What do you think?
Rate this book
How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything
From a text message to a war, from a Valentine's rose to a flight or even having a child, How Bad are Bananas? gives us the carbon answers we need and provides plenty of revelations. By talking through a hundred or so items, Mike Berners-Lee sets out to give us a carbon instinct for the footprint of literally anything we do, buy and think about. He helps us pick our battles by laying out the orders of magnitude. The book ranges from the everyday (foods, books, plastic bags, bikes, flights, baths - ) and the global (deforestation, data centres, rice production, the World Cup, volcanoes, - ) Be warned, some of the things you thought you knew about green living may be about to be turned on their head. Never preachy but packed full of information and always entertaining.
256 pages, Paperback
First published May 13, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 342 reviews
September 5, 2011
My brother-in-law is obsessed with food miles. Obsessed. He flat-out won’t buy anything not grown in the UK. And yet his last holiday involved flying to Africa. And he eats a lot of meat. And he wants to have a child.
See the contradiction?
Trying to do the best for the environment is such a tricky thing. I consider myself a good environmentalist! And yet I’m sitting here on an internet/cloud-connected computer writing this book review, which isn’t great in terms of energy use. Short of going off-grid and living in a tree, no one can live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. So you need to pick your battles wisely and figure out what’s really bad for the planet and what you can and should cut out.
That’s where How Bad Are Bananas? becomes really helpful. Mike ‘I didn’t invent the internet, that was my brother’ Berners-Lee sifts through a myriad of data to rate everyday activities in terms of just how carbon-centric they are. The resulting book is a bit heavy-going in places, but Berners-Lee is an affable narrator, making it an entertaining-yet-thinky read.
And guess what? As long as you buy foreign-grown food that arrives by boat, the carbon footprint is negligible. Ha! HA.
However, I do really need to cut down on my cheese intake. Oh, cheese. You were my favourite. :,(
See the contradiction?
Trying to do the best for the environment is such a tricky thing. I consider myself a good environmentalist! And yet I’m sitting here on an internet/cloud-connected computer writing this book review, which isn’t great in terms of energy use. Short of going off-grid and living in a tree, no one can live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. So you need to pick your battles wisely and figure out what’s really bad for the planet and what you can and should cut out.
That’s where How Bad Are Bananas? becomes really helpful. Mike ‘I didn’t invent the internet, that was my brother’ Berners-Lee sifts through a myriad of data to rate everyday activities in terms of just how carbon-centric they are. The resulting book is a bit heavy-going in places, but Berners-Lee is an affable narrator, making it an entertaining-yet-thinky read.
And guess what? As long as you buy foreign-grown food that arrives by boat, the carbon footprint is negligible. Ha! HA.
However, I do really need to cut down on my cheese intake. Oh, cheese. You were my favourite. :,(
January 20, 2022
If you are concerned about climate change, and your contribution to the production of greenhouses gasses--then this is the book for you. Just about every product, every behavior, every activity, is put into perspective. The author estimates, to the best of his ability, how big the contribution is, to one's carbon footprint. Of course, some things contribute toward other greenhouse gasses--like methane, for instance--and these are converted into equivalent carbon footprints.
What sorts of activities are included in the estimates? Things like spam email, regular mail, drying ones hands with a paper towel, with a Dyson Airblade, or a standard electric dryer. There are some surprises here; disposal diapers are no worse than reusable diapers!
Estimating a carbon footprint is far from an exact science. Many assumptions are made, in the face of a great range of diversity. The book is very helpful in converting carbon footprints into perspective, like driving a certain number of miles in a car. For example, two people bicycling a mile while powered by cheeseburgers is equivalent to two people driving a mile in an efficient car. But if the bicyclists are powered by bananas or a breakfast cereal, then a bicycle is ten times more carbon efficient than the most efficient gas-powered car! A dishwasher beats washing dishes by hand.
The book emphasizes that a carbon footprint should not be the only factoer in one's life decisions. Other values are also important. For example, plastic bags contribute negligibly to one's carbon footrint, but can be bad for the environment. Another example is traveling by train. A car fully loaded with passengers is more carbon efficient (on a per-person basis) than a fully-loaded train. However, trains are faster and much safer.
Then there is the rebound effect. When somethiong becomes cheaper to do, we do more of it so that it doesn't really become cheaper. (An example of this is computers vs. paper.) So, when some product becomes more carbon efficient, we might tend to use more of it, more than making up for dropping a less efficient product.
I was impressed by the categorization of carbon footprints by sectors of the economy. For the UK, domestic energy contributes 22%; cars are 15%; food and drink 20%; air travel 17%; construction 6%, and public administration, defense, education and health care 11! toward the total national carbon footprint.
The book is already 12 years old (published in 2010), so that many estimates are probably out of date. However, I am not aware of any other publication that so nicely puts all these estimates together, in a convenient reference. The book is fun to read, and describes many surprising aspects of carbon footprints. Highly recommended for all climate activists.
What sorts of activities are included in the estimates? Things like spam email, regular mail, drying ones hands with a paper towel, with a Dyson Airblade, or a standard electric dryer. There are some surprises here; disposal diapers are no worse than reusable diapers!
Estimating a carbon footprint is far from an exact science. Many assumptions are made, in the face of a great range of diversity. The book is very helpful in converting carbon footprints into perspective, like driving a certain number of miles in a car. For example, two people bicycling a mile while powered by cheeseburgers is equivalent to two people driving a mile in an efficient car. But if the bicyclists are powered by bananas or a breakfast cereal, then a bicycle is ten times more carbon efficient than the most efficient gas-powered car! A dishwasher beats washing dishes by hand.
The book emphasizes that a carbon footprint should not be the only factoer in one's life decisions. Other values are also important. For example, plastic bags contribute negligibly to one's carbon footrint, but can be bad for the environment. Another example is traveling by train. A car fully loaded with passengers is more carbon efficient (on a per-person basis) than a fully-loaded train. However, trains are faster and much safer.
Then there is the rebound effect. When somethiong becomes cheaper to do, we do more of it so that it doesn't really become cheaper. (An example of this is computers vs. paper.) So, when some product becomes more carbon efficient, we might tend to use more of it, more than making up for dropping a less efficient product.
I was impressed by the categorization of carbon footprints by sectors of the economy. For the UK, domestic energy contributes 22%; cars are 15%; food and drink 20%; air travel 17%; construction 6%, and public administration, defense, education and health care 11! toward the total national carbon footprint.
The book is already 12 years old (published in 2010), so that many estimates are probably out of date. However, I am not aware of any other publication that so nicely puts all these estimates together, in a convenient reference. The book is fun to read, and describes many surprising aspects of carbon footprints. Highly recommended for all climate activists.
June 4, 2017
This book is about the carbon footprint, and how we can help to reduce it, by showing us where certain things and actions are regarding the heaviness of their footprint. The book is mostly US and UK centric with some side-Canadian examples, but I feel it can work even for those who aren't from these countries.
The book starts by explaining what the carbon footprint means, then we get things in heaviness from 10 grams to 1 million tons and beyond (the heavier, the more serious). The weight is shown both in kgs and pounds, but with smaller ones only grams. It's not easy to measure *exactly*, but getting near the true sum is better than no guess :) Each example has further explanation in detail with some figures and tables sometimes attached.
After that there are some food tips - since it's one important and easy way to reduce the footprint - some further information on gathering the numbers, and thorough notes.
Some areas: using the phone and computer, what one eats or drinks, how one gets from point A to B (walking or using a personal or public vehicle), everyday actions (like laundry, taking a shower/bath, or writing a letter), everyday objects (like diapers, a rose, a book). Some things are included that are not really in our hands, but are still of interest (a volcano, a forest fire, a war).
Didn't quite agree re: solar panels, but at least his opinion on wind turbines was good. And the company examples are from those he has done carbon footprint calculations for (like Booths in the food-tips section). I think I will use some of the information, so I'm certainly returning to this book later. It's a fairly quick read, and quite inspiring.
The book starts by explaining what the carbon footprint means, then we get things in heaviness from 10 grams to 1 million tons and beyond (the heavier, the more serious). The weight is shown both in kgs and pounds, but with smaller ones only grams. It's not easy to measure *exactly*, but getting near the true sum is better than no guess :) Each example has further explanation in detail with some figures and tables sometimes attached.
After that there are some food tips - since it's one important and easy way to reduce the footprint - some further information on gathering the numbers, and thorough notes.
Some areas: using the phone and computer, what one eats or drinks, how one gets from point A to B (walking or using a personal or public vehicle), everyday actions (like laundry, taking a shower/bath, or writing a letter), everyday objects (like diapers, a rose, a book). Some things are included that are not really in our hands, but are still of interest (a volcano, a forest fire, a war).
Didn't quite agree re: solar panels, but at least his opinion on wind turbines was good. And the company examples are from those he has done carbon footprint calculations for (like Booths in the food-tips section). I think I will use some of the information, so I'm certainly returning to this book later. It's a fairly quick read, and quite inspiring.
July 18, 2019
Due to global warming and healthy
hazards, we are responsible for the amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) which we produce as our Carbon Footprints.
بررسی رد پای دی اکسید کربن در تمام فعالیت روزمره ما و گرمایش زمین
It’s hard to miss the news about climate change. Every day there seems to be a new story about melting polar ice, floods, endangered species and how we should expect more hurricanes and extreme weather. It’s up to us, as the citizens of Earth, to push our leaders into action and do our own part to reduce the harmful emissions that are ruining our planet.
We all have our routines, and it’s easy to think that these daily habits of shopping, cooking and washing up are harmless. But just think of how much food you throw away over the course of a year, or how many appliances you leave turned on or plugged in when they don’t really need to be.
There’s a carbon footprint to virtually every meal, drink and activity in your life, and many of these footprints can be reduced with some simple changes. These include texting instead of calling, drinking tap water instead of mineral water, taking quicker showers and reducing your meat and dairy intake. By being more aware of the hidden contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, you can make adjustments to your daily life without causing too much of a disruption.
....
Harmful gases can come from nature, but human-made emissions are much more numerous.
There are some folks who believe that the environmental damage caused by humans has been exaggerated, and that the harm we’ve done doesn’t hold a candle to what Mother Nature can do to herself.
