In the US it’s roughly a tie between road transportation and energy generation (which lumps together both heat and electricity).
(Source: University of Michigan https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/carbon-footprint-factsheet)
The global breakdown is similar: https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors
The solutions? Build mass transit, live in temperate climates, buy less stuff, …? Honestly, I don’t think we’re not going to fix the problem with simple, local improvements (though by all means do what you can). There are global demographic forces to contend with. A century ago there were 2 billion people on earth. Now there are >8 billion, and in my lifetime we will surpass 9 billion. Many of those people are climbing out of poverty, and they want cars and air conditioners and all the other energy-intensive things that rich countries have enjoyed for a century. IMO we’re going to need massive technological changes (like powering much of the world with nuclear very soon) in concert with a major population reduction and/or major changes to how people expect to live.
I’m curious about how CO2 emissions from road construction in the US compares to that of Europe (adjusted for scale, obviously).
Concrete creates A LOT of CO2, and after driving a lot in both US and EU roads I can say that US roads involve a lot more concrete.
EDIT: Autocomplete and autocorrect is even worse at this than I am…
Nuclear is: very slow to make, very expensive, generates dangerous waste, invites proliferation.
Wind and solar are quick, relatively much cheaper, create little waste. The sun is forever.
Personal transportation needs a complete redesign. Burning fossil fuel at 20% efficiency (80% waste) to push a 4000lb. vehicle with a 200lb person in it is insane. Personal electric vehicles of 200-300 lbs tracking defined lanes at 20mph under computer control would take care of 80-90% of urban travel needs. And greatly reduce the number of roads needed.
Side note: If worrying about climate isn’t enough, we can also worry about potential famine as we use up our fossil fuels.
We are able to feed the world because of the Haber-Bosch process. This process uses fossil fuels, usually natural gas, to produce synthetic ammonia for fertilizer. That fertilizer makes modern high-yield farming possible. “Without the Haber-Bosch process we would only be able to produce around two-thirds the amount of food we do today.”
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/cewctw-fritz-haber-and-carl-bosch-feed-the-world/
Having children
The last thing this world needs is more little consumers, especially living, or aspiring to, the western levels of consumption
I agree with this. We have more than enough people to deal with and don’t need any more people on the planet until the last batch expires.
Honestly, capitalism.
The whole damn consume consume consume mindset. The idea that things are discarded instead of being repaired or properly recycled.
I don’t know, there are progressive capitalist countries which do pretty well, especially in Europe. And there are nominally communist countries which have the highest number of new coal plants and poorest environmental records on the planet.
saying “capitalism“ certainly does make people check out because that’s an irresolvable “problem”, compared to “See if you can start eating vegetarian one day a week and beef no more than once every two weeks”
Hm you had me at the beginning but lost me at the end. Me as a non massively rich person does have no influence whatsoever. Don’t try to tell me otherwise. I did my part and tried to get the world in a better state yet we have degraded massively globally over the last decades.
(that does not mean I stopped trying)
Yes, capitalism.
The hype trains alone are a massive issue. But shareholder value!
What Economic system would you change out for Capitalism?
Communism or socialism.
Advertising.
Cause it’s driving over-consumption, by flooding people brains with shit ideas, turning them into idiots in the process.
The excess production of useless shit that nobody would need or want without the manipulation of advertising convincing us otherwise. Cell phones and such are nice, don’t get me wrong, but do we need thousands of factories around the world churning out cargo ships full of cheap plastic junk that’s designed to fail? No. It only exists because it makes some rich people even richer, and it’s burning our planet down. If all that productive capacity was bent to the purpose of meeting peoples’ actual needs/reasonable wants it would be a different matter.
For typical middle-class people (like the ones probably reading this), usually the single worst thing they do is flying. It’s the only way to blow your personal carbon budget for the whole year in just a few hours.
That’s at the individual level.
I think when it comes to flying we should go back to balloons. We don’t need to reach far distances as quickly as we do, and we could drastically cut emissions if we grounded all the planes.
There are numbers for these, you know. Biggest sources of carbon emissions are (1) burning fossil fuels and (2) land use change (converting natural ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and wetlands - to plantations, farmlands and concrete).
Most beneficial activity is <redacted>.
There are numbers for many things. It doesn’t stop people from discussing their thoughts on them.
