15 ms·

Python library tracks energy consumption and calculates your carbon emissions

49 points by fvaleye 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
https://2degrees-investing.org/resource/a-citizens-footprint/ https://2degrees-investing.org/resource/a-citizens-footprint... A Citizen’s Footprint: An analysis of the carbon footprint of consumption, investment, and political choices for the UK and Germany > Voting for climate-friendly political parties in Germany & the UK could be the best way to minimize your carbon footprint > 2DII’s analysis finds that voting for a climate-friendly party can reduce the carbon footprint of an individual’s voting choice by almost 7,000 kgs of CO2 per year. This compares to around 2,900 kgs of CO2 per year through a combination of going vegan, switching to a zero-carbon electricity provider, cutting out air travel, and switching from a petrol to an electric car. A typical UK citizen will reduce an additional 2,700 kgs of CO2 per year by switching to a low-carbon equity pension plan. > A key driver of this outcome is the fact that changing consumption patterns will ‘only’ reduce your own footprint, while voting in elections can realize policies that change the footprint of an entire country – including for those voters that voted against climate policies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
WalterBright 4y ago
Tracking carbon emissions is the most inefficient, ineffective and impractical method ever devised for reducing CO2 emissions. For example, my airline ticket has a line with how many tons of carbon are emitted by my share of the flight. What the heck is anyone going to do with that? But with the carbon tax on jet fuel, the price of the ticket is definitely going to affect behavior. And, of course, taxing fuel is FAR easier than trying to accurately measure the carbon in the jet blast at every stage of a flight. An efficient, effective, and practical way to do it is to tax the carbon content of fuels, and let the market do its thing with prices.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Another crazy thing is requiring companies to document their "carbon footprint". Doing this will require an army of technicians and accountants, with every incentive to tilt the results into looking "green". And then what does one do with that number? Harangue the company about it? Again, the simple, effective solution is just tax the carbon content in the fuel. If there's one thing the government does know how to do, it's tax things.
  - abyssin 4y ago
    Yesterday I read some part of a report made for a national company about their carbon footprint. They got an auditing firm to produce nice charts. Then they hired a communication agency to present the result to their employees. They literally wrote: “Don’t show this chart, we don’t want employees to lose motivation.” What the graph shows is that the main source of emissions for this company is their investments.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > And, of course, taxing fuel is FAR easier than trying to accurately measure the carbon in the jet blast at every stage of a flight. Right, but that's exactly why we're not doing it... Anything that's actually effective would eat into profits too much and upset the people that the lobbyists and lawmakers work for.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    It's even a bit sadder than that. It would eat into profits mostly in the short term. In the longer term, we would get more efficient with our transportation and manufacturing practices: a whole host of decisions are made which assume certain energy prices--after a decade of gradually rising carbon prices, these assumptions would get revised and the whole system would be recalibrated to be more carbon efficient, thus keeping prices low for the consumer while also maintaining profitability for corporations. Moreover, we can start with an arbitrarily low carbon price so we don't break the economy (specifically the aforementioned profits), but the important bit is that we actually have a dial to turn to save the environment (which is presumably what investors fear).
nurettin 4y ago
I'm starting to see a trend for all these carbon footprint and environmental impact tabs integrated into apps and even bank interfaces. I never use them because it is obviously PR stuff that will never contain any useful, actionable advice. On top of that, won't all of this logging and extra computation actually increase carbon emissions?
- fbrncci 4y ago
  Just wait until banks stop giving carbon offenders credit, interest or loans when monthly personal carbon footprint limits are exceeded. You'll see the usefulness then /s.
  - gruez 4y ago
    You're writing as if this is a bad thing, but this sound like something that climate activists would actually support? It's basically ESG investing, but in reverse. Rather than trying to affect change by boycotting companies with a bad climate track record, you're trying to affect change by boycotting people with a climate track record.
- enviclash 4y ago
  Well, when there are professionals applying science to create labels like "green, yellow or red", this is good natural science creating understable information for behavioural nudges... much more than PR
- lozenge 4y ago
  It's a convenient little responsibility two-step - us companies aren't responsible, it's you guys for choosing high carbon options! So rather than reducing the carbon emissions of all options as much as possible, they just call it out and claim it's on us. Basically, the same as making packaging which mixes metal, plastic and paper, and then telling you there's two places in your city you can drop it off for "recycling", so they've done their bit.
  - gruez 4y ago
spondyl 4y ago
A reminder that the idea of a carbon footprint originated from BP as a way to shift blame to the consumer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint > The use of household carbon footprint calculators originated when oil producer BP hired Ogilvy to create an "effective propaganda" campaign to shift responsibility of climate change-causing pollution away from the corporations and institutions that created a society where carbon emissions are unavoidable and onto personal lifestyle choices. The term "carbon footprint" was also popularized by BP.
- fvaleye 4y ago
  Oh thank you for sharing this! I'm happy to know more about the origin of this concept (and the associated propaganda from BP).
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    To add to this, another 'green' idea - plastic recycling - is equally a marketing ploy by the industry. [0] They always knew full well that it would never be feasible for the large majority of plastic types but to claim that it 'could' be recyclable somehow makes it seem like it is on you. When really we would have to live an ascetic live to avoid plastic as a consumer. [0] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled?t=1654263731941 https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
- game_the0ry 4y ago
  > A reminder that the idea of a carbon footprint originated from BP as a way to shift blame to the consumer... Also a way to deflect blame from rich folks who fly in private jets, are chauffeured in gas-guzzling SUVs, and who also travel too often.
  - dangerlibrary 4y ago
    It literally doesn't matter who consumes it. As soon as the oil is out of the ground, we've already lost. That stored carbon is going into the atmosphere or into new a plastic / other petroleum product (which is often eventually burned and sent into the atmosphere). Extraction taxes/bans are the only policy that matters. We need to leave the carbon that's already in the ground in the ground. Expensive new ways to re-sequester a fraction of the extracted carbon are just a shell game. Efficiency efforts will always be hindered by some variant of Jevon's paradox. [0]. Companies (like BP) that are heavily invested in extraction technology and capital - drilling rigs, pipelines, etc. - will try to convince you that we can extract as much as we want indefinitely, and figure out how to get the carbon out of the atmosphere later. It's a stupid, obviously wrong, bad-faith argument from an amoral, economically motivated set of actors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
eloycoto 4y ago
There is also this project, that it's pretty cool to know who is consuming what. https://github.com/sustainable-computing-io/kepler https://github.com/sustainable-computing-io/kepler
- fvaleye 4y ago
  Thanks for sharing, a nice K8s integration :)
steeleyespan 4y ago
Doing my best to get the high score, but can't seem to win.
melling 4y ago
Squirrel! Time to watch Carl Sagan discuss climate change in 1985 then explain why 40% of global electricity is generated from coal. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

