Degrowth is a word I’ve been noticing increasingly often and when I start noticing I’m seeing something more and more often, I sometimes begin paying attention to it.
Dear Irina, you are a carbon footprint saint. As a career consultant, when I used those carbon calculators, it was shocking. Flying, driving, eating out, buying fancy clothes are all no fly zones if you want to reduce your footprint. I personally worked on more zoom meetings, recycling my wardrobe (we live in a superficial society--especially for women to dress the part) and eating less meat. That is a personal choice and I am blessed I can worry about these issues---Whatever happened to good old fashion conservation movements? There are some common sense things you can do and should do if able. The reality is many of these papers forget basic human psychology.
There are dozens of things these calculators don't take into account, as you note, which makes them pointless except as a guilt trip tool. If your work requires you to travel and dress appropriately for the job it's not your decision, it's conventions that force it upon you but who cares. I agree about the common sense things but I accept they are a matter of choice, much as I may frown upon some of those choices. I try to do my part but the thing is it doesn't require any sacrifice. Except putting out laundry in the winter, perhaps. That's unpleasant but non-fatal, so. I don't mind.
18.2 on the Carbon Independent site. Did not try any others. I do wholly agree with you on the wastefulness of food. My wife and I grew up in the 50's and 60's with parents who although young went through the depression and in my wife's case through WW2 in the UK. We each were always taught to turn out the lights when we leave a room, a voice that I hear in my head all the time. (Also pre Vatican 2 catholic so I hear lots of voices telling me what to do. ) We never cook more than we can eat and largely eat a paleo diet. We don't eat out often and recycle everything including clothes. There was no mention of pets in the carbon footprint, I suspect our menagerie would have added considerably to our footprint.
Sounds insignificant. People once again are being indoctrinated to believe in the scarcity economy when in fact the opposite is true. The real scarcity by a large factor is a disinformation campaign by those who profit from scarcity.
Turn out the lights and close the door in winter -- I can still hear my dad reminding me. Now I remind my daughter. We pass on good habits.
Pets do add massively! One of those calculators had questions about pets and it immediately increased the footprint, a single cat. Dogs are way "worse".
I’m growing weary of being taught lessons by progressives.... Irina, in your previous piece on the stages of grief over the approaching death of the transition you made good points about its decline. Is this lower your carbon movement gaining traction, or is it the noisy fringe?
It ain't a noisy fringe. These are ruling cult of $trillionaires that are promoting this. Think WEF, World Bank, IMF, BIS, JP Morgan Chase, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission. This is deadly serious.
Yes, and the same fools who will not acquiesce to nuclear are perfectly fine with clear-cutting North American timber in order to produce wood pellets to then ship to Europe to use as fuel because they screwed the pooch (Russia). WTH is that carbon footprint? Not to mention the same fools who circled whaling ships in their little boats are perfectly fine killing whales if it leads to more offshore wind farms. Can we just finally admit these people are fools and be done with them?
Capitalism has brought us unprecedented wealth but also extreme economic inequality. Socialism tries to help everyone but cannot compete with Capitalism as it reduces innovation and entrepreneurship. And eventually degrades to dictatorship. Georgism or Geoism is a compromise between the two.
The land value tax sounds interesting - but could it potentially backfire in some rural areas? For example, the US state of New Hampshire has an "in current use" status for "undeveloped" land. if I understand correctly, owners of farmland, woodland or wetland areas are taxed at a lower rate for "in current use" parcels. Once a developer purchases the land and starts subdividing & building, the real estate developer pays a huge chunk of taxes to convert the land parcel out of "in current use". The rural seller benefits from the sale, but does not get hit with a high tax either while owning the land or during the selling process. At least in this particular US state, this appears to be a good thing, otherwise rural (and not usually rich) landowners may be more inclined to sell of land to avoid a high tax burden.
Yes, rural agricultural land is worth very little in comparison to urban land and so would be taxed at a low rate. If the land owner can get planning permission to be develop the land, the lands value can increase several fold. LVT is a way to capture some of that gain for community purposes.
