4 ms·

A quick google tells me household consumption contributes to 72% of GHG emissions: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ful

A quick google tells me household consumption contributes to 72% of GHG emissions: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a

vkou 4y ago
This is a pointless game of accounting, that distracts from the issue at hand. As long as producers aren't taxed for emissions, consumers can't pick lower-emission producers.
- jcranberry 4y ago
  We should be approaching the problem from all avenues, so I agree. But this campaign that ordinary people shouldn't arsed to do anything because it won't make a difference is absurd.
  - vkou 4y ago
    I can't be arsed to do it, not because it won't make a difference, but because I have no ability to know that an alleged lower-carbon product is actually lower-carbon, and not just marketing bullshit and accounting trickery. Encoding it in cost is the only metric that the manufacturer won't be able to game. It's the only honest, guaranteed signal for any product. Making purchasing decisions based on it is the whole point of market economies. Tax carbon at the same cost as it takes to pull it out of the air[1], and consumers will start buying low-carbon alternatives. [1] You should also probably take that money, and actually pull it out of the air, though.
    - jcranberry 4y ago
      Most likely there are trustworthy certifications which you can look for depending on the product. But I agree it isn't always easy. You can also participate in the used/2nd hand market. That makes a bigger difference than people often account for. Otherwise there's changing to clean energy providers for your home, switching to electric vehicles, and eating less beef and dairy. But I'm still all for the carbon tax.
adolph 4y ago
Maybe read before you make a statement about how "a quick google tells me?" The parent comment reference to "personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use" is not comparable to the linked paper's "household consumption," a "consumption category" that includes things like agriculture and manufacturing, see excerpt below. On the global level, 72% are related to household consumption, 10% to government consumption (compared to a 16% share in global GDP), and 18% to investments (compared to a 21% share in global GDP). Nutrition is the most important consumption category, with food accounting for nearly 20% of the GHG emissions. Because we include the supply chain in our analysis, methane and nitrous oxides from agricultural production play a significant role. “Shelter”, the operation and maintenance of residences, causes 19% of the emissions, most of it related to the direct energy consumption by the buildings. Unlike the convention in household environmental impact studies (8), the sectoral detail in the GTAP data did not allow us to allocate furniture or cleaning products to the category of shelter; they are rather grouped under manufactured products. The construction of buildings is mostly allocated to investments, together with the construction of infrastructure. Construction accounts for 10% of the CF globally. Mobility for private households accounts for 17% of the emissions. Almost half of this is caused by fuel combustion by private motorists. Other important contributors are the production of motor vehicles and the purchase of air and land transport services. Freight transportation is allocated to consumed products and not private mobility. Services apart from wholesale and retail trade margins account for a total of 16%, where “public administration, defense, health, and education” is by far the most important with 11%. Trade margins account for 5.5% and represent the accumulated emissions from distribution between the producer and final consumer. Manufactured products cause a total of 13% of the CF, whereas clothing represents 2.8%, machinery and equipment account for 5%, followed by the household consumption of chemical products and the consumption of electronic equipment.
- jcranberry 4y ago
  I did read it. 19% of global emissions from household power and 17% from mobility (cars and such) is not miniscule, and not agricultural/commercial usage.

A quick google tells me household consumption contributes to 72% of GHG emissions: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a

vkou 4y ago

This is a pointless game of accounting, that distracts from the issue at hand. As long as producers aren't taxed for emissions, consumers can't pick lower-emission producers.

jcranberry 4y ago
We should be approaching the problem from all avenues, so I agree. But this campaign that ordinary people shouldn't arsed to do anything because it won't make a difference is absurd.
- vkou 4y ago
  I can't be arsed to do it, not because it won't make a difference, but because I have no ability to know that an alleged lower-carbon product is actually lower-carbon, and not just marketing bullshit and accounting trickery. Encoding it in cost is the only metric that the manufacturer won't be able to game. It's the only honest, guaranteed signal for any product. Making purchasing decisions based on it is the whole point of market economies. Tax carbon at the same cost as it takes to pull it out of the air[1], and consumers will start buying low-carbon alternatives. [1] You should also probably take that money, and actually pull it out of the air, though.
  - jcranberry 4y ago
    Most likely there are trustworthy certifications which you can look for depending on the product. But I agree it isn't always easy. You can also participate in the used/2nd hand market. That makes a bigger difference than people often account for. Otherwise there's changing to clean energy providers for your home, switching to electric vehicles, and eating less beef and dairy. But I'm still all for the carbon tax.

adolph 4y ago

Maybe read before you make a statement about how "a quick google tells me?" The parent comment reference to "personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use" is not comparable to the linked paper's "household consumption," a "consumption category" that includes things like agriculture and manufacturing, see excerpt below. On the global level, 72% are related to household consumption, 10% to government consumption (compared to a 16% share in global GDP), and 18% to investments (compared to a 21% share in global GDP). Nutrition is the most important consumption category, with food accounting for nearly 20% of the GHG emissions. Because we include the supply chain in our analysis, methane and nitrous oxides from agricultural production play a significant role. “Shelter”, the operation and maintenance of residences, causes 19% of the emissions, most of it related to the direct energy consumption by the buildings. Unlike the convention in household environmental impact studies (8), the sectoral detail in the GTAP data did not allow us to allocate furniture or cleaning products to the category of shelter; they are rather grouped under manufactured products. The construction of buildings is mostly allocated to investments, together with the construction of infrastructure. Construction accounts for 10% of the CF globally. Mobility for private households accounts for 17% of the emissions. Almost half of this is caused by fuel combustion by private motorists. Other important contributors are the production of motor vehicles and the purchase of air and land transport services. Freight transportation is allocated to consumed products and not private mobility. Services apart from wholesale and retail trade margins account for a total of 16%, where “public administration, defense, health, and education” is by far the most important with 11%. Trade margins account for 5.5% and represent the accumulated emissions from distribution between the producer and final consumer. Manufactured products cause a total of 13% of the CF, whereas clothing represents 2.8%, machinery and equipment account for 5%, followed by the household consumption of chemical products and the consumption of electronic equipment.

jcranberry 4y ago
I did read it. 19% of global emissions from household power and 17% from mobility (cars and such) is not miniscule, and not agricultural/commercial usage.