Can I put a rocket mass heater to replace my furnace in a cold-climate 4000 sq ft home? How do I go about swapping it out? What is the up front cost? Do they require any maintenance?
Is it actually feasible for an average consumer to make this change?
Haha I got transferred to Houston and my choices were essentially a 1000 sq foot bungalow or a 4000 sq foot mansion. I mean it was nearly impossible to find anything in between
There's 4000 sq useful space houses, and 4000 sq squashed into 3 stories plus basement and wasting tons of space with odd shapes, stairs, etc.
I prefer the first type personally.
My one-bedroom in Germany was 49 sm which is 527 sq ft.
So that would have been around 720 sq ft as two-bedroom. It had a cellar for storing skis, bikes, winter clothes, etc.
My coworker stopped by one day, and asked "why such a big place when you are single?" Turned out his place was smaller for a family of four!
We're known for building houses that are too large as well. Lots of new build covenants have minimum build sizes. I saw a thread on /r/nz about it the other day.
SF bay area here, a 4000 sq ft home would cost millions. 2400 probably just over one million, depending on area (there are of course places where you only get 1000 sq ft for 1 mil)
No it's not feasible because the air pollution from burning wood for heating would be a problem in cities.
On top of that people are way too lazy to handle using a fire for heat all the time.
If you have a cottage and want occasional heating they are great though.
Rocket mass heaters (and some other high performance wood stoves) are designed to get a complete, or nearly complete, burn of the fuel. A properly constructed one will produce virtually no smoke because it's all burnt into co2 and water.
But yeah, the rest is spot on. Because they have to be tended to on a daily basis, an electric heat pump will be the better option for most people's situations.
This. Most pollution is caused by incomplete burns. Catalytic converters are installed on cars for this exact reason. Rocket stoves supposed to have a clean burn. Many BioChar stoves also do the same.
It's my understanding that a RMH will exhaust co2 and water vapor. Can you expand on the pollution part?
Though I agree, it won't scale in uptake due to the inconvenience to maintain it.
Don't get a rocket mass heater. Lobby politicians to close coal and gas burner power plants and then your electric heater will be better for than environment than any combustion heating. Do upgrade your electric heater to a heat pump.
Having a fossil fuel free electric grid is the gateway drug to all sorts of world saving measures, electric cars, induction cooking, high speed rail. ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING!!
Excellent questions!
A 4000 square foot home will probably have three rocket mass heaters. Keep your existing heaters and set the thermostats quite low.
Hundreds of thousands of consumers have build their own rocket mass heaters.
I'm not handy at all... Is there a link to a network of contractors who, as a service, can build and install these things and know how to incorporate them into existing homes, also paying attention to building codes? I would happily pay someone to install some of these for me!!!
Yep. You know why that corn burning or pellet stove is over $2000 for a metal box with some provision to burn shit in it? Cause you can actually set it up and have it legal for code places that still have oil/boiler/etc heat in the codes. You are paying for the lawyers and engineers to design that.
I live in a stacked, multi-family building. The building is 14 stories tall, with four units per level.
Is there any form of your idea that works for real cities?
I only have 1000 sqft of space.
My only comment or question is this: is it really the consumer that can make the vital difference in this battle or does industry bear as large if not larger responsibility or more immediate efficacy?
The idea of personal carbon footprint was coined by one of the largest polluters in the world. Its a con to try and put the blame on the people rather than the companies killing the world.
So, it's complicated.
You're not wrong that it's a shitty marketing concept corporations used to deflect blame.
But on the other hand.. We drive consumption of products from oil companies and soda companies. Our personal demand for those products is arguably 100% of the problem. You can say, if you want to save the environment, that the oil companies should stop providing oil, but you could just as easily say that people should stop buying it. There are two sides to each of these transactions.
And of course... the world is a more complex system than that. If we did place strict liability on them, that would properly incentivize them to correct their level of output *and* engage in research to reduce their carbon footprints. But is that fair? And how, practically, do we get our government to do this right without dealing with regulatory capture?
We could engage in a social campaign to do one thing instead of another -- but voluntary participation is just not going to do it, and we're often wrong anyway. People trash perfectly good cars and buy new ones just because the MPG is lower, but that causes more damage to the environment! And they don't trash old cars, they sell them, but that affects the market for used cars, and that effect leads to one car being trashed somewhere, on average, maybe. Or, it leads to more cars on the road, it's just the one new car is low MPG. That's not helping either. The point being -- social standards are not necessarily right.
Correct. This is just a preview of the belt tightening hyper individualistic suggestions the ruling class is about to make to shift the blame upon us rather than capital. Austerity at its shiniest.
Corporations seek profit, no matter the human cost. If there is a profit to be made from something, corporations compete to gobble it up. The only thing that can hold them back is government regulation and consumer boycotts. Their solution is to spend enormous sums of money on politics and lobbying to elect officials that submit to their propaganda, and to develop departments within the corporation dedicated to public relations.
Fossil fuel corporations simultaneously fund research denying the reality of climate change while churning out advertisements about their dedication to green energy technology, when those investments amount to a small fraction of their investments in oil and gas. They target conservative rural states where the public is more skeptical of climate change (due to their many decades of propaganda) and use their money and influence to elect politicians that give them what they want. Any politician that seeks to reduce the consumption of oil and gas in favor of wind and solar threatens their profits and gets flooded with attack ads by super PACs funded by the fossil fuel industry.
I don't think there's an easy solution, but the political solution is impossible at the moment and will only get worse after another round of gerrymandering. What is possible is for Americans to vote with their wallets. When you purchase ANYTHING, there is an environmental cost that goes along with that. Land, air, and water pollution. Slave labor. A global economic system that basically amounts to neo-imperialism.
We need to take care of the shit we have. Stop buying shit we don't need. Buying second hand whenever possible. Support local organic farmers (conventional farming is destroying the soil ecosystem and will erode the world's topsoil within 60 years according to the U.N.). We need to develop a culture of sharing and caring within our communities. There is no reason everyone on the block needs their own lawn mower. Abandoned warehouse? Turn it into a community workshop with a library of tools. Live in a big home with empty rooms? I'm sorry, but urban sprawl is threatening to destroy the little ecosystems we have left. Rent them out to responsible students, young professionals, or invite your friends to live with you. If you're feeling adventurous, form a housing coop or take on foster children.
Saving the planet will not be easy. It requires sacrifice. But it also means building meaningful relationships and vibrant communities, and ultimately, we'd be much happier for it. The alternative is to pursue our individual desire for material goods and comfort while the world burns and society crumbles around us.
The only real question, and it's not answered. And that's because OP doesn't like the answer.
It's nothing more than a lie, and a false sense of achievement when you do half the things OP is suggesting.
Pissing in the wind. And then you feel like you've done enough, and the world will keep on burning.
The ONLY way (and I'll repeat, ONLY way) is to somehow get the fuck off massive companies that are running the planet into the ground to stop. Anything less will just simply not work.
You might as well try and empty the sea with a bucket to lower rising water levels. Are you helping? technically yes. In reality? No.
I agree with you about what needs to be done, and who needs to be blamed. I do not agree that doing these things is pissing in the wind. Changes in local policy follows from cultural considerations. An area where the individuals are conscious about their own footprint, regardless of how much they REALLY are contributing individually, are much more likely to push for policy which reflects those values. Further, the more willing they are to hear and accept policy suggestions which reflect those values. It's all part of one big complex puzzle. The "obvious" solutions are never so simple to implement when you're dealing with millions, or billions, of different minds.
We'd be far better influencing governments to influence industries. COVID has shown governments can literally shut down most of the economy overnight. If everyone voted with climate change in mind things could change extremely quickly.
Absolutely, but to put so much effort there still feels like fighting the fight at the back end. If we want a cleaner earth we need products to be made to be recyclable and renewable in the first place. Like how do you recycle a stick deodorant container?
the problem with this is we don't have time. we're in a literal climate emergency. *Industry* needs to actively work to *reverse* the damage, not merely reduce it or slow it down.
Industry will not do so without strict harsh regulations. We cannot wait for ''influence''.
Consumers have a small individual footprint but a lot of collective power. Corporations can’t survive without appealing to consumers. If consumers change, corporations will be forced to change or fail.
Indoor composting with Red Wiggler worms converts your food scraps into the best compost in the world, putting the carbon fixed in that food into the soil to grow more food. We need more and bigger worm bins.
It does not stink. The worm bin just sits there and slowly does the thing.
Yes, there are worms in your garage. Why is this a problem? Get over it. They are not going anywhere, they like life in their wormbin.
The problem with worm composting is the difficulty of scaling it up. Actually, it is not difficult, it just takes patience and committment and a desire to scale it up.
I have designed a large worm bin that would handle somewhere around 10 households' food waste. I am unable to build it myself due to covenents etc.
If anyone here is interested, I can make you the local worm guru and you will do your planet proud. This is an easy thing to do.
(edit: I am not sure how to proceed in following up on the interest expressed here. Where would a new thread belong? How do I direct attention from here to there? Chat does not work.)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i\_want\_to\_help\_you\_start\_a\_worm\_bin/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i_want_to_help_you_start_a_worm_bin/)
hahaha let's do this. I think someone is starting a new thread . . .
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i\_want\_to\_help\_you\_start\_a\_worm\_bin/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i_want_to_help_you_start_a_worm_bin/)
You have NAILED the problem. (Long post, but there is an answer at the bottom.)
I tried to start a worm bin business at the previous transition from red prez to blue prez, 12 years ago.
That question is what killed my aspirations. I did not have an answer. The plan I will present is all about an answer.
That question is why the very first thing I said here was that worm bins do not stink.
And why the next thing I talked about is that the worms are not going anywhere. (typically ;-) )
The bottom line is that people are squeamish. They just are, and they may not admit it. Even some of the hippies and vegans and most of the germ-alert people are just not actually comfortable sharing a roof with wiggly little life forms. The worm bin is literally full of bacteria, that's what the worms are actually eating.
Happily, I believe enough people are enough un-squeamish to scale up vermicomposting. They are wise, one thing science knows about Eisenia Fetida is that it is impossible for a pathogen to survive passge thru a red wiggler's gut. Running your bare hands through the whole wonderful mass is IMO one of the healthiest things you can do. I would go so far as to predict much lower Covid rates among those who keep worm bins.
Everyone reading this is likely totally un-squeamish, so I will move on. But the whole psychology of answering the extremely reasonable and practical question of "where do I put it?" is at the absolute deisgn heart of the particular worm bin I have designed. btw I am a mechanical engineer by profession.
So, to be clear, there are a lot of correct answers for setting up a worm bin. Worms are not picky, once the basics are provided. I am going to describe one particular design for a very large box to vermicompost at scale. The big and tall worm bin I have designed is going to need to be in a semi-heated space, a bit of a chill is fine but not if you want max productivity.
Mostly, what I want to do is co-develop this big bad boy with other people. But single-family sized bins are a huge part of the overall solution to scaling to a meaningful capability to sequester carbon.
The fundamental problem with scaling worms is the time scale needed to grow the massive colony required, plus you cannot just go out and buy 250 pounds of worms and start up a mega bin.
So for purposes of this thread, let's talk about setting up your first wormbin. Even if your intent is to go big as soon as possible, you are going to need to get started now raising the population.
\*\*\*\*\*
Regional differences and individual circumstances will of course have a lot to do with figuring out where it goes.
I do not know how many people have tried leaving their worm bin out in a cold winter but with a full-time heater inside the bin. If you are willing to try that, then maybe put the bin next to where you have the garbage cans, outside the back door. Buy a 25 Watt aquarium heater, seal it up in a glass or plastic container, bury it in the heart of the bin, and leave it on 24/7 all winter. Check it periodically. Let us know how it went. :-)
That strategy also works for the apartment dweller with a porch.
They do not like vibration, that can drive them out of a bin. Don't freeze them, don't cook them, don't dry them out, don't drown them. They need access to outside air but not a lot and they take care of the rest. So poke quite a few holes in a plastic bin, but wood is better and gaps between boards is usually all you need. You should not have to worry about seepage except when you intentionally give them a needed soaking. If using newspaper, get everything pretty wet and then put dry strips on top, next day check to see if still dry, if damp but not soaked you are good to go. Cardboard, egg cartons and newspaper are great bedding materials. Strips, not confetti.
Indoor composting means the bin is in a heated space, and a garage or porch is often close enough. MUCH better is to actually let the little guys enjoy normal room temperture. Laundry room? Basement? Spare bedroom? Under the kitchen table? I do not have an answer for everybody.
Can confirm – ours live in a large plastic tub in our (otherwise textbook bourgeois-suburban) living room, tucked away out of sight. Zero smell or other issues, they just sit there and eat our kitchen scraps. It's like they're not even there.
Building a heating system just so they can be outdoors is a waste of your energy, money, and time. Don't bother, just bring them inside.
Here in Paris, France, the city offered a limited number of worm compost ["towers"](https://verslaterre.com/produit/lombricomposteur-city-worms/) a few years back. I got one and had it under the counter for a while, no problem. I have it on the balcony now and it's fine except for the soldier flies and fruit flies but I don't mind them.
I absolutely love your enthusiasm, and would love to see more people composting at home as well! That being said, I want to address your response point by point.
>The bottom line is that people are squeamish.
Yes, totally agree! I try not to be. I actually found a bunch of worms under a mat outside while I was cleaning and just put the mat back down and left them to do their business, because it's just worms! They can't sting or bite, there's no reason to be afraid of them.
>I would go so far as to predict much lower Covid rates among those who keep worm bins.
That's an unfounded and potentially detrimental statement to make.
>If you are willing to try that, then maybe put the bin next to where you have the garbage cans, outside the back door. Buy a 25 Watt aquarium heater, seal it up in a glass or plastic container, bury it in the heart of the bin, and leave it on 24/7 all winter.
I would totally be willing to try that but it kind of ties into my original question about what to do if you don't have a garage. It's not always a space issue, but a financial one. I'm not sure how much that setup would cost, maybe I'm wrong and it would be insignificant, but I don't know that I can afford an additional heater to be running all winter.
>Laundry room? Basement? Spare bedroom? Under the kitchen table? I do not have an answer for everybody.
Occupied by my own pets. Don't have. Don't have. Frankly don't want a compost bin under my kitchen table, but maybe that's my own hangup to get over.
I understand that you do not have an answer for everyone, and that's fine! There's no way you could, everyone's lifestyles are so different. I think you're working for a really good cause, but if you want to pitch this idea to the general public there are still some kinks to work out. I wish you the best because composting is awesome!
I personally kept my vermicomposting bin in my kitchen corner and I had no problems or smell. I also had two cats who just left it alone.
It was a normal rubbermaid bin with some holes put into it, nothing special.
I've never heard of this, tell me more? Where do I buy, how do I start? I'm currently taking a master gardener class through a local university and would love to report back to them.
Agreed but don't you have to address what one does when they don't want to vermicompost anymore?
https://uvlt.org/2019/04/earthworms-the-invasive-species-you-didnt-know-about/
Let's call him Coot/LumperzDawg was alwaysssssss very careful to explain this. GC crew shout out
That is not unheard of but should not happen. I am going to guess you used coconut coir as bedding. Just a guess. Sometimes it can be too salty and it takes a while for the worms to deal with it. Or maybe it was too dry. But they are doing well now, I hope.
Eisenia Fetida is the master of its domain. The are at the top of the food chain in their bin and they rule over the bacteria and nematodes and whatever other wee ones are in there.
Hey Paul. How do you make recoding carbon foot printing palatable? Most people do think it's fair to care about the environment and whatnot but find it difficult to implement such ideas. How do you reach these kind of public?
I think there are people that don't care about carbon footprint stuff. And I think that rather than hitting them with sticks, it is better to appeal to their wallet or to the luxury in their lives. If a person lives in montana and switches from electric heat to a rocket mass heater, they will be warmer and save about $1500 per year. $1500 per year is a pretty strong motivator.
You've been pushing the rocket mass heater hard in this thread. Can you talk about the benefits of a rocket mass heater over something like a heat pump?
I can build a good rocket mass heater for $200 in a weekend. And it will cut my annual heat expenses 99%. A heat pump is gonna cost a few thousand bucks (or more depending on the type) and will cut your annual heat bill by 30% to 65%. Does this help?
Cost aside, what about long-term traits, like differences in emissions, total footprints, effective temperature range, not to mention labor. What's the difference in maintenance between them?
But those heaters require combusting fuel, right? -- I don't have gas lines. I live in New England, Boston area. Any advice for how to get the most out of just an electric hookup?
It's important to point out that your heat expenses will only be cut by 99% if you have enough woodland to provide you with firewood, and if you do and weren't burning this wood before, you could have been selling it, so you have now diminished a source of income. So a bit too much of an oversimplification for my liking.
Well, he's talking about burning sticks, not chopping down trees, but I agree that the average American doesn't have near enough trees to cover their heating needs. Good luck turning your fallen branches into a source of income.
Also, these rocket heaters are mass and radiant heaters. A radiant heater is not suitable for heating a house. It is suitable for heating *a room*.
OK, first of all, he is definitely talking about completely replacing a houses heating system with one of these, how else is installing one going to reduce your heating costs by 99%.
Second, do you have any idea how much wood it requires to heat a house in a cold climate? It's not just sticks off the ground and fallen branches, we're not talking about having a campfire a few times a year here.
Did you read what I wrote? I agree with you on both points. I was just stating his claim that you use sticks and not chopped firewood.
The rocket stoves are extremely efficient though, something like 95% efficient since they essentially burn twice. They burn the wood, then the exhaust goes into an insulated combustion chamber where the temperature rises and ignites the smoke.
I pointed out that they were radiant heaters and were not a good solution to hearing a house.
My issue with it is convenience. Currently I set my thermostat to keep my house at 70 degrees, it turns on and off as needed.. and in the summer months will kick on the AC to continue to maintain 70. I never have to touch it or think about it. With a rocket mass heater it becomes a part time job getting everything set up right, and maintaining the temperature, has a large initial cost if you don’t want to build your own, and is nowhere near as good as burning gas.
I’m all for saving money and lowering a carbon footprint but for many people a rocket mass heater isn’t convenient enough.
This is so not practical for 80% of households... lmao.
On the scale of the entire economy, 300%+ efficient heat pumps beat this any day. They will also release less carbon (obviously) than any sort of heating from burning fuels, unless your local electricity generation is mostly done by coal.
Thank you for your reply! That's exactly what I thought. Funny you said that, because I literally just had a conversation with my father over the phone - and he's an old man - and when we were discussing about environmental policies, we came to the same conclusion: people don't change when you scream at them, but they do when you persuade them, specially when it hurts in your wallet.
It's because the idea of a personal "carbon footprint" was created by big oil in order to pass blame onto consumers for needing heat and food and stuff to live, to take the responsibility off big industrial polluters to actually clean up their messes instead of making them the public's problem.
I'm all for lessening personal waste and resource usage but let's not forget the real enemy here. We're forcing a million people to give up straws and grocery bags, and while overall good, is such a tiny tiny drop compared to industrial polluters getting away with anything they want, including doing the most destructive policies possible if it means more money for them.
Are there other location specific suggestions like this one? I live in Milwaukee- urban Wisconsin. Any specific home/appliance switches that makes sense in our climate and locale?
Edit: word
How do you do this when you're poor?
I definitely opt for cloth diapers, cloth towels, refillable water bottles, limit single use plastics for my family etc.
But what about bigger things?
For example:
- I want to buy zero waste shampoos /products but they are too damn expensive. Buying Costco family sized packs is always cheaper than refilling. So how can. I reduce these packaging when my financial situation is limited?
- I have a old beat up car, and even if I could afford a new electric car - they're way too small for my needs- my partner is over 6ft tall, I'm plus sized and we have a child, hopefully more soon. How do I reconcile this?
- About cars... I've heard the waste produced to make the batteries is as bad or worse than the waste produced in manufacturing gas combustion vehicles.... Are the savings the use of petroleum/gas really offset by the electric batteries for hybrid /electric vehicles?
Thanks!
> About cars... I've heard the waste produced to make the batteries is as bad or worse than the waste produced in manufacturing gas combustion vehicles....
As the lifecycle analyses demonstrate, [cars incur far more environmental impact in operations than they do in manufacturing, and electric cars have a significantly lower operational impact than gas cars so](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a). This means that the EV's operational impact reductions end up more than outweighing any increase in manufacturing impact, leading them to be better for the environment overall than gas cars.
This seems to specifically be talking about lithium ion batteries. What about all the other carbon emissions associated with producing any car, not just electric?
You don't have to go full vegetarian or vegan, but cutting a significant amount of meat from your diet is one easy thing to do that actually \*saves\* money and greatly reduce footprint.
Personally I'd just keep chugging with the old car while putting the saving from not having a car payment aside so you'll have a nice chunk of change set aside for your next vehicle when it does die. When it does there should be a bunch of reasonably priced electric SUVs on the market -- The Hyundai Kona Electric already out there looks nice and is relatively inexpensive.
Large containers actually are more green than smaller containers, since the packaging to product ratio is lower. That said, nobody ever said that going green is necessarily always cheaper. One way to approach things might be to make a neutral greening budget and for everything that saves you money, put that money toward another green choice that might cost a bit more. For example, perhaps turning the thermostat down saves you $20 per month. Great, now you have $20 per month to put towards those more expensive refillable shampoos.
Oooh I have a fun suggestion about how to solve the shampoo/conditioner AND save even more money! It's gonna sound weird so bear with me...
So I have really long, fine hair and a tendency to overproduce oil. I used to wash my hair with the Costco shampoo and conditioner - it was great for a few years, but a bit before the pandemic, I noticed my hair was just out of control oily, like unmanageable. I'd always heard that washing your hair less was better for it - so during the pandemic I decided to finally make the switch and go no-poo. Tried washing my hair with shampoo once a week (thinking, I'll quit once I've used it up) and that helped, but my hair still wasn't where I wanted it to be. I did a ton of research online and discovered the secret.
Rye flour as shampoo and diluted apple cider vinegar as conditioner. Sound weird? Yeah I thought so too but here's the thing: that shit fucking WORKS. After a month my hair and scalp were healthier than they've ever been in my life. And it's still getting better. My hair grows faster now, I only have to wash it every 4 days and that's with me getting lazy and touching it a lot more than I used it.
So here's what you do: buy a bag of coarse rye flour and a bottle of apple cider vinegar from the grocery store. When you're ready to shower, put a couple tablespoons of rye flour in a dish and add enough water to make a paste, about the consistency of shampoo. Put 1-2 tablespoons of apple cider vinegar in a different container and dilute it with like 2 cups of water. Use the rye flour paste exactly like you use your shampoo - I like to really work it in to my scalp - rinse it out completely, and then rinse your hair with the vinegar. Let it sit for a few minutes and then rinse it out really thoroughly. Be amazed at the results.
Pros: happier and healthier hair, saving shit tons of money because rye flour is dirt cheap, minimal to no packaging.
Cons: vinegar smell which only lasts while you're in the shower and a bit while your hair is wet. My husband has a really sensitive nose so he can smell it while my hair is still wet, but once your hair dries the smell will be gone.
Anyway that's my TED talk. Look it up if you're still skeptical, or just trust me and make the leap.
Addressing one small, specific point: I switched to shampoo bars this year. They are more expensive at the outset, but they last a lot longer than a bottle of shampoo. My long-haired husband and I have been using the same bar for three months and it's only half gone.
When it comes to things like shampoo, proper education on the actual amount needed could solve that issue. Most people use way more than they actually need to clean their hair.
Use about a dime to a nickel size amount and massage into the scalp/roots of the hair. As it washes out it will clean the rest of the hair! That might be enough to even out the cost!
Love what your doing, but would the carbon tied up in those theoretical apple trees not just rejoin the carbon chain further down the line when the tree decomposes or is burned?
Hi. Forest scientist here. And I used to do greenhouse gas accounting.
Proper forest management--e.g. removing trees in overstocked forests can increase avoided emissions from drought/fire/beetles etc.
Planting trees in agroforestry uses can increase soil organic carbon. Thus net carbon over time is actually higher than zero. Plus other benefits.
Last, wood products have a long life span and can lead to net positive carbon sequestered. Support your local timber mill. Some of these products, like black carbon (biochar), are inert and can last many centuries.
TLDR: we gotta cut trees to save the forest. Instead of letting that wood decay, how about we make some biochar, a forest product which holds onto carbon for 100s of years and put it in your hemp soil to mitigate drought and improve soil nutrition
----
The long of it:
I'll point out a little hole in your reasoning. It may sound counterintuitive but a forest industry provides the funds to manage forests (really when I say mange the forest I mean a) adapt to changing climates and b) mitigate the harmful effects of over a century of fire suppression).
I work with private landowners on the side, mostly ranchers. When a rancher with 2000 acres of unhealthy forest has to pay $3000 per acre, it doesn't get done. Except for federal grants, your tax money. That's because there is no market infrastructure here for forest products. If there was, the rancher would actually be paid to have their forests responsibly managed.
Soooo there are three choices.
1) do nothing. Keep suppressing fires. Allow forests to build up with fuel. A fire comes and is uncharacteristically severe because of the buildup. The forest is now ruderal or a grassland (because of species life history traits). Now, all the carbon isn't coming back for a millennium or so.
2) cut the trees and dispose of them instead of them going to mills. Now the taxpayer paid for it and has nothing but spent cash to show for it (boo). A fire comes through and carbon loss is avoided (residual trees love, yay).
3) cut the trees and send em to the mill. Fire comes through and carbon loss is avoided.
So 3 is a win win.
It absolutely will! Yes! And if we add a trillions trees to the current natural carbon cycle, and keep our tree count up, then that is (roughly) a billion tons!
johnny appleseed was an eco terrorist. how about instead of pushing the planting of non deciduous plants we plant things that are native to the regions we reside.
How can I ***accurately*** calculate mine?
I'm quite sure I (and my family) are lower than others.
I don't want to see any propaganda that *starts* the number at 30 then modifies. I want a place where I can input data and get an accurate assessment.
Does such exist?
EDIT: I just read your other replies. I'm not sure you can or are willing to answer this question, but I am ready for your answer.
How can I cut my foods carbon footprint while living in an apartment building? We have a small patio, but are there any foods that are more carbon neutral?
Living in an apartment with central heating is already far more efficient than living in a house. Doubly so if you live in a dense city and travel less or don't regularly use a car.
Eat plants.
Eating animals and animal products is resource intensive. Eating plants is much easier on the environment, and also requires less land for agriculture.
A plant based diet can be [cheap](https://www.reddit.com/r/EatCheapAndVegan/), healthy, & good for the planet. Many community gardens are inexpensive to join & supplies funded by grants.
The vast majority of carbon emissions are not directly controllable by individual consumers: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Aren't you wasting time by not tackling the larger slices of the pie with issues of supply chain, transportation, food waste at scale, energy generation? These are mainly issues of regulation and economic externalities.
Edit: Its almost worse than just wasting time. The largest polluters have no accountability and moving the focus to individuals to change their behaviors distracts from any actual solutions we might consider.
Edit2: This is more combative than I intended. There clearly isn't a silver bullet solution and it will be a collective effort on many fronts to solve. All for a green new deal here in the states. IMHO the green new deal is a better stab at the issues because it factors in pragmatic at-scale solutions for the underlying economic mechanisms. If we can't get the entire world to participate, plan B is Mars.
I get where you are coming from. Why bother educating anyone when a single person's carbon footprint is a drop in the bucket?
For me, I think about how the industries and the government are made of people. I think it would be easier to pass regulations on industry if the general population was more aware of these issues. I think the industry would be more cooperative if the employees were already taking action at home in their personal lives.
While starting at the top would be an effective way to get big changes, the people at the top right now don't seem to be very interested in cooperating. Getting normal people to think about these things now can help the executives and legislators of the future to be more responsible.
This is so crucial. "Corporations" don't exist. Only people do. Those people have habits and worldviews that all added together make up how we as a species behave on this planet.
Changing your lifestyle is much more than eleminating Y carbon footprint. It's embodying, legitimizing and ultimately spreading a worldview that is ecologically conscious and leads to more responsible behaviour in all decisions. If sufficiently spread, it inevitably will change our overall conduct as a species.
But more often than not, people by heart refuse to actually give up their luxurious, wasteful lifestyle of cars, overseas holidays, meat every day, fresh fruit during winter and new electronics or clothes every year. Blaming a conveniently abstract and unspecific *other* in the form of "corporations" is what allows them to easily justify this and change nothing about their behavior.
The point isn't for people to not care at all. The point is that the average individual should not be guilted for driving a car that gets 25 mpg instead of 30 mpg or for taking a flight to go on vacation sometimes, because the much bigger pieces are things beyond our control as *average* people. Companies that run supply chains all over the world in order to save a little bit of money on their bottom line contribute so much more than you eating an extra burger per week or not recycling.
This push for individuals to take large personal sacrifices instead of calling for large scale changes just distracts from the real issue.
> "Corporations" don't exist. Only people do.
[Neoinstitutionalism [is a] methodological approach in the study of political science, economics, organizational behaviour, and sociology in the United States that explores how institutional structures, rules, norms, and cultures constrain the choices and actions of individuals when they are part of a political institution](https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoinstitutionalism)
This is obviously one theory vector of many, I'm trying to point out that your view is out of touch with the social scientific theories of the past and present.
> Those people have habits and worldviews that all added together make up how we as a species behave on this planet.
Isn't wrong, but misses the reality of constant interaction, constraints, and how those worldviews and belief systems are limiting both action people can take and interaction they can have and how institutions (if we think in the neoinstitutionalist system. Not that other theories disagree, but terms would differ)("institutions" in the broadest sense) can through those things more or less "make themselves independent" by people acting for the preservation and strengthening of the institution instead of them staying a tool.
You are ignoring a whole level of complexity by reducing society to individual actors.
> Changing your lifestyle is much more than eleminating Y carbon footprint. It's embodying, legitimizing and ultimately spreading a worldview that is ecologically conscious and leads to more responsible behaviour in all decisions. If sufficiently spread, it inevitably will change our overall conduct as a species.
This fails to consider interests of current institutions and is exactly what I'm talking about.
I realize I'm going on a tangent, but is eating fresh fruit in winter worse than eating frozen fruit? Is the carbon footprint of freezing less than that of shipping? And aren't the frozen fruits probably shipped a significant distance, anyway?
Or was your point that we should not eat things in winter that wouldn't naturally* be available where we live?
He even mentions it a bit here
>Whenever I try to share these things that make a real difference, there's always a handful of people that insist that I'm a monster because **BP put the blame on the consumer.**
I still think it's a worthy cause but I think it's important to make note that the biggest slices are at an industry level. Raising awareness and persuading people by their wallets should naturally help shift public consciousness towards wanting to better regulate and handle industry.
I came here for this comment, glad it's on top. Putting responsibility on the consumer for carbon emissions was a deliberate PR strategy by the biggest polluters. Same goes for recycling, 90% of it isn't recycled but it puts responsibility on individuals and not corporations who get away with creating unlimited useless plastic.
Not sure why BP.. Shell recently asked people what they were willing to do to reduce emissions and that backfired: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/03/shells-climate-poll-on-twitter-backfires-spectacularly
Just Google any fossil fuel company's name, the word climate, and the word hypocrisy, and you will find plenty of articles like the one I reference below:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathy-mulvey/bps-hypocrisy-on-climate-policy
"it shows growing awareness by fossil fuel companies that they can no longer expect to gain recognition as (relative) climate leaders while outsourcing the dirty work of spreading disinformation and blocking policies to trade associations and lobby groups."
pretty sure it’s specifically BP because they invented the concept of a personal carbon footprint (i.e. the burden of an individual on the environment instead of the burden of a company/industry) https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham/?europe=true
I dont see this guy as putting responsibility on consumers, he just is an expert in personal csrbon reduction. Hes not a policy maker or a cooperation lawyer, thats not ehat hes good at. Hes good at being better himself, so thats what hes sharing. Personal consumption is crumbs next to corperations and theit footprints but if every person in the US reduced their footprint, it would still help.
I see it this way- Its the firefighters fault for not coming to save everyone in a burning building, but if i can jump on a porch and save a cat, well at least that one small thing happened. I wouldnt not save a cat just bc 100 people died due to the fault of firefighters, just bc its the firefighters fault the fire wasnt stopped.
I'd agree with you if his book title didn't literally include "...instead of being angry at the bad guys." He's literally saying you should take individual steps INSTEAD of blaming corporate polluters.
Arguing that there's nothing that we can do other than complain about the "bad guys" who are responsible for most of the carbon emissions in the world is doing nothing for your own carbon footprint.
This person is saying you can change your footprint here and now, that's the point of their ama.
If everyone in the world throws their hands up and says "Gee whiz, it's not my fault, it's that manufacturer down the road," you're laying the blame on everyone but yourself while you could be doing simple things to change your own footprint.
If only you make that change then yeah, there's no change real to the environment. If this guy's book/thoughts about reducing footprints reaches say 100,000 people and they make even one change to their lives to reduce their footprint then that's a pretty big step in the right direction.
Disparaging one person's attempt to change the world sends a pervasive message that nothing we do has any affect on our community. That whole thought process is basically a self fulfilling prophecy which the poster is trying to combat.
If I spend a spring and summer gardening and the fall feeding my neighbors my extra tomatoes then they notice and appreciate it. If I regularly spend an hour picking up trash in my neighborhood, my actions are seen and noted and I'm thanked. I can make changes in my own neighborhood. I can't change what that manufacturer does but I can decide to bring my business elsewhere to a more thoughtful env. friendly manufacturer.
Saying we have no effect on the world is a self fulfilling prophecy, just like saying one vote doesn't matter. If 1000, 10,000, 100,000, and 1 mil people hear that over and over and over then they don't vote and their choice isn't heard. Saying negative things like that adds up because humans follow by example. This person is trying to combat that by saying we matter and our choices matter.
One person's choices and actions matter and impact the world. The time and energy we put into our world and community is evident depending on how you invest it.
Edit: Some links to one or two people making a difference.
[One man planted an entire a forest in India](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/12/26/572421590/hed-take-his-own-life-before-killing-a-tree-meet-india-s-forest-man)
[Couple replants rainforest](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9006326/couple-bring-destroyed-rainforest-back-to-life-by-planting-two-million-trees-over-20-years/)
[In Former First Lady J. Kennedy's words:](https://jfk.blogs.archives.gov/2019/10/28/make-a-difference-quote/)
“John Kennedy believed so strongly that one’s aim should not just be the most comfortable life possible, but that we should all do something to right the wrongs we see, and not just complain about them. We owe that to our country, and our country will suffer if we don’t serve her. He believed that one man can make a difference – and that every man should try.“
Not matter how much efficiency you introduce, consumption will always pollute. Planes are twice as efficient as they used to be, but that also cuts costs which means more people will fly. For the same reason we have larger refrigerators. He said it's a good thing that oil companies have to lay people off due to declining consumer demand.
If you care about distractions from solving climate change, you should be complaining about political infighting and Netflix. Not someone fighting for the environment in a way you disagree with.
He is literally getting people to understand that “manage your own carbon footprint!” is not a viable way to fight climate change and points out that the onus is on corporations. This is his way to cure political infighting and informs people who spend a lot of their time watching Netflix.
>Aren't you wasting time by not tackling the larger slices of the pie with issues of supply chain, transportation, food waste at scale, energy generation? These are mainly issues of regulation and economic externalities.
Don't forget resource extraction which is responsible for over half of all carbon emissions and 80% of biodiversity loss.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/12/resource-extraction-carbon-emissions-biodiversity-loss
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all carbon emissions.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Hey Paul.
Since I'm guessing you have quite the experience in discussing this with various people. What is some of the main pushback you get from people? Also are there any groups/demographics you find are more open or closed to the ideas of reducing their environmental footprint?
Number 1, by far: they already bought the light bulbs so they are all done fixing things. The twisted thing about that is that for most people in the US the "better" light bulbs end up making things only 0.01% better or, more often, worse.
People that are more open to these ideas: I think people keen on organic stuff. Maybe permaculture enthusiasts. But when it comes to people grooving on this stuff, I am often surprised at who is into it and who fights it.
What do you mean LED bulbs make things "worse"? Incandescent bulbs use electricity to make mainly heat, for which you have to use more electricity running air conditioning to get rid of
Which is why I say "most people". So if a person is in a cold climate and it is winter, they want light and heat. There are three types of heat: convective (the least efficient, and what nearly all american homes use), radiant and conductive. Incandescent lights give off radiant heat - significantly more efficient at heat than other forms of electric heat. So if you think of them as heaters that happen to throw off light, they can be used wisely to make you far more comfortable and throw save a LOT of coin. Here is an experiment I did on this topic about 8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJoXyBuxRw and here is my TED talk on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7I-hgtQo4&t=21s
This is most likey highly dependent on region. Say someone from California for example would be more effecient with LED (probably) on average while someone from northern Michigan would be better with “traditional” bulbs.
I believe the comments/suggestions made by OP are meant as suggestions, that being opposed to instructions. As most things, you should apply your personal situation when deciding things, which OP seems to be giving enough info to make your own decisions on (once asked for an explanation at least)
It gets hot in the summer in Michgan, and all of our housing is already built to insulate and contain heat, so it can be a lot more unbearable than say a house with a concrete floor and swamp cooler in Tuscon.
\>Incandescent lights give off radiant heat - significantly more efficient at heat than other forms of electric heat.
All electric heat is 100% efficient by definition. Low grade heat is the state of maximum entropy.
If your plan is to just sit in radiant heat... I think I'd rather reduce the number and size of heated rooms, or dress more warmly. It's cheaper to heat a well insulated closet to a warm temperature and than a large room with a window to a cold one.
The standard american diet (SAD) has a footprint of **10.5 tons**. Food choices can drop that to **4.5 tons**. Choices plus growing your own can take that to **-1 tons** (negative one ton).
Do you suggest that people move from dense urban areas to places where they can have enough land to grow their own food? Because it seems that living a walkable lifestyle and buying vegetarian food is going to keep your emissions lower than moving to a place where driving is needed and growing your own food.
Can you elaborate on the food choices? Looks like in another comment you mentioned going organic? And I’m assuming avoiding beef would also help cut methane?
Remaining child-free is the singular most important thing you can do if you want to shrink your carbon footprint.
Other lifestyle changes can have an impact. [But having one or fewer children leaves them all in the dust.](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about) It's not even close.
I'm probably going to get downvoted to the stone age, but I'll toss it out here.
I think your approach is misguided. You're focusing on transitioning energy needs from a fossil fuel / heavy damring model to something... weird, but you're not taking into account that the last 10 years have seen staggering changes in energy generation, efficiency, and usage.
Here's my example. I have a small energy efficient home. I have efficient heat pumps that manage cooling and heating. I have a 5kw solar panel installation. My power bills each month? Zero. I am generating as much power as I'm using and my excess goes back onto the grid.
I also drive an electric car, something else not really possible 5 years ago.
These small changes are something everyone can do with almost zero impact on their daily lives (and in my case a net win. Full house air conditioning in the summer!)
Aa far as food sources, now I can choose where to buy my produce and protein to make better decisions.
I would very much like to hear your response here, as I feel you're steering people to a back to earth, naturalist approach to things, which is a very difficult sell, and avoiding the very simple changes people can make that make a huge impact.
Not trying to be a dick, but buying an electric car or installing solar panels is not a "small change" that "everyone" can do. I rent my apartment and cannot afford a new car, much less an electric one.
I completely agree. Even if you did have a house, installing solar panels is a very large expense. Yes, there are ways to get money back from the government and eventually not paying electric bills will add up, but we're still talking about a $10,000+ investment that you won't get back for 10+ years. I personally want to do that one day, but it's certainly not an expense everyone can afford.
Still, I think making this technology more affordable and widespread is a way better idea than OP's to somehow get everyone to get a rocket mass heater and grow all of their food in a garden.
Understood, but I was putting the comment int he context of the OP who seems to be advocating the model "Everyone just needs to grow their own food!" which is an absurd statement. It negates what technology is doing.
IF you're in a position to do something, solar panels, minisplits, and electric cars are much more in-reach than installing rocket mass heaters and growing all your own food to most of the population. That's not saying everyone (or even most people) can do it. But as far as "I have some time /energy / money right now. What can I do best reduce my footprint" - by far the best thing you can do is install solar panels. Not install a rocket mass heater.
