# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Fashion Graveyard | Earth Science Article for Students | Scholastic Science World Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How did tons of discarded clothes end up dumped in a desert in Chile?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In January, one of the world’s major automakers, General Motors (GM), announced that it would stop selling gas-powered cars by 2035. The company says it will make more battery-powered vehicles. In March, Swedish automaker Volvo stepped up the timeline. It…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The worst effects of climate change could happen sooner than expected.

That's the warning of a report released October 8 by the United Nations' scientific panel on climate change. The panel included 91 scientists from 40 countries. They analyzed thousands of studies.

The Earth has warmed by 1.8°F since industrial coal burning started in the 1850s, the report says. At the current rate, the temperature will reach 2.7° above preindustrial levels by 2040. That slight increase could expose tens of millions more people worldwide to heat waves, wildfire, food and water shortages, and coastal flooding. Entire ecosystems could be wiped out.

"For some people, this is a life-or-death situation, without a doubt," says climate scientist Natalie Mahowald, one of the lead authors.

The report urges world leaders to act. To prevent 2.7° of warming, carbon dioxide pollution would have to drop by nearly half in the next 12 years. By 2050, it would have to be zero. The scientists advise governments to set a cap on carbon emissions × emission BYOUNGJOO-ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES something given off (as a gas, for instance) (noun) We could always tell Mom's car by the white cloud of emissions from the tailpipe. or tax industries that pollute.

The report also says the use of coal, oil, and gas would need to be drastically × drastically WINSLOW PRODUCTIONS/TERTRA IMAGES-GETTY IMAGES extremely (adverb) Tuesday was not an official snow day, but attendance was drastically reduced because of the weather. cut. Use of wind and solar power would need to increase.

"We have a monumental × monumental FIGURE8PHOTOS/E+-GETTY IMAGES very big or important (adjective) Cleaning my sister's bedroom is a monumental job. task in front of us, but it is not impossible," Mahowald says. "This is our chance to decide what the world is going to look like."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The worst effects of climate change could happen sooner than expected. That's the warning of a report released October 8 by the United Nations' scientific panel on climate change. The panel included 91 scientists from 40 countries. They analyzed thousands...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever noticed a problem in your community that you couldn't figure out how to fix? Dr. Aboubacar Kampo has. He was living in Côte d'Ivoire, a country on the coast of West Africa, where plastic is a major environmental issue. Côte d'Ivoire's biggest city, Abidjan, produces more than 300 tons of plastic trash a day, and only about 5% is recycled. "How can we transform plastic into something useful?" Kampo wondered.

So Kampo, who works for UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, asked his friends for help. "We had a competition over a weekend to figure out what could be done," he told TIME for Kids. "We googled, looked for research, and then I stumbled across a company in Colombia."

FRANK DEJONGH-UN0326203/UNICEF

Colombia is a country in South America. Plastic pollution is a problem there, too. Conceptos Plásticos, the Colombian company that Kampo read about online, recycles plastic waste and turns it into big, Lego-like bricks for building schools, houses, and other structures for communities in need.

Next, Kampo went to Colombia to learn about the company firsthand. He toured schools that were built with its bricks and the factory where the bricks were made.

Isabel Cristina Gamez, cofounder and CEO of Conceptos Plásticos, says, "Once Dr. Kampo understood the social impact and the environmental benefits, he said, 'We need to find a way to get you to Côte d'Ivoire.' From that moment on, we worked together."

"Conceptos Plásticos gave us a solution," Kampo says. He thought it could help with more than just the plastic problem. It could also improve children's access × access MINT IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES the ability to reach or use (noun) They lowered the water fountain so students in wheelchairs can have to access it. to education.

FRANK DEJONGH-UN0326203/UNICEF

Making Room

According to UNICEF, 1.6 million children in Côte d'Ivoire don't go to school. One reason is that there aren't enough classrooms. For kids who do go to school, classrooms are often severely overcrowded. UNICEF communications chief Sophie Chavanel says, "I stepped into a classroom and all these 3- and 4-year-olds were sitting on the floor. They couldn't stand up because there wasn't room to move around."

In 2018, UNICEF built its first classrooms of recycled plastic bricks in Abidjan, using bricks produced in Colombia by Conceptos Plásticos.

Chavanel says that when a new room opened, the children gathered in the middle, "really tight, the same way they had before, because it was all they had ever known. The teacher said, 'No! Now we have a big classroom. You can move! You can dance!' Straight away, it made a difference in the quality of education."

Tirangue Doumbia was the teacher that day. "People couldn't believe it at the beginning, that the classrooms were made of plastic," she says. "Now all the parents want their children in these classrooms." When TFK spoke to her, in March, Côte d'Ivoire schools had just closed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

FRANK DEJONGH-UN0326203/UNICEF

Building the Future

At press time, UNICEF had built 27 classrooms in Côte d'Ivoire. It plans to have 528 built by the end of 2021. The new Conceptos Plásticos factory in Abidjan will soon be producing bricks from trash collected locally. "It's plastic that is in children's playgrounds," Chavanel says. "It's plastic that is on the beach."

The environmental impact is huge. UNICEF says it takes about five and a half tons of plastic to build a classroom. Construction takes a few weeks.

FRANK DEJONGH-UN0326203/UNICEF

How have students responded to the project? "Kids love it," Kampo says. "When we build a classroom, we build it with the community. The kids get to see how it's built." Unlike traditional × traditional CADAPLE-IMAGE SOURCE/GETTY IMAGES based on custom, or the usual way that a person or group does things (adjective) It's traditional to serve turkey for Thanksgiving dinner. construction, no cement is needed, he adds. "It's just a hammer and those bricks."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever noticed a problem in your community that you couldn't figure out how to fix? Dr. Aboubacar Kampo has. He was living in Côte d'Ivoire, a country on the coast of West Africa, where plastic is a major...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thomas Built Buses is a company in High Point, North Carolina. Workers at its school-bus factory are thrilled about a new plan by the United States government: the infrastructure × infrastructure RICHARD BAILEY-GETTY IMAGES relating to the basic structures, like roads and electrical systems, needed for a society (adjective) The mayor spoke about the city's infrastructure problems. bill, which President Joe Biden signed into law on November 15. Among other things, it sets aside money to help communities buy brand-new battery-powered school buses.

That's good news for Thomas Built. And it's good news for Chris Pratt, president of the local United Auto Workers union. He's worked as a welder at the Thomas Built plant for 22 years. To him, the new law means one thing: more jobs. "We're all excited," Pratt says. "This is something huge for us."

COURTESY THOMAS BUILT

The infrastructure law sets aside $2.5 billion for electric school buses. That's a tiny chunk of the $1.2 trillion it will invest to build or improve everything from roads and bridges to high-speed Internet access. But for workers like those in High Point and people trying to rid children's bus rides of diesel × diesel GREMLIN-GETTY IMAGES relating to a type of fuel used to power certain engines (adjective) Eric's looking for a car that doesn't run on diesel fuel. fumes, this money is a very big deal.

Charging Ahead

There are about 500,000 school buses in the U.S. They move 26 million kids between home and school every day. About 95% of those buses run on diesel fuel. This adds up to more than 5 million tons of pollution from greenhouse gases a year.

COURTESY THOMAS BUILT

Inhaling fumes from diesel-powered buses has been linked to lower test scores and breathing problems for kids. When sitting inside those buses, especially while stuck in traffic, kids often breathe the most polluted air they're exposed to all day.

It's hard to produce electric versions of some vehicles, such as big trucks. They need huge batteries. And these batteries require long charging times. Making electric school buses would be easier. They don't usually travel long distances. And there's plenty of time to charge them during the school day or at night. Making school buses electric would help the environment. It would be better for kids' health, too.

FREDERIC J. BROWN-AFP/GETTY IMAGES

There are only about 1,200 electric school buses in the U.S. They're either in use or soon to be delivered. The new government funding could bump that number to about 10,000 within five years.

Jobs on the Way

Kevin Bangston is CEO of Thomas Built. He says the company will soon be hiring a "pretty significant" number of workers. Pratt says the new positions can't come soon enough. "People come from hours away for these jobs," he says.

More jobs could be coming at other factories, too. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, IC Bus might soon ramp up production. In Georgia, Congressman Sanford Bishop represents a district that includes Fort Valley. The city is home to a Blue Bird bus company factory. Bishop expects there to be more bus-building jobs in his area. That would help his community financially. "It makes good environmental sense" too, Bishop says.

A Clean and Green Future

A bill called the Clean Commute × commute RICHARD NEWSTEAD-GETTY IMAGES a trip you make regularly, such as between home and school or work (noun) My daily commute to work involves a bus and a train. for Kids Act of 2021 is making its way through Congress. If it becomes law, it will make a big impact. The bill was introduced by Alex Padilla. He's a senator from California. The bill would set aside $25 billion for pollution-free school buses. That's enough to replace nearly half of the diesel-burning school buses (pictured below) currently in use in the U.S. Padilla called the bill "a wise investment in our children, our environment, and our future."

JAMIE RECTOR-BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thomas Built Buses is a company in High Point, North Carolina. Workers at its school-bus factory are thrilled about a new plan by the United States government: the infrastructure bill, which President Joe Biden signed into law on November 15....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earth Day comes every April 22. It's a day to do some good for the planet. It's also a time to think about how to help year-round. Get inspired by reading about four young people who have taken action for Mother Earth. They're TFK's Kid Heroes for the Planet. Who are yours?

Fighting Wildfire

GLORIA BARRON PRIZE FOR YOUNG HEROES

When Reshma Kosaraju was 12, her family moved from Chicago, Illinois, to Northern California. Soon after, the Camp Fire started. "It was one of the largest fires in California history," Reshma, now 17, told TIME for Kids. Her school was about 200 miles south of the fire. But students had to wear masks because of the smoke. "It was kind of a startling experience for me, because I had never really had exposure to this problem," she says. It made her want to find a solution. She created a way to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict forest fires. Her method is nearly 90% accurate. "I realized that if I could pull this off, the results could be quite impactful . . . in terms of how many lives we can save and how much we can help the environment." -By Jaime Joyce

Recycling Power

GLORIA BARRON PRIZE FOR YOUNG HEROES

On his 10th birthday, Sri Nihal Tammana learned a scary fact. Every year, 15 billion batteries are thrown out. They wind up in landfills. They pollute groundwater and harm the environment. Nihal's organization, Recycle My Battery, provides recycling bins for batteries.

"I'm very happy about the progress," Nihal, now 14, told TFK. Recycle My Battery has a team of 250 student volunteers around the world. In the past three years, they've helped recycle more than 260,000 batteries. Nihal has won many environmental awards, including the Barron Prize for Young Heroes.

"My biggest goal for this organization is to bring the 15 billion batteries being thrown away each year worldwide to zero," he says. -By Cristina Fernandez

Rescue Effort

COURTESY ELIZABETH FETHERSTON

Miles Fetherston-Resch, 10, is in the business of saving oceans. When he learned that sharks were in trouble, he persuaded his mom to help him start a nonprofit. It's called Kids Saving Oceans. Its website sells T-shirts, hats, and stickers made out of recycled plastic found in the ocean. A portion of every sale-some $40,000 so far-is donated to causes that support clean waterways.

Miles lives in Florida. He has loved the ocean for as long as he can remember. Getting into conservation, he says, "was just kind of personal to me." What about other kids who want to do this kind of work? "If you have an idea, go for it," he says. "The worst thing you can do is have it not work out. And that's not a loss." -By Brian S. McGrath

A Greener Future

COURTESY MIA PRICE

Mia Price, 18, says a greener future starts with making the right choices. Price is the chair of the sustainability committee at the Kinkaid School, in Houston, Texas. The committee recently met its goal of eliminating plastic water bottles from the school dining center. Now Price wants to make the school campus greener. After doing research, she presented her ideas to the school's building committee and board of trustees. Her ideas included installing solar panels and LED lightbulbs. She also suggests recycling materials from the old gym.

Price believes we can all contribute to a more sustainable future. "You need to take the time," she says, "to make the sustainable choice. Sometimes, it's a little inconvenient. But you will feel happier because, in the end, it is making a difference." -By TFK Kid Reporter Shaivi Moparthi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earth Day comes every April 22. It's a day to do some good for the planet. It's also a time to think about how to help year-round. Get inspired by reading about four young people who have taken action for...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

The world population reached 8 billion in November, according to the United Nations (U.N.). This milestone was not unexpected. And it shows some good news: People are living longer, thanks in part to better healthcare. Still, population growth poses a danger in many parts of the world.

A fair amount of the growth has been in the world's poorer countries, especially in Africa. The trend will strain resources in these places. "The housing, roads, the hospitals, schools-everything is overstretched," says Gyang Dalyop, who works in urban planning in Nigeria.

Other places with rapid growth include India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Growing populations will make life harder in these places when combined with climate change. Less water and decreased crop production will mean more hungry people.

Experts say the problem lies mainly with richer countries, like the United States and China. These countries consume the most energy and produce the most greenhouse-gas emissions. "Population is not the problem," says Charles Kenny of the Center for Global Development, in Washington, D.C. "The way we consume is the problem."
Stop and Think! Why is population growth newsworthy? Why might it be a danger? How does climate change contribute to the problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world population reached 8 billion in November, according to the United Nations (U.N.). This milestone was not unexpected. And it shows some good news: People are living longer, thanks in part to better healthcare. Still, population growth poses a...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is how much water you waste when you throw away food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is how much water you waste when you throw away food (Thinkstock) This is how much water you waste when you throw away food Assign to Google Classroom Food waste is a staggering problem. In 2010, close to 133 billion pounds, or a little over $160 billion worth of food, wound up in U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everything you do, use or consume has a carbon footprint.

What we've done is put together a guide of common everyday things, products and foods.

It should be useful for you to consider in your daily lifestyle for getting an idea of how much carbon emissions you may be responsible for.

(NOTE: many of these footprints are direct carbon emissions. Indirect footprints also contribute to the overall footprint of a thing)

Summary - Carbon Footprint Of Everyday Things
Energy

Hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power produced the least CO₂ per kilowatt-hour of any other electricity sources, followed closely by solar

Coal releases the most at 2.2 pounds, followed by petroleum releasing 2.0 pounds, and natural gas behind that at 0.9 pounds of CO₂ per kilowatt-hour

But, note that there is a carbon footprint for both the construction, and operation phases, and sometimes the decommissioning stage too. Nuclear, solar, wind, and hydroelectric release no CO₂ when they produce electricity (when they are in operation)

Transport

Emission are usually measured in C02e per mile or kilometre for different types of vehicles. Measurements for emission rates can vary - there can be a standard emissions per distance measurement, or a emissions per distance per passenger (so if you have 4 people in a car compared to 1, that is obviously more efficient as the emissions average out over the 4 people who share the vehicle). Carbon dioxide can also be measured, or C02e which takes into account other greenhouse gases as well.

But, there is the operational emissions, as well as the manufacture of the vehicle to consider. Overall, 86% of a regular passenger car's emissions are from burning fuel (with the remainder from manufacture)

Note that the fuel consumption efficiency, type of vehicle, capability of the vehicle and other factors can have an impact on emissions. The same can be said for aircrafts - there are factors that ultimately determine each aircraft's emission rate

Air travel - Short distance flights have a higher C02e per kilometre emission rate than long distance flights

Road travel - passenger vehicles have a lower carbon emission rate than trucks, and hybrid electric passenger cars have a lower carbon emission rate than conventional passenger cars (running on gasoline or diesel).

A gallon of diesel produces more emissions than a gallon of gasoline by about 10-20%, but diesel tends to have better fuel efficiency overall

Rail travel - trains have a 0.116 kg (116 grams) carbon dioxide equivalent emission per passenger kilometre, which is comparative to long distance flights (but less than short distance flights)

Sea travel - Average carbon dioxide emissions by ferries per passenger-kilometre seem to be 0.12 kg (120 grams)

Cars and light trucks produced around 17% of the total US greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 - so, should be an area of focus in the transport sector

Food

Diets high in animal meat, processed food and animal based products like dairy tend to have higher carbon footprints

Some meats like chicken tend to have a lower carbon footprint than other meats like beef, lamb, pork (and larger animals)

Seafood tends to have a lower carbon footprint than land raised livestock

Vegetarian diets tend to have a lower carbon footprint than animal meat and seafood diets

Vegan diets tend to have the lowest carbon footprints of them all

Having said that, food carbon footprints are highly specific - some vegetables and fruits for example are very water and resource hungry. Additionally, the soil, climate, average rainfall, resources used (fertilizer and pesticides), and the specifics of the place where they are grown and the farmer's preferences can all play a role.

Households

Dryers, ovens, fridge/freezers, electric cooktops and big TV's tend to be the appliances with the biggest carbon footprints in the house on a raw basis (not taking into account how efficiently you are using them, or how long you use them each for)

Obviously, switching over to renewable energy for your house helps lower that footprint compared to fossil fuel energy

Textiles
Cotton has one of the highest carbon dioxide equivalent emissions footprints per kilo of textile
Construction Materials
In terms of energy used in production in Gigajoules per tonne, Aluminum is the leader by far (about 3 x that of stainless steel), followed by Stainless Steel (about 3 x that of steel), and then steel and glass.

* Note that each carbon footprint study can produce different data based on how the study is conducted and the variables involved. General trends and patterns can be observed though across all studies. But, a carbon footprint isn't a 100% accurate representation of the carbon emissions of a product or service because of factors such as a lack of in depth knowledge of a process, or a lack of in depth data. It's a guide or indicator.

Carbon Footprint Of Energy Generation, & Electricity

Energy generation is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas and carbon emissions (along with transport).

Energy Generation - Usually measured in C02e per kilowatt for different methods of energy generation

It's important to look at the carbon footprint of various forms of energy generation: nuclear, hydro, coal, gas, solar cell, peat and wind generation technology.

Hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power produced the least CO₂ per kilowatt-hour of any other electricity sources.

Wind power and solar power, emit no carbon from the operation, but do leave a footprint during construction phase and maintenance during operation. Hydropower from reservoirs also has large footprints from initial removal of vegetation and ongoing methane (stream detritus decays anaerobically to methane in bottom of reservoir, rather than aerobically to CO₂ if it had stayed in an unrestricted stream).

- Wikipedia.org

For each kilowatt hour generated in the U.S., an average of 0.954 pounds of CO₂ is released at the power plant.

Coal releases 2.2 pounds, petroleum releases 2.0 pounds, and natural gas releases 0.9 pounds.

Nuclear, solar, wind, and hydroelectric release no CO₂ when they produce electricity, but emissions are released during upstream production activities (e.g., solar cells, nuclear fuels, cement production).

- css.umich.edu

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, each energy source over it's lifetime (from manufacture to disposal) has the following emission footprint (measured in C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated):

Nuclear - 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh)

Solar - 6gCO2e/kWh (6 grammes of CO2 equivalent)

Wind - 4gCO2e/kWh

Gas - 78gCO2e/kWh

Hydro - 97gCO2e/kWh

Bioenergy - 98gCO2e/kWh

Coal - 109gCO2e/kWh

It's interesting to note that the global average target for a 2C world in 2050 is 15gCO2e/kWh.

- carbonbrief.org

You can see the C02 per kilowatt for different energy generation methods at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#The_carbon_footprint_of_energy,

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Carbon Footprint Of Solar Panels

It depends, because, you have to account for the manufacture of the solar panel, as well as the running carbon footprint

A panel made in China, for example, costs nearly double the greenhouse-gas emissions of one made in Europe

It was found that solar panels made today are responsible, on average, for around 20 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of energy they produce over their lifetime (estimated as 30 years, regardless of when a panel was manufactured)

That is down from 400-500 grams in 1975

As more solar panels are made and technology is improved - they become more efficient

- economist.com

The best solar technology in the sunniest location has a footprint of 3gCO2/kWh, some seven times lower than the worst solar technology in the worst location (21gCO2/kWh)

- carbonbrief.org

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, the carbon footprint for solar over it's lifetime in terms of C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated will be:

Solar - 6gCO2e/kWh (6 grammes of CO2 equivalent)

NOTE: Factories churning out solar panels use large amounts of electricity, often sourced from coal-fired power stations in China

- carbonbrief.org

Carbon Footprint Of Wind Turbines

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, the carbon footprint for wind over it's lifetime in terms of C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated will be:

Wind - 4gCO2e/kWh (4 grammes of CO2 equivalent)

NOTE: Wind turbines need a lot of steel and concrete

- carbonbrief.org

Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear Energy

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, the carbon footprint for nuclear over it's lifetime in terms of C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated will be:

Nuclear - 4gCO2e/kWh (4 grammes of CO2 equivalent)

NOTE: Nuclear plants need a lot of steel and concrete. And the centrifuges that separate nuclear fuel also rack up a big electricity bill.

- carbonbrief.org

Carbon Footprint Of Gas

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, the carbon footprint for gas over it's lifetime in terms of C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated will be:

- carbonbrief.org

Carbon Footprint Of Hydroelectricity

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, the carbon footprint for hydro over it's lifetime in terms of C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated will be:

- carbonbrief.org

Carbon Footprint Of Bioenergy

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, the carbon footprint for bioenergy over it's lifetime in terms of C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated will be:

- carbonbrief.org

Carbon Footprint Of Coal

When accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply, and also improvements in technology up to the year 2050, the carbon footprint for coal over it's lifetime in terms of C02e per kilowatt hour of electricity generated will be:

- carbonbrief.org

Carbon Footprint Of Transport, & Cars

Transport is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas and carbon emissions (along with energy generation).

Transport - Usually measured in C02e per mile or kilometre for different types of vehicles

Note that the fuel consumption efficiency, type of vehicle, capability of the vehicle and other factors can have an impact

For a typical passenger vehicle...

Read more at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle

Tailpipe C02 created from burning one gallon of fuel - CO₂ Emissions from a gallon of gasoline: 8,887 grams CO₂/ gallon, and CO₂ Emissions from a gallon of diesel: 10,180 grams CO₂/ gallon

Tailpipe C02 created from driving one mile - The average passenger vehicle emits about 404 grams of CO₂ per mile

Average annual C02 emissions of typical passenger vehicle - A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.0 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year. Every gallon of gasoline burned creates about 8,887 grams of CO₂.

Other greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle - In addition to carbon dioxide (CO₂), automobiles produce methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) from the tailpipe and hydrofluorocarbon emissions from leaking air conditioners. The emissions of these gases are small in comparison to CO₂; however, the impact of these emissions can be important because they have a higher global warming potential (GWP) than CO₂.

NOTE: for a typical passenger vehicle, you also have the indirect carbon footprint of making the car itself, and extracting, pumping and transporting to get the oil to refineries and service stations

- epa.gov
Flying

Carbon per kilometre is...

Domestic, short distance, less than 463 km (288 mi): 257 g/km CO₂ or 259 g/km (14.7 oz/mile) CO₂e

Long distance flights: 113 g/km CO₂ or 114 g/km (6.5 oz/mile) CO₂e

Road
For vehicles, average figures for CO ₂ emissions per kilometer for road travel for 2013 in Europe, normalized to the NEDC test cycle, are provided by the International Council on Clean Transportation:

Newly registered passenger cars: 127 g CO₂/km

Hybrid-electric vehicles: 92 g CO₂/km

Light commercial vehicles (LCV): 175 g CO₂/km

Average figures for the United States are provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency, based on the EPA Federal Test Procedure, for the following categories:

Passenger cars: 200 g CO₂/km (322 g/mi)

Trucks: 280 g CO₂/km (450 g/mi)

Combined: 229 g CO₂/km (369 g/mi)

Rail
In 2005, the US company Amtrak's carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per passenger kilometre were 0.116 kg, about twice as high as the UK rail average (where much more of the system is electrified), and about eight times a Finnish electric intercity train.
Sea
Average carbon dioxide emissions by ferries per passenger-kilometre seem to be 0.12 kg (4.2 oz). However, 18-knot ferries between Finland and Sweden produce 0.221 kg (7.8 oz) of CO ₂, with total emissions equalling a CO ₂ equivalent of 0.223 kg (7.9 oz), while 24-27-knot ferries between Finland and Estonia produce 0.396 kg (14.0 oz) of CO ₂ with total emissions equalling a CO ₂ equivalent of 0.4 kg (14 oz).

- wikipedia.org

Personal transportation...

Cars and light trucks emitted 1.1 billion metric tons CO₂e or 17% of the 2016 total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Of the roughly 126,000 pounds of CO₂e emitted in a car's lifetime (assuming 120,000 miles for a 1995 mid-sized sedan), 86% is from burning fuel.

Gasoline releases 19.6 pounds of CO₂ per gallon when burned, compared to 22.4 pounds per gallon for diesel. However, diesel has 11% more BTU per gallon, which improves its fuel economy.

The average passenger car emits 0.78 pounds of CO₂ per mile driven

In 2016, the average domestic commercial flight emitted 0.39 pounds of CO₂e per passenger mile. It is affected by aircraft type, the length of trip, occupancy rates, and passenger and cargo weight

On average, trains release 0.31 pounds of CO₂e per passenger mile

Passenger cars, light duty trucks and medium or heavy duty trucks emit around 83% of transportation greenhouse gases. Commercial aircrafts (7%), rail, ships and boats, motorcycles and buses and other transportation make up the rest

- css.umich.edu

Every time you buy a new car, you effectively mine 3-7g of "platinum group metals" to coat the catalytic converter. The six elements in the platinum group have the greatest environmental impact of all metals, and producing just one kilo requires the emission of thousands of kilos of CO₂. For metal ores alone, the extraction rate more than doubled between 1980 and 2008. That car also consumes one tonne of steel and you can add to that some aluminium, a whole host of plastics and, in the case of electric cars, rare earth elements.

