Doing something about climate change

[tlc1976]

I don’t like AC either, and I wear my coat all day at work even in the summer and sometimes run my heater at my desk. No AC at home, I just keep the blinds closed if it’s sunny and hot, and keep a fan blowing out the upstairs window and pull air in from the cool side of the house. That is if it’s cooler and less humid outside than inside, usually at night. Then close up the house before leaving for work in the morning. The house stays high 60s to low 70s all summer that way. If it gets extremely hot like long stretches of 90-100f, then I can go in the basement which is like an icebox. But that’s rare in these parts.

I definitely need heat in the winter, but I burn pellets which are made from wood waste that would otherwise end up in a landfill. Pellets burn at top efficiency so no smoldering and creosote like a typical wood fire.

I recycle anything I can, and don’t generate much trash since I usually eat from cans. Therefore don’t cook much either. I only wash full loads. Mow the yard every couple weeks, don’t water or fertilize. Switched everything in the house to LED. I fix or repurpose old things, don’t need the latest and greatest anything. I shop at resales often. I went through a lot of years with barely enough money for food and nothing else, so I don’t need much.

I would work from home if they would let me, but I live just 9 miles away, and chose a location where I don’t have to deal with town traffic.

 

[Graeme M]

The concern about the impacts of animal ag on climate is a controversial one; I confess to not being very certain about the numbers argued by different players. Here in Australia, agriculture in total contibutes about 15% of all GHG emissions when calculated on a CO2 equivalent basis. This is not the biggest contributor, but it IS the 4th largest contributor.

Interestingly I recently calculated that on a global basis, the FAO argues that animal agriculture delivers about 9% of all GHG emissions on a CO2eq basis. This is about 60-65% of the agricultural sector's emissions more generally. I assumed Australia's relative breakup might be similar, but in fact it turns out that about 95% of our agricultural sector's emissions come from animal agriculture.

One very interesting fact about this is that as you know, most of animal ag's emissions are methane from enteric gasses emitted by ruminants. We have a LOT of sheep and cattle. I recently read that for GHG inventory assessments, a 100 year horizon is used to calculate the CO2 equivalent for methane. However, a 20 year horizon might be a more appropriate measure. When applied to Australia's emissions, it turns out that the agiculture sector's emission become our second highest contributor, delivering nearly as much as the electricity sector, our main emitter.

My point is to say that when we read that the ag sector's global contribution is about 14-15%, it might be a bit higher IF a 20 year horizon were used to arrive at the CO2eq value for enteric emissions. If in Australia's case it almost doubled the value, that suggests that globally the value increases from about 9% to about 16%, giving a total of about 20% of all global GHG emissions coming from agriculture!

Here is the article from which I got this idea of a 20 year accounting. Note my comments at the bottom.

A plea for professionalism in climate journalism in Australia

The IPCC Assessment Report 6, Working Group III devotes considerable attention to dietary change as a necessary part of tackling climate change; citing various studies including one estimating the potential for a 29% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions from a switch to plant-based...

www.blog.geoffrussell.com.au

 

[Jamie in Chile]

9% is very low estimate for animal agriculture, most estimates are more 15%-20%.

We don't need air con here somehow even though it's often 30C outside in summer, I think the house is well designed in that regard. We do have fans which we occasionally use but we have spare solar energy in summer so it's not causing any climate change. We even have a huge 200W one that is really more of an industrial fan, and we only use occasionally when we have visitors outside. The main advantage is probably to keep the insects away!

After two years of solar I replaced my poorly functioning lead acid batteries with lithium ion batteries. The lithium batteries are better, and on a sunny day, we can now be 100% solar, even at night time, even in the winter. Even in days of light cloud, I am able to be fully solar if we don't charge the car and depending on what else we are using.

It's winter now (some of you may remember I am in the southern hemisphere).

The solar seems to give about 70%-80% of what we need in winter so, to try and inch that a little nearer to 80% rather than 70% I am practicing a bit of frugality in winter only (currently sat in the office with 4 jumpers and a cost and the electric heater turned off as it's a cloudy/rainy day). Turning off the TV and set top box when not in use, lights only when really needed.

In summer we have more like 120%-130% of what we need. So for half or more the year in fact we can leave the lights switched on and the TV switched on and it won't make the slightest difference to anything. The switch over point from not enough solar to too much solar will probably come at the end of August or in September like in previous years, but it depends on the weather and what we are using electricity for at the time.

