I’m a carbon hog.

Calculate your carbon footprint. I’m at 7.7 tons/year, or 0.2 above the national average. That’s almost entirely a result of my rental house’s electrical usage. If our new house is constructed as we intend for it to be, my consumption of electricity should drop enough to get my carbon emissions down to 5.6 tons/year. So long as I continue to drive my 13-year-old Volvo, I won’t be able to get my emissions much below 4 tons/year. But if I moved up to a Prius, I would drop to 3.2 tons/year….probably even lower, given how much less I’d drive a car that couldn’t make it up the driveway for half of the year.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

32 replies on “I’m a carbon hog.”

  1. Yeah 10.5 is bad, dude. If you’re not careful, you may singlehandedly be responsible for warming the earth to the point where the land bridge over the Bering Sea melts completely, isolating Alaska from NE Asia. The consequences would be catastrophic.

  2. Hi Nat! The dog appears to have eaten my previous comment.

    My footprint isn’t easily computed. I drive very little (fewer than 5000 miles/year), but I fly a lot on business–mostly in a small plane (a turbo Mooney) that gets comparable mileage to my car (a Subaru) and a lot better mileage than, say, an SUV. Unfortunately, the leg-length tiering for flights assumes travel on commercial, turbine aircraft; it’s not applicable to this type of aircraft.

  3. I take it back. 6.4. I put in the wrong year for the car.

    While that is an interesting exercise, I get annoyed because besides spending money I don’t have for solar power or my own wind turbine (certainly usable here in C’ville many days) changing my car to a hybrid is about all I can do. And, I can’t even do that as I have three kids, all in car seats or boosters currently, and a big dog. Five people do not fit in any of the hybrids. Even the hybrid Toyota Highlander only gets the same mileage as my minivan. Automakers need to make real alternatives that many Americans would choose to drive.

  4. Don’t feel so bad, Waldo — You’re still way lower than the Goracle’s carbon footprint! ;)

    Actually, I produce much, much more carbon than Vice President Gore. He has long purchased carbon offsets, which is a free market approach to dealing with individual carbon output. Dave Matthews Band does the same thing — there’s no getting around their need for tour buses and airplanes, so they fund the acquisition of land and the planting of trees on that land that will absorb the amount of CO2 that their travel generates. That approach is actually way better than paying some random wind power company to generate (and resell) wind power — offsets actually offset one’s output, whereas those credits basically amount to charity to a corporation.

  5. So the rich get to “offset” their “carbon footprint” by paying other people to plant trees for them? That’s nice.

    This sounds a lot like the purchasing of indulgences from the Catholic Church in Midieval Europe. Of course, that fits in rather nicely with the whole Church of the Environment. It’s a religion. When man ceases to believe in God, he’ll believe in anything. Especially about things he doesn’t understand. “Mighty Gaia must be angry with us – she’s making the earth warmer. Perhaps if we sacrifice some of our wealth, she will be appeased.” It’s just a new twist on an old phenomenon.

  6. Why, J.S., I had no idea you were such an anti-capitalist! Don’t you believe that the wealthy should be afforded more privileges by virtue of their money, and that is the incentive for everybody to maximize their profit and, thus, economic output, benefiting us all?

    Do you believe that wealth is required in order to plant a tree? Or is it possible that even the most destitute among us is capable of performing that simple act?

  7. What bothers me is the smug implication that wealthy environmentalists can purchase a dispensation for their lavish lifestyles (eg, private jets, heating/cooling multiple massive houses) but the rest of us better grease up the Schwinn or at least hop on the bus.

    It’s similar to the limousine liberals’ championing of public schools (and the teachers’ unions) and then sending their kids to private school. Do as I say, not as I do. For me, but not for thee, etc. It’s the hypocrisy that is so grating.

    Now I realize that wealthy champions of the environment have an image problem that’s not easy to solve. They believe in what they say about the environment, but they aren’t about to give up the perks of being wealthy, so they’re doing the best they can with this “carbon offsets” boondoggle. It’s an unenviable position, and one that their opponents will continue to hang around their necks.

  8. Your fundamental complaint is that the rich are afforded privileges that the rest of us aren’t. That’s just how the world works. That’s no different in the matter of consumption than anywhere else. We have to plant trees, the rich get to pay people to plant trees for them. That’s capitalism for you.

  9. I’ve always been grateful for the generousity of those who champion public schools, while sending their own children to private schools. On the one hand, they’re advocating high quality public schools and expressing their willingness to pay for them, even though they’re not directly using those schools. Plus, by not sending their own children to the public schools, they’re freeing up education budget to educate others.

    Wouldn’t the greedy approach be to send their children to private schools and advocate cutting public funding of public schools?

    Unless we’re going to equalize incomes under some socialist scheme to deny the rich the benefits of their wealth (i.e. better medical care, better houses, better education, better cars, etc.), that’s seems to be about the best you can hope for.

  10. Wow, look how long it took to get the latest set of talking points (Gore uses energy! Offsets are dispensations for the rich!) out there. So very impressive.

    ~

    I’d be okay on this, but for my flying. It not only takes me out of the low spot I’d otherwise be in, but catapults me into the much larger than average.

    Maybe time to look at those Terrapass options again . . .

  11. Harry, I don’t think they’re being greedy; I think they’re being hypocritical. By opposing vouchers and other programs that would give the poor an opportunity to escape failing public schools, they’re locking millions of kids into institutions to which they would never send their own kids. That’s my problem with them on that score.

    And MB, I never once mentioned Gore.

  12. I think they’re being hypocritical. By opposing vouchers and other programs that would give the poor an opportunity to escape failing public schools, they’re locking millions of kids into institutions to which they would never send their own kids.