Cars emit greenhouse gases from their exhaust pipe, but to get a full sense of the carbon footprint of a car, you have to consider those emissions that go into producing the raw materials and digging a hole in the ground twice - once to extract the metals contained in the car, once to dump them when they can no longer be recycled.

- theconversation.com

If you're commuting 7800 miles each year in your car (based on 30 miles a day for work). And if you drive a car that gets 22 miles to the gallon every weekday, your annual carbon footprint from commuting is 4.3 metric tons

California to Boston is about a 5,000-mile round trip, making the carbon footprint from this airplane trip alone 2.23 tons of CO2. Every 1,000 miles you don't fly saves 0.45 tons of CO2

- livescience.com

You can see the C02 per kilometre or mile for different transport methods at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport

Carbon Footprint Of An Electric Vehicle, Hybrid Electric Vehicle, Or A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
Electric Vehicle (EV)

A vehicle that operates exclusively on electricity (an EV) will not emit any tailpipe emissions.

Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions; however, emissions are created during both the production and distribution of the electricity used to fuel the vehicle.

- epa.gov

the car's electricity generation process has to be assessed for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

you have to look at how many Wh/kilometre or how many Wh/mile the car gets from it's battery

you then have to look at how much carbon is emitted to provide that power (via coal, solar or other electricity)

In Singapore, for all electric vehicles, a grid emission factor of 0.5 g CO2/Wh is applied to the electric energy consumption. This is to account for CO2 emissions during the electricity generation process, even if there are no tail-pipe emissions

- channelnewsasia.com
Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)
Calculating tailpipe emissions for PHEVs is more complicated. PHEVs can operate on electricity only, gasoline only, or some combination of electricity and gasoline. A PHEV operating on electricity only (like an EV) does not generate any tailpipe emissions. When a PHEV is operating on gasoline only, it creates tailpipe emissions based on the PHEV's gasoline fuel economy. Tailpipe emissions for a PHEV operating on both electricity and gasoline cannot be calculated without detailed information about how the PHEV operates. The overall tailpipe emissions for a PHEV can vary significantly based on the PHEV's battery capacity, how it is driven, and how often it is charged.

- epa.gov
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle (HFCV)
A fuel cell vehicle operating on hydrogen will emit only water vapor.

- epa.gov

Carbon Footprint Of A Tesla

It does depend on the type of Tesla you buy, as some Teslas for example can solar charge from their roof for example, and others have better power efficiency or capability.

Technology will also change as Tesla upgrades it, and they bring out newer models.

But, for now...

When comparing a Tesla's carbon footprint vs internal combustion vehicles including hybrids....

the manufacturing of a full-sized Tesla Model S rear-wheel drive car with an 85 KWH battery was equivalent to a full-sized internal combustion car except for the battery, which added 15% or one metric ton of CO2 emissions to the total manufacturing.

this was trivial compared to the emissions avoided due to not burning fossil fuels to move the car

Overall, a Tesla has a 53% carbon footprint reduction, even when taking into account the usually coal fuelled electricity a Tesla uses to power the battery

Tesla are also able to recycle their batteries into completely reusable materials and substantially reduce the carbon footprint of manufacturing Lithium-ion batteries. Unicore are able to recover 70% of the carbon in the end of battery lifecycle

- forbes.com

Some people have had their Tesla S models independently tested to provide 444 watt hour per kilometre (Wh/km)

When applying a 0.5 g CO2/Wh for electric energy consumption, the Tesla S car has carbon emissions of 222g/km

- channelnewsasia.com

Read more about proving carbon myths about Teslas wrong here - https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

- popularmechanics.com

Carbon Footprint Of A Prius

For US sold models, the grams of C02 per mile from the tailpipe are:

Prius 1st gen (NHW11) (2001 to 2003 model) - 217 grams of C02 per mile (135 g/km)

Prius 2nd gen (XW20) (2004 to 2009 model) - 193 grams of C02 per mile (120 g/km)

Prius 3rd gen (XW30) (2010 to 2012 model) - 178 grams of C02 per mile (111 g/km)

Prius v (ZVW41) (2012 model) - 212 grams of C02 per mile (132 g/km)

Prius c (NHP10) (2012 model) - 178 grams of C02 per mile (111 g/km)

Prius Plug-in Hybrid (ZVW35) (2012 model) - 133 grams of C02 per mile (82 g/km)

You can read about mileage, including in blended, hybrid and all electric modes and ranges at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Fourth_generation_(XW50;_2015%E2%80%93present). You can apply a C02 per kilowatt or C02 per Watt hours rate to get an idea of how much of a footprint charging has

More fossil fuel is needed to build hybrid vehicles than conventional cars but reduced emissions when running the vehicle more than outweigh this

- wikipedia.org

Carbon Footprint Of Food

Average dietary greenhouse-gas emissions per day in 2014 (in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent) were:

7.19 for high meat-eaters

5.63 for medium meat-eaters

4.67 for low meat-eaters

3.91 for fish-eaters

3.81 for vegetarians

2.89 for vegans

- Wikipedia.org

The following table shows the greenhouse gas emissions produced by one kilo of each food. It includes all the emissions produced on the farm, in the factory, on the road, in the shop and in your home. It also shows how many miles you need to drive to produce that many greenhouse gases.

Meat, cheese and eggs have the highest carbon footprint. Fruit, vegetables, beans and nuts have much lower carbon footprints:

The greenhouse gas emissions produced by one kilo of some other foods are Farmed Salmon (11.9), Peanut Butter (2.5), Yogurt (2.2) and Broccoli (2.0)

In the report used and cited, they explain the production Life Cycle Analysis for each food type.

- From Greeneatz.com, with figures by the Environmental Working Group's Meat Eater's Guide and the EPA's Guide to Passenger Vehicle Emissions.

Meat products have larger carbon footprints per calorie than grain or vegetable products because of the inefficient transformation of plant energy to animal energy

The following foods produce the following amounts of pounds of C02 per serving:

Beef - 6.61 (lbs of C02 per serving)

Cheese - 2.45

Pork - 1.72

Poultry - 1.26

Eggs - 0.89

Milk - 0.72

Rice - 0.16

Legumes - 0.11

Carrots - 0.07

Potatoes - 0.03

- css.umich.edu

making a 1 kg hard cheese generates 12 kg of CO2 (the same amount of CO2 as a car travelling for 6 km)

making 12kg of carrots generates 12 kg of CO2

- activesustainability.com

If you're eating 444 calories a day of red meat (the equivalent of about one 8-ounce steak sirloin), your annual meat-related carbon footprint is 0.8 metric tonsof carbon dioxide.

- livescience.com

If you consume a litre of milk a day, that's 527 kg of carbon emissions per year

Large cheeseburger - 2.5kg C02e

- ourworld.unu.edu

Carbon Footprint Of Different Meats

The C02 per kilogram of different meats is (It includes all the emissions produced on the farm, in the factory, on the road, in the shop and in your home):

Lamb - 39.2 (C02 per one kilogram)

Beef - 27.0

Pork - 12.1

Farmed Salmon - 11.9

Turkey - 10.9

Chicken - 6.9

Tuna - 6.1

- Greeneatz.com, with figures by the Environmental Working Group's Meat Eater's Guide and the EPA's Guide to Passenger Vehicle Emissions.

Carbon Footprint Of Appliances

The following appliances might emit the following amounts of C02 per year (measured in kg of C02 per year):

Microwave Oven - 39 (kg C02 per year)

Washing Machine - 51

Electric Tumble Dryer - 159

Kettle - 73

Gas Oven - 38

Gas Hob - 71

Electric Oven - 91

Electric Hob - 129

Dishwasher at 55°C - 51

Dishwasher at 65°C - 84

Fridge-Freezer A ++ spec - 89

Fridge-Freezer A+ spec - 116

Fridge-Freezer A spec - 175

Standard Light Bulb - 63

Low Energy Light Bulb - 11

Primary TV - CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) 34-37 inch, On power 6.5 hours a day - 203

Primary TV - CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) 34-37 inch, On standby 17.5 hours a day - 12

Primary TV - LCD 34-37 inch, On power 6.5 hours a day - 215

Primary TV - LCD 34-37 inch, On standby 17.5 hours a day - 5

Primary TV - Plasma 34-37 inch, On power 6.5 hours a day - 269

Primary TV - Plasma 34-37 inch, On standby 17.5 hours a day - 10

Primary TV - Rear projection 34-37 inch, On power 6.5 hours a day - 196

Primary TV - Rear projection 34-37 inch, On standby 17.5 hours a day - 5

- carbonfootprint.com

Carbon Footprint Of Households

For each kilowatt hour generated in the U.S., an average of 0.954 pounds of CO₂ is released at the power plant

Coal releases 2.2 pounds, petroleum releases 2.0 pounds, and natural gas releases 0.9 pounds. Nuclear, solar, wind, and hydroelectric release no CO₂ when they produce electricity, but emissions are released during upstream production activities (e.g., solar cells, nuclear fuels, cement production).

Space heating with wood emits the least CO₂e (31.4 tons per million BTU) followed by 64.2 for natural gas, with the highest being 210.5 for electric heaters.

Refrigerators are one of the largest users of household appliance energy; in 2015, an average of 726.9 pounds of CO₂e per household was due to refrigeration.

- css.umich.edu

Drying one load of laundry a week puts 0.1 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere

The average bedroom lights produce about 0.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually when they are on for two hours a week

- livescience.com

Using toilet paper made from non recycled toilet paper for 1 year - 75kg C02e

- ourworld.unu.edu

Carbon Footprint Of A Dog Or Cat

- dailymail.co.uk

there are 163 million dogs and cats in the US regularly consuming animal products.

US pet cats and dogs account for 64 million tons of nitrous oxide and methane

the amount of meat likely to be consumed by America's pet cats and dogs and found that their overall caloric consumption was roughly 19 per cent of what humans consume

Dog and cat animal product consumption is responsible for release of up to 64 ± 16 million tons CO₂-equivalent methane and nitrous oxide

- journals.plos.org

- newsroom.ucla.edu

Carbon Footprint Of Plastic

The carbon footprint of plastic (LDPE or PET, poyethylene) is about 6 kg CO2 per kg of plastic

- timeforchange.org

Carbon Footprint Of A Plastic Bag

- greenlivingonline.com

Shoppers worldwide are using approximately 500 billion single-use plastic bags per year

- oceancrusaders.org

Carbon Footprint Of A Plastic Water Bottle

one 500-milliliter (0.53 quarts) plastic bottle of water has a total carbon footprint equal to 82.8 grams (about 3 ounces) of carbon dioxide

- sciencing.com

we consume 563 billion single use plastic water bottles every year

- 1millionwomen.com.au

Carbon Footprint Of A Country's GDP

For every item bought or sold there is a rise in GDP, and with each 1% increase in GDP there is a corresponding 0.5 to 0.7% rise in carbon emissions

- theconversation.com

Carbon Footprint Of Using A Computer

A typical year of receiving emails - 135kg C02e

Using a computer every workday from 9 to 6, and at home during weekdays and on weekends for 2 hours (includes electricity, servers, networks) - 1.41 tonnes C02e per year

- ourworld.unu.edu

Carbon Footprint Of A Google Search Or Web Search

- greenlivingonline.com

Carbon Footprint Of A Mobile Phone, Or Smartphone

An iPhone X has a 79 kg CO2e total greenhouse gas emissions. 80% comes from production, 17% from customer use, 2% from transport and 1% from recycling

- images.apple.com

a mobile phone, just two minutes' daily use produces 47 kg of CO2 per year and an hour a day could produce the figure of 1,250 kg per year

- activesustainability.com

Using a mobile phone for 1 hour per day (includes manufacture, and usage emissions) - 1250kg per year

- ourworld.unu.edu

Carbon Footprint Of Materials
Textiles
In Europe, carbon dioxide equivalent emissions footprints per kilo of textile at the point of purchase by a consumer were:

Accounting for durability and energy required to wash and dry textile products, synthetic fabrics generally have a substantially lower carbon footprint than natural ones.

But, the precise carbon footprint of different textiles varies considerably according to a wide range of factors
General Materials
The carbon emission footprint of different materials like Bricks, Cement, Concrete, Glass, Timber, Plastics, Metals, Minerals and stone, and more - can be found at:

http://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html#.W8hPXhMzbR0

https://greet.es.anl.gov/

- Wikipedia.org

Carbon Footprint Of Common Building Materials

The energy used in production for some common building materials is (in Gigajoules per tonne):

Aluminum - 270 GJ/t

Stainless Steel - 90

Steel - 30

Glass - 20

Portland Cement - 5

Timber - 2

Bricks - 2

Concrete - 1.4

Aggregates - 0.25

- nrmca.org

Carbon Footprint Of Concrete & Cement

- greenrationbook.org.uk

The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO₂), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel. The carbon dioxide CO₂ produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m³ (~180 kg/tonne @ density of 2.3 g/cm³) (reduced to 290 kg/m³ with 30% fly ash replacement of cement). The CO₂ emission from the concrete production is directly proportional to the cement content used in the concrete mix; 900 kg of CO₂ are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement, accounting for 88% of the emissions associated with the average concrete mix.

One area of the concrete life cycle worth noting is the fact that concrete has a very low embodied energy relative to the quantity that is used. This is primarily the result of the fact that the materials used in concrete construction, such as aggregates, pozzolans, and water, are relatively plentiful and can often be drawn from local sources. This means that transportation only accounts for 7% of the embodied energy of concrete, while the cement production accounts for 70%. With a total embodied energy of 1.69 GJ/tonne concrete is lower than any other building material besides wood.

- wikipedia.org

Concrete compares favorably to other building materials such as steel, wood and asphalt when analyzing energy consumption and CO2 emissions

According to the Department of Energy, cement production accounts for 0.33% of energy consumption in the U.S. The current level is low compared with other industries, such as petroleum refining at 6.5%, steel production at 1.8% and wood production at 0.5%

According to EPA, between 900 and 1100 kg (1984 and 2425 lbs) of CO2 is emitted for every 1000 kg (2205 lbs) of portland cement produced in the U.S. This depends on the fuel type, raw ingredients used and the energy efficiency of the cement plant

According to the most recent survey of Portland Cement Association (PCA) members, an average of 927 kg (2044 lb) of CO2 are emitted for every 1000 kg (2205 lb) of portland cement produced in the U.S.

The U.S. cement industry accounts for approximately 1.5% of U.S. CO2 emissions, well below other sources such as heating and cooling our homes (21%), heating and cooling our buildings (19%), driving our cars and trucks (33%) and industrial operations (27%)

- nrmca.org

the concrete industry is one of the largest producers of carbon dioxide in the world, producing around 5% of man-made carbon emissions. Approximately 88% of the emissions associated with concrete production are due to fabrication and use of cement

Companies like CarbonCure are developing technologies for concrete manufacturing companies that will recycle carbon dioxide and use it to make stronger and greener concrete. Not only can this technology reduce the industry's carbon footprint by up to 15% by 2030, but the improved strength of concrete means that buildings could last longer than the typical 60-80 years reducing the turnover rate

- giatecscientific.com

Carbon Footprint Of Steel

The greenhouse gas of most relevance to the world steel industry is carbon dioxide (CO2). On average, 1.9 tonnes of CO2 are emitted for every tonne of steel produced. According to the International Energy Agency, the iron and steel industry accounts for approximately 6.7% of total world CO2 emissions.

Efficiency with steel production is on the rise though - In the last 50 years, the steel industry has reduced its energy consumption per tonne of steel produced by 60%

- worldsteel.org

Carbon Footprint Of Clothes Shopping

Spending $100 of clothes each month will set you back 0.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Throw in a $1,000 furniture purchase once a year and you're up to almost a ton.

- livescience.com

Carbon Footprint Of Divorced Families

Divorced households used an extra 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity compared with married households. The boost in carbon output had to do with the additional homes needed to house the now-separated couples. There were about 16 million divorced households in 2000, which comes to 4,562.5 extra kilowatt-hours of electricity per household. Break that down into carbon emissions and you get an extra 2.8 metric tons per year per household

- livescience.com

Carbon Footprint Of Having One Extra Child

Having a baby will set you back 9,441 metric tons of CO2 over your lifetime

- livescience.com

Carbon Footprint Of One Soccer World Cup

The 2010 South Africa World Cup produced 2.8 million tonnes C02e for one month (included includes transportation of international and local players and spectators, energy used to run the stadiam, precinct and visitors' accommodation, and the emissions from construction and material, but NOT those watching on TV)

- ourworld.unu.edu

Carbon Footprint Of Running On A Treadmill

Running on a treadmill for 30 minutes three times a week will boost your carbon footprint by 0.07 metric tons per year

- livescience.com

Carbon Footprint Of Staying In A Hotel

Two nights in a standard high carbon use hotel - 120kg C02e

- ourworld.unu.edu

Carbon Footprint Of Hand Dryer vs Paper Hand Towels

- greenlivingonline.com

Other Carbon Footprints

The Guardian has a series of articles called 'What's The Carbon Footprint Of...'. Read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-carbon-footprint-of-everything

- theguardian.com

The four largest generators of CO2 in the U.S. are: Heating and cooling homes (21%), Heating and cooling buildings (18%), Driving cars and trucks (33%), and Industrial operations (28%).

- nrmca.org

What Is A Carbon Footprint

For more information on what a carbon footprint is, and how you can use it, you can read this guide.

1. http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html

2. https://www.activesustainability.com/sustainable-life/the-carbon-footprint-of-everyday-objects/

3. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf

4. http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet

5. https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_X_PER_sept2017.pdf

6. https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-carbon-cost-of-everyday-products-96745

7. https://www.livescience.com/13835-carbon-footprint-daily-activities.html

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint

9. https://www.carbonfootprint.com/energyconsumption.html

10. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/jun/04/carbon-footprint-definition

11. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-carbon-footprint-of-everything

12. https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/uncovering-the-carbon-footprint-of-everything

13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport

15. https://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/the-carbon-footprint-of-everything/

16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#The_carbon_footprint_of_energy

17. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle

18. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2016/12/10/how-clean-is-solar-power

19. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints

20. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/04/22/the-carbon-footprint-of-tesla-manufacturing/#1c0ad4a56096

21. https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Fourth_generation_(XW50;_2015%E2%80%93present)

23. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/lta-on-tesla-co2-emissions-for-electric-cars-start-at-power-grid-8134258

24. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-cats-and-dogs-environmental-impact

25. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301

26. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4331978/A-medium-sized-dog-carbon-footprint-SUV.html

27. http://oceancrusaders.org/plastic-crusades/plastic-statistics/

28. https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/why-quitting-plastic-will-help-stop-climate-change/

29. https://sciencing.com/carbon-footprint-plastic-bottle-12307187.html

30. https://timeforchange.org/plastic-bags-and-plastic-bottles-CO2-emissions

31. http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/reduce-your-carbon-footprint

32. https://www.worldsteel.org/publications/position-papers/steel-s-contribution-to-a-low-carbon-future.html

33. https://www.giatecscientific.com/education/concrete-carbon-footprint/

34. http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-concrete/

35. https://www.nrmca.org/sustainability/CONCRETE%20CO2%20FACT%20SHEET%20FEB%202012.pdf

36. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carbon Footprints Of Common Everyday Things, Products & Foods - Better Meets Reality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everything you do, use or consume has a carbon footprint. What we've done is put together a guide of common everyday things, products and foods. It should be useful for you to consider in your daily lifestyle for getting an idea of how much carbon emissions you may be responsible for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Energy forms are either potential or kinetic. Potential energy comes in forms that are stored and includes chemical, gravitational, mechanical, and nuclear. Kinetic energy is energy in movement and includes electrical energy, heat, light, and sound.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Energy forms are either potential or kinetic. Potential energy comes in forms that are stored and includes chemical, gravitational, mechanical, and nuclear. Kinetic energy is energy in movement and includes electrical energy, heat, light, and sound.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When we think about climate change, the main sources of carbon emissions that come to mind for most of us are heavy industries like petroleum, mining and transportation.

Rarely do we point the finger at computer technologies.

In fact, many experts view the cyber-world of information and computer technologies (ICT) as our potential saviour, replacing many of our physical activities with a lower-carbon virtual alternative.

That is not what our study, recently published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, suggests.

Having conducted a meticulous and fairly exhaustive inventory of the contribution of ICT -including devices like PCs, laptops, monitors, smartphones and tablets - and infrastructure like data centres and communication networks, we found that the relative contribution of ICT to the total global footprint is expected to grow from about one per cent in 2007 to 3.5 per cent by 2020 and reaching 14 per cent by 2040.

That's more than half the relative contribution of the entire transportation sector worldwide.

Another disconcerting finding is that all this extraordinary growth is mostly incremental, essentially shattering the hope that ICT will help reduce the global carbon footprint by substituting physical activities with their virtual counterparts.

The impact of smartphones

Perhaps the most surprising result of our study was the disproportionate contribution of smartphones relative to the overall ICT footprint.

We found that the relative emissions share of smartphones is expected to grow from four per cent in 2010 to 11 per cent by 2020, dwarfing the individual contributions of PCs, laptops and computer displays.

In absolute values, emissions caused by smartphones will jump from 17 to 125 megatons of CO2 equivalent per year (Mt-CO2e/yr) in that time span, or a 730 per cent growth.

The lion's share of this footprint (85 to 95 per cent) will be caused not by the use of the device, but rather by its production. That includes, in addition to the manufacturing energy, the energy for material mining for gold and the so-called rare-earth elements like yttrium, lanthanium and several others that today are almost exclusively available only from China.

(Shutterstock)

Another guilty participant in this excessive carbon footprint are the phone plans that encourage users to get a new smartphone every two years. That accelerates the rate at which older models become obsolete and leads to an extraordinary and unnecessary amount of waste.

These findings pertain to the device side.

Every text, download, email uses server energy

On the infrastructure side, we predict the combined footprint of data centres and communications networks will grow from 215 megatons of C02 equivalent a year (Mt-CO2e/yr) in 2007 to 764 MtCO2-e/yr by 2020, with data centres accounting for about two thirds of the total contribution.

(Shutterstock)

For comparison purposes, the entire carbon footprint of Canada was about 730 MtCO2-e in 2016 and is expected to decrease by 2020.

The growth in smartphones and data centres aren't unrelated.

Indeed, it's the dizzying growth in mobile communications that's largely driving the pace for data centres. For every text message, video download, photo exchange, email or chat, there's a 24/7 power-hungry server in some data centre that's making it happen.

It's the energy consumption that we don't see.

Software companies spur growth

Finally, and perhaps the most ironic aspect of all this, is that it's software that is driving the overall growth in ICT as a whole, devices and infrastructure included.

Software companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo boast some of the largest data centres in the world. The rise in dominance of the mobile operating systems, namely Apple's iOS and Google's Android, along with the millions of mobile applications that are built on top of those platforms, has spawned the mobile communication age.

The incredible -as well as unsustainable- growth in the emission footprint of all this hardware is there for only one purpose: To support and serve the software universe.

In other words, while it's the hardware that does all the dirty work, it's the software that's calling all the shots.

The way out?

At the societal level, we must demand that all data centres run exclusively on renewable energy.

At the individual level: Hold on to your smartphone for as long as you can, and when you do upgrade, make sure you recycle your old one. Sadly, only one per cent of smartphones are being recycled today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How smartphones are heating up the planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When we think about climate change, the main sources of carbon emissions that come to mind for most of us are heavy industries like petroleum, mining and transportation. Rarely do we point the finger at computer technologies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Current approaches to carbon capture can increase air pollution and are not efficient at reducing carbon in the atmosphere, according to research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University.

One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO ₂) levels in the atmosphere - and reducing the risk of climate change - is to capture carbon from the air or prevent it from getting there in the first place. However, research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University, published on October 21, 2019, in Energy and Environmental Science, suggests that carbon capture technologies can cause more harm than good.

"All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost."

Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, examined public data from a coal with carbon capture electric power plant and a plant that removes carbon from the air directly. In both cases, electricity to run the carbon capture came from natural gas. He calculated the net CO ₂ reduction and total cost of the carbon capture process in each case, accounting for the electricity needed to run the carbon capture equipment, the combustion and upstream emissions resulting from that electricity, and, in the case of the coal plant, its upstream emissions. (Upstream emissions are emissions, including from leaks and combustion, from mining and transporting a fuel such as coal or natural gas.)

Common estimates of carbon capture technologies - which only look at the carbon captured from energy production at a fossil fuel plant itself and not upstream emissions - say carbon capture can remediate 85-90 percent of carbon emissions. Once Jacobson calculated all the emissions associated with these plants that could contribute to global warming, he converted them to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide in order to compare his data with the standard estimate. He found that in both cases the equipment captured the equivalent of only 10-11 percent of the emissions they produced, averaged over 20 years.

This research also looked at the social cost of carbon capture - including air pollution, potential health problems, economic costs and overall contributions to climate change - and concluded that those are always similar to or higher than operating a fossil fuel plant without carbon capture and higher than not capturing carbon from the air at all. Even when the capture equipment is powered by renewable electricity, Jacobson concluded that it is always better to use the renewable electricity instead to replace coal or natural gas electricity or to do nothing, from a social cost perspective.

Given this analysis, Jacobson argued that the best solution is to instead focus on renewable options, such as wind or solar, replacing fossil fuels.

Efficiency and upstream emissions

This research is based on data from two real carbon capture plants, which both run on natural gas. The first is a coal plant with carbon capture equipment. The second plant is not attached to any energy-producing counterpart. Instead, it pulls existing carbon dioxide from the air using a chemical process.

Jacobson examined several scenarios to determine the actual and possible efficiencies of these two kinds of plants, including what would happen if the carbon capture technologies were run with renewable electricity rather than natural gas, and if the same amount of renewable electricity required to run the equipment were instead used to replace coal plant electricity.

While the standard estimate for the efficiency of carbon capture technologies is 85-90 percent, neither of these plants met that expectation. Even without accounting for upstream emissions, the equipment associated with the coal plant was only 55.4 percent efficient over 6 months, on average. With the upstream emissions included, Jacobson found that, on average over 20 years, the equipment captured only 10-11 percent of the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that it and the coal plant contributed. The air capture plant was also only 10-11 percent efficient, on average over 20 years, once Jacobson took into consideration its upstream emissions and the uncaptured and upstream emissions that came from operating the plant on natural gas.

Due to the high energy needs of carbon capture equipment, Jacobson concluded that the social cost of coal with carbon capture powered by natural gas was about 24 percent higher, over 20 years, than the coal without carbon capture. If the natural gas at that same plant were replaced with wind power, the social cost would still exceed that of doing nothing. Only when wind replaced coal itself did social costs decrease.

For both types of plants this suggests that, even if carbon capture equipment is able to capture 100 percent of the carbon it is designed to offset, the cost of manufacturing and running the equipment plus the cost of the air pollution it continues to allow or increases makes it less efficient than using those same resources to create renewable energy plants replacing coal or gas directly.

"Not only does carbon capture hardly work at existing plants, but there's no way it can actually improve to be better than replacing coal or gas with wind or solar directly," said Jacobson. "The latter will always be better, no matter what, in terms of the social cost. You can't just ignore health costs or climate costs."

This study did not consider what happens to carbon dioxide after it is captured but Jacobson suggests that most applications today, which are for industrial use, result in additional leakage of carbon dioxide back into the air.

Focusing on renewables

People propose that carbon capture could be useful in the future, even after we have stopped burning fossil fuels, to lower atmospheric carbon levels. Even assuming these technologies run on renewables, Jacobson maintains that the smarter investment is in options that are currently disconnected from the fossil fuel industry, such as reforestation - a natural version of air capture - and other forms of climate change solutions focused on eliminating other sources of emissions and pollution. These include reducing biomass burning, and reducing halogen, nitrous oxide and methane emissions.

"There is a lot of reliance on carbon capture in theoretical modeling, and by focusing on that as even a possibility, that diverts resources away from real solutions," said Jacobson. "It gives people hope that you can keep fossil fuel power plants alive. It delays action. In fact, carbon capture and direct air capture are always opportunity costs."

Reference: "The Health and Climate Impacts of Carbon Capture and Direct Air Capture" by Mark Z. Jacobson, 21 October 2019, Energy and Environmental Science.
DOI: 10.1039/C9EE02709B

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doubt Cast on Carbon Capture by Stanford Study - "It Usually Increases Air Pollution"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Current approaches to carbon capture can increase air pollution and are not efficient at reducing carbon in the atmosphere, according to research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University. One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere - and reducing the risk of c

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Click PDF to download a printable version:

"A carbon footprint is the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product." ¹ It is calculated by summing the emissions resulting from every stage of a product or service's lifetime (material production, manufacturing, use, and end-of-life). Throughout a product's lifetime, or lifecycle, different GHGs may be emitted, such as carbon dioxide (CO ₂), methane (CH ₄), and nitrous oxide (N ₂O), each with a greater or lesser ability to trap heat in the atmosphere. These differences are accounted for by the global warming potential (GWP) of each gas, resulting in a carbon footprint in units of mass of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO ₂e). See the Center for Sustainable Systems " Greenhouse Gases Factsheet" for more information on GWP. A typical U.S. household has a carbon footprint of 48 metric tons CO ₂e/yr. ²

Sources of Emissions

Food

Food accounts for 10-30% of a household's carbon footprint, typically a higher portion in lower-income households.² Production accounts for 68% of food emissions, while transportation accounts for 5%.⁴

Food production emissions consist mainly of CO₂, N₂O, and CH₄, which result primarily from agricultural practices.⁵

Meat products have larger carbon footprints per calorie than grain or vegetable products because of the inefficient conversion of plant to animal energy and due to CH₄ released from manure management and enteric fermentation in ruminants.⁵

Ruminants such as cattle, sheep, and goats produced 179 million metric tons (mmt) CO₂e of enteric methane in the U.S. in 2019.⁶

In an average U.S. household, eliminating the transport of food for one year could save the GHG equivalent of driving 1,000 miles, while shifting to a vegetarian meal one day a week could save the equivalent of driving 1,160 miles.⁵

A vegetarian diet greatly reduces an individual's carbon footprint, but switching to less carbon intensive meats can have a major impact as well. For example, beef's GHG emissions per kilogram are 7.2 times greater than those of chicken.⁷

Greenhouse Gases Contribution by food type in average diet3

Pounds of CO₂e per Serving13

(4 oz. meat, 1/2 c. asparagus & carrots, 8 oz. liquids)

Household Emissions

For each kWh generated in the U.S., an average of 0.889 pounds of CO₂e is released at the power plant.⁸ Coal releases 2.2 pounds, petroleum releases 1.9 pounds, and natural gas releases 0.9 pounds. Nuclear, solar, wind, and hydroelectric release no CO₂ when they produce electricity, but emissions are released during upstream production activities (e.g., solar cells, nuclear fuels, cement production).6,9

Residential electricity use in 2019 emitted 598.8 mmt CO₂e, 9.1% of the U.S. total.⁶

Space heating and cooling are estimated to account for 42% of energy in U.S. homes in 2021.¹⁰

Refrigerators are one of the largest users of household appliance energy; in 2019, an average of 672 lbs CO₂e per household was due to refrigeration.8,11

26 mmt CO₂e are released in the U.S. each year from washing clothes. Switching to a cold water wash once per week can reduce household GHG emissions by over 70 lbs annually.¹²

Personal Transportation

U.S. fuel economy (mpg) declined by 12% from 1988-2004, then improved by 29% from 2004-2019, reaching an average of 24.9 mpg in 2019.¹⁴ Annual per capita miles driven increased 9% since 1995 to 9,919 miles in 2018.¹⁵

Cars and light trucks emitted 1.1 billion metric tons CO₂e or 17% of the total U.S. GHG emissions in 2019.⁶

Of the roughly 66,000 lbs CO₂e emitted over the lifetime of an internal combustion engine car (assuming 93,000 miles driven), 84% come from the use phase.¹⁶

Gasoline releases 19.6 pounds of CO₂ per gallon when burned, compared to 22.4 pounds per gallon for diesel.¹⁷ However, diesel has 11% more BTU per gallon, which improves its fuel economy.¹⁸

The average passenger car emits 0.78 pounds of CO₂ per mile driven.¹⁴

Automobile fuel economy can improve 7-14% by simply observing the speed limit. Every 5 mph increase in vehicle speed over 50 mph is equivalent to paying an extra $0.20-$0.40 per gallon.¹⁹

Commercial aircraft GHG emissions vary according to aircraft type, trip length, occupancy rates, and passenger and cargo weight, and totaled 135.4 mmt CO₂e in 2019.⁶ In 2019, the average domestic commercial flight emitted 0.39 pounds of CO₂e per passenger mile.6,20

Domestic air travel fuel efficiency (passenger miles/gallon) rose by 115% from 1990 to 2019, largely due to increased occupancy.²⁰ Emissions per domestic passenger-mile decreased 45% from 1990-2019, due to increased occupancy and fuel efficiency.6,20

In 2019, rail transportation emitted 40.8 mmt CO₂e, accounting for 2% of transportation emissions in the U.S.⁶

Transportation Greenhouse Gases, 20196

Solutions and Sustainable Actions

Ways to Reduce Carbon Footprint

Reduce meat in your diet and avoid wasting food.

Walk, bike, carpool, use mass transit, or drive a best-in-class vehicle.

Ensure car tires are properly inflated. Fuel efficiency decreases by 0.2% for each 1 PSI decrease.²¹

Smaller homes use less energy. Average household energy use is highest in houses (82.3 million BTU), followed by mobile homes (59.8 million BTU), apartments with 2-4 units (53.5 million BTU), and apartments with 5+ units in the building (34.2 million BTU).¹¹

Whether you hand wash dishes or use a dishwasher, follow recommended practices to decrease water and energy use and reduce emissions.²²

Energy consumed by devices in standby mode accounts for 5-10% of residential energy use, adding up to $100 per year for the average American household. Unplug electronic devices when not in use or plug them into a power strip and turn the power strip off.²³

Choose energy-efficient lighting and transition away from incandescent light bulbs.²⁴

Reduce what you send to a landfill by recycling, composting, and buying products with minimal packaging.

Purchase items with a comparatively low carbon footprint. Some manufacturers have begun assessing and publishing their products' carbon footprints.

Covering 80% of roof area on commercial buildings in the U.S. with solar reflective material would conserve energy and offset 125 mmt CO₂ over the structures' lifetime, equivalent to turning off 32 coal power plants for one year.25,26

Replacing the global fleet of shipping containers' roof and wall panels with aluminum would save $28 billion in fuel.²⁷

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2018²⁸

Carbon Footprint Calculator

Estimate your personal or household greenhouse gas emissions and explore the impact of different techniques to lower those emissions:

1. The Carbon Trust (2018) Carbon Footprinting.

2. Jones C., Kammen D. (2011) "Quantifying Carbon Footprint Reduction Opportunities for U.S. Households and Communities."

3. Heller, M.C., et al. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self-selected US diets. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044004.

4. Boehm R., et al. (2018) "A Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Household Food Choices."

5. Weber, C. and H. Matthews (2008) "Food miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States." Environmental Science & Technology, 42(10): 3508-3513.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2021) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 - 2019.

7. Heller, M., et al. (2020). Implications of Future US Diet Scenarios on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

8. U.S. EPA (2021) "Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)."

9. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2021) Electric Power Monthly with Data from February 2021.

10. U.S. EIA (2021) Annual Energy Outlook 2021.

11. U.S. EIA (2018) Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2015.

12. Mars C. (2016) Benefits of Using Cold Water for Everyday Laundry in the U.S.

13. Heller, M. and G. Keoleian. (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions estimates of U.S. dietary choices and food loss. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19 (3): 391-401.

14. U.S. EPA (2021) The 2020 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.

15. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Oak Ridge National Lab (2021) Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 39.

16. Pero, F. et al. (2018) Life Cycle Assessment in the automotive sector: a comparative case study of Internal Combustion Engine and electric car.

17. U.S. EIA (2016) "Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients."

18. U.S. DOE, Alternative Fuels Data Center (2015) "Fuel Properties Comparison Chart."

19. U.S. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (2021) "Driving More Efficiently."

20. U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2020) National Transportation Statistics 2020.

21. U.S. DOE, EERE (2016) "Gas Mileage Tips: Keeping Your Car In Shape."

22. Porras, G. (2019) Life Cycle Comparison of Manual and Machine Dishwashing in Households

23. U.S. DOE (2012) "3 Easy Tips to Reduce Your Standby Power Loads."

24. Liu, L., Keoleian, G. A., & Saitou, K. (2017). Replacement policy of residential lighting optimized for cost, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11), 114034.

25. Levinson, R. (2012) The Case for Cool Roofs. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Heat Island Group.

26. U.S. EPA (2021) "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."

27. Buchanan, C., et al (2018) "Lightweighting shipping containers: Life cycle impacts on multimodal freight transportation." Transportation Research Part D 62:418-432.

28. U.S. EPA (2020) 2020 Common Reporting Format (CRF) Table.

Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2021. "Carbon Footprint Factsheet." Pub. No. CSS09-05.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Click PDF to download a printable version: "A carbon footprint is the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product." 1 It is calculated by summing the emissions resulting from every stage of a product or service's lifetime (material production, manufacturing, use, and end-of-life).

# data[].attributes.headline
What you Need to Know About Carbon Footprints

# data[].attributes.subject
What you Need to Know About Carbon Footprints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
carbon footprint facts: what you need to know - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What you need to know about carbon footprints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is a carbon footprint, exactly? And how is it related to the climate crisis? Here are some answers to your questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After three flat years, carbon dioxide emissions rose again in 2017, showing that the earth's struggles with climate change will only continue. While this news discouraged those who believed we might have finally hit peak levels, there's plenty to be hopeful about. Now is the time for individuals to do what they can to reduce their impact, through actions big and small. In the week leading up to Earth Day, Earth911 tackles five different areas in which you can make a difference. Today's topic: transportation.
Why Transportation Matters

The transportation sector is responsible for 27 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to contributing to climate change, the transportation sector is also responsible for significant amounts of air pollution and oil extraction. Spring is a great time to look to green transportation solutions to cut fossil fuel use and associated carbon emissions.

What You Can Do

Carpool

Are there times you could carpool with others to drive less? Although this might require more time and planning, it can save large amounts of gasoline, especially for long trips. Determine if you regularly drive to the same place as neighbors or people who live along the way. In addition to creating time to socialize, carpooling saves gasoline and wear and tear on the car.

Combine Trips

When you run errands, think ahead to minimize driving. What trips can be combined? Even if you don't cut the miles that you drive by combining trips, operating a car with a hot motor has better fuel economy than a cool car, especially in colder weather.

Walk, Jog or Bike

There are many fun ways to get around town that don't include burning fossil fuels. Whenever possible, roll, stroll or glide during your commute. It's also a great way to get some exercise and stay in shape. Take a pledge to bike to work and encourage co-workers and friends to do the same.

Drive an Electric Vehicle

If you do own a car, electric vehicles are a cleaner and greener option than gasoline-powered cars. With no tailpipe emissions, they prevent air pollution and cut fossil fuel use. Electric vehicles, followed by hybrid vehicles, have lower carbon emissions than gasoline-powered cars.

It is, however, important to consider the source of power that is used to charge the car because there are associated emissions elsewhere beyond the tailpipe. Electricity produced from coal power, for example, has more greenhouse gas emissions compared with nuclear, hydropower, nuclear energy, solar power and wind energy. Whenever possible, use low-emissions sources of electricity for charging.

Use Fuel-Efficient Vehicles

If you are unable to go electric or even car-free, drive one of the most fuel-efficient cars within its class. Through this simple purchasing decision, you will use less gas and save more cash throughout the life of the vehicle.

Take Public Transit

In addition to cutting your carbon emissions and saving an estimated 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually in the U.S., using public transportation also helps reduce car ownership, often saves money and helps prevent air pollution. Enjoy the ride by bringing along something to read, or just relax and let someone else do the driving. Apps now make it simpler than ever in many areas to know when trains or buses will arrive, saving time.

The Future of Transportation

Transportation in most cities is centered around personal automobile use, but that's changing in many areas. Bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly planning and ride-sharing services are all becoming more popular in many cities. Ridership on public transportation has risen 34 percent since 1995, reducing congestion and cutting emissions.

The impact of self-driving cars on the environment is still unclear. The ease of use could encourage additional car trips; alternately, it could promote efficiency through smarter driving.

Ultimately, the future of transportation depends on our choices. Encouraging greener transportation infrastructure locally helps make options more plentiful and appealing. If we make individual choices to reduce our emissions, we can make a big impact collectively.

You Might Also Like...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reduce Your Carbon Footprint: Transportation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After three flat years, carbon dioxide emissions rose again in 2017, showing that the earth's struggles with climate change will only continue. While this news discouraged those who believed we might have finally hit peak levels, there's plenty to be hopeful about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The targets set in the Paris Agreement on climate change are ambitious but necessary. Failure to meet them will lead to widespread drought, disease and desperation in some of the world's poorest regions. Under such conditions mass migration by stranded climate refugees is almost inevitable.

Yet if richer nations are to be serious in their commitment to the Paris target, then they must begin to account for the carbon emissions contained within products they import.

Heavy industry and the constant demand for consumer goods are key contributors to climate change. In fact, 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions are produced through the process of converting metal ores and fossil fuels into the cars, washing machines and electronic devices that help prop up the economy and make life a little more comfortable.

As one might expect, the wealthier parts of the world with their higher purchasing power do more than their fair share of consuming and polluting. For every item bought or sold there is a rise in GDP, and with each 1% increase in GDP there is a corresponding 0.5 to 0.7% rise in carbon emissions. The growing demand for day-to-day conveniences exacerbates this problem. For metal ores alone, the extraction rate more than doubled between 1980 and 2008, and it shows no sign of slowing.

xieyuliang/Shutterstock

Every time you buy a new car, for instance, you effectively mine 3-7g of "platinum group metals" to coat the catalytic converter. The six elements in the platinum group have the greatest environmental impact of all metals, and producing just one kilo requires the emission of thousands of kilos of CO₂.

That car also consumes one tonne of steel and you can add to that some aluminium, a whole host of plastics and, in the case of electric cars, rare earth elements.

Often, no one is held accountable for the carbon emissions connected to these materials, because they are produced in countries where "dirty" industry is still politically acceptable or seen as the only way to escape poverty. In fact, of the carbon emissions that European consumers are personally responsible for, around 22% are allocated elsewhere under conventional carbon accounting practices. For consumers in the US, the figure is around 15%.

From mine to dump

Carbon emissions from the exhaust pipe tell only part of the story. To get a full sense of the carbon footprint of a car, you have to consider those emissions that go into producing the raw materials and digging a hole in the ground twice - once to extract the metals contained in the car, once to dump them when they can no longer be recycled.

Csaba Peterdi/Shutterstock

Buying a new car and dumping the old one might be justifiable if the change was made because the new vehicle is more fuel efficient, but it is certainly not when it's a question of personal taste or corporate-level planned obsolescence. The same is true for any number of high tech items, including smartphones that run on software that renders them unusable in the medium term. The environmental consequences of replacing a smartphone, in terms of carbon emissions alone, are considerable. Apple found that 83% of the carbon dioxide associated with the iPhone X was directly linked to manufacture, shipping and recycling. With these kinds of figures, it is hard to argue a sustainable case for upgrades - regardless of how many solar panels Apple sticks on the roof of its offices.

Governments of richer countries that import products but not their emissions must stop pointing the finger at China or other manufacturing or mining giants and start taking responsibility. This means going further than they have been willing to go so far, and implementing sustainable material strategies that address a product's entire lifecycle from mining to manufacturing, use, and eventually to disposal.

On an individual level people must vote with their money. It's time to leave behind the laggards who hide the cost of the carbon contained within their products and who design them to fail in order to put profits before people and the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The hidden carbon cost of everyday products

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The targets set in the Paris Agreement on climate change are ambitious but necessary. Failure to meet them will lead to widespread drought, disease and desperation in some of the world's poorest regions. Under such conditions mass migration by stranded climate refugees is almost inevitable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's tough enough dealing with all the hectoring we get about eating less salt, using bigger forks, and making sure that this or that food group makes up only this or that percentage of our diet. All that, however, is only when it's the nutritionists talking. Things get even harder when the environmentalists enter the picture, with their confusing stats about "local food" and the amount of greenhouse gas you indirectly put into the air when you order that burger for lunch (up to 1,340 grams, according to energy expert Jamais Cascio).

Fortunately, organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are simplifying all that information. The EWG recently released its groundbreaking Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health, an admirably comprehensive breakdown of both the environmental footprint and health effects of our food choices. The handbook comes with easy-to-read graphics, a wallet-card summary of the information, quizzes and irresistible data-bits like "if your four-person family skips steak 1 day a week [for a year], it's like taking your car off the road for almost 3 months." This is a great new spin on the typical food-and-environment study, which tends to focus only on the food production phase. Now we can see if and how the grub that's actually on our own plates influences the world.

( MORE: States Fight Back Against City Laws on Unhealthy Food)

Many of the EWG's findings are pretty eye-opening - like some revealing facts about beef, which produces twice the emissions of pork, four times as much as chicken, and 13 times that of vegetable protein such as beans, lentils, and tofu. That's especially alarming since we waste so much meat - ultimately throwing away about 20% of what we produce - meaning that all that carbon was generated for nothing.

The USDA's related findings about emissions related to milk and cheese came from a study it conducted of a single commercial dairy with 10,000 milk cows in southern Idaho. The facility is home to 20 open-lot pens, two milking parlors, a hospital barn, a maternity barn, a manure solid separator, a 25-acre wastewater storage pond, and a 25-acre compost yard. If you think that kind of operation can produce a lot of noxious discharge, you're right. The investigators monitored a year's worth of ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions and found that this one dairy gives off 3,575 pounds of ammonia, 33,092 pounds of methane, and 409 pounds of nitrous oxide per day. Now consider that there are 365 days in a year and tens of thousands of dairy farms in the U.S.

The takeaway from both reports is that eating meat and dairy is expensive, and in a whole lot of ways. Remember, it's not just the carbon emissions that hurt; it's also the pesticides, fertilizers, fuel, and water needed to produce the feed for all those cows and pigs. And once that damage is done, there are still the health consequences we all face from eating too much meat, particularly red meat.

All the same, America is a nation of unapologetic omnivores - with an accent on the carnivore - and the EWG and USDA don't pretend that many people will give up meat or dairy entirely. The message instead is simply to eat and waste less of what we produce and to look for greener options - meat from grass-fed, pasture-raised animals, for example. "Asking everyone to go vegetarian or vegan is not a realistic or attainable goal," chef and television personality Mario Batali told EWG. "But we can focus on a more plant-based diet and support the farmers who raise their animals humanely and sustainably."

( MORE: Why It's a Bad Idea to Fish Out the Bottom of the Marine Food Chain)

So whether you eat meat and love milk, or eat nothing but tofu and spinach, you should check out the two reports. Understanding how your dietary preferences affect the world you live in will help you make the most informed choices possible - and, if you make the right ones, to help yourself in the process.

Tara Thean is a TIME contributor. Find her on Twitter at @TaraThean. You can also continue the discussion on TIME 's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

PHOTOS: Food and the Inner City: A Product Of Our Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Meat and Dairy are Hiking Your Carbon Footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's tough enough dealing with all the hectoring we get about eating less salt, using bigger forks, and making sure that this or that food group makes up only this or that percentage of our diet. All that, however, is only when it's the nutritionists talking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After three flat years, carbon dioxide emissions rose again in 2017, showing that the earth's struggles with climate change will only continue. While this news discouraged those who believed we might have finally hit peak levels, there's plenty to be hopeful about. Now is the time for individuals to do what they can to reduce their impact, through actions big and small. In the week leading up to Earth Day, Earth911 tackles five different areas in which you can make a difference. First up, food consumption.

Why Food Consumption Matters

This may come as a surprise, but food is among your household's largest sources of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. While energy and transportation are larger, the food consumption of the average American household emits 8.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) each year. The majority of these emissions (83 percent) occur during the production of food, while food transportation accounts for approximately 11 percent.

Grains, fruits and vegetables are the food groups with the lowest carbon footprint. While meat, has the largest carbon footprint, accounting for nearly 50 percent of all greenhouse gases from food consumption. The digestive process in animals, whereby energy from the plants they eat is transformed into animal-based energy, is slow and ultimately leads to the production of manure. During the decomposition process, manure releases methane and nitrous oxide, two major greenhouse gases.

Beef, in particular, has one of the largest carbon footprints of all meat, while poultry is among the lowest. Next to meat, dairy products have the second largest carbon footprint among the food groups, followed by seafood and eggs.

What You Can Do

First, you can cut back on your meat consumption. A vegetarian diet is one of the best ways to reduce your carbon footprint when it comes to food consumption. If you're not quite ready to adopt a completely vegetarian diet, eating one or two vegetarian meals each week can help. When you do eat meat, consider poultry, which produces far fewer greenhouse gases than beef or pork.

Second, you can buy locally produced food. Given that most of the CO2e comes from food production rather than food transport, it may seem that buying local food doesn't have a significant impact. However, if you consumed only food that's locally grown for an entire year, the impact would be quite substantial. This impact is even greater if the food is grown organically. Organic foods typically require 30 to 50 percent less energy to produce.

Third, you can grow your own food. A backyard garden may not provide your family with all the foods they need, but it can reduce your carbon footprint. If you're new to gardening, these organic gardening books can help you get started.

The Future of Food Consumption

Indoor farming is one of the top innovations to watch for in the coming years. The idea is rather simple. Grow vertical gardens indoors where the temperature, pests, watering and light can all be controlled. These indoor farms can be located within major cities, which drastically cuts the transportation costs and provides local customers with fresher produce.

By growing indoors, farmers can produce crops all year long in a continuous cycle. While indoor farming currently works best with leafy greens, researcher are investigating how to apply this method to other crops as well. Over the past decade or two, a number of companies have tried and failed at getting this started. With recent advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning, along with substantial trial and error, one startup, Plenty, thinks it may have finally cracked the code.
How are you reducing your food consumption carbon footprint? Let us know in the comments!
You Might Also Like...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reduce Your Carbon Footprint: Food Consumption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After three flat years, carbon dioxide emissions rose again in 2017, showing that the earth's struggles with climate change will only continue. While this news discouraged those who believed we might have finally hit peak levels, there's plenty to be hopeful about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
July 31, 2018

Many of us have had the experience of opening the refrigerator door, reaching to the back and pulling out the remains of a dinner spoiled and gone to waste. No one likes to waste food, and the negative emotions we feel when we do stem from a variety of sources.

What may not come immediately to mind, however, is food waste's impact on the climate. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, 30 percent of food is wasted globally across the supply chain, contributing 8 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. If food waste were a country, it would come in third after the United States and China in terms of impact on global warming.

Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorcarbons (fluorinated gases used in refrigeration) are produced and emitted from food production to our refrigerators. And don't forget all the metal cans, plastic bags and cardboard boxes our food comes in. By throwing away half a lasagna, half of the emissions that resulted from producing and processing, packaging, shipping, storing, picking up and cooking are also wasted.

It turns out reducing food waste is one of the most important things we can do to reverse global warming. Project Drawdown's team of researchers ranked solutions to global warming; to our surprise, we discovered that cutting down on food waste could have nearly the same impact on reducing emissions over the next three decades as onshore wind turbines. More than 70 billion tons of greenhouse gases could be prevented from being released into the atmosphere. It represents one of the greatest possibilities for individuals, companies and communities to contribute to reversing global warming and at the same time feed more people, increase economic benefits and preserve threatened ecosystems.

Most food waste worldwide occurs when food is left in the field. But food is not wasted the same way in every part of the world. In high and medium-income countries, 40 percent of food waste occurs in markets and by consumers. In low-income countries, food is rarely wasted by households; instead, 40 percent is lost during the post-harvest and processing stages, usually because of poor infrastructure and the lack of efficient storage technology.

Understanding where along the supply chain waste happens provides opportunities for effective solutions to be implemented. In high and medium-income countries, changing behaviors is paramount. Make conscientious decisions to purchase what we intend to eat and eat what is purchased. Embrace "ugly food" - fruits and vegetables that are blemished and not perfectly shaped but are perfectly delicious and nutritious. Properly store, use and share leftovers.

These decisions sends signals to markets, which results in lower demand along the chain and reduces emissions from storage, transportation, packaging, processing and production. Wholesalers, retailers and restaurants can also play a significant role. Suppliers and groceries using clear, standardized "use by" and "best by" labelling, for example, can allow consumers to better understand the peak freshness of products and avoid unnecessary waste. Restaurants can offer flexible portion sizes, provide fewer menu items and encourage leftovers to be taken home.

In low-income countries where most food is lost before getting to market, knowledge exchange, education and investment in improved technology can cause a dramatic shift in wastage. Better information can help prevent producers from generating more food than can be consumed, and proper infrastructure can allow food to reach markets and households in need.

Prevention is the most substantive solution to reducing food waste, but "waste-benefit" solutions such as composting or anaerobic digesters are beneficial last resorts for food that cannot be eaten or redistributed to hungry populations. Project Drawdown's modeling showed that worldwide implementation of composting can reduce emissions by 2.3 billion tons over the next 30 years. Food waste that decomposes in landfills releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is at least 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Wasted food that is composted can be used as a fertilizer on cropland, improving soil health and productivity. Anaerobic, or "methane", digesters, on the other hand, convert methane produced from decomposition into electricity, helping to shift away from fossil fuel-based energy.

Project Drawdown estimates that as population growth, economic development, food consumption and waste continue to grow, the total food produced worldwide would need to increase by 107 million tons annually by 2050. This level of production would require converting more than a billion acres of forests and grassland into farmland over the next 30 years, resulting in the release of approximately 84 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere. Additional emissions across the supply chain, from agricultural production to our refrigerators, would also be generated.

By reducing food waste today, we can redirect what would be wasted to feed hungry people, and we can avoid the production of excess food. When adopted in parallel with other solutions like switching to plant-rich diets and supply-side agricultural production solutions like silvopasture, Project Drawdown estimates that enough food could be produced to feed the entire world a healthy diet from now to 2050 without converting any forests or grasslands to farmland.

The climate impact of the food system may come as a surprise to many people. Of the top 20 solutions, out of the 80 compiled by Project Drawdown, eight relate directly to the food system. For comparison, only five have to do with electricity generation. While we need all 80 solutions to be implemented in parallel, the decisions we all make every day on the food we produce, purchase and consume is perhaps the single most important contribution an individual can make.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The climate impact of the food in the back of your fridge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
July 31, 2018 Many of us have had the experience of opening the refrigerator door, reaching to the back and pulling out the remains of a dinner spoiled and gone to waste. No one likes to waste food, and the negative emotions we feel when we do stem from a variety of sources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans' appetite for meat and dairy - billions of pounds a year from billions of animals - takes a toll on our health, the environment, climate and animal welfare. Producing all this meat and dairy requires large amounts of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, fuel, feed and water. It also generates greenhouse gases and large amounts of toxic manure and wastewater that pollute groundwater, rivers, streams and, ultimately, the ocean. In addition, eating large quantities of beef and processed meats increases your exposure to toxins and is linked to higher rates of health problems, including heart disease, cancer and obesity.

U.S. meat consumption has held steady for the past several years, but Americans consume 60 per cent more than Europeans (FAO 2009) and the global appetite for meat is exploding. From 1971 to 2010, worldwide production of meat tripled to around 600 billion pounds while global population grew by just 81 percent (US Census Bureau, International Data Base). At this rate, production will double by 2050 to approximately 1.2 trillion pounds of meat per year, requiring more water, land, fuel, pesticides and fertilizer and causing significant damage to the planet and global health (Elam 2006).

It doesn't have to be this way. You can do something about it. By eating and wasting less meat (especially red and processed meat) and cheese, you can simultaneously improve your health and reduce the climate and environmental impact of food production. And when you do choose to eat meat and cheese, go greener. There are many environmental, health and animal welfare reasons to choose meat and dairy products that come from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals. It may cost more, but when you buy less meat overall, you can afford to go healthier and greener.

EWG's Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health can help you green your diet. It provides useful information about the climate, environmental and health impact of your protein choices. We hope it also inspires you to advocate for public policies that will make our food system healthier for our bodies and the planet, since improving our personal food choices is just one part of the solution.

WHAT WE DID: Lifecycle Assessments

To assess climate impacts, EWG partnered with CleanMetrics, an environmental analysis and consulting firm, to do lifecycle assessments of 20 popular types of meat (including fish), dairy and vegetable proteins. Unlike most studies that focus just on production emissions, our assessment calculates the full "cradle-to-grave" carbon footprint of each food item based on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated before and after the food leaves the farm - from the pesticides and fertilizer used to grow animal feed all the way through the grazing, animal raising, processing, transportation, cooking and, finally, disposal of unused food. The analysis also includes the emissions from producing food that never gets eaten, either because it's left on the plate or because of spoilage or fat and moisture loss during cooking. About 20 percent of edible meat just gets thrown out (EWG/CleanMetrics analysis of 2011 USDA data) ( see EWG's Meateater's Guide Methodology and Results / PDF).

The lifecycle assessments are based on conventional rather than pasture-based or organic systems of food production. We focused on conventionally produced, grain-fed meat because that is mostly what Americans eat. Also, we were unable to identify definitive studies and widely accepted methodologies assessing greenhouse gas emissions from pasture-raised, organic or other meat production systems that make use of more environmentally sound management practices (such as cover cropping and intensive grazing). Because climate is just one of many factors to consider, our report also assesses other environmental and health impacts of all kinds of meat and dairy, including conventional, organic and pasture-raised. The analysis included salmon and tuna but focuses mostly on livestock and much less on seafood due to data and resource constraints.

WHAT WE FOUND: All Meat is Not Created Equal

Different meats and different production systems have varying health, climate and other environmental impacts.

Lamb, beef, cheese, pork and farmed salmon generate the most greenhouse gases. With the exception of salmon, they also tend to have the worst environmental impacts, because producing them requires the most resources - mainly chemical fertilizer, feed, fuel, pesticides and water - and pound for pound, they generate more polluting manure. On the health front, the scientific evidence is increasingly clear that eating too much of these greenhouse gas-intensive meats boosts exposure to toxins and increases the risk of a wide variety of serious health problems, including heart disease, certain cancers, obesity and, in some studies, diabetes.

Meat, eggs and dairy products that are certified organic, humane and/or grass-fed are generally the least environmentally damaging (although a few studies of the impact on climate show mixed results for grass-fed versus confined-feedlot meat) (Pelletier 2010, Gurian-Sherman 2011). Overall, these products are the least harmful, most ethical choices. In some cases, grass-fed and pasture-raised products have also been shown to be more nutritious and carry less risk of bacterial contamination.

Greenhouse gas emissions vary depending on the quantity of chemical fertilizers, fuel and other "production inputs" used, differences in soil conditions and production systems and the extent to which best practices (cover cropping, intensive grazing, manure management, etc.) are implemented along the entire supply chain. While best management practices can demonstrably reduce overall emissions and environmental harm, the most effective and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts from livestock is simply to eat, waste and produce less meat and dairy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report - 2011 Meat Eaters Guide | Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health | Environmental Working Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EWG's guide to buying meat and dairy products that are better for your health and easier on the planet. Learn the environmental, health and animal welfare reasons to choose meat and dairy products that come from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 35 Easiest Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

In the face of the recent National Climate Assessment report on the threats of climate change, the Trump administration continues to try to roll back environmental policies. Individuals, however, can make a difference by reducing their personal greenhouse gas emissions. While there are many ways to do this and save energy-such as insulating your home, putting up solar panels, and planting trees-the following are the simplest and easiest changes you can make. They require little effort or financial investment.
First calculate your carbon footprint
Your carbon footprint is the amount of greenhouse gases-including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases and others-that you produce as you live your life. The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project determined that in order to hold the global temperature rise to 2˚C or less, everyone on earth will need to average an annual carbon footprint of 1.87 tons by 2050. Currently, the average U.S. per capita carbon footprint is 18.3 tons. By comparison, China's per capita carbon emissions are 8.2 tons. We all have a ways to go to get to 1.87 tons.

Calculate your carbon footprint at carbonfootprint.com to find out how you're doing. The EPA's carbon footprint calculator can show how much carbon and money you will save by taking some of these steps.

Here are some of the easiest ways you can start to shrink your carbon footprint.

Food

1. Eat low on the food chain. This means eating mostly fruits, veggies, grains, and beans. Livestock-meat and dairy-is responsible for 14.5 percent of manmade global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from feed production and processing and the methane (25 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere over 100 years) that beef and sheep belch out. Every day that you forgo meat and dairy, you can reduce your carbon footprint by 8 pounds-that's 2,920 pounds a year. You can start by joining Meatless Mondays.

2. Choose organic and local foods that are in season. Transporting food from far away, whether by truck, ship, rail or plane, uses fossil fuels for fuel and for cooling to keep foods in transit from spoiling.

3. Buy foodstuffs in bulk when possible using your own reusable container.

4. Reduce your food waste by planning meals ahead of time, freezing the excess and reusing leftovers.

5. Compost your food waste if possible. (If you live in New York City, you can find a compost drop-off site here.

Clothing

6. Don't buy fast fashion. Trendy, cheap items that go out of style quickly get dumped in landfills where they produce methane as they decompose. Currently, the average American discards about 80 pounds of clothing each year, 85 percent of which ends up in landfills. In addition, most fast fashion comes from China and Bangladesh, so shipping it to the U.S. requires the use of fossil fuels. Instead, buy quality clothing that will last.

7. Even better, buy vintage or recycled clothing at consignment shops.

8. Wash your clothing in cold water. The enzymes in cold water detergent are designed to clean better in cold water. Doing two loads of laundry weekly in cold water instead of hot or warm water can save up to 500 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.

Shopping

9. Buy less stuff! And buy used or recycled items whenever possible.

10. Bring your own reusable bag when you shop.

11. Try to avoid items with excess packaging.

12. If you're in the market for a new computer, opt for a laptop instead of a desktop. Laptops require less energy to charge and operate than desktops.

13. If shopping for appliances, lighting, office equipment or electronics, look for Energy Star products, which are certified to be more energy efficient.

14. Support and buy from companies that are environmentally responsible and sustainable.

Home

15. Do an energy audit of your home. This will show how you use or waste energy and help identify ways to be more energy efficient.

16. Change incandescent light bulbs (which waste 90 percent of their energy as heat) to light emitting diodes (LEDs). Though LEDs cost more, they use a quarter of the energy and last up to 25 times longer. They are also preferable to compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) bulbs, which emit 80 percent of their energy as heat and contain mercury.

17. Switch lights off when you leave the room and unplug your electronic devices when they are not in use.

18. Turn your water heater down to 120˚F. This can save about 550 pounds of CO2 a year.

19. Installing a low-flow showerhead to reduce hot water use can save 350 pounds of CO2. Taking shorter showers helps, too.

20. Lower your thermostat in winter and raise it in summer. Use less air conditioning in the summer; instead opt for fans, which require less electricity. And check out these other ways to beat the heat without air conditioning.

21. Sign up to get your electricity from clean energy through your local utility or a certified renewable energy provider. Green-e.org can help you find certified green energy providers.

Transportation

Because electricity increasingly comes from natural gas and renewable energy, transportation became the major source of U.S. CO2 emissions in 2017. An average car produces about five tons of CO2 each year (although this varies according to the type of car, its fuel efficiency and how it's driven). Making changes in how you get around can significantly cut your carbon budget.

22. Drive less. Walk, take public transportation, carpool, rideshare or bike to your destination when possible. This not only reduces CO2 emissions, it also lessens traffic congestion and the idling of engines that accompanies it.

23. If you must drive, avoid unnecessary braking and acceleration. Some studies found that aggressive driving can result in 40 percent more fuel consumption than consistent, calm driving.

24. Take care of your car. Keeping your tires properly inflated can increase your fuel efficiency by three percent; and ensuring that your car is properly maintained can increase it by four percent. Remove any extra weight from the car.

25. When doing errands, try to combine them to reduce your driving.

26. Use traffic apps like Waze to help avoid getting stuck in traffic jams.

27. On longer trips, turn on the cruise control, which can save gas.

28. Use less air conditioning while you drive, even when the weather is hot.

29. If you're shopping for a new car, consider purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle. But do factor in the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of the car as well as its operation. Some electric vehicles are initially responsible for more emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles because of manufacturing impacts; but they make up for it after three years. This app rates cars based on their mileage, fuel type and emissions from both the production of the car and, if they are EVs, from generating the electricity to run them.

Air travel

30. If you fly for work or pleasure, air travel is probably responsible for the largest part of your carbon footprint. Avoid flying if possible; on shorter trips, driving may emit fewer greenhouse gases.

32. Fly nonstop since landings and takeoffs use more fuel and produce more emissions.

33. Go economy class. Business class is responsible for almost three times as many emissions as economy because in economy, the flight's carbon emissions are shared among more passengers; first class can result in nine times more carbon emissions than economy.

34. If you can't avoid flying, offset the carbon emissions of your travel.

Carbon offsets

A carbon offset is an amount of money you can pay for a project that reduces greenhouse gases somewhere else. If you offset one ton of carbon, the offset will help capture or destroy one ton of greenhouse gases that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere. Offsets also promote sustainable development and increase the use of renewable energy.

This calculator estimates the carbon emissions of your flight and the amount of money needed to offset them. For example, flying economy roundtrip from New York to Los Angeles produces 1.5 tons of CO2; it costs $43 to offset this carbon.

You can purchase carbon offsets to compensate for any or all of your other carbon emissions as well.

The money you pay goes towards climate protection projects. Various organizations sponsor these projects. For example, Myclimate funds the purchase of energy efficient cookstoves in Rwanda, installing solar power in the Dominican Republic, and replacing old heating systems with energy efficient heat pumps in Switzerland. Cotap sustainably plants trees in India, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda and Nicaragua to absorb CO2; you can sign up for monthly offsets here. Terrapass funds U.S. projects utilizing animal waste from farms, installing wind power, and capturing landfill gas to generate electricity. It also offers a monthly subscription for offsets.

Get politically active

35. Finally-and perhaps most importantly since the most effective solutions to climate change require governmental action- vote! Become politically active and let your representatives know you want them to take action to phase out fossil fuels use and decarbonize the country as fast as possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 35 Easiest Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the face of the recent National Climate Assessment report on the threats of climate change, the Trump administration continues to try to roll back environmental policies. Individuals, however, can make a difference by reducing their personal greenhouse gas emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever thought about how much CO2 you're using when you boil a kettle, change a baby's nappy or buy a bottle of wine? It's unlikely that you have, but things that we do and buy every day can add up to create a LOT of additional CO2.

People are beginning to open their eyes and see that if we continue to live the way we are our planet won't be able to cope. This is especially true of the plastic epidemic, which we're seeing in the news and media every week. The rise in sea levels, the temperature rise, especially seen this February in the UK when temperatures reached 20 degrees Celsius, and shrinking ice sheets all demonstrate that there is a problem that may become irreversible if we don't do anything about it now.

It's a growing problem that cannot be ignored. The main issue is that many people think 'What will turning a light off actually do?'. Well, the answer is, quite a lot if all the households in the world did this. And is there anything else you can do to help ever so slightly? Perhaps your boiler is 10 years old and a replacement would be much more efficient. Maybe you don't recycle junk mail but doing this could save 1.6kg of CO2 per catalogue.

We've decided to create a graphic that really puts into context the amount of CO2 everyday tasks and items produce, as well as the impact that big events have had, such as the 2010 World Cup and the Iraq War. Plus, you can find three ways you can reduce your own carbon emissions at home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The carbon footprint of (nearly) everything

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever thought about how much CO2 you're using when you boil a kettle, change a baby's nappy or buy a bottle of wine? The things we do and buy every day can add up to create a LOT of additional CO2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumers are hungry for clearer television screens, more powerful laptops, and smarter phones. But because those electronics require a significant amount of energy to manufacture, and because consumers replace them frequently, they are greater contributors to climate change than previously recognized, a new study suggests (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es201459c).

Since the 1980s, conventional wisdom has held that large appliances, such as clothes dryers and refrigerators, are the home's biggest source of greenhouse gases, aside from heating and lighting. But the proliferation of consumer electronics may have changed the scenario, guessed Edgar Hertwich, a professor of energy and process engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

To test the idea, Hertwich and his colleague Charlotte Roux modeled the greenhouse gases that come from household electronics and appliances in Norwegian homes in 2008. Using data from life-cycle assessments, sales reports, and other studies, they calculated the greenhouse emissions of the devices, considering manufacture, use, and disposal.

They found that freezers and refrigerators accounted for the most emissions: the equivalent of about 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per household in 2008. Televisions and computers ranked second and third, contributing about 1,300 and 1,100 pounds of greenhouse emissions, respectively.

Taken together, entertainment devices-including televisions, computers, DVD players, audio equipment, phones, and game consoles-produced more greenhouse gases than the traditional household appliances did combined.

For many of the devices, most of the emissions came during manufacturing. For example, the researchers found that manufacturing a laptop created about 700 pounds of greenhouse gases. But using electricity to run a laptop generated only about 18 pounds of emissions in 2008.

Hertwich says that the rapid turnover of electronics increases the importance of manufacturing's emissions. Norwegian households purchase a washing machine only once every nine years, on average, but buy a computer every two years and a television every 3.5 years.

He says that the study also underscores the need for cleaner energy sources in countries where manufacturing occurs: "We're importing dirty Chinese or Australian or South African electricity with these products."

Anders Andrae, a Stockholm-based expert in life-cycle assessments, says that to reduce emissions, consumers would have to stop buying electronics so frequently or buy less carbon-intensive products. Maybe, he suggests, phones and other devices could be upgraded instead of simply replaced.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Consumer Electronics Outrank Refrigerators As Contributors To Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consumers are hungry for clearer television screens, more powerful laptops, and smarter phones. But because those electronics require a significant amount of energy to manufacture, and because consumers replace them frequently, they are greater contributors to climate change than previously recognized, a new study suggests (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es201459c).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Make your family a little greener with ten simple, approachable ideas to reduce your family's carbon footprint.

Going green or being eco-friendly can seem intimidating, but reducing your carbon footprint doesn't need to involve a radical lifestyle overhaul! There are many simple and affordable ways almost anyone can contribute to helping the environment.

In this guide, we'll go over the basics of carbon footprints and show you easy ways your household can get green. From reducing waste to being a savvy consumer, see what your family can do to improve.

What is a carbon footprint?

Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and ozone contribute to pollution, ozone depletion and global warming. Our carbon footprint refers to the net amount of greenhouse gases generated by us or things we consume, with fossil fuels being a major source.

Activities like driving a car, heating and cooling, and using electrical power from gas or coal all emit CO2. Products we buy also contribute to our carbon footprint, as most require fossil fuels for production, packaging and transportation.

Finding Your Family's Carbon Footprint

According to TimeForChange.org, the average person in an industrialized country has a carbon footprint of 11 tons of CO2 per year. However, the estimated target for long-term sustainability is only 2 tons of CO2 per year!

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosts a helpful online household carbon footprint Verified Source Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Works to control/prevent natural and manmade disasters. calculator View source that can help you figure out your family's footprint. It looks at emissions from transportation, household energy, and waste, and also shows you how making changes will impact your overall profile.

According to the EPA, the average 4-person household produces 83,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per year (20,750 pounds per person). Factors like how much you drive, your car's mileage-per-gallon, your home's average temperature, energy sources, and waste can all reduce or increase your footprint.

When you think about all the things that contribute to the average family's carbon footprint, it can seem overwhelming - and also puts in perspective the impact that could come from each person just making small changes to their daily routine.

10 Ways to Reduce Carbon Footprint & Make Your Family Greener

First, let's clear the air: you don't need to install mega solar panels and live exclusively off bean sprouts to reduce your family's carbon footprint, so don't be intimidated!

While clean energy and organic farming certainly help the planet, there are many other ways to reduce carbon footprints without drastically changing your lifestyle. Bonus: many of these eco-friendly solutions can make great family projects!

1. Reduce Your Trash Output

Landfills are an incredible source of greenhouse gases and pollution. Recycling the basics can cut the amount of garbage you send to landfills by up to 50% or more.

Several waste management services now have low-cost recycling programs, and if your's doesn't, look for a local recycling facility that picks up or accepts drop-offs. Many are free, and some items like cans could even net a small amount of money.

Green Ideas:

A household of 4 could reduce their footprint by 1,930 lbs. per year by recycling plastic, glass, magazines, newspapers, and aluminum and steel cans (EPA).

2. Make Recycle & Reuse Your Motto

In addition to recycling trash waste, think about other ways your family can recycle and reuse to reduce the consumption of resources and greenhouse emissions. From old clothes and toys to old furniture and packaging materials, see what can be given a new life or donated rather than discarded.

Green Ideas:

Paint, reupholster or refinish old furniture instead buying new.

Transform packaging materials into art projects or creative containers.

Repair furniture or tires before replacing.

Donate things in decent shape you no longer have a need for.

3. Go Paperless

Even though paper is recyclable, the less you use, the better for the planet. Rather than getting piles of mail you just trash or never look at, choose paperless for all of your statements, newsletters and bills.

Several banks and billing companies offer small credits for paperless billing. Most will still send you important documents by email, and you can always print them if you need to.

Green Ideas:

Get in the habit of taking notes and making lists on your PC or smartphone, use a chalkboard, or opt for reusable paperless note takers like AquaNotes or Boogie Boards.

4. Pass on Plastic

Plastics, especially new plastics, are a big drain on finite petroleum resources and major contributor to greenhouse gases. Try to reduce the number of wasteful plastics your household uses by opting for greener, reusable materials.

Green Ideas:

Swap disposable plastic water bottles and containers for aluminum, glass, or reusable ones made of recycled plastic.

Use a water filtration system at home to reduce plastic bottles and jugs.

Use cloth grocery totes instead of plastic bags

5. Get Growing

Trees and plants consume CO2 and help purify the air, offsetting a portion of carbon emissions. An adult tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of CO2 per year, and can even reduce household heating and cooling costs by providing shade and insulation.

If you have a yard, consider planting trees, shrubs or even a garden packed with superfoods to reduce your footprint. If you don't have a yard, you could seek out a community co-op garden or look for local volunteer planting groups or events.

Green Ideas:

Many cities host tree planting or gardening events, particularly for Arbor Day and Earth Day.

Non-profit organizations CarbonFund.org and EarthDay.org also plant trees for you for tax-deductible donations of about $1 each.

6. Watch the Thermostat

One easy way to reduce your family's carbon footprint is to simply be conscious of your thermostat's settings. When you aren't home, set your thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter to conserve energy. If you can, program it to adjust automatically.

You can also use ceiling fans and air fans in the summer to reduce AC costs. There are benefits and drawbacks to sleeping with a fan on, so consider if you want one running at night or try other methods for cooling down a bedroom.

During the winter, use low-energy space heaters and bundle up to save on heating. Colder temperatures are good for sleep, so keeping thermostats low during winter can have multiple benefits!

To sleep comfortably, use seasonal bedding and breathable pajamas. Efficient heating and cooling mattresses also keep you comfortable without hiking up energy bills.

Green Ideas:

In the winter, turn your thermostat down 8 degrees when you're not home and at night to save $35 per year and reduce CO2 by 361 pounds (EPA).

In the summer, turn your thermostat up 4 degrees when you're not home and at night to save $35 and reduce CO2 by 1031 pounds.

7. Use CFL or LED Lights

Spiral-shaped, energy-saving Compact Fluorescent light bulbs cut energy usage significantly compared to incandescent bulbs. When incandescent bulbs burn out, replace them with low-watt CFLs or LED lights instead.

Green Ideas:

Replacing even three 60-watt incandescent light bulbs with 13-watt CFLs can save you $18 per year and reduce your carbon footprint by 183 pounds (EPA).

8. Opt for Efficient Appliances

From refrigerators to dishwashers and computers to water heaters, appliances account for a big share of your family's carbon footprint, and your energy bills.

When it's time to replace old appliances, look for the Energy Star label to compare efficiency and find options that save on energy and/or water. Big strides have been made in the past 10 years, and you could even save money over time by upgrading old, inefficient appliances.

Green Ideas:

Replacing an old fridge with a new Energy Star model could save you $43 and cut emissions by 443 pounds per year (EPA).

Enabling your computer's "sleep" function can save $12 and 126 lbs. of CO2.

Washing 2 loads of laundry per week on cold saves $13 and 133 lbs. of CO2.

9. Choose More Sustainable Goods

Look for home furnishings and a comfortable mattress made with low-VOC and sustainable materials. Volatile organic compounds in paints, glues and foams outgas into air, and many also disperse significant greenhouse gases in manufacturing.

Sustainable, plantation-grown woods, bamboo, glass and metal offer greener solutions for furniture. Organic cotton and other renewable natural fibers offer better choices for fabrics and textiles around the house as well.

Green Ideas:

Some companies also use low-VOC materials and reduce petroleum usage by substituting plant oils, which offer greener alternatives to traditional products. For example, Amerisleep's BioPur memory foam is plant-based, low-VOC and is manufactured in a zero-emissions environment.

10. Park Your Car

Another small change your family can make to reduce carbon footprints is to simply drive less.

The average person puts 240 miles on their car each week. Carpooling, biking, or riding public transit even one day can have a big impact. You can also try to incorporate more walking and biking as a family to reduce auto mileage.

Performing regular maintenance on your car ensures exhaust emissions are in check and that you are getting optimal gas mileage. When you need to buy a new car, look for a vehicle that gets at least 25 miles per gallon (the industry average of 2013), or opt for a hybrid model.

Green Ideas:

Driving 20 fewer miles per week saves 1,062 lbs. of CO2 and $175 (EPA).

Performing regular vehicle maintenance saves you $124 and 892 lbs. of CO2.

Compared to a vehicle that gets 20 MPG, one that gets 25 MPG saves $354 and 2,549 lbs. of CO2 per year, while one that gets 30 mpg saves $591 and 4,248 lbs. of CO2.

With over 7 billion people currently calling planet earth home, it's easy to think that our actions won't make a difference. However, if every person made minor changes to their daily routines, small savings can make a huge impact.

Just by driving 20 fewer miles per week, performing regular vehicle maintenance, adjusting your thermostat, enabling your computer's sleep function, washing two loads of laundry on cold, recycling waste, and replacing three incandescent lights with CFLs, your family can reduce it's CO2 footprint by 5718 pounds or nearly 3 tons per year.

Additional changes like choosing 10% green power can save an additional 2148 pounds per year, while replacing single pane windows with Energy Star windows can save an additional $150 and a whopping 8841 pounds per year.

As you can see, there are so many ways, both big and small, that you and your family can contribute to a healthier planet. Reducing your family's carbon footprint is as easy as making a few conscious changes to your daily routine and making wiser choices as a consumer.
What's your biggest motivator to go green? What do you think is most important about the eco-friendly movement? How would going green impact your lifestyle?
P.S. If you liked this post, you might also enjoy The Psychology of Better Sleep: Sleeping Tips for Leading a Healthier Lifestyle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Reduce Your Family's Carbon Footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Make your family a little greener with ten simple, approachable ideas to reduce your family's carbon footprint. Going green or being eco-friendly can seem intimidating, but reducing your carbon footprint doesn't need to involve a radical lifestyle overhaul! There are many simple and affordable ways almost anyone can contribute to helping the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else. A new study shows how the effects vary from country to country - and points the way toward a more sustainable future

Brendon O'Hagan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

You may think you live on a planet, but really you live on a gigantic farm, one occasionally broken up by cities, forests and the oceans. Some 40% of the world's land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed - albeit some of us, of course, more than others. And the vast majority of that land - about 30% of the word's total ice-free surface - is used not to raise grains, fruits and vegetables that are directly fed to human beings, but to support the chickens, pigs and cattle that we eventually eat.

Livestock production - which includes meat, milk and eggs - contributes 40% of global agricultural gross domestic product, provides income for more than 1.3 billion people and uses one-third of the world's fresh water. There may be no other single human activity that has a bigger impact on the planet than the raising of livestock. But as a new study out today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS) shows, there is tremendous variation in how we raise livestock around the world - and major differences in what that means for the earth and for us.

Researchers from the International Livestock Research Institute in Kenya, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria produced a comprehensive assessment of the livestock industry around the world, in developed nations where factory farming is common and in developing nations where livestock are more likely to graze on grasslands. They dug up some striking statistics that underscore just how much meat production varies from region to region.

Each year the livestock sector globally produces 586 million tons of milk, 124 million tons of poultry, 91 million tons of pork, 59 million tons of cattle and buffalo meat, and 11 million tons of meat from sheep and goats. That 285 million tons of meat altogether - or about 36 kg (80 lb.) per person, if it were all divided evenly. It's not - Americans eat 122 kg (270 lb.) of meat a year on average, while Bangladeshis eat 1.8 kg (4 lb).

Of the 95 million tons of beef produced in the world in 2000, the vast majority came from cattle in Latin America, Europe and North America. All of sub-Saharan Africa - a region with nearly three times as many people as the entire U.S. - produced just 3 million tons of beef.

1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year - and nearly all of it is fed to livestock, mostly pork and poultry, in the developed world and in China and Latin America. All of the livestock in sub-Saharan Africa eat just 50 million tons of grain a year, otherwise subsisting on grasses and on crop residue.

The poor feed quality in impoverished regions like sub-Saharan Africa means that a cow there may consume as much as 10 times more feed - mostly grasses - to produce a kilogram of protein than a cow raised in richer regions. That lack of efficiency also means that cattle in countries like Ethiopia and Somalia account for as much as 1,000 kg of carbon for every kg of protein they produce - in the form of methane from manure as well as from the reduced carbon absorption that results when forests are converted to pastureland. That's 10 times higher than the amount of carbon released per kg of protein in many parts of the U.S. and Europe, where livestock production is much more intensive.

About that: in North America or Europe, a cow consumes about 75 kg to 300 kg of dry matter - grass or grain - to produce a kg of protein. In sub-Saharan Africa, a cow might need 500 kg to 2,000 kg of dry matter to produce a kg of protein, because of the poor feed quality in arid countries and because of the high mortality rates in herds of often undernourished and sick animals.

The highest total of livestock-related greenhouse-gas emissions comes from the developing world, which accounts for 75% of the global emissions from cattle and other ruminants and 56% of the global emissions from poultry and pigs.

The most climate-friendly meats comes from pigs and poultry, which account for only 10% of total livestock greenhouse-gas emissions while contributing more than three times as much meat globally as cattle. Pork and poultry are also more efficient for feed, requiring up to five times less feed to produce a kg of protein than a cow, a sheep or a goat.

( MORE: Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food)

So what does this all mean? While factory farming in the U.S. gets a lot of criticism for its cruelty, the danger it poses to public health through the overuse of antibiotics and the pollution it causes to air and water, it can be remarkably efficient. And given the fact that the planet isn't getting any bigger while the global population and the global appetite keep growing, efficiency is going to matter when it comes to food production. The upside of inefficient livestock production in the developing world is that there is a lot of room to improve, given the right kind of help - which is exactly what the authors of the PNAS paper are hoping for.

"Our data can allow us to see more clearly where we can work with livestock keepers to improve animal diets so they can produce more protein with better feed while simultaneously reducing emissions," said Petr Havlik, a research scholar at IIASA and a co-author of the study. What we need is "sustainable intensification" - efficiency but pursued in a measured way.

That's not to say it would be advisable simply to export developed-world livestock practices to, say, desperately poor, climatically challenged countries, even if it were possible. The low livestock-feed efficiencies in sub-Saharan Africa is due to the fact that most animals in the region consist on vegetation that is not edible by human beings - a fact that's fairly important in a region where grain is simply too precious to use for animals. Livestock also serves a different function in the developing world. "Cattle and poultry can be walking banks in the developing world," says Mario Herrero, an agricultural-systems scientist at CSIRO and a co-author of the paper. "They provide manure to small-holder farmers. There's a tremendous social role for livestock that can't be ignored."

Above all else, the study underscores that while meat production will need to change in the future, so will meat consumption. It's difficult to get a full and proper accounting of the total environmental impact of livestock production. A 2006 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that livestock were responsible for about 18% of human-caused greenhouse gases - a figure that has been criticized by the meat industry as too high and by some environmentalists as far too low. But what's clear is that American levels of meat consumption can't be sustainably adopted by the rest of the world, even if livestock management becomes more efficient globally. "Demand management has to be part of the solution as well," says Herrero. For the environment - and for our hearts and waistlines too.

MORE: How Meat and Dairy Are Hiking Your Carbon Footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may think you live on a planet, but really you live on a gigantic farm, one occasionally broken up by cities, forests and the oceans. Some 40% of the world's land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed - albeit some of us, of course, more than others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here's something that you probably didn't see coming. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the production of a hard Blu-ray disk is actually less than the carbon released during the download of a single videogame.

That's according to a study recently published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, which found that the seemingly good transition of videogames from disks to the cloud is actually hurting the Earth.

Past research has found that the "digital revolution" is largely helping to mitigate climate change, by reducing the amount of industry and shipping required to sell things like movies and music albums. By moving albums from physical CD's to databases like iTunes, fewer delivery trucks hit the streets and more factories - complete with noxious smokestacks - closed their doors for good.

It was thought that the same would happen when the most recent generation of video game consoles revealed that games would be purchased and downloaded online. However, according to new research on the carbon footprint of the Playstation3 (PS3), this just isn't the case... (scroll to read on)

Measuring data on gaming in the United Kingdom for 2010, researchers found that the carbon emissions of 8.8 gigabyte (the average size for a PS3 game) downloads were strikingly higher than the emissions produced during the production, distribution, and even delivery of a physical disk.

The cause, the authors write, was energy consumption, where gamers were leaving their PS3s on for extended periods of time to download a new game. It's hard to imagine that a small black box hooked up to a television could use more energy than a factory and delivery trucks, but when you consider that each of these machines is only "producing" one game per download, compared to the multitudes that a single factory can make in far less time, it makes a bit more sense.

This then raises concerns about the next generation of gaming. The PS4, for instance, is already releasing games double and triple the size of its predecessor. While internet strengths and download times are getting better in the wake of cloud-based systems, the efficiency of disk production is also expected to improve by at least 15 percent by 2015.
It's Up to The Gamer
"Consumer behavior can have a significant impact," the authors add. "If consumers were to increasingly drive just to buy 'must have' or new launch games and no other purchases (as with the case where stores open at midnight to sell new launch games), then [disks] would account for carbon equivalent emissions in the same range as that for downloading."

However, in the same breath they add that if more and more gamers choose to leave their consoles on for downloads while out or sleeping - a sin that most gamers will admit to being guilty of - the carbon footprint of disks has no hope of catching up for at least the next two years.

"Users would be well advised to consider their usage behavior, such as maintaining autopower down settings," the authors concluded, but "the results of this study are unlikely to change or influence consumer behaviors."

In other words, they know gamers aren't thinking about the state of the Earth as they buttonmash away.
Wait, So How...?
Also, not everyone immediately draws the connection between electricity use and carbon emissions. When thinking "greenhouse gases," the iconic image of thick smoke billowing from behemoth industrial smokestacks usually comes to mind.

Plugging in a blender or gaming console? Not so much.

But it's important to remember that most of our electricity comes from coal-burning power plants, the very things that the United Nation's Sustainable Development Solutions Network has been urging countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and China to step away from for years.

"Bringing down carbon emissions means retiring more fossil fuel-burning facilities than we build," researcher Steven Davis of UCI explained in a recent release.

Davis recently authored a study that details how existing power plants around the world will spew out more than 300 billion more tons of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.

"We've built more coal-burning power plants in the past decade than in any previous decade, and closures of old plants aren't keeping pace with this expansion," he added. "Far from solving the climate change problem, we're investing heavily in technologies that make the problem worse."

And he can, at least in part, blame the gamers. It would be hard to estimate how much of a burden every 12-year-old going to war in Call of Duty places on the National Grid, but it undeniably contributes to the ever-increasing power needs of growing populations.
So Are We Doomed?
Don't break out the torches and pitchforks against gamers just yet. Despite an increased energy burden placed by downloading games, the overall electricity consumption of the United States, United Kingdom and Japan - all considered major gaming consumers - has remained relatively constant over the last decade.

In fact, South Korea, arguably the most game-crazy country in the world, is one of the only major consumers who is still raising its electricity consumption per capita.

Even China, with the most heavily populated city in the world, is admirably struggling to cut costs despite low numbers. Even as it remains the largest consumer of coal, it is also the world leader in renewable energy growth, constantly adapting new and more efficient technologies as it strives to keep its power needs in check.

And Sony, the producer of the Playstation gaming consol, appears to be thinking the same thing. The company recently announced plans to have zero carbon emissions associated with the production of their electronics by 2050.

While the company seems to be making these changes in good faith, thinking about the state of climate change, it is also expected that by adapting cleaner technologies and renewable materials, Sony will be saving a great deal of money.

So game in peace knowing that your pixilated past-time isn't exactly dooming the Earth to scorched ruin. Just remember to turn the thing off when you're done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gaming's Carbon Footprint: Are Downloaded Games Actually Worse Than Disks?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's something that you probably didn't see coming. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the production of a hard Blu-ray disk is actually less than the carbon released during the download of a single videogame.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change can be overwhelming. Here’s how to think about your effects on the environment and the steps you can take to lessen that impact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Food's carbon footprint, or foodprint, is the greenhouse gas emissions produced by growing, rearing, farming, processing, transporting, storing, cooking and disposing of the food you eat.

In the US, each household produces 48 tons of greenhouse gases. Transport, housing and food have the three largest carbon footprints. Food produces about 8 tons of emissions per household, or about 17% of the total. Worldwide, new reports suggest that livestock agriculture produces around a half of all man-made emissions.

Changing the foods that you eat can have a big impact on your carbon footprint. And reduce pollution, preserve the environment and slow global warming. Many of these changes will also save you money, improve your health and even keep you fit! Have a browse of How You Can Fight Climate Change for more ideas on taking action to save our beautiful planet.

Carbon Footprint Ranking of Food

The following table shows the greenhouse gas emissions produced by one kilo of each food. It includes all the emissions produced on the farm, in the factory, on the road, in the shop and in your home. It also shows how many miles you need to drive to produce that many greenhouse gases. For example, you need to drive 63 miles to produce the same emissions as eating one kilogram of beef.

Meat, cheese and eggs have the highest carbon footprint. Fruit, vegetables, beans and nuts have much lower carbon footprints. If you move towards a mainly vegetarian diet, you can have a large impact on your personal carbon footprint.

Figures from the Environmental Working Group's Meat Eater's Guide and the EPA's Guide to Passenger Vehicle Emissions.

Top Tips for Reducing your Carbon Footprint

1. Food's Carbon Footprint: Eat vegetarian

Livestock farming produces from 20% to 50% of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Shrink That Footprint 's chart shows that a meat lover has the highest carbon footprint at 3.3 tons of greenhouse gas emissions. A vegan diet has the lowest carbon footprint at just 1.5 tons CO2e (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent). You can reduce your foodprint by a quarter just by cutting down on red meats such as beef and lamb.
The carbon footprint of a vegetarian diet is about half that of a meat-lover's diet.
It's good for the animals too! Most animals are raised in factory farms where they live in horrific conditions. The factory workers also suffer from poor wages and dangerous working practices. Factory farms are heavy polluters of the air and ground. The meat they produce is also polluted with superbugs. Over 3.5 million people get sick from eating 'dirty' meat every year in the US.

It's good for you too! Vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters. Vegetarians are slimmer than meat-eaters. Vegetarians have a lower risk of getting heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer.

Browse Healthy Eating for more tips on a healthy, vegetarian diet.

use proteins such as beans, lentils, tofu, tempeh and quorn to replace meat, cheese and eggs

make sure you are getting enough iron and zinc by including lots of wholegrains, beans and a variety of vegetables

invest in some vegetarian or vegan cookery books and have fun experimenting

don't rely on vegetarian processed foods.

Green Fact: 70% of the deforestation of the Amazon is to provide land for cattle ranches.

2. Food's Carbon Footprint: Bring back home-cooking

Take control of the food you eat and base your meals on natural foods such as vegetables, fruits, whole-grains, beans and lentils with a little meat and fish:

discover the simple pleasures of preparing and eating your own meals

check out Vegetarian Recipes for lots of tasty ideas

improve the health of you and your family - see more at Vegetarian Nutrition

plan your meals ahead to reduce wastage

save your leftovers and create a new meal with them

if you can, make your own compost with uncooked vegetable scraps.

Check out Why Food Waste is a Good Thing! for more tips on how to reduce food wastage.

Green Fact: British and American households throw out a THIRD of the food that they buy!

3. Food's Carbon Footprint: Cooking smartly

Did you know that a gas oven only uses 6% of its energy to cook? And an electric oven is not much better at 12%. If you use the oven on a warm day, you will also heat up the room and need to turn on a fan or air-conditioning. In fact, the most efficient cooking method is simmering on the stove-top.

eat more raw foods that do not need cooking

use the stove-top whenever possible

next best is the microwave as it uses 50% less energy than an oven

use the oven sparingly and smartly...reduce preheating, cook multiple foods, turn off early

use electric kettles to boil water for cooking or drinking.

4. Food's Carbon Footprint: Eat Organic

Organic farming methods for both crops and animals have a much lower impact on the environment than conventional methods. Organic-certified farms must use natural methods for soil fertilisation, weed prevention and pest control. Antibiotics and growth hormones cannot be used to raise food animals, and there are standards of care which prevent cruelty to livestock. Genetically-modified and irradiated foods cannot be labelled organic and its better to avoid these processes which are not proven to be safe for us or the food chain.

Organic food is better for you too! Crops are grown in fertile soils that are full of nutrients - and these end up in your food and then in you. Livestock are able to roam the fields and eat their natural food - grass - rather than being force-fed corn. And this leads to a much less fatty meat that keeps your heart healthier.

Find out which fruits and vegetables are the worst and least contaminated with pesticides at Eat Organic, Drink Clean.

Green Fact: poor soil management costs the US $10 billion every year in lowered yields and lost nutrients.

5. Food's Carbon Footprint: Save water

Water is a precious resource that is becoming scarce in many countries such as Egypt, Mexico, Pakistan and Australia. And even if you do not live in one of these arid countries, you may be wearing or using goods and consuming foods produced in those places, thus contributing to their water debt. One of the major impacts we can have personally is by moving towards a vegetarian diet, which requires about half the water to produce than a meat-based diet. It also makes sense to reduce your personal water consumption by practicing water conservation in your daily life:

eat a mainly vegetarian diet

only use the dishwasher when full and select the program with low water usage

if you wash-up by hand, start with a half-empty bowl and rinse the dishes back into your washing-up water rather than down the plughole

use filtered tap water for drinking rather than energy and water-intensive bottled water

take a shower rather than a bath and shower less often in less time!

turn off the taps when brushing your teeth or washing or shaving

clean your clothes less often and only wash full loads

use 'grey' water to water your garden and house-plants.

Green Fact: the average Australian uses around 30,000 gallons of water per year around the home for drinking, washing, cooking, laundry etc but it takes around 400,000 gallons of water to produce the crops that feed and clothe them!

6. Food's Carbon Footprint: Shop wisely

Think before you buy! Do you actually need this? Can you find a better, greener alternative?

use a shopping list to avoid those impulse purchases

avoid products that use lots of packaging

buy in bulk to save money and reduce packaging

check the label - a long list of ingredients generally means a heavily processed item with a high carbon footprint

frozen food has the highest carbon footprint, followed by canned, plastic, glass, then cardboard

and please don't buy bottled water.

Green Fact: around 5,000 million pounds weight of plastic water bottles were produced in 2005 and only 20% were recycled. That's a lot of waste in our landfills, on our streets and in our oceans.

7. Food's Carbon Footprint: Shop local

Think about where you do your shopping. Do you drive to the local shop when you need something - why not walk? Does your supermarket support green initiativesand offer local, organic foods? Is there a nearby farmer's market or co-op you can use? And think about where food comes from - if it is from the other side of the world, it will have a high transportation footprint.

A weekly food shop is a habit many of us follow...but is it an efficient use of time and resources? The average household throws away a third of the food that they buy as it is so easy to over-shop in those tempting supermarkets. After all, they are designed to sell us as much as possible, whether we need it or not. What about shopping in bulk every other week for non-perishable goods, and using your local shops for fresh foods?

Green fact - around 11% of the greenhouse emissions involved in food production are linked to food transportation.

8. Food's Carbon Footprint: Reuse and recycle

Think creatively about how you can reuse and recycle. Glass jars and plastic containers make great storage options. Take your own shopping bags and say no to plastic bags. Take reusable produce bags for your fruit and vegetables - if you use the ethylene-absorbing bags it prolongs shelf-life too. And when you can't reuse, make sure you recycle whatever you can.

9. Food's Carbon Footprint: Grow your own food

A great way to save money, get fit and reduce your carbon footprint is to grow your own fruit and vegetables. If you have a garden or backyard, then it is a fun way to make sure your family has access to affordable, healthy, pesticide-free food. And even if you live in an apartment, what about using your balcony or even the communal outside areas? Failing that, there is a growing movement (ha!) in Australia and The States to set up community gardens.

Food's Carbon Footprint - how to reduce your carbon footprint by eating healthily.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food's carbon footprint, or foodprint, is the greenhouse gas emissions produced by growing, rearing, farming, processing, transporting, storing, cooking and disposing of the food you eat. In the US, each household produces 48 tons of greenhouse gases. Transport, housing and food have the three largest carbon footprints.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As we transition into autumn, leaves will soon begin to fall and scatter throughout lawns and streets. How will you manage your leaves this fall? Selecting the right equipment and strategies can minimize environmental impact.

Lawn Care Equipment Can Emit Toxic Gases

Gas powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers are more detrimental than you would think. Many consumer-grade blowers (and some mowers) use a two-stroke engine, which lacks an independent lubrication system, so fuel has to be mixed with oil. Burning oil and fuel emits a number of harmful toxic pollutants into the air, including carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides (which cause smog formation and acid rain), and hydrocarbons (a carcinogenic gas that also causes smog). Surprisingly, the number of air pollutants emitted by gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers exceed pollutant emissions of large automobiles, which are regulated to . Gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers have the potential to cause serious environmental damage, so finding alternatives and utilizing best practices is key (Source: reduce and capture many air pollutants. A 2011 study showed that a leaf blower emits nearly 300 times the amount of air pollutants as a pickup truck. Similarly, a 2001 study showed that one hour using a gas-powered lawn mower is equivalent to driving a car 100 miles Washington Post).

In addition to air pollution, ozone is created when heat and sunlight react with nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) that are emitted from combustion engines, including lawn equipment. St. Louis is among the In fact, according to the top-ranked areas for ozone and particle pollution. Clean Air Partnership, summertime ozone levels have exceeded federal-based health standards every year since the passage of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, small actions, like seeking alternatives to standard use of lawn equipment, can go a long way in improving regional air quality and human health.

What Can Individuals Do?

For one, switching to electric alternatives can drastically reduce the number of toxic pollutants directly released into the air. While electric models do not eliminate your contribution to greenhouse gasses, it shifts combustion to power plants. Power plants are equipped with scrubbers that filter out pollutants, sharply reducing the overall amount of air pollution being released when fossil fuels are burned.

Time of day matters too. According to the St. Louis Clean Air Partnership, if you are using a a gas lawn mower, mow before 10 a.m. or after 7 p.m. to avoid peak ozone formation hours.

For smaller landscapes it may be possible to switch to an emission-free, non motorized push mower. Push mowers are solely operated by the user pushing the lawn mower across the yard, meaning it emits absolutely zero pollutants. Similarly, an old fashion yard raking can be fun (jumping in leaf piles, anyone?) and a good work out. Be sure to compost your leaves over winter or bag the leaves in paper bags for pick up.

Rather than collecting your leaves, you can mow over your fallen leaves, as they provide protective and nutrient-rich mulch for your lawn.

What is WashU doing to minimize the impact of lawn care equipment?

WashU has also recognized the need for a shift away from gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers and has taken major steps to make landscaping and lawn care more environmentally friendly.

All lawn equipment used by WashU meets current EPA regulations. The lawn mowers used throughout campus are all propane-powered to reduce emissions, with very minimal use of gas-powered units (for example, when propane units are being serviced). The line trimmers and blowers used are all 4-stroke equipment, which is significantly better than the 2-stroke engines found in most gas-powered leaf blowers. Four-stroke engines offer more complete combustion and produce less air pollution. In addition, the oil used in the 4-stroke engine is a higher quality synthetic oil which can be mixed at a thinner rate (80:1) and ultimately burns clearer. Equipment is maintained on a regular schedule to keep everything operating at peak condition. Additionally, leaves are mulched over with propane mowers as often as possible to reduce the use of leaf blowers, while adding organic matter back into the soil.

WashU has also begun trialing battery operated equipment this year. Currently, the school owns one push mower, one line trimmer, and one leaf blower. While the 4-stroke engines are currently more effective for larger landscapes of the school, WashU is looking into getting more battery-powered equipment.

While it may seem like an inconsequential action, changing how you think about your lawn care can have big effects on air quality and human health.

Be mindful of how your leaves can make a big difference this fall!
Thank you to the Focal Pointe Outdoor Solutions team for providing updates on WashU's current landscape practices. Focal Pointe provides the landscape maintenance services on WashU's campuses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Turning Over a New Leaf: Leaf Blowers and Lawn Mowers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As we transition into autumn, leaves will soon begin to fall and scatter throughout lawns and streets. How will you manage your leaves this fall? Selecting the right equipment and strategies can minimize environmental impact. Lawn Care Equipment Can Emit Toxic Gases Gas powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers are more detrimental than you would think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you are an avid gardener, a rookie gardener, or are tinkering with a container garden on your patio-you have a number of opportunities to make a difference in your personal health and the health of the planet.

We're living in a time when humans are pumping extraordinary amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas in power plants, motor vehicles, homes, and factories-and have been doing so for the past 250 years. Globally, humans cause the emission of 15 million tons of CO2 per day, according to the University of California San Diego's Birch Aquarium. More than any other time in human history, it's extremely important to find ways we can reduce the use of these fossil fuels that are causing a rapid increase in the earth's average temperature and irreparably disrupting our climate.

Countering some of the effects can begin in your own backyard with your garden. Why? One reason is growing our own food reduces the miles it takes for the food to get to your plate, thus reducing carbon emissions through transportation, packaging, and storing. According to the National Wildlife Federation report, there are 91 million households involved in gardening and lawn activities in the United States. With so many people already engaged in this activity, gardeners make for perfect environmental stewards in creating positive change. Here are five ways you can reduce your garden's carbon footprint.

1. Reduce Fertilizer Usage

What's the best way to start an environmentally friendly garden? The simplest way to begin is to reduce the use of, or replace, nitrogen fertilizer recommends David Wolfe, in Verdant Views - The Magazine of Cornell Publications Issue 5 Summer/Fall 2013. This is "the lowest hanging fruit of greenhouse gas mitigation," Wolfe explains. As a professor of plant and soil ecology in the Department of Horticulture at Cornell University, his research shows some alarming results. Wolfe continues, "Synthetic fertilizers increase a garden's carbon footprint because they are energy-intensive to manufacture, but the overuse of either synthetic or organic fertilizers releases some of the nitrogen into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, which has 300 times more warming potential then CO2."

Additionally, the American Chemical Society agrees, as it reports "nitrogen pollution from fertilizers and other sources has become a major environmental problem that threatens human health and welfare in multiple ways."

Wolfe provides the following recommendations on how to reduce the amount of nitrous oxide released from your garden.

Apply nitrogen fertilizers to your garden strategically and sparingly-ideally only twice per year, once in early summer and again in late fall.

When applying the nitrogen, limit to one to two pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet.

Aim to use organic nitrogen sources, such as manure and other composts.

If you must use synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, choose urea over ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate. (Urea produces less greenhouse gas emissions and is more slowly released in the soil, making it more available to the plants as they grow.)

2. Rethink Your Yard Tools

Another important change you can make is to reduce or avoid using gas-powered tools in maintaining your yard. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "54 million Americans mow their lawns each weekend, using 800 million gallons of gasoline per year in the process."

In fact, an article by People Powered Machines reports "one gas mower running for an hour emits the same amount of pollutants as eight new cars driving 55 mph for the same amount of time," stated by the Union of Concerned Scientists. And it's estimated that weed eaters and leaf blowers pollute even more.

As an alternative, seeking out battery-powered or human-powered tools like push mowers, rakes, and hand-clippers are the way to go. If that doesn't seem realistic, replacing parts of your lawn with groundcover or native wildflower patches are great low-maintenance and visually appealing alternatives to reduce gas-powered gardening tools, suggested by the Gardeners Guide to Global Warming.

3. Turn Your Garden into a Carbon Sink

Not the typical sink we're used to, but a new way to utilize gardens in the direction of doing some global good. What is a carbon sink? Wolfe explains in Verdant Views - The Magazine of Cornell Publications Issue 5 Summer/Fall 2013,"As plants die and decompose, much of their carbon becomes part of the soil's organic matter sequestering carbon there instead of releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2," turning gardens into natural systems that suck in and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

He suggests tilling less because the act of tilling breaks up connections in the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Leaving the ground undisturbed supports the hardworking earthworms in moving 20 to 30 tons of soil per acre per year! This is a natural tilling process that does not cause rapid carbon release. You can also use cover crops-a crop planted for nourishment and protection of soil-that have deep root systems and can crowd out weeds while moving organic matter deep into the soil.

4. Reduce Water Consumption

The National Wildlife Federation references a study done by the city of Irvine, California, that found "the energy used to deliver water was second only to the fuel consumed by the service vehicles of municipal landscapers-and far more water is lavished on private gardens than public landscapes."

You can reduce water consumption by:

Mulching to conserve soil moisture

Installing rain barrels to capture storm water runoff

Using drip irrigation systems that run on timers while watering during the coolest times of the day

Any of these actions will help your plants get the moisture they need without wasting water.

5. Compost Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings

Composting can keep materials such as food scraps and yard waste from taking up space in landfills where they release the powerful greenhouse gas, methane-a heat-trapping gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide according to The Environmental Defense Fund. To get started on your own backyard composting adventure, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shares some basic tips to help you get you going.

When it comes to your garden, "The fundamental rule of thumb should be to recycle everything from the garden back to the garden, except of course what you are harvesting," says Wolfe. Compost is essential not just for recycling trace elements but also for replenishing the organic matter in the soil.

To all gardeners-new and seasoned, young and old, teetering and trying-you have a unique ability to be a part of the solution to climate change. There are many ways you can make a difference with sustainable gardening practices and it begins with starting one! As Wolfe emphasizes, "Gardeners can't solve the problem of global climate change alone." But gaining an awareness of the challenges helps you grasp the larger implications of climate change happening worldwide.

Our signature mind-body healing healing immersion, Perfect Health, is a great opportunity to rediscover your inner essence through Ayurvedic tools and techniques. Click here to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint with Gardening

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you are an avid gardener, a rookie gardener, or are tinkering with a container garden on your patio-you have a number of opportunities to make a difference in your personal health and the health of the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A carbon footprint is defined as the total amount of greenhouse gases produced to directly and indirectly support human activities, usually expressed in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).

In other words: When you drive a car, the engine burns fuel which creates a certain amount of CO2, depending on its fuel consumption and the driving distance. (CO2 is the chemical symbol for carbon dioxide). When you heat your house with oil, gas or coal, then you also generate CO2. Even if you heat your house with electricity, the generation of the electrical power may also have emitted a certain amount of CO2. When you buy food and goods, the production of the food and goods also emitted some quantities of CO2.

Your carbon footprint is the sum of all emissions of CO2 (carbon dioxide), which were induced by your activities in a given time frame. Usually a carbon footprint is calculated for the time period of a year.

The best way is to calculate the carbon dioxide emissions based on the fuel consumption. In the next step you can add the CO2 emission to your carbon footprint. Below is a table for the most common used fuels:

A carbon footprint is the sum of all emissions of greenhouse gases (usually mainly CO2)

Each of the following activities add 1 kg of CO2 to your personal carbon footprint:

Travel by public transportation (train or bus) a distance of 10 to 12 km (6.5 to 7 miles)

Drive with your car a distance of 6 km or 3.75 miles (assuming 7.3 litres petrol per 100 km or 39 mpg)

Fly with a plane a distance of 2.2 km or 1.375 miles.

Operate your computer for 32 hours (60 Watt consumption assumed)

Production of 5 plastic bags (see article about carbon footprint of plastic bags)

Production of 2 plastic bottles

Production of 1/3 of an American cheeseburger (yes, the production of each cheeseburger emits 3.1 kg of CO2! It has a very large carbon footprint)

To calculate the above contributions to the carbon footprint, the current UK mix for electricity and trains was taken into account.

Carbon dioxide is a so called greenhouse gas causing global warming . Other greenhouse gases which might be emitted as a result of your activities are e.g. methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide [N2O]. These greenhouse gases are normally also taken into account for the carbon footprint. They are converted into the amount of CO2 that would cause the same effects on global warming within a certain time frame, usually 100 years (this is called equivalent CO2 amount).

Few people express their carbon footprint in kg carbon rather than kg carbon dioxide. You can always convert kg carbon dioxide in kg carbon by multiplying with a factor 0.27 (1'000 kg CO2 equals 270 kg carbon). See my comment to the article about personal responsibility for global warming .

The carbon footprint is a very powerful tool to understand the impact of personal behaviour on global warming. Most people are shocked when they see the amount of CO2 their activities create! If you personally want to contribute to stop global warming, the calculation and constant monitoring of your personal carbon footprint is essential.

In the web, you can find many carbon footprint calculators, which allow to store individual activities like, e.g. travelling by car, train, bus or air plane, fuel consumptions, electricity bills and so on. You can then see the amount of CO2 created for each individual activity. You can do this either in advance and use it as a help for decisions or afterwards to continually sum up your carbon dioxide emissions. Or you can estimate your carbon footprint of all your activities, see for example the carbon footprint calculator of WWF in the UK. An easy to use off-line carbon footprint and primary energy consumption calculator (Excel sheet) is available for free in the download section.

There are graphs available on this site for the CO2 emissions per capita by country (average carbon footprint by country). In the medium- and long term, the carbon footprint must be reduced to less than 600 kg CO2 per year and per person. This is the maximum allowance for a sustainable living .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is a carbon footprint - definition of carbon footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your carbon footprint is the sum of all emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 (carbon dioxide), which were induced by your activities in a given time frame. Usually a carbon footprint is calculated for the time period of a year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's note: Want a climate-friendly home? Your yard is a good place to start. This is the first in a five-part series of guides on how to manage your outdoor turf to reduce your carbon footprint, all while creating bird-friendly habitat. Read parts two, three, four, and five.
Picture this familiar scene in cities and suburbs across America: Landscape crews jump out of giant eight-cylinder trucks and rev up a variety of mowers, leaf blowers, and other gas-guzzling engines-all in the name of maintaining our green yards. From a carbon footprint perspective, "it would be better to just pave over the landscape," says gardening expert Doug Kent, only half-jokingly, as we walk through one of his low-carbon gardens in Manhattan Beach, California.

Many gardeners assume their activities are good for the climate because yards are full of plants that soak up carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas. But maintaining the typical garden "is incredibly fossil-fuel dependent," says Kent, the author of A New Era of Gardening (2001), the first book on low-carbon gardening published in the United States. In reality, he points out, many gardens create more CO2 than they take up-often a lot more.

The good news is that if you take your yard's care into your own hands, you can lessen its climate impact while conserving water and resources and creating habitat. The following are the most important steps you can take to slash your landscape's greenhouse gas emissions.

Opt for People Power

A mind-boggling assortment of power tools is used in landscapes-not only mowers and blowers, but also lawn edgers, hedge trimmers, weed whackers, chippers, shredders, rototillers, and more. According to the California Air Resources Board, these "small, off-road engines," or SORES, significantly outnumber passenger cars in the vehicle-happy Golden State. An Environmental Protection Agency study calculates that SORES account for 4 percent of CO2 emissions nationwide. They're also major components of smog, and belch out a number of cancer-causing pollutants.

If you can't rely on your weed whacker to keep your landscape under control, what are you supposed to do? Kent, who teaches ecological landscape design and management at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, sings the praises of people power. To decrease your landscape's contribution to climate change, he says, "the best thing you can do is reduce the amount of machinery you use." And using hand tools like reel mowers and rakes is great exercise, he adds. This people-powered approach to landscaping is quite doable if you reduce the size of your lawn and avoid high-maintenance features like manicured hedges.

Some people have swapped their gas-powered garden tools for more energy-efficient-and quiet-electric ones. But unless your electricity comes from solar, wind, or other renewable sources, they still contribute to overall carbon emissions. The EPA's Power Profiler gives you a breakdown of where your electricity comes from to help you assess your SORES' carbon footprint.

Kick the Fertilizer Habit

Most gardeners are surprised to learn that one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse emissions from lawn care is the use of nitrogen fertilizers.

"Most gardeners are surprised to learn that one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse emissions from home gardening and lawn care is the use of nitrogen fertilizers," says David Wolfe, professor of plant and soil ecology at Cornell University. Synthetic fertilizers are extremely energy-intensive to manufacture-for every ton of nitrogen made, four to six tons of carbon typically end up in the atmosphere, according to Wolfe. What's more, most fertilizers provide more nitrogen than plants can take up, and soil microbes convert excess nitrogen to nitrous oxide gas, which has 300 times more heat-trapping ability then CO2.

Using either synthetic or organic fertilizers releases nitrous oxide. But organic fertilizers are better than synthetic ones because the enormous CO2 emissions associated with manufacture are mostly eliminated. And if you use yard trimmings composted in your own backyard as your plants' primary source of nutrition, you'll also eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with packaging and transporting store-bought products. As a bonus, this keeps garden refuse out of landfills, where it breaks down and releases methane, another powerful greenhouse gas.

Stop Wasting Water

According to the EPA, gardening gobbles up more than 30 percent of household water usage on average, and up to 60 percent in arid regions. As much as half is lost due to wind, evaporation, and runoff caused by inefficient irrigation systems. If that weren't bad enough, pumping, treating, and distributing water accounts for an estimated 3 to 4 percent of national electricity consumption, which means that irrigation is responsible for a significant amount of CO2 emissions.

The most effective way to stop wasting water is to grow plants suited to the conditions on your property and the amount of precipitation in your region. Hand watering is the most climate-friendly way to hydrate them when necessary. If you must irrigate, make sure the professional you hire to install and maintain your system is certified by EPA's WaterSense program, which helps consumers identify water-conserving products and services.

Lose the Lawn

Not surprisingly, the endless mowing, blowing, fertilizing, and irrigation involved in turf maintenance results in a hefty climate footprint. To make matters worse, the country's 40 million acres of lawn, our largest irrigated crop, offer little to birds and other wildlife. Replacing your lawn with native trees, shrubs, and ground covers not only can slash your landscape's greenhouse gas emissions but also coax birds back to your garden and look great, too.

A good way to begin chipping away at your lawn is to enlarge existing planting beds, replacing another patch of turf each year. One climate-friendly way to smother the lawn or other unwanted vegetation is described here. In its place, add a much more interesting mix of woody plants, ferns and forest wildflowers or native grasses and perennials, depending on what is most appropriate for your region. Birds and other wildlife will welcome the enhanced habitat. Consult your state native plant society and Audubon's native plant database for planting recommendations.

The Manhattan Beach garden is a good example. "No power tools are used here," Kent says. "The garden is entirely hand watered." An impressive California sycamore casts cooling shade over much of the backyard. In the front, low-growing flowers provide more color and seasonal interest than the typical lawn. Best of all, fuchsia-flowering gooseberry, golden monkey flower, California flannelbush, and other native wildflowers attract a fascinating array of birds, bees, and butterflies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your Yard Is a Stealthy Fossil Fuel Guzzler-Give It a Climate Makeover

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's note: Want a climate-friendly home? Your yard is a good place to start. This is the first in a five-part series of guides on how to manage your outdoor turf to reduce your carbon footprint, all while creating bird-friendly habitat. Read parts two, three, four, and five.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Project Drawdown defines composting as the conversion of biodegradable waste to a useful soil amendment while avoiding emissions from landfills. This solution replaces the disposal of biodegradable waste in landfills.

Organic wastes account for 46 percent of global solid waste and contribute, on average, 469 tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases per million metric tons of organic solid waste due to anaerobic breakdown resulting in methane emissions. Composting is a flexible, scalable approach that reduces those emissions by more than 50 percent. Project Drawdown has defined the composting solution based on urban organic waste that is largely being managed today via landfills and, in some regions, open dumping. The mitigation impact reported by Project Drawdown for this solution does not consider any potential carbon biosequestration benefits from the use of compost as a soil amendment, nor any potential savings from reducing demand for nitrogen fertilizers.

Methodology

To arrive at the mitigation and financial results for composting, a forecast for the total global urban organic waste production from 2014 to 2050 was first calculated. Next, the current composting rate of existing municipal solid waste was determined, the future plausible adoption of composting was forecast to 2050, and the emissions mitigated were calculated in comparison to a Reference Scenario that keeps adoption of composting fixed at the current percentage of global organic waste.
Total Addressable Market
The total addressable market for organic waste is defined based on the global urban organic waste production from 2014 to 2050. The global market was calculated using a composite of forecasts, including a linear interpolation of World Bank data from 2010 to 2025, an extrapolation to extend those projections to 2050, and a per capita extrapolation[1] using IPCC data. It is expected that by 2050, global organic waste will be around 1979 million metric tons. Current adoption[2] of composting in the year 2014 was estimated to be 13 percent of urban organic waste.
Adoption Scenarios
Due to the lack of reliable future projections of the growth of composting, adoption estimates were made based on present urban composting rates in the US and Europe-approximately 38 percent and 57 percent, respectively-with negligible rates in developing and least-developed countries.

Impacts of increased adoption of composting from 2020 to 2050 were generated based on two growth scenarios. These were assessed in comparison with the Reference Scenario mentioned above.

Scenario 1: For this scenario, it is assumed that composting will increase from present rates to 38 percent in middle- and low-income countries, and to 57 percent in high-income (OECD) countries by 2050. Globally, compost production increases from 106 million metric tons per year in 2015 to 758 million metric tons per year in 2050.

Scenario 2: Here, it is assumed that composting scale and costs are optimized, the market value of compost increases, and source-separated collection is subsidized.[3] In this scenario, the amount of compost produced in 2050 is 956 million metric tons.

Emissions Model
Emissions data for each scenario were calculated using variables selected from sources that measured the comparative emissions of composting and/or landfilling. The variables were normalized to total direct emissions per million metric tons of organic waste, as a variety of sources reported complete emissions and some segmented emissions data by collection, transportation, processing, and other indirect measures.[4]
Financial Model
Financial results were reached by comparing the costs of creating and operating compost facilities with those of creating and operating sanitary landfills for an equivalent volume of organic waste. Collection and transportation costs were assumed to be the same for each approach. The cost of establishing new compost facilities over the period in question is calculated to be US$110 billion, which is US$61 billion less than the cost of establishing new landfills.[5] However, operating compost facilities costs more than operating landfills, even considering the revenue generated from the sale of finished compost. The data used for modeling both composting and landfilling were generated based on a mix of values, including worldwide averages reported by World Bank's "What a Waste" and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Integration
For integration, Project Drawdown first considered the reduction of organic waste from reduced food waste and the increase in organic waste from an assumed compostable percentage of the increased adoption of bioplastic, to refactor the market for composting for each year.[6] Modeled compost adoption was then compared with the new organic waste market and adjusted if needed.[7]

Results

Project Drawdown found a potential of 2.14 gigatons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas reductions in Scenario 1 over 2020-2050, corresponding to a 48 percent adoption of composting, with a net implementation savings of US$61 billion but a net operational cost of US$58 billion. The first cost of landfilling is almost double the cost of composting facilities; however, the operational cost of composting is 10 percent more than the cost of landfilling due to the maintenance incurred for aeration, moisture, and temperature control of compost piles. For Scenario 2, the emissions avoided amount to 3.1 gigatons with a 60 percent adoption.

Discussion

The impact of composting is bounded by the amount of organic waste created. There are some indicators that as regions develop, the per capita amount of waste increases, then plateaus. All scenarios modeled are highly dependent on a significant increase in adoption in the Asia (sans Japan) region. Whereas less than 3 percent waste to landfills has already been achieved in several European countries, Project Drawdown has chosen more conservative growth scenarios for both China and Asia (sans Japan) to reflect the uncertainty of growth of composting, considering current investments in waste-to-energy facilities in the region.[8] The financial case for adoption of composting is distorted by local regulations and compost demand.[9] Where regulations, space, and logistics create cost barriers to landfill expansion, there is already a self-evident business case for composting. In conclusion, this analysis suggests that composting can grow to offset a significant portion of landfilling, while reducing climate emissions. This is limited by the education required for composters and consumers, as well as the realization of a financial advantage that compost may have over landfilling.[10]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our mission is to help the world reach "Drawdown"- the point in the future when levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere stop climbing and start to steadily decline, thereby stopping stopping catastrophic climate change - as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Uncovering the Carbon Footprint of Everything

# data[].attributes.subject
Uncovering the Carbon Footprint of Everything

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am an addicted eco-sinner with big feet. Big carbon-excreting feet that is.

Well, at least this is how I imagine introducing myself if ever I attended a carbon-emitters anonymous meeting. Such meetings don't exist, but it's high time they did in the developed and the almost-developed world.

Why? Because humans currently emit 49 billion tonnes CO2e of greenhouse gas per year - or anyway that was the figure a few years ago, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 Synthesis Report. Whatever your views on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, 49 billion tonnes is huge in terms of pollution and impacts upon ecosystems. Our addiction to fossil fuels alone, the burning of which contributes around 30 billion tonnes of CO2e or 56.6% of our total global emissions, is reason enough for change.

Like any addict, we need to admit to our addiction and recognise, à la Newton, that for every action there is an equal and opposite (greenhouse gas) reaction.

But how hard is it for us to make the switch to a low-carbon life? While there are an array of online and free carbon-calculators to tell us how bad we are, what we really should know is how green we can be. For that we need clear and simple information, and the numbers to help us pick the smartest, most carbon conscious options. Otherwise, how can we decide if making the switch is worthwhile?

This is where Mike Berners-Lee's new book How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything comes in very handy.

Don't cry over spilt milk, make the right choices and make it count

Berners-Lee, director of a carbon consulting company affiliated with the England's Lancaster Environment Centre, shows us the real impact of day-to-day things we do or buy. By doing what most of us have little time to do - sifting through the many publicly available data sets and models, reports and studies (some he carried out himself) - he has neatly put together estimates and 'guesstimates' of the carbon footprint of almost everything.

In the book he categorises almost 100 items according to their (UK-based) CO2e per unit, starting from those on the low scale (under 10 grams of CO2e) to the big whoppers (1 million tonnes and beyond). He then gives a simple cradle-to-grave analysis of each item to explain the range of environmental and social impacts attributable to it.

For example, take the daily e-habits of an average internet user. Our dependency on the internet does not come carbon-free. At an individual level, it may be low, but on aggregate, the annual global emissions from texting, e-mailing (90 trillion e-mails in 2009 according to this site) and 'googling' could be as high as 360 million tonnes. Add to that the 130 million tonnes of CO2e it takes to store the world's data per year (web pages, databases, applications and downloads) and you get the feeling that everything we do, even in cyberspace, has a consequence.

Ever pondered about the footprint of riding five miles on the subway or buying a pint milk (around half a litre)? Well, shockingly, it turns out that in the UK, emissions from the two are roughly the same. Mind you, the London tube carries up to 3 million people a day, so compare that to emissions per person and milk is B‑A‑D. According to Berners-Lee, if you consume a litre of milk a day, that's 527 kg per year, or the same as a return flight from London to Madrid.

Personally, all this is devastating. I'm addicted to the internet and I love milk in all its glorious forms: fresh, creamed, coagulated, fermented, raw or pasteurised, homogenised or non-homogenised. I use the internet to search about milk. Surely, Berners-Lee's calculations are wrong. I can't be doomed to a dairy-less life, can I? So, if I had to choose between one London-Madrid flight or a year's worth of milk products, give me the milk any day. But tempt me with a flight to Madrid to eat local Spanish cheeses... that's a tough one.

[quote quote="We spend billions on mindless junk and flights around the world for that very reason: status." type="text" ]

As the author bluntly states: "We spend billions on mindless junk and flights around the world for that very reason: status." So if you need to buy something to prove your status in society, why not invest in more carbon-friendly options? Like solar panels or wind-turbines, instead of that extra flashy car.

Or, if you run a business, perhaps you should assess your entire production, retail and waste chain. You may be surprised to find that reducing your carbon footprint may even improve efficiency and create savings, not to mention the kudos you get from doing a good thing.

The danger is how easy it can be to convince ourselves that it's too hard to make the tough choices or that our actions will make no difference. We mustn't forget that many individuals make a group, and many groups create a social movement.

The 10-tonne lifestyle

It helps to have a target you can work towards. For ease, Berners-Lee proposes a 10-tonne lifestyle target - that is, a lifestyle causing 10 tonnes of CO2e per year for each person living in the high-polluting developed world.

For an average Australian and American, that's a reduction of around two-thirds from the current level (each Australian and American has an average footprint of almost 30 tonnes of CO2e per year, depending on the study).

This target may seem drastically low and difficult to achieve. But let's be clear. It's actually still high. The current global average is more like 4-tonnes. So, if everyone on the planet lived a 10-tonne lifestyle, we would still be in an environmental pickle.

Trying to limit rising global temperatures to 1.5°C, as pleaded by the Maldives and other small island nations, means cutting CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. This means that per person per year we would have to live a 3-tonne lifestyle. How's that for carbon-frugal!? Keeping that in mind, a 10-tonne lifestyle is a modest transitional first step.

So what does a 10-tonne lifestyle look like? For poor Imelda Marcos that's a slash of her famous shoe collection to a third of what it is now - which is around 3,000 pairs of shoes or equal to 30 tonnes of CO2e - assuming she purchased a typical shoe and did nothing else (not eating, drinking, driving, using a unit of electricity, etc.). Hard life right?

As for the rest of us, a year's worth of 10-tonne living means limiting ourselves to around 833 kg CO2e per month, or 27.4 kg CO2e per day. The table below provides an example of how easily our current lifestyle choices consume the 10 tonnes. Don't forget that it assumes that we do nothing beyond the items below.

The 10-tonne lifestyle

You can see how easy it is to reach the 10-tonne lifestyle. If you sacrifice the monthly cheeseburger (equivalent to 2 days of a 10-tonne lifestyle), you have 365 days' worth of a 10-tonne lifestyle.
(Note: calculations made by author based on statistics in book, unless otherwise stated).
Picking your battles

What this shows is that in the end, it's all about picking your battles and ensuring a sense of perspective. This means don't get caught up in small debates like whether to use a paper towel or an electric hand drier to dry wet hands. But rather, focus on re-thinking the big things like flying for a business trip when it can be done via teleconference, or high-impact habits like eating meat every day, or driving a gas-guzzler to go to the shops only 10 minutes away.

And speaking of picking your battles, consider this: while you cheered for your team at the 2010 South Africa World Cup, the event clocked up around 2.8 million tonnes of CO2e in just one month. This includes transportation of international and local players and spectators, energy used to run the stadia, precinct and visitors' accommodation, and the emissions from construction and material, but NOT the energy used by television sets of home viewers. According to Berners-Lee, this is equivalent to "6,000 space shuttle flights, three quiet years for Mount Etna, or 20 cheeseburgers for every man, woman and child in the UK".

All that said and done, Berners-Lee emphasises that "the book isn't here to tell you what to do, or how radical to be. Those are personal decisions."

Food is the answer

Berners-Lee dedicates a whole section on emissions from food, because alone, the food we buy can add up to 20% of our carbon footprint. And this is just at first glance, because if we count up the related damage of deforestation from big agriculture, this brings the impact up to 30%.

To help reduce this, he and others, like Michael Pollan , recommend easy, logical and ethical choices that yield surprisingly large carbon savings. Here are some key examples:

eating what you buy (e.g., saving leftovers and keeping things in the fridge) leads to a 25% reduction

reducing meat and dairy consumption - 25%

eating seasonally (here the author provides a quick guide on what's in season and when), avoiding hothouses and air freight - 10%

avoiding excessive packaging and recycling - 6%

helping shops reduce waste by buying items from the front of the shelves, reduced-price items and misshapen fruit and vegetables - 2%

cooking using less energy (i.e., use a pan lid and reduce the heat where possible, and turn off the gas when not in use) - 5%

If you do most of these things you can comfortably cut down your carbon food-print by 60%, which bites off almost 20% off your total footprint.

Another surprise is that one tonne of inefficiently-made and excessively-used fertiliser can create emissions twelve times in size (12.3 CO2e tonnes). So at the production end, there is huge scope for cutting fertiliser use without affecting yields, argues Berners-Lee. Not only that, it can provide other environmental and social benefits, especially for poor farmers in debt because of high fertiliser prices.

[quote quote="Reducing fertilizer use is a real carbon opportunity: up to half a per cent reduction in global emissions - it's dead easy and has no bad side effects." type="text" ]

After reading How Bad Are Bananas, I realised that on a day-to-day basis my personal carbon emissions are reasonable. My husband and I don't have a car, thanks to Tokyo's brilliant train system; we walk or ride our bikes a lot; we live in a shoebox with a few tiny appliances; we rarely buy meat; and we cook with gas and have a control panel that helps us minimise the energy used to heat our water.

But, and this is a big but, we do tend to sit in front of computers all day and we fly, either to visit family back home in Australia or for work. Taking three trans-ocean return flights annually in itself is already worth a 10-tonne lifestyle! Some carbon fighters are ' kicking the travel drug ' to their credit, but often work and family responsibilities compel people to fly. What to do?

Numbers in words to gain your carbon instinct

The great thing about Berners-Lee's book is that he contextualises the numbers. He gives us the carbon amount in a way that's easy for us to understand. This is important because numbers alone make no sense to me, and I suspect many feel the same way. Where the numbers are fuzzy, and there's a lot of that, he is quick to point it out.

More importantly, what he does is take the reader briefly through the whole life-cycle process of an item, from manufacture to transportation, then end-user to waste fields. You gain a 'carbon instinct' and you begin to understand the sheer amount of natural resources, time, energy and waste that goes into each item.

In essence, How Bad Are Bananas? is not just helping us become carbon literate, but life-cycle literate. Most people choose what to do or buy with only the vaguest notions of the real consequences and of the better alternatives that exist. May Neil Armstrong forgive me, but I hope approaches like these lead us to "one small footprint for man, and one giant sustainable leap for mankind".

So how bad are bananas? Well, perhaps you will read the book to find out...

* ♦ *
Sidenote: I highly recommend reading this book together with Fred Pearce's Confessions of an Eco Sinner: Travels to Find Where My Stuff Comes From. Where Berners-Lee provides the numbers, Pearce complements with stories of names, faces and places.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uncovering the Carbon Footprint of Everything - Our World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything is an emissions-calculating guide to finally help us with our lifestyle choices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The decomposition of organics in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas that, according to the EPA, is 70 times more effective at trapping radiant heat than carbon dioxide. As a result, landfills have become the third largest source of human-caused greenhouse gases in the US. In contrast, composting this material creates a valuable soil enhancer that replenishes depleted soils, protects against erosion, can replace synthetic fertilizers and helps retain water. Composting our organics protects air, water and soil quality.

The only effective method to prevent methane emissions from landfills is to stop biodegradable materials from entering landfills. The good news is that landfill alternatives such as composting are readily available and cost‑effective. Compost has the added benefit of adding organic matter to soil, sequestering carbon, improving plant growth and reducing water use ‑ all important to stabilizing the climate. Composting is thus vital to restoring the climate and our soils and should be front and center in a national strategy to protect the climate in the short term.
-BioCycle magazine, August 2008

Significantly decreasing waste disposed in landfills and incinerators will reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent to closing 21% of U.S. coal-fired power plants. This is comparable to leading climate protection proposals such as improving national vehicle fuel efficiency. Indeed, preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting are essential to put us on the path to climate stability.
www.stoptrashingtheclimate.org

Robert Watkins, the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment, recently wrote:

"T(he) Copenhagen talks focused on the leading climate change culprit: CO2. But reversing global temperature increases by reducing carbon emissions will take many decades, if not centuries. Even if the largest cuts in CO2 contemplated in Copenhagen are implemented, it simply will not reverse the melting of ice already occurring ...The most obvious strategy is to make an all-out effort to reduce emissions of methane. Methane's short life makes it especially interesting in the short run, given the pace of climate change. If we need to suppress temperature quickly in order to preserve glaciers, reducing methane can make an immediate impact. Compared to the massive requirements necessary to reduce CO2, cutting methane requires only modest investment. Where we stop methane emissions, cooling follows within a decade, not centuries. That could make the difference for many fragile systems on the brink."

Robert Watson and Mahamed El-Ashry, "A Fast, Cheap Way to Cool the Planet," The Wall Street Journal (December 29, 2009).

Composting benefits the environment in many ways. When you compost your food scraps, you produce a nutrient rich soil that is needed to maintain healthy and productive farm fields. This closes an important loop and completes the cycle necessary to grow more healthy food. When it comes to global warming, composting directly reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) and other powerful greenhouse gases, like methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

Composting is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many people believe that throwing food scraps and paper products into a landfill is harmless because the materials biodegrade. However, most people are surprised to learn that when these materials break down in a landfill they rot anaerobically (without oxygen) and become powerful contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. When food scraps are thrown in a landfill, the degrading material creates methane, a greenhouse gas that is 70 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

While it is true that some landfills try to capture the methane and use it as energy, many studies have shown that most of the methane gas from landfills is released before it is captured, and then more is released when they dig the trenches for the capture pipes. Capture rates are at most 46% in the best-case scenario (Institute for Local Self Reliance, Environmental Protection Agency). Landfills are the single largest human source of methane emissions in the world. Even with the best technology, most of the methane from landfills is released into the atmosphere.

By composting, the generation of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, is avoided. A well-run composting operation will produce negligible greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from the operation of tractors and other equipment.

Compost improves the quality of our soil and reduces the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The end product of your efforts to compost food scraps and paper products is a nutrient rich soil. When this compost is used on fields it has many benefits:

It replaces chemical fertilizers and pesticides, avoiding greenhouse gases related to their production. The application of synthetic nitrogen to fields is a significant portion of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. N20 is a powerful greenhouse gas, about 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Compost reduces the use of NO2 and other energy intensive fertilizers and pesticides. "In fact, a single 40-pound bag contains the equivalent of 2.5 gallons of gasoline. In addition to their oil base, synthetic fertilizers are spiked with concentrated forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, which are harder for plants to absorb than their naturally occurring counterparts. The excess phosphorus and nitrogen not absorbed by plants runs off into storm drains that feed into rivers and streams, contributing to algae blooms that deprive waterways of oxygen and kill off aquatic life." From the Green Guide, National Geographic http://www.thegreenguide.com/products/print_pr.mhtml?id=308

It improves tilth and workability of soils, resulting in less fuel consumption to till the soil.

It helps soils hold or sequester carbon dioxide.

In addition to significantly reducing the production of greenhouse gas emissions, compost replenishes and revitalizes exhausted farm soils by replacing trace minerals and organic material, reduces soil erosion and helps prevent storm water runoff.
Not all composting is the same....there is no place like home to compost. Composting your materials at home in your backyard or right at the source are the best ways to get the most environmental benefits from composting. Collecting and hauling compostable materials, and processing them at a facility, requires fuel and energy. How much this offsets the environmental benefits of composting can only be calculated using the specifics of a particular program. However, that said, the overall environmental benefits of composting compared to the alternatives of burning or burying compostable material as waste are far superior.

Compost collection is an excellent supplement for at-the-source composting and allows for more materials to make their way from the waste stream into soil. For people who cannot compost at home (because they have limited space or no yard, for example) curbside composting provides the opportunity for them to compost, too. Composting on-site at businesses is rarely feasible, so compost collection provides a way for restaurants and grocers to reap the environmental benefits of composting. Large scale commercial composting facilities are carefully monitored and can handle materials that we would not easily compost in a backyard compost pile. For example, sustained high temperatures allow for the safe composting of meat and dairy products, as well as non-recyclable food packaging like waxed boxes, egg cartons, cotton balls, paper plates, and more.

A recent waste audit showed that of the material we throw away 34 percent is easily composted organic material and another 33 percent is paper, a substantial portion of which could be recycled or composted.

Taking organic material out of the waste stream has several benefits.

Hennepin County's incinerator (HERC) is at processing capacity. Garbage continues to increase, so HERC is currently turning away solid waste to landfills both in state and out of state. Organic matter in landfills is a prime cause of emissions of methane into the atmosphere (a 23 times worse greenhouse gas than CO2). If garbage production increases, as anticipated, Hennepin County will need to build a new incinerator. (Millions of dollars and not very effective at collecting greenhouse emissions.)

HERC operates more efficiently with the "wet stuff" removed (an analogy -"Try burning noodles on a campfire"), and releases less methane.

Recycling organics would boost the recycling rate from about 25% to 50- 70%. Increasing the recycling rate should negate the need to build another incinerator and paying to transport and tip at landfills. A side effect of collecting organics is that other rates of recycling increase also.

Organics are removed from the waste stream and composted, providing an earth friendly end-product.

The tipping fee for organics is less than the tipping fee for solid waste ($15 per ton vs about $41.85 per ton). Source Separated Organics (SSO) is also exempt from the county solid waste fee of 14.5% and state solid waste tax of 17%.

Instead of taking up space in a landfill or being burned in the incinerator, they are recycled into compost a valuable resource used in landscaping and road construction projects.

This valuable compost can be used to:

Replenish our soils

Reduce soil erosion

Prevent polluted stormwater runoff from contaminating our wetlands, lakes, and streams

Capture carbon dioxide for climate protection

What is NOT compostable?
There should be very little in your regular black trash cart apart from plastics (plastic wrap, plastic packaging, non recyclable plastic bags) and broken glass, ceramics, rubber, leather, non-recyclable metal, diapers and pet feces.
Where is our organics material being taken? Will it be burnt?
The organics will be taken to a to be turned into compost. It will NOT be burnt. The trash from your black cart will continue to go to the HERC burner and be burnt, as is done currently with all our garbage. Material in the green cart is diverted from this regular process which is much better for the environment. Click here for photos of the compost facility.

Has this been done before?
Hennepin County has sponsored pilot organics collections in Minnetonka, Wayzata and Orono. It has also been city-wide and ongoing in Hutchinson MN. In fact until the 1950s, organics were collected throughout Minneapolis-St Paul. Linden Hills will be the first Minneapolis neighborhood to re-start collecting.

What about yard waste?
At this stage the city will NOT be collecting yard waste.

What about in the kitchen-is there anything I should do to prepare for the organics collection?
The organics cart from the city can be kept outdoors, wherever you keep your regular black trash cart. You may want to consider switching to a smaller black cart after a few weeks of the pilot if you find yourself having very little non-recyclable waste. As far as in the kitchen, there are a number of options. 1. Convert your usual kitchen trash can to biodegradable only, and place all the plastic/non recyclable metal, etc elsewhere in a smaller receptacle; 2. Consider a pull out "trash drawer" for trash with multiple compartments so you can have the organics in one compartment, recyclable paper in another, non-recyclables in the third to fit your needs. Or 3. If you don't have a lot of food waste you might consider a counter top compost container, however these won't fit fridge and freezer packaging and will need to be emptied more frequently. In all cases, just be sure to wrap your food scraps in newspaper or place in a compostable bag, so they don't stick or freeze to the sides of the outdoor cart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The decomposition of organics in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas that, according to the EPA, is 70 times more effective at trapping radiant heat than carbon dioxide. As a result, landfills have become the third largest source of human-caused greenhouse gases in the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Food waste represents 21.1% of the trash produced in the US even after recycling and composting are taken into account [1]. While reducing food waste is a great way to reduce your environmental impact, even the most careful households will still produce food scraps like egg shells, banana peels, and tea bags. The good news is that these and many other types of food waste are compostable, and you may be surprised by how much composting can help fight climate change. The environmental impact is due to both decreased fossil fuel consumption from waste transportation and the reduction of greenhouse gases produced as the food decomposes in a landfill.

It is estimated that American families produce an average of 20 pounds of food waste per month [2]. If not composted, all of this waste has to be transported from individual homes to landfills. This is a very inefficient process for several reasons. In cities, garbage trucks only get about three miles per gallon because they spend expend a lot of energy starting and stopping as they move from house to house [3]. Furthermore, garbage typically has to be transported over large distances before it reaches a landfill. Although exactly how far varies widely from place to place, this can be as far as 500 miles for some cities [4]. Transporting food waste this far is very inefficient since it can be responsibly handled locally.

Once the food waste reaches the landfill, it produces greenhouse gases that it would not produce if composted. This is because the chemical reactions that turn composting food into a wonderful garden nutrient take place in the presence of oxygen. By contrast, landfills seal garbage in airtight enclosures. Although this prevents toxins from leaching into groundwater, it also means that food waste decomposes anaerobically, producing a gas mixture that is approximately 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide [5]. Both of these are greenhouse gases, but since methane is more efficient at trapping radiation, it contributes 25 times more to global warming than carbon dioxide per pound [6]. Mainly because of the anaerobic decay in landfills, it is estimated that every pound of food thrown away results in 3.8 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions [7].

One simple solution to the landfill emission problem is to compost your food waste at home. There are many great resources on the internet that can help you start composting [8]. Even if you live in an apartment building, you may be able to find community composting programs in your neighborhood. You can also try to implement a composting program at your workplace and support local restaurants that compost their food scraps. Finally, share what you've learned about composting with your family and friends. Many people view food waste as environmentally harmless (because it is biodegradable) without realizing how much it contributes to their own greenhouse gas footprints. By encouraging people to handle their food waste responsibly and doing the same, you can help fight climate change on a daily basis.

1. http://www.epa.gov/solidwaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2013_advncng_smm_fs.pdf

2. http://www.nrdc.org/living/eatingwell/files/foodwaste_2pgr.pdf

3. http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-to-sav...

4. http://www.postconsumers.com/education/what-are-trash-miles/

5. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/landfill6.htm

6. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

7. http://www.endfoodwastenow.org/index.php/resources/facts

8. http://www.getcomposting.com/composting_guide.html#making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much can composting help to reduce my carbon footprint?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food waste represents 21.1% of the trash produced in the US even after recycling and composting are taken into account [1]. While reducing food waste is a great way to reduce your environmental impact, even the most careful households will still produce food scraps like egg shells, banana peels, and tea bags.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Reality Check team
BBC News

Watching your favourite show or listening to your playlist has never been easier.

A virtually endless supply of film, music and TV can be streamed and downloaded almost instantly.

But at what cost to the environment?

Vast amounts of energy are needed to keep data flowing on the internet and demand will only increase as our reliance on digital services grows.

Some of that energy is generated from clean energy sources, but much of it comes from burning carbon-based fossil fuels, which scientists believe is a contributing factor to rising global temperatures.

"How we power our digital infrastructure is rapidly becoming critical to whether we will be able to arrest climate change in time," says Gary Cook, IT sector analyst at Greenpeace.

So, could cutting down time spent on the internet really make a difference to energy consumption and global warming?

Streaming video accounts for the biggest big chunk of the world's internet traffic.

Watching video over the internet at home is roughly the same as having two or three old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs on, say Prof Chris Preist and Dr Dan Schien, of the University of Bristol's computer science department.

As well as the power used by these devices, energy is consumed by the networks that distribute the content.

More demand for the technology also means more energy is required to store and share vast amounts of information.

This is where data centres come in - often in vast buildings that house computer servers that store, process and distribute internet traffic. The servers themselves require a great deal of cooling.

Most of the world's internet traffic goes through these data centres and they host streaming platforms such as Netflix, Facebook and YouTube.

These data centres are estimated to currently consume at least 1% of the world's electricity every year, a figure that is expected to rise in the future.

They also account for about 0.3% of global CO2 emissions.

Mr Andrae says data centres being built across the world need to be fed by renewable energy to minimise these emissions.

The European Commission-funded Eureca project found that data centres in EU countries consumed 25% more energy in 2017 compared with 2014.

The lead scientist, Rabih Bashroush, calculated that five billion downloads and streams clocked up by the song Despacito, released in 2017, consumed as much electricity as Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Somalia, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic put together in a single year.

What can you do about it?

Every time you sit down to watch or listen to something online, the amount of energy consumed might change. It depends on a range of factors including the efficiency of the device.

Terrestrial broadcast TV is a lot more efficient than current streaming technologies for TV channels that are watched by a large number of people, say Prof Preist and Dr Schien.

Mobile phones tend to be the most energy-efficient - more so than a TV or a laptop.

It depends how you stream too. A mobile using wi-fi consumes less energy than one connected to 3G or 4G.

Even if you're not using your device, by having home wi-fi active, you're still consuming energy, says Prof Preist. "So in the home, a lot of the energy consumption comes from us all having our network equipment on 24 hours a day."

Some data centres can be more efficient than others. Keeping them in cooler locations, underground for example, can cut down on large quantities of energy required for cooling.

The International Energy Agency's (IEA) latest report suggested that despite the increased workload for data centres, which will triple by 2020, the amount of electricity used will only go up by 3%.

This is down to continued improvements in the efficiency of servers and data centre infrastructure, and a move to bigger but more efficient centres.

Some of the large technology companies have been praised for being more open about how efficient they are.

Facebook expects its new data centre in Singapore will be powered by 100% renewable energy, something that Apple says already happens with all its global facilities. Many other firms have committed to reaching that goal.

Companies also make up for the amount of non-renewable energy that they consume by supporting renewable energy projects.

Scrutiny of less well known and smaller companies and their energy consumption should be a priority, says Mr Bashroush.

"More attention needs to be paid to the smaller data centre facilities that are off the radar, this is where the next big opportunity to save energy is, the big players are not that bad in comparison," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: Is your Netflix habit bad for the environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Reality Check team BBC News Watching your favourite show or listening to your playlist has never been easier. A virtually endless supply of film, music and TV can be streamed and downloaded almost instantly. But at what cost to the environment?

# data[].attributes.headline
Fight Climate Change by Preventing Food Waste

# data[].attributes.subject
Fight Climate Change by Preventing Food Waste

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fight climate change by preventing food waste

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An estimated one-third of all the food produced in the world goes to waste. Food waste is both a humanitarian concern and drives climate change. Here are some tips to prevent food waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are you interested in living "green"? Perhaps you are an environmentally minded individual who is looking for a way to determine what kind of an impact your existence is having on the earth? Calculating your carbon footprint, or the carbon emissions you are responsible for, is one way to determine how best to approach minimizing your impact on global warming. Calculating carbon emissions is a fairly simple process, since you can use figures available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine the emissions from using electricity and natural gas and driving a car.

Calculate your carbon emissions for electricity use by examining your electric bill and locating the column that says "kilowatt hours" or "kwh." This can be a monthly reading or the total electricity used since the beginning of the year. Multiply the monthly electric usage (in kwh) by 16.44 pounds of carbon.

Calculate your natural-gas carbon emissions by multiplying your total monthly gas usage in cubic feet by 0.12 pounds of carbon.

Calculate your carbon emissions from driving your vehicle. Estimate the total number of miles you drive per month and then divide this number by the total miles per gallon your car gets. This number will be the total gallons of gas you use in a month. Multiply that number by 19.4 pounds of carbon to get your total carbon emissions from driving.

Add the numbers generated in steps 1 through 3 and then add an additional 10 percent of the total as a buffer. This should be close to your overall carbon emissions for one month.

You can get a better estimate of overall carbon emissions by using one of the online carbon calculators. They allow you to get into much more intricate detail regarding lifestyle choices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you interested in living "green"? Perhaps you are an environmentally minded individual who is looking for a way to determine what kind of an impact your existence is having on the earth? Calculating your carbon footprint, or the carbon emissions you are responsible for, is one way to determine how best to ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is our weekly newsletter on all things environmental, where we highlight trends and solutions that are moving us to a more sustainable world. (Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Thursday.)
This week:

Do you know your smartphone's carbon footprint? You should

Green investing is a feel-good moneymaker

Wind-solar power just reached a major milestone

Reader tips on reducing your environmental footprint

Your smartphone use is burning a lot of carbon

We all do it - snuggle up in bed or on the sofa, or maybe during our daily commute, and watch a video clip on our phones. We may even watch an entire movie that way.

It turns out this common, seemingly innocuous act - and our internet use more generally - is leaving a lasting impact on the environment.

In a study published earlier this year, two professors at McMaster University in Hamilton looked at the carbon footprint of the information and communications technologies industry (ICT), which includes the internet.

And it's a Bigfoot-worthy print.

In the study, the ICT "universe" includes computers, phones and laptops; telecommunications structures, such as satellite dishes and routers; and, crucially, data centres, the backbone of the internet. (What it didn't include is the Internet of Things, computers in cars and smart TVs. At the moment, that type of data use is still somewhat new, though the study's authors say it would be figured into future studies.)

McMaster associate Prof. Lotfi Belkhir and his colleague Ahmed Elmeligi found that ICT is responsible for about 1.5 per cent of worldwide carbon emissions. As a comparison, the energy sector accounts for roughly 27 per cent, while agriculture, forestry and other land use make up 25 per cent.

The study suggests that by 2040, ICT's carbon emissions could account for as much as 14 per cent, which is roughly where the transportation industry is right now.

It might surprise you to know that. The findings surprised Belkhir, too.

Smartphones were by far the worst contributors to tech's carbon footprint. That's because of several factors, including the mining activity needed to extract the metals needed to make our phones. For one thing, your phone requires almost 10 times as much precious metals as a laptop or desktop computer.

Also, we just use our phones way more often.

Data can seem invisible to us - especially if you're on an unlimited plan - but every email, tweet and video lives on a server. With all the servers humming away in data centres, those giant buildings need to be cooled - and the emissions are through the roof.

The increasing prevalence of smartphones is not helping. As the number of users is only likely to grow, Belkhir said we need to rethink how we power communications.

"What needs to change is the way we're running our data centres," he said. One of his study's recommendations: Run those data centres exclusively on renewable energy.

Belkhir believes this is completely doable. He said solar energy is getting ever cheaper, and server farms tend to be located outside urban centres, which are ideal locations for solar and wind installations.

He said consumers also have a role to play. For one thing, he said we should keep our existing phones longer, which would curtail all that mining activity. A more immediate suggestion, however, is for us to reduce our internet use - particularly video, which eats up a ton of data.

That means thinking twice before downloading and watching a movie on our phones.

Said Belkhir, "Maybe going with friends to the movies and watching a movie there on the big screen is actually more environmentally friendly than each one of them watching it on their smartphones."

Missed any issues of What on Earth?
You're reading the fifth issue of our newsletter. If you missed any issues, they also live online: As always, feel free to send comments to whatonearth@cbc.ca.
The smart money is in green investments

New numbers this week reveal a trend that may come as a surprise to many environmentalists: The world's richest investors are finally embracing their inner treehugger.

Canada's Responsible Investment Association (RIA) says that last year, for the first time, more than half the money invested in Canada went to sustainable investments.

By RIA's math, that's more than $2 trillion. And numbers out of the U.S. are even more eye-popping. The biennial report from the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment calculates that there's $12 trillion US being put to work on investments in renewable energy and other initiatives seeking to mitigate the effects of climate change.

That's music to the ears of Toronto-area investment coach Tim Nash, who said that for too long, his clients had a hard-wired bias against green investments, assuming that anything "sustainable" was somehow inferior in the core aim of making money.

"They just assume performance is going to be worse," Nash said this week, "against all evidence to the contrary."

For a long time, green investing was seen as something only idealistic hippies were into - not ruthless, profit-hungry hedge funds. But saving the world, it seems, is good for business, which is why the smart money on Wall Street and Bay Street wants in.

Even the capitalists who run Canada's pension plan are getting in on the action. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) has earmarked $3 billion in the past two years to green energy projects.

For Ben Lambert, CPPIB's interim head of sustainable investing, the reason is simple.

"Our job is to maximize returns without risk of loss for generations to come ... and the research shows that companies that do well on these sustainability issues extend their corporate life and are more likely to create value over the long term."

Which is why these days, big investors are more likely to put money into an oil company that's readying for a world without oil than they are to gobble up a pollution-belching mining company that has no plan beyond its next quarterly results.

"It's about doing the right thing and generating returns," Lambert said. "It's a win-win situation."

The Big Picture: Worldwide solar and wind power

In August, research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported that the combined installed capacity of solar and wind power globally had surpassed one terawatt, or 1,000 gigawatts. (That's roughly the total power capacity of the U.S.) It took about two decades to get here, but Bloomberg NEF estimates it will only take until the middle of 2023 for this figure to double - and that installing the second terawatt will cost 46 per cent less than the first.

You're doing your part

In our last newsletter, we asked you to share some of your personal initiatives in reducing your carbon footprint. And you kindly obliged. Here are some of your examples. We will continue to publish other reader tips.
Claudette Preece of Courtenay, B.C. , wrote:

"We have had a heat pump for 16 years and replaced it last winter with a model that will withstand minus-20 temperatures.

"We installed solar panels about three years ago. Thirty-six of them. We got rid of our hot water heaters and installed a gas-fired hot water on-demand system. We have gone from our 14-year-old gas-driven car to a Mitsubishi PHEV. Wanted one that did more mileage on battery but the waiting list was eight months. This does enough mileage on battery to do all my errands and shopping trips. On long trips, if the engine kicks in, it is to recharge the battery, not to run the engine. Since purchasing it May 1st, we have filled it up with gas about five times, and on none of those occasions was it completely empty."

One reader, who wished to remain anonymous, had a raft of good suggestions, including:

Using reusable grocery bags, and keeping them in your trunk " so you never forget them!"

Carrying a reusable water bottle around at all times, saying there is no need for bottled water, because "municipal tap water is safe and delicious."

She has LED lightbulbs and low-flow showerheads installed at home.

She also does clothes swaps, in which she and friends get together and exchange gently used clothing.

She also made a couple of bigger points:

"The 3 Rs are real, and "reduce" is so important. Shop less. Bring less stuff into your house."

" I get out in nature as often as I can, as someone who works behind a desk in an office, to admire its beauty and appreciate it, and improve my physical and mental health. Knowing more about the environment and loving all of its wonderful qualities helps you understand why it must be preserved and protected."

Amen to that.

Finally, Chélie Elsom of Salmon Arm, B.C., wrote in to tell us that she has been so "passionate about plastic pollution" that she started an online petition.

Petition 1834 , which is sponsored by Green Party MP Elizabeth May and slated to be tabled in the House of Commons in January 2019, calls for a "National Plastic Strategy." That includes a ban on "the manufacturing, distribution and use of all plastics that cannot be recycled" and a "Zero Plastic Waste Canada" by 2030, where all plastic packaging is 100 per cent recyclable, reusable or compostable.

Stay in touch!

Are there issues you'd like us to cover? Questions you want answered? Do you just want to share a kind word? We'd love to hear from you. Email us at whatonearth@cbc.ca.

Sign up hereto get What on Earth? in your inbox every Thursday.

Editor: Andre Mayer | Logo design: Sködt McNalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your smartphone is burning a lot of carbon | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is our weekly newsletter on all things environmental, where we highlight trends and solutions that are moving us to a more sustainable world. (Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Thursday.) This week: Do you know your smartphone's carbon footprint?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Understanding the Charts

Cost/Gallon: When driving 50 mph, price per gallon is assumed to be the same as the pump price. At higher speeds, the estimated price per gallon is increased based on the additional fuel you use by driving faster. The price of fuel doesn't actually go up, but this is a useful way to put the cost of driving faster in context.

Cost/Gallon = Fuel Price at Pump × Est. MPG at Higher Speed
÷ Est. MPG at 50 MPH

Cost/100 Miles: This is useful for estimating fuel costs for long trips.

Cost per 100 Miles = Fuel Price ÷ Estimated MPG × 100

Save Money: This graph shows how much money you can save by slowing down. Cost per gallon and cost per 100 miles show the difference in cost at your typical highway speed and the cost at the reduced speed.

Savings per extra time incurred is calculated as the money saved by slowing down divided by the extra time incurred:

Savings = (Fuel Price * (1 ÷ MPG T)-(1 ÷ MPG R)) ÷ ((1 ÷ Speed T)-(1 ÷ Speed R))

where

MPGT = fuel economy at typical highway speed

MPGR = fuel economy at reduced highway speed

SpeedT = typical highway speed

SpeedR = reduced highway speed

The Study

Speed-mpg relationships are based on dynamometer tests of 74 light-duty vehicles representing a variety of manufacturers, nine vehicle classes, engine sizes 1.5 L to 6.2 L, and model years 2003 to 2012. Almost all are conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. Only one diesel and two hybrids are included; no plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles were tested.

These estimates work best for well-maintained modern gasoline light-duty vehicles and will likely be less accurate for diesels, hybrids, and vehicles with cylinder deactivation. Their applicability to plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles is unknown.

We estimate vehicle MPG at steady-state cruising speeds based on the vehicle's EPA "highway" fuel economy rating. These estimates are typically higher than both the EPA highway MPG ratings and the MPG consumers experience in on-road highway driving. Therefore, our cost and savings estimates should be conservative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Save money and fuel by driving efficiently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cost/Gallon: When driving 50 mph, price per gallon is assumed to be the same as the pump price. At higher speeds, the estimated price per gallon is increased based on the additional fuel you use by driving faster. The price of fuel doesn't actually go up, but this is a useful way to put the cost of driving faster in context.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A few years ago, Evan Mills' 14-year-old son Nathaniel wanted to get into gaming. To juice up the experience, he wanted to build his own computer like more and more gamers do. Mills is an energy expert, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so he struck a deal with his son: "I'll bankroll it if you help me measure the hell out of it and let's see how much energy this is really going to use." His son agreed, and they "went at it," Mills recalls. "We had a power meter and all the tools. And when the results came in-it was jaw dropping."

"I'm looking at the power ratings, and I'm like, ' What? This graphics card uses 300 watts? That one uses 500 watts? Is this a typo? This is way out on the fringes.'" In time, the father-and-son team hardly paid attention to the games themselves, instead focusing on their watt meter and switching out hardware and games to see which configurations would make the electricity readings spike or fall.

In 2015, they released a research paper that got picked up by and other outlets, and Mills landed a $1.4 million grant from the California Energy Commission to continue the research. Last week, Mills released another report, titled " Green Gaming: Energy Efficiency without Performance Compromise," that builds on his years looking into a relatively untouched field of study. Gaming's "plug load" was long overlooked in part because it fell into the miscellaneous category of non-appliances whose energy consumption was either not understood or assumed to be less significant.
"This is something that two-thirds of American households are engaged in. It's a lot of energy and a lot of carbon."
To fill in the blanks, Mills' research team created a gaming lab with 26 different systems, a host of displays, and all manner of consoles and virtual reality equipment. Over two years, they tested 37 popular games in 8 different genres, including Call of Duty: Black Ops, Skyrim, and FIFA17. But it was clear early on that gaming's energy consumption, Mills says, "is not trivial."

So just how big is gaming's environmental footprint? Globally, PC gamers use about 75 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year, equivalent to the output of 25 electric power plants. (And that doesn't include console games.) In the United States, gaming systems consume $6 billion worth of electricity annually. In California, where the analysis was centered, video gaming uses more power than electric water heaters, cooking appliances, clothes dryers, dishwashers, or freezers. As the report concludes, "video gaming is among the very most intensive uses of electricity in homes." And more power means more greenhouse gas emissions: American gamers emit about 12 million tons of carbon dioxide annually-the equivalent of about 2.3 million passenger cars. Games are rated for things like sex and violence, Mills points out, but games and gear are "silent on their carbon footprint."

What's more, games' impact could balloon as their market keeps expanding. "This isn't the domain of 15-year-old boys anymore," Mills says. "This is something that two-thirds of American households are engaged in. And what does it mean for the population? It's a lot of energy and a lot of carbon." Within five years, the electricity demand for gaming in California could rise by 114 percent, according to the report.

Some of gaming's energy demand is driven by emerging technologies like virtual reality and higher-resolution connected displays. Cloud-based gaming, in which graphics processing is conducted on remote servers, is especially energy intensive, increasing overall electricity use by as much as 60 percent for desktop computers and 300 percent for laptops.

Luckily, it's not all doom and gloom. "There is the potential to save a lot of energy with very little effort and little to no effect with the quality or experience," says Jimmy Mai, a computer technician and one of the project's principal testers. An avid gamer, Mai's job was to set up the equipment every day and then play the games, diving into some titles he'd always wanted to explore, like League of Legends, World of Tanks, and The Witcher III ("a beautiful game," says Mai, who jokes that this was "sort of a dream project"). Gaming equipment "is constantly being revised, becoming more energy efficient, and becoming more powerful in some cases," Mai says. Mills notes that by simply changing out the lab's graphics cards and power supply units, his team could reduce its energy consumption by 30 to 50 percent-with no reduction in the games' performance.

The researchers found that gaming's electricity demand could fall by 24 percent in the next five years if gamers shifted toward more efficient equipment and change their playing habits. Mills and his colleagues have created a website that outlines steps gamers can take to save energy. For example, there's a huge range in how much energy different gaming systems use-anywhere from 5 kWh per year (very little) to 1200 kWh per year (equivalent to leaving a 60-watt lightbulb on for more than two years straight.) Simply switching to a more efficient power supply unit can realize a 13 percent energy savings. And if that's enough an incentive, the report shows how saving energy will also save gamers money. The annual electricity bill for a "power-sipping Nintendo Switch" can be as little as $5, while a "high-end desktop system run by an extreme gamer" can run up to $400 or more.

Awareness can have an impact, too, says Mills. Even though this entire project began with his son, its findings turned him off from gaming. "When my son saw the carbon footprint, he did lose his interest," Mills says. For others, like Mai, who often worked in the gaming lab by day and still fired up his own system at night, giving up on gaming isn't going to happen. ("Jimmy is going to go out in a wooden box gaming," Mills says.) We'll just have to find a way to enlist them in the massive multiplayer quest to save the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video games consume more electricity than 25 power plants can produce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few years ago, Evan Mills' 14-year-old son Nathaniel wanted to get into gaming. To juice up the experience, he wanted to build his own computer like more and more gamers do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate Kids is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smartphones are warming the planet far more than you think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Greenhouse gas emissions from computers, phones, and data centers could grow from about 1 percent of global emissions in 2007 to over 14 percent in 2040. The carbon footprint of smartphones will exceed that of desktop computers, laptops, and displays.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Current approaches to carbon capture can increase air pollution and are not efficient at reducing carbon in the atmosphere, according to research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University.

One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO ₂) levels in the atmosphere - and reducing the risk of climate change - is to capture carbon from the air or prevent it from getting there in the first place. However, research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University, published on October 21, 2019, in Energy and Environmental Science, suggests that carbon capture technologies can cause more harm than good.

"All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost."

Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, examined public data from a coal with carbon capture electric power plant and a plant that removes carbon from the air directly. In both cases, electricity to run the carbon capture came from natural gas. He calculated the net CO ₂ reduction and total cost of the carbon capture process in each case, accounting for the electricity needed to run the carbon capture equipment, the combustion and upstream emissions resulting from that electricity, and, in the case of the coal plant, its upstream emissions. (Upstream emissions are emissions, including from leaks and combustion, from mining and transporting a fuel such as coal or natural gas.)

Common estimates of carbon capture technologies - which only look at the carbon captured from energy production at a fossil fuel plant itself and not upstream emissions - say carbon capture can remediate 85-90 percent of carbon emissions. Once Jacobson calculated all the emissions associated with these plants that could contribute to global warming, he converted them to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide in order to compare his data with the standard estimate. He found that in both cases the equipment captured the equivalent of only 10-11 percent of the emissions they produced, averaged over 20 years.

This research also looked at the social cost of carbon capture - including air pollution, potential health problems, economic costs and overall contributions to climate change - and concluded that those are always similar to or higher than operating a fossil fuel plant without carbon capture and higher than not capturing carbon from the air at all. Even when the capture equipment is powered by renewable electricity, Jacobson concluded that it is always better to use the renewable electricity instead to replace coal or natural gas electricity or to do nothing, from a social cost perspective.

Given this analysis, Jacobson argued that the best solution is to instead focus on renewable options, such as wind or solar, replacing fossil fuels.

Efficiency and upstream emissions

This research is based on data from two real carbon capture plants, which both run on natural gas. The first is a coal plant with carbon capture equipment. The second plant is not attached to any energy-producing counterpart. Instead, it pulls existing carbon dioxide from the air using a chemical process.

Jacobson examined several scenarios to determine the actual and possible efficiencies of these two kinds of plants, including what would happen if the carbon capture technologies were run with renewable electricity rather than natural gas, and if the same amount of renewable electricity required to run the equipment were instead used to replace coal plant electricity.

While the standard estimate for the efficiency of carbon capture technologies is 85-90 percent, neither of these plants met that expectation. Even without accounting for upstream emissions, the equipment associated with the coal plant was only 55.4 percent efficient over 6 months, on average. With the upstream emissions included, Jacobson found that, on average over 20 years, the equipment captured only 10-11 percent of the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that it and the coal plant contributed. The air capture plant was also only 10-11 percent efficient, on average over 20 years, once Jacobson took into consideration its upstream emissions and the uncaptured and upstream emissions that came from operating the plant on natural gas.

Due to the high energy needs of carbon capture equipment, Jacobson concluded that the social cost of coal with carbon capture powered by natural gas was about 24 percent higher, over 20 years, than the coal without carbon capture. If the natural gas at that same plant were replaced with wind power, the social cost would still exceed that of doing nothing. Only when wind replaced coal itself did social costs decrease.

For both types of plants this suggests that, even if carbon capture equipment is able to capture 100 percent of the carbon it is designed to offset, the cost of manufacturing and running the equipment plus the cost of the air pollution it continues to allow or increases makes it less efficient than using those same resources to create renewable energy plants replacing coal or gas directly.

"Not only does carbon capture hardly work at existing plants, but there's no way it can actually improve to be better than replacing coal or gas with wind or solar directly," said Jacobson. "The latter will always be better, no matter what, in terms of the social cost. You can't just ignore health costs or climate costs."

This study did not consider what happens to carbon dioxide after it is captured but Jacobson suggests that most applications today, which are for industrial use, result in additional leakage of carbon dioxide back into the air.

Focusing on renewables

People propose that carbon capture could be useful in the future, even after we have stopped burning fossil fuels, to lower atmospheric carbon levels. Even assuming these technologies run on renewables, Jacobson maintains that the smarter investment is in options that are currently disconnected from the fossil fuel industry, such as reforestation - a natural version of air capture - and other forms of climate change solutions focused on eliminating other sources of emissions and pollution. These include reducing biomass burning, and reducing halogen, nitrous oxide and methane emissions.

"There is a lot of reliance on carbon capture in theoretical modeling, and by focusing on that as even a possibility, that diverts resources away from real solutions," said Jacobson. "It gives people hope that you can keep fossil fuel power plants alive. It delays action. In fact, carbon capture and direct air capture are always opportunity costs."

Reference: "The Health and Climate Impacts of Carbon Capture and Direct Air Capture" by Mark Z. Jacobson, 21 October 2019, Energy and Environmental Science.
DOI: 10.1039/C9EE02709B

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doubt Cast on Carbon Capture by Stanford Study - "It Usually Increases Air Pollution"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Current approaches to carbon capture can increase air pollution and are not efficient at reducing carbon in the atmosphere, according to research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University. One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere - and reducing the risk of c

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every day of your life, across everything you do and buy, you contribute to rising greenhouse gas emissions. Now, you can track the impact of all that activity - the stuff you buy, the places you go - to understand your carbon footprint.

There are many carbon footprint calculators available. And some are better at tracking different ecological impacts. So, pick one that calculates the information you want to know. Once you settle on a calculator, it is best to stay with it so that your measurements remain consistent.

Like a step-counting or diet app that provides feedback about your activity or calorie intake, a carbon calculator won't solve your environmental challenges. But it can help orient you when you make decisions. Just as you might forego cheesecake after dinner to lose a few pounds, deciding not to buy raspberries that were shipped halfway around the world can slice away at your contribution to climate change.

Why would you want to understand your carbon footprint? With information comes the ability to make deliberative changes that make a difference. First, let's consider some of the lifestyle factors a useful carbon calculator will address. Then, we'll dig into several of the calculators we find helpful and why.

Counting Carbon

Each type of calculator addresses a slightly different mix of activities and lifestyle choices that add to your personal carbon footprint. Your ideal carbon calculator will let you focus on the areas where you are willing and able to make changes. Let's look at contributors to your carbon footprint you'll likely want to consider.

Common Carbon Culprits

A carbon calculator can help you understand how much carbon different factors in your day-to-day life produce. Many of these factors are straightforward: How much electricity or natural gas does your home use per year? What kind of car do you own and how often do you drive it? Do you frequently use public transportation or make long distance trips via plane, train, or ferry?

Practical tools, such as the CarbonFootprint.com 's Individual, Small Business, Large Business, and Products carbon calculators provide information at a granular level so that you can focus on specific changes you could make to reduce your footprint. For example, breaking out the carbon costs of heating and lighting a home gives you practical information you can use to make informed decisions.

Carbon-Producing Fuels

Despite advances in green energy, a large percentage of electricity is still produced using fossil fuel-based sources, such as coal or natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 62.9 percent of U.S. electricity was generated from fossil fuels in 2017.

Most forms of transportation still use petroleum or a carbon-producing fuel source. Most cars, boats, trains, and airplanes burn fuel to carry you to your destination. All that exhaust pushes a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere. In 2016, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions averaged out to approximately 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in the air we breathe.

A useful carbon calculator should provide separate calculations for each mode of transportation you use. And there are other factors that many people don't consider.

Additional Carbon Contributors

Most of us know that the fuels used to get transport us, power our work environments, and keep us comfortable at home can create a lot of carbon. But each of us contributes to greenhouse gases in other ways that may not be as obvious. Think about the carbon costs of the items you buy or use in your day-to-day life.

For example, the amount and type of food or drink you consume affects your carbon footprint. This takes into account the amount of processing required to grow, harvest, and process what you eat, and the energy generated to make, treat, and refine beverages you drink. There's also a sizable carbon footprint associated with transporting food and beverages to your local market.

Likewise, the furniture and clothes you buy had to be manufactured. The wood, fabric, and other materials were harvested, processed, and distributed in ways that use energy. And these processes most likely introduce toxins into the environment.

Your choice of calculators should calculate the carbon associated with your daily activities - from shopping and doing the laundry to the foods your household consumes. Since we all have different lifestyles, be sure the calculator you pick reflects yours, and presents results in a way that is useful to you.

Recommended Calculators

You can find many different websites that offer the means to calculate your carbon footprint. Here are a few notable examples.

CarbonFooprint.com has an extremely thorough carbon calculator available which includes an analysis of both primary and secondary carbon sources from daily life. Each section of the calculator gives you opportunities to buy carbon offsets, making action easy. (Note that costs are British currency, distances are kilometers, and temperatures in Celsius, so you may need converters to calculate the amounts you input.)

For a more in-depth visual depiction of your results, the CoolClimate Network at the University of California Berkeley provides a calculator that illustrates the breakdown of emissions across individual categories of activity. You can review how much of your travel emissions are due to fuel from your car, as opposed to air travel. Or, you can compare the carbon footprint of your home to the footprint of other homes in the United States.

Shop Around

In addition to the three calculators Earth911 recommends, you may want to try out these sites. Remember to decide on a calculator and use it consistently, as different sources of data produce different estimated carbon footprints. Your choice may not be perfect, but you can apply the feedback consistently to your daily decisions.

Think of your carbon footprint as a diet goal and use the information you obtain to improve your decisions. Equipped with actionable information, we can collaborate to make the Earth safe and clean, based on shared knowledge. When people act together, we can change the world.

You Might Also Like...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Footprint by Footprint: Calculating Carbon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every day of your life, across everything you do and buy, you contribute to rising greenhouse gas emissions. Now, you can track the impact of all that activity - the stuff you buy, the places you go - to understand your carbon footprint. There are many carbon footprint calculators available.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether traveling by train, plane, ship, or automobile, getting from one place to another produces carbon emissions. In fact, the transportation sector accounted for the largest portion - 28 percent - of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2016.

Here are some strategies to help you lower your emissions while getting from point A to point B.

Carefully Select Your Transportation Mode

Although there are many variables to consider, including distance and the number of people in your group, certain modes of transportation generally have lower associated emissions. For example, traveling by bus and train is almost always a carbon bargain, emitting far fewer greenhouse gasses. Unlike air travel, buses and trains often bring riders to the city center, making it less necessary to rent a car upon arrival.

Fly Coach Class

To lower your carbon footprint, downgrade your tickets, especially on longer flights where the emissions add up more. Your wallet will thank you too!

We all know that travelers in first class have more leg room and tastier menu options. But did you know that flying first class is one of the most polluting ways to travel? The World Bank studied carbon impacts in each cabin of an airliner in 2013. Based on the amount of space allocated to each seat, they calculated the fuel and emissions to move that seat - and its passenger - to the destination. Not surprisingly, the emissions associated with passengers flying first class is greater than those in coach.

The Union of Concerned Scientists published a useful study in 2008, Getting There Greener, that found just one first-class vacation for a family of four produced almost twice the carbon emissions of that family's full year of commuting. With more than 124 million Americans taking a vacation each year, the impacts are immense.

Maybe you're wondering why anyone would want to downgrade a first-class seat. Aside from reducing your personal carbon footprint, it's a way to send a message to the airlines that you insist they be as efficient as possible. Let the airline know your priorities and maybe coach seats will become a little more comfortable.

Choose Nonstop Flights

To reduce your emissions, select nonstop flights whenever possible. Lots of greenhouse gas emissions are related to the takeoff, landing, and ground operations of a plane. Your own time is valuable, too, so flying nonstop is a bargain ecologically and saves you time. If a nonstop flight isn't an option or it's too expensive, try to avoid out-of-the-way layovers to minimize the distance traveled.

Drive During Off-Peak Times

The fuel consumption rates of vehicles can double on congested roads because fuel economy rapidly declines at lower speeds. Frequent braking and acceleration consumes more gas than cruising at highway speeds.

Studies also show that traffic jams are bad for your health because you inhale more auto fumes, and the stress of driving during rush hour is associated with high blood pressure.

Use Traffic Updates

If you must travel during rush hour or in high-traffic areas, use a GPS with traffic updates or an app such as Waze or Apple Maps to steer clear of congested construction zones, collisions, and bottlenecks. As a bonus, this also reduces the wear and tear on your vehicle wear as well as fuel costs.
Feature image: Timelynx on Pixabay Editor's note: Originally published on May 8, 2015, this article was updated in October 2018.
You Might Also Like...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Ways To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Travel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether traveling by train, plane, ship, or automobile, getting from one place to another produces carbon emissions. In fact, the transportation sector accounted for the largest portion - 28 percent - of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2016. Here are some strategies to help you lower your emissions while getting from point A to point B.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change food calculator: What’s your diet’s carbon footprint?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Check the environmental impact of what you eat and drink.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IdleBox is an electronic education and outreach toolkit on vehicle idling reduction. The low-hanging fruit of fuel economy, idling reduction is a simple way to use less fuel and minimize engine wear, reducing costs along with pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

What Is Idling?

Idling is running a vehicle's propulsion engine when the vehicle isn't moving. Idling wastes fuel and creates harmful emissions.

Use IdleBox to:

Learn more about the benefits of idling reduction for your organization, fleet, or community.

Engage and educate others-including drivers, fleet managers, policymakers, sustainability managers, and others-on the value of idling reduction.

Launch an idling reduction campaign for your organization, fleet, or community.

Core Resources

Specialty Resources

Are You a Clean Cities Coordinator?

IdleBox has additional resources for Clean Cities coalitions. Go to the Coalition IdleBox Resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IdleBox: A Toolkit for Idling Reduction Education and Outreach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IdleBox is an electronic education and outreach toolkit on vehicle idling reduction. The low-hanging fruit of fuel economy, idling reduction is a simple way to use less fuel and minimize engine wear, reducing costs along with pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Idling is running a vehicle's propulsion engine when the vehicle isn't moving.