporate-related emissions. I’m all for doing whatever we can to help. I just am also realistic enough to know that it won’t be anywhere near enough.

This is the key point that should, to borrow a phrase, be obvious to intelligent people. Even if every single person reduced their carbon footprint by 50%, it's a very small drop in a very large bucket.

So all of the thousands of people working for the United Nations, EPA, NOAA, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc. are wasting their time with their silly suggestions, and the thousands of articles written every year about how we can make a difference are part of a huge media conspiracy to get us to do things to make ourselves feel good, and you, random poster on an anonymous message board, are the one we should listen to instead?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in history - the ice has been receding for thousands of years. Most of the U.S. was buried in ice. One OCD individual cannot stop it. That my dear is delusional IMO.

By your logic, the action of any individual is pointless if it runs contrary to the actions of most other members of society.

If one believes in this bleak logic, then any social change is impossible. Society is simply frozen in place.

I don't share your bleak view.

We don't talk about stopping hurricanes. We simply prepare for them. I think what's bleak is the lack of any acceptance of what preparations are needed.

NP--We actually DO talk about mitigating the impact of hurricanes through reducing our impact on the warming of the planet. Sure, we need to prepare, and tens of millions of individuals choosing to reduce their impact would be an enormous contribution to that preparation.

The 'one person can't make a difference argument' is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to intelligent people. One person can't run a large corporation. One athlete can't win a sports competition. One soldier can't win a battle. That doesn't stop many groups of people from choosing to act together to make things happen.

Good lord. Not only have you come up with ridiculous analogies that ignore the fundamental science involved, you are snotty about it.

The most fundamental aspect of the science is that the less we consume, the less impact we have on the planet.

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.

This is why we need governmental policies to make the changes needed. Because too many clueless morons just don't get the reality we're living in.

+1 Although I would have avoided the name-calling (despite it being accurate).

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.

This is why we need governmental policies to make the changes needed. Because too many clueless morons just don't get the reality we're living in.