What can individual people do about global warming?

[Skeptical Greg]

The second part of you post about reefs oceans forests etc.... Is all good from a policy viewpoint, and agricultural practices certainly have the largest impact on all those things. But again most individuals are consumers of agricultural products, not producers. They have limited influence except maybe in political influence with their vote......................................................

.........................................


IMO the only way an individual can fight that is with their shopping dollars. If it concerns you, and you know it is harming the environment, don't buy it. Economics is a powerful tool..

I enjoyed your post and feel you made some very good points, however you appear to be contradicting yourself with the two observations above; the last of which I totally agree with..

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I enjoyed your post and feel you made some very good points, however you appear to be contradicting yourself with the two observations above; the last of which I totally agree with..

I guess to clarify I should say the producer has many options that directly affect land use and thus AGW whether positively or negatively, whereas the individual as a consumer is limited to his shopping dollars as a tool for change, albeit a powerful tool if used wisely, and to a lesser extent his vote (regulatory change made by politicians).

Of the two tools I think the buying dollar is both more useful and powerful.

I apologize for rambling on so long that idea became disjointed with a wall of text between. Poor communication on my part.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I have another question.

My town has a recycling program. I have heard from conflicting sources on whether or not recycling is worth it. Does recycling actually help the environment? Does it depend on the materials, and the place where you live? What are the costs and benefits?

I live in the suburbs BTW.

 

[Cuddles]

Does it depend on the materials, and the place where you live?

Yes. Talking about recycling in general is virtually useless, because the costs and benefits depend far too much on what you're recycling and why. Do you want to save energy? Reduce pollution? Prevent depletion of resources? Save space? Or any number of other things.

For example, paper does, in fact, grow on trees. I've read many times, although I've not managed to find any good peer-reviewed data, that it takes less energy and less nasty chemicals to produce new paper than to recycle it. As long as you use managed forests rather than cutting down primary rainforest, recycling paper could actually be bad in almost every way that most people think it is good. However, not recycling it will result in lots more paper going to landfills and filling them up faster. Depending on what your main concerns are, recycling paper could be a good or bad idea, and it seems to be very difficult to actually find out which is the case.

 

[Trakar]

I've followed the primary global warming threads on and off for a while, and must say that while it's a very interesting debate going on, it doesn't offer many opportunities to touch on the issue that concerns me the most. I want to start a discussion on what the average person can do about global warming; not debate whether or not it's real, not debate its severity, and not debate whether or not humans are contributing. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the mainstream scientific understandings of climate change are presumed to be accurate, that climate change is a real threat to the world, and that human activities and negligence are causing it. I'm more interested in steps individuals can take in their everyday lives to help solve the problem...

Sorry Frozenwolf, I remember encouraging you in forum to start this thread and then due to numerous issues, missed its creation!

The individual thing is a multistep process and should eventually lead to group efforts or it isn't going to do much other than reduce your personal carbon footprint.

Step one - the most important first step doesn't require any belief or science understanding. Sound personal finance and health concerns can lead you to the same solutions. Step one revolves around energy efficiency and promoting healthy living. Walk when you can, take public transportation when possible (WP), grow a garden, shop for locally produced foods and manufactured items (WP). In general, the first step involves becoming consciously aware of energy usage, and is about reducing and (WP) eliminating wasted and unnecessary energy consumption.

Step two - involves sharing the benefits of what you learn from following step one with family, friends and neighbors (not lecturing, casual sharing), largely a lead by example issue.

Step three - become politically active in your locality and support candidates and public policies that assist and encourage step one activities regardless of the political party of the candidate that promotes and advocates these types of policies.

There are lots of additional steps and issues, but if individuals do no more than follow this basic three-step template, tremendous strides can be made locally, nationally, and globally in the reduction of human induced climate change and our adaptation to the changes we cannot afford to alter or eliminate.

 

[Trakar]

Yes. Talking about recycling in general is virtually useless, because the costs and benefits depend far too much on what you're recycling and why. Do you want to save energy? Reduce pollution? Prevent depletion of resources? Save space? Or any number of other things.

For example, paper does, in fact, grow on trees. I've read many times, although I've not managed to find any good peer-reviewed data, that it takes less energy and less nasty chemicals to produce new paper than to recycle it. As long as you use managed forests rather than cutting down primary rainforest, recycling paper could actually be bad in almost every way that most people think it is good. However, not recycling it will result in lots more paper going to landfills and filling them up faster. Depending on what your main concerns are, recycling paper could be a good or bad idea, and it seems to be very difficult to actually find out which is the case.

The only real downside to not recycling paper products is the energy required to construct and maintain the landfills where most non-recycled paper ends up. A dedicated incinerator power plant might be a good carbon net-zero solution that provides power which can be sold to offset (at least some) of the recovery costs of the paper wastes, significantly better than landfills.

 

[wobs]

The individual thing is a multistep process and should eventually lead to group efforts or it isn't going to do much other than reduce your personal carbon footprint.

Step one - the most important first step doesn't require any belief or science understanding. Sound personal finance and health concerns can lead you to the same solutions. Step one revolves around energy efficiency and promoting healthy living. Walk when you can, take public transportation when possible (WP), grow a garden, shop for locally produced foods and manufactured items (WP). In general, the first step involves becoming consciously aware of energy usage, and is about reducing and (WP) eliminating wasted and unnecessary energy consumption.

Step two - involves sharing the benefits of what you learn from following step one with family, friends and neighbors (not lecturing, casual sharing), largely a lead by example issue.

Step three - become politically active in your locality and support candidates and public policies that assist and encourage step one activities regardless of the political party of the candidate that promotes and advocates these types of policies.

There are lots of additional steps and issues, but if individuals do no more than follow this basic three-step template, tremendous strides can be made locally, nationally, and globally in the reduction of human induced climate change and our adaptation to the changes we cannot afford to alter or eliminate.

Bolded part needs expansion.
Finances should be organised with a plan to not become wealthy, unless you plan to use just about all of it to combat AGW. In other words, don't become rich. Wealth leads to consumption, and it is consumption on the global scale that is driving carbon emissions.

Slightly connected with this, energy efficiency generally improves quallity of life, and by extension increases a person's consumption (and carbon footprint). I keep having to say this, but energy efficiency without some kind of control such as carbon taxes is counter productive.

Another way to lower one's consumption of goods is to avoid adverts. Society spends billions on adverts, because they are effective. Avoiding them lowers our suseptability to them, and again, lowers our impact by spending less. Much better to get outside in the fresh air, or read a book etc.

So basically, the end result is similar to what you are saying: Live well, but cheaply, unless you want to spend a few thouasnd on renewables.

 

[Trakar]

Sound personal finance and health concerns can lead you to the same solutions. Step one revolves around energy efficiency and promoting healthy living. Walk when you can, take public transportation when possible (WP), grow a garden, shop for locally produced foods and manufactured items (WP). In general, the first step involves becoming consciously aware of energy usage, and is about reducing and (WP) eliminating wasted and unnecessary energy consumption.

Bolded part needs expansion.

Certainly, of course to maintain the proper contextual foundation, the bolded portion needs to remain within the entire italicized section to remain accurately reflective of my statement, consideration and intent.

Finances should be organised with a plan to not become wealthy, unless you plan to use just about all of it to combat AGW. In other words, don't become rich. Wealth leads to consumption, and it is consumption on the global scale that is driving carbon emissions.

I disagree. Carbon emissions are primarily being driven by the reliance upon fossil fuels as the primary source of electric generation and transportation fuels. There are definitely ways that an individual can and should influence (step #2) the types of energy policies and options communities have access to, but governments, not any given individual, are the prime agencies of local, regional, and national energy options and policies (step #3). Additionally, neither wealth, nor consumption, are inherently tied to carbon emissions, yet alone problematic carbon emissions, fossil fuels (e.g. Coal, oil, and natural gas) are.

Slightly connected with this, energy efficiency generally improves quallity of life, and by extension increases a person's consumption (and carbon footprint). I keep having to say this, but energy efficiency without some kind of control such as carbon taxes is counter productive.

I fully support a progressive, revenue neutral carbon tax, and that is one of the means that can help our economy to transition away from using fossil fuels for electrical production and transportation fuels,...but again these are national energy policy and option issues, that I hope individuals support (step #3), but again this is a group effort and not strictly an individual action to address climate change.

Another way to lower one's consumption of goods is to avoid adverts. Society spends billions on adverts, because they are effective. Avoiding them lowers our suseptability to them, and again, lowers our impact by spending less. Much better to get outside in the fresh air, or read a book etc.

I agree that reading, taking some online courses, exploring the world that is changing around us, all are worthwhile and beneficial to mind and body, I fully encourage people to take public transportation at least once or twice a week. This not only helps you to reduce your carbon footprint and support local public transportation development and growth, but it also helps to connect one to a greater diversity of population segments of their community than many are used to interacting with. I don't have big problems with advertisement, commercialism, capitalism that you seem focused on, but if that is your hobby horse, feel free to ride it, but I disagree that such is the only, or even best for all, way for individuals to address climate change.

So basically, the end result is similar to what you are saying: Live well, but cheaply, unless you want to spend a few thouasnd on renewables.

It need not always be cheaply, but should definitely be with thoughtful consideration and planning. Some of this, for instance, involves researching your local communities to find for instance butchers that area hunters and farmers use, where and when the farmer's markets open etc.,. A person doesn't need to be fanatical about buying local to gain benefit, but every dollar spent buying locally produced products and produce encourages those local producers and stimulates the growth of these markets. I'm constantly revising and expanding what I personally do, because I am out meeting people doing similar things (step #2) talking with them and listening to what they are doing, sharing and absorbing information.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Yes. Talking about recycling in general is virtually useless, because the costs and benefits depend far too much on what you're recycling and why. Do you want to save energy? Reduce pollution? Prevent depletion of resources? Save space? Or any number of other things.

For example, paper does, in fact, grow on trees. I've read many times, although I've not managed to find any good peer-reviewed data, that it takes less energy and less nasty chemicals to produce new paper than to recycle it. As long as you use managed forests rather than cutting down primary rainforest, recycling paper could actually be bad in almost every way that most people think it is good. However, not recycling it will result in lots more paper going to landfills and filling them up faster. Depending on what your main concerns are, recycling paper could be a good or bad idea, and it seems to be very difficult to actually find out which is the case.

That's what I've heard. Paper is a crop, and purchasing more paper funds the replanting of forests, which is good for the environment. However, I also remember reading that if you live in an urban area, the incentive to recycle goes up. You can't put a tree farm (or glass mine) smack dab in the middle of an urban area, so the cheapest and most fuel efficient source of those raw materials is recyclables.

I read somewhere, don't remember exactly where, that some of the paper for recycling that the US produces gets shipped overseas to places like China, due to the high demand. Would you happen to know anything about that? Seems strange to me.

 

[wobs]

I disagree. Carbon emissions are primarily being driven by the reliance upon fossil fuels as the primary source of electric generation and transportation fuels. There are definitely ways that an individual can and should influence (step #2) the types of energy policies and options communities have access to, but governments, not any given individual, are the prime agencies of local, regional, and national energy options and policies (step #3). Additionally, neither wealth, nor consumption, are inherently tied to carbon emissions, yet alone problematic carbon emissions, fossil fuels (e.g. Coal, oil, and natural gas) are.

More consumption does lead to carbon emissions, as the world is largely run on fossil fuels, and the individual can do little about this (although you'll note that I mentioned investing in renewables as an alternative):

In most countries, household consumption, over the life cycle of the products and services, accounts for more than 60% of all impacts of consumption. We know from previous research that a doubling of wealth leads to 80% higher CO2 emissions, so population predictions for 2050 make this even more urgent.

http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf
And with world population predicted to level off, that leaves wealth and the level we consume at. While there are other issues mentioned in thread, this is something that we can all do, but it can also enhance our lives.

It’s a standard message that we must be more sustainable in our purchases, but if we also made less purchases, if we consumed less, we would also reduce our impact. The link also states:

manufactured products are either the second or third most important contributor to the carbon footprint of rich countries. Their contribution to emissions rises as fast with wealth as that of mobility. Manufactured products are traded globally and their contribution is often not assessed correctly due to their complicated supply chains. A substantial share of the pollution due to manufacturing occurs in developing countries which have a high emissions intensity, while consumption occurs predominantly in rich countries.

So basically the more wealthy we become, the more we consume (such as electrical goods), which are made elsewhere in the world (eg. China), via the burning of fossil fuels.

If we earn less, and watch less TV, we should consume less goods, and lower our impact. What I don't want people to take from this is that we should suffer a down turn in our standard of living. We should pursue ways of living that result in us living well, without excess consumption, and watching less adverts is an important part of this.

I fully support a progressive, revenue neutral carbon tax, and that is one of the means that can help our economy to transition away from using fossil fuels for electrical production and transportation fuels,...but again these are national energy policy and option issues, that I hope individuals support (step #3), but again this is a group effort and not strictly an individual action to address climate change.

Do you agree that energy efficiency can how the reverse effect that is generally put forward (of cutting carbon emissions)?

I don't have big problems with advertisement, commercialism, capitalism that you seem focused on, but if that is your hobby horse, feel free to ride it, but I disagree that such is the only, or even best for all, way for individuals to address climate change.

(Shaming language noted)
Where did I say it was the only or even best way? There is no single way we can deal with these issues, but to not have an issue with the current unsustainable level of commercialism is interesting. When one sees the relationship between global GDP, and carbon emissions, when one sees how energy consumption continues to rise despite improvements in energy efficiency (owing to increases in GDP), I have to conclude that we look at not just moving over to renewables, and all the other standard messages I read on environmental blogs/forums/news sites, but look at some root courses.

The more money we have, the bigger impact we have. Even if we leave the money in the bank, the bank will use it to loan to somebody. This isn't a negative message, but one that questions our priorities. Should we work long hours so we can afford that next thing, or do we stay at home and read a book, and spend time with the family? Given that this thread is about personal levels issues, it is right on meesage.

On a global level, we need a steady state economy in the long term or the planet will burn, no matter how much renewables and energy efficiency we have, but that's for another thread.

It need not always be cheaply, but should definitely be with thoughtful consideration and planning. Some of this, for instance, involves researching your local communities to find for instance butchers that area hunters and farmers use, where and when the farmer's markets open etc.,. A person doesn't need to be fanatical about buying local to gain benefit, but every dollar spent buying locally produced products and produce encourages those local producers and stimulates the growth of these markets. I'm constantly revising and expanding what I personally do, because I am out meeting people doing similar things (step #2) talking with them and listening to what they are doing, sharing and absorbing information.

Aspiring to buy sustainably is good, cutting your consumption less overall, buying less stuff generally lowers your impact more. BTW, buying locally doesn’t always reduce your carbon footprint (it’s never simple!) It can be better to buy an apple grown abroad than one grown in your own country, in terms of carbon footprint, if your local apple has had to be stored for months.

We are creature of habit, and often more lazy than we like to think
http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/03/the-easiest-way-to/

 

[Trakar]

More consumption does lead to carbon emissions, as the world is largely run on fossil fuels, and the individual can do little about this (although you'll note that I mentioned investing in renewables as an alternative)

Actually, there is more and more that the individual in developed nations can do. Your references seem to primarily relate to developing nations and speak to how the increasing of levels of economic and technological development are currently reliant upon the increasing usage of fossil fuels for electrification, manufacturing to and service industry expansions that accompany rising income levels, education, health and the many other factors that accompany the economic and technological development across the breadth of our species. My objection is to the idea that the best solution to the problems that can and have occurred in the present situation is to stop or reverse economic and technological development.

From my considerations, a better first step option (especially among first world, developed nation, middle-class citizenry), is to reduce the levels of energy they require to maintain their current lifestyle, which is best achieved through careful and considered planning of energy usage activities and through the application of energy efficiency to maximize what you normally accomplish with less energy than you are presently using. Affluence does not have to mean an increased carbon footprint, provided minimizing your carbon footprint is an important qualifier/factor in your consumption considerations.

For instance in your reference we find this graph regarding U.S. household CO2 emissions:
http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf

From this graph it is apparent that the two primary household emission activities are Home Energy and transportation. This fully supports the idea that energy efficiency and conservation measures in the home and choices regarding personal transportation have the greatest potential to quickly reduce and minimize personal carbon emission footprints. Likewise these are generally easy to implement and show near immediate expense reduction benefits which many find encouraging toward helping them explore additional steps they can take to increase these benefits and help them toward being more environmentally aware of how their choices impact the world and their pocketbook.

As an additional note, if you look at the many of the "luxury gifts" of affluence, you can see how the very simple step of shopping domestically and locally can cut the carbon emissions level for this consumption by half or more on everything from computers, and TVs (Misc. Goods), to clothing, cell phones, and furniture. Affluence isn't the only, or even most important factor, individual understanding, consideration, and choice most often is.

(Shaming language noted)

The expression of disapproval and disagreement is a reflection of my personal reaction to your statements, not an attempt to impose upon or manipulate your considerations, though such is a psychologically interesting perception/insinuation.

Where did I say it was the only or even best way?

If I misunderstood your assertions that: "Finances should be organised with a plan to not become wealthy, unless you plan to use just about all of it to combat AGW. In other words, don't become rich. Wealth leads to consumption, and it is consumption on the global scale that is driving carbon emissions." As well as the rather direct implications of "Slightly connected with this, energy efficiency generally improves quallity of life, and by extension increases a person's consumption (and carbon footprint). I keep having to say this, but energy efficiency without some kind of control such as carbon taxes is counter productive." ...I apologize, but it doesn't sound like it brooks much difference of opinion, focus or alternate consideration.

Likewise, perhaps I have just spent too many battles on the opposite side of denialist claims that "the warmists want us to all abandon technology and go back to living like primitives in the jungle/abandon capitalism and consumer driven markets," and I over-reacted a bit to statements like those above and this following that seem to echo and reflect those denialist assertions: "Another way to lower one's consumption of goods is to avoid adverts. Society spends billions on adverts, because they are effective. Avoiding them lowers our suseptability to them, and again, lowers our impact by spending less. Much better to get outside in the fresh air, or read a book etc."

If I've misunderstood your statements, I apologetically request clarification of your response to my OP comment.

And to clarify my position, I believe that discouraging economic and technological advancement would essentially be beating a climate change induced societal collapse to the punch, so to speak. It is only through economic and technological growth and advancement that we actually have an opportunity to grow beyond this problem we have wrought upon ourselves.

As individuals, we have to move ourselves to find and grasp those bootstraps we are going to need to start taking the small steps that will help us to eventually dance the Sabesan Lasya to generate a new world.

Addendum:

Aspiring to buy sustainably is good, cutting your consumption less overall, buying less stuff generally lowers your impact more. BTW, buying locally doesn’t always reduce your carbon footprint (it’s never simple!) It can be better to buy an apple grown abroad than one grown in your own country, in terms of carbon footprint, if your local apple has had to be stored for months.

supporting cite or reference?

 

[wobs]

I'd like to address what you've said in some detail, but am a bit pushed for time ATM. So for the time being, here is an interesting article about growth and consumption:
http://www.growthbusters.org/2012/03/living-better-on-less/


Of course, the danger with any message like the link, or indeed of yours and my posts, that we are all coming across as dictators to others. That we are saying that if only others must live like we do, it will all be better.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I've heard several people bring up the issue of wealth and its relation to consumption / waste, and I'm not entirely sure what to think of it. Obviously everyone would like to be a success in life, myself included, but not if it means becoming a COPFAT (Cranky Old Person From Another Time) who doesn't give a crap about the environment anymore. Do you have any sources on the correlation between wealth and consumption? Does the manner of wealth acquisition make a difference, like say, do people from different industries or lines of work have different attitudes towards AGW? I would like to think I'm part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Just got my car serviced BTW. It's old and looks shabby on the outside, but as long as the insides run well, I couldn't care less.

 

[macdoc]

Trak

From this graph it is apparent that the two primary household emission activities are Home Energy and transportation.

the graph is correct in this regard.

This fully supports the idea that energy efficiency and conservation measures in the home

wrong...this is situational.....if you have low/no carbon energy to the home then while heating with gas may be more "efficient" it also adds to your carbon footprint.
I can be profiligate with electricity as it is nuclear, hydro, renewables derived. The equation is simply economic - not environmental.

If you are subject to fossil fuel powered electricity source however - then yes it's a way to lower your footprint.

and choices regarding personal transportation have the greatest potential to quickly reduce and minimize personal carbon emission footprints

This I concur with - this is the area that Sweden has the hardest time grappling with and once more a carbon neutral source for EV or hybrids will help...as will using public transit.

Consumption and aspiration are not the issue, sustainable use of resources AND carbon neutral energy soucing are the issues.
The issues should not be conflated.

An upwardly mobile Chinese family may consume "more" but also move away from heating and cooking with horridly inefficient coal stoves.

 

[Trakar]

I've heard several people bring up the issue of wealth and its relation to consumption / waste, and I'm not entirely sure what to think of it. Obviously everyone would like to be a success in life, myself included, but not if it means becoming a COPFAT (Cranky Old Person From Another Time) who doesn't give a crap about the environment anymore. Do you have any sources on the correlation between wealth and consumption? Does the manner of wealth acquisition make a difference, like say, do people from different industries or lines of work have different attitudes towards AGW? I would like to think I'm part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Just got my car serviced BTW. It's old and looks shabby on the outside, but as long as the insides run well, I couldn't care less.

Well, the traditional perspective is that the greater the wealth, the greater the demand, the greater the demand the greater the energy required to meet that demand, as energy is primarily generated through the use of fossil fuels, ipso facto, increased wealth = increased CO2 footprint. In the very short-term there is some merit to this under certain economic considerations. Ultimately the choice to reduce electrical demand through the focus of conservation and efficiency accomplishes longer term objectives through reducing consumer demand (in first world national economies) and encouraging more efficient energy production, distribution, and application. Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a marvelously efficient and mainstream economics approach to addressing the common environmental impact of the use of fossil fuels for energy and transportation needs..., but this gets a bit beyond the initial easy steps that lead to the savings of monthly earnings and acting in a positive, socially responsible, manner.

 

[Swammerdami]

Your individual actions regarding things like eating "ecologically friendly" food, driving only when necessary and riding your bike otherwise and so on are in the grand scheme of things completely inconsequential with regards to climate change. Global warming isn't going to stop just because you decide to buy the "eco-friendly" potatoes one day while shopping either.

If you really want to do something about it become an activist and try to get the elites and leaders who actually have enough authority to make large-scale changes happen.

Yes.

One can celebrate the virtues of the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperative, but in practice less than 1% of people will sacrifice themselves for the good of the future. People who increase their own costs or lower their comfort altruistically end up being "suckers" -- their own family sacrifices to no effect. By reducing your use of gasoline you'll end up reducing the price of gasoline by a fraction of a micropenny -- just enough for other Americans to buy an extra microgallon each -- the net benefit to society is zero. Only your own sacrifice remains.

Political activism is a way to amplify your impact. When it is appropriate that people sacrifice individually for the greater good, it is the role of government to achieve the benefit via coercion. Hope for change via the ballotbox.

We can travel the globe, raising awareness of the problem.

And, since the work is so important, we should be allowed to travel first-class all the way.

(I will assume aggle-rithm is being sarcastic. If not, I apologize.)
The scorn directed at Al Gore is very misplaced. His jet fuel is well-spent, and he has done more than almost anyone to raise awareness.

A similar gibberish insult is directed against Warren Buffett, who advocates higher taxes on the rich, but doesn't pay higher taxes voluntarily. I don't know if there's a word for this fallacy, but it is very annoying. On another message board, a Monopoly Free Parking analogy is used:

Some people play that in the Monopoly Game, all fines are paid to Free Parking and awarded to whoever lands there. Some don't like the rule. If you don't like the rule, but are playing with a group that insists on it and you land on Free Parking, are you a hypocrite if you accept the money?​

I ask this question of those who make the mindless insults against Buffett and Gore.

 

[macdoc]

Swammer

One can celebrate the virtues of the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperative, but in practice less than 1% of people will sacrifice themselves for the good of the future. People who increase their own costs or lower their comfort altruistically end up being "suckers" -- their own family sacrifices to no effect. By reducing your use of gasoline you'll end up reducing the price of gasoline by a fraction of a micropenny -- just enough for other Americans to buy an extra microgallon each -- the net benefit to society is zero. Only your own sacrifice remains.

THAT is a crock of your own delusions.

American population is up in the last decade to the tune of 27 million and that does not count illegals and electricity use is down as are carbon emissions.

Home electricity use in US falling to 2001 levels
bigstory.ap.org › Energy-efficient appliances
Dec 30, 2013 - The average amount of electricity consumed by U.S. homes in 2013 is on track to fall for the third year in a row, to its lowest level since 2001.

you have no idea what you are talking about.......none.

 

[Trakar]

wrong...this is situational.....if you have low/no carbon energy to the home then while heating with gas may be more "efficient" it also adds to your carbon footprint...

Gas dryers are relatively rare in the U.S. even in households fitted for gas, and yes JREF is international, and there are differences for each locality. If you go back to my original statements regarding steps individuals can take, you will see that I mention as a primary issue, placing carbon footprint concerns foremost in your mind when making purchases and decisions, being a considered consumer rather than an impulse buyer.

 

[Trakar]

What you can do to cut your carbon footprint: Guest opinion
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/what_you_can_do_to_cut_your_ca.html

James Diamond, Ph.D., a professor of chemistry at Linfield College, relates his takeaway from the annual American Chemical Society’s (ACS) 247th national meeting. The theme of the meeting was "Chemistry and Materials for Energy." During this meeting, there was no discussion of whether or not climate change was occurring, but rather there were extensive discussions about how to address the problems of climate change/global warming. Based upon this chemistry professor’s understandings and what he has picked up from his colleagues, here is the list of basic things that he urges his students and the rest of us to do to help address climate change on an individual basis:

* Drive less or, if you can afford it, drive a zero- or low-emission vehicle.

* Use your local utilities' green energy programs to reduce your carbon footprint. Portland General Electric, Pacific Power, and Northwest Natural have green energy programs that make a difference.

* Consider solar panels or solar water heating in your house.

* There is no "away" to throw things – it is always in a real person's back yard, so consume less, reuse more and recycle what you can.

* Fight for policies that support efforts making clean energy and transportation affordable for everyone. Fight for efforts to mitigate the worst consequences of climate change. Encourage elected officials at every level of government to do the same.

That sounds rather familiar!
Professor Diamond also encourages everyone to make use of the ACS Climate Science Toolkit – (http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html ) a resource to explore the science, look at solutions and see what you can do to reduce your own carbon footprint.

"Individual actions may have small effects, but inaction has zero effect."

Play your part in reducing carbon footprint
http://www.guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2014-08-02/play-your-part-reducing-carbon-footprint

…On a global scale you might feel like your lifestyle is insignificant compared to things like oil extraction or vehicle emissions, but the choices we make in our daily lives—how we get around, what we eat, how we live—also play a major role in slowing climate change. Here are a few habits we can adopt.

Green your commute - Walk, cycle, carpool or use public transportation whenever you can. You could save money and also get into better shape.

Be energy efficient - If you already switch off lights—what's next? Change light bulbs to compact fluorescents or LEDs. Unplug computers, TVs and other electronics when not in use. Wash clothes in cold or warm (not hot) water. Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can. Look for the Energy Star® label when buying new appliances.

Eat wisely - Buy organic and locally grown foods. Avoid processed items. Grow some of your own food. And eat low on the food chain—at least one meat-free meal a day— since 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from meat and dairy production.

Trim your waste - Garbage buried in landfills produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Keep stuff out of landfills by composting kitchen scraps and garden trimmings, and recycling paper, plastic, metal and glass. Let store managers and manufacturers know you want products with minimal or recyclable packaging.

Get informed - Follow the latest news about climate change. Visit ema.co.tt or the EMA’s Facebook page for global trends in Climate Change.

Get involved. Support or donate - Many organisations are working hard on solutions to climate change and rely on your voluntary support or donation of your time. Organise a community tree planting exercise, clean up or recycling drive. Spread the word and share knowledge about climate change and what you can do to reduce its impacts. The global community and its challenges impact on us all, no matter how small or insignificant. There is always a way in which you can contribute towards reducing your carbon footprint for the benefit of mankind.

Yet another echo of greatly similar advice.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Play your part in reducing carbon footprint
http://www.guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2014-08-02/play-your-part-reducing-carbon-footprint

...

Eat wisely - Buy organic and locally grown foods. Avoid processed items. Grow some of your own food. And eat low on the food chain—at least one meat-free meal a day— since 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from meat and dairy production.

Trim your waste - Garbage buried in landfills produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Keep stuff out of landfills by composting kitchen scraps and garden trimmings, and recycling paper, plastic, metal and glass. Let store managers and manufacturers know you want products with minimal or recyclable packaging.

...

Yet another echo of greatly similar advice.

These are the two I'm somewhat skeptical of.

Is organic really more environmentally friendly? Don't they take up more farming space to grow? Does local production make a difference, given that most of the fossil fuels are spent producing the food as opposed to transporting it? Are processed items any better or worse for you?

Doesn't the effectiveness of recycling vary by where you live? Don't additional recycling trucks account for fossil fuel expenditure? I know you're always supposed to recycle metals, but I had questions about other types of materials. For the record, my town recycles practically everything, so I do it anyway.