    They’re only hypocritical if they favor vouchers. There are many reasonable grounds on which voucher are opposed (constitutional, for starters), and no doubt there are many thousands of families sending their children to private school, paying taxes, supporting public education, and reasonably opposing vouchers.

    Again, as Harry points out, what you’re opposing here is charity and capitalism. I don’t think you actually intend to do either of these things.

  13. That’s funny, I thought vouchers were a free-market solution to a problem created by a government monopoly.

  14. Waldo,

    I can guarantee you that if you don’t take purchase of “carbon credits” into account (and believe me, they’re not as effective as some may think, nor do I think they do nearly as much good as doing your own “green” work does–but I digress), you, Waldo, are far more of an environmentalist than Al Gore could ever be, and believe it or not, I genuinely do respect you for that!

    (I may disagree with the necessity of doing so, and with other “core tenets” of the environmentalist faith, but then again, you have the integrity to put your actions where your mouth is, something which can’t be said for many of the “leaders” in the “Limousine Liberal” wing of the movement…)

    Judge Smails–you and I are definitely on the same page here… or at least, in the same general chapter!

    MB–I don’t believe in “talking points,” other than the ones I propagate over in my little corner. But considering that I’m one of the first people to hop on that story, does that make me a “talking-points-ateer?” :)

    Regards,
    Brian

    P.S.-Nothing is more entertaining than seeing people spring to the defence of “the rich,” though. Just because he can “afford” to live an extravagant lifestyle, he is “within his rights” to “pollute more?” Preposterous.

    ([sarcasm on]As a card-carrying member of the Vast And Evil Right-Wing Conspiracy, I’m actually quite pleased to see him use as much electricity as he can afford.. since the money he spends will be used to build more power plants, which will in turn reduce the electrical prices of those who have the pleasure of living near him. But then again, I’m not really what you’d call being “into” saving the environment, maaan. ;) [sarcasm off])

  15. Great job of staying on script, Brian. Your jumping quickly when the masters say jump doesn’t make you really much of anything, in my view.

    ~

    So, by the reasoning I’ve seen here, before anyone can push for environmentally responsible behavior or support quality public services, they need to go all Gandhi. Otherwise, shut up. Is that it?

  16. MB-On script? Whatever. If you don’t enjoy “debate” and “dialogue,” why bother responding? There’s no “di”alogue (“di” = two) in attempting to characterize your opponents as mindless twits — and you’ll notice that I’ve refrained from doing so towards your side of the debate, will you not?

    And, re: your Ghandi-esque proposal, how about they just “practice what they preach,” in the same vein as our good friend Waldo? Then, perhaps, there would be something to “respect” there, huh?

    ;)

    Regards,
    Brian

  17. There’s no debate or dialog in mindless repetition.

    And Gore *is* practicing what he’s preaching – he’s doing something about the impact of his life on the environment. Your unhappiness with his manner of doing so doesn’t make it hypocrisy, no matter how much you want it to. You got a hypocrisy hobbyhorse to ride? Aim it somewhere useful.

  18. Hey, I’m not riding any horses, hobby or otherwise, so obviously your criticism is no skin off my back. You do seem curiously defensive about it, considering you don’t have a proverbial “horse” in the race, eh?

    I’ll just leave the argument by reiterating the intriguing comparison between the two methods of “doing something” about the environment employed by various people, and leave it at that. Those on your side of the aisle (and I’m not implying that _you_ specifically say this) have a tendency to slam certain people who are actually “living” green (Bush, Frist), and then mindlessly (okay, that word might be a bit more harsh than I mean, but hopefully you get the point) defend people who claim to be living green, but aren’t (Gore, Kerry).

    If you can’t spot the irony, try changing the lights?

    Something like that. At least our gracious host practices what he preaches (my hat remains off, good Sir!)

    In any case, hope things in your area of the Commonwealth remain well,

    Respectfully,
    Brian

  19. Well, my horse is a general sense of decency. One that’s violated when I see irrelevant political attacks injected into what is otherwise an interesting conversation about carbon footprints. Or when you link to such a hacktacular site in support of the utterly ridiculous claim that Bush is even in the same league as Gore when it comes to “doing something” about the environment (tho’ I admit that I have made the perhaps undeserved assumption that we are talking about “doing something” that protects, rather than harms, the environment). And the claim that you care about hypocrisy while making a crack about missing the irony? Rich, indeed.

    And if you’re going to try the faux-civility bit, at least be good at it. You just look silly, at the moment.

  20. I believe Brian’s point was that one would think those who profess to be concerned about the environment would worry a little more about their gross carbon output more than merely the net.

    As one who doesn’t subscribe to the sermons preached by the Church of Global Warming, I couldn’t care less how much carbon Gore burns other than to point out his delicious hypocrisy.

  21. Jon–LOL! That would probably hurt! I’ll cease immediately, though I do prefer to be hit with incandescents, if it were to become necessary… :)

    MB–Obviously we disagree, in every sense of the word. I won’t belittle you so much as to say that we can “agree to disagree,” so much as I’ll just leave it at us disagreeing. I *can* assure you, though, that this *is* how civil I am. Always. Waldo can attest to that. If it grates on you, perhaps it’s a problem on the receiver’s end — I don’t hear many complaints from the other readers. (Of course, that could just be them ignoring me. Sacre Bleu! :) )

    Waldo–Far be it from me to be the cause of this blog tipping over! :)

    Judge Smails–As always, we are in complete agreement. Thanks for the defence, sir!

    Regards,
    Brian

  22. I’m glad you asked that, Brian — we heat non-exclusively with wood. Basically any day that it’s not going to get above freezing, we’ve got the stove going 24/7. I have no idea of how to figure out how many pounds of CO2 that each log generates, but you’re right to consider it. It’s got to be substantial.

Comments are closed.