Your favourite carbon footprint calculator?
20 views
Skip to first unread message
orschiro
Sep 17, 2019, 3:20:21 AM9/17/19
to SCORAI
Anyone has tested several calculators that are out there?
Thanks!
Which one is your favourite and why?
Thanks!
Richard Rosen
Sep 17, 2019, 9:17:37 AM9/17/19
to Robert Orzanna, SCORAI
The conceptual problem with using carbon footprint calculators is that there is no longer any sustainable level of carbon emissions. There is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere, so all carbon emissions have to go to zero over the next 20 years, or sooner. --- Rich Rosen
--
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/9235cf30-7439-455a-9f93-b9a69dd171a1%40googlegroups.com.
Robert Orzanna
Sep 17, 2019, 9:21:17 AM9/17/19
to Richard Rosen, SCORAI
Satu Lähteenoja
Sep 17, 2019, 9:50:47 AM9/17/19
to orsc...@gmail.com, Richard Rosen, SCORAI
Hi,
In the Nordic context, this calculator is simple and short and works well: https://lifestyletest.sitra.fi/
the calculator of Compensate is rough but you can choose a country of living: https://compensate.com/start-test (And this Compensate initiative in general is very interesting).
Best from Helsinki,
Satu
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CALvXOtAFaGfvbgMW%2BozhJ34zyU_0d1j1VmuevquDv%2BhF9bnDMw%40mail.gmail.com.
Satu Lähteenoja
Senior Expert
Demos Helsinki
Skype: satusll
Twitter: @satulahteenoja
Tom Bowerman
Sep 17, 2019, 10:57:19 AM9/17/19
to rrose...@gmail.com, Robert Orzanna, SCORAI
Answer: Cool Climate Calculator, out of UC Berkeley:
https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/calculator
Although I agree with Rich Rosen on about everything else, on his dismissive comment about carbon calculation I must dissent, even if his objection is "conceptual". What are you saying Rich? That it's too late to make a difference so why track ourselves or our society? Or are you saying that zero is the only option, so why count? Or something else altogether?
Let me assume the better of my guesses - that he's saying we need to be at zero, so why count? How are you doing Rich? Are you at zero or better? How do you know? Or are you a shrugger of the shoulders, effectively operating with impunity because it's too hopeless?
Most of the emission pessimists I know (I'm one too), who remain working on public policy take the position that "it's not if the consequences will be catastrophic, rather how bad will it be". Consequently, work remains to be done to minimize what is projected to be bad, and to do so we employ various aspects of measurement. By analogy, a company in the throws of bankruptcy may indeed stop counting the balance sheet, but the judicial settlement of accounts will then step in and administer the accounting. Our political system is yet in denial of social-wide accounting but as in prior human history, the precursors of federal bankruptcy were operationalized on more localized administration. This is where we are now, notwithstanding grave concerns that it may be too little too late. Nonetheless, none of us can say with certainty "how bad" or "how late" we are, can we? It may not be as bad as we imagine and better to practice proper behavior than accept defeat before we know.
So, to Orschiro's question, what is my preferred carbon calculator? It is presently California's Cool Climate Calculator. First we must decide if we're computing our personal, household, state, national, or worldwide emissions.
First I will assume the question involves personal emissions. My choice of calculator is based on a series of tests my research group conducted. In 2014, five of us tested 14 different calculators in a systematic method and recorded the findings. The calculators varied in emission attribution by at least an order of magnitude, in otherwords, the various offerings did not exhibit anything close to exactitude. None of the calculators were wholly satisfactory while some were dismally deficient. One, the "Shrink that Footprint" based out of the UK was exceptionally good although it ceased to function about five years ago; last I checked you could still visit their excellent website but it's all but dead. In my studied opinion, the California Cool Climate Calculator is the best of the lot. It has both a "basic" and "advanced" option, the first assuming some default assumptions based on general behaviors and the more advanced based on putting in greater level of detail.
One must be aware when using any calculator as to whether the entry represents individual or household. If the calculator is ambiguous, just remember that if you live in a household of two or more, if you put in the household values, you will obtain the household emission level, which you would divide by the number of household members if you choose to compare yourself to the normal publicized emission per capita in our country.
Our research on carbon calculators started in 2014 has been updated several times, most recently this year. I have a simple matrix table of our group's testing of the calculators we could find although I don't think this listserve handles attachments. So if you like, I can send this table on request as well as several working papers about the legitimacy and utilization of carbon offsets.
