8 ms·

I've been trying to figure out what the best way to become a "net zero carbon human". Although there's a clear consensus that reducing emissions is great, but w

I've been trying to figure out what the best way to become a "net zero carbon human". Although there's a clear consensus that reducing emissions is great, but what's next? What do you do with the emissions you inevitably produce? As an amateur, it's super confusing: - offsetting is criticised as "paying of your guilt without fixing the problem" - carbon capture is next to impossible as an individual because there are so few projects to sponsor, besides planting trees which has questionable returns in the long run since who can guarantee these trees will not be burned 50 years from now? Any ideas or good overviews are welcome.

adrianN 6y ago
You could always buy some cheap land somewhere, start a coppice and produce charcoal that you bury.
- rhesa 6y ago
  Unless you're in the tropics, where soil has a hard time hanging on to nutrients, you can probably skip the biochar step. Just bury the wood in hugelkultur.
  - leoedin 6y ago
    The biochar step has the advantage of giving you back a bit of energy while you're doing it.
edent 6y ago
A short list of things which are fairly easy to do. Don't have children. Switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Use public transport or bikes / walking rather than petrol cars. Use solar panels to offset your electricity consumption. Improve the thermal efficiency of your home to reduce energy usage. Switch to "green" energy suppliers. Lobby the companies you use to become more environmentally friendly. Ask your pension provider whether they have a low/no carbon plan - if so, switch your investments to it. Plant a small garden that you can take care of. Encourage others to do the same. Those are all things I've done. Some may be easier or not depending where in the world you are, and your financial means.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  If you don't have children, why should you care for the future generations? There could be some abstract argument about the unborn being as human as currently living people, but it cuts both ways.
  - rbg246 6y ago
    Do you mean to say you don't care for any living thing but your family?
    - steerablesafe 6y ago
      People care for their close ones much more than for strangers. It's human nature. It's not binary between caring and not caring.
      - rbg246 6y ago
        I think if you read the parent comment it was a binary question. Not disagreeing with your comment though.
    - gostsamo 6y ago
      I mean that not having children is denying unborn people from the lives that they might have for no better reason that this might be easier for someone else unborn. This line of thinking leads to a suicide as a logical step which is rather bad extreme.
      - fulafel 6y ago
        Saving potential people from being not-born leads to very bad extremes as well (maximizing reproduction). This is not a useful model of thinking.
        gostsamo 6y ago
        I agree. My point is that having children or not is the wrong argument. Decreasing population growth is much more ethically achievable by decreasing child mortality in developing countries, providing women there with the education to be self-reliant on their own, and providing them with birth control so that they can plan their parenthood.
LarvaFX 6y ago
atmosfair
soco 6y ago
The Carbon Majors Report of 2017 (summarized by Guardian [1], original PDF here [2]) found 71% of greenhouse emissions caused by 100 companies, the top dozen(s) being fossil fuel producers. I think there's much more needed to be done than a single individual, hermit-style approach. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... [2] https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240 https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  I think there's much more needed to be done than a single individual, hermit-style approach You don't have to become a hermit to lower your emissions. It is entirely possible to have a good social life whilst lowering your emissions. In fact I would argue that many of the changes you can make will improve your quality of life.
hackeraccount 6y ago
Go to school and become an engineer. Help develop a battery that's 1% better. Get a job and invest the money you make from it in a company that produces a solar cell that's 1% more efficient. You're in a position to help on the credit side of the ledger way more then you'll ever be able to do on the debit side.
kisamoto 6y ago
Okay it's a self plug but it you want to be an early adopter and help carbon removal along check out carbonremoved.com We have one time and subscription negative emissions from multiple methods. Happy to answer questions and receive any feature suggestions
ip26 6y ago
Zoom out. You are a tree. You need to see the forest. If you can get you & twenty of your friends to cut emissions 10%, that's far better than becoming a net zero human, and if you can get a thousand to cut 5% that's better still. This is a collective action problem. You need to do better to lead by example, but spend most of your brain cycles on influencing others.

adrianN 6y ago

You could always buy some cheap land somewhere, start a coppice and produce charcoal that you bury.

rhesa 6y ago
Unless you're in the tropics, where soil has a hard time hanging on to nutrients, you can probably skip the biochar step. Just bury the wood in hugelkultur.
- leoedin 6y ago
  The biochar step has the advantage of giving you back a bit of energy while you're doing it.

edent 6y ago

A short list of things which are fairly easy to do. Don't have children. Switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Use public transport or bikes / walking rather than petrol cars. Use solar panels to offset your electricity consumption. Improve the thermal efficiency of your home to reduce energy usage. Switch to "green" energy suppliers. Lobby the companies you use to become more environmentally friendly. Ask your pension provider whether they have a low/no carbon plan - if so, switch your investments to it. Plant a small garden that you can take care of. Encourage others to do the same. Those are all things I've done. Some may be easier or not depending where in the world you are, and your financial means.

gostsamo 6y ago
If you don't have children, why should you care for the future generations? There could be some abstract argument about the unborn being as human as currently living people, but it cuts both ways.
- rbg246 6y ago
  Do you mean to say you don't care for any living thing but your family?
  - steerablesafe 6y ago
    People care for their close ones much more than for strangers. It's human nature. It's not binary between caring and not caring.
    - rbg246 6y ago
      I think if you read the parent comment it was a binary question. Not disagreeing with your comment though.
  - gostsamo 6y ago
    I mean that not having children is denying unborn people from the lives that they might have for no better reason that this might be easier for someone else unborn. This line of thinking leads to a suicide as a logical step which is rather bad extreme.
    - fulafel 6y ago
      Saving potential people from being not-born leads to very bad extremes as well (maximizing reproduction). This is not a useful model of thinking.
      - gostsamo 6y ago
        I agree. My point is that having children or not is the wrong argument. Decreasing population growth is much more ethically achievable by decreasing child mortality in developing countries, providing women there with the education to be self-reliant on their own, and providing them with birth control so that they can plan their parenthood.

LarvaFX 6y ago

atmosfair

soco 6y ago

The Carbon Majors Report of 2017 (summarized by Guardian [1], original PDF here [2]) found 71% of greenhouse emissions caused by 100 companies, the top dozen(s) being fossil fuel producers. I think there's much more needed to be done than a single individual, hermit-style approach. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... [2] https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240 https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
I think there's much more needed to be done than a single individual, hermit-style approach You don't have to become a hermit to lower your emissions. It is entirely possible to have a good social life whilst lowering your emissions. In fact I would argue that many of the changes you can make will improve your quality of life.

hackeraccount 6y ago

Go to school and become an engineer. Help develop a battery that's 1% better. Get a job and invest the money you make from it in a company that produces a solar cell that's 1% more efficient. You're in a position to help on the credit side of the ledger way more then you'll ever be able to do on the debit side.

kisamoto 6y ago

Okay it's a self plug but it you want to be an early adopter and help carbon removal along check out carbonremoved.com We have one time and subscription negative emissions from multiple methods. Happy to answer questions and receive any feature suggestions

ip26 6y ago

Zoom out. You are a tree. You need to see the forest. If you can get you & twenty of your friends to cut emissions 10%, that's far better than becoming a net zero human, and if you can get a thousand to cut 5% that's better still. This is a collective action problem. You need to do better to lead by example, but spend most of your brain cycles on influencing others.