5 ms·

We can all do our part! Even though it is hard to actively contribute to fighting climate change every day, by becoming carbon neutral, we can grow a community

by chrdlu 7y ago

We can all do our part! Even though it is hard to actively contribute to fighting climate change every day, by becoming carbon neutral, we can grow a community to make a difference! The average American has a carbon footprint that can be offset with a $20 per month subscription. We need more money to flow into fighting climate change! I personally use Project Wren to offset my carbon footprint specifically through a tree planting projects! https://projectwren.com/ https://projectwren.com/

numakerg 7y ago
Does ESO own any stock in this company? >The average American has a carbon footprint that can be offset with a $20 per month subscription You have a source on that?
- tunesmith 7y ago
  The average American has a 20-ton / year carbon footprint. Offsetting 20 tons per year has a cost that ranges depending on what service you use. I've seen estimates of $6-10/ton - $20/month is $12/ton. Edit: for the average american footprint, you can easily find the stat that the US emitted 5.268 GtCO2 in 2018. There are 327.16 million people in the US. From that I get more like 16 tons/year per person, so 20 is out of date. Of course, we have to get to zero with sequestration on top of that.
  - rtpg 7y ago
    If we were thinking big picture, would this mean that the US gov't could basically spend $72 billion a year to zero out the carbon contribution of America? Cheaper than the Iraq war....
    - tunesmith 7y ago
      Not really, because there's an implied capacity for offsetting carbon. That's what it costs now, but as more people participate, the cost will undoubtedly go up.
      - rtpg 7y ago
        I don't think it's that straightforward. Stuff like planting trees should have the cost/ton go down over time due to scale (there's a land question but there's a _lot_ of federally owned land). A lot of other stuff could work similarly. Mass production is a thing that brings costs down, so some of the carbon offset programs could take advantage of similar effects. You're definitely right that some of these projects aren't infinitely scalable though. There are only so many gas stoves used in northern Uganda to be replaced..
      - chrdlu 7y ago
        The costs may go up as tree planting is more limited, but the more money in the ecosystem will allow new innovations to be discovered!
    - lozenge 7y ago
      Offsetting carbon is not removing carbon. For example, you could "offset" the effect of buying a daily latte on your household budget by just continuing to buy them while your partner promises to skip their own daily latte. Despite the offset, your bank balance would be lower than if you had just stopped buying them. There is no known way to remove carbon at a scale that would make a difference and a cost people would accept. As almost all carbon from extracted fossil fuels is now in the atmosphere and ocean, it would amount to running our fossil fuel extraction in reverse.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
digitaltrees 7y ago
Fund on going litigation to fight climate change and the damage it is and will do to our economy, free market, and future. There are several nonprofits leading this. One is youCAN. That’s youth climate action now. I am starting a non profit to expand on that idea and fund as much litigation and legislation as possible. Voting isn’t the only venue for citizens to protest and protect their rights.
- mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
  More info? What’s your role in it?
perfunctory 7y ago
Just looking at one of their sample projects "Clean cooking fuel for refugees" It says > Briquettes replace wood burning, a heavy polluting fuel source > This initative is projected to provide 4,000 refugee households with clean briquettes, saving over 16,000 tons of emissions annually. Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculation. 16K ton per 4K refugees means 4t per person per year. I couldn't find data on briquettes efficiency vs wood but let's be generous and say it's twice as efficient. Then the emission before the reduction would be 8t per person per year. So they are telling me that an average Uganda refugee, from cooking alone, emits almost as much as an average Brit [0] edit: what am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...
- lozenge 7y ago
  I doubt you're missing anything. "Offsetting" projects are based on hypothetical calculations of how much would be emitted without the project. This is the easiest part to fudge. And if they didn't fudge it, then people would pick cheaper projects or just not buy them at all. What happens, for example, if refugees decide to keep using wood as well as the free briquettes? It could result in higher emissions (Jevons paradox).
- bb611 7y ago
  Here's a comparison project by Cooling Effect, which was recommended to me by reasonable skeptical, saavy people at my work: https://www.cooleffect.org/content/project/affordable-cookstoves https://www.cooleffect.org/content/project/affordable-cookst... My guess is this is still highly optimistic, but the project claims are 50% emissions reduction from cooking, which is at least possible.
- Retric 7y ago
  Wood is considered heavily polluting because the smoke is harmful and it’s generally undergoing incomplete combustion. It’s CO2 footprint is as you guessed a non issue. https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/indoor/indoor-air-pollutants/residential-wood-burning.html https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/indoor/indo...

by chrdlu 7y ago

numakerg 7y ago

Does ESO own any stock in this company? >The average American has a carbon footprint that can be offset with a $20 per month subscription You have a source on that?

tunesmith 7y ago
The average American has a 20-ton / year carbon footprint. Offsetting 20 tons per year has a cost that ranges depending on what service you use. I've seen estimates of $6-10/ton - $20/month is $12/ton. Edit: for the average american footprint, you can easily find the stat that the US emitted 5.268 GtCO2 in 2018. There are 327.16 million people in the US. From that I get more like 16 tons/year per person, so 20 is out of date. Of course, we have to get to zero with sequestration on top of that.
- rtpg 7y ago
  If we were thinking big picture, would this mean that the US gov't could basically spend $72 billion a year to zero out the carbon contribution of America? Cheaper than the Iraq war....
  - tunesmith 7y ago
    Not really, because there's an implied capacity for offsetting carbon. That's what it costs now, but as more people participate, the cost will undoubtedly go up.
    - rtpg 7y ago
      I don't think it's that straightforward. Stuff like planting trees should have the cost/ton go down over time due to scale (there's a land question but there's a _lot_ of federally owned land). A lot of other stuff could work similarly. Mass production is a thing that brings costs down, so some of the carbon offset programs could take advantage of similar effects. You're definitely right that some of these projects aren't infinitely scalable though. There are only so many gas stoves used in northern Uganda to be replaced..
    - chrdlu 7y ago
      The costs may go up as tree planting is more limited, but the more money in the ecosystem will allow new innovations to be discovered!
  - lozenge 7y ago
    Offsetting carbon is not removing carbon. For example, you could "offset" the effect of buying a daily latte on your household budget by just continuing to buy them while your partner promises to skip their own daily latte. Despite the offset, your bank balance would be lower than if you had just stopped buying them. There is no known way to remove carbon at a scale that would make a difference and a cost people would accept. As almost all carbon from extracted fossil fuels is now in the atmosphere and ocean, it would amount to running our fossil fuel extraction in reverse.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

digitaltrees 7y ago

Fund on going litigation to fight climate change and the damage it is and will do to our economy, free market, and future. There are several nonprofits leading this. One is youCAN. That’s youth climate action now. I am starting a non profit to expand on that idea and fund as much litigation and legislation as possible. Voting isn’t the only venue for citizens to protest and protect their rights.

mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
More info? What’s your role in it?

perfunctory 7y ago

Just looking at one of their sample projects "Clean cooking fuel for refugees" It says > Briquettes replace wood burning, a heavy polluting fuel source > This initative is projected to provide 4,000 refugee households with clean briquettes, saving over 16,000 tons of emissions annually. Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculation. 16K ton per 4K refugees means 4t per person per year. I couldn't find data on briquettes efficiency vs wood but let's be generous and say it's twice as efficient. Then the emission before the reduction would be 8t per person per year. So they are telling me that an average Uganda refugee, from cooking alone, emits almost as much as an average Brit [0] edit: what am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

lozenge 7y ago
I doubt you're missing anything. "Offsetting" projects are based on hypothetical calculations of how much would be emitted without the project. This is the easiest part to fudge. And if they didn't fudge it, then people would pick cheaper projects or just not buy them at all. What happens, for example, if refugees decide to keep using wood as well as the free briquettes? It could result in higher emissions (Jevons paradox).
bb611 7y ago
Here's a comparison project by Cooling Effect, which was recommended to me by reasonable skeptical, saavy people at my work: https://www.cooleffect.org/content/project/affordable-cookstoves https://www.cooleffect.org/content/project/affordable-cookst... My guess is this is still highly optimistic, but the project claims are 50% emissions reduction from cooking, which is at least possible.
Retric 7y ago
Wood is considered heavily polluting because the smoke is harmful and it’s generally undergoing incomplete combustion. It’s CO2 footprint is as you guessed a non issue. https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/indoor/indoor-air-pollutants/residential-wood-burning.html https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/indoor/indo...