recipes to cut your own carbon footprint

electric vs gas vs solar water heater

Each Amazon delivery equals X tons of carbon

Push reel mower vs gas mower

LED vs incandescent  (assuming we're only looking at the carbon footprint)

Eating out vs eating in

Bottled water vs tap water

Conventional food vs organic

Vacation vs staycation

In all fairness, as long as trees keep growing you don't need to account for CO2 emissions from burning wood. Current carbon is not the same as fossil carbon. Let's not feel guilty for being part of the active biological cycle and that way we can focus our ingenuity and energy on doing cool stuff.

Phil Stevens wrote:In all fairness, as long as trees keep growing you don't need to account for CO2 emissions from burning wood. Current carbon is not the same as fossil carbon. Let's not feel guilty for being part of the active biological cycle and that way we can focus our ingenuity and energy on doing cool stuff.

I think what you are saying is that a rocket mass heater has a zero carbon footprint provided that you embrace the natural carbon cycles - right?

I think this is especially true if we can extract the wood from places that have a high probability of wildfire.   Although, I prefer that the wildfire areas use the wood as a chunky mulch to return carbon to the soil so the trees can be stronger and more resilient against future wildfires!

Mike Haasl wrote:
Each Amazon delivery equals X tons of carbon

I'm not quibbling ... in fact I'm appalled at how sometimes during the pandemic we've had a UPS truck turn up in our rural driveway to drop off a badly-needed six-ounce item that we thought was being shipped in the same box as thirty pounds worth of other stuff -- but my rough back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the carbon footprint of an Amazon delivery at more like 35 pounds than any number of tons.  


In 2019, Amazon says (they could be lying, but they have various incentives not to fudge the numbers too much) they had a total carbon footprint of 51,000,000 metric tons.  Obviously a bunch of that is in warehouses and such, but if we take the delivery to be the ultimate point of the enterprise and apportion the whole carbon budget among the deliveries, well, how many deliveries did they make?  2,500,000,000, according to this. 51,000,000 divided by 2,500,000,000 is .0204 metric tons per delivery.  A metric ton is ten percent bigger than a real ton, so it's .01836 tons or 36.72 pounds of carbon footprint per delivery.  I would not put much faith in this calculation but it helps me understand orders of magnitude; call it closer to 35 pounds than to three and a half or 350.

Doesn't undermine your point at all. Minimizing or avoiding Amazon deliveries looks like low hanging fruit for cutting our carbon footprints.  But knowing the right order of magnitude insulates you from charges of hyperbole, if you care.  

paul wheaton wrote:

I think what you are saying is that a rocket mass heater has a zero carbon footprint provided that you embrace the natural carbon cycles - right?

If you feed your RMH with coppiced wood, you could do it in one corner of your land effectively, assuming there is a tree species that coppices well in your ecosystem.

Thanks for the math Dan!  I just used tons since it was the unit of measure for the ones above.  That's actually quite surprising to me that it's that high.  36 lbs of carbon dioxide to get a 1 pound package to your door.  Wow!

I just thought of that since I was talking to someone the other day who was trying to limit himself to 1 amazon shipment a day.  Nothing was on the schedule for Friday so he was going to order a "treat" to fill that gap.  

Commuting versus work-from-home versus self employment/home-based business. Not a simple calculation to make, since traditional employment is tangled with wages/benefits/healthcare/degrees/training, and therefore switching jobs/careers is a weighty decision... Where to live could be easier to choose, especially if you are renting.

What is the yearly cost per hour of commuting to a 40 hour/week (full-time) job? 5 days x 50 weeks = 250 hours/year in a car with a mix of 40 minutes highway and 20 minutes city driving each hour, at (20 MPG hwy./15MPGcity) maybe that's ~$6.80 ($1700./yr.) in fuel cost (650 gallons/yr. burned = 6.383 tons CO2)

What else could you enjoy doing for 250 hours? This amounts to 31.25 x 8 hour days...or...6.25 weeks of "vacation from a workee job" (switch jobs and gain 5 weeks of vacation?! what?!?!)...or...possibly consider a one eighth pay cut...since you commit 45 hours to the job and are only paid for the 40 you are there for.

Other considerations: tolls, paid parking, business wardrobe, meals out...

Lots of workee clothes vs fewer "work from home" clothes?

There are some interesting tidbits in this factsheet:
http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet

I live with someone who generates a full load of washing everyday.

If they use the electric tumble dryer every day that's 2.5kwh*352gCo2/kw (UK energy mix)*365 = 706lbs CO2 per year

Tough one... but for people who really weigh their decisions on all faces, having fewer kids is the biggest thing you can do. You're creating more footprints.

However... If you're the kind of person that considers impending environmental catastrophe a major problem then, maybe you should have those kids just the same and pass on your ideas and ethos.

Sorry for the probably controversial input.

I like the idea that while I personally have a carbon footprint, I might influence enough other people in a positive direction that my net effect is a negative carbon footprint.  So hopefully it's better to have me here than not...

Mike Haasl wrote:Lots of workee clothes vs fewer "work from home" clothes?

More about the ongoing upkeep - laundering/dry cleaning - of what, for business attire, is essentially an entire second set of clothes worn daily, 5 of 7 days.

But also about the quantity...? A bit of the need versus want distinction. (also: quantity --> larger closets = maybe a larger home to heat?)

"Fashion" also has a carbon footprint, as "new styles" drive sales and replacement of "old styles", not based on wear...
So not "wanting" to "stay in fashion" can free one to make choices about comfort, utility, durability. Wearing clothes both more often and for longer, that are repairable (and that have been repaired), until they no longer fit or are worn out.

I'm sure there's pros/cons to fiber choices: Natural, but maybe grown unsustainably? Synthetic, and shedding micro-plastics? More suited to a situation, synthetic winter outerwear? natural summer wear?
What does 7 billion pairs of wool socks per year look like? sheep everywhere? McDonald's Lamburgers?

Lew Johnson wrote:
However... If you're the kind of person that considers impending environmental catastrophe a major problem then, maybe you should have those kids just the same and pass on your ideas and ethos.

If you consider the impending environmental catastrophe, why would you bring a sentient life into a dying world?  Adoption is an option for people who need little humans around.

Mike Haasl wrote:I like the idea that while I personally have a carbon footprint, I might influence enough other people in a positive direction that my net effect is a negative carbon footprint.  So hopefully it's better to have me here than not...

Oh yes... and I hope no one extrapolates too far on my last post, because I totally agree that we can have a net negative carbon impact much greater than our personal output. The fact that we're reading this thread is probably a sign we're taking good steps.

Dan Boone wrote:

Mike Haasl wrote:
Each Amazon delivery equals X tons of carbon

A metric ton is ten percent bigger than a real ton, ...

With all respect, I would check that math one more time.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:

Dan Boone wrote:

Mike Haasl wrote:
Each Amazon delivery equals X tons of carbon

A metric ton is ten percent bigger than a real ton, ...

With all respect, I would check that math one more time.

More specificity would be helpful!  Wikipedia says says "a metric ton in the United States...is equivalent to approximately 2,204.6 pounds."  A US ton is 2,000 pounds, plus ten percent (200 pounds) is 2,200.  Pretty close, what am I missing?

Spend less money on new manufactured items (clothes, furniture, appliances, cars).  Buy second hand or mend what you have first.  Saves money and the environment, win-win!
I think the only exception to this could be refrigeration.  A more efficient refrigerator/freezer can have quite a short payback, both financially and in carbon footprint due to reduced energy use.  

I wonder how having a root cellar would math out?  It's not much harder to grow 100lbs of potatoes than it is to grow 10lbs.  My cellar isn't ideal so I can keep taters, onions, carrots, beets and apples in it.  They are all still in decent shape here in mid April.  So I got 6 months of food storage, without requiring commercial storage/packaging/transportation/refrigeration and the energy cost of the cellar was quite low.