Carbon offsets are culturally contested, to be sure. Mostly I find the objectors of offsets haven't taken the time to really examine if or how they function, so it isn't too surprising these naysayers are prematurely dismissive. For myself, I purchase carbon offsets each year about tax filing time, when I typically have a lot of family expense data open anyway, and I purchase for my wife and self as well as my two grown children - feeling somewhat responsible for my own contribution to the problem of climate instability and stress.
Second, because I work in the arena of public policy, I maintain some tracking of statewide and national emissions. For this I typically convert results to a per capita emission comparision because I'm interested in which jurisdictions have reduction goals and policies as well as attempting to deduce which policies are working to reduce emissions.
Documents on request.
Tom Bowerman, PolicyInteractive Research
Although I agree with Rich Rosen on about everything else, on his dismissive comment about carbon calculation I must dissent, even if his objection is "conceptual". What are you saying Rich? That it's too late to make a difference so why track ourselves or our society? Or are you saying that zero is the only option, so why count? Or something else altogether?
Let me assume the better of my guesses - that he's saying we need to be at zero, so why count? How are you doing Rich? Are you at zero or better? How do you know? Or are you a shrugger of the shoulders, effectively operating with impunity because it's too hopeless?
Most of the emission pessimists I know (I'm one too), who remain working on public policy take the position that "it's not if the consequences will be catastrophic, rather how bad will it be". Consequently, work remains to be done to minimize what is projected to be bad, and to do so we employ various aspects of measurement. By analogy, a company in the throws of bankruptcy may indeed stop counting the balance sheet, but the judicial settlement of accounts will then step in and administer the accounting. Our political system is yet in denial of social-wide accounting but as in prior human history, the precursors of federal bankruptcy were operationalized on more localized administration. This is where we are now, notwithstanding grave concerns that it may be too little too late. Nonetheless, none of us can say with certainty "how bad" or "how late" we are, can we? It may not be as bad as we imagine and better to practice proper behavior than accept defeat before we know.
So, to Orschiro's question, what is my preferred carbon calculator? It is presently California's Cool Climate Calculator. First we must decide if we're computing our personal, household, state, national, or worldwide emissions.
First I will assume the question involves personal emissions. My choice of calculator is based on a series of tests my research group conducted. In 2014, five of us tested 14 different calculators in a systematic method and recorded the findings. The calculators varied in emission attribution by at least an order of magnitude, in otherwords, the various offerings did not exhibit anything close to exactitude. None of the calculators were wholly satisfactory while some were dismally deficient. One, the "Shrink that Footprint" based out of the UK was exceptionally good although it ceased to function about five years ago; last I checked you could still visit their excellent website but it's all but dead. In my studied opinion, the California Cool Climate Calculator is the best of the lot. It has both a "basic" and "advanced" option, the first assuming some default assumptions based on general behaviors and the more advanced based on putting in greater level of detail.
One must be aware when using any calculator as to whether the entry represents individual or household. If the calculator is ambiguous, just remember that if you live in a household of two or more, if you put in the household values, you will obtain the household emission level, which you would divide by the number of household members if you choose to compare yourself to the normal publicized emission per capita in our country.
Our research on carbon calculators started in 2014 has been updated several times, most recently this year. I have a simple matrix table of our group's testing of the calculators we could find although I don't think this listserve handles attachments. So if you like, I can send this table on request as well as several working papers about the legitimacy and utilization of carbon offsets.
Carbon offsets are culturally contested, to be sure. Mostly I find the objectors of offsets haven't taken the time to really examine if or how they function, so it isn't too surprising these naysayers are prematurely dismissive. For myself, I purchase carbon offsets each year about tax filing time, when I typically have a lot of family expense data open anyway, and I purchase for my wife and self as well as my two grown children - feeling somewhat responsible for my own contribution to the problem of climate instability and stress.
Second, because I work in the arena of public policy, I maintain some tracking of statewide and national emissions. For this I typically convert results to a per capita emission comparision because I'm interested in which jurisdictions have reduction goals and policies as well as attempting to deduce which policies are working to reduce emissions.
Documents on request.