At about 37 minutes, it says that agricultural land in the UK is worth about £5000 per acre but the same land with planning permission can be worth £1,000,000 per acre.
And here’s a suggestion on how to fix part of the problem.
We can have growth and mitigate economic and ecological collapse if we use very efficient, zero-carbon energy systems. That is, systems that have high Energy Return On Energy Invested, EROEI, values. Renewables have low EROEI values of maybe 2 to 10, fossil fuels have EROEI values of 5 to 50, pressurized water nuclear reactors have EROEI values of maybe 50 to 100 and fluid fuel reactors may have EROEI values of a thousand or more. Dual fluid reactors can be a game changer.
Thanks very much for this list - a true time saver. I've been tasked with the exercise of guiding our professional training firm in calculating our various "Scope" emissions, and two things occur to me - we are not serious about this, since we are at best guessing at the numbers and using factors and assumptions in order to get to the answer. People who think we can measure reductions in GLOBAL CO2 emissions in numbers less than .1 C can't actually believe these calculations. Next, COVID has created a tough challenge in that our personal emissions should have been quite low during global lockdown. Our reduction targets are going to be very challenging if we're forced to use 2020 as a baseline emissions year. My guess is that if possible games will be played to set the start point at 2019. Especially since employers have had enough of remote work and are requesting in office presence again. So, where are the organizational emissions reductions to come from next year? Brace yourselves for some massive backlash yet to come.
Glad to hear I've saved you some time, really! As for the rest, these calculators are an excellent illustration that the whole emission estimation game and its spawn are pure gibberish. Good luck!
It's definitely a game, and companies who mindlessly go along with these ridiculous disclosure regs are abdicating their duty to shareholders not to waste corporate resources.
As always, those pushing these ideas do not see themselves as bound by them, rather they expect others, namely us, to abide by their decisions. And this is why it will not happen, at least in the US, unless they disarm the entire nation, and that will be a tall task given the >400 million weapons in private hands.
Ah, but degrowth is for thee, Irina, not for the elites among us like US Climate "Czar" Jon Kerry:
"John Kerry needs to fly private to negotiate climate deals that help China pollute and prosper while tanking the American economy. "It's the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world..I have to fly to meet with people and get things done."
Believe whatever narrative you chose but reality is dictated by supply/demand and economic imperatives. Oil is finite and the transition to a new fuel will continue to take place over the next few decades. Various narratives will propel social acceptance but a carbon tax is how they will make everyone pay for it. Stop fighting the narratives and follow the money.
Supply/demand is largely manipulated by those in power. Most singular examples being their enforced blockade on Nuclear energy & Methanol fuel. The Energy Scarcity we are experiencing is deliberate manipulation of the Market. These ruling Malthusian Psychopath Parasites have an agenda, it involves enforced poverty, a neo-feudal socioeconomic system, massive wealth transfer and energy scarcity.
Degrowthers are the biggest scam artists, grifters, snake oil salesmen on the planet. Unbelievable these guys, what audacity. On one hand they bemoan excess use of energy & resources while touting efficiency. And in the next breath tell us how we must urgently switch to Renewable Energy?!?
Renewable energy, especially their prized top 4 = wind, solar, agrofuels and hydrogen are the best examples of INEFFICIENCY on Steroids. Wind & solar terrible inefficiency for reasons I list below. Agrofuels wasting good agricultural resources to produce vehicle fuel at an EROI of <1, >100% waste. Hydrogen amplifies Wind/Solar inefficiency by a factor of 3-5X. And as for resource waste, just go read Mark P. Mills, Wind/Solar would use more material inputs than the entire World can produce, an impossibility:
10) massive energy loss in having a duplicate energy supply for when wind & solar are low
11) high material inputs for wind/solar of high energy input materials = Low EROI, >18X the material inputs of nuclear or gas
12) EV charging in the most inefficient method = fast charging stations in the daytime when grid is already at max output rather than at home charging at a slow rate overnight when there is surplus generating capacity
13) the largest machine on Earth = The Grid constructed & utilized in the most inefficient manner. All large machines are most efficient when running 24/7, summer/winter. That's why wind & solar are made in giant factories running 24/7.
