Is your footprint above or below average? And do you care?

[Cam77]

Is your carbon footprint above or below the national average - and if it’s above do you feel bad about it? There are some good calculators online which quiz you on every aspect of you lifestyle. For what it’s worth I’m below average on most metrics - food consumption, energy usage (average sized home with good rating), don’t drive (work from home), only one kid, etc. However, I do fly a fair bit including one long haul every couple of years (12 hour return flight to visit family) - and that alone bumps me right back up to around the national average. I feel kind of bad about it, but there you go.

Devereux I'm out then - you're arguing for the sake of it. I don't have all the answers to the very specific questions you have raised but I have committed to doing as much as I can to help the situation and when the experts on documentaries etc say that everything we do as individuals does make a difference then I chose to believe that rather than make excuses as to why I can't believe them because they haven't answered every single question I might have.

Each to his own - unfortunately

Above average, 11.8 according to that quiz from the first page. I'm disappointed in myself and I do try. I've not flown for years, I'd love to walk more but live rurally and 5 miles from town. I guess if I didn't have kids I could cycle but the hill home might kill me off. My electricity usage is sky high. I want to reduce that and I feel like my heating is constantly on. We have high ceilings and getting the house warm is hard. Right now I'm in leggings, a long sleeved top, jumper and dressing gown and only just comfy with the heating on. I'm making excuses I know. I do care and want to be better

kjhkj
I'm out then - you're arguing for the sake of it.

What does that even mean? I have asked you the most basic questions possible about your stance. You admit you have no idea. You're clearly a bit embarrassed about that, I understand.

I have committed to doing as much as I can to help the situation
There you go again. Yet when I ask you the most basic question about how do you know it will help, you say you don't know. So, if you don't know how it will help, what are you committing to then?

I also ask you again, why did you make a false claim about me and call me a climate denier?

Mine came out at 112% on wwf. But it doesn't take into consideration children so if you share it out per person I expect it's a lot better.

We are very conscious, recycling, energy saving, buying local when possible, electric car, no flights...

But I can't reduce usage of things or get a two bed house when we have 5 kids living in it as well as two adults! I realise they have a high footprint, but that's not mine and I can't kill them off to reduce it!

Would it be different now? Probably not, only three are mine, last was an "impossible" baby, so unplanned. I certainly never planned a household with 5 children, but that's how life goes.

The thing with that quiz is if you bought a new washing machine every 2 years but one of them wasn't last year you come out better than someone who kept one for 15yrs but it broke last year - clearly common sense says that's not true
If you use 10000kWh of 'green' energy is that better than someone who uses 1000kWh of standard electricity?
A 5bed passive house v. A leaky 2 bed uninsulated terrace which is better for a family with 2 adults?
These issues often have a lot of overlap, grey areas and compromise which is where simple quizzes don't work.

Yeh there definitely are grey areas. Also my last sofa was second hand for free. So it's lasted the family before me and I have had it at least seven years so i don't see it as a bad thing I have bought a new suite this year..

57% below average apparently, but I'm not sure how accurate that is...? I did the bulb one.

We don't really fly. I have flown once, short haul, in the past year for an emergency. Never fly long haul. I am a SAHM and I rarely use my car or public transport. Walk almost everywhere. We don't eat much meat or dairy and we use a green energy provider in our modern mid terrace, (yes, bland and so LMC dahling, but efficient), so doesn't take much to heat it etc.

I'm also on a "no new clothes till summer" thing. So that reduced it a bit too I think.

There are lots of grey areas. Is it better to use plastic bottles because they are light and recyclable or glass because they are recyclable but much heavier so cost more to transport?

Is it better to eat meat from down the road or vegan substitutes from across the globe?

Just two examples.

@Devereux1 why are you attacking @kjhkj ?
I haven't read the full thread yet but from what I see the poster is just using common sense not stating actual facts but things which are probably likely. As in...if we all reduce waste, eat less meat, fly less that will do something towards helping the fucking disaster that's ok our way.

What's your problem?
From what I read we need to really be at net carbon emissions by something like 2030 so that the planets temperature doesn't increase by 1.5 degrees when I think whatever happens at that point is irreversible and will cause huge climate issues over the world.
Itll have to be industry that makes the biggest changes and maybe government to tell us how we can help but I think it is common sense to know if we reduce our waste and basically live a little less luxuriously then that will go a little way to helping the cause.
What do you think?

I was 143%. I don't eat meat, fish or dairy. And I use the train for work. But I went on 3 holidays last year and spend lots of money on crap 😬

I did a quiz online.

Mine is lower than the UK average which surprised me as I don't consider myself very "eco".

Where I scored poorly was heating my home to above 18 degrees in winter and living in a 3 bedroom house when there is only 2 people in it.

Horehound
why are you attacking @kjhkj**?

We live in astonishingly strange and woke times where asking someone who gives a list of things we could do to reduce climate change, how doing that list would reduce climate change is considered attacking them.

LOL at all the people outraged that they're over target despite having dogs rather than kids - a dog's carbon footprint is higher than a child's.

What?

Of course a dogs carbon footprint isn't bigger than a child's ffs

Dogs don't buy tech or leave lights on, they don't have jobs they need to drive to or go on holiday. They live far shorter lives and don't need clothes or nappies or schooling, they don't need computers and they won't grow up to need a house to support themselves when they are older.

@Devereux1 oh ffs you have consistently picked them up, been a patronising twonk and now play defensive when being called out on your bullying. That's how your posts come across...as a bully.

I assume you don't understand that every single thing we buy has a carbon emission and therefore by reducing anything we do buy = less carbon emissions

I have no idea and frankly it is not something that I think about at all

Dogs don't buy tech or leave lights on, they don't have jobs they need to drive to or go on holiday. They live far shorter lives and don't need clothes or nappies or schooling, they don't need computers and they won't grow up to need a house to support themselves when they are older.

You're right.

However, dogs need poo bags for their entire lives while most babies no longer need nappies when they are a few years old. That's not to say they have a bigger carbon footprint than babies; I'm pretty sure they don't. But they do eat mainly meat and big dogs eat quite a lot of it. So they do have a fairly big carbon footprint. I'm sure it said on QI ages ago that getting rid of the dog is the best thing a family of four can do for the environment, over getting rid of a car etc*. Don't know how true it is and I've been lied to by QI before. Sobs <
"why Stephen? Whyyyyy"? Ahem. Sorry.

*before anyone says "the best thing they could do is not have children", getting rid of the existing children in a family of four, isn't really an option, once they are on the planet!

I just took the wwf survey for accuracy, though I’m not sure it was entirely fair in its results as I marked down I didn’t offset my flights after stating I take no flights, and that answer increased my footprint a little

I retook the test and changed my answer to say I carbon offset all my flights, despite answering that I took no flights in the previous question. I felt it was unfairly scored otherwise.

Mine was below average (83%) because we’re vegetarian, don’t fly, commute by train/walk, have a small terraced house, try not to consume & waste stuff (don’t buy loads - gadgets, electrical, toys, clothes etc, try to get locally sourced food, avoid single use anything, recycle blah blah) BUT we have pets, four children, spend a fortune on internet/phone & keep the house warm (20oC). There’s nothing much more we could do that would be easy/wouldn’t affect our standard of life so I guess I’m just as selfish as everyone else!

However, dogs need poo bags for their entire lives

You can't seriously be arguing that poo bags add up to a comparable amount of plastic waste that a human child uses?

Human babies might grow out of nappies but then they start eating food that comes in plastic, playing with plastic toys, wearing clothes with plastic in them and on and on.

I agree that I think it's a bit silly to say to people who have children that the best thing they could have done was not to have them; but a PP saying that having a dog is worse than having a child is what I was commenting on.

FWIW I don't have children or dogs.

Does anyone have any information on which meat and dairy is the best to eat if you are going to eat meat but still want to try and be eating the least worst thing..

I eat a lot of lamb and cheese.

I know no meat and dairy at all is probably best. I have various food allergies and intolerances and generally really struggle with staying healthy and gaining/maintaining a normal weight. I was a vegetarian and then a vegan for some years but my weight plummeted and I became quite unwell.

You can't seriously be arguing that poo bags add up to a comparable amount of plastic waste that a human child uses?

No, I'm not. Reread my post.

No, I'm not. Reread my post.

Then what was the point of your post?

I hadn't said dogs don't have a carbon footprint, I was replying to a poster who said that they had a BIGGER footprint than a child.

Then you said babies don't use nappies for the rest of their lives but dogs do use poo bags for the rest of their lives.
This appeared that you were saying the two were comparable.

For clarity, as I already said, YOU ARE RIGHT TO SAY THAT DOGS HAVE A SMALLER CARBON FOOTPRINT THAN HUMAN CHILDREN. Ahem. Scuse caps and all, but I mean really. How much clearer could I have been and you still didn't get it.

My point was, that although dogs probably have a smaller carbon footprint than humans, it is still a big carbon footprint for something which many people would view as a luxury. I know someone will say that children are a luxury too, but once they are on the planet, they are human beings.

People who prioritise the lives of their fur babies over human children give me the creeps, big time, but I know they exist and each to their own etc. But you can't get rid of an existing child. That's called murder. You can get rid of dogs, (not that I would, but I certainly wouldn't replace one once it died). That's my personal choice though and I love dogs and grew up in a household with dogs, but that's my small sacrifice. I wouldn't have a dog as a pet. Also, there is a moral issue over keeping animals as pets full stop for some people. I'm not sure I totally disagree with them.