I came with an idea for shifting electricity demand away winter to summer recently. The idea was to read mostly my old paperbacks in winter and not watch TV as much. In summer I will do more kindle, TV and laptop, Netflix and Disney plus. Won't make much difference to be honest but just trying to do every little thing.

Another thing that helps with batteries is you can avoid using grid electricity in the peak period (here 6pm-10pm) when demand is high. This may vary by country and by state but as a general rule it helps to reduce electricity in the evening.

We use wood mostly for heating, with a little of fossil fuels and a little of electricity when I have spare solar.

Hopefully if enough of us are seen to make an effect that will eventually have a good effect on the culture and government policy.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I dislike air conditioning, and dislike the effect on the environment, and yet I do use ours, when I have to, which is a cold water based heat pump - I do keep our temperature high 25-26 (77-79F) most of the time - at night before bed I bring the temp down to 23C (73F) and then turn it up to 26 again so that it doesn't kick in overnight. I am fortunate that we do not have to use the heat in the winter as the surrounding apartments keeps it warm enough and usually around 23C - if it drops to 20 then I will turn it on for a short time but that hasn't happened in a couple of years.

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com

My brother has this situation. I also remember at University (in the northern hemisphere) not turning on the heating until December.

RE "not happened in a couple of years" this could be a negative feedback effect of climate change. More heat = less heating required = less greenhouse gases = less heat.

That's good although sadly the feedback effects tend more often to be positive feedbacks.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I look for opportunities to tell people who may care that air travel is one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions. It is surprising how many people don't know that.

Good for you. Air travel is about 5% of total greenhouse gases however most people in the world either never fly, or never or rarely fly long haul.

One return short haul flight can get you 5% of your annual footprint. One return long haul flight might be 20% or 50%. Better to avoid in most cases. Who needs the high cost, jet lag, queues in airport, being stuck in a plane for 10 hours etc.

What I've found in actually calculating my impact is the years on which I take a flight will always have a high overall footprint regardless of what else I do (see calculation in table at the bottom).

In 2017 I calculated my footprint to be 6.79 tonnes (below chart), excluding a business trip (see next paragraph) which I don't count in my personal emissions.

To try and reduce my business flights impact in 2017 I decided to visit everyone in one single 3-week trip. I flew from Chile to New York, caught the train to Philadelphia to get to an exhibition, train back to New York, flight to Taipei, Taiwan (I think that one was about 15 hours and the longest flight I ever took), on to South Korea, back to Chile with a changeover in Sydney, Australia. However sadly, the impact was still 8.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (including contrails impact etc). In one business trip I did more than the average per person impact on planet earth for a whole year.

Well, that was quite an eye opener. It was my last business trip with a flight, in fact, as a result of this calculation. When I changed jobs in 2020, I stated in the interviews that I would not do long haul flights. This went down very badly in two of the interviews, but in the other they managed to accept it although they did say I would have to do a short-haul flight in South America if there was ever a need for it.

I've now decided on a zero flight policy, except for visiting my close family in England once every several years.

Here is my personal carbon footprint below (excludes flights for a purely business reason).

		2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
	Flights	0.00	0.47	2.88	1.12	1.12	0.00
Total		6.70	6.79	8.91	6.54	7.01	4.65
Total Without Flights		6.70	6.32	6.03	5.43	5.89	4.65

 

[Lou]

First off I want to thank you guys for your good research and good writing.

I think One of the take-aways is that going vegan is still probably the most consequential thing a single individual can do about climate change. One change is not going to be enough, we need a whole bucketful. but veganism is the best example of the low hanging fruit here.

Also its not entirely up to single individuals. We need REAL policy changes. Fortunately it seems like we are moving in the right direction. although too slowly.

As far as policy change goes, here in the USA is to make sure you vote in the right candidates. (ie Democrats). Its not a cure -all but it will result in a step in the right direction. There are so many other things wrong with the Republican Party, the fact that they are climate deniers is often overlooked.

 

[Deleted member 3018]

Last winter I tried to use minimum heating. After that experience I have hated the cold when it's something you can't escape. If I'm camping and the early morning (3-6 am) is cold, I can handle it. But when my apartment is cold and humid and my hands bleed and everything is cold I hate it.
I need some advices or a better insulation. But the more you have insulation, the more you get problems with moisture.

 

[Deleted member 3018]

The other error here - although this is a common error made by lots of others as well - is to focus on the small amount of water you save from having showers vs other things and it therefore implies you are free to go ahead and have long showers. The trouble with that is the environmental damage from the climate change caused by the CO2 emitted as the gas is burned to heat the water. Showers probably use under 1% of our water use, but they probably cause more like 3% or 5% of the climate change. (The CO2 is the problem with the showers, not the water consumption. Unless of course you use cold showers or have solar heating or electric heating in a country with only renewables.)

People take too long showers, but they also shower too often. You only have to take a shower if you are sweaty and grimy. I also shower too often, I feel like taking a shower clears my mind. But I try not to do that because I don't want to be wasteful.
Taking too long hot showers and too often, especially when using soap can also be harmful to ones skin since it can cause dryness.

One of my friends only has access to rainwater and a lake near her house. She has told me that winters are very rough. Even in winter she bathes in the lake. She makes a swimming hole on the thick ice.

 

[Deleted member 3018]

Another thing that I have been trying to do is to minimise buying clothes. It's somewhat easy, because for some reason I keep getting clothes from people when they outgrow those.
At one point actually, I had too many clothes and had to give some to charity.
But on an occasion I have to buy shoes. And maybe in the future some socks.
This summer I also bought two summer pants, but from a flee market. I don't dare to buy shoes from flee market anymore. Although I probably could just wash the shoes...?

 

[David3]

Quite a few nations already generate part of their electricity from renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro, etc.)

At this time of day/date (July 6, 2022 @ 12:40 pm Pacific Standard Time), California is generating about 62% of electricity from renewables:





Of course, this is during the day, when California's solar power plants are generating.

Link to California's real-time electricity generation: California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook

 

[Graeme M]

9% is very low estimate for animal agriculture, most estimates are more 15%-20%.

I have seen people argue that animal ag is responsible for as much as 20%, but those arguments seem to be predicated on some error of accounting. As far as I can tell, the standard value for all agriculture is 15%, of which some smaller proportion is animal ag. Our World in Data offers a total value of 18% for agriculture and land use changes, with livestock and manure representing about 6%. The 9% I give above is for ALL GHG emissions from animal ag based on an FAO report (which may now be slightly out of date). Using that FAO article, I calculate enteric emissions alone from livestock generate about 6% of all GHG emissions on a CO2eq basis. I believe these values, such as the OWID one, use the GWP100 metric, not the GWP20 metric referred to in the article I linked earlier.

Emissions by sector: where do greenhouse gases come from? - Our World in Data

ourworldindata.org

Quite a few nations already generate part of their electricity from renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro, etc.)

This is true, but equally - so far at least - renewables have served only to blunt the rate of increase in fossil fuel use, not to replace it. In other words, the growing use of energy in the world has outstripped the rate at which renewables are being implemented. Consider that coal use continues to rise and reached an all time high in 2021, representing about 40% of CO2 emissions growth in that year. Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels without a general decline in human enterprise and so far, no-one has chosen to do that. The Covid lockdowns achieved a minor decline but of course every government prayed for a recovery.

The world economy is based on energy, not money. Human population growth has been enabled by better and cheaper energy sources; oil in particular drove the population boom of the 20th century.

 

[Lou]

I have seen people argue that animal ag is responsible for as much as 20%, but those arguments seem to be predicated on some error of accounting.

I've mostly seen quoted the 14% from the FAO, link pasted to the bottom.

I've also seen sources that talk about "weighting" Animal Agriculture even higher because Methane does more to create global warming than just plain old carbon dioxide, and cows make a lot of methane.

One of the reasons for the variance is that some researchers are more inclusive in the sources of GHG. They might include the GHG made in creating the feed for feedlots, shipping the feed, shipping the cows, and shipping the beef (in refrigerated trailers).

Soybeans and other crops don't use as much gas.

My brain just imagined a couple of soybeans in a small economy car driving by some cows in an SUV.

• Total emissions from global livestock: 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. This figure is in line FAO’s previous assessment, Livestock’s Long Shadow, published in 2006, although it is based on a much more detailed analysis and improved data sets. The two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ.

FAO - News Article: Key facts and findings

www.fao.org

According to research published in Nature Food, 35% of all global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to food production, “of which 57% corresponds to the production of animal-based food,” including livestock feed.​

Animal Agriculture Responsible for 57% of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Food Production, Study Finds - EcoWatch

Global food production accounts for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, with meat and dairy responsible for twice as much planet-heating carbon pollution as plant-based foods. 35% of all global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to food production, "of which 57% corresponds...

www.ecowatch.com

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Graeme, you cite Our World in Data as having 18% for land use and agriculture, but look closely at the categories. None of those categories include the fuel for the tractors, or the lorries used to ship food to the distribution centres or the store, or the operational emissions of the companies that produce the food (e.g. to power their offices). The emissions of producing animal feed also seem to be excluded from the 18%. So for a fully holistic approach - which to me seems the most correct approach - we have to include those additional emissions, a small slice of the energy portion being added to the total. Given this, agriculture should be >18%.

 

[Lou]

Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds​

Exclusive: Non-animal proteins can play critical role tackling climate crisis, says Boston Consulting Group​

 

[Graeme M]

I've mostly seen quoted the 14% from the FAO, link pasted to the bottom.

Yes, that is the report from which I got my figures.

Graeme, you cite Our World in Data as having 18% for land use and agriculture, but look closely at the categories. None of those categories include the fuel for the tractors, or the lorries used to ship food to the distribution centres or the store, or the operational emissions of the companies that produce the food (e.g. to power their offices). The emissions of producing animal feed also seem to be excluded from the 18%. So for a fully holistic approach - which to me seems the most correct approach - we have to include those additional emissions, a small slice of the energy portion being added to the total. Given this, agriculture should be >18%.

That's a good point. For now, those costs apear in the relevant sectors, but those sector emissions would be reduced if we were not attending to the production and delivery side of animal farming.

 

[Graeme M]

According to research published in Nature Food, 35% of all global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to food production, “of which 57% corresponds to the production of animal-based food,” including livestock feed.

That suggests that about 20% of global emissions stem from animal farming when we include all the auxiliary processes as noted by Jamie above. However as we have previously discussed, eliminating animal farming doesn't eliminate all of the crop related activity to provide animal feed, being as how a significant proportion would be replaced by crops for human food.

I don't have a feel for how much of a difference eliminating animal farming would really make taking this into account. If my 9% is about right, then we just need to add the bit from crop production to feed animals. If we end up with about 80% of current crop land producing crops in such a system (ie we save 20% of the land under crops), then the GHG emissions would still be about 80% of current values. Sooo... a very rough guesstimate would be that the 11% of animal production emissions remaining (ie 20% - 9%) reduces by some factor approaching the 80%. Of course other production processes come into it such as refigeration etc, so it wouldn't be that much. Perhaps 50%? In the end, it looks like it comes out to somewhere around 15% of global GHG emissions could be saved by eliminating animal use in food. Not to be sneezed at for sure.

Mind you, that's all a bit of guesswork. It would be interesting to see a proper estimate accounting for all the kinds of factors I mention.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Being new to this forum and having now read through this thread before replying, there are several things that strike me. However, one almost throwaway comment made by @Jamie in Chile about a video that might be used by vegans to defend their lack of efforts in other areas underlines a very important point. Working to fix the climate change problem is a multi-pronged approach and anyone taking a sanctimonious attitude (vegans, electric car owners, off-grid dwellers - the attitude rears its head in all walks of life and no group is immune) and suggesting they have the moral high ground is not helping.

As a family, we have installed solar PV and a battery to generate electricity we can either use ourselves or export back to the grid. We deal with our heating and domestic hot water with an air source heat pump. We grow a lot of our own vegetables watered as far as possible with rainwater collected in (currently) 7 water butts and our eggs (bear in mind only one of the family is vegan) come from rescued chickens running around in a large enclosure built from recycled materials. The meat eaters amongst us have markedly reduced the amount of meat in our diets and any food we buy is, as far as we can manage, local seasonable produce to reduce food miles. We are also currently laying the ground work to go electric for transport, after which we will only keep the larger (diesel) car for the few journeys that the electric car's range can't manage or the times when we need to transport more than 5 people.

By most yardsticks, we're doing better than most in reducing our carbon footprint. However, if the temptation for smug rectitude ever threatens to bite, it's worth concentrating on what else we could be doing.

• I've only just started in earnest tackling all the junk mail that comes through the post and all the magazines from membership subscriptions that we only open to recycle since we've already read them digitally; I should have done this a long time ago, so that's a missed opportunity.
• We still buy bottled gas to run the gas hobs on our range cooker. Given we're generating our own electricity, we really should be switching now.
• As the main cook in the family, I'm doing nowhere near enough experimentation with the use of marine-based food (seaweeds as a good example) which are far more environmentally friendly than, for instance, the sweetcorn we grow.
• We're still far too impulsive with our Amazon purchases and better planning could markedly cut both the number of deliveries and the amount of packaging.