Mike Haasl wrote:I wonder how having a root cellar would math out?  It's not much harder to grow 100lbs of potatoes than it is to grow 10lbs.  My cellar isn't ideal so I can keep taters, onions, carrots, beets and apples in it.  They are all still in decent shape here in mid April.  So I got 6 months of food storage, without requiring commercial storage/packaging/transportation/refrigeration and the energy cost of the cellar was quite low.

It comes down to the whole "short term/long term". I've seen pictures of Sepp Holzer root cellars made of rock, but using fossil fuel equipment to build them. My farm has plenty of rocks, but not the sort that would be good for that sort of building, so I suspect I'll have to use at least some concrete for safety (root cellars are damp and in my wet climate, I'm not that comfortable that local woods would stand up long enough). So then your have to figure out how much fossil fuel you're using to build a good root cellar vs fossil fuel to acquire commercially grown food and where the cross-over point is. Or I give up and decide that the sense of security I get out of having food security is worth something too. Convenience comes in also - someone I knew used to just bury a bin of potatoes and cover it over with dirt and straw in our climate, but that would require me to predict how many potatoes I would need for a week or two, and fetch them all at once - I'm sooo... not good at that - I'm pleased if I've managed to plan dinner 3 nights ahead! I had a friend years ago who followed a 4 week rotating dinner plan - that is sooo... not me!

All that said, "food miles" and the "fossil fuels used to grow/deliver food to the table" is a subject that has been researched, and I think we can do better!

A few thoughts about the above

1) CO2 emissions are only a factor in global warming, which I presume is the prime consideration here despite not being actually stated as such, if they come from fossil fuels. The biggest change we can make is switching from fossil fuels to renewable sources. The distinction between a conventional stove and a rocket stove is a read herring. They both replace fossil fuels (oil, gas etc...) with renewables. Rockets stoves need less fuel, which has all sorts of other benefits, but they are no better than other wood stoves in terms of the end goal.

2) I'd be careful about assuming that deliveries are necessarily bad. A relative of mine has been involved in the online groceries industry from fairly early on. They take their CO2 impact seriously, and looking to shave percentages off that figure impacts their bottom line by saving on fuel costs etc... One of the most startling realisations that I got from that was that by running everything from large regional warehouses, rather than many many local stores, they saved the CO2 emissions associated with running multiple sites. Think about heating hundreds of stores, lighting, refrigeration etc... and then also factor in those people who travel to a supermarket venue by car to shop, often in vehicles that are far less fuel efficient than their own fleet of delivery vehicles. They worked out that ordering groceries online, with their particular distribution system, was a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel usage. They do clever things like advertising certain delivery slots as cheaper, or "greener" if they already have deliveries booked to your area, for example.

It is really easy to fall into the trap of making "obvious" claims about this stuff that are just not true when you dig into the detail.

Anyway, now for some suggestions.

Replace a car with an Ebike. Bonus points of if you can charge it with solar. I do 15 miles per day on mine, commuting. It is faster overall, saves on fuel and saves on parking.

Haybox cooking. Don't leave things on the stove simmering. Get them to temperature then put them in a haybox.

Turn the thermostat down a few degrees. Wear a jumper indoors. Indoor home temperatures have risen steadily over the past 100 years, but people report that the feel no warmer than they used to. What people consider to be a comfortable temperature has changed.

Ride share to work

Use public transport

On the subject of Amazon... I've been entertaining a thought experiment in which, instead of a gradual or sudden decline due to overconsumption, there might be a future where Amazon becomes publicly owned and the logistics and automation they've developed, instead of destroying lives, is used to efficiently transport local goods and artisanal crafts, largely or entirely within the local community. Self-driving electric cars would eliminate commutes as everyone is employed at home or in their local community, simply passing on their apples, or pottery, or clothing or whatever they produce onto "Amazon", so that it's available to the baker, carpenter, etc. who all do the same. Instead of billions of people driving around in cars, a relatively small, automated fleet takes care of our every need in a perfectly calibrated, hyper-efficient way. It can double as a taxi service for doctors doing house calls, or just a visit with friends. Instead of encouraging a race to the bottom, that technology is suddenly used to help people stay home and build community, to lessen their environmental impact, and to focus on rewarding, high-quality work. Instead of automation destroying people's livelihoods, it gives back real lives.

To be fair, I think there's a 0% chance of this happening, but sometimes it's nice to fantasize about a world where all of this technology actually makes our lives better, long-term and short.

But it would reduce carbon emissions. At least relative to what we're doing now.

Dan Boone wrote:

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:

Dan Boone wrote:

Mike Haasl wrote:
Each Amazon delivery equals X tons of carbon

A metric ton is ten percent bigger than a real ton, ...

With all respect, I would check that math one more time.

More specificity would be helpful!  Wikipedia says says "a metric ton in the United States...is equivalent to approximately 2,204.6 pounds."  A US ton is 2,000 pounds, plus ten percent (200 pounds) is 2,200.  Pretty close, what am I missing?

I was mistaken. Apologies. I got tangled up in the US vs. Imperial units.

paul wheaton wrote:Clothes line and drying racks

A while back, I ran across this spiffy website that calculate energy usage for various household appliances. I recall that, for some places, it cost almost $1 per load of laundry in the dryer.

A clothes dryer accounts for a whopping 12% of electricity use in a typical household. (source)  And clothes drying is one of the easiest places to save energy, because you can erase 100% of the cost by simply hanging your clothes up to dry.  At a sample rate of $0.15/kWh and 7.5 loads per week, we're talking a savings of $196 per year by line-drying instead of using an electric dryer.  That's hefty.

Here's the energy usage, according to the website:

Electric model uses 3.3 kwh, Gas model uses 0.22 therm + 0.21 kWh.  Gas model asumes rate in the Electric column to spin the drum

You just need to multiply that by the amount of loads someone dries in a year (I'm thinking 5 loads per week for a household is pretty normal. That's 290 loads per year. This would be more if you wash your towels after each shower, and your sheets every day.)

So, say you dry your clothes for an hour, and you do 5 loads a week, that's 3.3kwh x 290 =957 (is this now Killawatts, or is it still killawatt hours?)

Does anyone know how to convert kWh into carbon footprint?

---

Another way to cut your carbon footprint with laundry is to wash on cold, rather than hot water. Unless you have oily rags or oil stains (or poopy diapers), there's really no benefit to washing on hot, and it can damage the clothes and set some stains.

Water heating.  As much as 90% of the energy used by washing clothes goes just to heat the water!  So you can save a bundle just by changing the temperature setting. (~$150/year)

Here's how much energy is used for a normal load of laundry, depending on temperature:

[table]
|Wash/Rinse Setting|Electrical Use kWh/load| Cost per load|Cost per year|
|Hot / Warm|4.5  kWh|68¢|$265|
|Warm / Warm|3.5  kWh|53¢|$206|
|Hot / Cold|2.8  kWh|42¢|$165|
|Warm / Cold|1.9  kWh|29¢|$112|
|Cold / Cold|0.3  kWh|4¢|$16|

So, if you're doing 5 loads of laundry a week, on hot. That  4.5 kWh x 52 = 234 kwh. That's compared to 15.6 kWh when washing with cold. That's a big difference!

James Alun wrote:I live with someone who generates a full load of washing everyday.

If they use the electric tumble dryer every day that's 2.5kwh*352gCo2/kw (UK energy mix)*365 = 706lbs CO2 per year

I haven't worked the math for the CO2 for my own family, but I've figured it out money-wise for me to use the dryer:

I run (average) 6 loads of wash per week. When I had an electric dryer, I used approximately 50 cents of electricity to dry each load. That works out $3 per week in electricity. About $12 per month. That doesn't sound bad on the surface, until we realize that's $144+ dollars per year.

So we have the cost to purchase a dryer, the cost to run the dryer, and the cost to repair a dryer. (We burned through a couple of heating elements at $50 each.)

