Twitching and your carbon footprint. (1 Viewer)

[tittletattler]

I'm starting to think that the moderators have got a sense of humour, even 'Notso'.

Why do they keep deleting my comments about John Dixon's hair?

 

[Boomer]

My guess would be 30lbs of pure (ish) carbon + twice that much oxygen (the di-oxide bit of the CO2 . . .) = considerably more than 30lbs (unless oxygen weighs zero lbs, unlikly I guess)

2 bits of Oxygen have been taken out of the atmosphere, then churned out with a bit of Carbon attached.

I'm wondering how much space (volume) that takes up though in the atmosphere though, as it seem sa bit awkward to think of gases in terms of weight . . . . (ie a balloon full of air weighs almost next to nothing)

Am I on the right lines???

EDIT: Unless maybe I'm talking about the Carbon Dioxide footprint???

2nd EDIT: Or just a load of hot air??

I would think that carbon footprint pollutants would be measured by their mass, not by there buoyancy relative to the atmosphere. Otherwise, many pollutants would have a negative net value. Neat idea, and one that would be loved by some of the world's worst pollutors (or is it polluters?). Best Wishes. :t:
Ron

 

[John P]

My guess would be 30lbs of pure (ish) carbon + twice that much oxygen (the di-oxide bit of the CO2 . . .) = considerably more than 30lbs (unless oxygen weighs zero lbs, unlikly I guess)

I thought vehicle exhaust was Carbon Monoxide, but anyway, school remembered physics tells me that I can't get something out of nothing.

The math sure does look a bit off. Maybe that's also taking into account the carbon footprint of extracting, refining, shipping and distributing (pumping at the pump) the fuel...in addition to the carbon footprint of all the equipment produced to do all of the above...in addition to the carbon footprint of all the road construction...in addition to the carbon footprint of all the maintenance for all of the above...etc, etc, (averaged out to a 'carbon footprint unit per mile' multiplied by the number of miles driven). There definitely would be 'hidden carbon footprint values' that WOULD need to be taken into account, but...then again, it could just be bad math.

Isn't that someone else's carbon footprint? Or does this mean that when I drive to work in my van the carbon footprint is not mine but the persons I'm working for?

Actually the figures are worse than stated last night, the multimap journey was only 140 miles for 30 ks carbon without my detours.

I haven't flown since 1954 so I'm well in credit anyway. o

 

[Boomer]

I thought vehicle exhaust was Carbon Monoxide, but anyway, school remembered physics tells me that I can't get something out of nothing.





Isn't that someone else's carbon footprint? Or does this mean that when I drive to work in my van the carbon footprint is not mine but the persons I'm working for?

Actually the figures are worse than stated last night, the multimap journey was only 140 miles for 30 ks carbon without my detours.

I haven't flown since 1954 so I'm well in credit anyway. o

Great question!
I'm not exactly sure how 'carbon footprint' is measured, but if I were doing the measuring, I would have to take into consideration the infrastructure & components. So, instead of just measuring the actual gallons (or liters) of fuel consumed during transit, I would also take into consideration ALL of the 'carbon footprint units' required to produce & maintain that infrastructure & components (manufacturing plants, parts, tires, wear & tear on those parts & tires, transportation of all of the parts, etc, etc.). Then I would have to come up with a figure that would take into account ALL of the people that used that infrastructure (and equipment). When I had ALL of the data compiled, I would be able to come up with a reasonable 'carbon footprint unit' per 'person mile driven' (regardless of the destination or purpose of trip).

Maybe if we looked at it differently:
If I burn a kilo of coal (to warm my house)...is my 'carbon footprint' just THAT kilo of coal (turned into the resulting carbon/oxygen molecules)?...
...No, I think that one needs to consider:

• ALL of the 'carbon footprint units' that resulted from mining THAT kilo of coal,
• ALL of the 'carbon footprint units' that resulted from transporting THAT kilo of coal,
• ALL of the 'carbon footprint units' that went into the manufacturing of my fireplace/furnace that were used to burn THAT kilo of coal,
• ALL of the 'carbon footprint units' for the infrastructure that resulted from THAT kilo of coal,
• ALL of the 'carbon footprint units' (as fumes) that resulted from burning THAT kilo of coal.