Obviously, we've identified a whole tranche more things we could and ought to do, but I won't bore you here. My point is, though, that anyone making an effort to help deserves my respect unless they put themselves on a pedestal as a result and start thinking their part is done. It's not.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Good job on solar, heat pump, less meat and potentially electric car. Some other stuff like junk mail and packaging isn't that much of a big deal, I wouldn't stress it too much it's probably 1% or 10% of the impact of the other things I just mentioned. The only other thing you might do is commit to taking holidays without flights, or, if that seems too much, draw a circle that includes Iceland, Cyprus and Morocco and say no further than that. Apart from that, there is always activism.

Any thoughts on heat pumps? I am currently in the process of looking into that for the home we rent in UK. Good/bad points? Things you learned? More/less expensive to run than gas?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

funny 2-min vid

https://twitter.com/x/status/1553324511629639683

 

[majorbloodnok]

Good job on solar, heat pump, less meat and potentially electric car. Some other stuff like junk mail and packaging isn't that much of a big deal, I wouldn't stress it too much it's probably 1% or 10% of the impact of the other things I just mentioned. The only other thing you might do is commit to taking holidays without flights, or, if that seems too much, draw a circle that includes Iceland, Cyprus and Morocco and say no further than that. Apart from that, there is always activism.

Any thoughts on heat pumps? I am currently in the process of looking into that for the home we rent in UK. Good/bad points? Things you learned? More/less expensive to run than gas?

Thanks, @Jamie in Chile.

I'm not stressed about the junk mail and packaging, but it's certainly something I can work on. As far as flights are concerned, my wife and I have so far had two family holidays with the kids that have involved taking flights; our youngest is 15, so we've not been exactly overdoing it on the jet fuel in that regard. Nonetheless, there's always more we can do, and we're currently investigating all sorts of possibilities for energy storage that might allow us to smooth out the generation peaks and troughs.

As for heat pumps, that's a whole world of discussion. The problem is that a lot of installers in the UK still think in terms of gas boilers and so design and install heat pump systems that just aren't up to the job. There's also, as I'm sure you're aware, a big differential between the cost of gas and the cost of electricity unit for unit.

For a heat pump to work to its strengths, you need to make sure of the following:

• Your house is well insulated; heat pumps work on low flow temperatures and large heat transfer surface areas (ideally underfloor heating) so don't work well when trying to rapidly change the temperature of a room. Insulation will help avoid those rapid temperature fluctuations, so is definitely a heat pump's friend.
• You pick a good installer. Recommendation is good, and checking them out critically when they come to do a quote is essential. Anyone trying to sell you their system should be shown the door. Anyone listening to what you need before starting to make recommendations is worth a second chat. Anyone with reference sites you can investigate is worth looking at more closely. Also, listen to the reasoning behind their recommendations and double check it. We had, I think, 5 possible installers of which only one was worth pursuing. We did and they proved themselves to be absolute gold dust.
• You consider solar PV and heat pump at the same time. Whilst, at the extremes, you'll either be heating or generating from the sun but not both, most of the year there will be an overlap. If you can generate the same energy your heating system needs, that's an obvious double-whammy and any energy you don't use can be sold back to the grid.
• Your heat pump is set to run in weather compensation mode and left to work constantly. Weather compensation is the idea that as it gets warmer outside the heat pump lowers the temperature of the water it puts out to heat the house, thereby maintaining a balance between heat in and heat lost. It's a much more economical system (when done right) than turning the pump on to overheat water to overheat the room and turn itself off again until the room temperature drops again.

For us, we weren't using mains gas; we had an oil-fired boiler that, when we took it out, was using about 2,000 litres of oil a year. Prices rose from 62 pence per litre to £1.09, so retrospectively we can see the yearly bill we were looking at would have risen a huge amount. By my current calculations, my guesstimate is that we'll end up over the year with a marginally negative heating and hot water bill, but that's because of the solar and heat pump working in unison. Others who've installed a heat pump on its own are generally finding them to be a good financial decision but only marginally. This is because, as a rule of thumb, a heat pump can create 3 units of heat from one unit of electricity, so breakeven point is where electricity is less than three times the price of gas.

I'm more than happy to provide more information if you wish, but I obviously don't want to overload in just one post. Shout if you want more.