Lets break that down to its components. First, carbon refers to the gases that are
produced whenever we bun fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). We're using the term
carbon to mean not just carbon, but all the green house gases emitted by burning
fossil fuels (methane, nitrous oxide and refrigerant glasses). What is so bad about
putting more carbon into the air? Life can exist on this planet in a very narrow range
of temperature, too warm or too cold, and all life comes to an end. The temperature
is regulated by the atmosphere around the earth, specifically by the greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere: carbon, methane, nitrous oxide. When sunlight enters the
atmosphere and hits the earth, some of the heat from the sun is reflected back into the
atmosphere, where the greenhouse gases hold some of it. So in a sense, carbon in the
air acts like "insulation", warming the atmosphere. (That's the reason we call them
"greenhouse" gases, they maintain a constant temperature in the greenhouse we call
earth.) Somehow, for millions of years the earth has been self-regulating, as the heat
from the sun increased, the gases warming the earth decreased. But in modern times,
human activity is pouring carbon into the air at incredible rates. In 2007 the best
estimate is that human activity poured 50 Billion Tons of carbon into the air. Of
course that is an incomprehensible number, so lets compare the human carbon
footprint to earths natural footprint. Since there is a popular myth that a single
volcano does more harm than all of human activity, we'll start there. In the average
year, all the volcanoes in the world produce 300 million tons of carbon (that is less
than 1 percent of human activity and less than half of Australia's output alone of 610
million tons). It is true that some of the enormous eruptions put out more carbon. The
1991 Mount Pinatuba eruption in the Philippines is estimated to have put 42 million
tons into the air, but compare that to the United States carbon output of 8,250 million
tons per year.
Another way the earth naturally produces carbon on a large scale is forest fires, so
lets look at them. No two years are the same for forest fires, but the best estimates of
the 1997-1998 season is that it put out 2.1 billion tons. Again, that is only 4 percent
compared to human activity and roughly a quarter of the U.S. carbon footprint. Plus,
if you have every gone back to an area just a few years after a forest fire, it is
amazingly green. All that new growth goes a long way toward reabsorbing the
carbon put out by the forest fire.
Here is the bottom line, the more carbon in the air, the warmer the planet will get
and humans are putting huge amounts of carbon into the air, even compared to natural
and geologic and activity. The great majority of scientists think that we have already
reached the point where human activity is increasing the average temperature of the
globe. It's a big, difficult topic, and I will leave you to make your own research and
decision, but I think it is completely reasonable to say that living a low carbon
footprint life is a very good thing.
There is one more thing we need to know about carbon footprints. There are two
ways that burning fossil fuel puts carbon into the air: direct and indirect. Let's look at
burning 1 gallon of gas in a car. The direct way it produces carbon is obvious, the
engine burns gas and carbon comes out the tailpipe. That is simple and easy to
measure. But a whole lot of carbon was produced indirectly so we could burn that
gallon of gas. First, the gas didn't magically appear in the gas tank. The oil had to be
pumped up out of the ground, transported to a refinery, refined and finally
transported to the gas station where you bought it. That entire process is very dirty
and produced a lot of carbon. Second, an even bigger indirect carbon footprint is the
carbon footprint of the car itself. Again, it didn't magically appear out of thin air, an
enormous amount of fossil fuel was burned to produce that car. Here is an estimate
of the carbon footprint of three sizes of cars:
Because it is fairly simple to determine the direct footprint of our activities, andextremely difficult to determine the indirect carbon footprint, nearly all carbon
calculators greatly underestimate the actual total carbon impact in their calculations.
It's important to realize that carbon footprints are limited to examining global climate
change and not necessarily the total environmental impact something may have. For
example, generating power in a nuclear power plant has a very low carbon footprint
because it is not burning fossil fuel and so isn't contributing to global warming. But
that doesn't make it good for the environment. When considering its total
environmental impact, we would also have to take into account the great danger from
accidental release of radiation in an accident (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and
Japan in 2011) and the insurmountable problem of storing spent fuel. Another
example is generating hydro power from dams like the Hoover Dam in Nevada. It
produces virtually no carbon and has very little impact on global climate change, but
it consumes a huge amount of land with a negative impact, so the carbon footprint
doesn't tell the whole story. So it isn't enough just to look at carbon footprints when
trying to live a green life.
Even with all its limitations and uncertainties, the concept of a carbon footprint
remains one of our best tools to guide our new, green life. In one sense it is like
money. We probably don't know the exact cost of a bottle of champagne, but we are
sure that it is more than a cup of coffee. I am equally certain that the cost of a house
is a great deal more than either of those. We have a general sense of the cost of
something. In the same way, I may not know the exact carbon cost of driving my car
3 blocks to a store down the street, I am pretty sure that it is higher than walking. I
may not know the carbon footprint of a banana, but I'm certain that taking a flight
from Seattle to Miami is much higher, and much more important to look for
alternatives or ways to mitigate its impact. Because the concept of the carbon cost of
something is new to us, you probably haven't developed that sense of values yet. A
very good way to get started is to buy the book "How Bad Are Bananas?" by Mike
Berners-Lee. He does an outstanding job of giving not only specific details but a
general sense of carbon footprints.
produced whenever we bun fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). We're using the term
carbon to mean not just carbon, but all the green house gases emitted by burning
fossil fuels (methane, nitrous oxide and refrigerant glasses). What is so bad about
putting more carbon into the air? Life can exist on this planet in a very narrow range
of temperature, too warm or too cold, and all life comes to an end. The temperature
is regulated by the atmosphere around the earth, specifically by the greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere: carbon, methane, nitrous oxide. When sunlight enters the
atmosphere and hits the earth, some of the heat from the sun is reflected back into the
atmosphere, where the greenhouse gases hold some of it. So in a sense, carbon in the
air acts like "insulation", warming the atmosphere. (That's the reason we call them
"greenhouse" gases, they maintain a constant temperature in the greenhouse we call
earth.) Somehow, for millions of years the earth has been self-regulating, as the heat
from the sun increased, the gases warming the earth decreased. But in modern times,
human activity is pouring carbon into the air at incredible rates. In 2007 the best
estimate is that human activity poured 50 Billion Tons of carbon into the air. Of
course that is an incomprehensible number, so lets compare the human carbon
footprint to earths natural footprint. Since there is a popular myth that a single
volcano does more harm than all of human activity, we'll start there. In the average
year, all the volcanoes in the world produce 300 million tons of carbon (that is less
than 1 percent of human activity and less than half of Australia's output alone of 610
million tons). It is true that some of the enormous eruptions put out more carbon. The
1991 Mount Pinatuba eruption in the Philippines is estimated to have put 42 million
tons into the air, but compare that to the United States carbon output of 8,250 million
tons per year.
Another way the earth naturally produces carbon on a large scale is forest fires, so
lets look at them. No two years are the same for forest fires, but the best estimates of
the 1997-1998 season is that it put out 2.1 billion tons. Again, that is only 4 percent
compared to human activity and roughly a quarter of the U.S. carbon footprint. Plus,
if you have every gone back to an area just a few years after a forest fire, it is
amazingly green. All that new growth goes a long way toward reabsorbing the
carbon put out by the forest fire.
Here is the bottom line, the more carbon in the air, the warmer the planet will get
and humans are putting huge amounts of carbon into the air, even compared to natural
and geologic and activity. The great majority of scientists think that we have already
reached the point where human activity is increasing the average temperature of the
globe. It's a big, difficult topic, and I will leave you to make your own research and
decision, but I think it is completely reasonable to say that living a low carbon
footprint life is a very good thing.
There is one more thing we need to know about carbon footprints. There are two
ways that burning fossil fuel puts carbon into the air: direct and indirect. Let's look at
burning 1 gallon of gas in a car. The direct way it produces carbon is obvious, the
engine burns gas and carbon comes out the tailpipe. That is simple and easy to
measure. But a whole lot of carbon was produced indirectly so we could burn that
gallon of gas. First, the gas didn't magically appear in the gas tank. The oil had to be
pumped up out of the ground, transported to a refinery, refined and finally
transported to the gas station where you bought it. That entire process is very dirty
and produced a lot of carbon. Second, an even bigger indirect carbon footprint is the
carbon footprint of the car itself. Again, it didn't magically appear out of thin air, an
enormous amount of fossil fuel was burned to produce that car. Here is an estimate
of the carbon footprint of three sizes of cars:
 | Smart Car: 6 Tons of carbon | |
| Ford Taurus: 17 Tons of carbon | |
| Large SUV: 35 Tons of carbon |
Because it is fairly simple to determine the direct footprint of our activities, and
calculators greatly underestimate the actual total carbon impact in their calculations.
It's important to realize that carbon footprints are limited to examining global climate
change and not necessarily the total environmental impact something may have. For
example, generating power in a nuclear power plant has a very low carbon footprint
because it is not burning fossil fuel and so isn't contributing to global warming. But
that doesn't make it good for the environment. When considering its total
environmental impact, we would also have to take into account the great danger from
accidental release of radiation in an accident (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and
Japan in 2011) and the insurmountable problem of storing spent fuel. Another
example is generating hydro power from dams like the Hoover Dam in Nevada. It
produces virtually no carbon and has very little impact on global climate change, but
it consumes a huge amount of land with a negative impact, so the carbon footprint
doesn't tell the whole story. So it isn't enough just to look at carbon footprints when
trying to live a green life.
Even with all its limitations and uncertainties, the concept of a carbon footprint
remains one of our best tools to guide our new, green life. In one sense it is like
money. We probably don't know the exact cost of a bottle of champagne, but we are
sure that it is more than a cup of coffee. I am equally certain that the cost of a house
is a great deal more than either of those. We have a general sense of the cost of
something. In the same way, I may not know the exact carbon cost of driving my car
3 blocks to a store down the street, I am pretty sure that it is higher than walking. I
may not know the carbon footprint of a banana, but I'm certain that taking a flight
from Seattle to Miami is much higher, and much more important to look for
alternatives or ways to mitigate its impact. Because the concept of the carbon cost of
something is new to us, you probably haven't developed that sense of values yet. A
very good way to get started is to buy the book "How Bad Are Bananas?" by Mike
Berners-Lee. He does an outstanding job of giving not only specific details but a
general sense of carbon footprints.
 | |  | |  |
| Cheap Green RV Living |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| This website takes no responsibility for dangers you may encounter by following our advice See disclaimer |
Understanding
Carbon Footprint
Carbon Footprint
If we are going to live a green life, we need to have a basic understanding of
the idea of a carbon footprint. Here is a simple definition of carbon footprint:
the idea of a carbon footprint. Here is a simple definition of carbon footprint:
Visit our sister site: cheaprvliving.com
Join our Forum: cheaprvlivingforum.com
Join our Forum: cheaprvlivingforum.com
Consider giving a small
donation to support this site
donation to support this site
Finding the joy in Green Living.
| Carbon footprint is an attempt to estimate the total impact we have on global climate change when we buy or do something. |
In trying to learn about carbon
footprints and global warming, I've
read quite a few books. By far the
best I found is "How Bad Are
Bananas?" by Mike Berners-Lee.
Most of the information presented
here is from his book. It is balanced,
reasonable and humble. He presents
lots of information in an
understandable way. Best of all the
science is accessible, understandable,
and for the most part, not gibberish as
is so often the case. If you are
interested in the topic, this is a great
book to start with.
footprints and global warming, I've
read quite a few books. By far the
best I found is "How Bad Are
Bananas?" by Mike Berners-Lee.
Most of the information presented
here is from his book. It is balanced,
reasonable and humble. He presents
lots of information in an
understandable way. Best of all the
science is accessible, understandable,
and for the most part, not gibberish as
is so often the case. If you are
interested in the topic, this is a great
book to start with.