If the 'carbon footprint' for burning THAT kilo of coal already factors in ALL of the above, then there is redundancy. If not, then the ACTUAL 'carbon footprint' for burning THAT kilo of coal is somewhat higher.

I am not saying that the carbon footprint of the ENTIRE furnace is factored in to burn THAT kilo of coal. I am saying that one ONLY has to consider the carbon footprint of the PORTION of the furnace used to burn THAT kilo of coal. In other words, if the life expectancy of the furnace is 100 kilos of coal (obviously it's much higher than that), then burning THAT kilo of coal would result in 1% of the TOTAL carbon footprint of the furnace. Same for the mining, transportation, infrastructure, distribution, etc.

It's the same way with a car. The ACTUAL carbon footprint of using that car is not just the fuel consumed. One also needs to consider the infrastucture & components (roads, manufacturing plants, gas/fuel stations, tires, parts, etc.) that enables that car to run.

What I AM saying, is that there is NO way to figure out what one's carbon footprint actually is...during any activity, twitching or otherwise (too many variables & unknowns)...but, it IS considerably higher than just the amount of fuel consumed to do that activity. It is NOT a one to one ratio...there IS a 'multiplier'...maybe that 'multiplier' is fractional :-O (hopefully), and not exponential :eek!: (God help us!).

WOW!...Now I'm totally confused:h?:

Getting back to the topic of the thread (Mannix, I keep trying), there simply is NO way to figure out what the NET carbon footprint value is for twitching, just as ther is NO way to figure out what one's NET carbon footprint value is for ANY activity. There are far too many variables involved (and unknowns)..but it is MUCH higher than we REALIZE. But we ARE making progress, and we WILL continue to reduce our carbon footprint...we simply have no other choice!
Best Wishes To All. :t:

Ron

 

[dantheman]

What I AM saying, is that there is NO way to figure out what one's carbon footprint actually is...during any activity, twitching or otherwise (too many variables & unknowns)...but, it IS considerably higher than just the amount of fuel consumed to do that activity. It is NOT a one to one ratio...there IS a 'multiplier'...maybe that 'multiplier' is fractional :-O (hopefully), and not exponential :eek!: (God help us!).

WOW!...Now I'm totally confused:h?:

Getting back to the topic of the thread (Mannix, I keep trying), there simply is NO way to figure out what the NET carbon footprint value is for twitching, just as ther is NO way to figure out what one's NET carbon footprint value is for ANY activity. There are far too many variables involved (and unknowns)..but it is MUCH higher than we REALIZE. But we ARE making progress, and we WILL continue to reduce our carbon footprint...we simply have no other choice!
Best Wishes To All. :t:

Ron

I Disagree!!!!

However, it would take someone a long time to try and work out the figures, there would be some approximations made, and, hence the final figure would not be totally accurate. But I believe it should be possible to get it fairly close. . .

Eg for the manufacture of the furnace, say, the total carbon footprint of it's manufacture should be calcuable (mining, smelting, transport, retailing etc). Let's say 100kg of carbon (Still not sure if that is Carbon released into the atmosphere, or CO2 btw!! ). But in the lifetime of the domestic furnace (say 30 years, burning 2 tonnes of coal a year, 100kg is a very small percentage of 60,000 kg (30*2000kg), so negligible and we can ignore it (!) (ok, about 0.2% then)

For a car, I'd imagine the carbon footprint of the total manufacture would be a lot higher, eg 2 tonnes of carbon in total. Life of car = 100,000 miles. 40mpg, say 10 miles per litre, say 1 litre of fuel weighs 0.8 kg, that's 10,000 litres at 0.8 kg per litre, ie 8 tonnes of C released in the lifetime of the car (double that as the carbon footprint websites indicate it is more per mile).

