How are you calculating your carbon footprint?

I’ve just had a quick try of the carbon footprint.com calculator. It seemed to show that I had a very average overall footprint:

House 0.85 tonnes of CO2e
Flights 0.00 tonnes of CO2e
Car 1.78 tonnes of CO2e
Motorbike 0.00 tonnes of CO2e
Bus & Rail 0.02 tonnes of CO2e
Secondary 3.76 tonnes of CO2e
Total = 6.40 tonnes of CO2e

Here the most significant contributions come from Secondary items:
2.64 tonnes: £2500 per year of Food and drink products for a medium meat eater
0.20 tonnes: £300 per year of Computers and IT equipment
0.77 tonnes: £1500 per year of Hotels, restaurants, and pubs etc.
0.15 tonnes: £240 per year of Telephone, mobile/cell phone call costs

Looks like I could reduce my C02 footprint by eating and drinking less. I’m not sure that this is helpful information 🙁

I was also surprised by how the money spent on food converted into the carbon calculation. It presumably assumes an “average person” buying normal stuff from supermarkets, with all of the CO2 overheads of their large scale operations and supply chains.

Given that food and shelder are basic needs, these are probably not areas where we can easily make substantial reductions. Obviously, well insulated homes do help.

Silvi – Thank you on behalf of the planet Earth for your contribution to reducing its carbon footprint. It’s a good example of how everyone can help.

People can do a lot more through small changes to their lifestyle – the amount of clothing they buy, the number of miles they travel, the sort of food they eat, not replacing things that are still working satisfactorily, making the optimum use of daylight. Reading a book for a couple of hours instead of watching television or spending time on a computer can make a positive difference to energy consumption and self-improvement.

Of necessity, the on-line carbon footprint calculators [such as the one referenced in the Introduction to this Conversation] can only give a broad-brush approximation of any individual’s or household’s environmental impact but at this stage that is still helpful in getting people to think about decarbonisation of everyday functions and lifestyle changes that will make a positive difference. It might not satisfy purists and it might show that we are a still a long way off the target.

The lack of information is a drawback on the things you have mentioned – life-cycle analysis of replacement versus continued use – and some of the considerations, as we get closer to the target, will require sophisticated and expert scientific assistance to identify the best route. But at this point in the journey it is like being at the South Pole – you can turn left or right or any way you like but you will still be going North, so any movement in the right direction on carbon reduction will be a good thing and will provide a platform for further development. I don’t think we need to get over-specific on the details yet; the main thing is to point everyone in the general direction of travel and get their vision fixed on the objective.

This whole process will require strong leadership in the UK and across the world. One bad actor can ruin the project, and that is a serious worry. Getting unanimity of purpose on climate change has been an uphill struggle, and many people take the ‘not in my lifetime’ line to excuse themselves from action. We can all influence the future through our families and friends, through the things we do and the goods we buy, and by learning more about what will make the best net contribution to carbon reduction in each sphere of activity.

This will be challenging, for the task is immense and almost beyond our capacity to contemplate because it will mean, by 2050, unpicking the habits and expectations of a century of development – or what used to be labelled ‘progress’. This is to benefit generations as yet unborn to whom we have a collective duty.

I believe plenty of people will be willing to embark on this as individuals but I am not convinced the right mind-set is yet in place at corporate levels, whether industrial, commercial, or in public services. There could be a competitive scramble to have a final fling before changes become compulsory. Consumerism is an enemy of the project and, as Alfa has commented above, the tendency to make token offset gestures, or to pay penalties to avoid compliance, remains strong.

I found the carbon footprint calculator illuminating [I have indicated the results for our household above*] and a useful way-marker for future action. It might not be perfect but it is a good starting point.
* https://conversation.which.co.uk/sustainability/carbon-footprint-calculators-coronavirus-lifestyle/#comment-1601861

Evolution – I’m interested in the lifecycle analysis of replacing a boiler, but have my concerns about whether this would be a good move. My present boiler is about 22 years old and is in good working order, but is not a condensing boiler, so is less efficient than a modern one. On the other hand it has a cast iron heat exchanger which can last for many years. The one in my previous home worked fine for at least 35 years. Modern boilers usually have aluminium heat exchangers that can corrode and leak within 10-15 years. They are much more complicated, so there is more to go wrong. A friend who lives locally had a Worcester-Bosch boiler leak after 13 years. I suggested that it would be advisable to look for a different brand with a more durable stainless steel heat exchanger, but the easiest option was to fit another W-B. 🙁 I cannot make up my mind and will probably keep my present boiler for the time being.

Replacing a car with an EV seems an easier choice because the old one is no more likely to be scrapped prematurely even if it changes hands.

I’ve a Worcester condensing boiler now 12 years old and still going strong (is that tempting fate). I’d check how much gas you would save by switching; it is said that a condensing boiler may use between 80% and 50% of the gas used by a conventional one. That might make the financial decision easy.

I’m not convinced by an only electric car, partly because of the breaks that need to be arranged in long journeys and the time spent charging. Fine if all journeys are shorter. My choice if I were to change my diesel car would be a plug-in hybrid if it had a decent range on the battery so I could switch to electric in built up areas and use petrol on the rural roads.

My Potterton Suprima 80 appears to have an efficiency of 78.8% which is good for a non-condensing boiler. New boilers must have an efficiency of at least 88%.

The best that the user can do to prolong the life of an aluminium heat exchanger is to use a suitable corrosion inhibitor and to top this up periodically because the active components are lost with time even if the system is not drained.

I’m envious of your vintage boiler, Beryl. 🙂 Compared with modern boilers there is very little to go wrong. Service engineers have told me to hold on to my present boiler and the older one in my previous home.