Tom Bowerman, PolicyInteractive Research
On 9/17/2019 6:17 AM, Richard Rosen
wrote:
The conceptual problem with using carbon footprint calculators is that there is no longer any sustainable level of carbon emissions. There is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere, so all carbon emissions have to go to zero over the next 20 years, or sooner. --- Rich Rosen
-- Tom Bowerman, Director PolicyInteractive 532 Olive Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Desk (preferred) 541 726 7116 Mobile (urgent only) 541 554 6892 www.policyinteractive.org
Philip Vergragt
Sep 17, 2019, 1:25:40 PM9/17/19
to t...@policyinteractive.org, rrose...@gmail.com, Robert Orzanna, SCORAI
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your elaborate answer. A quick question: why does the calculator compare with the average US citizen, rather than with the global sustainable level? Or the global average of this moment?
Philip
From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Bowerman <t...@policyinteractive.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:57:14 AM
To: rrose...@gmail.com <rrose...@gmail.com>; Robert Orzanna <orsc...@gmail.com>
Cc: SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Your favourite carbon footprint calculator?
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:57:14 AM
To: rrose...@gmail.com <rrose...@gmail.com>; Robert Orzanna <orsc...@gmail.com>
Cc: SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Your favourite carbon footprint calculator?
--
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/f64a3f52-c0c3-8864-002b-a6cf16d0e9fe%40policyinteractive.org.
Tom Bowerman
Sep 17, 2019, 3:03:53 PM9/17/19
to Philip Vergragt, SCORAI
Philip, I agree it should be global baseline and as a matter of
personal practice in presentations I do just this. One weakness
with global population comparison is the range of data stretches
from negative to +4 tons per capita in the literature. Another
challenge in advocating for the global sustainable level in general
audience is that it looks like too great a stretch. But at least in
the policy arena the discussion commonly does acknowledge that we
need to get to zero. Zero is something of an abstraction too, but
it does accept that biologic sequestration must be in the equation.
Zero may be an optimal stage to ultimately arrive at, and we
probably need to be negative to get to zero, as odd as that may
seem. That seems impossible to the layperson, and we're having
enough difficulty getting to 20% of 1990 levels to aim for what most
would say is impossible.
The question I tried to answer was which carbon calculator is the best, why it matters, and how to make it useful. My preference is a personal choice, of course.
Tom
The question I tried to answer was which carbon calculator is the best, why it matters, and how to make it useful. My preference is a personal choice, of course.
Tom
Richard Rosen
Sep 18, 2019, 10:15:50 AM9/18/19
to Tom Bowerman, Philip Vergragt, SCORAI
Tom, I did not mean to be dismissive about using a carbon calculator. Underlying my point is the fact that often it is easier to make decisions that zero out carbon usage for various energy end-uses in one's life. For example, the first thing one could do is sign up for 100% renewable electricity if available where you live. The second priority should be to convert you home heating, hot water, and cooking to electricity the next time your furnace, water heater, and stove conks out, or before if you can afford it. The third priority might be to get a hybrid vehicle, or an electric vehicle if you can install a charger next to your parking spot. The fourth might be to fly less. Etc..... Many zero carbon options are a matter of yes/no, and then one doesn't have to worry about whether or not a carbon calculator is accurate or not. Of course, we have little control over the carbon content of manufactured goods. We need laws and regulations to zero those out. We also need to pressure regulators to provide 100% renewable electricity if it is not already available to you. Etc....
---- Rich
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/7df15436-e71a-c210-9147-fc0aca257f16%40policyinteractive.org.
Tom Bowerman
Sep 18, 2019, 1:32:26 PM9/18/19
to rrose...@gmail.com, Philip Vergragt, SCORAI
Rich,
You are right, nobody needs a calculator to tell them that if they stop flying that their flying emissions will be zero. What about all the other things they don't or can't zero out? Your point that it it may be easier to zero out flying or make a decision to go "renewable energy" or "electric car" than take an interactive carbon calculator is dubious. Our testing of 14 carbon calculators finds a range of 2 - 20 minutes of time, not a heavy lift. This investment of time yields insight where one's behaviors count the most and the least and can provoke consideration of how to prioritize changes.