In this case, the manufacture of the car would come out as something roughly like 12.5% that of the fuel used to power the car.
ie NOT negligible
I'm sure the figures for fuel aquisition and refining ,transport, transport and retail are out there too . . . . . somewhere! (Or we could try and work them out, let's see, hmmm, maybe not right now . . . :eek!: )



(Apologies if my figures are approx, no prizes for spotting any errors, like in the order of magnitude range for example . .)

(*Join the The Bad Science Society today- no previous experience necessary!!!!)

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

I Disagree!!!!

But I Agree!!!!

However, it would take someone a long time to try and work out the figures

Everything is interconnected. The task of tracing back every input to the process of an end-user consumer burning a gallon of gas in their car must include things like:

1. What is the carbon footprint of the gallon of gas the workers that scrape the barnacles off the oil tankers expend on their way to work?
2. What is the carbon footprint of the plant that made the tools the workers use to scrape barnacles?
3. What is the carbon footprint of the iron smelter that produced the tools the workers used to scrape the barnacles?
4. What is the carbon footprint of the gallon of gas the workers at the iron smelting plant expend on their way to work?
5. etc., etc.

And notice how #1 and #4 includes calculating the carbon footprint for a gallon of gas. We end up with near infinite regression here.

Sure, there are models that conveniently define set values for such things, but if they are going to approximate the exact same values that they are trying to derive (what the carbon footprint is for burning a gallon of gas) then what is the point?

I doubt anyone will read this because it will probably be deleted, but at least I tried....

 

[dantheman]

But the carbon footprint for #1 to #5 would be very low figures, comparitively. . . we're talking about millions of gallons of oil here. (Of course they do become relevant when talking about millions of car drivers in the world.) They could be factored in, but compared to the major figures (The fuel burnt in actually getting the car from A to B, the initial manufacture of the car and the total refining, transport and retail of the gallon of petrol), we could safely ignore them if we're trying to get a rough figure for the average Mr Twitchabit travelling from A to B for the latest rare.

I'm sure there are resources out there showing average figures for the average barnacle-scraping worker, carbon footprint of manufacture of said workers tupperware lunchbox etc. But there comes a point where you have to stop . . .

And what's all this about deleted posts? (hair today, gone tomorrow . . ). I feel somehow cheated and excluded from all the fun . . . (again). Violated even . . .

 

[Boomer]

I Disagree!!!!

However, it would take someone a long time to try and work out the figures, there would be some approximations made, and, hence the final figure would not be totally accurate. But I believe it should be possible to get it fairly close. . .

Eg for the manufacture of the furnace, say, the total carbon footprint of it's manufacture should be calcuable (mining, smelting, transport, retailing etc). Let's say 100kg of carbon (Still not sure if that is Carbon released into the atmosphere, or CO2 btw!! ). But in the lifetime of the domestic furnace (say 30 years, burning 2 tonnes of coal a year, 100kg is a very small percentage of 60,000 kg (30*2000kg), so negligible and we can ignore it (!) (ok, about 0.2% then)

For a car, I'd imagine the carbon footprint of the total manufacture would be a lot higher, eg 2 tonnes of carbon in total. Life of car = 100,000 miles. 40mpg, say 10 miles per litre, say 1 litre of fuel weighs 0.8 kg, that's 10,000 litres at 0.8 kg per litre, ie 8 tonnes of C released in the lifetime of the car (double that as the carbon footprint websites indicate it is more per mile).

In this case, the manufacture of the car would come out as something roughly like 12.5% that of the fuel used to power the car.
ie NOT negligible
I'm sure the figures for fuel aquisition and refining ,transport, transport and retail are out there too . . . . . somewhere! (Or we could try and work them out, let's see, hmmm, maybe not right now . . . :eek!: )


(Apologies if my figures are approx, no prizes for spotting any errors, like in the order of magnitude range for example . .)

Dan,
I greatly enjoyed reading your report about your recent trip to the Eastern USA. :t:

I am not saying that the 'multiplier' that I mentioned in my earlier post is a large value. I am saying that there is one, and it probably is fractional...but, how large or how small is that fraction?

I was just trying to explain how the carbon footprint for John P's twitching trip to Sussex might have been computed. He thought that the carbon footprint figure for his trip was too high (and I tend to agree).

I don't even like the term 'carbon footprint' as I believe that the use of the term (and concept) tends to focus on the smaller picture of one's impact on the environment while participating in an activity or consuming a product. A look at 'carbon footprint' in Wikipedia simply adds to the confusion. Some people view 'carbon footprint' as just the greenhouse gases (not just CO2) resulting from that activity or product...others view 'carbon footprint' as ALL the greenhouse gases resulting from ALL activities and products resulting from that activity or product, and ALL activities and products used to produce that product, and ALL activities and products used to produce those products that produced that product (etc, etc, etc.)...and then averaged out for the life expectancy of each product, so that a value is established for each...and then that value is applied (as a 'multiplier') for each mile driven (or other activity/product).

Let's look at driving a car for 1 mile:

Scenario A:
The carbon footprint is:

• Just the fuel burned

Scenario B:
The carbon footprint is:

• The fuel burned
• The portion of the car used

Scenario C:
The carbon footprint is:

• The fuel burned
• The portion of the car used
• The portion of the infrastucture used

Scenario D:
The carbon footprint is:

• The fuel burned
• The portion of the infrastructure & equipment used to produce, transport, market and distrbute that fuel
• The portion of the infrastucture & equipment used to produce, transport, market and distribute the infrastucture & equipment used for the above
• Etc, etc, etc.........
• The portion of the car used
• The portion of the infrastructure & equipment....that car
• Etc, etc, etc.........:eek!:

Obviously under scenario D, the carbon footprint is higher than C, the cf for C higher than B, and B higher than A. Under scenario D, how can a specific value for cf be accurately determined? Every person that paricipated in the mining of the materials, production of the metals & fuel, marketing of same, distribution of same, etc. had to commute to those mines, oil wells, plants, retail stores, etc. All those people were also using vehicles (for that commute) that would also have to be inclusive in the cf....etc, etc, etc. As you mentioned, "But there comes a point where you have to stop..."

Again, I don't even like using the term 'carbon footprint,' because it tends to focus on the smaller picture, unless scenario D is used to its fullest...and then it becomes too depressing :-C.

I will again end by referencing the OP. I think that one should consider their carbon footprint (ugh!) during twitching, just as one should consider their carbon footprint (ugh! again) during ANY activity. I also believe that we will find better ways of travel...who knows?...maybe a generation or two down the road people will say, "we all owe our clean green earth to those brilliant people :brainsn BF for their insight and persverence."
(thanks Mannix :clap.

Best Wishes and Cheers B ,

Ron o

 

[Jos Stratford]

Let's look at driving a car for 1 mile:
.................
.................

I must be okay then, I only ever do kilometres

 

[Boomer]

I must be okay then, I only ever do kilometres

LOL, I cosidered using 'kilometres'...but, out of cosideration for you, I opted to use 'mile.'

Also, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything that Dan, Terry, others or myself have posted on this thread. It is difficult for me to choose which side of the fence that I'm on, when I am reluctant to recognize the fence.

Thanks for the good laugh, and trying to lighten up this thread. :t:

Ron

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

But the carbon footprint for #1 to #5 would be very low figures, comparitively. . .

Yes, but if you continue to calculate the regression you will see that, because everything is interconnected, the number becomes significant.

I guess it is a manifestation of Xeno's Paradox where each step involves a positive but ever decreasing value.

 

[dantheman]

Dan,
I greatly enjoyed reading your report about your recent trip to the Eastern USA. :t:

Why thankyou kind sir :t: That reminds me I didn't even get to finish it ....(probably getting on for more hours at the keyboard than actually out in the field . . .) Will have to go one day soon, and have another look rather than blathering on elsewhere on BF (but why change the habits of this lifetime??!!)

I must be okay then, I only ever do kilometres

You don't get out of it that easily Jos - let's just multiply the end result by a factor of 1.6 (or be generous and round it up to 2 in your case :t: ). (Given the 'moral' harm to the environment you inflict by your unswerving and blinkered attitude . . (lol !!) )

---

All this attempt at calculation, I'm sure there must be a lot of it done already on t'internet somewhere (I got an E in A-level physics, and an N (That's 'N' for 'Nearly' I believe) for the maths one . . .

 

[dantheman]

I guess it is a manifestation of Xeno's Paradox where each step involves a positive but ever decreasing value.

Crumbs, looking at that, seems there's a possibility that you could have a zero carbon footprint . . .

"Zeno's paradoxes are a set of problems devised by Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides's doctrine that "all is one" and that, contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion."

There's another cop-out Jos

 

[kristoffer]

Easiest way to really reduce your carbon footprint is to stoping eating meat (since it´s the really big badguy in globalwarming) and fly as seldom as possible instead of feeling bad about driving your car.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Easiest way to really reduce your carbon footprint is to stoping eating meat .

However, in the bigger scale of things, is this so good, at least in the European context.

Which landuses tend to support the greatest diversity of wildlife - arable or mixed farmland/livestock?

 

[Jos Stratford]

You don't get out of it that easily Jos - let's just multiply the end result by a factor of 1.6 (or be generous and round it up to 2 in your case :t: ). (Given the 'moral' harm to the environment you inflict by your unswerving and blinkered attitude

Maybe I could just disconnect the kilometre counter?


However, in the meantime, I have a confession - I will clock up 3500 km this week, plus a return ferry in the middle. Gee, with the carbon footprint of so many tonnes, I begin to worry the ferry might sink...

 

[dantheman]

re Meat Production;

Taken to its extremes of burning down the Brazilian rainforest for beef production for hamburgers etc, yep, v bad for the environment.

On a more local scale, you can't really compare bad practises of each. A series of small scale farms (smallholdings/ allotments if you will) with a wide variety of crops will hold much greater diversity and numbers of birds and other wildlife. . . .

 

[dantheman]

Maybe I could just disconnect the kilometre counter?


However, in the meantime, I have a confession - I will clock up 3500 km this week, plus a return ferry in the middle. Gee, with the carbon footprint of so many tonnes, I begin to worry the ferry might sink...

That should do it . . .

Enjoy your trip, it's actually only a tiny proportion of the total billions (?) of km the human race will be covering this week . . .

(Jos, the patron saint of the ostriches )

 

[Jos Stratford]

fly as seldom as possible instead of feeling bad about driving your car.

Another however. If I understand, the idea here is that you cut your flying, then congratulate yourself by driving without worry. Though anti-flying is the popular bandwagon to jump aboard, I think there is a flaw to the above quote. Example, from Vilnius, there is a scheduled flight to my destination this weekend. I could then rent a car and do a few local kilometres. Alternatively, as I am actually doing, I can drive the whole lot - 3500 km, plus. The plane will still go regardess whether I am on it or not.

So, which has the smaller impact in this case? Flying of course.


Yeah, yeah, someone will say the flight only goes because of demand and if nobody wanted to use the plane, then it wouldn't ...but this is the real world, that plane will go come what may. Anyhow, the alternative would be horrific -eg from the Baltic States, a few hundred planes depart west every morning and evening - you want all those people displaced onto the roads, all squeezing through the narrow botteneck into the rest of Europe? It would require massive road building schemes and, eg the protected reserves already under pressure in Poland, woud stand little chance.

 

[Jos Stratford]

(Jos, the patron saint of the ostriches )

Now that I do like


However, not that I care two hoots for any reputation I might or might not have, I am actually (if I were to believe the statistics of all the offset schemes), not just carbon neutral, but in heavy deficit - last year I planted over 400 trees, this year a poxy 20 or so.