If you can say which make and model it is then I might be able to find the efficiency, or you could search for this yourself, which is what I did today. The more gas you use the bigger the savings would be if the boiler is replaced.

Combi boilers are the most efficient but the least practical because they heat water as required (hence supplying. one tap at a time) rather than storing it in a tank. If I did not have a hot water tank I might have to get a tumble dryer for when it is not practical to hang out washing.

My annual service is overdue thanks to coronavirus so I will get someone to check it over. Reading that my boiler is efficient for a non-condensing model has discouraged me from replacing it unless a problem is found.

There are numerous Hideaway models and this page lists their efficiencies: https://www.homeheatingguide.co.uk/efficiency-tables?make=Glow-worm

I used to have a Glow Worm Space Saver boiler in my previous home. I had not realised that the brand became part of the Vaillant Group nearly 20 years ago. The information on the Which? website suggests that the Glow Worm brand is used for cheaper models. Several years ago, Which? informed us that Vaillant offers a 15 year guarantee on their boilers, but I expect that it is necessary to use their agents for annual servicing.

When installing a new boiler it is generally necessary to have the system power-flushed for the guarantee to be valid, adding to the cost.

Our footprints have diverged from the carbon footprint!

I forgot to mention that spares are still available for the Glow Work Hideaway boiler. The one most likely to need replacement is the thermocouple for the pilot light.

Can you delete a comment once it is posted? I thought you could only edit it but not remove it. So you ( I) might use a . or 🙁 and perhaps an explanation.

If you are logged-in you can remove the text and replace it with something like ‘Please ignore’, as long as this is done within the 30 minute window after posting. Those who are not logged in cannot do this.

Beryl has reported her duplicate comment, so it should be deleted. The moderators might do this anyway.

The red delete button only deletes your comment from your personal list, not from the Convo.

I have inadvertently deleted in the past and thus lost a reminder. Don’t think one can be restored, can it?

You are right Malcolm, it would seem only the mods can delete, but since it is now tomorrow, it will probably have to wait until today to fix it!!!

I asked the function of the Delete button in 2015 and Patrick thought that only the moderators could see it. He said it would be removed. 🙁 https://conversation.which.co.uk/which-membership/welcome-to-the-new-which-conversation/#comment-1417019

I don’t remember ever, as a contributor, being able to delete a comment from a Convo (other then by editing it in the short period allowed). You could, and can, ask the moderators to do it.

You can delete a comment from your personal activity list to, presumably, only leave “important” contributions. I don’t do this, except by accident.

I would like to be able to store specific contributions from other commenters that I want to refer to either temporarily or permanently for reference. I could bookmark them in my browser but it would be nice to do it in the Convo. I seem to recall this was a facility once but no longer. Does it still exist?

Pandemics, natural disasters, wars or other such occurrences have had no significant impact on the relentless growth in world population. We encourage it with advances in drugs, health care and intensive food production despite the damage it does to the earth’s future. Quite a dilemma. It will at some future time be self-limiting but I wonder just what sort of a world it will be.

What can we do about it? Other than perhaps some mass imposition of birth prevention, perhaps introduced sneakily through the water supply, I really don’t see anything we can do. Our biological programme is to reproduce and we will continue to do so.

The theory for relentless population growth is high infant mortality. In poorer nations, parents often had several children, as many died before the age of five.

The solution is unknown. No political party in the West is going to propose birth regulation.

Unlike other animals, humans are capable of learning about the risks of continued population growth. I don’t know if this is covered in the school curriculum. It certainly should be, togethers with the dangers of consumerism.

We might learn about the risks but don’t appear to put lessons into practice.

When we have more money than we need we generally use it for what we call “discretionary spending”. That means buying unnecessary stuff that we might call consumerism. I don’t see how we stop that.

Consumerism is taught at secondary level, but from a purely pragmatic perspective. Year 12 students are encouraged to establish their own limited companies and sell products. The inherent risks of over population and rampant consumerism are not officially taught.

Thanks. I’m disappointed but not surprised.

I think the rot set in when both parents ‘needed’ to go out to work.

The cost of housing is why in many cases both parents have to work, I suspect.

Here is a recent article that suggests that it might not be necessary to take any action to control population growth: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521 This is encouraging but it will take more to convince me that the problem of population growth will go away.

There is rather more comprehensive data and explanation herehttps://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

I have never understood the obsession some have with extensive tattoos. Apart from the pain and cost do they ever think what they will look like in later life when their skin sags and wrinkles? When I was little we bought transfers that, when soaked, slid off their backing and were applied to your skin. In time they disappeared. Perhaps theirs a business opportunity there?

However, we need to return to some sort of normality before a vaccine is available, otherwise the country will be in an even worse state mentally and economically. What many have learned and will continue to practice are sensible precautions to take when out and about. As for those who are irresponsible and behave stupidly nothing will change them; they will be a danger to others when any illness is around, particularly winter flu. The key is, in my inexpert opinion, to monitor any significant increase in local outbreaks and take swift action to reintroduce local restrictions.

I don’t understand why anyone wants a tattoo, large or small, but unlike a gold watch or expensive car it does not promote consumerism.

If you need a watch or a car I’m not sure whether it is gold or expensive makes much difference to a stainless steel one or a Dacia Duster. Buying additional watches or more than one new car, buying a new phone and chucking out a perfectly good older one, not repairing something that has plenty of life left in it, having a new tv just because it has more features and putting one in the bathroom seems to me to be what consumerism is about.

So if gold watches and expensive cars are not symbols of consumerism, I wonder what are.

Clearly there’s plenty of scope for higher taxes so long as benefits and tax allowances are maintained. That might curb expenditure on things that deplete the earth’s resources.

Until the early 70s we had purchase tax, where a higher rate was payable on luxury goods.