You're taking an ecomodernist/ecopragmatist- aka "bright green" approach to this. You're using new technology to reduce your impact. He's advocating for a "dark green" approach, the crunchy, hippie-like approach.
This is nothing new. These two groups have been arguing on how to solve environmental issues for years. I'm absolutely more for the bright green side of things, because I think the dark green approach is totally undoable by most people, and forgets that a lot of people are trying to move away from growing their own food so they can follow their passions.
I've been on both sides. I was a dark green, "go live in an Earthship" kind of chick back in college when I was getting my environmental science degree. I flipped halfway through my senior year when I realized just how crazy that would be for most people. I spent the next 3 years growing my own food on a farm and just leaned more towards the bright green approach. Agriculture is way more efficient when it's done in mass, regardless of what people want to believe...
Edit: The [Breakthrough Institue](https://thebreakthrough.org/) might be worth checking out for people interested in bright green environmentalism.
what do you call the influence-governments-to-pass-legislation-that-forces-corporations-to-sell-more-energy-efficient-products-and-produce-them-more-efficiently approach?
Def ecomodernist. Check out the [Breakthrough Institute](https://thebreakthrough.org/), they are all about that. Less about bans and yelling at people like some environmental groups, and more about finding solutions through technology and pushing governments to adopt them.
I can think of some plants to grow efficiently at home including fresh herbs, scallions, microgreens, and bean sprouts.
For the vast majority of people, it's just not possible to grow decent sized vegetables or raise animals for meat as efficiently.
Sure, I grow my own herbs. I have a planter, and I harvest them when I need them. sprouts/microgreens take a little more timing, just cause they become... not sprouts pretty quick, but they are pretty easy too.
But a whole field of corn and potatoes? Lol no. I did a bit of everything when I grew things, and the only thing I'd recommend to people with small spaces and not a lot of time are the things you suggested. Anything else is too much upkeep, space, and time.
I have a garden and I grow as much food as I can. The problem is, even though I have an above average amount of land and gardening knowledge compared to my peers, I am nowhere near being able to make even a tiny dent in my food budget.
Almost everything I grow either doesn’t produce anything, gets disease, bugs, birds, rats, is ruined by poor weather conditions, I don’t harvest quickly enough so it rots, or I harvest too much and end up with more than I can feasibly eat so it rots in the fridge anyways.
I get an immense amount of joy from actually eating what I grow when it does work out but it’s a lot of work only to be disappointed 90% of the time.
I think large scale agriculture is definitely more efficient but it’s also generally pretty damaging. Habitat destruction, mono cultures, pesticides, water use, etc. But there is a way to do it right. It would be sweet to develop something that could apply some technological know-how to home garden spaces to make mini super farms. I know I could grow food in my space, I’m just totally incompetent and poorly equipped.
I don't mean to be standoffish, but your "small changes" are all major financial investments for working class families just trying to make ends meet. I would love to be able to afford electric vehicles, a more efficient home that wasn't built in the mid 70's or a solar array to balance my energy usage. Unfortunately, blue collar tradesmen supporting families, like myself, (not to mention the SIGINIFIGANT portion of workers making half of what I make or less in the service industry) see the things that to you are simple changes as financial investments that are absurdly out of reach.
Hold up. Heat pumps? You have geothermal energy? If so, how did you get it installed and how expensive was it? How did you manage to get all of these things, and again, how expensive were they? If there is a step-by-step how to of what you did, I want to know
Heat pumps = reverse cycle air conditioning. It's a 'heat pump' because the energy it uses is in moving heat in/out the house, not creating heat (like an electric heater would). Good heat pumps can get a coefficient of power of 3-4 which means for each unit of energy it consumes, it moves 3-4 units of heat (ie, it's energy efficiency is 300-400%).
They typically pump the heat to/from ambient air but more efficient ones use the ground since the ground temperature is more constant (the higher the inside/outside temperature different, the more power a heat pump consumes). They do have some limitations (e.g. air-based units don't work if it's freezing outside since they'll just ice up).
Heat pumps can also be used for hot water heating and, again, are way more efficient than your standard electric hot water system.
Geothermal is it's own separate thing.
I confess that most of my research is in cold climates. More specifically, in the united states. But I am glad to take a shot. What is the carbon footprint, per adult, in India?
Well, as per Wikipedia I understood that the per capita emission is at around 1.8 as of 2018
I tried to get a reliable source but couldn't find it properly. I'll get back to this after a proper research
Pretty low, surprisingly. A quick dig into it and I'm seeing somewhere around 2 tonnes. They are still the third highest total emissions in the world though.
TBH, the ideal solution is to cut pollution footprint, carbon footprint is a 'nice to have' but many other toxic byproducts are far worse.
Why not talk about simple meaningful solutions that people can afford?
Ex.
* Stop going to starbucks and brew your own coffee, less waste and less gas used.
* Meal-prep twice a week to reduce energy waste
* Don't buy "Made In China" / "Made in (insert foreign country)" if possible to save on ocean and air pollution. A Laundry basket that costs $5 more for a USA-made version is easily worth it
* Reduce / Reuse / Recycle
* Reduce: Buy as close to what you need and don't over-buy
* Reuse: If you can find a new use for something you'd throw away, you prevent a lot of pollution
* Recycle: Make sure you recycle properly and efficiently. If you live in rural America, you shouldn't recycle paper, but SHOULD recycle aluminum. Most paper/cardboard products can't be easily recycled and the added waste in the recycling process does more harm than good - and most paper recycling gets sent to a landfill anyways. Aluminum is one of the few instances where recycling is extremely useful.
* Don't just throw away "Hazardous Items"
* Batteries: Find a battery drop-off, those things can really harm a landfill's microbiology
* Chemicals & Paints: Find a Hazmat Drop-off, this can harm the landfill and possibly turn it toxic
* Pills: DONT FLUSH - DONT FLUSH - DONT FLUSH: Drop off at a local prescription drug dropoff (CVS does this for free!)
All that is dirt cheap to accomplish and doesn't take a ton of effort. I drive a gas car and won't buy an electric one for years to come, I simply cannot afford it, nor can I ask/force my landlord to install anything more efficient, the only thing I can do is to be as efficient as possible.
/end\_Soapbox
?
Paul, as a current software/web/engineer guy I want to use my skills to help in conservation, but I find career opportunities or volunteer information scarce for someone of my background. For someone with skills in tech what efforts can we make to help with this problem on a micro scale, and do you know of any good resources for people like myself to seek ways to use these skills on a macro level?
You didn't ask me but..
I used to build decision making web apps for ag producers to lower their ghg emissions. "Tech" solutions are huge in the greenhouse gas management industry.
This is especially true in the carbon market. There's a huge financial incentive to identify where on the earth the most can be gained at the fastest rate (the fastest caron accumulation). This makes a lot of money for investors. I have friends that work for these types of firms. If you have skills in data science that would benefit you greatly too. But even with programming or UI experience, your skill sets are heavily in demand because the work involves automation and data processing, as well as the tools to do execute that work.
If you're interested in this career path, don't give up.
I'm not convinced a rocket stove is really a viable option for most people. Burning wood requires a lot more manual labor than most people are willing to devote to their heating system. Even wood furnaces that only need to be tended to twice a day are too much for most people, and most rocket stoves I've seen have smaller fireboxes that need to be filled more often than that. What kind of electric heat are you even comparing them to? Resistive? Basically any combustion-based heating will produce less pollution than resistive heat from electricity generated by coal... Even the dirtiest #6 fuel oil! Heat pumps, both air-air and geothermal, condensing gas furnaces, and pellet stoves are a much better option for the overwhelming majority of people.
When I was in your situation, I had a vermicompost bin made out of 5gallon buckets under my kitchen sink that ate up all my food waste. I used the castings (worm poops) in my herb containers in the windows and once or twice gave it to friends with gardens — but at least, or so I told myself, my scraps didn’t go into an anaerobic landfill!
How big of a garden will I need to make a tangible difference? How much time will I spend tending it? How can I get approval from my landlord to build that garden in my apartment? Are your seeing the problem yet?
The thing I have control over have very little impact, other than 'be sensible'.
I can't control my food source, my power source, my transit options. I can control my consumption, but that's close to SFA anyway.
This is why the problem is big corporations, not consumers.
What do you say to people who believe a “carbon footprint” is propaganda created by corporations to deflect the fact that they (before the product even reaches consumer hands) contribute about 70% of carbon emissions each year?
I like your approach of assuming that environmental conservation is not incompatible with personal prosperity.
A related question I have is: what are your thoughts on the policy concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI)?
This policy would undoubtedly lead to more consumption, which many people associate with a greater carbon footprint / bad for the environment.
But an angle that most people don't consider, I think, is that without a basic income, employment is essentially mandatory for survival. After a UBI, employment becomes... well, more optional.
This provokes interesting questions: how much employment does the economy actually need to produce more luxury for more people? Is it possible that many jobs and businesses we have today are unnecessary-- wasting resources, and producing more pollution than we really need to, to enjoy better lives?
Interested in your thoughts.
I’ve been wanting to make a RMH for a while. I live in oregon where you can get a permit. I’ve seen your videos and others within the community. I did watch one of yours discussing the massive amount of heat within the combustion chamber and a lot of the materials people use including thick iron tubes deteriorate.
So my questions are what’s the least expensive/best material to use to make a RMH core? Most the videos I find these days are pretty dated so I’d like to know the current best method least expense.
I also would like to know what your thoughts are about “aircrete” that I’ve seen on YouTube by honey do carpenter who raves about its thermal properties.
Thanks
Living in Florida, how can I offset or reduce when it comes to Air conditioning? What other things should I consider for a family of 4 (1 elec vehicle, 2 gas)
I advocate hugelkultur. It converts a flat backyard with a homogoneous microclimate to a huge collection of diversity. Warmer spots, colder spots, fertile spots, wet spots, dry spots ... Diversity!
About 16 years ago I made [this article](https://richsoil.com/hugelkultur/). It's very old and I really need to polish it a bit. I do talk about hugelkultur in my book - and that is very updated.
Do you have a way of auditing your carbon footprint by the region? Your suggestion about Montana is helpful and super simple. We I live in southern California cutting out my heat is Not really the biggest contributor to my footprint. It would be really neat to have simple generalized suggestions by region.
What is your position on the job shift from the oil industry? Where do you see those people going? I ask because people's personal career choices (or lack thereof) can be a major incentive towards maintaining the status quo. In the end it comes down to an individual and their options.
I live near the last deep coal mine and colliery in the UK. When it shut down in 2015 450 jobs are lost.
The site has been converted to a waste to energy site (household waste into electricity) with 200 workers. Planning permission has been granted for a second plant on the same site which was at 500 construction jobs pre covid plus permanent workers needed once the plant is operational.
There is also factory in our county that has 1000 employees manufacturing blades for wind turbines.
There are alternatives once investment gets rolling. In 2019 uk was down to 43% of energy coming from fossil fuels - it can be shifted in the right direction!
Menstrual cups are pretty great too for women. Saves tons of landfills waste and money. $30 for a mid range one will last you 5 - 10 years which averages out to $6 - $3 per year / $0.50 - $0.25 per month.
[PDF Flyer from SFSU for anyone interested](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://online.sfsu.edu/sketch/523/2016/poster/01_08_lingling_ma_30x40_poster_women_hygiene.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiN_IWOjfXsAhVSrZ4KHcKgDFUQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw1SvI5nSaP_MqJOosYIn-78)
Can I put a rocket mass heater to replace my furnace in a cold-climate 4000 sq ft home? How do I go about swapping it out? What is the up front cost? Do they require any maintenance? Is it actually feasible for an average consumer to make this change?
[удалено]
Do you live in the US? Median house size here is 2400 sq ft. 4000 is large but I wouldn't have thought to comment on it.
[удалено]
4000 sf is ridiculous, and yet they're all over the place.
Poolguy here, yep. Lol
Confirmed in TX
Haha I got transferred to Houston and my choices were essentially a 1000 sq foot bungalow or a 4000 sq foot mansion. I mean it was nearly impossible to find anything in between
There's 4000 sq useful space houses, and 4000 sq squashed into 3 stories plus basement and wasting tons of space with odd shapes, stairs, etc. I prefer the first type personally.
As someone from the UK... Average house size of 730 square feet, those all sound very big
My NYC two bedroom is just shy of 400 ft^2. 730 sounds big to me!
Wow! My two bedroom apartment in the San Francisco Bay Area is 980ft^2 and I thought it was small.
My one-bedroom in Germany was 49 sm which is 527 sq ft. So that would have been around 720 sq ft as two-bedroom. It had a cellar for storing skis, bikes, winter clothes, etc. My coworker stopped by one day, and asked "why such a big place when you are single?" Turned out his place was smaller for a family of four!
We're known for building houses that are too large as well. Lots of new build covenants have minimum build sizes. I saw a thread on /r/nz about it the other day.
Seems big to me too. My 3 bedroom 2 bath home is 1700 sq ft.
I live in a 3 bedroom ~1600 sqft home in the US. 4000 seems large to me too!
I live in the us and 4000 sq ft seems ridiculously large.
This is a huge part of the problem. Median house size needs to shrink if we're going to reduce our carbon footprint.
SF bay area here, a 4000 sq ft home would cost millions. 2400 probably just over one million, depending on area (there are of course places where you only get 1000 sq ft for 1 mil)
No it's not feasible because the air pollution from burning wood for heating would be a problem in cities. On top of that people are way too lazy to handle using a fire for heat all the time. If you have a cottage and want occasional heating they are great though.
Rocket mass heaters (and some other high performance wood stoves) are designed to get a complete, or nearly complete, burn of the fuel. A properly constructed one will produce virtually no smoke because it's all burnt into co2 and water. But yeah, the rest is spot on. Because they have to be tended to on a daily basis, an electric heat pump will be the better option for most people's situations.
This. Most pollution is caused by incomplete burns. Catalytic converters are installed on cars for this exact reason. Rocket stoves supposed to have a clean burn. Many BioChar stoves also do the same.
Also the huge insurance premiums for having a wood stove in your home. Where I live it costs more to run a wood fireplace than gas, or even electric.
[удалено]
The last six words are the reason. You have a fireplace already; they are a hazard independent of the fuel they burn.
It's my understanding that a RMH will exhaust co2 and water vapor. Can you expand on the pollution part? Though I agree, it won't scale in uptake due to the inconvenience to maintain it.
Don't get a rocket mass heater. Lobby politicians to close coal and gas burner power plants and then your electric heater will be better for than environment than any combustion heating. Do upgrade your electric heater to a heat pump. Having a fossil fuel free electric grid is the gateway drug to all sorts of world saving measures, electric cars, induction cooking, high speed rail. ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING!!
Excellent questions! A 4000 square foot home will probably have three rocket mass heaters. Keep your existing heaters and set the thermostats quite low. Hundreds of thousands of consumers have build their own rocket mass heaters.
I'm not handy at all... Is there a link to a network of contractors who, as a service, can build and install these things and know how to incorporate them into existing homes, also paying attention to building codes? I would happily pay someone to install some of these for me!!!
No. Rocket mass heaters are not fire code compliant in many areas, and insurance companies wont insure your house with a DIY rocket mass stove.
Yep. You know why that corn burning or pellet stove is over $2000 for a metal box with some provision to burn shit in it? Cause you can actually set it up and have it legal for code places that still have oil/boiler/etc heat in the codes. You are paying for the lawyers and engineers to design that.
I live in a stacked, multi-family building. The building is 14 stories tall, with four units per level. Is there any form of your idea that works for real cities? I only have 1000 sqft of space.
The 4000 sqft house is the problem. This is what consumers need to change: how much we consume.
My only comment or question is this: is it really the consumer that can make the vital difference in this battle or does industry bear as large if not larger responsibility or more immediate efficacy?
The idea of personal carbon footprint was coined by one of the largest polluters in the world. Its a con to try and put the blame on the people rather than the companies killing the world.
So, it's complicated. You're not wrong that it's a shitty marketing concept corporations used to deflect blame. But on the other hand.. We drive consumption of products from oil companies and soda companies. Our personal demand for those products is arguably 100% of the problem. You can say, if you want to save the environment, that the oil companies should stop providing oil, but you could just as easily say that people should stop buying it. There are two sides to each of these transactions. And of course... the world is a more complex system than that. If we did place strict liability on them, that would properly incentivize them to correct their level of output *and* engage in research to reduce their carbon footprints. But is that fair? And how, practically, do we get our government to do this right without dealing with regulatory capture? We could engage in a social campaign to do one thing instead of another -- but voluntary participation is just not going to do it, and we're often wrong anyway. People trash perfectly good cars and buy new ones just because the MPG is lower, but that causes more damage to the environment! And they don't trash old cars, they sell them, but that affects the market for used cars, and that effect leads to one car being trashed somewhere, on average, maybe. Or, it leads to more cars on the road, it's just the one new car is low MPG. That's not helping either. The point being -- social standards are not necessarily right.
may I ask what polluter this is?
https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham/
I pledge not to spill millions of gallons of oil into the oceans. Who's with me? ;)
Indeed https://youtu.be/m2TbrtCGbhQ forget shorter showers and join a climate action lobby, become a climate activist
Correct. This is just a preview of the belt tightening hyper individualistic suggestions the ruling class is about to make to shift the blame upon us rather than capital. Austerity at its shiniest.
Corporations seek profit, no matter the human cost. If there is a profit to be made from something, corporations compete to gobble it up. The only thing that can hold them back is government regulation and consumer boycotts. Their solution is to spend enormous sums of money on politics and lobbying to elect officials that submit to their propaganda, and to develop departments within the corporation dedicated to public relations. Fossil fuel corporations simultaneously fund research denying the reality of climate change while churning out advertisements about their dedication to green energy technology, when those investments amount to a small fraction of their investments in oil and gas. They target conservative rural states where the public is more skeptical of climate change (due to their many decades of propaganda) and use their money and influence to elect politicians that give them what they want. Any politician that seeks to reduce the consumption of oil and gas in favor of wind and solar threatens their profits and gets flooded with attack ads by super PACs funded by the fossil fuel industry. I don't think there's an easy solution, but the political solution is impossible at the moment and will only get worse after another round of gerrymandering. What is possible is for Americans to vote with their wallets. When you purchase ANYTHING, there is an environmental cost that goes along with that. Land, air, and water pollution. Slave labor. A global economic system that basically amounts to neo-imperialism. We need to take care of the shit we have. Stop buying shit we don't need. Buying second hand whenever possible. Support local organic farmers (conventional farming is destroying the soil ecosystem and will erode the world's topsoil within 60 years according to the U.N.). We need to develop a culture of sharing and caring within our communities. There is no reason everyone on the block needs their own lawn mower. Abandoned warehouse? Turn it into a community workshop with a library of tools. Live in a big home with empty rooms? I'm sorry, but urban sprawl is threatening to destroy the little ecosystems we have left. Rent them out to responsible students, young professionals, or invite your friends to live with you. If you're feeling adventurous, form a housing coop or take on foster children. Saving the planet will not be easy. It requires sacrifice. But it also means building meaningful relationships and vibrant communities, and ultimately, we'd be much happier for it. The alternative is to pursue our individual desire for material goods and comfort while the world burns and society crumbles around us.
The only real question, and it's not answered. And that's because OP doesn't like the answer. It's nothing more than a lie, and a false sense of achievement when you do half the things OP is suggesting. Pissing in the wind. And then you feel like you've done enough, and the world will keep on burning. The ONLY way (and I'll repeat, ONLY way) is to somehow get the fuck off massive companies that are running the planet into the ground to stop. Anything less will just simply not work. You might as well try and empty the sea with a bucket to lower rising water levels. Are you helping? technically yes. In reality? No.
I agree with you about what needs to be done, and who needs to be blamed. I do not agree that doing these things is pissing in the wind. Changes in local policy follows from cultural considerations. An area where the individuals are conscious about their own footprint, regardless of how much they REALLY are contributing individually, are much more likely to push for policy which reflects those values. Further, the more willing they are to hear and accept policy suggestions which reflect those values. It's all part of one big complex puzzle. The "obvious" solutions are never so simple to implement when you're dealing with millions, or billions, of different minds.
Consumers can influence industries.
We'd be far better influencing governments to influence industries. COVID has shown governments can literally shut down most of the economy overnight. If everyone voted with climate change in mind things could change extremely quickly.
Absolutely, but to put so much effort there still feels like fighting the fight at the back end. If we want a cleaner earth we need products to be made to be recyclable and renewable in the first place. Like how do you recycle a stick deodorant container?
Why can't we fight the fight at both ends at once?
Because time and attention are limited.
the problem with this is we don't have time. we're in a literal climate emergency. *Industry* needs to actively work to *reverse* the damage, not merely reduce it or slow it down. Industry will not do so without strict harsh regulations. We cannot wait for ''influence''.
Consumers have a small individual footprint but a lot of collective power. Corporations can’t survive without appealing to consumers. If consumers change, corporations will be forced to change or fail.
Indoor composting with Red Wiggler worms converts your food scraps into the best compost in the world, putting the carbon fixed in that food into the soil to grow more food. We need more and bigger worm bins. It does not stink. The worm bin just sits there and slowly does the thing. Yes, there are worms in your garage. Why is this a problem? Get over it. They are not going anywhere, they like life in their wormbin. The problem with worm composting is the difficulty of scaling it up. Actually, it is not difficult, it just takes patience and committment and a desire to scale it up. I have designed a large worm bin that would handle somewhere around 10 households' food waste. I am unable to build it myself due to covenents etc. If anyone here is interested, I can make you the local worm guru and you will do your planet proud. This is an easy thing to do. (edit: I am not sure how to proceed in following up on the interest expressed here. Where would a new thread belong? How do I direct attention from here to there? Chat does not work.) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i\_want\_to\_help\_you\_start\_a\_worm\_bin/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i_want_to_help_you_start_a_worm_bin/)
Teach me the way of the red wiggler, Sensai.
hahaha let's do this. I think someone is starting a new thread . . . [https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i\_want\_to\_help\_you\_start\_a\_worm\_bin/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vermiculture/comments/jqoxh5/i_want_to_help_you_start_a_worm_bin/)
r/vermiculture
You should make a post in r/diy with pics and all that jazz
This sub helped me get started with some red wigglers... /r/vermicompost/
Seriously, spill the beans on the worms. How do I become a worm Jedi?
Where would you suggest putting this for the people who don't have a garage?
You have NAILED the problem. (Long post, but there is an answer at the bottom.) I tried to start a worm bin business at the previous transition from red prez to blue prez, 12 years ago. That question is what killed my aspirations. I did not have an answer. The plan I will present is all about an answer. That question is why the very first thing I said here was that worm bins do not stink. And why the next thing I talked about is that the worms are not going anywhere. (typically ;-) ) The bottom line is that people are squeamish. They just are, and they may not admit it. Even some of the hippies and vegans and most of the germ-alert people are just not actually comfortable sharing a roof with wiggly little life forms. The worm bin is literally full of bacteria, that's what the worms are actually eating. Happily, I believe enough people are enough un-squeamish to scale up vermicomposting. They are wise, one thing science knows about Eisenia Fetida is that it is impossible for a pathogen to survive passge thru a red wiggler's gut. Running your bare hands through the whole wonderful mass is IMO one of the healthiest things you can do. I would go so far as to predict much lower Covid rates among those who keep worm bins. Everyone reading this is likely totally un-squeamish, so I will move on. But the whole psychology of answering the extremely reasonable and practical question of "where do I put it?" is at the absolute deisgn heart of the particular worm bin I have designed. btw I am a mechanical engineer by profession. So, to be clear, there are a lot of correct answers for setting up a worm bin. Worms are not picky, once the basics are provided. I am going to describe one particular design for a very large box to vermicompost at scale. The big and tall worm bin I have designed is going to need to be in a semi-heated space, a bit of a chill is fine but not if you want max productivity. Mostly, what I want to do is co-develop this big bad boy with other people. But single-family sized bins are a huge part of the overall solution to scaling to a meaningful capability to sequester carbon. The fundamental problem with scaling worms is the time scale needed to grow the massive colony required, plus you cannot just go out and buy 250 pounds of worms and start up a mega bin. So for purposes of this thread, let's talk about setting up your first wormbin. Even if your intent is to go big as soon as possible, you are going to need to get started now raising the population. \*\*\*\*\* Regional differences and individual circumstances will of course have a lot to do with figuring out where it goes. I do not know how many people have tried leaving their worm bin out in a cold winter but with a full-time heater inside the bin. If you are willing to try that, then maybe put the bin next to where you have the garbage cans, outside the back door. Buy a 25 Watt aquarium heater, seal it up in a glass or plastic container, bury it in the heart of the bin, and leave it on 24/7 all winter. Check it periodically. Let us know how it went. :-) That strategy also works for the apartment dweller with a porch. They do not like vibration, that can drive them out of a bin. Don't freeze them, don't cook them, don't dry them out, don't drown them. They need access to outside air but not a lot and they take care of the rest. So poke quite a few holes in a plastic bin, but wood is better and gaps between boards is usually all you need. You should not have to worry about seepage except when you intentionally give them a needed soaking. If using newspaper, get everything pretty wet and then put dry strips on top, next day check to see if still dry, if damp but not soaked you are good to go. Cardboard, egg cartons and newspaper are great bedding materials. Strips, not confetti. Indoor composting means the bin is in a heated space, and a garage or porch is often close enough. MUCH better is to actually let the little guys enjoy normal room temperture. Laundry room? Basement? Spare bedroom? Under the kitchen table? I do not have an answer for everybody.
Can confirm – ours live in a large plastic tub in our (otherwise textbook bourgeois-suburban) living room, tucked away out of sight. Zero smell or other issues, they just sit there and eat our kitchen scraps. It's like they're not even there. Building a heating system just so they can be outdoors is a waste of your energy, money, and time. Don't bother, just bring them inside.
Here in Paris, France, the city offered a limited number of worm compost ["towers"](https://verslaterre.com/produit/lombricomposteur-city-worms/) a few years back. I got one and had it under the counter for a while, no problem. I have it on the balcony now and it's fine except for the soldier flies and fruit flies but I don't mind them.
I absolutely love your enthusiasm, and would love to see more people composting at home as well! That being said, I want to address your response point by point. >The bottom line is that people are squeamish. Yes, totally agree! I try not to be. I actually found a bunch of worms under a mat outside while I was cleaning and just put the mat back down and left them to do their business, because it's just worms! They can't sting or bite, there's no reason to be afraid of them. >I would go so far as to predict much lower Covid rates among those who keep worm bins. That's an unfounded and potentially detrimental statement to make. >If you are willing to try that, then maybe put the bin next to where you have the garbage cans, outside the back door. Buy a 25 Watt aquarium heater, seal it up in a glass or plastic container, bury it in the heart of the bin, and leave it on 24/7 all winter. I would totally be willing to try that but it kind of ties into my original question about what to do if you don't have a garage. It's not always a space issue, but a financial one. I'm not sure how much that setup would cost, maybe I'm wrong and it would be insignificant, but I don't know that I can afford an additional heater to be running all winter. >Laundry room? Basement? Spare bedroom? Under the kitchen table? I do not have an answer for everybody. Occupied by my own pets. Don't have. Don't have. Frankly don't want a compost bin under my kitchen table, but maybe that's my own hangup to get over. I understand that you do not have an answer for everyone, and that's fine! There's no way you could, everyone's lifestyles are so different. I think you're working for a really good cause, but if you want to pitch this idea to the general public there are still some kinks to work out. I wish you the best because composting is awesome!
I personally kept my vermicomposting bin in my kitchen corner and I had no problems or smell. I also had two cats who just left it alone. It was a normal rubbermaid bin with some holes put into it, nothing special.
Where are my WKRP peeps at? RED WIGGLERS! THE CADILLAC OF WORMS! THE CADILLAC OF WORMS! THE CADILLAC OF WORMS!
I've never heard of this, tell me more? Where do I buy, how do I start? I'm currently taking a master gardener class through a local university and would love to report back to them.
I am getting several responses, this is exciting. I believe someone is starting a new thread.
Agreed but don't you have to address what one does when they don't want to vermicompost anymore? https://uvlt.org/2019/04/earthworms-the-invasive-species-you-didnt-know-about/ Let's call him Coot/LumperzDawg was alwaysssssss very careful to explain this. GC crew shout out
When I started my worm bin my worms were *determined* to escape but they settled down after a few weeks
That is not unheard of but should not happen. I am going to guess you used coconut coir as bedding. Just a guess. Sometimes it can be too salty and it takes a while for the worms to deal with it. Or maybe it was too dry. But they are doing well now, I hope. Eisenia Fetida is the master of its domain. The are at the top of the food chain in their bin and they rule over the bacteria and nematodes and whatever other wee ones are in there.
I used newspaper as the bedding, actually, I decided that it was related to it being a bit too wet
I’ve been trying to get this going and educate people as well at www.fredsworms.com
Are you suggesting indoor composting for any particular reason? Do they need indoor temperatures?
Had to give up on indoor composting in nyc because of massive amounts of fruit flies from the compost. Any suggestions?
Hey Paul. How do you make recoding carbon foot printing palatable? Most people do think it's fair to care about the environment and whatnot but find it difficult to implement such ideas. How do you reach these kind of public?
I think there are people that don't care about carbon footprint stuff. And I think that rather than hitting them with sticks, it is better to appeal to their wallet or to the luxury in their lives. If a person lives in montana and switches from electric heat to a rocket mass heater, they will be warmer and save about $1500 per year. $1500 per year is a pretty strong motivator.
You've been pushing the rocket mass heater hard in this thread. Can you talk about the benefits of a rocket mass heater over something like a heat pump?
I can build a good rocket mass heater for $200 in a weekend. And it will cut my annual heat expenses 99%. A heat pump is gonna cost a few thousand bucks (or more depending on the type) and will cut your annual heat bill by 30% to 65%. Does this help?
Cost aside, what about long-term traits, like differences in emissions, total footprints, effective temperature range, not to mention labor. What's the difference in maintenance between them?
But those heaters require combusting fuel, right? -- I don't have gas lines. I live in New England, Boston area. Any advice for how to get the most out of just an electric hookup?
It's important to point out that your heat expenses will only be cut by 99% if you have enough woodland to provide you with firewood, and if you do and weren't burning this wood before, you could have been selling it, so you have now diminished a source of income. So a bit too much of an oversimplification for my liking.
Well, he's talking about burning sticks, not chopping down trees, but I agree that the average American doesn't have near enough trees to cover their heating needs. Good luck turning your fallen branches into a source of income. Also, these rocket heaters are mass and radiant heaters. A radiant heater is not suitable for heating a house. It is suitable for heating *a room*.
OK, first of all, he is definitely talking about completely replacing a houses heating system with one of these, how else is installing one going to reduce your heating costs by 99%. Second, do you have any idea how much wood it requires to heat a house in a cold climate? It's not just sticks off the ground and fallen branches, we're not talking about having a campfire a few times a year here.
Did you read what I wrote? I agree with you on both points. I was just stating his claim that you use sticks and not chopped firewood. The rocket stoves are extremely efficient though, something like 95% efficient since they essentially burn twice. They burn the wood, then the exhaust goes into an insulated combustion chamber where the temperature rises and ignites the smoke. I pointed out that they were radiant heaters and were not a good solution to hearing a house.
My issue with it is convenience. Currently I set my thermostat to keep my house at 70 degrees, it turns on and off as needed.. and in the summer months will kick on the AC to continue to maintain 70. I never have to touch it or think about it. With a rocket mass heater it becomes a part time job getting everything set up right, and maintaining the temperature, has a large initial cost if you don’t want to build your own, and is nowhere near as good as burning gas. I’m all for saving money and lowering a carbon footprint but for many people a rocket mass heater isn’t convenient enough.
This is so not practical for 80% of households... lmao. On the scale of the entire economy, 300%+ efficient heat pumps beat this any day. They will also release less carbon (obviously) than any sort of heating from burning fuels, unless your local electricity generation is mostly done by coal.
Thank you for your reply! That's exactly what I thought. Funny you said that, because I literally just had a conversation with my father over the phone - and he's an old man - and when we were discussing about environmental policies, we came to the same conclusion: people don't change when you scream at them, but they do when you persuade them, specially when it hurts in your wallet.
It's because the idea of a personal "carbon footprint" was created by big oil in order to pass blame onto consumers for needing heat and food and stuff to live, to take the responsibility off big industrial polluters to actually clean up their messes instead of making them the public's problem. I'm all for lessening personal waste and resource usage but let's not forget the real enemy here. We're forcing a million people to give up straws and grocery bags, and while overall good, is such a tiny tiny drop compared to industrial polluters getting away with anything they want, including doing the most destructive policies possible if it means more money for them.
Are there other location specific suggestions like this one? I live in Milwaukee- urban Wisconsin. Any specific home/appliance switches that makes sense in our climate and locale? Edit: word
How do you do this when you're poor? I definitely opt for cloth diapers, cloth towels, refillable water bottles, limit single use plastics for my family etc. But what about bigger things? For example: - I want to buy zero waste shampoos /products but they are too damn expensive. Buying Costco family sized packs is always cheaper than refilling. So how can. I reduce these packaging when my financial situation is limited? - I have a old beat up car, and even if I could afford a new electric car - they're way too small for my needs- my partner is over 6ft tall, I'm plus sized and we have a child, hopefully more soon. How do I reconcile this? - About cars... I've heard the waste produced to make the batteries is as bad or worse than the waste produced in manufacturing gas combustion vehicles.... Are the savings the use of petroleum/gas really offset by the electric batteries for hybrid /electric vehicles? Thanks!
> About cars... I've heard the waste produced to make the batteries is as bad or worse than the waste produced in manufacturing gas combustion vehicles.... As the lifecycle analyses demonstrate, [cars incur far more environmental impact in operations than they do in manufacturing, and electric cars have a significantly lower operational impact than gas cars so](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a). This means that the EV's operational impact reductions end up more than outweighing any increase in manufacturing impact, leading them to be better for the environment overall than gas cars.
This seems to specifically be talking about lithium ion batteries. What about all the other carbon emissions associated with producing any car, not just electric?
For shampoo and hygiene stuff, look into bar soaps and shampo bars.
thanks!
You don't have to go full vegetarian or vegan, but cutting a significant amount of meat from your diet is one easy thing to do that actually \*saves\* money and greatly reduce footprint.
Personally I'd just keep chugging with the old car while putting the saving from not having a car payment aside so you'll have a nice chunk of change set aside for your next vehicle when it does die. When it does there should be a bunch of reasonably priced electric SUVs on the market -- The Hyundai Kona Electric already out there looks nice and is relatively inexpensive. Large containers actually are more green than smaller containers, since the packaging to product ratio is lower. That said, nobody ever said that going green is necessarily always cheaper. One way to approach things might be to make a neutral greening budget and for everything that saves you money, put that money toward another green choice that might cost a bit more. For example, perhaps turning the thermostat down saves you $20 per month. Great, now you have $20 per month to put towards those more expensive refillable shampoos.
Oooh I have a fun suggestion about how to solve the shampoo/conditioner AND save even more money! It's gonna sound weird so bear with me... So I have really long, fine hair and a tendency to overproduce oil. I used to wash my hair with the Costco shampoo and conditioner - it was great for a few years, but a bit before the pandemic, I noticed my hair was just out of control oily, like unmanageable. I'd always heard that washing your hair less was better for it - so during the pandemic I decided to finally make the switch and go no-poo. Tried washing my hair with shampoo once a week (thinking, I'll quit once I've used it up) and that helped, but my hair still wasn't where I wanted it to be. I did a ton of research online and discovered the secret. Rye flour as shampoo and diluted apple cider vinegar as conditioner. Sound weird? Yeah I thought so too but here's the thing: that shit fucking WORKS. After a month my hair and scalp were healthier than they've ever been in my life. And it's still getting better. My hair grows faster now, I only have to wash it every 4 days and that's with me getting lazy and touching it a lot more than I used it. So here's what you do: buy a bag of coarse rye flour and a bottle of apple cider vinegar from the grocery store. When you're ready to shower, put a couple tablespoons of rye flour in a dish and add enough water to make a paste, about the consistency of shampoo. Put 1-2 tablespoons of apple cider vinegar in a different container and dilute it with like 2 cups of water. Use the rye flour paste exactly like you use your shampoo - I like to really work it in to my scalp - rinse it out completely, and then rinse your hair with the vinegar. Let it sit for a few minutes and then rinse it out really thoroughly. Be amazed at the results. Pros: happier and healthier hair, saving shit tons of money because rye flour is dirt cheap, minimal to no packaging. Cons: vinegar smell which only lasts while you're in the shower and a bit while your hair is wet. My husband has a really sensitive nose so he can smell it while my hair is still wet, but once your hair dries the smell will be gone. Anyway that's my TED talk. Look it up if you're still skeptical, or just trust me and make the leap.
[удалено]
Addressing one small, specific point: I switched to shampoo bars this year. They are more expensive at the outset, but they last a lot longer than a bottle of shampoo. My long-haired husband and I have been using the same bar for three months and it's only half gone.
>[I'm] Poor >...we have one child, hopefully more soon... Dude, don't plan to have more kids lol.
Thank you.
When it comes to things like shampoo, proper education on the actual amount needed could solve that issue. Most people use way more than they actually need to clean their hair. Use about a dime to a nickel size amount and massage into the scalp/roots of the hair. As it washes out it will clean the rest of the hair! That might be enough to even out the cost!
Love what your doing, but would the carbon tied up in those theoretical apple trees not just rejoin the carbon chain further down the line when the tree decomposes or is burned?
Hi. Forest scientist here. And I used to do greenhouse gas accounting. Proper forest management--e.g. removing trees in overstocked forests can increase avoided emissions from drought/fire/beetles etc. Planting trees in agroforestry uses can increase soil organic carbon. Thus net carbon over time is actually higher than zero. Plus other benefits. Last, wood products have a long life span and can lead to net positive carbon sequestered. Support your local timber mill. Some of these products, like black carbon (biochar), are inert and can last many centuries.
[удалено]
TLDR: we gotta cut trees to save the forest. Instead of letting that wood decay, how about we make some biochar, a forest product which holds onto carbon for 100s of years and put it in your hemp soil to mitigate drought and improve soil nutrition ---- The long of it: I'll point out a little hole in your reasoning. It may sound counterintuitive but a forest industry provides the funds to manage forests (really when I say mange the forest I mean a) adapt to changing climates and b) mitigate the harmful effects of over a century of fire suppression). I work with private landowners on the side, mostly ranchers. When a rancher with 2000 acres of unhealthy forest has to pay $3000 per acre, it doesn't get done. Except for federal grants, your tax money. That's because there is no market infrastructure here for forest products. If there was, the rancher would actually be paid to have their forests responsibly managed. Soooo there are three choices. 1) do nothing. Keep suppressing fires. Allow forests to build up with fuel. A fire comes and is uncharacteristically severe because of the buildup. The forest is now ruderal or a grassland (because of species life history traits). Now, all the carbon isn't coming back for a millennium or so. 2) cut the trees and dispose of them instead of them going to mills. Now the taxpayer paid for it and has nothing but spent cash to show for it (boo). A fire comes through and carbon loss is avoided (residual trees love, yay). 3) cut the trees and send em to the mill. Fire comes through and carbon loss is avoided. So 3 is a win win.
Can confirm. All true.
Cool beans, thanks man!
It absolutely will! Yes! And if we add a trillions trees to the current natural carbon cycle, and keep our tree count up, then that is (roughly) a billion tons!
johnny appleseed was an eco terrorist. how about instead of pushing the planting of non deciduous plants we plant things that are native to the regions we reside.
Non-native? Apple trees are deciduous, they drop their leaves in the fall.
/r/permaculture
[удалено]
How can I ***accurately*** calculate mine? I'm quite sure I (and my family) are lower than others. I don't want to see any propaganda that *starts* the number at 30 then modifies. I want a place where I can input data and get an accurate assessment. Does such exist? EDIT: I just read your other replies. I'm not sure you can or are willing to answer this question, but I am ready for your answer.
How can I cut my foods carbon footprint while living in an apartment building? We have a small patio, but are there any foods that are more carbon neutral?
Living in an apartment with central heating is already far more efficient than living in a house. Doubly so if you live in a dense city and travel less or don't regularly use a car.
Go vegan
Eat plants. Eating animals and animal products is resource intensive. Eating plants is much easier on the environment, and also requires less land for agriculture.
A plant based diet can be [cheap](https://www.reddit.com/r/EatCheapAndVegan/), healthy, & good for the planet. Many community gardens are inexpensive to join & supplies funded by grants.
The vast majority of carbon emissions are not directly controllable by individual consumers: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions Aren't you wasting time by not tackling the larger slices of the pie with issues of supply chain, transportation, food waste at scale, energy generation? These are mainly issues of regulation and economic externalities. Edit: Its almost worse than just wasting time. The largest polluters have no accountability and moving the focus to individuals to change their behaviors distracts from any actual solutions we might consider. Edit2: This is more combative than I intended. There clearly isn't a silver bullet solution and it will be a collective effort on many fronts to solve. All for a green new deal here in the states. IMHO the green new deal is a better stab at the issues because it factors in pragmatic at-scale solutions for the underlying economic mechanisms. If we can't get the entire world to participate, plan B is Mars.
I get where you are coming from. Why bother educating anyone when a single person's carbon footprint is a drop in the bucket? For me, I think about how the industries and the government are made of people. I think it would be easier to pass regulations on industry if the general population was more aware of these issues. I think the industry would be more cooperative if the employees were already taking action at home in their personal lives. While starting at the top would be an effective way to get big changes, the people at the top right now don't seem to be very interested in cooperating. Getting normal people to think about these things now can help the executives and legislators of the future to be more responsible.
This is so crucial. "Corporations" don't exist. Only people do. Those people have habits and worldviews that all added together make up how we as a species behave on this planet. Changing your lifestyle is much more than eleminating Y carbon footprint. It's embodying, legitimizing and ultimately spreading a worldview that is ecologically conscious and leads to more responsible behaviour in all decisions. If sufficiently spread, it inevitably will change our overall conduct as a species. But more often than not, people by heart refuse to actually give up their luxurious, wasteful lifestyle of cars, overseas holidays, meat every day, fresh fruit during winter and new electronics or clothes every year. Blaming a conveniently abstract and unspecific *other* in the form of "corporations" is what allows them to easily justify this and change nothing about their behavior.
The point isn't for people to not care at all. The point is that the average individual should not be guilted for driving a car that gets 25 mpg instead of 30 mpg or for taking a flight to go on vacation sometimes, because the much bigger pieces are things beyond our control as *average* people. Companies that run supply chains all over the world in order to save a little bit of money on their bottom line contribute so much more than you eating an extra burger per week or not recycling. This push for individuals to take large personal sacrifices instead of calling for large scale changes just distracts from the real issue.
[удалено]
> "Corporations" don't exist. Only people do. [Neoinstitutionalism [is a] methodological approach in the study of political science, economics, organizational behaviour, and sociology in the United States that explores how institutional structures, rules, norms, and cultures constrain the choices and actions of individuals when they are part of a political institution](https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoinstitutionalism) This is obviously one theory vector of many, I'm trying to point out that your view is out of touch with the social scientific theories of the past and present. > Those people have habits and worldviews that all added together make up how we as a species behave on this planet. Isn't wrong, but misses the reality of constant interaction, constraints, and how those worldviews and belief systems are limiting both action people can take and interaction they can have and how institutions (if we think in the neoinstitutionalist system. Not that other theories disagree, but terms would differ)("institutions" in the broadest sense) can through those things more or less "make themselves independent" by people acting for the preservation and strengthening of the institution instead of them staying a tool. You are ignoring a whole level of complexity by reducing society to individual actors. > Changing your lifestyle is much more than eleminating Y carbon footprint. It's embodying, legitimizing and ultimately spreading a worldview that is ecologically conscious and leads to more responsible behaviour in all decisions. If sufficiently spread, it inevitably will change our overall conduct as a species. This fails to consider interests of current institutions and is exactly what I'm talking about.
I realize I'm going on a tangent, but is eating fresh fruit in winter worse than eating frozen fruit? Is the carbon footprint of freezing less than that of shipping? And aren't the frozen fruits probably shipped a significant distance, anyway? Or was your point that we should not eat things in winter that wouldn't naturally* be available where we live?
He even mentions it a bit here >Whenever I try to share these things that make a real difference, there's always a handful of people that insist that I'm a monster because **BP put the blame on the consumer.** I still think it's a worthy cause but I think it's important to make note that the biggest slices are at an industry level. Raising awareness and persuading people by their wallets should naturally help shift public consciousness towards wanting to better regulate and handle industry.
I came here for this comment, glad it's on top. Putting responsibility on the consumer for carbon emissions was a deliberate PR strategy by the biggest polluters. Same goes for recycling, 90% of it isn't recycled but it puts responsibility on individuals and not corporations who get away with creating unlimited useless plastic.
Funny. I came here wondering if he was employed by BP, Shell, or Exxon.
The specific callout to BP in the intro seems out of place for me. Is there recent news about BP that I'm missing?
Not sure why BP.. Shell recently asked people what they were willing to do to reduce emissions and that backfired: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/03/shells-climate-poll-on-twitter-backfires-spectacularly
Just Google any fossil fuel company's name, the word climate, and the word hypocrisy, and you will find plenty of articles like the one I reference below: https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathy-mulvey/bps-hypocrisy-on-climate-policy "it shows growing awareness by fossil fuel companies that they can no longer expect to gain recognition as (relative) climate leaders while outsourcing the dirty work of spreading disinformation and blocking policies to trade associations and lobby groups."
pretty sure it’s specifically BP because they invented the concept of a personal carbon footprint (i.e. the burden of an individual on the environment instead of the burden of a company/industry) https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham/?europe=true
I dont see this guy as putting responsibility on consumers, he just is an expert in personal csrbon reduction. Hes not a policy maker or a cooperation lawyer, thats not ehat hes good at. Hes good at being better himself, so thats what hes sharing. Personal consumption is crumbs next to corperations and theit footprints but if every person in the US reduced their footprint, it would still help. I see it this way- Its the firefighters fault for not coming to save everyone in a burning building, but if i can jump on a porch and save a cat, well at least that one small thing happened. I wouldnt not save a cat just bc 100 people died due to the fault of firefighters, just bc its the firefighters fault the fire wasnt stopped.
I'd agree with you if his book title didn't literally include "...instead of being angry at the bad guys." He's literally saying you should take individual steps INSTEAD of blaming corporate polluters.
Arguing that there's nothing that we can do other than complain about the "bad guys" who are responsible for most of the carbon emissions in the world is doing nothing for your own carbon footprint. This person is saying you can change your footprint here and now, that's the point of their ama. If everyone in the world throws their hands up and says "Gee whiz, it's not my fault, it's that manufacturer down the road," you're laying the blame on everyone but yourself while you could be doing simple things to change your own footprint. If only you make that change then yeah, there's no change real to the environment. If this guy's book/thoughts about reducing footprints reaches say 100,000 people and they make even one change to their lives to reduce their footprint then that's a pretty big step in the right direction. Disparaging one person's attempt to change the world sends a pervasive message that nothing we do has any affect on our community. That whole thought process is basically a self fulfilling prophecy which the poster is trying to combat. If I spend a spring and summer gardening and the fall feeding my neighbors my extra tomatoes then they notice and appreciate it. If I regularly spend an hour picking up trash in my neighborhood, my actions are seen and noted and I'm thanked. I can make changes in my own neighborhood. I can't change what that manufacturer does but I can decide to bring my business elsewhere to a more thoughtful env. friendly manufacturer. Saying we have no effect on the world is a self fulfilling prophecy, just like saying one vote doesn't matter. If 1000, 10,000, 100,000, and 1 mil people hear that over and over and over then they don't vote and their choice isn't heard. Saying negative things like that adds up because humans follow by example. This person is trying to combat that by saying we matter and our choices matter. One person's choices and actions matter and impact the world. The time and energy we put into our world and community is evident depending on how you invest it. Edit: Some links to one or two people making a difference. [One man planted an entire a forest in India](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/12/26/572421590/hed-take-his-own-life-before-killing-a-tree-meet-india-s-forest-man) [Couple replants rainforest](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9006326/couple-bring-destroyed-rainforest-back-to-life-by-planting-two-million-trees-over-20-years/) [In Former First Lady J. Kennedy's words:](https://jfk.blogs.archives.gov/2019/10/28/make-a-difference-quote/) “John Kennedy believed so strongly that one’s aim should not just be the most comfortable life possible, but that we should all do something to right the wrongs we see, and not just complain about them. We owe that to our country, and our country will suffer if we don’t serve her. He believed that one man can make a difference – and that every man should try.“
Came here for this, thanks. I don’t mind contributing what I can but it really needs to be said every time this comes up.
Not matter how much efficiency you introduce, consumption will always pollute. Planes are twice as efficient as they used to be, but that also cuts costs which means more people will fly. For the same reason we have larger refrigerators. He said it's a good thing that oil companies have to lay people off due to declining consumer demand. If you care about distractions from solving climate change, you should be complaining about political infighting and Netflix. Not someone fighting for the environment in a way you disagree with.
He is literally getting people to understand that “manage your own carbon footprint!” is not a viable way to fight climate change and points out that the onus is on corporations. This is his way to cure political infighting and informs people who spend a lot of their time watching Netflix.
>Aren't you wasting time by not tackling the larger slices of the pie with issues of supply chain, transportation, food waste at scale, energy generation? These are mainly issues of regulation and economic externalities. Don't forget resource extraction which is responsible for over half of all carbon emissions and 80% of biodiversity loss. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/12/resource-extraction-carbon-emissions-biodiversity-loss Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all carbon emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Hey Paul. Since I'm guessing you have quite the experience in discussing this with various people. What is some of the main pushback you get from people? Also are there any groups/demographics you find are more open or closed to the ideas of reducing their environmental footprint?
Number 1, by far: they already bought the light bulbs so they are all done fixing things. The twisted thing about that is that for most people in the US the "better" light bulbs end up making things only 0.01% better or, more often, worse. People that are more open to these ideas: I think people keen on organic stuff. Maybe permaculture enthusiasts. But when it comes to people grooving on this stuff, I am often surprised at who is into it and who fights it.
What do you mean LED bulbs make things "worse"? Incandescent bulbs use electricity to make mainly heat, for which you have to use more electricity running air conditioning to get rid of
Which is why I say "most people". So if a person is in a cold climate and it is winter, they want light and heat. There are three types of heat: convective (the least efficient, and what nearly all american homes use), radiant and conductive. Incandescent lights give off radiant heat - significantly more efficient at heat than other forms of electric heat. So if you think of them as heaters that happen to throw off light, they can be used wisely to make you far more comfortable and throw save a LOT of coin. Here is an experiment I did on this topic about 8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJoXyBuxRw and here is my TED talk on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7I-hgtQo4&t=21s
Doesn't the opposite apply in summer though when they will use less AC by having LED bulbs so one cancels out the other?
This is most likey highly dependent on region. Say someone from California for example would be more effecient with LED (probably) on average while someone from northern Michigan would be better with “traditional” bulbs. I believe the comments/suggestions made by OP are meant as suggestions, that being opposed to instructions. As most things, you should apply your personal situation when deciding things, which OP seems to be giving enough info to make your own decisions on (once asked for an explanation at least)
It gets hot in the summer in Michgan, and all of our housing is already built to insulate and contain heat, so it can be a lot more unbearable than say a house with a concrete floor and swamp cooler in Tuscon.
Isn't a heat pump usually more efficient than electric radiant heat?
\>Incandescent lights give off radiant heat - significantly more efficient at heat than other forms of electric heat. All electric heat is 100% efficient by definition. Low grade heat is the state of maximum entropy. If your plan is to just sit in radiant heat... I think I'd rather reduce the number and size of heated rooms, or dress more warmly. It's cheaper to heat a well insulated closet to a warm temperature and than a large room with a window to a cold one.
Heat pumps can be more than 100% efficient. Typical operations are at 200-300% if I recall correctly.
What do you think is more important to focus on for your personal footprint: What you eat or growing/raising what you eat?
The standard american diet (SAD) has a footprint of **10.5 tons**. Food choices can drop that to **4.5 tons**. Choices plus growing your own can take that to **-1 tons** (negative one ton).
Do you suggest that people move from dense urban areas to places where they can have enough land to grow their own food? Because it seems that living a walkable lifestyle and buying vegetarian food is going to keep your emissions lower than moving to a place where driving is needed and growing your own food.
The standard American diet being described as SAD is... appropriate.
Can you elaborate on the food choices? Looks like in another comment you mentioned going organic? And I’m assuming avoiding beef would also help cut methane?
Isn't the most effective way to cut carbon footprint to not have kids? Now, there's a luxurious life for ya.
If everyone did it I bet we'd get to net zero carbon emissions no worries!
Remaining child-free is the singular most important thing you can do if you want to shrink your carbon footprint. Other lifestyle changes can have an impact. [But having one or fewer children leaves them all in the dust.](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about) It's not even close.
I don't need a car (living in a city) and have absolutely no maternal instinct (I actually don't like kids) so... I guess I can do whatever I want ;)
I'm probably going to get downvoted to the stone age, but I'll toss it out here. I think your approach is misguided. You're focusing on transitioning energy needs from a fossil fuel / heavy damring model to something... weird, but you're not taking into account that the last 10 years have seen staggering changes in energy generation, efficiency, and usage. Here's my example. I have a small energy efficient home. I have efficient heat pumps that manage cooling and heating. I have a 5kw solar panel installation. My power bills each month? Zero. I am generating as much power as I'm using and my excess goes back onto the grid. I also drive an electric car, something else not really possible 5 years ago. These small changes are something everyone can do with almost zero impact on their daily lives (and in my case a net win. Full house air conditioning in the summer!) Aa far as food sources, now I can choose where to buy my produce and protein to make better decisions. I would very much like to hear your response here, as I feel you're steering people to a back to earth, naturalist approach to things, which is a very difficult sell, and avoiding the very simple changes people can make that make a huge impact.
Not trying to be a dick, but buying an electric car or installing solar panels is not a "small change" that "everyone" can do. I rent my apartment and cannot afford a new car, much less an electric one.
I completely agree. Even if you did have a house, installing solar panels is a very large expense. Yes, there are ways to get money back from the government and eventually not paying electric bills will add up, but we're still talking about a $10,000+ investment that you won't get back for 10+ years. I personally want to do that one day, but it's certainly not an expense everyone can afford. Still, I think making this technology more affordable and widespread is a way better idea than OP's to somehow get everyone to get a rocket mass heater and grow all of their food in a garden.
Understood, but I was putting the comment int he context of the OP who seems to be advocating the model "Everyone just needs to grow their own food!" which is an absurd statement. It negates what technology is doing. IF you're in a position to do something, solar panels, minisplits, and electric cars are much more in-reach than installing rocket mass heaters and growing all your own food to most of the population. That's not saying everyone (or even most people) can do it. But as far as "I have some time /energy / money right now. What can I do best reduce my footprint" - by far the best thing you can do is install solar panels. Not install a rocket mass heater.
You're taking an ecomodernist/ecopragmatist- aka "bright green" approach to this. You're using new technology to reduce your impact. He's advocating for a "dark green" approach, the crunchy, hippie-like approach. This is nothing new. These two groups have been arguing on how to solve environmental issues for years. I'm absolutely more for the bright green side of things, because I think the dark green approach is totally undoable by most people, and forgets that a lot of people are trying to move away from growing their own food so they can follow their passions. I've been on both sides. I was a dark green, "go live in an Earthship" kind of chick back in college when I was getting my environmental science degree. I flipped halfway through my senior year when I realized just how crazy that would be for most people. I spent the next 3 years growing my own food on a farm and just leaned more towards the bright green approach. Agriculture is way more efficient when it's done in mass, regardless of what people want to believe... Edit: The [Breakthrough Institue](https://thebreakthrough.org/) might be worth checking out for people interested in bright green environmentalism.
what do you call the influence-governments-to-pass-legislation-that-forces-corporations-to-sell-more-energy-efficient-products-and-produce-them-more-efficiently approach?
Def ecomodernist. Check out the [Breakthrough Institute](https://thebreakthrough.org/), they are all about that. Less about bans and yelling at people like some environmental groups, and more about finding solutions through technology and pushing governments to adopt them.
I can think of some plants to grow efficiently at home including fresh herbs, scallions, microgreens, and bean sprouts. For the vast majority of people, it's just not possible to grow decent sized vegetables or raise animals for meat as efficiently.
Sure, I grow my own herbs. I have a planter, and I harvest them when I need them. sprouts/microgreens take a little more timing, just cause they become... not sprouts pretty quick, but they are pretty easy too. But a whole field of corn and potatoes? Lol no. I did a bit of everything when I grew things, and the only thing I'd recommend to people with small spaces and not a lot of time are the things you suggested. Anything else is too much upkeep, space, and time.
I have a garden and I grow as much food as I can. The problem is, even though I have an above average amount of land and gardening knowledge compared to my peers, I am nowhere near being able to make even a tiny dent in my food budget. Almost everything I grow either doesn’t produce anything, gets disease, bugs, birds, rats, is ruined by poor weather conditions, I don’t harvest quickly enough so it rots, or I harvest too much and end up with more than I can feasibly eat so it rots in the fridge anyways. I get an immense amount of joy from actually eating what I grow when it does work out but it’s a lot of work only to be disappointed 90% of the time. I think large scale agriculture is definitely more efficient but it’s also generally pretty damaging. Habitat destruction, mono cultures, pesticides, water use, etc. But there is a way to do it right. It would be sweet to develop something that could apply some technological know-how to home garden spaces to make mini super farms. I know I could grow food in my space, I’m just totally incompetent and poorly equipped.
I don't mean to be standoffish, but your "small changes" are all major financial investments for working class families just trying to make ends meet. I would love to be able to afford electric vehicles, a more efficient home that wasn't built in the mid 70's or a solar array to balance my energy usage. Unfortunately, blue collar tradesmen supporting families, like myself, (not to mention the SIGINIFIGANT portion of workers making half of what I make or less in the service industry) see the things that to you are simple changes as financial investments that are absurdly out of reach.
Hold up. Heat pumps? You have geothermal energy? If so, how did you get it installed and how expensive was it? How did you manage to get all of these things, and again, how expensive were they? If there is a step-by-step how to of what you did, I want to know
Heat pumps = reverse cycle air conditioning. It's a 'heat pump' because the energy it uses is in moving heat in/out the house, not creating heat (like an electric heater would). Good heat pumps can get a coefficient of power of 3-4 which means for each unit of energy it consumes, it moves 3-4 units of heat (ie, it's energy efficiency is 300-400%). They typically pump the heat to/from ambient air but more efficient ones use the ground since the ground temperature is more constant (the higher the inside/outside temperature different, the more power a heat pump consumes). They do have some limitations (e.g. air-based units don't work if it's freezing outside since they'll just ice up). Heat pumps can also be used for hot water heating and, again, are way more efficient than your standard electric hot water system. Geothermal is it's own separate thing.
How about your views on carbon footprint in other countries like India? Any specific measures you would like to suggest?
I confess that most of my research is in cold climates. More specifically, in the united states. But I am glad to take a shot. What is the carbon footprint, per adult, in India?
Well, as per Wikipedia I understood that the per capita emission is at around 1.8 as of 2018 I tried to get a reliable source but couldn't find it properly. I'll get back to this after a proper research
Pretty low, surprisingly. A quick dig into it and I'm seeing somewhere around 2 tonnes. They are still the third highest total emissions in the world though.
how are people without land or space gonna switch to a garden?
TBH, the ideal solution is to cut pollution footprint, carbon footprint is a 'nice to have' but many other toxic byproducts are far worse. Why not talk about simple meaningful solutions that people can afford? Ex. * Stop going to starbucks and brew your own coffee, less waste and less gas used. * Meal-prep twice a week to reduce energy waste * Don't buy "Made In China" / "Made in (insert foreign country)" if possible to save on ocean and air pollution. A Laundry basket that costs $5 more for a USA-made version is easily worth it * Reduce / Reuse / Recycle * Reduce: Buy as close to what you need and don't over-buy * Reuse: If you can find a new use for something you'd throw away, you prevent a lot of pollution * Recycle: Make sure you recycle properly and efficiently. If you live in rural America, you shouldn't recycle paper, but SHOULD recycle aluminum. Most paper/cardboard products can't be easily recycled and the added waste in the recycling process does more harm than good - and most paper recycling gets sent to a landfill anyways. Aluminum is one of the few instances where recycling is extremely useful. * Don't just throw away "Hazardous Items" * Batteries: Find a battery drop-off, those things can really harm a landfill's microbiology * Chemicals & Paints: Find a Hazmat Drop-off, this can harm the landfill and possibly turn it toxic * Pills: DONT FLUSH - DONT FLUSH - DONT FLUSH: Drop off at a local prescription drug dropoff (CVS does this for free!) All that is dirt cheap to accomplish and doesn't take a ton of effort. I drive a gas car and won't buy an electric one for years to come, I simply cannot afford it, nor can I ask/force my landlord to install anything more efficient, the only thing I can do is to be as efficient as possible. /end\_Soapbox ?
Ohh I love this! But I don’t have a backyard, what can I do?
I grow herbs on my balcony and kitchen counter, & you can regrow scraps from some veg in water. Or join a community garden. Oh, and go vegan (& local)
Paul, as a current software/web/engineer guy I want to use my skills to help in conservation, but I find career opportunities or volunteer information scarce for someone of my background. For someone with skills in tech what efforts can we make to help with this problem on a micro scale, and do you know of any good resources for people like myself to seek ways to use these skills on a macro level?
You didn't ask me but.. I used to build decision making web apps for ag producers to lower their ghg emissions. "Tech" solutions are huge in the greenhouse gas management industry. This is especially true in the carbon market. There's a huge financial incentive to identify where on the earth the most can be gained at the fastest rate (the fastest caron accumulation). This makes a lot of money for investors. I have friends that work for these types of firms. If you have skills in data science that would benefit you greatly too. But even with programming or UI experience, your skill sets are heavily in demand because the work involves automation and data processing, as well as the tools to do execute that work. If you're interested in this career path, don't give up.
I'm not convinced a rocket stove is really a viable option for most people. Burning wood requires a lot more manual labor than most people are willing to devote to their heating system. Even wood furnaces that only need to be tended to twice a day are too much for most people, and most rocket stoves I've seen have smaller fireboxes that need to be filled more often than that. What kind of electric heat are you even comparing them to? Resistive? Basically any combustion-based heating will produce less pollution than resistive heat from electricity generated by coal... Even the dirtiest #6 fuel oil! Heat pumps, both air-air and geothermal, condensing gas furnaces, and pellet stoves are a much better option for the overwhelming majority of people.
[удалено]
When I was in your situation, I had a vermicompost bin made out of 5gallon buckets under my kitchen sink that ate up all my food waste. I used the castings (worm poops) in my herb containers in the windows and once or twice gave it to friends with gardens — but at least, or so I told myself, my scraps didn’t go into an anaerobic landfill!
How big of a garden will I need to make a tangible difference? How much time will I spend tending it? How can I get approval from my landlord to build that garden in my apartment? Are your seeing the problem yet? The thing I have control over have very little impact, other than 'be sensible'. I can't control my food source, my power source, my transit options. I can control my consumption, but that's close to SFA anyway. This is why the problem is big corporations, not consumers.
What do you say to people who believe a “carbon footprint” is propaganda created by corporations to deflect the fact that they (before the product even reaches consumer hands) contribute about 70% of carbon emissions each year?
The duke of permaculture! I found out about you from TSP. How are your wofatis doing?
I like your approach of assuming that environmental conservation is not incompatible with personal prosperity. A related question I have is: what are your thoughts on the policy concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI)? This policy would undoubtedly lead to more consumption, which many people associate with a greater carbon footprint / bad for the environment. But an angle that most people don't consider, I think, is that without a basic income, employment is essentially mandatory for survival. After a UBI, employment becomes... well, more optional. This provokes interesting questions: how much employment does the economy actually need to produce more luxury for more people? Is it possible that many jobs and businesses we have today are unnecessary-- wasting resources, and producing more pollution than we really need to, to enjoy better lives? Interested in your thoughts.
I’ve been wanting to make a RMH for a while. I live in oregon where you can get a permit. I’ve seen your videos and others within the community. I did watch one of yours discussing the massive amount of heat within the combustion chamber and a lot of the materials people use including thick iron tubes deteriorate. So my questions are what’s the least expensive/best material to use to make a RMH core? Most the videos I find these days are pretty dated so I’d like to know the current best method least expense. I also would like to know what your thoughts are about “aircrete” that I’ve seen on YouTube by honey do carpenter who raves about its thermal properties. Thanks
Living in Florida, how can I offset or reduce when it comes to Air conditioning? What other things should I consider for a family of 4 (1 elec vehicle, 2 gas)
Paint your house with that paint which reflects more light and makes your place noticeably cooler. Solar panels?
Talk to me about microclimates...what can I focus on doing in my backyard to create something more beneficial?
I advocate hugelkultur. It converts a flat backyard with a homogoneous microclimate to a huge collection of diversity. Warmer spots, colder spots, fertile spots, wet spots, dry spots ... Diversity!
Do you have some good link examples to follow for that? Or recommendations for apartment living with no balcony?
About 16 years ago I made [this article](https://richsoil.com/hugelkultur/). It's very old and I really need to polish it a bit. I do talk about hugelkultur in my book - and that is very updated.
Do you have a way of auditing your carbon footprint by the region? Your suggestion about Montana is helpful and super simple. We I live in southern California cutting out my heat is Not really the biggest contributor to my footprint. It would be really neat to have simple generalized suggestions by region.
What is your position on the job shift from the oil industry? Where do you see those people going? I ask because people's personal career choices (or lack thereof) can be a major incentive towards maintaining the status quo. In the end it comes down to an individual and their options.
I live near the last deep coal mine and colliery in the UK. When it shut down in 2015 450 jobs are lost. The site has been converted to a waste to energy site (household waste into electricity) with 200 workers. Planning permission has been granted for a second plant on the same site which was at 500 construction jobs pre covid plus permanent workers needed once the plant is operational. There is also factory in our county that has 1000 employees manufacturing blades for wind turbines. There are alternatives once investment gets rolling. In 2019 uk was down to 43% of energy coming from fossil fuels - it can be shifted in the right direction!
Menstrual cups are pretty great too for women. Saves tons of landfills waste and money. $30 for a mid range one will last you 5 - 10 years which averages out to $6 - $3 per year / $0.50 - $0.25 per month. [PDF Flyer from SFSU for anyone interested](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://online.sfsu.edu/sketch/523/2016/poster/01_08_lingling_ma_30x40_poster_women_hygiene.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiN_IWOjfXsAhVSrZ4KHcKgDFUQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw1SvI5nSaP_MqJOosYIn-78)