I have other things I'd rather do with nearly $150 each year.

Edited to add that our washing machine doesn't have hot water plumbed to it. And the greywater drains out to our fruit trees. I haven't worked out the math for the electricity to run the washing machine. (No water heating costs.)

Stacie said

our washing machine doesn't have hot water plumbed to it.

I found particularly frustrating that the "most efficient" dishwashers and washing machines were those without plumbed hot water and with low water use. Our hot water comes from our wood fired range and the water (untreated, unpumped) from the hill above us.  How are those more efficient then?

(Edited grammar)

Nancy Reading wrote:

Our hot water comes from our wood fired range

So you're using a "short-cycle" carbon cycle (grow a tree or better, coppice them), using human food power and an ax to chop down, cut to stove length and split if needed that wood, and turning that into hot water. This is much better than using an energy source that's takes thousands of years to make, and lots of energy to get it out of the ground, refined as needed, and to your doorstep. However, one of the wonderful things about water is how well it hangs onto heat or cold. Even after 2 weeks of very hot weather in August, I know that as soon as the sun goes down, there will be an onshore breeze from over the ocean bringing cool temperatures to my land. Two hot weeks is just not enough to have much impact on a big ocean!

What I'm saying here is that it takes a lot of energy to heat water - it makes a difference how that heat is generated, but it's still a lot of heat. I was thinking due to a different post elsewhere - what would really happen if all of a sudden all the people who currently live in apartments in North America, all needed to/decided to, go and get 2-4 acres of land to support themselves on. Would they realize soon enough how much wood energy it takes to heat all the hot water they're used to? Would they find short and long term sustainable sources of that wood? Would they quickly compromise and wash their hands in cold water? Would they compromise and do a quick sponge bath on the "dirty bits" rather than take a shower? Would they use their towel to dry and then hang it up so it could be used multiple times before washing?

Personally one of the ways many people could cut their personal carbon footprint is to actually inspect their worn clothes and make a conscious decision if it actually needs washing. People might start wearing aprons again! Washing is hard on clothes and towels - both will last longer which also saves the embodied energy they represent.

Nancy Reading wrote:Stacie said

our washing machine doesn't have hot water plumbed to it.

I found particularly frustrating that the "most efficient" dishwashers and washing machines were those without plumbed hot water and with low water use. Our hot water comes from our wood fired range and the water (untreated, unpumped) from the hill above us.  How are those more efficient then?

(Edited grammar)

I probably should have explained that our washing machine does have attachments for hot water, but our garage isn't plumbed for hot water, only cold. So we didn't hook up the hot water hose, and we only run our clothes on cold wash. If I ever did really need to wash something in hot water, I'd need to either hand wash it in my kitchen sink or bathtub, or I'd need to lug buckets of hot water out to the garage where the washing machine is located.

I'm totally with ya on modern appliances not being as "efficient" as manufacturers would have us to believe. When we last had a dishwasher several years ago, I noticed the dishes didn't come clean unless I rinsed them beforehand. So not only was I NOT saving water, but add in the electricity needed to run the dishwasher, and I felt like I was getting ripped off. It was a new dishwasher too, with an Energy Star rating. So I wash dishes by hand, and feel like the dishes come cleaner with less water and zero electricity. (We have a gas water heater.)

Dreaming of a setup like yours someday, with wood heated water!

Yesterday, I got to talking with some of the folks at lunch ... the summer isn't half over and already it has been freaky hot.  Will it be even hotter next year?  And the year after?  At what temperature is all life sterilized from montana?  

And then the conversation went to one guy contemplating sacrificing his future to get permaculture into a billion brains - thus solving a lot of global problems.  What does he do?  

And this morning I thought I would try something new.  Maybe I can reach 300,000 people I have never reached before.  I started a thread at reddit.  It took off and in less than 30 minutes it was deleted.  

I posted to r/askreddit "The average american adult carbon footprint is 30 tons per year. What non-political things are you doing to lower your personal carbon footprint?" and then I added a reply

Some data points on personal carbon footprint stuff ...

