Serious questions about "going green," "reducing carbon footprint," etc

[rsvman]

I understand the climate crisis and my wife and I are making efforts to do whatever we can to help slow down climate change. Having said that, sometimes I have questions about some of the things we are doing; I don't know whether anybody is doing the research to make sure that the net effect is actually positive.

I'll give an example: In an effort to cut down on our use of disposable paper products, my wife purchased "non-paper towels" and "non-napkins" off Etsy. For those not in the know, these are cloth versions of the items mentioned. But, if we use those, we also have to launder them. How much does laundering damage the environment? It produces heat, it utilizes chemicals produced at who-knows-what carbon footprint and putting who-knows-what kind of pollution into the air, etc. Has anybody actually done the math to compare the carbon footprint of producing and disposing of paper towels and napkins versus producing cloth versions, using and laundering cloth versions? Such a calculus would also have to include the carbon footprint of the production of these goods, moving of laundry soap to stores via trucks, etc.

I mean, on the surface it sure seems like it's a good idea, but I am just wondering whether anybody has gone below the surface.

Here's another example: Stopping production of the pipeline because of environmental concerns seems, on the surface, like it was a good idea. But then if you think about it, gas that would have come through the pipeline now has to be moved on large tanker trucks that are spewing diesel fuel into the air, increasing traffic on highways which causes all the cars on the highway to release more fumes, etc. Did anybody think this completely through before shutting down the pipeline?

Electric cars. Where does the electricity come from to power electric cars? Doesn't it come from burning fossil fuels? What will be the environmental cost of building the infrastructure required to make enough filling stations to fuel electric vehicles? What about battery production for said cars? How much of a carbon footprint does the making the batteries produce? What happens to the batteries and the cars when the batteries die? How many years will it take after everybody has an electric car before we have paid back the damage we did converting? Is anybody looking at this?


The only things I am doing on a regular basis that I am absolutely sure are reducing my carbon footprint are these: 1) shaving with a straight razor, 2) hypermiling, and 3) recycling waste.

I am pretty sure that using a reusable container for all my drinking water instead of drinking bottled water is likely helping, as well.


Does anybody know the answers to any of these questions? Or do you know whether somebody is actually crunching all the numbers in a realistic scenario to make sure that we don't do more harm than good?

[PackMan97]

I'll give an example: In an effort to cut down on our use of disposable paper products, my wife purchased "non-paper towels" and "non-napkins" off Etsy. For those not in the know, these are cloth versions of the items mentioned. But, if we use those, we also have to launder them. How much does laundering damage the environment? It produces heat, it utilizes chemicals produced at who-knows-what carbon footprint and putting who-knows-what kind of pollution into the air, etc. Has anybody actually done the math to compare the carbon footprint of producing and disposing of paper towels and napkins versus producing cloth versions, using and laundering cloth versions? Such a calculus would also have to include the carbon footprint of the production of these goods, moving of laundry soap to stores via trucks, etc.

This reminds me of a Duke/Carolina/State joke...I'll get to that at the end.

https://www.treehugger.com/are-paper...aper%20napkins.

It looks like someone already tried to do the math. Cloth napkins come out on top with a few "gotchas". Don't wash your napkins after every meal. At the end of the day, not using a napkin is more environmentally friendly than using a napkin. Use cold water in your washing machine and line dry your cloth napkins. If they are linen, they'll fair much better than cotton. Consider taking your own cloth napkins with you when you go out to eat.

There are lots of little things we can and should do. Quicker showers, less food waste, Try to save water on dishes you have to hand wash (newer dishwashers are very efficient). Keep your house colder in winter, warming in summer. Order things online instead of going to the store.

-------------------
Ok onto the joke. Three men walk into a bathroom at the ACC Basketball Tournament, they are a Duke, a Carolina and a State fan. The Duke fan takes care of things, turns on the water, lathers up, rinses, grabs a few paper towels, dries his hands and turns off the water and proudly declares, "At Duke we were taught us proper hygiene". The Carolina fan quickly turns on the water, wets he hands and turns the water off while he lathers up. Quickly turns the water back on to rinse his hands and turns it back off. Grabs one paper towel and dries his hands proudly claiming, "At Duke we were taught proper hygiene while being kind to the environment". The State fan finishes up and just walks out looking oddly at the other two while simply saying, "At State they taught us not to pee on our hands".

So, don't make a mess and you don't have to clean it up. That's best for the environment

[-jk]

For elec cars, it’s a matter of point sources. It’s much easier to manage tens of thousands of power plants than hundreds of millions of tailpipes.

-jk

[YmoBeThere]

rsvman,

Have you ever listened to the the Marketplace Tech podcast? They covered some of these issues in the past and the host, Molly Wood, left to start another podcast called "How We Survive" that covers exactly these issues. I haven't started listening to it yet. Here is a link to an episode of Marketplace Tech discussing electrification (6-8 minutes long usually.)

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/ma...ate-crisis-yep

What you ask is a very important question. What can we as individuals do at our level to make a difference? I've been looking for these answers myself. I know that if I ever have a new home, that I will take a very different approach to it. There are several building science practitioners that have content on social media(Youtube, IG). However, in looking what I have now(2012 built home to Energy Star certification standards at the time) justifying upgrades is difficult because they are just so incremental to what I have now or require significant rebuilding of a home that works reasonably well right now. On the car front, I've dropped my driving volume by about 75%. So, while being more efficient while driving is always an ideal pursuit, it won't have nearly the impact as not driving to work 4 out of 5 days of the week.

Sorry, no clear answers for you. If you find anything of interest, please share.

[duke2x]

Electric cars. Where does the electricity come from to power electric cars? Doesn't it come from burning fossil fuels? What will be the environmental cost of building the infrastructure required to make enough filling stations to fuel electric vehicles? What about battery production for said cars? How much of a carbon footprint does the making the batteries produce? What happens to the batteries and the cars when the batteries die? How many years will it take after everybody has an electric car before we have paid back the damage we did converting? Is anybody looking at this?

Here is the real answer to electric cars: hydrogen cells. The technology isn't there yet.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...hnology-basics

[PackMan97]

I think we as a society need to demand changes. We just replaced a range/oven because two parts broke. A circuit board and a burner knob/switch. Cost to replace, WITHOUT labor was over $500. We opted to buy a brand new range for $800. It's ridiculous that an appliance is basically a disposable good because of the cost to repair. Same thing last year with a riding mower and a blown engine (although a slightly more serious part that broke). It would cost more to fix than buy a new one. Granted, the mower was cheap and at six years old it was already falling apart with multiple other failures that I have had to fix.

There are so many things that it is simply better/cheaper to replace than to repair. I don't want things to be more expensive to buy, but I really wish things were cheaper to repair. You can't tell me each switch costs $160 when the range has five of them and it's a $1,000 range. All the costs would go into the switches! Argh!

I guess maybe if I buy a $10k commercial mower or a $6k commercial quality range, I'd be more willing to repair, and maybe it would be less likely to need repair. IDK, I just hate how disposable goods have become. Something breaks? Throw it away and replace it. This can't be good for the environment.

Sorry for the rant.

[YmoBeThere]

I guess maybe if I buy a $10k commercial mower or a $6k commercial quality range, I'd be more willing to repair, and maybe it would be less likely to need repair.

Yes, but if you are buying those items, you likely have a revenue stream tied to that item which changes the economics significantly.

[BLPOG]

I'm not sure if I want to get into the weeds on a topic like this one on DBR, in part because a lot of relevant answers get into (or elicit responses that get into) PPB things and I firmly believe that should be avoided.

You clearly want to take practical steps and make sure the numbers work out, but I think even from that point of ostensible humility you are starting with an overconfidence re: what is firmly known and reliable. For example, considering this bit:

The only things I am doing on a regular basis that I am absolutely sure are reducing my carbon footprint are these: 1) shaving with a straight razor, 2) hypermiling, and 3) recycling waste.

...The only one of those I think you can be confident about, let alone sure, is hypermiling (I had to look up the term, btw), but I would expect the effect size to be small. Shaving with a straight razor might work, but would have essentially negligible effect, and it could quite easily be more wasteful and, depending on how you are defining the boundaries of the system and your decisions, increase your footprint, if only marginally. "Recycling waste" could mean a number of things, but by conventional usage I can say with great confidence that you should not believe it is reducing your carbon footprint, basically because you are probably participating in a program of increasing waste.

[rasputin]

In our house, which is occupied only by me, mrs. rasputin, and two cats who rarely use napkins or cutlery, we use ordinary washcloths as napkins, and launder them periodically.

[bundabergdevil]

I understand the climate crisis and my wife and I are making efforts to do whatever we can to help slow down climate change. Having said that, sometimes I have questions about some of the things we are doing; I don't know whether anybody is doing the research to make sure that the net effect is actually positive.

I'll give an example: In an effort to cut down on our use of disposable paper products, my wife purchased "non-paper towels" and "non-napkins" off Etsy. For those not in the know, these are cloth versions of the items mentioned. But, if we use those, we also have to launder them. How much does laundering damage the environment? It produces heat, it utilizes chemicals produced at who-knows-what carbon footprint and putting who-knows-what kind of pollution into the air, etc. Has anybody actually done the math to compare the carbon footprint of producing and disposing of paper towels and napkins versus producing cloth versions, using and laundering cloth versions? Such a calculus would also have to include the carbon footprint of the production of these goods, moving of laundry soap to stores via trucks, etc.

I mean, on the surface it sure seems like it's a good idea, but I am just wondering whether anybody has gone below the surface.

Here's another example: Stopping production of the pipeline because of environmental concerns seems, on the surface, like it was a good idea. But then if you think about it, gas that would have come through the pipeline now has to be moved on large tanker trucks that are spewing diesel fuel into the air, increasing traffic on highways which causes all the cars on the highway to release more fumes, etc. Did anybody think this completely through before shutting down the pipeline?

Electric cars. Where does the electricity come from to power electric cars? Doesn't it come from burning fossil fuels? What will be the environmental cost of building the infrastructure required to make enough filling stations to fuel electric vehicles? What about battery production for said cars? How much of a carbon footprint does the making the batteries produce? What happens to the batteries and the cars when the batteries die? How many years will it take after everybody has an electric car before we have paid back the damage we did converting? Is anybody looking at this?


The only things I am doing on a regular basis that I am absolutely sure are reducing my carbon footprint are these: 1) shaving with a straight razor, 2) hypermiling, and 3) recycling waste.

I am pretty sure that using a reusable container for all my drinking water instead of drinking bottled water is likely helping, as well.


Does anybody know the answers to any of these questions? Or do you know whether somebody is actually crunching all the numbers in a realistic scenario to make sure that we don't do more harm than good?

Unfortunately, when it comes to measuring life cycle GHG emissions associated with a product or activity, there is still considerable variability in methodologies and therefore outcomes*. As you can imagine, HOW these figures are calculated could and do have major implications for regulation both existing and possible.

That being said, there are a number of personal carbon footprint calculators out there --- the EPA, The Nature Conservancy, etc all offer them. They might help you determine relative impact of activities and solutions, if not the actual hard number emission. As others have noted, the EV transition as climate-solution is predicated on the concurrent transition of the grid to lower carbon sources of electricity (nuclear + renewables). EV supply chains have their own issues though.

You could also think about the carbon sink side of the equation, not just the source. Support local conservation groups that are looking to conserve natural sinks (forests, native grasslands, etc) or to transition previously developed land back into conservation use. There are purchasing decisions that matter more than others, too. If you eat beef, try to avoid beef sourced from Brazil where the expansion of cattle farming continues at a torrid clip in the Amazon and cerrado. See what renewable purchase options are available from your local utility provider, etc. Focus on the efficiency of your home to avoid wasted heat and cooling, if you use those systems.

*I've been working on large multi-national corporation climate change strategies and managing their GHG accounting management systems for 10+ years. Most corporations use something called the GHG Protocol, which divides emissions into 3 categories or "scopes". Scope 1 emissions are those directly attributable to owned assets of the corporation (e.g., emissions from a chemical plant); Scope 2 emissions are those from emissions associated with purchased electricity to run the assets; Scope 3 is everything else both on the product side (use phase emissions) and on the supply side (emissions associated with manufacture of input materials). Scope 1 and 2 is relatively well-defined. Scope 3 is an ABSOLUTE mess.

[bundabergdevil]

Here are a couple links that I referenced in my post avoe:

https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-inv...E&gclsrc=aw.ds


https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/

[Acymetric]

In our house, which is occupied only by me, mrs. rasputin, and two cats who rarely use napkins or cutlery, we use ordinary washcloths as napkins, and launder them periodically.

One thing about the laundry angle: presumably we're already doing laundry. I guess it depends on just how many napkins/towels you're using, but unless you're maxing out capacity every time you do a load already or are using a ton of them in between washing you may not actually increase the number of loads you do or amount of detergent you use by adding them to the mix.

(TL;DR: It is possible your usage would remain the same and your individual loads would just become more efficient by having less unused capacity)

[LasVegas]

Do people actually use napkins when eating? Or are we talking about paper towels used for spills?

[Section 15]

This is an issue that I have thought about since at least the first Earth Day (1968?). It refuses to reveal easy answers. I don't disagree with most of what people have written upthread, but ultimately I can't say that any of the potential solutions don't have unintended consequences. As an example, in the early 90s everyone decided to change the type of fluorocarbon used in air conditioners for one that was considered more environmentally friendly (remember how we saved the ozone layer?). Now it turns out that the "friendly" substitute is a significant greenhouse gas. ouch!

The point being that history is full of examples like this. I'm not trying to be cynical, I really want solutions that work, but unfortunately I've lived long enough to see things that I thought were positive steps forward end up creating more problems than they solved.

My latest efforts include installing solar panels on my roof last year. Next spring I will buy a battery powered lawn mower that I can charge from the sun. Eventually a plugin hybrid to replace my 17 year old Subaru. A handy app that comes with the panels tells me how much electricity they are generating and a few other metrics. For example so far this year the panels have saved 15,477.64 pounds of CO2 emissions, which it tells me is the equivalent of planting 116.95 trees. Of course, these metrics don't appear to take into account variables such as the source of the electricity that the panels are replacing. So, it's mostly just a game. I like games.

The solar panels probably do some good, but I really can't say how much, or even if the tradeoffs from the manufacture of the panels vs the electricity generated is an environmental plus. All I can say for sure is that the financial breakeven point is at least 15 years in the future. My real estate broker neighbor tells me that the value added to my house by the panels is a fraction of what I paid for them. So, I'm not sure that this is a practical solution for most people.

I think that we also need to consider mitigation efforts on the assumption that we have already crossed a threshold where significant environmental change is inevitable. A neighbor and good friend from when I lived in MA worked for the International Red Cross teaching communities in developing countries (mostly Africa and SE Asia) how to anticipate and prepare for flooding events. It involved getting local leaders to understand the tradeoffs between development and community safety. He developed a number of role playing games to help people understand where their priorities lay. There were no good answers, only bad and not so bad answers.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. I think discussions like this are helpful.

Section 15

[camion]

This is an issue that I have thought about since at least the first Earth Day (1968?). It refuses to reveal easy answers. I don't disagree with most of what people have written upthread, but ultimately I can't say that any of the potential solutions don't have unintended consequences. As an example, in the early 90s everyone decided to change the type of fluorocarbon used in air conditioners for one that was considered more environmentally friendly (remember how we saved the ozone layer?). Now it turns out that the "friendly" substitute is a significant greenhouse gas. ouch!

The point being that history is full of examples like this. I'm not trying to be cynical, I really want solutions that work, but unfortunately I've lived long enough to see things that I thought were positive steps forward end up creating more problems than they solved.

My latest efforts include installing solar panels on my roof last year. Next spring I will buy a battery powered lawn mower that I can charge from the sun. Eventually a plugin hybrid to replace my 17 year old Subaru. A handy app that comes with the panels tells me how much electricity they are generating and a few other metrics. For example so far this year the panels have saved 15,477.64 pounds of CO2 emissions, which it tells me is the equivalent of planting 116.95 trees. Of course, these metrics don't appear to take into account variables such as the source of the electricity that the panels are replacing. So, it's mostly just a game. I like games.

The solar panels probably do some good, but I really can't say how much, or even if the tradeoffs from the manufacture of the panels vs the electricity generated is an environmental plus. All I can say for sure is that the financial breakeven point is at least 15 years in the future. My real estate broker neighbor tells me that the value added to my house by the panels is a fraction of what I paid for them. So, I'm not sure that this is a practical solution for most people.

I think that we also need to consider mitigation efforts on the assumption that we have already crossed a threshold where significant environmental change is inevitable. A neighbor and good friend from when I lived in MA worked for the International Red Cross teaching communities in developing countries (mostly Africa and SE Asia) how to anticipate and prepare for flooding events. It involved getting local leaders to understand the tradeoffs between development and community safety. He developed a number of role playing games to help people understand where their priorities lay. There were no good answers, only bad and not so bad answers.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. I think discussions like this are helpful.

Section 15

I blame vaccines for much of the environmental problem. If we didn't have vaccines we wouldn't have so many people gunking up the planet.


I'm joking, sorta.

[BigWayne]

I blame vaccines for much of the environmental problem. If we didn't have vaccines we wouldn't have so many people gunking up the planet.


I'm joking, sorta.

You are absolutely correct. All of this trading off of how various evil activities of humans theoretically impact the planet is dwarfed by just the quantity of individuals living a developed nation lifestyle. However, addressing that part of the equation is not something that can be discussed.

[Section 15]

You are absolutely correct. All of this trading off of how various evil activities of humans theoretically impact the planet is dwarfed by just the quantity of individuals living a developed nation lifestyle. However, addressing that part of the equation is not something that can be discussed.

Actually, Ehrlich's Population Bomb theory https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...ion-180967499/ has been largely discredited. This is another example of the sort of thing that I worried about in the 60s & 70s and finally realized that it was at best an over hyped idea that distracted us from more pressing problems. See China's "one child" policy. If what I read is correct, they are facing significant problems in the next 20 year, not unlike Japan's today.

Just FYI.

Section 15

[PackMan97]

All I can say for sure is that the financial breakeven point is at least 15 years in the future. My real estate broker neighbor tells me that the value added to my house by the panels is a fraction of what I paid for them. So, I'm not sure that this is a practical solution for most people.

If we are entering a significant inflationary period, that breakeven could come much quicker than you predict. I've been trying to convince Mrs PackMan97 to get solar panels with battery backup to combat energy inflation and to not be grid dependent all the time. Still working on it

See China's "one child" policy. If what I read is correct, they are facing significant problems in the next 20 year, not unlike Japan's today.

China is now up to a three child policy. Right now they are probably a decade from "peak population". Their fertility rate stands at 1.3 children per woman which is among the lowest in the world. It is most definitely going to cause problems.

The US is very fortunate to have a fertility rate + immigration rate that will keep our population growing, most other first world countries won't be so fortunate.

[cspan37421]

For obvious reasons I'll avoid saying here what I think public policy should be.

Having set that constraint, I'll suggest the following possibility: your individual effort at going green and reducing carbon footprint might be more productively spent lobbying the government for a public policy solution. I'm serious. On the one hand, your individual efforts produce an almost insignificant benefit to the planet as a whole. On the other hand, how many individuals speak up, make calls, write letters, attend public meetings, etc? Not a very high %, I suspect. As a result, your efforts with the latter tactic are more likely to have an impact - for IMO it's unlikely purely voluntary efforts will produce the results you seek.

To a degree, you can do both. And your individual efforts, if visible, could serve as a model for others to follow. But time is the non-renewable resource that you should allocate efficiently here, and you'll get more bang for your time-buck by participating in the give-and-take of shaping public policy.

[bundabergdevil]

For obvious reasons I'll avoid saying here what I think public policy should be.

Having set that constraint, I'll suggest the following possibility: your individual effort at going green and reducing carbon footprint might be more productively spent lobbying the government for a public policy solution. I'm serious. On the one hand, your individual efforts produce an almost insignificant benefit to the planet as a whole. On the other hand, how many individuals speak up, make calls, write letters, attend public meetings, etc? Not a very high %, I suspect. As a result, your efforts with the latter tactic are more likely to have an impact - for IMO it's unlikely purely voluntary efforts will produce the results you seek.

To a degree, you can do both. And your individual efforts, if visible, could serve as a model for others to follow. But time is the non-renewable resource that you should allocate efficiently here, and you'll get more bang for your time-buck by participating in the give-and-take of shaping public policy.

You could also consider "voting" with your dollars. If you own individual stock in a company that receives shareholder pressure on climate change, consider voting for it. Or, consider investing in funds oriented to ESG/sustainability or have specific climate-solution theses.

This isn't to stray into PP territory but a number of folks have mentioned policy. Those posters might find the below carbon pricing dashboard from the World Bank interesting. It tracks global carbon pricing/emissions trading schemes. It has a time sliding scale so you can see the amount of total CO2e covered by schemes over time.

https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/