I am going on a trip to Rome with some friends shortly and one of them is urging me to offset the carbon footprint of the flight by paying Clear – Climate Change Experts since 2005! Have you any writings about this absurd rip off?
Not yet but it looks like it's time to plan one. Carbon offsets are the modern version of Catholic indulgence sales in the Middle Ages. Pay up and all your carbon sins are forgiven.
To put it in a nutshell, our self-anointed superiors are panicking, Malthus-style, over human population growth.
They are quite literally losing their minds over it.
They truly believe that humans will overrun the planet, turning it into a wasteland.
And, because they've turned their backs to God - who made this home for us in the first place - they don't see anyone who's in control. So THEY will take control.
Their solution? Reduce the population of the average person, meaning, of course, you and me.
Coal, oil, natural gas, and meat ALL help humanity to prosper. If you look at the graph of human population growth over the past 1,000 years, it starts to pick up steam only after the power in coal is discovered.
Oil and natural gas have kept the momentum going.
Solution? Get rid of coal, oil, natural gas, and meat. Then make life so unutterably expensive that people will have fewer & fewer children.
With our nincompoop leadership constantly trying to "fix" society, they very well might lead us to a world-wide societal collapse.
Now I know why and when Jesus will return. He'll be rescuing human society just before it falls over the cliff into the abyss.
That's what God did with the people of Israel in Egypt, i.e., he rescued them just before they got swallowed up in the maw of Egyptian society.
I do have a problem with the carbon footprint calculators. Let's assume I forgo taking that flight to somewhere sunny. Does it mean the plane won't take off? No, it does not, because I'm taking a regular scheduled flight - it will emit those CO2 molecules whether I'm on it or not.
Yes, of course, if many people will take the same action, Ryanair will eventually drop that flight to Tenerife or wherever. Or transitions to SAF.
But until then I am being forced into a guilt trip or milked like a cow for those "carbon offset credits". Guess how happy that makes me ;-0
Just as happy as it makes me, I imagine. :) But it'd be tough to guilt-trip me. Last time I flied was in 2020 and there is no way I'm feeling guilty for either eating meat or driving. Both adults in my family are below average weight, it's genetic, and we need the easy protein. The kid is almost entirely vegetarian because she's a picky meat eater so there, try and guilt-trip me, I dare them.
I miss the simple days of arguments with old school lefties. I always appreciated their focus on the less fortunate as that is very much not my nature to consider very often.
It is crazy how different the CO2 estimates are for eating meat. I think that probably means the data they are using to calculate it is garbage...
Those were good days when rational arguments instead of verbal wars were possible. They still are, there are some old-school lefties left, AND they're young. There's hope.
I suspect some of these estimates only focus on beef or greatly exaggerate energy inputs for meat production. Or probably both. Garbage in, garbage out.
I tried doing mine! I got 83 tons of CO2. Apparently thats a lot
Carbon prison is where you belong!
I will tell you the truth about your Carbon Footprint. The two biggest Carbon Footprint penalties by far are:
1) 200 tons per/yr: If you oppose Nuclear Power.
2) 100 tons per/yr: If you promote wind & solar energy.
Those are just the facts. Sorry.
Dear Irina, you are a carbon footprint saint. As a career consultant, when I used those carbon calculators, it was shocking. Flying, driving, eating out, buying fancy clothes are all no fly zones if you want to reduce your footprint. I personally worked on more zoom meetings, recycling my wardrobe (we live in a superficial society--especially for women to dress the part) and eating less meat. That is a personal choice and I am blessed I can worry about these issues---Whatever happened to good old fashion conservation movements? There are some common sense things you can do and should do if able. The reality is many of these papers forget basic human psychology.
There are dozens of things these calculators don't take into account, as you note, which makes them pointless except as a guilt trip tool. If your work requires you to travel and dress appropriately for the job it's not your decision, it's conventions that force it upon you but who cares. I agree about the common sense things but I accept they are a matter of choice, much as I may frown upon some of those choices. I try to do my part but the thing is it doesn't require any sacrifice. Except putting out laundry in the winter, perhaps. That's unpleasant but non-fatal, so. I don't mind.
18.2 on the Carbon Independent site. Did not try any others. I do wholly agree with you on the wastefulness of food. My wife and I grew up in the 50's and 60's with parents who although young went through the depression and in my wife's case through WW2 in the UK. We each were always taught to turn out the lights when we leave a room, a voice that I hear in my head all the time. (Also pre Vatican 2 catholic so I hear lots of voices telling me what to do. ) We never cook more than we can eat and largely eat a paleo diet. We don't eat out often and recycle everything including clothes. There was no mention of pets in the carbon footprint, I suspect our menagerie would have added considerably to our footprint.
Sounds insignificant. People once again are being indoctrinated to believe in the scarcity economy when in fact the opposite is true. The real scarcity by a large factor is a disinformation campaign by those who profit from scarcity.
Turn out the lights and close the door in winter -- I can still hear my dad reminding me. Now I remind my daughter. We pass on good habits.
Pets do add massively! One of those calculators had questions about pets and it immediately increased the footprint, a single cat. Dogs are way "worse".
I’m growing weary of being taught lessons by progressives.... Irina, in your previous piece on the stages of grief over the approaching death of the transition you made good points about its decline. Is this lower your carbon movement gaining traction, or is it the noisy fringe?
It's a noisy fringe with a lot of potential political power.
It ain't a noisy fringe. These are ruling cult of $trillionaires that are promoting this. Think WEF, World Bank, IMF, BIS, JP Morgan Chase, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission. This is deadly serious.
It is gaining traction because it us becoming clear that wind and solar won't cut it without a dramatic change in our energy consuming habits.
Yes, and the same fools who will not acquiesce to nuclear are perfectly fine with clear-cutting North American timber in order to produce wood pellets to then ship to Europe to use as fuel because they screwed the pooch (Russia). WTH is that carbon footprint? Not to mention the same fools who circled whaling ships in their little boats are perfectly fine killing whales if it leads to more offshore wind farms. Can we just finally admit these people are fools and be done with them?
It's worse, they're hypocrites and fools.
Capitalism has brought us unprecedented wealth but also extreme economic inequality. Socialism tries to help everyone but cannot compete with Capitalism as it reduces innovation and entrepreneurship. And eventually degrades to dictatorship. Georgism or Geoism is a compromise between the two.
https://douglasrmclain.substack.com/p/georgism
The land value tax sounds interesting - but could it potentially backfire in some rural areas? For example, the US state of New Hampshire has an "in current use" status for "undeveloped" land. if I understand correctly, owners of farmland, woodland or wetland areas are taxed at a lower rate for "in current use" parcels. Once a developer purchases the land and starts subdividing & building, the real estate developer pays a huge chunk of taxes to convert the land parcel out of "in current use". The rural seller benefits from the sale, but does not get hit with a high tax either while owning the land or during the selling process. At least in this particular US state, this appears to be a good thing, otherwise rural (and not usually rich) landowners may be more inclined to sell of land to avoid a high tax burden.
Yes, rural agricultural land is worth very little in comparison to urban land and so would be taxed at a low rate. If the land owner can get planning permission to be develop the land, the lands value can increase several fold. LVT is a way to capture some of that gain for community purposes.
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/value-capture
Here’s a video about land ownership in the UK
https://youtu.be/VMUkgRzRhik
At about 37 minutes, it says that agricultural land in the UK is worth about £5000 per acre but the same land with planning permission can be worth £1,000,000 per acre.
And here’s a suggestion on how to fix part of the problem.
https://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=255263
First time I hear about this, thanks!
https://douglasrmclain.substack.com/p/save-the-world-with-nuclear-power-aef
We can have growth and mitigate economic and ecological collapse if we use very efficient, zero-carbon energy systems. That is, systems that have high Energy Return On Energy Invested, EROEI, values. Renewables have low EROEI values of maybe 2 to 10, fossil fuels have EROEI values of 5 to 50, pressurized water nuclear reactors have EROEI values of maybe 50 to 100 and fluid fuel reactors may have EROEI values of a thousand or more. Dual fluid reactors can be a game changer.
https://www.daretothink.org/dfr-the-dual-fluid-reactor/
https://landcycleinvestor.fattail.com.au/the-land-story-behind-inflation-stagflation-that-so-many-fail-to-see/
Thanks very much for this list - a true time saver. I've been tasked with the exercise of guiding our professional training firm in calculating our various "Scope" emissions, and two things occur to me - we are not serious about this, since we are at best guessing at the numbers and using factors and assumptions in order to get to the answer. People who think we can measure reductions in GLOBAL CO2 emissions in numbers less than .1 C can't actually believe these calculations. Next, COVID has created a tough challenge in that our personal emissions should have been quite low during global lockdown. Our reduction targets are going to be very challenging if we're forced to use 2020 as a baseline emissions year. My guess is that if possible games will be played to set the start point at 2019. Especially since employers have had enough of remote work and are requesting in office presence again. So, where are the organizational emissions reductions to come from next year? Brace yourselves for some massive backlash yet to come.
Glad to hear I've saved you some time, really! As for the rest, these calculators are an excellent illustration that the whole emission estimation game and its spawn are pure gibberish. Good luck!
It's definitely a game, and companies who mindlessly go along with these ridiculous disclosure regs are abdicating their duty to shareholders not to waste corporate resources.
As always, those pushing these ideas do not see themselves as bound by them, rather they expect others, namely us, to abide by their decisions. And this is why it will not happen, at least in the US, unless they disarm the entire nation, and that will be a tall task given the >400 million weapons in private hands.
As always, you said it. Social media that they used to indoctrinate us are boomeranging spectacularly.
Ah, but degrowth is for thee, Irina, not for the elites among us like US Climate "Czar" Jon Kerry:
"John Kerry needs to fly private to negotiate climate deals that help China pollute and prosper while tanking the American economy. "It's the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world..I have to fly to meet with people and get things done."
Hypocrites, the entire lot of them!
Believe whatever narrative you chose but reality is dictated by supply/demand and economic imperatives. Oil is finite and the transition to a new fuel will continue to take place over the next few decades. Various narratives will propel social acceptance but a carbon tax is how they will make everyone pay for it. Stop fighting the narratives and follow the money.
Supply/demand is largely manipulated by those in power. Most singular examples being their enforced blockade on Nuclear energy & Methanol fuel. The Energy Scarcity we are experiencing is deliberate manipulation of the Market. These ruling Malthusian Psychopath Parasites have an agenda, it involves enforced poverty, a neo-feudal socioeconomic system, massive wealth transfer and energy scarcity.
Degrowthers are the biggest scam artists, grifters, snake oil salesmen on the planet. Unbelievable these guys, what audacity. On one hand they bemoan excess use of energy & resources while touting efficiency. And in the next breath tell us how we must urgently switch to Renewable Energy?!?
Renewable energy, especially their prized top 4 = wind, solar, agrofuels and hydrogen are the best examples of INEFFICIENCY on Steroids. Wind & solar terrible inefficiency for reasons I list below. Agrofuels wasting good agricultural resources to produce vehicle fuel at an EROI of <1, >100% waste. Hydrogen amplifies Wind/Solar inefficiency by a factor of 3-5X. And as for resource waste, just go read Mark P. Mills, Wind/Solar would use more material inputs than the entire World can produce, an impossibility:
https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion
Examples of wind/solar inefficiency:
1) solar extracts 10-22% of incident energy, wind 20-45% of incident energy
2) installing solar & wind inefficiently, like on sub-optimal aligned or shaded roofs, inferior wind locations
3) overbuild
4) curtailment
5) negative pricing
6) long distance transmission with low economic value solar/wind = high line loss 10-30%
7) storage needed = 10-70% energy loss
8) cycling of shadowing fossil, nuclear & hydro power plants is max inefficiency
9) economic forcing of low efficiency diesel, OCGT & dirtiest coal replacing high efficiency CCGT, cleanest supercritical coal, nuclear & hydro
10) massive energy loss in having a duplicate energy supply for when wind & solar are low
11) high material inputs for wind/solar of high energy input materials = Low EROI, >18X the material inputs of nuclear or gas
12) EV charging in the most inefficient method = fast charging stations in the daytime when grid is already at max output rather than at home charging at a slow rate overnight when there is surplus generating capacity
13) the largest machine on Earth = The Grid constructed & utilized in the most inefficient manner. All large machines are most efficient when running 24/7, summer/winter. That's why wind & solar are made in giant factories running 24/7.
I am going on a trip to Rome with some friends shortly and one of them is urging me to offset the carbon footprint of the flight by paying Clear – Climate Change Experts since 2005! Have you any writings about this absurd rip off?
Not yet but it looks like it's time to plan one. Carbon offsets are the modern version of Catholic indulgence sales in the Middle Ages. Pay up and all your carbon sins are forgiven.
To put it in a nutshell, our self-anointed superiors are panicking, Malthus-style, over human population growth.
They are quite literally losing their minds over it.
They truly believe that humans will overrun the planet, turning it into a wasteland.
And, because they've turned their backs to God - who made this home for us in the first place - they don't see anyone who's in control. So THEY will take control.
Their solution? Reduce the population of the average person, meaning, of course, you and me.
Coal, oil, natural gas, and meat ALL help humanity to prosper. If you look at the graph of human population growth over the past 1,000 years, it starts to pick up steam only after the power in coal is discovered.
Oil and natural gas have kept the momentum going.
Solution? Get rid of coal, oil, natural gas, and meat. Then make life so unutterably expensive that people will have fewer & fewer children.
With our nincompoop leadership constantly trying to "fix" society, they very well might lead us to a world-wide societal collapse.
Now I know why and when Jesus will return. He'll be rescuing human society just before it falls over the cliff into the abyss.
That's what God did with the people of Israel in Egypt, i.e., he rescued them just before they got swallowed up in the maw of Egyptian society.
I do have a problem with the carbon footprint calculators. Let's assume I forgo taking that flight to somewhere sunny. Does it mean the plane won't take off? No, it does not, because I'm taking a regular scheduled flight - it will emit those CO2 molecules whether I'm on it or not.
Yes, of course, if many people will take the same action, Ryanair will eventually drop that flight to Tenerife or wherever. Or transitions to SAF.
But until then I am being forced into a guilt trip or milked like a cow for those "carbon offset credits". Guess how happy that makes me ;-0
Just as happy as it makes me, I imagine. :) But it'd be tough to guilt-trip me. Last time I flied was in 2020 and there is no way I'm feeling guilty for either eating meat or driving. Both adults in my family are below average weight, it's genetic, and we need the easy protein. The kid is almost entirely vegetarian because she's a picky meat eater so there, try and guilt-trip me, I dare them.
I miss the simple days of arguments with old school lefties. I always appreciated their focus on the less fortunate as that is very much not my nature to consider very often.
It is crazy how different the CO2 estimates are for eating meat. I think that probably means the data they are using to calculate it is garbage...
Those were good days when rational arguments instead of verbal wars were possible. They still are, there are some old-school lefties left, AND they're young. There's hope.
I suspect some of these estimates only focus on beef or greatly exaggerate energy inputs for meat production. Or probably both. Garbage in, garbage out.