How to fight climate change... for reals.

[begreen]

My 1960 house was the first by a new/young builder. He clearly bought a very nice floor plan from an architect, so it has nice/wow design features. (and he cut a bunch of newby corners that I am still dealing with 62 years later).

Notably, the house is clearly designed (overhangs, indoor planters, large windows versus small windows) to face SOUTH, but it actually faces North-west.

That's not uncommon. Since the advent of electric lighting and central heating, a lot of common sense and frugality has disappeared from residential architecture. The ubiquitous cathedral ceiling (my home is a temple) is an example. Our 1924 house has huge windows facing north to take advantage of the (now overgrown) view. I am sure these were retrofitted from the original more common sense farmhouse windows. Double bay windows on the east side were added around 1990, furthering heat loss, but at least the house now has some standard insulation.

 

[stoveliker]

I don't buy that. There are 360 degrees in a circle, 400 gradians for you architectural types. Moreover, nearly all of our roads in eastern PA are set roughly 45 degrees off the compass. meaning most houses built facing a road are actually NE, NW, SE, SW.

But I'm mostly speaking of those houses built before there were roads, the construction of which actually lead to the creation of roads. These are the ones where I see more emphasis on its direction relative to the seasonal solar advantage.

I was referring to the quoted sentence, which was not about older homes. All I was saying is that a few (modern) homes properly oriented could simply be chance. Phase space is not that large.

Our bill in summer is just the base fee due to solar, but in winter it goes up a lot. We have clothes drying, hw heating (of colder incoming water), a lot more lighting, and the heat pump. All in addition to charging the car.

That's why it makes more sense to note total yearly kWh usage. Billing is too dependent on local solar regulations. (My bill is the connection fee all year round - as no kWh bank reset date for many years to come.)

 

[EbS-P]

That's not uncommon. Since the advent of electric lighting and central heating, a lot of common sense and frugality has disappeared from residential architecture. The ubiquitous cathedral ceiling (my home is a temple) is an example.

And we have had pretty cheap electricity and gas and oil. For the last part of the 20th century when a LOT of the housing stock was built. If we all had to pay Alaskan or Hawaiian rates we Might build differently. We are probably will all see a rate increase soon.

 

[tlc1976]

Mine was built in the mid 80s, by a guy and wife and sons as a retirement house. He did just about everything very well. Including location in with the deciduous trees to the south and east, and pines to the north and west and lining the driveway. Large eaves to block the higher sun in the summer. The trees block a lot of wind which helps with heating and snow blowing too. It has full house wrap, good Andersen windows of the time, and the concrete basement helps cool in the summer and doesn’t freeze pipes in the winter. Only thing lacking is insulation upstairs which is only R19 (current code is R49) but I don’t know what code was back then. I really beefed it up last spring, curious how it will do this winter. He put separate circuits to almost everything too which is nice. All the wires neatly grouped and routed around the breaker box.

He was very meticulous, he kept a light blue “baby book” with everything he did including property layout, permits, foundation and framing and construction details, manuals of everything, even a 3 page bill of material for the recently replaced well. He started from nothing and put his heart and soul into this place. When you’re given something like that as a starting point, it gives the desire to follow suit.

 

[peakbagger]

Mine was built in the mid 80s, by a guy and wife and sons as a retirement house. He did just about everything very well. Including location in with the deciduous trees to the south and east, and pines to the north and west and lining the driveway. Large eaves to block the higher sun in the summer. The trees block a lot of wind which helps with heating and snow blowing too. It has full house wrap, good Andersen windows of the time, and the concrete basement helps cool in the summer and doesn’t freeze pipes in the winter. Only thing lacking is insulation upstairs which is only R19 (current code is R49) but I don’t know what code was back then. I really beefed it up last spring, curious how it will do this winter. He put separate circuits to almost everything too which is nice. All the wires neatly grouped and routed around the breaker box.

He was very meticulous, he kept a light blue “baby book” with everything he did including property layout, permits, foundation and framing and construction details, manuals of everything, even a 3 page bill of material for the recently replaced well. He started from nothing and put his heart and soul into this place. When you’re given something like that as a starting point, it gives the desire to follow suit.

The problem with building a "forever home" is with rare exceptions the initial builder only gets limited use of the structure. Most retirements homes are only occupied by the original owner for 10 to 15 years. Things change. If someone does have kids, its pretty rare that they are living nearby and want the place so it goes on the open market that really does not price in the hidden features that the owner went to so much trouble to install. "Bury your best work" is engineering phrase I ran into over my career but almost everything I built to last "forever" got torn down not that long after I built it. (I do have an elevated railrroad trestle that is still standing but it just that the scrappers havent moved in on it yet).

Its a quandary I am going through currently, I am planning a retirement home that will sink a lot of money into things that are the "right" thing to do but its all stuff that will take years to payoff. Maybe some future buyer will appreciate it but in my experience that type of work does not sell a house. I may be far better to do a deep energy upgrade on my current home and stay where I am at and save the money.

 

[Poindexter]

The problem with building a "forever home" is with rare exceptions the initial builder only gets limited use of the structure. Most retirements homes are only occupied by the original owner for 10 to 15 years. Things change. If someone does have kids, its pretty rare that they are living nearby and want the place so it goes on the open market that really does not price in the hidden features that the owner went to so much trouble to install. "Bury your best work" is engineering phrase I ran into over my career but almost everything I built to last "forever" got torn down not that long after I built it. (I do have an elevated railrroad trestle that is still standing but it just that the scrappers havent moved in on it yet).

Its a quandary I am going through currently, I am planning a retirement home that will sink a lot of money into things that are the "right" thing to do but its all stuff that will take years to payoff. Maybe some future buyer will appreciate it but in my experience that type of work does not sell a house. I may be far better to do a deep energy upgrade on my current home and stay where I am at and save the money.

I had a thread started in I think the DIY section about retirement homes that didn't get much traction.

The big four for the retiree are:
1. access to the bedroom
2. access to the bathroom
3. useful access to the kitchen
4. means of egress from the building

Most bathrooms I see are far to small for a wheelchair user. Turning circle for an ambulatory adult is the space they are standing in. For a wheelchair with foot pegs in use often up over 5 feet. Minimum for an accessible kitchen is room to open the fridge from a wheelchair, and least expensively a small table, perhaps 2x4 feet top, wheelchair can fit under, MWO and toaster oven or coffee maker on top. Water, got to be able to fill a glass of water.

The other consideration is how far do you want to go? Do you want to move into Shady Acres when a cane won't suffice anymore and you need a walker, or will manual/ powered wheelchair be the breakpoint?

For manual wheelchair floor framing I would prefer 2x8 joists on 16" center with double layer 3/4 TG plywood. Single layer (not TG) 3/4 ply on 2x10 on 24" centers just doesn't do it for me as framing under a wheelchair user.

The powered wheelchairs are quite heavy, often ~400#, and a live point load.

My current pipe dream is to get a spacious bathroom, a useful bedroom, kitchen dining and living room on one level, with 2 egress ramps sloped 1:12 as part of new construction, and then put two beds and another bath upstairs so it would list as a 3-2 when ready for sale. From there it just depends on the lot. If the lot can easily accommodate a poured slab, making a floor stiff enough for a powered wheelchair would be relatively inexpensive while you are pouring a slab anyway.

I have not yet ever seen 'ADA compliant lower level' in a house for sale listing, but we do have one apartment complex in town where every unit is ADA compliant and they mention it in all of their advertising.

 

[begreen]

FWIW, no one in my family, including extended family, needed a wheelchair until a few years before death. At that point, they needed someone to do most of the work for them. They were not safe to be in a kitchen.
We are getting well off the topic now, especially for geriatric accommodations. Maybe this thread has run its course.

 

[tlc1976]

The problem with building a "forever home" is with rare exceptions the initial builder only gets limited use of the structure. Most retirements homes are only occupied by the original owner for 10 to 15 years. Things change. If someone does have kids, its pretty rare that they are living nearby and want the place so it goes on the open market that really does not price in the hidden features that the owner went to so much trouble to install. "Bury your best work" is engineering phrase I ran into over my career but almost everything I built to last "forever" got torn down not that long after I built it. (I do have an elevated railrroad trestle that is still standing but it just that the scrappers havent moved in on it yet).

Its a quandary I am going through currently, I am planning a retirement home that will sink a lot of money into things that are the "right" thing to do but its all stuff that will take years to payoff. Maybe some future buyer will appreciate it but in my experience that type of work does not sell a house. I may be far better to do a deep energy upgrade on my current home and stay where I am at and save the money.

Luckily he made it almost 30 years, his wife just over 20, they both passed here. One of the sons took it over for most of a year and decided to sell, it was tough. There’s been an affordable housing shortage around here for decades so no problem selling, but he wanted it to go a full time family who would appreciate it. Not just another flipper or snowbird or landlord. I love the 80s vibe, I don’t like the modern trends. It’s everything I wanted and hopefully I have a lot more years left to enjoy it. I won’t be going anywhere unless something happens to me. And if anything does, my daughter will likely appreciate it, if not change it or sell it. I’ve seen old HGTV shows where houses are a hard sell, but around here people will buy anything to get their foot in the door. Long before 2020.

I hope you can do the things you want to your house. While you can, and have time to appreciate it. Don’t put off what makes you happy for fear it won’t appeal to whoever takes over while you’re gone. But with all your posts I read, it sounds like a deep energy upgrade will make your future years happy too.

Edit: yes we wandered, a few posts as I was writing this.

 

[tlc1976]

I got a box of CFLs free from the electric company about 10 years ago. I’m finally on my last few. Comparable output is 13 watts CFL instead of 9 LED, so I’m just leaving them till they burn out. Everything else I swapped for LED since they’re finally cheap enough to be worth it. Lights don’t make a dent in my bill, except the barn when I’m working out there all day. Those are still CFL, but again it would take years of constant use to break even with an LED conversion, so they stay till they burn out.

About a year ago I did swap my 175 watt barn light for a 35 watt LED and removed the ballast, after it quit. That made a few dollars difference in my bill. Same with my 80s kitchen fluorescent box light, converted to LED.

Earlier this year when I got a new UPS, I went through the house checking loads. Turned out a rarely used set of computer speakers had a 120W transformer running full time. Unplug. Saved a little more. I will leave my c band satellite box plugged in, it costs about $5 a month on or off, but replacing it would be expensive or difficult.

No big ticket items to remove. Just a dollar here and there, adds up. Here’s how my usage has gone down. 2018 to now. Dehumidifier in the basement makes usage go up with temperature on average.

 

[Poindexter]

I will prune again, as I have the time again this evening.

In post 65 this thread I harvested these 12 ideas as things we had come up with we could do as individuals to flight/delay climate change.

1. carbon neutral wood heat. One thing we all have in common .
2. Clothesline for drying clothes. We did this seasonally on the farm when I was a kid and I honestly miss smelling the apple orchard on my bed linens.
3. Electric vehicles. Two things I do know are bigger burners, like power plants, are more strictly regulated on emissions than homeowners. So if we got to burn say 50 tons of coal per hour, better to do it one big plant with commercial level emissions controls. The other side of the coin is electrical losses in transmission lines can be pretty significant. I am not equipped to know how much carbon we are emitting to cover transmission losses but I do think it should be discussed.
4. Adoption curve of new tech leading to economic viabiltiy.
5. Solar panels. I suspect they should end up being carbon negative, that is more more electricity out life cycle than pollution caused in manufacturing, something to look at this winter with my feet up.
6. Insulation and air sealing. Thank you @vinny11950 .
7. Voting. Adoption curve again. I have been registered either independent or libertarian for, gosh, 30 years at least. I think this is the same as adopting the technology curve again. If you keep voting for the same SOBs, that is what you will have to choose from next time around. On the one hand we all want our vote to count, but if people are voting for the greens or the whites instead of just choosing between the reds and the blues the white and green parties (I just made up white. If it is a thing like the official party of the KKK please accept my apologies in advance) - anyroad when the greens and the whites are getting some votes they are going to get bigger and more sophisticated.
8. reuse single use items. When I order takeout, I ask for no utensils and often get single use flatware anyway.
9. Packaging. This is huge. I asked the hospital I work for if I could get some cardboard boxes when one of the kids was moving out. I got 14 - more than one dozen- boxes 18x18x18 inches with 1.5" styrofoam insulation on 6 sides and stacks of Stay-Kold packs in every box. Along with all the other boxes, it was one day's receipts of incoming pharmaceuticals for one pretty small hospital. It boggles my mind to think of how many of those stay-cold packs show up on the dock at a big place like Duke or UCLA or the Cleveland Clinic every day. They go in the trash as soon as the drugs are in a refrigerator, at least up here.
10. Cloth diapers
11. plastics in general
12. (my paraphrase) shareholder greed. If you got a 401k, you too could be part of the problem...

So since then, the intervening almost 200 posts, the new ideas I see are quite a few new ideas. I shall paraphrase a little bit, and try to self limit commentary.

13. reusable drinking straws.
14. local food and more vegetables. This came up a few different ways. I can say in my clinical experience Americans eat too much meat for optimal health, and Med sea salt does have to be shipped from the Med.
15. make purchases that last
16. recyclable diapers, a step up from disposables without the maintenance of cloth diapers.
17. modern minisplit heat pump technology
18. drive slower and drive less - we spent quite a few pages beating that to death
19. down size the house/ make passive the house. @begreen I think there is still some room for discussion in this area. If my house burns down I will rebuild it smaller and more efficient. But if I sell it and build/buy something smaller and more efficient someone else will be in the house I own now living in it.
20. Grow more vegetables and less lawn on your lot.
21. Live simply
22. recycle kitchen waste with livestock or composting
23. local versus online shopping
24. as appendage to cars we did talk about 2 cycle small engines and battery operated OPE
25. incandescent versus CFL versus LED lightbulbs segued to
26. total electrical consumption, common household electrical loads and cuurent USA averages by state.

 

[Poindexter]

We are perhaps slowing down having gotten the low hanging fruit in the early days.

One the other hand cars are central to American culture and we simply don't have the existing infrastructure to use mass transport in much of the country without massive investment. I think that was worth 3-4 pages of discussion just for everyone to feel heard.

The housing thing really does bug me. My house is efficient as I can make it with $100 here, $1000 there. The next steps for the building I currently own would be to fasten inches of rigid foam to the exterior, get a house wrap on the outside of that, then new siding. There is $20k easy. Then I could install solar panels and modern minisplits for summertime AC and minimal assistance with my heating loads in the fringes of shoulder season, another $20k easily. From there I could rip out perhaps 10-20% of the existing drywall to install a reasonable HRV system, probably another $20k.

I am very interested in adding AC for my hotter and hotter summers, but I would never actually see those $60k again as all the houses in the neighborhood appraise +/- 300k. Financially I would be better off dropping $15k on a kitchen upgrade to maximize my resale value. The new owner would have a house as efficient as Poindexter could make it while remaining married to his darling wife, but the next owner is not likely to drop that kind of coin either, so the house will continue to suck watts and emit carbon like a well maintained 1980 build. Until it falls inevitably back towards disrepair. If I had $45k cash to play with after upgrading the kitchen a 1969 Corvette would be very tempting.

My home is of zero architectural merit. Perhaps negative architectural merit. It is a shoe box with a gable roof, with much of the workmanship of the sort that causes me to raise one eyebrow when said workmanship is exposed. If I could afford to burn it down, dig out the footings and start over without an insurance check I would strongly consider it; it is a nice enough lot in a very nice middle class neighborhood. But I can't afford to do that. So the house is going to be occupied for some time to come whether I live in it or not.

 

[DBoon]

11 pages in and I am still waiting for the suggestion to "simply buy less" or "buy used".

Having moved many times when younger, I appreciate how material things add up over time. I try to think a long time before buying something, and I make few spur-of-the-moment purchases (unless they are consumables, e.g., food). Most small purchases are with cash, which makes me think twice as much about whether I really need that "thing" or whether I would rather spend my cash on something else.

And when I finally buy something I really, really need, I will buy as high a quality as I can find. I want to get high satisfaction out of using it, and I don't want it to break a year (or less) after I buy it. High quality items (e.g., good gardening tools) are probably not available (mostly) at my local hardware store, require some research to find, and cost 3-4x more money, but I buy them once and keep broken garbage out of the landfill.

 

[semipro]

11 pages in and I am still waiting for the suggestion to "simply buy less" or "buy used".

Having moved many times when younger, I appreciate how material things add up over time. I try to think a long time before buying something, and I make few spur-of-the-moment purchases (unless they are consumables, e.g., food). Most small purchases are with cash, which makes me think twice as much about whether I really need that "thing" or whether I would rather spend my cash on something else.

And when I finally buy something I really, really need, I will buy as high a quality as I can find. I want to get high satisfaction out of using it, and I don't want it to break a year (or less) after I buy it. High quality items (e.g., good gardening tools) are probably not available (mostly) at my local hardware store, require some research to find, and cost 3-4x more money, but I buy them once and keep broken garbage out of the landfill.

I'd add to this "repair rather than replace", assuming, of course, that repair makes sense.

 

[woodgeek]

@Poindexter nice summary list.

But I have a bugaboo. This thread is about climate, and climate is mostly about CO2, less about CH4 and a little about HCFCs. And not about drinking straws or microplastics or oil/NOx from @Ashful 's beloved string trimmer.

It IS about how individual action (such as we around here have been taking for YEARS) does add up, and rub off on our neighbors/family, and is part of the Green Vortex curve that will ultimately abate climate change (or which is currently the best shot to do so).

The recent IRA bill in the US is NOT going to build a bunch of CO2 scrubbers for the atmosphere... its going to accelerate what we are all doing, speeding up the Green Vortex.

My bugaboo is that the popular media encourages us all to do 'little things' that will 'add up to a lot'. And I think that is often counterproductive. Recycling as it is done in the US probably doesn't save communities money, and probably doesn't benefit the climate. If it does, the effect is miniscule. It may be a good idea for other reasons... but not the climate. Journalists tell people to put masking tape over the cracks in their windows in winter (or to caulk the window shut), promising possibly huge energy savings, and don't tell people there is probably a 3-10 sq ft air leak in their attic framing that can be fixed for <$100.

I went to a lecture by Jane Goodall 20 years ago, in a lovely outdoor garden in Pasadena CA. And she gave a stirring speech about the natural world and how climate change was bad. To a bunch of tech-savvy, high income, high consumption people. And afterwards, people had one question for Jane 'What can we DO to avert climate change?'. And Jane was unprepared for the question. Her answer was 'Um, if you aren't recycling, start. IF you are recycling, keep doing it.' Opportunity blown! FACEPALM.

If you care about the climate, (if you have 263 posts you probably do, or are very bored) then you should just sit down and compute your CARBON FOOTPRINT. There are many sites that do this, with ACTUAL MATH. Here's one:

carbonfootprint.com - Carbon Footprint Calculator

Use the World’s most popular online carbon footprint calculator, and it's FREE. Calculate your carbon emissions from Buildings, Cars, Flights and other sources.

www.carbonfootprint.com

Your carbon footprint is mostly:
1) Your residential energy use. Not just kWh electricity (which might greener than you think), but all that invisible fossil fuel going up the stack to keep you warm.
2) Your ride. Its easy. How many miles? And at what mpg? Equals gallons. 20lbs CO2 per gallon.
3) Your diet. Beef and dairy are very heavy CO2/CH4 emitters. Fish and eggs are the lowest animal protein sources. Plant based foods are all a lot lower.
4) Your vacation. Flying emits less carbon per mile than driving a Prius with one person in it. Close to 100 mpg equivalent per person. Like two people in a Prius. So the issue is How Many Miles? Do you need to vacation 2000 miles from home, or can you find a nice beach/cabin 200 miles from home? Can you take a train longer distances?
5) Your work travel. See #4.
6) Stuff. Buy less stuff.

Everything else is crumbs. After you compute your carbon footprint, and see the breakdown... then decide what you can do.

And I will also say that I am very unconvinced about the importance of eating locally re climate impacts:

The facts about food miles

Could knowing where your food comes from help you to shop more sustainably? Find why food miles are just one part of the puzzle when it comes to fighting climate change

www.bbcgoodfood.com

Should I eat a tomato in the winter that rode a train from Florida, or grown in a heated greenhouse in New Jersey? The NJ one might taste better, but the Florida one will have lower total emissions.

 

[woodgeek]

A decade ago, at a rented beach house, I got into a long conversation with my SIL, an affluent SAHM who was concerned about the environment. She had engaged in a LOT of motivated reasoning about how the little changes she was making (including, naturally, scrupulous recycling) had a BIG impact, and how some other things (like flying across the country or to Europe for vacation, 1-2X per year) probably didn't matter very much. While we were talking, she was getting kinda riled up with me.

In the end, I said... 'its math. Are you going to argue with math?' She said 'No.' She went and did the Footprint calculator, and the next day sat down with me, chagrined.

But informed.

 

[SpaceBus]

Good points. I should have said "most". There are still definitely folks who pay attention to this stuff, despite most builders just pointing the house toward the street.

Is that true? I'm pretty sure most sub divisions and neighborhoods are very well planned with n-s and e-w roads, thereby making the houses oriented to the cardinal directions, for the most part.

 

[EbS-P]

@Poindexter nice summary list.

But I have a bugaboo. This thread is about climate, and climate is mostly about CO2, less about CH4 and a little about HCFCs. And not about drinking straws or microplastics or oil/NOx from @Ashful 's beloved string trimmer.

It IS about how individual action (such as we around here have been taking for YEARS) does add up, and rub off on our neighbors/family, and is part of the Green Vortex curve that will ultimately abate climate change (or which is currently the best shot to do so).

The recent IRA bill in the US is NOT going to build a bunch of CO2 scrubbers for the atmosphere... its going to accelerate what we are all doing, speeding up the Green Vortex.

My bugaboo is that the popular media encourages us all to do 'little things' that will 'add up to a lot'. And I think that is often counterproductive. Recycling as it is done in the US probably doesn't save communities money, and probably doesn't benefit the climate. If it does, the effect is miniscule. It may be a good idea for other reasons... but not the climate. Journalists tell people to put masking tape over the cracks in their windows in winter (or to caulk the window shut), promising possibly huge energy savings, and don't tell people there is probably a 3-10 sq ft air leak in their attic framing that can be fixed for <$100.

I went to a lecture by Jane Goodall 20 years ago, in a lovely outdoor garden in Pasadena CA. And she gave a stirring speech about the natural world and how climate change was bad. To a bunch of tech-savvy, high income, high consumption people. And afterwards, people had one question for Jane 'What can we DO to avert climate change?'. And Jane was unprepared for the question. Her answer was 'Um, if you aren't recycling, start. IF you are recycling, keep doing it.' Opportunity blown! FACEPALM.

If you care about the climate, (if you have 263 posts you probably do, or are very bored) then you should just sit down and compute your CARBON FOOTPRINT. There are many sites that do this, with ACTUAL MATH. Here's one:

carbonfootprint.com - Carbon Footprint Calculator

Use the World’s most popular online carbon footprint calculator, and it's FREE. Calculate your carbon emissions from Buildings, Cars, Flights and other sources.

www.carbonfootprint.com

Your carbon footprint is mostly:
1) Your residential energy use. Not just kWh electricity (which might greener than you think), but all that invisible fossil fuel going up the stack to keep you warm.
2) Your ride. Its easy. How many miles? And at what mpg? Equals gallons. 20lbs CO2 per gallon.
3) Your diet. Beef and dairy are very heavy CO2/CH4 emitters. Fish and eggs are the lowest animal protein sources. Plant based foods are all a lot lower.
4) Your vacation. Flying emits less carbon per mile than driving a Prius with one person in it. Close to 100 mpg equivalent per person. Like two people in a Prius. So the issue is How Many Miles? Do you need to vacation 2000 miles from home, or can you find a nice beach/cabin 200 miles from home? Can you take a train longer distances?
5) Your work travel. See #4.
6) Stuff. Buy less stuff.

Everything else is crumbs. After you compute your carbon footprint, and see the breakdown... then decide what you can do.

And I will also say that I am very unconvinced about the importance of eating locally re climate impacts:

The facts about food miles

Could knowing where your food comes from help you to shop more sustainably? Find why food miles are just one part of the puzzle when it comes to fighting climate change

www.bbcgoodfood.com

Should I eat a tomato in the winter that rode a train from Florida, or grown in a heated greenhouse in New Jersey? The NJ one might taste better, but the Florida one will have lower total emissions.

this! House, transportation, food. There’s still plenty of that fruit hanging within reach on the neighborhood scale and larger.

I heat with wood and have an EV. Working on better food choices.

 

[SpaceBus]

11 pages in and I am still waiting for the suggestion to "simply buy less" or "buy used".

Having moved many times when younger, I appreciate how material things add up over time. I try to think a long time before buying something, and I make few spur-of-the-moment purchases (unless they are consumables, e.g., food). Most small purchases are with cash, which makes me think twice as much about whether I really need that "thing" or whether I would rather spend my cash on something else.

And when I finally buy something I really, really need, I will buy as high a quality as I can find. I want to get high satisfaction out of using it, and I don't want it to break a year (or less) after I buy it. High quality items (e.g., good gardening tools) are probably not available (mostly) at my local hardware store, require some research to find, and cost 3-4x more money, but I buy them once and keep broken garbage out of the landfill.

I have actually said something a long these lines a few times. Specifically in regards to cars, but it applies to everything. I love watching old episodes of "The Price is Right" on youtube from the 70's and seeing that appliances cost the same today, which is nuts! Those old appliances may not have been as efficient, but they were much more durable. I would be interested to see the difference in carbon consumption when comparing a 50's-70's refrigerator, water heater, etc. compared to buying modern disposable appliances that are replaced within ten years. Does buying multiple high efficiency appliances over the course of one's life have a higher carbon cost than buying one "vintage" or "antique" appliance and running it for 50+ years? I suspect it is appliance specific, but in some cases the carbon use will be less using the older stuff.
Shopping for used goods isn't the same as it used to be in regards to domestic goods. Used cars can be very dicey, and generally speaking newer cars are more reliable and longer lasting than old cars. The downside is that the average new car transaction price has just kept going higher and higher. As I mentioned earlier refrigerators are much cheaper now than they used to be, but now they are also less reliable. Cookware is another good example. We bought a new set of pots and pans when we bought our house in 2018 and even with only using the appropriate utensils the coating is still coming off. The "not teflon" coating started wearing within just one year of purchasing the set. Now we only use the coated cookware for boiling water/pasta and I cook in cast iron. Not only is the cast iron really cheap, but it gets better with use and unless I leave it submerged for an unreasonably long time I won't have to buy replacements.

You are totally right that simply consuming less will be a direct reduction in carbon.

 

[stoveliker]

I have actually said something a long these lines a few times. Specifically in regards to cars,

Oh man, you're telling @Ashful to simply buy less IN REGARDS TO CARS?
I am curious what response you're going to get about that from Mr. Muscle Car.
(all in joking manner, no offense meant)

 

[woodgeek]

An example I came up with this AM walking the dog...

As part of my 'vegan before 6PM' diet I am switching to, I shopped around for plant milks that I actually liked (never having had a good one at others homes). I found a pea-based 'Not Milk', at my local grocery, which is a drop in replacement for Homogenized Whole milk. Flavor is nearly indistinguishable, similar nutritional profile (w no cholesterol), tastes the same in my coffee and on my cereal, and I can bake with it. WIN.

I estimate that I (living mostly alone) use 3-4 liters of whole milk per week (the stuff that goes on my morning cereal mostly goes down the drain, tsk).

This link:

Dairy vs. plant-based milk: what are the environmental impacts?

A growing number of people are interested in switching to plant-based alternatives to dairy. But are they better for the environment, and which is best?

ourworldindata.org

suggests that the carbon footprint difference between dairy and soy milk is >2kg CO2e per liter.

So, my switching to pea milk is netting me >6 kg CO2e per week, or >300 kg CO2e per year.

That is equivalent to offsetting:
-- at least 800 kWh per year of electricity emissions.
-- me driving my Bolt 2500 miles per year
-- me driving a 30 mpg ICE car 1000 miles per year (if I owned an ICE car).
-- me flying about 3000 miles per year in a jet aircraft !!

All bc I picked up one carton on the shelf in my grocer, versus a different carton a couple yards away.

And my serum cholesterol will probably go down too.

 

[Ashful]

If you care about the climate, (if you have 263 posts you probably do, or are very bored) then you should just sit down and compute your CARBON FOOTPRINT. There are many sites that do this, with ACTUAL MATH. Here's one:

carbonfootprint.com - Carbon Footprint Calculator

Use the World’s most popular online carbon footprint calculator, and it's FREE. Calculate your carbon emissions from Buildings, Cars, Flights and other sources.

www.carbonfootprint.com

Is there a category for married by filing individually? I may joke about driving cars with horrendous mpg, but I drive so few miles that I'm filling a vehicle's tank less than once per month. Driving a Prius wouldn't change my yearly usage more than a few dozen gallons, for all that self-imposed misery.

But when considering the whole household, things come out quite "un-clean", as evidenced by the electric bill and 4 - 6 Amazon trucks in our driveway every day.

Is that true? I'm pretty sure most sub divisions and neighborhoods are very well planned with n-s and e-w roads, thereby making the houses oriented to the cardinal directions, for the most part.

Not here. Not at all. First off, you'd be hard-pressed to find a N-S or E-W road in eastern PA, they nearly all run SE-NW or NE-SW, 45-degrees to the cardinal points on the compass. Second, nearly every development built in this area since the 1980's is built on a "U" or a big circle tee'd into the main road with a connector road, such that every house in the development faces the "U" or circle road, at a different orientation to the compass.

About the only thing you can say for them is that most are large houses on small lots, probably most often averaging 10,000 sq.ft. per acre of land (eg. 2000 sq.ft. on 0.2 ac., or 5000 sq.ft. on 0.5 ac.). In this way, the houses are packed so closely alongside one another that they shield each other from the elements. They also have notoriously few side windows, since who really wants to look out their window at neighbor's house 20 - 40 feet away, which likely helps to keep heat loss a bit lower.

It's amusing that one of the things I repeatedly heard from young families shopping the few houses being sold by retirees or empty-nesters in our neighborhood. was a complaint tor concern over the larger lots on which these houses are built (2 - 10 acres each). It appears those ubiquitous neighborhoods of high-density McMansions have become so much the norm around here, that seeing a house with a respectable yard or woods around it is inconceivable to the average millennial.

 

[SpaceBus]

An example I came up with this AM walking the dog...

As part of my 'vegan before 6PM' diet I am switching to, I shopped around for plant milks that I actually liked (never having had a good one at others homes). I found a pea-based 'Not Milk', at my local grocery, which is a drop in replacement for Homogenized Whole milk. Flavor is nearly indistinguishable, similar nutritional profile (w no cholesterol), tastes the same in my coffee and on my cereal, and I can bake with it. WIN.

I estimate that I (living mostly alone) use 3-4 liters of whole milk per week (the stuff that goes on my morning cereal mostly goes down the drain, tsk).

This link:

Dairy vs. plant-based milk: what are the environmental impacts?

A growing number of people are interested in switching to plant-based alternatives to dairy. But are they better for the environment, and which is best?

ourworldindata.org

suggests that the carbon footprint difference between dairy and soy milk is >2kg CO2e per liter.

So, my switching to pea milk is netting me >6 kg CO2e per week, or >300 kg CO2e per year.

That is equivalent to offsetting:
-- at least 800 kWh per year of electricity emissions.
-- me driving my Bolt 2500 miles per year
-- me driving a 30 mpg ICE car 1000 miles per year (if I owned an ICE car).
-- me flying about 3000 miles per year in a jet aircraft !!

All bc I picked up one carton on the shelf in my grocer, versus a different carton a couple yards away.

And my serum cholesterol will probably go down too.

Wow, I'm really surprised by the water usage for the almonds given all the bad press they get. The charts don't tell the whole story, because the water used on almonds in California has a much larger impact on local water supplies than the locally grazed cows where I live. However, like you said, this is a carbon focused thread.

 

[woodgeek]

Wow, I'm really surprised by the water usage for the almonds given all the bad press they get. The charts don't tell the whole story, because the water used on almonds in California has a much larger impact on local water supplies than the locally grazed cows where I live. However, like you said, this is a carbon focused thread.

Yeah, my dairy milk to pea milk swap also reduces agricultural freshwater demand by 2000 liters per week, = 2 tons or water, or 600 gallons per week. This is almost twice my current domestic usage!

PA has plenty of water (and groundwater), but certainly a bigger issue in other states.

 

[Ashful]

Yeah, my dairy milk to pea milk swap also reduces agricultural freshwater demand by 2000 liters per week, = 2 tons or water, or 600 gallons per week. This is almost twice my current domestic usage!

PA has plenty of water (and groundwater), but certainly a bigger issue in other states.

I drink local milk. From cows. No water issues here.

"Pea milk"? Sheesh. Just shoot me, when it comes to that.

 

[SpaceBus]

I drink local milk. From cows. No water issues here.

"Pea milk"? Sheesh. Just shoot me, when it comes to that.

I tried some, it's actually quite good. Similar "plant milks" were more popular than actual dairy before refrigeration and pasteurization. The only way to keep dairy from spoiling for most of human history was to make it into some kind of solid. You can dry out peas, peanuts, almonds, etc. and keep them for years and make the "milk" on demand. No need to buy the cow!
I do agree that if you exclusively use grass fed dairy produced in your county (or similar sized area) it should be pretty negligible in regard to water use. Concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFO), otherwise known as "factory farms" are another story and massive users of water. Even a herd of grass fed cattle, for meat or dairy, can drink a lot of water, especially when compared to more "traditional" dairy animals like sheep or goats. With the rise of trains and refrigeration cattle become much more profitable and human reliance on sheep and goat dairy has dramatically shifted.