One such example in this erroneous line of thinking is volcanoes, which are known to emit greenhouse gases even when they’re not erupting.
If we look at Mount Etna in Italy, we can see that, over the course of a relatively inactive year, it produced around a million metric tons of CO₂e. And when we take all the world’s volcanoes together we have around 300 million metric tons per year. However, this is still less than 1 percent of the yearly emissions produced by humans.
Volcanoes can also have a cooling effect. While the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released 42 million metric tons of CO₂e, it also released a lot of ash and sulfur into the atmosphere. This ash actually cooled down the planet by reflecting the sun’s rays. Studies show that the global temperature went down by 0.5°C after the Pinatubo eruption.
What can be more truly devastating are bushfires.
In 2009 alone, Australian bushfires caused 165 million metric tons of CO₂e emissions. That’s the equivalent of the carbon footprints of 5 million Australians over the course of a normal year. These emissions lead to warmer temperatures and drier vegetation, which, in turn, increase the likelihood of more fires. It’s an unfortunate and disastrous cycle.
Yet the emissions being produced by humans put these numbers in the shade.
Take black carbon, for example: this is a component of the soot that is released by incomplete combustion, which can be anything from a brushfire to burning coal or an active fireplace in your living room.
All together, black carbon accounts for anywhere between 7 and 15 billion metric tons of CO₂e per year – roughly 15–30 percent of 2007’s global emissions. But only 42 percent of this black carbon comes from outdoor fires – whether natural or human-caused. The majority of it comes from humans, a quarter of which are from fireplaces or other homemade fires. Another quarter comes from transport emissions and 10 percent comes from coal-burning stations.
Another huge source of human-made emissions is deforestation. For every hectare of forest that gets taken down, 500 metric tons of CO₂e gets released into the atmosphere. And with 13 million hectares taken down every year, that’s 9 billion metric tons of CO₂e yearly, which accounts for a whopping 17 percent of all global emissions.
....
environmentally conscious way can greatly reduce your carbon footprint.
So, if you’d really like to start a 10-tonne lifestyle, one of the best ways to start is to look at your diet. Since it accounts for 20 percent of your own footprint, being more considerate about what you eat is the perfect place to start.
The first thing to do is eat less meat and dairy.
As mentioned earlier, the meat and dairy industry are big contributors to the world’s CO₂e emissions. This doesn’t mean you need to become vegan. Even a modest reduction in these foods can reduce your diet’s carbon footprint by up to 25 percent.
Ref: blinkist.com
hazards, we are responsible for the amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) which we produce as our Carbon Footprints.
بررسی رد پای دی اکسید کربن در تمام فعالیت روزمره ما و گرمایش زمین
It’s hard to miss the news about climate change. Every day there seems to be a new story about melting polar ice, floods, endangered species and how we should expect more hurricanes and extreme weather. It’s up to us, as the citizens of Earth, to push our leaders into action and do our own part to reduce the harmful emissions that are ruining our planet.
We all have our routines, and it’s easy to think that these daily habits of shopping, cooking and washing up are harmless. But just think of how much food you throw away over the course of a year, or how many appliances you leave turned on or plugged in when they don’t really need to be.
There’s a carbon footprint to virtually every meal, drink and activity in your life, and many of these footprints can be reduced with some simple changes. These include texting instead of calling, drinking tap water instead of mineral water, taking quicker showers and reducing your meat and dairy intake. By being more aware of the hidden contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, you can make adjustments to your daily life without causing too much of a disruption.
....
Harmful gases can come from nature, but human-made emissions are much more numerous.
There are some folks who believe that the environmental damage caused by humans has been exaggerated, and that the harm we’ve done doesn’t hold a candle to what Mother Nature can do to herself.
One such example in this erroneous line of thinking is volcanoes, which are known to emit greenhouse gases even when they’re not erupting.
If we look at Mount Etna in Italy, we can see that, over the course of a relatively inactive year, it produced around a million metric tons of CO₂e. And when we take all the world’s volcanoes together we have around 300 million metric tons per year. However, this is still less than 1 percent of the yearly emissions produced by humans.
Volcanoes can also have a cooling effect. While the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released 42 million metric tons of CO₂e, it also released a lot of ash and sulfur into the atmosphere. This ash actually cooled down the planet by reflecting the sun’s rays. Studies show that the global temperature went down by 0.5°C after the Pinatubo eruption.
What can be more truly devastating are bushfires.
In 2009 alone, Australian bushfires caused 165 million metric tons of CO₂e emissions. That’s the equivalent of the carbon footprints of 5 million Australians over the course of a normal year. These emissions lead to warmer temperatures and drier vegetation, which, in turn, increase the likelihood of more fires. It’s an unfortunate and disastrous cycle.
Yet the emissions being produced by humans put these numbers in the shade.
Take black carbon, for example: this is a component of the soot that is released by incomplete combustion, which can be anything from a brushfire to burning coal or an active fireplace in your living room.
All together, black carbon accounts for anywhere between 7 and 15 billion metric tons of CO₂e per year – roughly 15–30 percent of 2007’s global emissions. But only 42 percent of this black carbon comes from outdoor fires – whether natural or human-caused. The majority of it comes from humans, a quarter of which are from fireplaces or other homemade fires. Another quarter comes from transport emissions and 10 percent comes from coal-burning stations.
Another huge source of human-made emissions is deforestation. For every hectare of forest that gets taken down, 500 metric tons of CO₂e gets released into the atmosphere. And with 13 million hectares taken down every year, that’s 9 billion metric tons of CO₂e yearly, which accounts for a whopping 17 percent of all global emissions.
....
environmentally conscious way can greatly reduce your carbon footprint.
So, if you’d really like to start a 10-tonne lifestyle, one of the best ways to start is to look at your diet. Since it accounts for 20 percent of your own footprint, being more considerate about what you eat is the perfect place to start.
The first thing to do is eat less meat and dairy.
As mentioned earlier, the meat and dairy industry are big contributors to the world’s CO₂e emissions. This doesn’t mean you need to become vegan. Even a modest reduction in these foods can reduce your diet’s carbon footprint by up to 25 percent.
Ref: blinkist.com
September 15, 2012
This is a good reference book for rough ballpark ideas of how big your carbon footprint is (actually, an estimate of the total climate change impact of your lifestyle with various assumptions to get figures to work with) and to compare various actions (e.g. travelling by train vs. by car, by sea vs. by air, recycling vs. landfill). The author readily admits that it's a lot of guesstimation: it's just meant to give you a rough idea, and it's quite good at putting things into perspective by comparison. I wouldn't advise you read it cover to cover, just dip in to find what you're interested in.
Note: the Kindle edition has some issues with typos and layout at times, but is mostly good.
Also, if you, like me, are unable to eat bananas and you really wish you could, you may want to just avoid this book as it will annoy you by singing the praises of bananas constantly. Also I don't want to think about the carbon footprints of my various medications (just think about all the packaging, the manufacturing, the transport... ugh!) or of my cholecystectomy. Even the incineration of my gallbladder will have added to my carbon footprint...! (Though it is probably better the one-time operation than a lifelong need for buscopan, with all the manufacturing and so on required there, plus the late nights spent awake with biliary colic and therefore using more electricity...)
Now I'm overthinking it.
Note: the Kindle edition has some issues with typos and layout at times, but is mostly good.
Also, if you, like me, are unable to eat bananas and you really wish you could, you may want to just avoid this book as it will annoy you by singing the praises of bananas constantly. Also I don't want to think about the carbon footprints of my various medications (just think about all the packaging, the manufacturing, the transport... ugh!) or of my cholecystectomy. Even the incineration of my gallbladder will have added to my carbon footprint...! (Though it is probably better the one-time operation than a lifelong need for buscopan, with all the manufacturing and so on required there, plus the late nights spent awake with biliary colic and therefore using more electricity...)
Now I'm overthinking it.
November 15, 2014
It seems common knowledge that riding your bike to work is a low carbon activity. What you might not know if that if you fuel your bike ride with air-freighted off season asparagus, then your carbon footprint increases dramatically and you'd be better off commuting buy Hummer. The art and science of taking into account many aspects of what constitutes a carbon footprint has often been ignored.
Mike Berners-Lee minutely examines and calculates the carbon footprint (by weight) of many activities and items in his new book, How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything.
It all started with bananas. I was initially intrigued by bananas after reading Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle several years ago, during which she and her daughter have a conversation with her daughter's friend about how bad bananas are because they are grown so far away and the energy used to transport them is bad for the environment. Continually intrigued by micro-histories, especially food related micro-histories, I eventually read Banana: The Fate of the Fruit that Changed the World by Koeppel several years ago which changed my one-a-day banana habit from regular to organic, mainly due to the environmental conditions within the banana-growing countries. But still nagging me was the transportation costs on the environment; should I switch my breakfast mainstay to something more local? Berners-Lee calculates that actually bananas aren't really that bad. They are generally shipped by boat (MUCH lower carbon footprint than airfreight) and keep well without refrigeration.
In addition to bananas, Berners-Lee examines many other things and breaks down the environmental cost of things like paper vs. plastic, bus rides, drinking coffee, diapers, dairy products, laundry, asparagus, beer and wine, sending emails and riding in trains. The book is broken up into very small entries for each subject and is easy to read and often funny. This book doesn't answer every question about carbon footprints, but hopefully gives a new framework for measuring overall environmental impact of many everyday things - and explained in an easy to read manner.
Bonus! From the cover:
"I can't remember the last time I read a book that was more fascinating and useful and enjoyable."—Bill Bryson
Mike Berners-Lee minutely examines and calculates the carbon footprint (by weight) of many activities and items in his new book, How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything.
It all started with bananas. I was initially intrigued by bananas after reading Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle several years ago, during which she and her daughter have a conversation with her daughter's friend about how bad bananas are because they are grown so far away and the energy used to transport them is bad for the environment. Continually intrigued by micro-histories, especially food related micro-histories, I eventually read Banana: The Fate of the Fruit that Changed the World by Koeppel several years ago which changed my one-a-day banana habit from regular to organic, mainly due to the environmental conditions within the banana-growing countries. But still nagging me was the transportation costs on the environment; should I switch my breakfast mainstay to something more local? Berners-Lee calculates that actually bananas aren't really that bad. They are generally shipped by boat (MUCH lower carbon footprint than airfreight) and keep well without refrigeration.
In addition to bananas, Berners-Lee examines many other things and breaks down the environmental cost of things like paper vs. plastic, bus rides, drinking coffee, diapers, dairy products, laundry, asparagus, beer and wine, sending emails and riding in trains. The book is broken up into very small entries for each subject and is easy to read and often funny. This book doesn't answer every question about carbon footprints, but hopefully gives a new framework for measuring overall environmental impact of many everyday things - and explained in an easy to read manner.
Bonus! From the cover:
"I can't remember the last time I read a book that was more fascinating and useful and enjoyable."—Bill Bryson
March 23, 2020
One would think that reading a two hundred page list of the carbon footprint of different things we do, eat, buy, or spend would not be the most entertaining thing to read. One would be wrong.
This is an enjoyable book that tells us how much CO2 equivalent are we causing, and hence our effect on the climate, by doing what we do every day. Is it better to read a book or watch a few hours of Netflix? well it is up to you but at least you know the comparison now. What is interesting is that Berners-Lee has managed to make a sensitive topic like this nonjudgmental which is no easy feat. It is not meant to make you feel guilty (well unless you are on a flight every couple of weeks) but to give you the tools to make decisions whether you are a hard-core climate warrior that wants to diminish your carbon footprint or just casually wanting to know how bad are bananas (hint, not too bad, but asparagus imported out of season is a true crime).
The writing is readable and witty and the information have taken a massive amount of research. The author is clear about his level of uncertainty about some of the data and keeps attention on what matters.
This is an enjoyable book that tells us how much CO2 equivalent are we causing, and hence our effect on the climate, by doing what we do every day. Is it better to read a book or watch a few hours of Netflix? well it is up to you but at least you know the comparison now. What is interesting is that Berners-Lee has managed to make a sensitive topic like this nonjudgmental which is no easy feat. It is not meant to make you feel guilty (well unless you are on a flight every couple of weeks) but to give you the tools to make decisions whether you are a hard-core climate warrior that wants to diminish your carbon footprint or just casually wanting to know how bad are bananas (hint, not too bad, but asparagus imported out of season is a true crime).
The writing is readable and witty and the information have taken a massive amount of research. The author is clear about his level of uncertainty about some of the data and keeps attention on what matters.
February 1, 2013
I have always believed that you should get paper bags over plastic at the grocery store, but I'm somewhat ambivalent about that after reading Mike Berners-Lee's book, How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, plastic bags actually produce far less CO2 than their paper rivals. That is, of course, only taking one variable into consideration. Plastic bags don't break down over time and they are difficult and expensive to recycle. Then again, paper bags are also difficult to recycle and, if they are simply thrown away and end up in a landfill, Berners-Lee points out, they will rot and release methane into the atmosphere which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. I guess the moral of the story is don't worry about either option and bring your own reusable carrier bag--just make sure to reuse it and not throw it away, or that may be the worst option of all.
How Bad are Bananas? doesn't present itself as any sort of manifesto; it doesn't attempt to persuade anyone to live greener or go vegan or ride a bike. What it does is present the facts, as accurately as Berners-Lee can calculate them, about how each of our decisions impacts the production of greenhouse gasses, and therefore impacts global warming (which the author takes as a given, as do most rational people). The book is set up, basically, as a list from the small things to the big things. We start with text messages and plastic bags and work our way through food and and housework up to volcanoes (which we obviously have no control over) and wars (which you would think we do have some control over). There is no overarching narrative or anything, which makes the book somewhat tedious to read for long stretches, but the book's format does lend itself well to act as a sort of reference that you should keep handy and occasionally consult.
The highlight of the book, for me, was the way the author points out hypocrisies in our green agendas. For instance, he points out that many people may want to ride a bike to lower their carbon footprint, which is good, but they are not having the positive impact they may imagine if they are fueling their bodies with calories from exotic foods shipped via air from the far corners of the earth.
Even though the book doesn't seek to convert anyone to a hippie, liberal, tree-hugger doctrine, it did persuade me to make a few changes to my life so that I might contribute less to climate change. For starters, it reinforced my belief in buying foods locally and in season. Our industrial food complex has created quite an environmental mess. Also, it has made me think about hanging the clothes to dry instead of using an electric dryer and looking into alternative water heating methods. The most important thing we can do is simply this: think. Think about where the products we consume are coming from and where they end up after we are finished with them. Think about what we can compromise on or adjust to live more efficiently. Think about how the things all we do are connected and we are part of a bigger picture. Think about asking questions like, "How bad are bananas?"
PS: Bananas are a low carbon snack, enjoy. Also, try some other varieties of bananas instead of that one type we always eat.
How Bad are Bananas? doesn't present itself as any sort of manifesto; it doesn't attempt to persuade anyone to live greener or go vegan or ride a bike. What it does is present the facts, as accurately as Berners-Lee can calculate them, about how each of our decisions impacts the production of greenhouse gasses, and therefore impacts global warming (which the author takes as a given, as do most rational people). The book is set up, basically, as a list from the small things to the big things. We start with text messages and plastic bags and work our way through food and and housework up to volcanoes (which we obviously have no control over) and wars (which you would think we do have some control over). There is no overarching narrative or anything, which makes the book somewhat tedious to read for long stretches, but the book's format does lend itself well to act as a sort of reference that you should keep handy and occasionally consult.
The highlight of the book, for me, was the way the author points out hypocrisies in our green agendas. For instance, he points out that many people may want to ride a bike to lower their carbon footprint, which is good, but they are not having the positive impact they may imagine if they are fueling their bodies with calories from exotic foods shipped via air from the far corners of the earth.
Even though the book doesn't seek to convert anyone to a hippie, liberal, tree-hugger doctrine, it did persuade me to make a few changes to my life so that I might contribute less to climate change. For starters, it reinforced my belief in buying foods locally and in season. Our industrial food complex has created quite an environmental mess. Also, it has made me think about hanging the clothes to dry instead of using an electric dryer and looking into alternative water heating methods. The most important thing we can do is simply this: think. Think about where the products we consume are coming from and where they end up after we are finished with them. Think about what we can compromise on or adjust to live more efficiently. Think about how the things all we do are connected and we are part of a bigger picture. Think about asking questions like, "How bad are bananas?"
PS: Bananas are a low carbon snack, enjoy. Also, try some other varieties of bananas instead of that one type we always eat.
December 8, 2022
Leest niet heel vlot, maar ongelooflijk interessant! Heeft de kijk op mijn huidige levensstijl wel wat veranderd 🙂
June 8, 2011
There's a lot that surprised me in this book (for instance, bananas are not only okay, they have a smaller footprint than carrots or ice cream or a red, red rose) and a lot that made me think. The author points out that much of what we do in the name of saving the planet is foolish- the frequent flyer executive who wrote in to ask if he should use paper towels or the hot air dryer in public restrooms got the eminently sensible answer that hand drying is so minor in comparison to the airplane trips, it's silly to even contemplate changing the one and not the other.
Interesting, fairly well researched - there's a LOT of estimating and "roughly right" stuff here, but it's a fuzzy calculation, carbon footprint is- and every now and then the author says, "I guessed on this number" but he's guessing from a position of knowledge.
A lot of what I thought made a difference makes less of a difference than other things I never even thought about!
Well worth reading, if only for the ability to eat bananas and oranges armed with the knowledge that you are not ruining the earth by so doing. 3.5 stars.
Interesting, fairly well researched - there's a LOT of estimating and "roughly right" stuff here, but it's a fuzzy calculation, carbon footprint is- and every now and then the author says, "I guessed on this number" but he's guessing from a position of knowledge.
A lot of what I thought made a difference makes less of a difference than other things I never even thought about!
Well worth reading, if only for the ability to eat bananas and oranges armed with the knowledge that you are not ruining the earth by so doing. 3.5 stars.
July 3, 2021
Considering facing the biggest thread to mankind and knowing that it is self-made, shouldn't everybody know what contributes to it to what extent and what we can influence on a personal level? Isn't it obvious that this should be basic knowledge everybody must get educated in? Unfortunately the reality is different, leaving mankind somehow paralyzed in getting the problem fixed, since it is so easy to fall into the trap of not seeing the worth of one's individual contribution. The big value of this book is to put things in relation and to show how things add up! Especially in a world led by smart marketing and trends of green washing it is invaluable to keep perspective and focus on the things that actually matter, often not resulting in relinquishment but actually enriching the quality of our lives at the same time. So, do I recommend to read this book? Yes, of course, I would even see it as a duty to be read by everyone!
June 8, 2021
A great loo read. Lots of interesting facts and puts everyday climate change questions in perspective but hard to read like a normal book. My favourite bit of insight was that electric bikes are the most carbon effective way to commute in the UK as you're getting so much of the energy from renewables rather than if you cycle and eat bananas that are shipped from south America.
January 19, 2022
Very informative read , with a great sense of humor . And in case your wondering bananas arent' bad for you or the planet ;-)
October 7, 2011
The short version: A great reference with a great title. The book itself is laid out in a logical manner, going in orders of magnitudes of carbon emissions equivalent (under 10 grams to 1 million tons and beyond). The author combines both top-down and bottom-up approaches in calculating his footprints, which is no easy task given the interconnectedness of everything we produce and consume nowadays.
Some interesting tidbits from the book:
-How bad really are bananas? They are a very low-carbon food: they are grown without greenhouses, shipped with minimal packaging via large cargo ships, the most efficient form of long-distance transportation. Keep eating them!
-Bottled water has 1000x the carbon footprint as the stuff coming out of the faucet. Avoid anywhere you have decent tap water.
-Plastic bags are nasty for a bunch of reasons, but are not a big carbon concern.
-Meat (especially from ruminants like cows and sheep) and dairy have huge footprints due to the generation of methane.
The book isn’t perfect. On occasion, his methodology is hard to understand. References are provided in the back, but they are not always adequately explained. I’m still trying to figure out what a “climate-change related death” is and how it is calculated. In addition, the book is from the UK, so sometimes it’s a little difficult relating his experiences to the ones in North America, even though he converts everything to pounds and has included a lot of Canadian and American content.
But those are minor quibbles. The content is informative and presented in an appealing and accessible way. Above all, it is his approach and his writing that really sold me on the book. In the first few pages, the author stresses the need to look at the big picture, to pick the right battles for reducing carbon emissions, to not succumb to misdirection and obfuscation, and to hone in on areas of your personal life that work for you to produce the most bang for your buck.
He frankly admits to the fuzziness of the numbers and that there is a lot of room for improvement. But his real goal is to produce a resource with ballpark figures so that people can wrap their heads around this really complex issue. I found this aspect really refreshing as I went through the book; it’s evident that he is a subject matter expert and has poured a lot of energy into this, but he never comes across as being boisterous and authoritative. He even provides an email address for improvements and suggestions.
I don’t buy too many books nowadays, but I’m glad I got this one: it’s a keeper. It’s for anyone who thinks, to quote the author, “climate change is a big deal, it’s caused by humans, and we can do something about it”, and is interested in some carbon awareness. Highly recommended.
Some interesting tidbits from the book:
-How bad really are bananas? They are a very low-carbon food: they are grown without greenhouses, shipped with minimal packaging via large cargo ships, the most efficient form of long-distance transportation. Keep eating them!
-Bottled water has 1000x the carbon footprint as the stuff coming out of the faucet. Avoid anywhere you have decent tap water.
-Plastic bags are nasty for a bunch of reasons, but are not a big carbon concern.
-Meat (especially from ruminants like cows and sheep) and dairy have huge footprints due to the generation of methane.
The book isn’t perfect. On occasion, his methodology is hard to understand. References are provided in the back, but they are not always adequately explained. I’m still trying to figure out what a “climate-change related death” is and how it is calculated. In addition, the book is from the UK, so sometimes it’s a little difficult relating his experiences to the ones in North America, even though he converts everything to pounds and has included a lot of Canadian and American content.
But those are minor quibbles. The content is informative and presented in an appealing and accessible way. Above all, it is his approach and his writing that really sold me on the book. In the first few pages, the author stresses the need to look at the big picture, to pick the right battles for reducing carbon emissions, to not succumb to misdirection and obfuscation, and to hone in on areas of your personal life that work for you to produce the most bang for your buck.
He frankly admits to the fuzziness of the numbers and that there is a lot of room for improvement. But his real goal is to produce a resource with ballpark figures so that people can wrap their heads around this really complex issue. I found this aspect really refreshing as I went through the book; it’s evident that he is a subject matter expert and has poured a lot of energy into this, but he never comes across as being boisterous and authoritative. He even provides an email address for improvements and suggestions.
I don’t buy too many books nowadays, but I’m glad I got this one: it’s a keeper. It’s for anyone who thinks, to quote the author, “climate change is a big deal, it’s caused by humans, and we can do something about it”, and is interested in some carbon awareness. Highly recommended.
September 20, 2022
3.75
Doceniam zrobiony research i szczegółowość, jednak myśle ze ta książka nadaje się częściowo do czytania wybiórczego, chyba ze faktycznie aż tak bardzo jest się zainteresowanym jakie produkty, usługi, czynności itp pozostawiająca ślad węglowy.
Doceniam zrobiony research i szczegółowość, jednak myśle ze ta książka nadaje się częściowo do czytania wybiórczego, chyba ze faktycznie aż tak bardzo jest się zainteresowanym jakie produkty, usługi, czynności itp pozostawiająca ślad węglowy.
October 7, 2011
This is the kind of book that will either inspire me or drive me crazy (or inspire me to drive other people crazy). The good news is bananas are a pretty good deal from the perspective of carbon emissions.
The author states clearly that any analysis of a carbon footprint is going to be an estimate and that different methods of making those estimates are debated and controversial. Berners-Lee's goal is to be as accurate as possible in order to provide comparisons of many products and activities that are common and/or seen as a problem for the environment.
While the focus is on carbon emissions, he does often explain that is only one perspective. From that point of view, plastic grocery bags have a negligible carbon footprint. Of course these bags damage the environment in many other ways.
There are some eye opening facts. For example, the net benefit of installing solar panels on a single home are pretty small. Berners-Lee's calculation is 50 tons of carbon emissions, which is just a bit higher than properly insulating one's attic (35 tons).
At the high end are events that individuals have very little influence over, such as the carbon emissions of a volcano or the effect of the soccer World Cup. Again, the focus here is perspective on what are the big things to worry about.
And bananas are not worth worrying about (particularly organically grown ones). Now, there is the issue of the genetics of bananas, how almost all are a single variety that is being attacked by a fungus which may wipe out bananas in our lifetime. But that is a different story.
The author states clearly that any analysis of a carbon footprint is going to be an estimate and that different methods of making those estimates are debated and controversial. Berners-Lee's goal is to be as accurate as possible in order to provide comparisons of many products and activities that are common and/or seen as a problem for the environment.
While the focus is on carbon emissions, he does often explain that is only one perspective. From that point of view, plastic grocery bags have a negligible carbon footprint. Of course these bags damage the environment in many other ways.
There are some eye opening facts. For example, the net benefit of installing solar panels on a single home are pretty small. Berners-Lee's calculation is 50 tons of carbon emissions, which is just a bit higher than properly insulating one's attic (35 tons).
At the high end are events that individuals have very little influence over, such as the carbon emissions of a volcano or the effect of the soccer World Cup. Again, the focus here is perspective on what are the big things to worry about.
And bananas are not worth worrying about (particularly organically grown ones). Now, there is the issue of the genetics of bananas, how almost all are a single variety that is being attacked by a fungus which may wipe out bananas in our lifetime. But that is a different story.
January 2, 2013
The author lives in the UK and does carbon footprint analysis for a living. He's taken his previous calculations, along with new ones, and turned them into a guide for figuring out your carbon footprint. It's interesting reading, though not useful for a quick lookup, but suffers from the fatal (and common) flaw of focusing on one environmental issue to the detriment of the rest. Sometimes he will point that out in the analysis (plastics may have low carbon output but they clog the oceans) and sometimes he doesn't (disposable diapers are about the same as cloth ha ha).
I do like that he looks at items individually, something the other calculators don't do. They just make assumptions about the size of your home and family and where you live. Here we see how each activity or product pans out. Will it help people make good decisions? Hard to say. Most of the problem in his eyes is air travel, something people do because they feel they need to. But at least he hasn't patted people on the head and told them that buying compact florescent lightbulbs and a hybrid car will save the planet.
I do like that he looks at items individually, something the other calculators don't do. They just make assumptions about the size of your home and family and where you live. Here we see how each activity or product pans out. Will it help people make good decisions? Hard to say. Most of the problem in his eyes is air travel, something people do because they feel they need to. But at least he hasn't patted people on the head and told them that buying compact florescent lightbulbs and a hybrid car will save the planet.
February 4, 2022
Even as someone who has already done a lot of research into environmental topics, I still learned a lot and found it extremely insightful. It would also be a great introduction for someone new to the topic as it explains everything very clearly, in a simple and relatable way and without using complicated terminology. I will definitely be returning to this book to use the data and I recommend it to everyone regardless of how much they already know about carbon footprints. Because in order for us to actually reduce our footprints we need to understand them first - and this book is perfect for that.
September 13, 2023
Things I learned people can find interesting: ✨
- Bananas shipped to Europe from Latin America are actually not too bad ;) Much worse fruit culprits are frozen or dried, and grapes airfreighted from South Africa. Anything airfreighted really is terrible.
- A new laptop has the footprint of London-Rome flight but using it is low carbon.
- Healthcare has a major carbon footprint, mostly due to electricity for hospital buildings and devices, and transport fuel.
- Each deforested hectare is equivalent to driving a car 50 to 100 times around the world.
- Black carbon is often overlooked and understudied but adds 16% to global emissions. Mostly comes from outdoor fires of any kind. Warms the atmosphere by contributing to the greenhouse effect and by making snow murky so it absorbs more heat. Good news is it doesn’t stay long in the atmosphere so reduction policies would be efficient quickly.
In short: If you want to reduce your impact look at what you eat, how you fuel your house, how much and how you travel and commute.
- Bananas shipped to Europe from Latin America are actually not too bad ;) Much worse fruit culprits are frozen or dried, and grapes airfreighted from South Africa. Anything airfreighted really is terrible.
- A new laptop has the footprint of London-Rome flight but using it is low carbon.
- Healthcare has a major carbon footprint, mostly due to electricity for hospital buildings and devices, and transport fuel.
- Each deforested hectare is equivalent to driving a car 50 to 100 times around the world.
- Black carbon is often overlooked and understudied but adds 16% to global emissions. Mostly comes from outdoor fires of any kind. Warms the atmosphere by contributing to the greenhouse effect and by making snow murky so it absorbs more heat. Good news is it doesn’t stay long in the atmosphere so reduction policies would be efficient quickly.
In short: If you want to reduce your impact look at what you eat, how you fuel your house, how much and how you travel and commute.
August 4, 2023
So worthwhile to read - it goes through all sorts of scenarios from everyday practices like buying seasonal food and driving more slowly on the motorway to mass industry and deforestation. I think comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of all these acts, relative to what an individual should be aiming for in one year, is a really helpful way to look at it. It will definitely stay with me
Some takeaways:
• cheese and dairy emissions are as bad as meat if not worse
• large 4x4 vehicles are actually worse than flying sometimes
• wasted water has much higher emissions than water that’s consumed
• rice is surprisingly bad, as are swimming pools, a night in a hotel, and universities
• the World Cup and having kids are both awful for emissions (unsurprisingly)
• black carbon
• sometimes dying is the most climate-friendly thing you can do 🙂
Some takeaways:
• cheese and dairy emissions are as bad as meat if not worse
• large 4x4 vehicles are actually worse than flying sometimes
• wasted water has much higher emissions than water that’s consumed
• rice is surprisingly bad, as are swimming pools, a night in a hotel, and universities
• the World Cup and having kids are both awful for emissions (unsurprisingly)
• black carbon
• sometimes dying is the most climate-friendly thing you can do 🙂
July 13, 2022
۲.۵
این کتاب پر حس عذاب وجدانه،
و اشتباهات زیادی داره،اکثرا متریال پلاستیکی رو به طبیعی ترجیح میده،
استفاده از سوخت فسیلی رو به الکتریسیته ترجیح میده،
واحد های اندازه گیری به هم نمیخورد،تخم مرغ رو به واحد یه شونه دوازده تایی اندازه میگیره و موز رو یک عدد،خب باید همه یه میزان مشخصی باشن،
اکثر مطالب برای انگلیسی و آمریکا به کار میان،
راه حل هایی که ارائه کرده پیش پا افتاده هستن اکثرا.
نکته بعدی اینه که این کتاب مثل اکثر مطالب به مبدا اون چیز توجه میکنه اما نمیگه تهش چی میشه.
مثلا یه جا میگه شلوار با متریال غیر طبیعی بهتره،اما این موضوع خودش هزارتا مشکل پشتشه،
۱.تولیدش
۲.شست شو و میکرو پلاستیکلایی که وارد آب میکنه
۳.به کجا میره؟
و جامع نیست ،در کل پیشنهادش نمیدم
این کتاب پر حس عذاب وجدانه،
و اشتباهات زیادی داره،اکثرا متریال پلاستیکی رو به طبیعی ترجیح میده،
استفاده از سوخت فسیلی رو به الکتریسیته ترجیح میده،
واحد های اندازه گیری به هم نمیخورد،تخم مرغ رو به واحد یه شونه دوازده تایی اندازه میگیره و موز رو یک عدد،خب باید همه یه میزان مشخصی باشن،
اکثر مطالب برای انگلیسی و آمریکا به کار میان،
راه حل هایی که ارائه کرده پیش پا افتاده هستن اکثرا.
نکته بعدی اینه که این کتاب مثل اکثر مطالب به مبدا اون چیز توجه میکنه اما نمیگه تهش چی میشه.
مثلا یه جا میگه شلوار با متریال غیر طبیعی بهتره،اما این موضوع خودش هزارتا مشکل پشتشه،
۱.تولیدش
۲.شست شو و میکرو پلاستیکلایی که وارد آب میکنه
۳.به کجا میره؟
و جامع نیست ،در کل پیشنهادش نمیدم
August 5, 2022
This long list of how much different aspects of our daily lives contribute to carbon emissions is definitely not meant to be read in one go, which will just make things get muddled in your head. Some of its conclusions are obvious and well-known by now: a more plant-based diet is better for the environment than a heavily animal-based one, local and seasonal is better than flown in from halfway across the globe, don't leave lights on and things plugged in when not needed. Other points are perhaps unexpected: a train ride, especially first-class (fewer passengers per amount of space), might well be worse per traveler than an efficient car with 4 people in it. Yet others I didn't quite buy: Berners-Lee encourages us to buy the "ugly" veggies so they don't get chucked out - but I'd imagine most supply chains already throw them in processed foods, not the garbage.
Bottom line, literally everything we do is ruining the planet, and this book make me (more) depressed while also being quite boring.
Bottom line, literally everything we do is ruining the planet, and this book make me (more) depressed while also being quite boring.
November 26, 2019
The best book I've read all year. Fascinating, extremely well researched and actually surprisingly funny too! If you are interested in reducing your climate change impact this is an excellent place to start. Could not recommend it more highly!
February 5, 2022
This is fantastic!
It’s an eye-opening, easy to read book that details all the carbon footprints of various items and activities etc. Most of which are unexpected and surprising.
It’s educational and written in an engaging way with threads of humour throughout (despite the depressing topic!)
It’s an eye-opening, easy to read book that details all the carbon footprints of various items and activities etc. Most of which are unexpected and surprising.
It’s educational and written in an engaging way with threads of humour throughout (despite the depressing topic!)
September 27, 2022
A solid 4!
May 6, 2022
Very informative and engaging, and easy to follow.
December 27, 2022
Tam bir referans kitap. Ne yaparsak dunyamiza etkisi ne olur, bilgilenmek icin harika. Beni en cok etkileyen, dunyaya bir cocuk getirmenin, bir orman yakmaya esit zarar veriyor olmasi. Hele de bu cocuk, iyi egitim alan, seyahat eden ve tuketim toplumunun degerli bir uyesi olursa daha da fena. Yani kiziyoruz falan 10 tane doguruyolar, sokaga saliyorlar falan diye. Hicbiri ucaga binmedigi icin, hepsini toplasan, benin 1 cocugum kadar yeryuzune zarari yok (orman yangini cikarmazlarsa tabii)
April 23, 2023
Apr 22 = Earth Day 🌍
FULL NOTE - https://notes.io/qNqVu
Learn all the life hacks that can shrink your carbon footprint overnight.
It’s hard to miss the news about climate change. Every day there seems to be a new story about melting polar ice, floods, endangered species and how we should expect more hurricanes and extreme weather. It’s up to us, as the citizens of Earth, to push our leaders into action and do our own part to reduce the harmful emissions that are ruining our planet.
We all have our routines, and it’s easy to think that these daily habits of shopping, cooking and washing up are harmless. But just think of how much food you throw away over the course of a year, or how many appliances you leave turned on or plugged in when they don’t really need to be.
In this book, you’ll discover the biggest culprits for creating harmful emissions and the tricks to reducing your own footprint without completely rearranging your life. Keep in mind that the estimates that follow are from around 2010, and that a lot has likely changed since then.
---
A carbon footprint takes into consideration many harmful gases, and the average size varies around the world.
These days, you don’t have to be an environmental scientist to have heard the term carbon footprint. It gets used a lot in discussions about global warming or climate change and refers to the amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) that gets released during certain processes, whether by a corporation or just one person.
However, carbon dioxide is but one of many gases that contribute to global warming and a carbon footprint. Such harmful emissions are known as greenhouse gases and some of them are far more damaging than CO₂. Methane (CH₄), for example, is twenty-five times as harmful as CO₂, and nitrous oxide (N₂O) is three hundred times worse. And then there are refrigerant gases, which are used in cooling systems and can be several thousand times more potent than CO₂.
In the United Kingdom, CO₂ accounts for 86 percent of its greenhouse gas output, while methane accounts for 7 percent, nitrous oxide 6 percent and refrigerant gases 1 percent.
Since we know how potent all these other gases are in relation to CO₂, a carbon footprint provides an accurate reading on all the major harmful emissions being released. This conversion method is known as carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO₂e.
The average size of a carbon footprint varies from country to country, but it tends to be bigger in the developed world. In Malawi, for example, the average carbon footprint of a person is around 0.1 metric tons of CO₂e per year. The average person in the United Kingdom, however, measures up at around 15 metric tons per year, while the average North American comes in at around 28, and Australians at 30 metric tons. As for the planet as a whole, in 2007 we produced around 49 billion metric tons of CO₂e.
Being British, the author hopes to help the United Kingdom reduce harmful emissions by a significant yet reasonable amount. Berners-Lee has laid the groundwork for such a reduction through what he calls the 10-tonne lifestyle, which would result in the average person going from 15 to 10 metric tons per year – a one-third reduction of each person’s carbon footprint.
In the chapters that follow, we’ll take a closer look at the steps you can take to adopt this lifestyle.
---
In some ways, plastic is better than paper for the environment.
Most of us would probably guess that paper is better for the environment than plastic, but from the carbon dioxide equivalent standpoint, plastic actually beats paper.
That doesn’t mean plastic is good for the environment. On the contrary, plastic debris can linger in the environment for centuries and harm animals in the process. But as far as CO₂e emissions go, plastic is marginally better since it doesn’t rot and create methane emissions like paper does.
Considered from this angle, plastic supermarket bags are better for the environment than paper bags. One disposable plastic bag from a supermarket contributes around 10 grams CO₂e. So if you use five bags per week, that adds up to 2.5 kilograms a year, which is about the same carbon footprint as a single cheeseburger.
Meanwhile, one paper bag, made from recycled paper, creates around 12 grams CO₂e, while some of the fancier, thicker retail store bags can add up to 80 grams CO₂e. So, if you’re forced to use a paper bag, make sure you recycle it. And remember, the best option is to always do your shopping with reusable tote bags.
But shopping bags aren’t the only way that the paper industry is leaving behind a huge carbon footprint.
If you don’t recycle the letters and catalogs you receive in the mail, each letter will add around 200 grams CO₂e while the catalogs add 1600 grams. Over half of this footprint comes from post office procedures, such as sorting and transportation, while just over a quarter comes from the paper itself. Junk mail is the biggest offender of the paper industry, so opt out if you can.
Meanwhile, the average paperback book will add around 1 kilogram of CO₂e. You may think this is a lot, but when you consider the fact that reading keeps you from doing other carbon-intensive activities, like driving or shopping, it actually has far-reaching benefits.
If you’re using paper products, the one thing you have to do is recycle them, which will keep the paper away from a landfill where it will rot and emit methane. It’s also best to buy recycled paper since the manufacturing of new paper takes about twice the energy of recycling, thereby doubling the paper’s carbon footprint.
---
Different ways of traveling have different carbon footprints, with flying being the worst.
It probably won’t come as a surprise to know that the gasoline and diesel fueling our cars and trucks leave a big carbon footprint. To produce just one liter adds around 3.15 kilograms CO₂e to a carbon footprint. And in one year, the United Kingdom alone uses around 50 billion liters of gasoline, so its impact on our global footprint is considerable, to say the least.
But if we look at all the different ways to get around, you might be surprised at which method leaves the biggest footprint.
Let’s start out small: Cycling still leaves a footprint since you need fuel to work those pedals. So, if that fuel was cereal and milk, the footprint would be around 90 grams CO₂e per mile. If your pedal power was fueled by a cheeseburger, it would expand to about 260 grams CO₂e per mile.
If you’re riding an electric-powered train, your footprint will vary depending on how many passengers you’re with – the more passengers, the smaller the footprint. On a crowded subway train, each passenger would be around 160 grams CO₂e. On a half-empty intercity train, it would likely rise up to about 300 grams CO₂e.
As for a car, if we take the average fuel efficiency in the United Kingdom, which is 33 miles to the gallon, your footprint would be around 710 grams CO₂e per mile. In a less fuel-efficient car, such as a Land Rover, that footprint could balloon up to 2,240 grams. So, depending on your car, driving 9,000 miles per year would account for anywhere between 3 to 20 percent of a 10-tonne lifestyle.
But the honor of the biggest carbon footprint goes to flying.
To see just how big a difference it is, let’s look at all the ways you could travel from London to Glasgow, Scotland and back, a distance of approximately 800 miles.
If you were to bike that distance, let’s say on a diet of bananas, it would leave a 53-kilogram CO₂e footprint. By train, it would more than double to 120 kilograms; and by a small, fuel-efficient car, it would increase six-times over to 330 kilograms. But flying would increase the biking footprint tenfold, to around 500 kilograms CO₂e.
And that footprint is for a short flight. A round-trip flight from London to Hong Kong would leave a 4.6 metric ton footprint. That’s the equivalent of producing 340,000 plastic shopping bags and it would take nearly six months off of your 10-tonne lifestyle.
Flying leaves such a large footprint because burning fuel at higher altitudes causes the emissions to have a more harmful impact – the full extent of which is still being determined by scientists.
---
Local produce and meat from nonruminant animals have lower carbon footprints.
You may have heard that a vegetarian or vegan diet is better for the environment, but, in truth, what you eat is less important than where it comes from.
Local fruit will have a small footprint, but if you’re eating fruit that traveled halfway around the world to get to your supermarket, that fruit comes with a big one.
For example, if you grow your own apples, then they’re leaving no footprint at all. If you’re eating a locally grown, seasonal apple, then the footprint will be around 10 grams CO₂e. But on average, the apple you get at the supermarket will have contributed about 80 grams each, or 550 grams per kilo.
Now we come to the answer you’ve been waiting for: How bad are bananas? It turns out that bananas are not that bad. In fact, they’re similar to apples in that each one contributes about 80 grams CO₂e and 480 grams per kilo. Bananas have a small footprint because they don’t use artificial light to grow, and their skin provides enough protection that they don’t require extra packaging or airfreighting.
Oranges, by comparison, have a slightly bigger footprint, at around 90 grams CO₂e each, and if they’re airfreighted that footprint grows to 1 kilogram.
As for vegetables, the average kilo of carrots is only 300 grams CO₂e, while potatoes come in at 370 grams. But these relatively small footprints can grow if they’re not cooked efficiently. If a lot of heat is wasted, these figures can jump significantly.
How far the vegetables traveled is again important, as out-of-season vegetables can require a lot of energy to transport: 250 grams of locally grown asparagus will leave a 125-gram CO₂e footprint, but if it was airfreighted to London from Peru, that footprint expands to 3.5 kilograms.
As for meat, it’s true that the footprint tends to be higher than that of fruits and veggies. An uncooked 4-ounce beefsteak has a footprint of around 2 kilograms CO₂e – one that will of course expand due to the energy needed to cook it.
Approximately nine-tenths of beef’s footprint comes from what happens on the average cattle farm, and the big contributor here is the fact that cows are ruminants, meaning they chew cud and release lots of methane in the process.
Sheep are also ruminants and this is why a kilo of sheep or cow meat will have a footprint that’s two-times as large as a kilo of pork, since pigs are not ruminants.
---
You can clean up in more environmentally conscious ways.
When you leave your home, do you ever wonder: Did I turn the oven off? Or, did I leave the iron on? It makes sense to worry about potential fire hazards, but it also makes sense to question whether you’re needlessly wasting energy. So next time, before you leave, make sure you’ve turned the lights off along with all your other appliances.
You can also reduce your footprint by washing your clothes more efficiently.
If you wash your laundry at 30°C and hang-dry your clothes, you’ll only be creating a footprint of 0.6 kilograms CO₂e. Comparatively, a wash done at 60°C and placed in a clothes dryer will leave a 3.3 kilogram footprint.
While it’s better to do cold washes, the real waste comes with drying. By switching to a drying rack you could save half a metric ton of CO₂e over the course of a year.
And then there’s the electric iron, which can add between 14 and 70 grams CO₂e for just a single shirt, depending on how fast and skilled you are at ironing. Either way, you should try to keep your ironing to a minimum. And certainly refrain from ironing your socks!
When it comes to washing the dishes, your footprint is also going to vary depending on your methods. If you’re careful about the amount of water you use, it can be around 540 grams CO₂e, but if you’re wasteful with the water, it can climb upwards of 8 kilograms.
As for washing yourself, this is another job that can vary depending on your methods. The most efficient would be to take turns sharing your bath water with your roomates or family, but few of us are likely to find this appealing.
A single bath, depending on how full the tub is and how hot the water, will leave a footprint of between 0.5 kilograms and 2.6 kilograms CO₂e. The average shower, on the other hand, takes 6 minutes and adds up to 0.5 kilograms.
However, you could reduce that footprint to just 90 grams CO₂e by getting a water-efficient aerated showerhead and limiting your shower time to 3 minutes.
---
Harmful gases can come from nature, but human-made emissions are much more numerous.
There are some folks who believe that the environmental damage caused by humans has been exaggerated, and that the harm we’ve done doesn’t hold a candle to what Mother Nature can do to herself.
One such example in this erroneous line of thinking is volcanoes, which are known to emit greenhouse gases even when they’re not erupting.
If we look at Mount Etna in Italy, we can see that, over the course of a relatively inactive year, it produced around a million metric tons of CO₂e. And when we take all the world’s volcanoes together we have around 300 million metric tons per year. However, this is still less than 1 percent of the yearly emissions produced by humans.
Volcanoes can also have a cooling effect. While the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released 42 million metric tons of CO₂e, it also released a lot of ash and sulfur into the atmosphere. This ash actually cooled down the planet by reflecting the sun’s rays. Studies show that the global temperature went down by 0.5°C after the Pinatubo eruption.
What can be more truly devastating are bushfires.
In 2009 alone, Australian bushfires caused 165 million metric tons of CO₂e emissions. That’s the equivalent of the carbon footprints of 5 million Australians over the course of a normal year. These emissions lead to warmer temperatures and drier vegetation, which, in turn, increase the likelihood of more fires. It’s an unfortunate and disastrous cycle.
Yet the emissions being produced by humans put these numbers in the shade.
Take black carbon, for example: this is a component of the soot that is released by incomplete combustion, which can be anything from a brushfire to burning coal or an active fireplace in your living room.
All together, black carbon accounts for anywhere between 7 and 15 billion metric tons of CO₂e per year – roughly 15–30 percent of 2007’s global emissions. But only 42 percent of this black carbon comes from outdoor fires – whether natural or human-caused. The majority of it comes from humans, a quarter of which are from fireplaces or other homemade fires. Another quarter comes from transport emissions and 10 percent comes from coal-burning stations.
Another huge source of human-made emissions is deforestation. For every hectare of forest that gets taken down, 500 metric tons of CO₂e gets released into the atmosphere. And with 13 million hectares taken down every year, that’s 9 billion metric tons of CO₂e yearly, which accounts for a whopping 17 percent of all global emissions.
---
Eating in a more environmentally conscious way can greatly reduce your carbon footprint.
So, if you’d really like to start a 10-tonne lifestyle, one of the best ways to start is to look at your diet. Since it accounts for 20 percent of your own footprint, being more considerate about what you eat is the perfect place to start.
The first thing to do is eat less meat and dairy.
As mentioned earlier, the meat and dairy industry are big contributors to the world’s CO₂e emissions. This doesn’t mean you need to become vegan. Even a modest reduction in these foods can reduce your diet’s carbon footprint by up to 25 percent.
Another important step is to eat only seasonal and local produce, or at least items that don’t require air-shipping. This can reduce your diet’s footprint by another 10 percent.
While you’re at it, it’s time to eliminate your food waste, since doing so will cut another 25 percent. It’s estimated that people waste a quarter of the food they buy, so make sure you only buy what you know you’ll eat. You can also make your veggies last longer by storing them in the fridge and rotate your food so that the older stuff that needs to be eaten first is at the front of your shelves.
Likewise, you can help shops reduce food waste by buying reduced-price items, and taking goods from the front of their displays rather than the back. This way, fewer goods will exceed their sell-by dates and you can take 1 percent off your food footprint. You can take another 1 percent off by purchasing the misshapen fruits and vegetables that people often neglect.
You can also stop buying low-yield crop varieties, which are foods like cherry tomatoes and baby carrots that take a lot of energy for relatively little produce. This will shed another 3 percent.
You should also refrain from buying food that has unnecessary packaging. After all, who needs bananas or avocados wrapped in plastic? This step can shave off 3 to 5 percent. And by always recycling the packaging you can’t avoid, you’ll lose another 2 to 3 percent.
Finally, there are ways you can cook more efficiently. When boiling water, always use a lid so that heat isn’t wasted and lower the gas or electricity when you reach a boiling point so that you’re not using excessive heat. Also, make sure the stove and oven are off when not in use and consider using the microwave when it might be more energy efficient. By cooking more efficiently, you’ll be reducing your food footprint by another 5 percent.
Given that there is some overlap, these steps should add up to between a 60- and 75-percent reduction. Adopt them all, and you’ll be well on your way to living a 10-tonne lifestyle.
---
There’s a carbon footprint to virtually every meal, drink and activity in your life, and many of these footprints can be reduced with some simple changes. These include texting instead of calling, drinking tap water instead of mineral water, taking quicker showers and reducing your meat and dairy intake. By being more aware of the hidden contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, you can make adjustments to your daily life without causing too much of a disruption.
Actionable advice:
Even one small change can make a difference.
You don’t have to make every change suggested in this book, but if you’ve recognized a way to make a difference then you should go for it. Any reduction in your carbon footprint is a win, even if it’s as simple as driving ten mph slower.
FULL NOTE - https://notes.io/qNqVu
Learn all the life hacks that can shrink your carbon footprint overnight.
It’s hard to miss the news about climate change. Every day there seems to be a new story about melting polar ice, floods, endangered species and how we should expect more hurricanes and extreme weather. It’s up to us, as the citizens of Earth, to push our leaders into action and do our own part to reduce the harmful emissions that are ruining our planet.
We all have our routines, and it’s easy to think that these daily habits of shopping, cooking and washing up are harmless. But just think of how much food you throw away over the course of a year, or how many appliances you leave turned on or plugged in when they don’t really need to be.
In this book, you’ll discover the biggest culprits for creating harmful emissions and the tricks to reducing your own footprint without completely rearranging your life. Keep in mind that the estimates that follow are from around 2010, and that a lot has likely changed since then.
---
A carbon footprint takes into consideration many harmful gases, and the average size varies around the world.
These days, you don’t have to be an environmental scientist to have heard the term carbon footprint. It gets used a lot in discussions about global warming or climate change and refers to the amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) that gets released during certain processes, whether by a corporation or just one person.
However, carbon dioxide is but one of many gases that contribute to global warming and a carbon footprint. Such harmful emissions are known as greenhouse gases and some of them are far more damaging than CO₂. Methane (CH₄), for example, is twenty-five times as harmful as CO₂, and nitrous oxide (N₂O) is three hundred times worse. And then there are refrigerant gases, which are used in cooling systems and can be several thousand times more potent than CO₂.
In the United Kingdom, CO₂ accounts for 86 percent of its greenhouse gas output, while methane accounts for 7 percent, nitrous oxide 6 percent and refrigerant gases 1 percent.
Since we know how potent all these other gases are in relation to CO₂, a carbon footprint provides an accurate reading on all the major harmful emissions being released. This conversion method is known as carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO₂e.
The average size of a carbon footprint varies from country to country, but it tends to be bigger in the developed world. In Malawi, for example, the average carbon footprint of a person is around 0.1 metric tons of CO₂e per year. The average person in the United Kingdom, however, measures up at around 15 metric tons per year, while the average North American comes in at around 28, and Australians at 30 metric tons. As for the planet as a whole, in 2007 we produced around 49 billion metric tons of CO₂e.
Being British, the author hopes to help the United Kingdom reduce harmful emissions by a significant yet reasonable amount. Berners-Lee has laid the groundwork for such a reduction through what he calls the 10-tonne lifestyle, which would result in the average person going from 15 to 10 metric tons per year – a one-third reduction of each person’s carbon footprint.
In the chapters that follow, we’ll take a closer look at the steps you can take to adopt this lifestyle.
---
In some ways, plastic is better than paper for the environment.
Most of us would probably guess that paper is better for the environment than plastic, but from the carbon dioxide equivalent standpoint, plastic actually beats paper.
That doesn’t mean plastic is good for the environment. On the contrary, plastic debris can linger in the environment for centuries and harm animals in the process. But as far as CO₂e emissions go, plastic is marginally better since it doesn’t rot and create methane emissions like paper does.
Considered from this angle, plastic supermarket bags are better for the environment than paper bags. One disposable plastic bag from a supermarket contributes around 10 grams CO₂e. So if you use five bags per week, that adds up to 2.5 kilograms a year, which is about the same carbon footprint as a single cheeseburger.
Meanwhile, one paper bag, made from recycled paper, creates around 12 grams CO₂e, while some of the fancier, thicker retail store bags can add up to 80 grams CO₂e. So, if you’re forced to use a paper bag, make sure you recycle it. And remember, the best option is to always do your shopping with reusable tote bags.
But shopping bags aren’t the only way that the paper industry is leaving behind a huge carbon footprint.
If you don’t recycle the letters and catalogs you receive in the mail, each letter will add around 200 grams CO₂e while the catalogs add 1600 grams. Over half of this footprint comes from post office procedures, such as sorting and transportation, while just over a quarter comes from the paper itself. Junk mail is the biggest offender of the paper industry, so opt out if you can.
Meanwhile, the average paperback book will add around 1 kilogram of CO₂e. You may think this is a lot, but when you consider the fact that reading keeps you from doing other carbon-intensive activities, like driving or shopping, it actually has far-reaching benefits.
If you’re using paper products, the one thing you have to do is recycle them, which will keep the paper away from a landfill where it will rot and emit methane. It’s also best to buy recycled paper since the manufacturing of new paper takes about twice the energy of recycling, thereby doubling the paper’s carbon footprint.
---
Different ways of traveling have different carbon footprints, with flying being the worst.
It probably won’t come as a surprise to know that the gasoline and diesel fueling our cars and trucks leave a big carbon footprint. To produce just one liter adds around 3.15 kilograms CO₂e to a carbon footprint. And in one year, the United Kingdom alone uses around 50 billion liters of gasoline, so its impact on our global footprint is considerable, to say the least.
But if we look at all the different ways to get around, you might be surprised at which method leaves the biggest footprint.
Let’s start out small: Cycling still leaves a footprint since you need fuel to work those pedals. So, if that fuel was cereal and milk, the footprint would be around 90 grams CO₂e per mile. If your pedal power was fueled by a cheeseburger, it would expand to about 260 grams CO₂e per mile.
If you’re riding an electric-powered train, your footprint will vary depending on how many passengers you’re with – the more passengers, the smaller the footprint. On a crowded subway train, each passenger would be around 160 grams CO₂e. On a half-empty intercity train, it would likely rise up to about 300 grams CO₂e.
As for a car, if we take the average fuel efficiency in the United Kingdom, which is 33 miles to the gallon, your footprint would be around 710 grams CO₂e per mile. In a less fuel-efficient car, such as a Land Rover, that footprint could balloon up to 2,240 grams. So, depending on your car, driving 9,000 miles per year would account for anywhere between 3 to 20 percent of a 10-tonne lifestyle.
But the honor of the biggest carbon footprint goes to flying.
To see just how big a difference it is, let’s look at all the ways you could travel from London to Glasgow, Scotland and back, a distance of approximately 800 miles.
If you were to bike that distance, let’s say on a diet of bananas, it would leave a 53-kilogram CO₂e footprint. By train, it would more than double to 120 kilograms; and by a small, fuel-efficient car, it would increase six-times over to 330 kilograms. But flying would increase the biking footprint tenfold, to around 500 kilograms CO₂e.
And that footprint is for a short flight. A round-trip flight from London to Hong Kong would leave a 4.6 metric ton footprint. That’s the equivalent of producing 340,000 plastic shopping bags and it would take nearly six months off of your 10-tonne lifestyle.
Flying leaves such a large footprint because burning fuel at higher altitudes causes the emissions to have a more harmful impact – the full extent of which is still being determined by scientists.
---
Local produce and meat from nonruminant animals have lower carbon footprints.
You may have heard that a vegetarian or vegan diet is better for the environment, but, in truth, what you eat is less important than where it comes from.
Local fruit will have a small footprint, but if you’re eating fruit that traveled halfway around the world to get to your supermarket, that fruit comes with a big one.
For example, if you grow your own apples, then they’re leaving no footprint at all. If you’re eating a locally grown, seasonal apple, then the footprint will be around 10 grams CO₂e. But on average, the apple you get at the supermarket will have contributed about 80 grams each, or 550 grams per kilo.
Now we come to the answer you’ve been waiting for: How bad are bananas? It turns out that bananas are not that bad. In fact, they’re similar to apples in that each one contributes about 80 grams CO₂e and 480 grams per kilo. Bananas have a small footprint because they don’t use artificial light to grow, and their skin provides enough protection that they don’t require extra packaging or airfreighting.
Oranges, by comparison, have a slightly bigger footprint, at around 90 grams CO₂e each, and if they’re airfreighted that footprint grows to 1 kilogram.
As for vegetables, the average kilo of carrots is only 300 grams CO₂e, while potatoes come in at 370 grams. But these relatively small footprints can grow if they’re not cooked efficiently. If a lot of heat is wasted, these figures can jump significantly.
How far the vegetables traveled is again important, as out-of-season vegetables can require a lot of energy to transport: 250 grams of locally grown asparagus will leave a 125-gram CO₂e footprint, but if it was airfreighted to London from Peru, that footprint expands to 3.5 kilograms.
As for meat, it’s true that the footprint tends to be higher than that of fruits and veggies. An uncooked 4-ounce beefsteak has a footprint of around 2 kilograms CO₂e – one that will of course expand due to the energy needed to cook it.
Approximately nine-tenths of beef’s footprint comes from what happens on the average cattle farm, and the big contributor here is the fact that cows are ruminants, meaning they chew cud and release lots of methane in the process.
Sheep are also ruminants and this is why a kilo of sheep or cow meat will have a footprint that’s two-times as large as a kilo of pork, since pigs are not ruminants.
---
You can clean up in more environmentally conscious ways.
When you leave your home, do you ever wonder: Did I turn the oven off? Or, did I leave the iron on? It makes sense to worry about potential fire hazards, but it also makes sense to question whether you’re needlessly wasting energy. So next time, before you leave, make sure you’ve turned the lights off along with all your other appliances.
You can also reduce your footprint by washing your clothes more efficiently.
If you wash your laundry at 30°C and hang-dry your clothes, you’ll only be creating a footprint of 0.6 kilograms CO₂e. Comparatively, a wash done at 60°C and placed in a clothes dryer will leave a 3.3 kilogram footprint.
While it’s better to do cold washes, the real waste comes with drying. By switching to a drying rack you could save half a metric ton of CO₂e over the course of a year.
And then there’s the electric iron, which can add between 14 and 70 grams CO₂e for just a single shirt, depending on how fast and skilled you are at ironing. Either way, you should try to keep your ironing to a minimum. And certainly refrain from ironing your socks!
When it comes to washing the dishes, your footprint is also going to vary depending on your methods. If you’re careful about the amount of water you use, it can be around 540 grams CO₂e, but if you’re wasteful with the water, it can climb upwards of 8 kilograms.
As for washing yourself, this is another job that can vary depending on your methods. The most efficient would be to take turns sharing your bath water with your roomates or family, but few of us are likely to find this appealing.
A single bath, depending on how full the tub is and how hot the water, will leave a footprint of between 0.5 kilograms and 2.6 kilograms CO₂e. The average shower, on the other hand, takes 6 minutes and adds up to 0.5 kilograms.
However, you could reduce that footprint to just 90 grams CO₂e by getting a water-efficient aerated showerhead and limiting your shower time to 3 minutes.
---
Harmful gases can come from nature, but human-made emissions are much more numerous.
There are some folks who believe that the environmental damage caused by humans has been exaggerated, and that the harm we’ve done doesn’t hold a candle to what Mother Nature can do to herself.
One such example in this erroneous line of thinking is volcanoes, which are known to emit greenhouse gases even when they’re not erupting.
If we look at Mount Etna in Italy, we can see that, over the course of a relatively inactive year, it produced around a million metric tons of CO₂e. And when we take all the world’s volcanoes together we have around 300 million metric tons per year. However, this is still less than 1 percent of the yearly emissions produced by humans.
Volcanoes can also have a cooling effect. While the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released 42 million metric tons of CO₂e, it also released a lot of ash and sulfur into the atmosphere. This ash actually cooled down the planet by reflecting the sun’s rays. Studies show that the global temperature went down by 0.5°C after the Pinatubo eruption.
What can be more truly devastating are bushfires.
In 2009 alone, Australian bushfires caused 165 million metric tons of CO₂e emissions. That’s the equivalent of the carbon footprints of 5 million Australians over the course of a normal year. These emissions lead to warmer temperatures and drier vegetation, which, in turn, increase the likelihood of more fires. It’s an unfortunate and disastrous cycle.
Yet the emissions being produced by humans put these numbers in the shade.
Take black carbon, for example: this is a component of the soot that is released by incomplete combustion, which can be anything from a brushfire to burning coal or an active fireplace in your living room.
All together, black carbon accounts for anywhere between 7 and 15 billion metric tons of CO₂e per year – roughly 15–30 percent of 2007’s global emissions. But only 42 percent of this black carbon comes from outdoor fires – whether natural or human-caused. The majority of it comes from humans, a quarter of which are from fireplaces or other homemade fires. Another quarter comes from transport emissions and 10 percent comes from coal-burning stations.
Another huge source of human-made emissions is deforestation. For every hectare of forest that gets taken down, 500 metric tons of CO₂e gets released into the atmosphere. And with 13 million hectares taken down every year, that’s 9 billion metric tons of CO₂e yearly, which accounts for a whopping 17 percent of all global emissions.
---
Eating in a more environmentally conscious way can greatly reduce your carbon footprint.
So, if you’d really like to start a 10-tonne lifestyle, one of the best ways to start is to look at your diet. Since it accounts for 20 percent of your own footprint, being more considerate about what you eat is the perfect place to start.
The first thing to do is eat less meat and dairy.
As mentioned earlier, the meat and dairy industry are big contributors to the world’s CO₂e emissions. This doesn’t mean you need to become vegan. Even a modest reduction in these foods can reduce your diet’s carbon footprint by up to 25 percent.
Another important step is to eat only seasonal and local produce, or at least items that don’t require air-shipping. This can reduce your diet’s footprint by another 10 percent.
While you’re at it, it’s time to eliminate your food waste, since doing so will cut another 25 percent. It’s estimated that people waste a quarter of the food they buy, so make sure you only buy what you know you’ll eat. You can also make your veggies last longer by storing them in the fridge and rotate your food so that the older stuff that needs to be eaten first is at the front of your shelves.
Likewise, you can help shops reduce food waste by buying reduced-price items, and taking goods from the front of their displays rather than the back. This way, fewer goods will exceed their sell-by dates and you can take 1 percent off your food footprint. You can take another 1 percent off by purchasing the misshapen fruits and vegetables that people often neglect.
You can also stop buying low-yield crop varieties, which are foods like cherry tomatoes and baby carrots that take a lot of energy for relatively little produce. This will shed another 3 percent.
You should also refrain from buying food that has unnecessary packaging. After all, who needs bananas or avocados wrapped in plastic? This step can shave off 3 to 5 percent. And by always recycling the packaging you can’t avoid, you’ll lose another 2 to 3 percent.
Finally, there are ways you can cook more efficiently. When boiling water, always use a lid so that heat isn’t wasted and lower the gas or electricity when you reach a boiling point so that you’re not using excessive heat. Also, make sure the stove and oven are off when not in use and consider using the microwave when it might be more energy efficient. By cooking more efficiently, you’ll be reducing your food footprint by another 5 percent.
Given that there is some overlap, these steps should add up to between a 60- and 75-percent reduction. Adopt them all, and you’ll be well on your way to living a 10-tonne lifestyle.
---
There’s a carbon footprint to virtually every meal, drink and activity in your life, and many of these footprints can be reduced with some simple changes. These include texting instead of calling, drinking tap water instead of mineral water, taking quicker showers and reducing your meat and dairy intake. By being more aware of the hidden contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, you can make adjustments to your daily life without causing too much of a disruption.
Actionable advice:
Even one small change can make a difference.
You don’t have to make every change suggested in this book, but if you’ve recognized a way to make a difference then you should go for it. Any reduction in your carbon footprint is a win, even if it’s as simple as driving ten mph slower.
January 12, 2016
Number 3 for the year.
Mike Berners-Lee's book - if the name sounds familiar it's because his brother is credited with inventing the Internet - aims to develop in readers an intuition for the carbon cost of things in general, but discussing the specific impacts of a hundred different things (e.g., an apple, a rose, a car crash, a baby, the World Cup, War).
A lot of reviewers talk about this as a book a reference to dip into here and there, but that's not really the point of the book. The examples given are meant to be self-reinforcing and help develop an intuitive feel for the relative costs of different things/activities.
The book is written by an environmental consultant who calculates carbon-footprints for a living, so the numbers (or ballpark approximations) given have a certain weight that would be missing from a more journalistic take. The author also goes out of his way to emphasize that the numbers only offer a rough map of the terrain. The book is also surprisingly engaging given its dry topic matter.
The book is not designed to allow you to calculate your carbon footprint. It does allow you to develop a sense of where to emphasize changes to your lifestyle and when not to sweat it.
Things I learnt: food miles are massively overhyped if the food is shipped via the ocean (e.g., the CF for wine in LA shipped from Australia may be lower than that of wine shipped by truck from the Napa Valley); cheese has about same CF as meat - vegans are way ahead of BOTH vegetarians and meat eaters; for Europeans tomatoes grown in Dutch greenhouses can have a much higher CF than tomatoes flown from Africa; and in general food is far less of a problem than the other stuff we buy - shoes, computers, cars etc - and in general the more something weights/costs the greater its CF; cars are (naturally) bad, but things are complex - a small car with more than one passenger can be better than travelling by train or even by bicycle, depending on what the bike rider eats; at the end of a day having a child kills most of our good intentions by an order of magnitude; and the things societies do (go to war, host the Olympics) swamp anything we can do by orders of magnitude again.
This sounds a bit depressing, but is quite useful as the book shows us where to pick our battles: generally be sensible with food; insulating your house is the simplest thing that you can do; avoid buying lots of stuff (esp. new stuff) - but even having money in the bank has a CF as shown in the book; keep in mind in this age of cost-price flying any holiday we make is likely to blow out yearly CF budget even if we are vegan bike-riders; and the biggest thing you can personally do is keep your family size small.
Mike Berners-Lee's book - if the name sounds familiar it's because his brother is credited with inventing the Internet - aims to develop in readers an intuition for the carbon cost of things in general, but discussing the specific impacts of a hundred different things (e.g., an apple, a rose, a car crash, a baby, the World Cup, War).
A lot of reviewers talk about this as a book a reference to dip into here and there, but that's not really the point of the book. The examples given are meant to be self-reinforcing and help develop an intuitive feel for the relative costs of different things/activities.
The book is written by an environmental consultant who calculates carbon-footprints for a living, so the numbers (or ballpark approximations) given have a certain weight that would be missing from a more journalistic take. The author also goes out of his way to emphasize that the numbers only offer a rough map of the terrain. The book is also surprisingly engaging given its dry topic matter.
The book is not designed to allow you to calculate your carbon footprint. It does allow you to develop a sense of where to emphasize changes to your lifestyle and when not to sweat it.
Things I learnt: food miles are massively overhyped if the food is shipped via the ocean (e.g., the CF for wine in LA shipped from Australia may be lower than that of wine shipped by truck from the Napa Valley); cheese has about same CF as meat - vegans are way ahead of BOTH vegetarians and meat eaters; for Europeans tomatoes grown in Dutch greenhouses can have a much higher CF than tomatoes flown from Africa; and in general food is far less of a problem than the other stuff we buy - shoes, computers, cars etc - and in general the more something weights/costs the greater its CF; cars are (naturally) bad, but things are complex - a small car with more than one passenger can be better than travelling by train or even by bicycle, depending on what the bike rider eats; at the end of a day having a child kills most of our good intentions by an order of magnitude; and the things societies do (go to war, host the Olympics) swamp anything we can do by orders of magnitude again.
This sounds a bit depressing, but is quite useful as the book shows us where to pick our battles: generally be sensible with food; insulating your house is the simplest thing that you can do; avoid buying lots of stuff (esp. new stuff) - but even having money in the bank has a CF as shown in the book; keep in mind in this age of cost-price flying any holiday we make is likely to blow out yearly CF budget even if we are vegan bike-riders; and the biggest thing you can personally do is keep your family size small.
April 1, 2017
This book has some interesting comparisons... One rose is equal to 11 pounds of bananas, which blows my mind. I enjoyed learning about what the carbon impact is of a lot of things. Basically if you want to decrease your carbon foot print the following are the biggest places you can make an impact for the average person: airplane travel, car travel, meat, milk and milk products. Its also interesting that its usually better to hold on to an old, inefficient product that works rather then buy a new efficient one. The energy savings rarely make up for the carbon produced by making the product. I'll leave you with an exert from the Cycling a mile section:
Cycling a Mile
65g CO2E powered by bananas
90g CO2E powered by cereals with milk
200g CO2E powered by bacon
260g CO2E powered by cheeseburgers
2800g CO2E powered by air-freighted asparagus
-If your cycling calories come from cheeseburgers, the emissions per mile are about the same as two people driving an efficient car.
Cycling a Mile
65g CO2E powered by bananas
90g CO2E powered by cereals with milk
200g CO2E powered by bacon
260g CO2E powered by cheeseburgers
2800g CO2E powered by air-freighted asparagus
-If your cycling calories come from cheeseburgers, the emissions per mile are about the same as two people driving an efficient car.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 342 reviews