I agree with your conceptual behavior change examples, with caveats. 1) your first, second and third orderings of priority perhaps may be different for different people; for example, one might prioritize an electric car first if they live in a region where renewable energy is already dominant and in surplus in the grid (as it is in our region); other similar examples abound. 2) I'm sure you agree that renewable energy is rarely zero emission for various reasons. 3) Zero out behavior categories can be a step by step approach to achieving a comparatively low impact footprint, and by zero I mean cease the behavior altogether: locate so I don't drive to work, cease flying altogether as a matter of ethical principle, live locally (understandably, academics have a difficult time with this although it appears the main constraints they face are norms and habits more than necessity). 4) 100% renewable energy is not zero footprint or emission, the infrastructure and maintenance appear in all valid life cycle analyses. Substituting an fossil fuel energy source for an electric one should include effort to reduce usage (BTU's) the conventional rule is first evaluate for reductions based on circumstances, conservation, and changeable habits. 5) Offsets can totally zero me out although the conventional rule of thumb is a) the course of last resort and b) not more than 50% of impact through offsets. My computed emissions are about 10% of the U.S. public from a non-profit which meets all the criteria of valid offsets and is ranked 5 star by Charity Navigator. Offsets suffer from maligned criticism although my research finds offsets considerably more valid than Catholic indulgences of the middle ages.
Absolutely, public policy is key in systemic change; the evidence shows that the U.S. population (at large) is selfishly spoiled and non-considered of personal impact behaviors.
Tom B.
You are right, nobody needs a calculator to tell them that if they stop flying that their flying emissions will be zero. What about all the other things they don't or can't zero out? Your point that it it may be easier to zero out flying or make a decision to go "renewable energy" or "electric car" than take an interactive carbon calculator is dubious. Our testing of 14 carbon calculators finds a range of 2 - 20 minutes of time, not a heavy lift. This investment of time yields insight where one's behaviors count the most and the least and can provoke consideration of how to prioritize changes.
I agree with your conceptual behavior change examples, with caveats. 1) your first, second and third orderings of priority perhaps may be different for different people; for example, one might prioritize an electric car first if they live in a region where renewable energy is already dominant and in surplus in the grid (as it is in our region); other similar examples abound. 2) I'm sure you agree that renewable energy is rarely zero emission for various reasons. 3) Zero out behavior categories can be a step by step approach to achieving a comparatively low impact footprint, and by zero I mean cease the behavior altogether: locate so I don't drive to work, cease flying altogether as a matter of ethical principle, live locally (understandably, academics have a difficult time with this although it appears the main constraints they face are norms and habits more than necessity). 4) 100% renewable energy is not zero footprint or emission, the infrastructure and maintenance appear in all valid life cycle analyses. Substituting an fossil fuel energy source for an electric one should include effort to reduce usage (BTU's) the conventional rule is first evaluate for reductions based on circumstances, conservation, and changeable habits. 5) Offsets can totally zero me out although the conventional rule of thumb is a) the course of last resort and b) not more than 50% of impact through offsets. My computed emissions are about 10% of the U.S. public from a non-profit which meets all the criteria of valid offsets and is ranked 5 star by Charity Navigator. Offsets suffer from maligned criticism although my research finds offsets considerably more valid than Catholic indulgences of the middle ages.
Absolutely, public policy is key in systemic change; the evidence shows that the U.S. population (at large) is selfishly spoiled and non-considered of personal impact behaviors.
Tom B.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CABPEFe%3DpV%2Bb7UEQO_NdtgcQufQJuNtAZPdZbEbRuMz6ALZsMrQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Gough,I
Sep 18, 2019, 1:50:32 PM9/18/19
to rrose...@gmail.com, Robert Orzanna, t...@policyinteractive.org, SCORAI
A niggly but important contribution to this discussion....
When comparing personal and household emissions, it is not sufficient to divide by the number of people in the household. This assumes that a baby counts the same as an adult and
that a six-person household 'requires' six times as much emissions as a single person household. Instead the household total needs to be divided by an 'adult equivalent' using an equivalisation scale, on which there is a large social policy research literature.
In an earlier research I used the simple OECD equivalence scale:
First adult 1
Second and subsequent adults 0.5
Children aged 14 and over 0.5
Children under 14 0.3
It is fairly crude but better than making no adjustment. And it makes a great difference when comparing personal carbon or GHG footprints...
Ian
The distribution of total greenhouse gas emissions by households in the UK, and some implications for social policy
Ian Gough, Saamah Abdallah, Victoria Johnson, Josh Ryan-Collins and Cindy Smith
LSE CASE Paper/152, July 2011
From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Bowerman <t...@policyinteractive.org>
Sent: 17 September 2019 15:57
To: rrose...@gmail.com <rrose...@gmail.com>; Robert Orzanna <orsc...@gmail.com>
Cc: SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Your favourite carbon footprint calculator?
--
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de to change to a summary/digest mode.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
- Follow our news on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCORAI_org
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to the monthly newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/f64a3f52-c0c3-8864-002b-a6cf16d0e9fe%40policyinteractive.org.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages