#What is Carbon Footprint Calculation

[slyandthefamilybook]

wait what

Yes, the military employs about 3 million people and yes if you average the numbers out Taylor puts out more CO2 than any one of them. But averages aren't always a valid representation of statistics. The vast majority of military servicemembers don't have any connection to whatever apparati are involved in the military's CO2 production. They're mainly office workers who produce no more emissions than you or I when they, idk, drive to work (not to mention the 3 million number includes civilian contractors who don't do anything for the military that they wouldn't do for any other employer). The average non-military person puts out about 14-15 tons of CO2 per year, which is pretty close to that 17 number. So if we're just going by the average person there isn't much statistical significance to compare Taylor to people in the military vs just regular people. Coca-Cola puts out about 5.5 million tons of CO2 per year and employs roughly 80,000 people, so by average we can determine that any given Coca-Cola employee emits 68.75 tons of CO2 per year, or about 4 times the average military employee (or 0.83 Taylor Swifts). It would make more sense to say "Taylor Swift emits as much CO2 as 12 F-35 jets" or whatever

The US military emitted 640 times as much CO2 as Taylor Swift last year

[emmaameliamiaava]

HCCB - What is Carbon Footprint - Know How to Reduce Carbon Footprint

Know how to calculate & reduce carbon footprint. Explore HCCB's commitment to achieving net zero emissions & effective strategies for reducing carbon footprint.   https://www.hccb.in/blog/csr-stories/what-is-carbon-footprint

[elsa16744]

Understanding What Is a Carbon Footprint: Tips to Reduce Environmental Impact

A carbon footprint measures how our daily actions impact the environment. It includes everything from our commute to the food we eat. But understanding 'what is a carbon footprint' isn't just about curiosity; it's about taking responsibility for our planet. In this guide, we simplify the concept of a carbon footprint and offer practical steps to reduce it. Discover eco-friendly transportation, energy-saving tips, and sustainable choices for a greener lifestyle. Join us in the journey toward a more sustainable future.

[livwritesstuff]

Eddie walks into the kitchen one evening to find Steve supervising their daughters as they work on homework.

Steve’s attention is on Robbie at the moment, and he’s got his hands on his hips as he looks over her shoulder with a questioning look on his face.

This in and of itself isn’t anything unusual, because Robbie’s their kid who tries to get out of homework most often, so it takes a second for Eddie to realize that what Steve is doing is trying to encourage Robbie to do less on an assignment.

Steve: Hon, I really think you just needed to fill out the footprint calculator thing.

Robbie: I’m going above and beyond, Pop.

Eddie: What about just doing the bare minimum with this and all your other homework and then see how you feel?

Robbie: No.

Robbie: I have a vendetta.

Eddie: Okay, against who?

Robbie: Ethan Miller. He wouldn’t shut up about how his family’s gonna have the lowest carbon footprint out of the entire class because his house has solar panels.

Robbie: I wanna prove that we have the lowest.

Steve: Why do you think we have a lower carbon footprint than the Millers?

Robbie: Because you adopted us.

Robbie: So there’s, like, no additional carbon emissions of entire new people.

Robbie: You reduced and reused.

Robbie: I don’t think it could count as recycling.

Steve:

Steve:

Steve, pulling out his laptop: Okay, let’s look into this because Ethan’s mom is really effing annoying about those solar panels and I’d love to be able to one-up her for once.

Eddie: Oh, god.

[headspace-hotel]

data about where carbon emissions are coming from is so frustrating cause there's all kinds of huge, sprawling, just fucking vast breakdowns of What Causes The Most Carbon Emissions Out Of All Everything In The Entire World, but those are aggregations of numerous smaller but still vast aggregations of data, which are processed and polished from various aggregations of crunched numbers, which are patched and pieced together from various studies, estimates and calculations, which are sieved out of numbers crunched from various measurements, estimates and records, which have been collected, estimated or otherwise conceived through an unspeakably huge variety of methodologies with unspeakably huge variety in limitations, reliability and margins of error.

Even if some of the data was very fine-grained at the beginning, it was filtered through some very coarse number-crunching techniques for the sake of the coarse data, so the results are only as good as the wrongest thing you did in any part of this process, but the plans of action are getting thought up from the top down, which makes the whole thing a hot fucking mess.

For example. And I just made this example up. Say you want to know whether apples or potatoes have a worse impact on climate change. So you look at one of these huge ass infographic things. And it says that potatoes are bad, whereas apples are REALLY good, the BEST crop actually. So it's better to eat apples than potatoes, you think to yourself. Actually we should find a way to replace potatoes with apples! We should fund genetic engineering of apples so they have more starch and can replace potatoes. Great idea. Time to get some investors to put $5 billion towards it.

But actually. Where'd they get that conclusion about apples? Well there's this review right here of the carbon footprint of all different fruits, seems legit. Where'd that data come from? Well it's citing this study right here saying that tree-grown crops are better because they sequester carbon, and this study right here about the distance that different fruits get transported, and this study right here where different fertilization systems are compared in terms of their carbon footprint, and this study over here that sampled 300 apple, peach, and orange farmers comparing their irrigation practices and rates of tree mortality, and this study...wow, okay, seems really reliable...

...what's the first study citing? oh, okay, here's a study about mycorrhizal networks in orchards in Oregon, saying that there's a super high density of fungal mycelium in the 16 orchards that they sampled. And here's a study about leaf litter decay rates in Switzerland under different pesticide regimes, and...okay...relationship of tree spacing to below ground vs. aboveground biomass...a review of above and below-ground biomass in semi-intensively managed orchard plots...

...That one cites "Relationship between biomass and CO2 requirements...carbon immobilization in soil of various tree species...mycorrhizal fungi impact on carbon storage...

...wait a second, none of these are talking about apples, they're about boreal forests...and orange trees...and peanut farms! They're just speculating on roughly applying the non-apple data to apples. You have to go backwards...

Yes! "A review of belowground carbon storage in orchard cropping systems!" Seems like overall the studies find potentially high carbon storage in orchard environments! Walnuts...pears...oranges... intercropping walnuts and wheat... intercropping apples and wheat... wait a second, what about orchards with only apples?

Time for you to go back again...

"New method of mulching in apple orchards can lower irrigation and pesticide needs..." okay but if it's new, most farmers aren't doing it. "Orchards with high density interplanted with annual crops show way more mycorrhizal fungus activity..." "Mycorrhizal associations with trees in the genus Malus..."

...And pretty soon you've spent Five Fucking Hours investigating apples and you've got yourself in this tangled web of citations that demonstrate that some orchard crops (not necessarily apples) store a lot of long-lasting biomass in their trunks and roots really well—and some apple orchards (not necessarily typical ones) have high amounts of mycorrhizal fungi—and some techniques of mulching in orchards (not necessarily the ones apple farmers use) experience less erosion—and some apple trees (not necessarily productive agricultural apples) have really deep root systems—

—and some environments with trees, compared with some conventional agricultural fields, store more carbon and experience less erosion, but not apple orchards because that data wasn't collected in apple orchards.

And you figure out eventually that there is no direct evidence anywhere in the inputs that singles out apples as The Best Crop For Fighting Climate Change, or suggests that conventional apple farming has a much smaller carbon footprint than anything else.

The data just spit out "apples" after an unholy writhing mass of Processes that involved 1) observing some tree-grown crops and deciding it applies closely enough to all tree grown crops 2) observing some apple orchards and deciding its applicable enough to all apple orchards 3) observing some tree-including environments and deciding its close enough to all tree-including environments 4) observing some farming methods and deciding it applies closely enough to all farming methods

And any one of these steps individually would be fine and totally unavoidable, but when strung together repeatedly they distort the original data into A Puddle of Goo.

And it wouldn't be that bad even to string them together, if trees didn't vary that much, and farming didn't vary that much, and soil didn't vary that much, and mycorrhizal networks didn't vary that much, and regions that grow apples didn't vary that much, and pre-conversion-to-apple-orchard states of apple orchards didn't vary that much, and economic incentives controlling apple farming didn't vary that much, but all of these things DO vary, a Fuck Ton, and if the full range of variation were taken into account—nay, intentionally optimized—the distinction between apples and potatoes might turn out to be be MEANINGLESS GOO.

anyway big size piles of data about Farming, In General, make me so bitchy

[haberiler]

GENERATOR FOR HOME - SİLVER

In today’s ever-evolving world, finding reliable and sustainable power solutions for our homes is more crucial than ever. Enter Generator for Home – your one-stop resource for exploring a range of innovative generators designed to meet your energy needs. Whether you're seeking a traditional generator or a cutting-edge solar generator, we provide comprehensive insights to help you make informed decisions. Our product offers detailed overviews and specifications, ensuring you'll know exactly what you're investing in. 

Generator for Home

A generator for home use is an essential resource that provides backup power during outages, ensuring that your daily activities are not severely disrupted. Here are some key aspects to consider when selecting a generator for home use:

Types of Generators

There are various types of generators available for residential use:

Portable Generators: These are lightweight and easy to move around, perfect for powering appliances during outages.

Standby Generators: Installed permanently outside your home, these generators automatically turn on during a power outage.

Solar Generators: Utilizing renewable energy, these generators are an eco-friendly option for homeowners looking to reduce their carbon footprint.

Power Requirements

When selecting a generator, it’s crucial to determine the wattage requirements of the appliances you plan to power. Calculate the starting and running watts of each device, adding them together to choose a generator with adequate capacity.

Fuel Type

Generators can run on various fuel types, including gasoline, diesel, propane, or natural gas. Each fuel type has its benefits and limitations. Consider availability and cost when making your choice.

Noise Levels

Noise levels can be a significant factor, especially for residential use. Look for generators designed to operate quietly, which can minimize disruption to your family and neighbors.

Safety Features

Safety should always come first. Opt for generators that include features such as automatic shut-off, circuit breakers, and carbon monoxide detectors to protect you and your home from hazards.

Understanding these facets of a generator for home use can significantly enhance your ability to choose the right model that meets your needs and enhances your home's resilience to power outages.

Solar Generator for Home

When considering a reliable power source for your home, a solar generator for home me can be an excellent option. It harnesses renewable energy from the sun, providing an eco-friendly and sustainable solution to meet your electrical needs. Unlike traditional generators that rely on fossil fuels, solar generators operate quietly and require minimal maintenance, making them an attractive choice for homeowners.

Benefits of Solar Generators

Environmentally Friendly: Solar generators produce clean energy, reducing your carbon footprint and dependency on non-renewable sources.

Energy Independence: By generating your own power, you can safeguard against rising electricity costs and power outages.

Low Operating Costs: Once installed, solar generators have low ongoing costs, primarily related to maintenance and occasional battery replacements.

Portability: Many solar generators are designed to be portable, allowing you to take power with you for camping trips or outdoor activities.

Choosing the Right Solar Generator

When selecting a solar generator for your home, consider the following factors:

Power Requirements: Assess your household's energy needs by evaluating the appliances and devices you intend to power.

Capacity: Look for generators with sufficient battery capacity to provide the necessary power for your usage.

Inverter Type: Choose between pure sine wave and modified sine wave inverters based on the devices you plan to use.

Portability: If you need a generator for occasional outdoor use, ensure it is lightweight and easy to transport.

Solar Panels and Accessories

To maximize the efficiency of your solar generator, consider investing in additional solar panels or accessories. This can enhance its capacity and charging speed, making it a more versatile solution for your energy needs.

In summary, a solar generator for home purposes is not only beneficial for reducing electricity bills but also plays a critical role in promoting sustainable energy. By integrating a solar generator into your household, you can enjoy a reliable and green power source that aligns with modern energy solutions.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The discretionary carbon footprints of the 1% are not only unjust on a symbolic level. They are also quite literally a material cause of the climate crisis. Researchers estimate that more than half of the emissions generated by humanity since our emergence on this planet have been emitted since 1990. But in these past 30 years, the emissions of the poorest 50% of people have grown hardly at all: They represented a little under 7% of global emissions in 1990, and they remain a little over 7% of global emissions today. By contrast, the richest 10% of people are responsible for 52% of cumulative global emissions — and the 1% for a full 15%. This means that the richest 63 million are producing fully double the dangerous greenhouse gases that half of all humanity, or nearly four billion people, emit. When scientists include the embodied emissions — or what it takes to make the products bought by the rich — in the calculation of their individual carbon footprints, the numbers become even more grotesque: That makes the average carbon footprint of the richest more than 75 times higher than that of the poorest. An estimate looking into 20 of the most prominent billionaires in the U.S. and Europe found that their carbon footprints in 2018 ranged from about 1,000 metric tons to nearly 32,000.

[...]

As Bloomberg News recently reported, the personal emissions of the top 0.001% — those with at least $129.2 million in wealth — are so large that these people’s individual consumption decisions “can have the same impact as nationwide policy interventions.” And the super-rich are not reducing their individual carbon footprints voluntarily. On the contrary. In 2021, sales of superyachts, by far the most polluting luxury asset, surged by 77%.

19 April 2022

[oediex]

Today is Earth Overshoot Day.

"Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year."

This means that from today on, we are living in an ecological deficit, or on "credit". We are using natural resources the earth cannot replenish, as well as accumulating waste the earth cannot deal with, "primarily carbon dioxide in the atmosphere". We are using 1.7 earths every year.

The date of Earth Overshoot Days is slowly climbing forward more and more:

While what we should be doing is pushing that date back the other way. If we want to reach the IPCC goal of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030, which is required if we are to limit global warming to 1,5°C, we need to push Earth Overshoot Day back by 19 days for the next 7 years.

World Overshoot Day is calculated by Global Footprint Network (where the above graph is from), an international non-profit research organisation that provides data, insights, and tools for decision-makers to understand the ecological limitations of our world so that they can make informed decisions for a better future.

One of the best things you can do as an individual is going vegan, because meat and dairy products tend to emit more greenhouse gasses than plant-based foods. It is truly one of the most effective ways for you as an individual to have an impact on the environment.

A friendly reminder here at the end that veganism is a doing what is “possible and practicable” for you - this includes access to foods, allergies, health issues, mental health issues, etc.

[beingvegan]

Related to that last post, I find people apply a kind of mathematical “proof by example” logic to veganism. Their interpretation of vegan is “any animal product is worse than any plant product across all metrics at all times” and then if they can find some kind of outlier exception to that statement, it nullifies the entire premise.

What’s problematic about this in context of veganism and a lot of other justice movements is that instead of being able to give people clear guidelines, proponents of this line of thinking are indirectly advocating for everyone to be doing a huge amount of research and work that they’re not going to do. Basically, if you go vegan, your carbon footprint will be lower in 99% of cases, but of course on the fringes you can find weird exceptions. But what’s the alternative? Do deep supply chain investigations on every intended purchase, calculate the carbon footprint of all your options, consult with multiple methods of valuing sustainability, and then, after all that, making an informed choice? Sure, that sounds great, but people aren’t gonna do that, and clear guidelines like “avoid animal products” will get you 99% of the way there. We just cannot be making it this complicated for people. Climate scientists are saying things like “eat a plant based diet” and “avoid flying” for a reason. These are clear, unambiguous directives that are easy to follow and will reduce your climate impact.

Infusing these directives with a ton of complexity is going to overwhelm people and make them check out. It’s the exact playbook of the fossil fuel companies who pushed “the science is complicated” as their primary line for decades and it’s STILL what my conservative relatives who don’t believe in climate change tell me. “Oh, some papers aren’t in agreement, so how can we really know?” “They keep changing their story!” etc.

[emmasource]

emmawatson: #ad Our closets impact the planet and climate more than you might realize, which is why I am proud to partner with @ thredUP to launch their new Fashion Footprint Calculator (link in bio!) They created an easy to use tool, and I’m so excited to help people discover the carbon impact of their wardrobes, and steps you can take to lighten your fashion footprint. They’ll tell you what your fashion footprint is equivalent to a number of flights, exactly how many pounds of CO2 it produces and how you fare compared to an average consumer. Small changes, such as thrifting instead of buying new, supporting sustainable brands, and air-drying your clothes, can make a HUGE difference. My friends at @ goodonyou_app are also included in the directory at the end of the quiz, where you can get more info on the impact of your fashion choices. Also, if you don’t know @ thredUP, they are one of my favourite online thrift stores. They make it incredibly easy to find any brand and style secondhand at up to 90% off est. retail, from high street brands to some of my favourite designers. I love their mission to inspire us to think secondhand first and create a more circular fashion future. (P.S. they are just shipping to U.S. and Canada currently, but the Calculator is available to everyone!) Find out your fashion footprint by clicking the link in my bio, or heading to thredup.com/quiz to make a difference for the planet! #fashionfootprint ❤️🌸👗

[emmaameliamiaava]

Know how to calculate & reduce carbon footprint. Explore HCCB's commitment to achieving net zero emissions & effective strategies for reducing carbon footprint.

[becomingmeg]

becoming an it girl takes hard work! 🎀

we don’t want all that hard work to go to waste if the climate clock is telling us we don’t have that much time left, here are some apps I use add some time!

what is the climate clock? 🦋🌻

a graphic to demonstrate how quickly the planet is approaching 1.5 °C of global warming, given current emissions trends. it also shows the amount of CO₂ already emitted, and the global warming to date. IT IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD, it is just how much time is left until the damage we do is IRREVERSIBLE.

apps:

wren: 🐥

starts out w a quiz that predicts how much C02 offset you have every year. you can then choose how much you are willing to pay each month (if you want to, you don’t have to) to help get rid of your personal emissions. they provide you with proof of where your money is going and how it is helping the environment!

treecard: 🌲

for every 10,000 steps you walk, (for my it girls, we love our daily 10k steps) you plant 1 tree. for every tree you plant, you get rewards! no spending needed, just walk. some rewards are as little as reusable bags, while others are as big as exploring the Himalayas on a 5-day guided trip :) just for planting trees. if you want to use my referral code to get extra points and an extra tree you can, but there is no pressure. my referral code is megan-fv6

https://www.ecosia.org/

ecosia: 🌎

plant trees with your searches and be climate active every day! 100% of their profits are for the planet and they are transparent with all of their spending. no spending needed, just search! your privacy is completely protected, so there is no need to worry about your data being sold or leaked :) (in my business life, I work cybersecurity and I love ecosia as a safe but moral option).

BIG NOTE: none of this is sponsored!! i just love my environment. do not feel pressure to use any links I provided or my referral codes. if you are unsure about anything i have linked, feel free to do your own research!

as it girlies and boss bitches, we can change the world.

[realcleverscience]

AI & Data Centers vs Water + Energy

We all know that AI has issues, including energy and water consumption. But these fields are still young and lots of research is looking into making them more efficient. Remember, most technologies tend to suck when they first come out.

Deploying high-performance, energy-efficient AI

"You give up that kind of amazing general purpose use like when you're using ChatGPT-4 and you can ask it everything from 17th century Italian poetry to quantum mechanics, if you narrow your range, these smaller models can give you equivalent or better kind of capability, but at a tiny fraction of the energy consumption," says Ball."...

"I think liquid cooling is probably one of the most important low hanging fruit opportunities... So if you move a data center to a fully liquid cooled solution, this is an opportunity of around 30% of energy consumption, which is sort of a wow number.... There's more upfront costs, but actually it saves money in the long run... One of the other benefits of liquid cooling is we get out of the business of evaporating water for cooling...

The other opportunity you mentioned was density and bringing higher and higher density of computing has been the trend for decades. That is effectively what Moore's Law has been pushing us forward... [i.e. chips rate of improvement is faster than their energy need growths. This means each year chips are capable of doing more calculations with less energy. - RCS] ... So the energy savings there is substantial, not just because those chips are very, very efficient, but because the amount of networking equipment and ancillary things around those systems is a lot less because you're using those resources more efficiently with those very high dense components"

New tools are available to help reduce the energy that AI models devour

"The trade-off for capping power is increasing task time — GPUs will take about 3 percent longer to complete a task, an increase Gadepally says is "barely noticeable" considering that models are often trained over days or even months... Side benefits have arisen, too. Since putting power constraints in place, the GPUs on LLSC supercomputers have been running about 30 degrees Fahrenheit cooler and at a more consistent temperature, reducing stress on the cooling system. Running the hardware cooler can potentially also increase reliability and service lifetime. They can now consider delaying the purchase of new hardware — reducing the center's "embodied carbon," or the emissions created through the manufacturing of equipment — until the efficiencies gained by using new hardware offset this aspect of the carbon footprint. They're also finding ways to cut down on cooling needs by strategically scheduling jobs to run at night and during the winter months."

AI just got 100-fold more energy efficient

Northwestern University engineers have developed a new nanoelectronic device that can perform accurate machine-learning classification tasks in the most energy-efficient manner yet. Using 100-fold less energy than current technologies...

“Today, most sensors collect data and then send it to the cloud, where the analysis occurs on energy-hungry servers before the results are finally sent back to the user,” said Northwestern’s Mark C. Hersam, the study’s senior author. “This approach is incredibly expensive, consumes significant energy and adds a time delay...

For current silicon-based technologies to categorize data from large sets like ECGs, it takes more than 100 transistors — each requiring its own energy to run. But Northwestern’s nanoelectronic device can perform the same machine-learning classification with just two devices. By reducing the number of devices, the researchers drastically reduced power consumption and developed a much smaller device that can be integrated into a standard wearable gadget."

Researchers develop state-of-the-art device to make artificial intelligence more energy efficient

""This work is the first experimental demonstration of CRAM, where the data can be processed entirely within the memory array without the need to leave the grid where a computer stores information,"...

According to the new paper's authors, a CRAM-based machine learning inference accelerator is estimated to achieve an improvement on the order of 1,000. Another example showed an energy savings of 2,500 and 1,700 times compared to traditional methods"