49 points by fvaleye 4y ago

https://2degrees-investing.org/resource/a-citizens-footprint/ https://2degrees-investing.org/resource/a-citizens-footprint... A Citizen’s Footprint: An analysis of the carbon footprint of consumption, investment, and political choices for the UK and Germany > Voting for climate-friendly political parties in Germany & the UK could be the best way to minimize your carbon footprint > 2DII’s analysis finds that voting for a climate-friendly party can reduce the carbon footprint of an individual’s voting choice by almost 7,000 kgs of CO2 per year. This compares to around 2,900 kgs of CO2 per year through a combination of going vegan, switching to a zero-carbon electricity provider, cutting out air travel, and switching from a petrol to an electric car. A typical UK citizen will reduce an additional 2,700 kgs of CO2 per year by switching to a low-carbon equity pension plan. > A key driver of this outcome is the fact that changing consumption patterns will ‘only’ reduce your own footprint, while voting in elections can realize policies that change the footprint of an entire country – including for those voters that voted against climate policies.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

WalterBright 4y ago

Tracking carbon emissions is the most inefficient, ineffective and impractical method ever devised for reducing CO2 emissions. For example, my airline ticket has a line with how many tons of carbon are emitted by my share of the flight. What the heck is anyone going to do with that? But with the carbon tax on jet fuel, the price of the ticket is definitely going to affect behavior. And, of course, taxing fuel is FAR easier than trying to accurately measure the carbon in the jet blast at every stage of a flight. An efficient, effective, and practical way to do it is to tax the carbon content of fuels, and let the market do its thing with prices.

WalterBright 4y ago
Another crazy thing is requiring companies to document their "carbon footprint". Doing this will require an army of technicians and accountants, with every incentive to tilt the results into looking "green". And then what does one do with that number? Harangue the company about it? Again, the simple, effective solution is just tax the carbon content in the fuel. If there's one thing the government does know how to do, it's tax things.
- abyssin 4y ago
  Yesterday I read some part of a report made for a national company about their carbon footprint. They got an auditing firm to produce nice charts. Then they hired a communication agency to present the result to their employees. They literally wrote: “Don’t show this chart, we don’t want employees to lose motivation.” What the graph shows is that the main source of emissions for this company is their investments.
guerrilla 4y ago
> And, of course, taxing fuel is FAR easier than trying to accurately measure the carbon in the jet blast at every stage of a flight. Right, but that's exactly why we're not doing it... Anything that's actually effective would eat into profits too much and upset the people that the lobbyists and lawmakers work for.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  It's even a bit sadder than that. It would eat into profits mostly in the short term. In the longer term, we would get more efficient with our transportation and manufacturing practices: a whole host of decisions are made which assume certain energy prices--after a decade of gradually rising carbon prices, these assumptions would get revised and the whole system would be recalibrated to be more carbon efficient, thus keeping prices low for the consumer while also maintaining profitability for corporations. Moreover, we can start with an arbitrarily low carbon price so we don't break the economy (specifically the aforementioned profits), but the important bit is that we actually have a dial to turn to save the environment (which is presumably what investors fear).

nurettin 4y ago

I'm starting to see a trend for all these carbon footprint and environmental impact tabs integrated into apps and even bank interfaces. I never use them because it is obviously PR stuff that will never contain any useful, actionable advice. On top of that, won't all of this logging and extra computation actually increase carbon emissions?

fbrncci 4y ago
Just wait until banks stop giving carbon offenders credit, interest or loans when monthly personal carbon footprint limits are exceeded. You'll see the usefulness then /s.
- gruez 4y ago
  You're writing as if this is a bad thing, but this sound like something that climate activists would actually support? It's basically ESG investing, but in reverse. Rather than trying to affect change by boycotting companies with a bad climate track record, you're trying to affect change by boycotting people with a climate track record.
enviclash 4y ago
Well, when there are professionals applying science to create labels like "green, yellow or red", this is good natural science creating understable information for behavioural nudges... much more than PR
lozenge 4y ago
It's a convenient little responsibility two-step - us companies aren't responsible, it's you guys for choosing high carbon options! So rather than reducing the carbon emissions of all options as much as possible, they just call it out and claim it's on us. Basically, the same as making packaging which mixes metal, plastic and paper, and then telling you there's two places in your city you can drop it off for "recycling", so they've done their bit.
- gruez 4y ago

spondyl 4y ago

A reminder that the idea of a carbon footprint originated from BP as a way to shift blame to the consumer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint > The use of household carbon footprint calculators originated when oil producer BP hired Ogilvy to create an "effective propaganda" campaign to shift responsibility of climate change-causing pollution away from the corporations and institutions that created a society where carbon emissions are unavoidable and onto personal lifestyle choices. The term "carbon footprint" was also popularized by BP.

fvaleye 4y ago
Oh thank you for sharing this! I'm happy to know more about the origin of this concept (and the associated propaganda from BP).
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  To add to this, another 'green' idea - plastic recycling - is equally a marketing ploy by the industry. [0] They always knew full well that it would never be feasible for the large majority of plastic types but to claim that it 'could' be recyclable somehow makes it seem like it is on you. When really we would have to live an ascetic live to avoid plastic as a consumer. [0] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled?t=1654263731941 https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
game_the0ry 4y ago
> A reminder that the idea of a carbon footprint originated from BP as a way to shift blame to the consumer... Also a way to deflect blame from rich folks who fly in private jets, are chauffeured in gas-guzzling SUVs, and who also travel too often.
- dangerlibrary 4y ago
  It literally doesn't matter who consumes it. As soon as the oil is out of the ground, we've already lost. That stored carbon is going into the atmosphere or into new a plastic / other petroleum product (which is often eventually burned and sent into the atmosphere). Extraction taxes/bans are the only policy that matters. We need to leave the carbon that's already in the ground in the ground. Expensive new ways to re-sequester a fraction of the extracted carbon are just a shell game. Efficiency efforts will always be hindered by some variant of Jevon's paradox. [0]. Companies (like BP) that are heavily invested in extraction technology and capital - drilling rigs, pipelines, etc. - will try to convince you that we can extract as much as we want indefinitely, and figure out how to get the carbon out of the atmosphere later. It's a stupid, obviously wrong, bad-faith argument from an amoral, economically motivated set of actors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

eloycoto 4y ago

There is also this project, that it's pretty cool to know who is consuming what. https://github.com/sustainable-computing-io/kepler https://github.com/sustainable-computing-io/kepler

fvaleye 4y ago
Thanks for sharing, a nice K8s integration :)

steeleyespan 4y ago

Doing my best to get the high score, but can't seem to win.

melling 4y ago

Squirrel! Time to watch Carl Sagan discuss climate change in 1985 then explain why 40% of global electricity is generated from coal. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI