What goes into a carbon footprint?

[Rhea]

Sparked by the overpopulation thread, I thought it would be interesting to explore the components of a carbon footprint. (I am making no claim whether urban or rural has more, despite the original comments, I am only interested in digging into what's there.)

So what is included? Is it complete? Are there any useful proxies like spending?

Compared to the average? I'm not sure [a rural hillbilly lifestyle would be considered] "obscene" Definitely western-privileged, but I'm curious what factors do you think are present to make it "obscene"? I mean, yeah, my outhouse is a two-holer, and the seats are made of local cherry, but it's still an outhouse.

Resource consumption. On average, urban populations consume significantly fewer resources per capita than do rural populations. And contrary to stereotypes, urban populations on average also put out less population than their rural counterparts. And the resource consumption/ecological footprint of someone living in the west (rural or otherwise) is going to many times higher than that of the global average. Especially that of someone living in the US: The ecological footprint of the average person is 2.7 hectares, for the average american it's 8.0 hectares. However you put it, that's pretty obscene.

Another interesting question. Would be interesting to count up all the actual footprints. Usually the count includes cars, and - what else? I know there's more. But usually when I read those something seems missing. And a lot of that is the sort of background stuff that is somehow not counted. One fact is that people who live urban spend more money. The cost of living is higher. So, in some way, they spend more, more people are middlemen to get a single thing and this is somehow less of a footprint. That's curious. I'm not sure how it shakes out, but don't you think that's curious that all this commerce goes on with no carbon footprint from it?

That deserves a new thread, too.

 

[Rhea]

Here are some calculators:
Some things I notice that are missing:

do you buy things made locally or not. Such as furniture, clothing, toys
how much clothing do you buy, how much furniture, how many toys, sports equipment
Do you buy new or used clothing, toys, equipment?


because from the discussion of simple urban/rural comparison I think about hundred-year-old furniture and locally made wooden toys etc, and I think, those are certainly different footprints, and they do add up, I think.

http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/#
http://www.countdownyourcarbon.org/calculator.php
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx (this is the only one that includes fashion, length of ownership, furniture and electronics)

 

[Rhea]

dystopian made further questions in the other thread, I have answered the carbon parts here

One fact is that people who live urban spend more money. The cost of living is higher.

Generally, but that depends on the area. It's also rather moot since urban populations also MAKE more money.

That was not my point. My point was that almost anything you spend money on requires a carbon foot print to get it to you. So people spending more, buying more stuff, higher prices because it required more commercial activity to get to its final destination seems like a clue to the footprint.

So, in some way, they spend more, more people are middlemen to get a single thing and this is somehow less of a footprint. That's curious. I'm not sure how it shakes out, but don't you think that's curious that all this commerce goes on with no carbon footprint from it?

I didn't say that it didn't. However, here's what you don't seem to understand: Concentrating people and commercial activity DECREASES overall resource usage and pollution output. Let's say you have a hundred thousand people living spread out at rural densities, and there's just a single supermarket they need to go to in order to get their food or whatever. They're all going to take the car to do their shopping. Not to mention, that supermarket has the exact same problem as any other; namely that its supply also has to be trucked in. Now imagine a hundred thousand people living in a small dense city, and a single supermarket for them. Unlike the rural people, the urbanites don't actually need to take the car; many of them will be close enough to walk. Others can take a bicycle, or take advantage of public transportation. Even the ones who DO take a car will drive only a fraction of what the rural people do. This means that the rural people are going to be outputting a LOT more pollution; on average; than the urban people. And you'll find a similar situation for just about every other factor that comes into play with one's ecological footprint. Water? Yep. Waste disposal? Yep. Etc, etc.

And there are some things you don't understand.

That rural market does not require extra gas trips. People who live rural tend to block all their errands together because time is precious. So the shopping, done once a week or less, is something you do as you leave work. In our community that means perhaps one mile extra from work. Less for those who live in the favorable direction.

And that market gets things trucked in - from local farms as well as the boxed stuff. So a good portion of the volume is traveling a very short distance. Your small dense city has to truck things in from further away, a LOT further. It won't be 100 miles or less as much of our produce, meat and dairy is.

Water? I get mine from the back yard, it's 20 feet from the house, no transport footprint. It does have a little electric pump, although when the power goes out, we just use a bucket from the dug well. Sewer? Gravity takes it 50 feet away where it fertilizes the field through a leech system. Waste (trash)? We take a trip to the landfill/recycle once every 3 weeks or so while in the area picking up the kids from some activity. The compost is a pile in the backyard.

We have no air conditioning aside from shade trees.
Half of our heating fuel is a renewable energy acquired from 20 miles away (no refining or transport - no spills)
There is no asphalt plant making dino-black to cover our road since it's dirt.
There are no street-lights shining all night long.
There are no police cruising our roads all night burning gas.

The list goes on. That's why I'm interesting in actual carbon-foot print numbers to see how they actually stack up. I don't say anything of these to "brag" about rural life, by the way, it is simply to list out things that make differences between the two places.
Some people call electric vehicles "zero emissions" for example. They are not. The electric might generate carbon footprint and needs to be counted.

 

[doubtingt]

I agree with your points that the amount of clothing, food, toys, and household objects you consume matters. Add to that every single thing that people consume including entertainment from movies and tv to live music concerts and sporting events.

So far, I have thought of 3 other issues to consider:

1. One of those calculators assumes that organic foods are related to less CO2 release. I have seen arguments that it is just the opposite due to factors related to organic methods causing many times more release of CO2 from the soil into the atmosphere. Organic farming entails much more CO2 releasing soil tillage to control weeds, plus the gas guzzling tractors used in tilling. Also, manure fertilizer increasing CO2 respiration rates in the soil, not to mention requiring more methane producing farm animals. Then, since organic methods are less efficient in terms of yeild, that adds even more to the amount of CO2 released. Finally, there is the fuel used in distribution. For some people in some areas, organic foods may come from small local farms. But most "organic" foods still come from massive national farms. Since there are much fewer such farms, odds are that the organic apple in your Whole Foods came from farther away and used more gas to get there, than the non-organic apple.
It would seem that it is more valid to give people a CO2 reduction for eating GMO foods, and an increase for eating organic.

2. Another issue is that the mere fact of being father from your neighbors increases your footprint in countless ways. Rural infrastructure serves fewer people, thus all the related CO2 to build and maintain that infrastructure. How long is your paved driveway? How much does your home's distance from others increase the amount of road, electrical wires, natural gas lines, cable lines, sewage lines that is built and maintained? How How much does your mail delivery add to the total distance the mail person drives? All of these and many other things related to basic modern living cause CO2 release, and the less dense the population per acre, the more the CO2 released to connect the community in these ways. Oh, plus there is the fact that all of the businesses that urban people depend upon and use are also in contributing to increased CO2 for the same reason of being in a less densely populated region where each structure requires more infrastructure to connect it to the community.

3. Some of the calculators use "dollars per month" spent on electricity. This is completely invalid. Cost of electricity per kwh varies from 8 cents to 20 cents from state to state, and the states with the highest costs (15-20 cents) because urban areas pay a higher cost, thus the most densely populated States (those in the northeast and mid-atlantic) are the one paying most while rural states in the midwest, Rockies, and non-coastal south pay the least per kwh. The actual averge kwh used per household or commercial building shows the exact opposite pattern. The same rural states that have the lowest total cost per month use twice the kwh per month compared to the more urban and densely populated states.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here are some calculators:
Some things I notice that are missing:

do you buy things made locally or not. Such as furniture, clothing, toys
how much clothing do you buy, how much furniture, how many toys, sports equipment
Do you buy new or used clothing, toys, equipment?

Local actually isn't a big factor for non-perishable goods. When it comes to carbon, ships << trains << trucks. How the product reaches you is much more important than where the product comes from.

I do agree about new vs used.

 

[Rhea]

1. One of those calculators assumes that organic foods are related to less CO2 release.

I agree, I felt that was unsupported also. Local is much more important than organic, it seems.

2. Another issue is that the mere fact of being father from your neighbors increases your footprint in countless ways.
- Rural infrastructure serves fewer people, thus all the related CO2 to build and maintain that infrastructure.

Yes and no. Many times the rural people just don't use that infrastructure or as much of it. Take paved roads. We just don't use them much.

How long is your paved driveway?

My driveway is not paved

How much does your home's distance from others increase the amount of road, electrical wires, natural gas lines, cable lines, sewage lines that is built and maintained?

There is no gas, no cable, and no sewer here, nor in most rural areas.
Road yes, dirt.
electric yes, there's a two-wire line that comes out to our neighborhood. But aren't those based also on load? Hard to imagine it's just distance when I look at how MANY wires exist in suburban neighborhoods.

How How much does your mail delivery add to the total distance the mail person drives? All of these and many other things related to basic modern living cause CO2 release, and the less dense the population per acre, the more the CO2 released to connect the community in these ways.

Yes there is a mail jeep. And a school bus.

Oh, plus there is the fact that all of the businesses that urban people depend upon and use are also in contributing to increased CO2 for the same reason of being in a less densely populated region where each structure requires more infrastructure to connect it to the community.

Partly true. But different.
We have no broadway, no sunset strip.
We don't have gigawatts of light shining up in the sky all night, nor acres of pavement absorbing heat.
We have no traffic jams, so my commute takes a fraction of the time (and gas) than my friend's equal distance commute in DC.
As was mentioned, we don't have many of the entertainments, so they are not inefficiently placed, they are simply absent.

3. Some of the calculators use "dollars per month" spent on electricity. [/URL]

Yeah, I used the one that had kwh. It makes much better sense.

 

[nogods4me]

A carbon foot, Duh!

 

[Rhea]

I thus the most densely populated States (those in the northeast and mid-atlantic) are the one paying most while rural states in the midwest, Rockies, and non-coastal south pay the least per kwh. The actual averge kwh used per household or commercial building shows the exact opposite pattern. The same rural states that have the lowest total cost per month use twice the kwh per month compared to the more urban and densely populated states.

One can definitely see that air conditioning has a huge carbon footprint compared to heat, though!

 

[doubtingt]

One fact is that people who live urban spend more money. The cost of living is higher.

Cost of living has no reliable relationship to the amount of energy used (and CO2 emitted) to bring you those goods. It has more to do with the cost of real estate than anything else, and that is about supply and demand. It actually consumes far less energy and released far less CO2 to develop a piece of land and build a house in the city than urban areas. However, the house cost many times more simply because their is so little land. Expensive land = expensive real estate = high rents for all producers, distributors and retailers in the city = higher prices to the consumer for everything they buy. This relates to my points 2 and 3 above.
City dwellers pay twice as much of each kwh of electricity, yet they consume half as many kwh as rural dwellers. Their higher cost is not because it takes more energy and CO2 to bring them the electricity. IT actually takes less energy and CO2 to get city people electricity because like all infrastructure, city infrastructure is more efficient per person by the simple fact that they live much closer together. In fact, this same closeness is a good part of why they use less energy to heat and cool their dwellings. Much of the lost energy one person consumes is recovered by their close neighbors, reducing the energy those other people need to consume.

 

[doubtingt]

I thus the most densely populated States (those in the northeast and mid-atlantic) are the one paying most while rural states in the midwest, Rockies, and non-coastal south pay the least per kwh. The actual averge kwh used per household or commercial building shows the exact opposite pattern. The same rural states that have the lowest total cost per month use twice the kwh per month compared to the more urban and densely populated states.

[One can definitely see that air conditioning has a huge carbon footprint compared to heat, though!

But the empirical data I linked to is very clear that people in the more rural states consume twice the electricity (which is what is used for A/C).
There are hot, cold, and moderate climates among both urban areas and rural areas. That is a largely separate issue from the rural-urban issue (for example, Chicago has the same climate as extremely rural areas just 20 miles from the city center. The fact is that, independent from climate, the higher the population density the lower the energy consumption for residences and commercial buildings, plus the lesser the amount of per person energy required to build and maintain basic infrastructure to connect the community and provide services.

 

[Rhea]

But the empirical data I linked to is very clear that people in the more rural states consume twice the electricity (which is what is used for A/C).
There are hot, cold, and moderate climates among both urban areas and rural areas. That is a largely separate issue from the rural-urban issue (for example, Chicago has the same climate as extremely rural areas just 20 miles from the city center. The fact is that, independent from climate, the higher the population density the lower the energy consumption for residences and commercial buildings, plus the lesser the amount of per person energy required to build and maintain basic infrastructure to connect the community and provide services.

Sort your data by kW used per capita. You'll see that regardless of the population density of the state, the further south it is, the more electricity they use (North Dakota excepted). Looks like it's a pretty big correlation. So you'd need to tease of the difference between northern urban and northern rural versus sourthern urban and southern rural.

It also looks like the southern rural states use much less electric than southern urban (New Mexico, for example).

Interesting. I'd like to pull it apart even further.

 

[bilby]

The demand side is only half of the equation.

If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, and that of your neighbours, lobby for the replacement of coal, oil and gas power generation with nuclear, biomass, solar and wind. Lobby for the inclusion of ethanol in your gasoline supplies, or better still, for the use of bio-diesel fuels for road vehicles.

You can use as much electricity for air-conditioning as you like, without adding to your carbon footprint at all, if the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant. (OK, to pick nits, there is still a teeny-tiny increase due to things like mining uranium fuel, transporting materials and workers to the plant, etc., but these are many, many orders of magnitude less than the footprint due to burning coal, and can be made carbon neutral themselves through use of bio-fuels etc.).

If the ONLY thing people did to reduce carbon emissions was to lobby for every new power plant to be a nuclear, biomass, solar or wind plant (in that order of priority), and if EVERY person who cares about global warming took that simple step of writing to their congressman/MP/utility company/senator/etc. to ask them to stop building coal, oil or gas powered plants, I reckon that would have more impact than any amount of scrimping and saving by adjusting thermostats and turning things off. And there would be no need for the slightest sacrifice of convenience or modernity - if you want your house to be so cold inside that icicles form on the light fittings, in Texas, in August; or so hot that the cat suffers from heat-stroke in North Dakota in January, you could have it that way with a clear conscience.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I thus the most densely populated States (those in the northeast and mid-atlantic) are the one paying most while rural states in the midwest, Rockies, and non-coastal south pay the least per kwh. The actual averge kwh used per household or commercial building shows the exact opposite pattern. The same rural states that have the lowest total cost per month use twice the kwh per month compared to the more urban and densely populated states.

One can definitely see that air conditioning has a huge carbon footprint compared to heat, though!

Actually, no. The warmer the climate the lower the total energy use for climate control.

- - - Updated - - -

But the empirical data I linked to is very clear that people in the more rural states consume twice the electricity (which is what is used for A/C).
There are hot, cold, and moderate climates among both urban areas and rural areas. That is a largely separate issue from the rural-urban issue (for example, Chicago has the same climate as extremely rural areas just 20 miles from the city center. The fact is that, independent from climate, the higher the population density the lower the energy consumption for residences and commercial buildings, plus the lesser the amount of per person energy required to build and maintain basic infrastructure to connect the community and provide services.

Sort your data by kW used per capita. You'll see that regardless of the population density of the state, the further south it is, the more electricity they use (North Dakota excepted). Looks like it's a pretty big correlation. So you'd need to tease of the difference between northern urban and northern rural versus sourthern urban and southern rural.

It also looks like the southern rural states use much less electric than southern urban (New Mexico, for example).

Interesting. I'd like to pull it apart even further.

AC runs on electricity. Most heating runs on burning something, the electric meter only sees the fan.

 

[Rhea]

AC runs on electricity. Most heating runs on burning something, the electric meter only sees the fan.

I see what you're saying, although many places have electric heat, especially urban since moving hot air around a huge building is less efficient. So then the footprint of the transport of the fuel, also must be included.

 

[dystopian]

That was not my point. My point was that almost anything you spend money on requires a carbon foot print to get it to you. So people spending more, buying more stuff, higher prices because it required more commercial activity to get to its final destination seems like a clue to the footprint.

You do understand that there's a difference between SPENDING more and buying MORE STUFF, right? Higher prices could partially be explained by more commercial activity being required to get the product to its final destination; but this does not equate to a higher carbon footprint. Furthermore, even if it, that increase is offset by the subsequent decrease caused by centralization of the final supply.

And there are some things you don't understand.

That rural market does not require extra gas trips.

Yes it does.

People who live rural tend to block all their errands together because time is precious. So the shopping, done once a week or less, is something you do as you leave work.

And most urban populations do the exact same thing. What's your point?

And that market gets things trucked in - from local farms as well as the boxed stuff. So a good portion of the volume is traveling a very short distance.

Yes, I'm sure those fritos were all locally made.

Your small dense city has to truck things in from further away, a LOT further.

Except it doesn't. First of all, where I come from, small dense cities aren't really further away from the farms than the small not dense villages.

Secondly, in the American example, those spread out rural communities are actually much further away for the *majority* of products it needs. It's all fine and well to think that your small town grows all its food locally or regionally (even though it doesn't, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it does); but that ignores all the OTHER shit people buy and need. Everything else tends to be produced in or around cities. Your small town isn't going to be surrounded by the factories that produce 90% of the stuff you buy and use. Production like that is concentrated around urban areas; NOT the middle of nowhere. Plus, when it comes to international imports, the cities are much closer too; they're the places where these things get imported through. And then because you want your french wine or made-in china electronics, trucks have to drive all the way out to nowhere to get it to you. Cities are much closer by.

We have no air conditioning aside from shade trees.

Neither do we.

Half of our heating fuel is a renewable energy acquired from 20 miles away (no refining or transport - no spills)

Amsterdam produces more than 300,000 gigajoules of CO2 neutral heating energy through recycled waste. It also produces electricity in the same manner for over 320,000 households.

There are no street-lights shining all night long.

This is a policy issue; here we're experimenting with sensor-based streetlights that only activate when there's a person or car nearby. And in any event all streetlights here are CO2 neutral.

 

[doubtingt]

But the empirical data I linked to is very clear that people in the more rural states consume twice the electricity (which is what is used for A/C).
There are hot, cold, and moderate climates among both urban areas and rural areas. That is a largely separate issue from the rural-urban issue (for example, Chicago has the same climate as extremely rural areas just 20 miles from the city center. The fact is that, independent from climate, the higher the population density the lower the energy consumption for residences and commercial buildings, plus the lesser the amount of per person energy required to build and maintain basic infrastructure to connect the community and provide services.

Sort your data by kW used per capita. You'll see that regardless of the population density of the state, the further south it is, the more electricity they use (North Dakota excepted). Looks like it's a pretty big correlation. So you'd need to tease of the difference between northern urban and northern rural versus sourthern urban and southern rural.

It isn't regardless of population density, it is very highly correlated with density, regardless of climate. Sure, on avg warmer states also use more electricity, but don't forget that mid-atlantic and some N.E. states that use the least kwh hours per person have very ugly and humid Summers requiring as much A/C as states like TN and West Virginia and much more AC than the Rocky mountain and Midwest states that all use more kwh than the mid-Atlantic and N.E. states. Also, notice that the two southeastern states with the biggest urban populations (Georgia and Florida) use less kwh than all their neighboring but more rural states.

It also looks like the southern rural states use much less electric than southern urban (New Mexico, for example).

Which southern states are you labeling as "urban"? Despite being a hot desert, New Mexico has such low kwh use because it is actually mostly urban dwellers. Most of its population is condensed into a handful of big cities, with the rest of the state being mostly empty desert where next to nobody lives, thus creating a misleadingly low population density at the State level even though its residents live mostly in or next to large cities.