Switch to an electric car - save 2.0 tons per year
laundry with cold water and line/rack drying - save 4.0 tons per year
switching all the lights in your house to LED - save 0.04 tons per year
going pooless - save 0.25 tons per year

Food

strict vegan diet - save 4.5 tons per year
omnivore diet with 100% of animal products from 100% pastured sources - save 6.5 tons per year
meeting 90% of your food needs from a garden - save 10 tons per year

Heat

(focusing on heat in a cold climate - using data for montana; 25% of montana households heat with electricity which has a carbon footprint of 29.4 tons; natural gas is 8.9 tons and wood is 4.4 tons; a rocket mass heater is 0.4 tons)

switching from electric heat to natural gas heat - save 20.5 tons per home per year
switching from electric heat to a rocket mass heater - save 29.0 tons per home per year
using electric micro heaters to heat people instead of the whole house with electric heat - save 23.5 tons per home per year

trees

apple a day (plant all the seeds, if 5% reach maturity ...) - sequester 100 tons per year

I am lowering my carbon footprint mostly by planting tree seeds and heating with rocket mass heaters.

For those few minutes, it was doing so well, I felt certain that it would be at the top of reddit for a few hours - so maybe I would infect a million brains!  But - splat.  Damn.

I thought I would copy and paste this stuff to here so it can be used later.

Dan Boone wrote:36.72 pounds of carbon footprint per delivery.  I would not put much faith in this calculation but it helps me understand orders of magnitude; call it closer to 35 pounds than to three and a half or 350.
...
Minimizing or avoiding Amazon deliveries looks like low hanging fruit for cutting our carbon footprints.

A little more math for fun:

What exactly does 36.72 pounds of carbon equate to?  According to US Energy Information Administration, a gallon of gasoline is 19.60 pounds of COs per gallon.

So, 36.72lbs / 19.60 = ~1.87 gallons of gas worth of CO2 emissions per Amazon delivery.

If you drive a Prius at 50 mpg, 1.87 gallons would be like driving 47 miles to the store and then back for whatever items you'd otherwise have delivered.

If you drive an F-150 at 20 mpg, 1.87 gallons would be like driving 18.7 miles to the store and then back for whatever items you'd otherwise have delivered.

So is that low hanging fruit within reach and what “should” everyone do to cut their personal footprint?

If the items you would buy could have been bought from a store, say... 30 miles away, or maybe several small trips totaling 60miles, then...

The Prius owner making an Amazon delivery instead of driving to the store would be making the relatively "bad" choice for the environment from a cutting personal CO2 standpoint if they DO take the Amazon order rather than driving.

But their F-150 neighbor making the same Amazon delivery rather than driving to the same store would be saving the environment by cutting their potential footprint sitting on the couch and hitting “add to cart”.

With all that said, for me it's not about actions to take to cut personal CO2, or even global CO2.  People are so bogged down with technical details and climate shaming and regulations and control and guilt, that people rarely discuss the broader, truly important topics: good and evil, love, ethics, the beauty of creation, joy, charity, alleviating suffering, freedom, resilience, justice, mercy, the human soul, how to die without fear, and true permanence.

According to US Energy Information Administration, a gallon of gasoline is 19.60 pounds of COs per gallon.

This is very strange, considering that a gallon of gasoline weighs about 6 pounds. What are the folks at the EIA on?

Frankly I find the carbon footprint calculations all suspect. At best they're estimates, but some seem more like wild guesses, especially considering the complexity involved in reasonable estimating.

I have a degree in chemistry and have taught chemistry for over 20 years.
Each Carbon atom has to combine with 2 Oxygen atoms, each of which are a little heavier than the Carbon.
Each 2 Hydrogen atoms combine with an Oxygen atom which is 16 times as heavy as a Hydrogen atom.
Depending on exactly what hydrocarbon molecules are in the gasoline, 19 pounds of CO2 could be pretty close.
That doesn't count the water produced in the combustion.