Health and Diet Scottish Recipes Ferret for Ferrets


[pf] CO2 by average Americans and rich Americans. A statistic.
by David MacClement
28 November 2000 00:13 UTC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**  I've apparently been removed from Topica's Positive Futures list for
3-4 days. Though when I tried to join again this morning (Tuesday, here),
they said I was already a member. I un-subbed, then when that was
acknowledged, joined-up again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At 17:37 24/11/2000 -0800, I (David Mac) wrote:
>· The number to keep in mind is: 1/3. Our 1990 carbon dioxide 
>production was about three (3) times higher than would produce 
>a stable climate (1990s average world temperatures). That 
>production was about 6 giga-tons of carbon emitted, when the 
>current understanding tells us that about 2 giga-tons was being 
>taken out of the atmosphere by the various natural processes 
>acting in 1990, i.e. the economy could produce that much 
>and have it taken-care-of by Nature.
>

· I'll start by saying that /I/ don't see what's so impossible about
people, even Americans, reducing their individual and family carbon dioxide
production by 2/3 (to get down to that 1/3), eventually. You could even
grow 30 tree seedlings a year for the next few years while you work on
changing your transport, housing and work-environment energy-use methods so
as to use 1/3 of the amount of fuel (or electricity) per year you do now.
Yes it's a big change, but quite do-able, IMO, given several years in which
to work at it.


· But this letter is about something different; the consequences of the
half-to-two-thirds-reduction being a reduction in the _average_ CO2
production around the world. (Average, or mean, is a statistic.)

· Take this as being a graph illustrating the numbers of people who, by
living and consuming as they do, produce the various amounts of CO2 per year:

No. of
families
^
|..........^.
|......../----
|......./------.
|....../---------.
|...../------------.
|..../-----------------
|.../-----------------------.
|../-----------------------------------.
|./------------------------------------------------------.
|/_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_.
 . . . . . . . Amount of CO2 produced per family per year  --->


· I'm pointing out that a fairly modest percentage reduction, say 10% to
25%, by people who produce a huge amount of carbon dioxide (like Canadians
and Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans), is a large /actual/
amount, and therefore contributes more to reducing the average (which is
down near the peak of the curve) than a 40% reduction by someone at or
below the average (or mean).

· So simply by wasting so much fuel and electricity, 'you' have created the
opportunity to go a considerable way toward redressing the balance by
making your first 10% to 25% reduction in waste energy.


· Another point: If you've _already_ made a significant reduction in the:
- number of gallons of gas used per year;
- amount of heat lost through window-panes and around windows and doors;
- temperature in your house (in winter; raised the A/C setting in summer);
- waste energy and materials at work;

  then the next stage, though harder, is not quite so urgent; you're
becoming part of the answer instead of being part of the problem. Just
continue to be vigilant; opportunities to avoid waste will certainly appear.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz