The Money Mustache Community

General Discussion => Throw Down the Gauntlet => Topic started by: Malaysia41 on February 20, 2018, 07:54:22 AM

Title: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 20, 2018, 07:54:22 AM
As Prof of Climate Science, Kevin Anderson puts it, we are choosing failure when it comes to climate change (https://youtu.be/jIODRrnHQxg).

But - we needn't go down without a fight. 

My family has changed lots of habits to reduce our GHG emissions - but it's not enough. So, today, we calculated a pledged to pay a self-imposed tax - mainly to atone for our international flying.  The full story is here on my own website where I post random bullshit periodically (the latest being chit chat about the books I'm reading during all the free time I have now that I've given up reddit for lent):

http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-6-self-imposed-carbon-taxes/

And here's the tl;dr:

What to Pay?
Looking at carbon tax rates around the world, governments impose any where from ~$3 to $100 per ton.  Various online carbon footprint / offset calculators propose between $15 and $30 per ton.  I'm going with $30 a ton.  Cuz - well, it feels about right.

Who to Pay?
I like NRDC. But who else? I don’t want to give money to some organization that writes some nice sounding words about the environment, only to line the pockets of the executive board. I want our money to actually go toward reducing emissions and/or pulling green house gasses out of the atmosphere.

‘Green Travel Resources‘ suggest companies such as The Conservation Fund and some small British outfit that plants trees in Kenya.  Ooh!  I’ve got an idea: Earthling Ed and Bite Sized Vegan on Patreon.

$5 a month is now going to Earthling Ed‘s Patreon account and $5 a month to Bite Size Vegan.  For every person they inspire – to transition from a standard western diet to a strictly vegan diet – humanity cuts a ton of CO2 per year. 

Now that I’m having an honest-to-goodness look-see – it’s estimated that average CO2 per person needs to be below 2.5 tons a year.  Our family – including air travel plus all other living activities – even taking into account our veganism and lack of a car – we’re responsible for an estimated 12.5 tons each.  That’s 10 tons over budget, or 30 tons total. 30x$30 = $900.  $75 a month.

Okay, that means that so far I’m giving $25 a month or $300 a year, but I need to pay $50 per month more. Who to give to?

$15 / mo ($180 /yr) – National Resources Defense Council
$ 5  / mo ($60 / yr)  – Earthling Ed
$ 5 / mo ($60 / yr)   – Bite Sized Vegan
$__/ mo ($___ / yr) – ________________
...

So I have two questions:

1. Who should I send the other $50 a month to?
2. Will you join me?  Calculate your CO2 equiv emissions in excess of 2.5 tons a year, and tax yourself. Choose a rate anywhere from $3/ton (you freakin' turd) to $100/ton (you freakin' martyr). 

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: palebluedot on February 20, 2018, 07:37:12 PM
This is a lovely challenge and I too have been reducing my carbon footprint. Have you looked at the three charities that have been researched by GWWC? https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/other-causes/climate-change/

The research is still not conclusive on the effectiveness since it's so new but it may be a good starting point.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: westtoeast on February 21, 2018, 09:25:10 AM
Awesome! I've just started dipping my toes in this. I don't have a car, but I do take at least 3 round trip long haul flights each year. The next two years are pretty flight-heavy for me so I really should do something.

I'm at 30,000 lbs (literally half of that is flights). This number just includes riding the bus, home energy/gas and flights. I know it would be much higher if things like food choices and waste created were taken into account.

I did buy offsets for one of my upcoming trips, but I am thinking about purchasing the following once a year:
https://www.terrapass.com/product/ecotourist-bundle

The funded projects look specific and helpful, but I'm not really sure how to evaluate the effectiveness. I like the idea of a once-a-year purchase to repent for most of my travel. If I travel more than the 5 flights covered, then I can buy extra.

Another cool thing-- my city just started offering a 100% renewable energy option. We subscribed and just got an email detailing how much carbon we saved by joining. We pay a little extra each month for this. Unfortunately, only 1% of people in this very affluent city do this program. It is frustrating because it is such an easy change to make! All you have to do is check a box and send back an envelope!
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 21, 2018, 11:51:35 AM
This is a lovely challenge and I too have been reducing my carbon footprint. Have you looked at the three charities that have been researched by GWWC? https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/other-causes/climate-change/

The research is still not conclusive on the effectiveness since it's so new but it may be a good starting point.

Love your user name, Carl. :)

Thanks, I'll check it out.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: libertarian4321 on February 21, 2018, 03:30:46 PM
As Prof of Climate Science, Kevin Anderson puts it, we are choosing failure when it comes to climate change (https://youtu.be/jIODRrnHQxg).

But - we needn't go down without a fight. 

My family has changed lots of habits to reduce our GHG emissions - but it's not enough. So, today, we calculated a pledged to pay a self-imposed tax - mainly to atone for our international flying.  The full story is here on my own website where I post random bullshit periodically (the latest being chit chat about the books I'm reading during all the free time I have now that I've given up reddit for lent):

http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-6-self-imposed-carbon-taxes/

And here's the tl;dr:

What to Pay?
Looking at carbon tax rates around the world, governments impose any where from ~$3 to $100 per ton.  Various online carbon footprint / offset calculators propose between $15 and $30 per ton.  I'm going with $30 a ton.  Cuz - well, it feels about right.

Who to Pay?
I like NRDC. But who else? I don’t want to give money to some organization that writes some nice sounding words about the environment, only to line the pockets of the executive board. I want our money to actually go toward reducing emissions and/or pulling green house gasses out of the atmosphere.

‘Green Travel Resources‘ suggest companies such as The Conservation Fund and some small British outfit that plants trees in Kenya.  Ooh!  I’ve got an idea: Earthling Ed and Bite Sized Vegan on Patreon.

$5 a month is now going to Earthling Ed‘s Patreon account and $5 a month to Bite Size Vegan.  For every person they inspire – to transition from a standard western diet to a strictly vegan diet – humanity cuts a ton of CO2 per year. 

Now that I’m having an honest-to-goodness look-see – it’s estimated that average CO2 per person needs to be below 2.5 tons a year.  Our family – including air travel plus all other living activities – even taking into account our veganism and lack of a car – we’re responsible for an estimated 12.5 tons each.  That’s 10 tons over budget, or 30 tons total. 30x$30 = $900.  $75 a month.

Okay, that means that so far I’m giving $25 a month or $300 a year, but I need to pay $50 per month more. Who to give to?

$15 / mo ($180 /yr) – National Resources Defense Council
$ 5  / mo ($60 / yr)  – Earthling Ed
$ 5 / mo ($60 / yr)   – Bite Sized Vegan
$__/ mo ($___ / yr) – ________________
...

So I have two questions:

1. Who should I send the other $50 a month to?
2. Will you join me?  Calculate your CO2 equiv emissions in excess of 2.5 tons a year, and tax yourself. Choose a rate anywhere from $3/ton (you freakin' turd) to $100/ton (you freakin' martyr).

Rather than twisting yourself into knots trying to absolve the guilt you feel for the crimes you have committed against nature, why not just cut back on the flights and whatever else causes you to do so much damage to the environment?

I recommend you send the extra $50/month to me as I have a ridiculously low carbon footprint (most frugal people do).

I haven't flown in 11 years, I work from home and rarely drive, and I don't buy much (most enviros don't realize how much the junk they buy contributes to the problem- not just the product costs itself, but packaging and everything else).

Send me the $50/month, and I'll keep my carbon footprint low.  Otherwise, I'm going to buy a huge new truck and start "rolling coal" every day.  :)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/F-450_coal_rolling_Monster.jpg)
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 21, 2018, 03:58:46 PM
Thanks for your offer libertarian, but I'll pass. We already limit our flying to the bare minimum for now For example, this summer - we'll take the train to Germany rather than fly. And when we went to Ischia last summer, we took the train rather than airplane. Because it's way better for the environment.

We already don't buy shit we don't need, hang dry our clothes, don't eat any animal products, and we bike everywhere. We don't own a car.  I work from home, so does DH. Well- if you count dickin' around living off of savings as 'working'.  No - I don't feel terribly guilty. But flights are way too cheap.  They should be far more expensive.  So I'm making them expensive.

My carbon footprint is just over half of the average American's, and TBH, I think it's less than that as we live in Europe.  Anyway, even by our US estimate, our carbon footprint isn't much higher than a homeless American who eats at soup kitchens. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

So you'll be happy that since last posting, I've given another $5 a month to the veganuary organization! $45 more per month to go. I don't mind taking my time to donate where I think it'll help the most.

Enjoy modifying your F150 in spite of me! If the world needs anything, it's more dickwads rollin' coal! (/s- seriously can you *believe* people actually roll coal??? WTF?)... Actually the world needs more dickwads eating less meat. You're knocking it out of the park by most other measures.  Kudos.  Sincerely.  Where are you on the eating meat score?

(https://i.imgur.com/vWpGbfJm.png)

... another way of looking at the unsustainable amount of livestock (and humans) in the world today:

(https://www.survival.org.au/images/world-terrestrial-vertebrate-biomass.jpg)
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: bigchrisb on February 21, 2018, 05:23:41 PM
I took a slightly different slant on emissions and self-taxation. I worked out my estimated carbon emissions, including transport, then installed enough solar to offset this through electricity export. I have a pv system about three times what I need for my own energy use as a result. Not a great return on investment for the export, but it achieves a carbon offset that I have control and transparency of.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: rpr on February 21, 2018, 05:43:53 PM
I took a slightly different slant on emissions and self-taxation. I worked out my estimated carbon emissions, including transport, then installed enough solar to offset this through electricity export. I have a pv system about three times what I need for my own energy use as a result. Not a great return on investment for the export, but it achieves a carbon offset that I have control and transparency of.
Very nice. I know of another person that does this same thing. We do have a PV system but that is right sized for us.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Tass on February 21, 2018, 08:09:12 PM
This is a lovely challenge and I too have been reducing my carbon footprint. Have you looked at the three charities that have been researched by GWWC? https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/other-causes/climate-change/

The research is still not conclusive on the effectiveness since it's so new but it may be a good starting point.

I give $60 a month to Cool Earth, which the link above describes as probably the most cost-effective climate change charity out there.

(I used to give to carbonfund.org but became suspicious of them - if anyone knows anything more about them I'm listening.)

Rudimentary carbon footprint calculator roughly estimated me at 12 metric tons of CO2 per year - even rounding up to 15, I'm definitely covering a $30/ton tax.

I definitely have done more than my fair share of flying - 6 cross-country flights last year. That will drop significantly once my relationship is no longer long-distance, but I'll probably be flying to my family regularly for the next several years. I'm not wholly comfortable with that, but I'm not willing to give it up either.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: sol on February 21, 2018, 08:29:41 PM
I took a slightly different slant on emissions and self-taxation. I worked out my estimated carbon emissions, including transport, then installed enough solar to offset this through electricity export. I have a pv system about three times what I need for my own energy use as a result. Not a great return on investment for the export, but it achieves a carbon offset that I have control and transparency of.
Very nice. I know of another person that does this same thing. We do have a PV system but that is right sized for us.

We tried this approach.  It's not cost effective, but IMO it's the only one that actually works.

I spent about $30k on solar panels, which produced roughly twice as much electricity as our household used.  The problem was that electricity in the PNW is mostly hydropower anyway, so there is almost no carbon footprint to power use.  My household's carbon footprint was mostly gasoline for the car, and natural gas for the furnace and water heater.

So first we bought an electric car.  This not only reduced our daily emissions considerably, it also saved us some serious money on operating costs because the electric car is much cheaper to drive than the gas car was.  That one felt like a clear win.

Then we replaced our our natural gas furnace with an electric heat pump.  This one is really more of a toss up on the money side, because natural gas is so cheap that the daily cost savings probably aren't enough to offset the cost of the heat pump.  I calculate it will have to last about fifteen years to break even, which seems unlikely.  Heat pumps often break down before that.  But it is definitely less carbon emissions than the old gas furnace.

Now that my household directly consumes almost no fossil fuels, my solar arrays is just barely big enough to cover our usage for five people.  We'll be pretty darn close to zero for the year.

The problem is that all of these steps cost money.  Many thousands of dollars of money, and there are easy ways to reduce or even consume carbon dioxide that are MUCH cheaper, on a per ton basis, than modifying your home's carbon emissions by converting everything to solar electric like we did.  You can plant a thousand trees is a single day's labor, for a few hundred dollars, and grow many thousands of tons of biomass.  You can pay a company to fertilize algal blooms, or protect rain forest, or capture methane.  All of these things are more cost effective than putting solar panels on your house, and yet without everyone going to solar eventually all of them are going to be useless.  They are temporary measures, with significant amounts of leakage, and some of them are outright scams.

If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, you have to do it for real.  You can't buy offsets, you have to literally emit less.  Everything else is just paying to make your guilt go away.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Tass on February 21, 2018, 09:46:46 PM
I agree that ultimately carbon offsetting is not a solution, but it does seem like a reasonable strategy to buy time while we collectively figure out how to stop emitting so much - and particularly for those of us without the funds or roofs with which to mount solar panels...

One of the things I liked about Cool Earth is that I think it produces value independent of carbon sequestering. The rainforest would be worth protecting even if it weren't literally helping us breathe. Indigenous cultures deserve to survive independent of whatever they might offer global conservation.

But yeah, "paying to absolve yourself of guilt" seems to be an increasingly common model.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Roots&Wings on February 22, 2018, 05:40:11 AM
I'm in, using Bonneville Environmental Foundation RECs and offsets: http://store.b-e-f.org/make-a-purchase. Thought about doing this last year, but simply didn't.

What tool are you using for calculating emissions? EPA's Carbon Footprint tool (https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) says my annual CO2e is 11,446 lbs, but they use defaults for waste (and I hardly have any waste, put a small trash bag out about once a month).
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: westtoeast on February 22, 2018, 07:54:02 AM
Totally agree that actual reduction is much better than offsets. I want to fly less, but right now my parents are on the other side of the country. Hopefully this won’t be forever.

I did find a nifty chart that shows when driving is more sustainable than flying. As a single flier, it’s more sustainable to take an economy seat on a plane. But a family of four in a car is more sustainable. It also depended on the length of the journey. Train was often the best choice. I want to try this out, but it takes many days to go cross country and sleeper cars are way more expensive than flying!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2018, 10:20:35 AM
Train was often the best choice.

Don't be fooled by the train idea.  Trains are more efficient per pound of CO2, but they're all diesel and diesel is super dirty with particulates and NOx emissions.  Diesel actually kills tens of thousands of people (mostly asthmatics) per year by just destroying the air quality in population centers. 

CO2 emissions are still a problem, but they're not literally immediate murder.  Diesel engines are evil, full stop. 
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 22, 2018, 10:58:34 AM
This economist, Max Aufhammer, in this talk in 2013, proposed the G20 nations impose a $20/ton tax on all CO2 emissions. 

How Hot Will It Get (UC Berkeley Panel Lecture) at 52min mark (https://youtu.be/6hhL93BVU_E?t=52m37s)

His whole ~10 min talk is worthwhile, IMO. to further get your head around the numbers.

The second scientist to speak, Margaret Torn, presented what's going on with permafrost. She starts her presentation at the 15 min mark of the video, but at 27min in, she says some real sobering stuff (https://youtu.be/6hhL93BVU_E?t=27m5s).  I'd be running around like my hair was on fire, but she's maintains her calm as she notes that carbon stored in permafrost is approx the same amount as emissions from coal plants.  Then's she says something to the effect "at least we can turn off the coal plants*. It's a little harder to turn off the permafrost releases."       (*good luck with shutting down those coal plants).
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: sailinlight on February 22, 2018, 11:16:02 AM
Train was often the best choice.

Don't be fooled by the train idea.  Trains are more efficient per pound of CO2, but they're all diesel and diesel is super dirty with particulates and NOx emissions.  Diesel actually kills tens of thousands of people (mostly asthmatics) per year by just destroying the air quality in population centers. 

CO2 emissions are still a problem, but they're not literally immediate murder.  Diesel engines are evil, full stop.
Trains in Europe are nearly all electric, especially the long distance high-speed ones.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2018, 11:25:39 AM
but at 27min in, she says some real sobering stuff (https://youtu.be/6hhL93BVU_E?t=27m5s).  I'd be running around like my hair was on fire

The entire global carbon cycle field is depressing.  Most people tend to think about it like a business's balance sheets, with quarterly ins and outs that result in a net balance, but in reality it's more like a human being's body weight with daily ins and outs that result in fatness.

A business can go from profit to loss overnight, but you don't get fat in a single financial quarter.  You get fat slowly, over years, by making bad lifestyle choices.  You also don't get healthy by being vegan for a week, or by cutting out ice cream while eating pizza with your Netflix.  Getting healthy takes years of hard work in every aspect of your life, to undo all of that accumulated damage.

The global carbon cycle is a fat person that lives forever, and it just spent 200 years injecting lard with an IV.  It will literally take tens of thousands of years to naturally remove our emissions since the industrial revolution.  A 100% carbon-free economy would only turn off the IV.  We're still fucked.

Don't get me wrong, it's an absolutely vital first step.  I don't mean to discourage positive steps, but it's important to realistically identify just how bad we've already made things if we're going to propose a serious path for our descendants to follow.  With any luck humanity will still be here in ten thousand years, and I would like their planet to be a habitable one.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2018, 11:32:24 AM
Trains in Europe are nearly all electric, especially the long distance high-speed ones.

I don't know much about trains in Europe, but in America ask of our "electric" trains are actually diesel-electric.  Diesel  engines generate the electricity, which then powers electric motors. 

The only other option is some sort of electrified track, tied into the power grid, and that has its own set of problems.  Emissions then depend on what the local grid uses for generation.

In the US trains are primarily used to move freight and not people.  Freight trains are not electric high speed marvels.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: westtoeast on February 22, 2018, 11:40:47 AM
Train was often the best choice.

Don't be fooled by the train idea.  Trains are more efficient per pound of CO2, but they're all diesel and diesel is super dirty with particulates and NOx emissions.  Diesel actually kills tens of thousands of people (mostly asthmatics) per year by just destroying the air quality in population centers. 

CO2 emissions are still a problem, but they're not literally immediate murder.  Diesel engines are evil, full stop.
Trains in Europe are nearly all electric, especially the long distance high-speed ones.

Eek! Did not know about the NOx thing with trains. There’s just no winning with the US transport system! Wish I lived in Europe with those electric trains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 22, 2018, 11:40:58 AM
but at 27min in, she says some real sobering stuff (https://youtu.be/6hhL93BVU_E?t=27m5s).  I'd be running around like my hair was on fire

The entire global carbon cycle field is depressing.  Most people tend to think about it like a business's balance sheets, with quarterly ins and outs that result in a net balance, but in reality it's more like a human being's body weight with daily ins and outs that result in fatness.

A business can go from profit to loss overnight, but you don't get fat in a single financial quarter.  You get fat slowly, over years, by making bad lifestyle choices.  You also don't get healthy by being vegan for a week, or by cutting out ice cream while eating pizza with your Netflix.  Getting healthy takes years of hard work in every aspect of your life, to undo all of that accumulated damage.

The global carbon cycle is a fat person that lives forever, and it just spent 200 years injecting lard with an IV.  It will literally take tens of thousands of years to naturally remove our emissions since the industrial revolution.  A 100% carbon-free economy would only turn off the IV.  We're still fucked.

Don't get me wrong, it's an absolutely vital first step.  I don't mean to discourage positive steps, but it's important to realistically identify just how bad we've already made things if we're going to propose a serious path for our descendants to follow.  With any luck humanity will still be here in ten thousand years, and I would like their planet to be a habitable one.

I'm reading Overshoot by William J. Catton Jr. right now.  It's sobering.

About a month ago I read M. Greer's 'Collapse Now before the Rush'.  During Greer's book, I often found myself thinking, "Nah man, you're being WAY too optimistic."

Sigh.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: ketchup on February 22, 2018, 12:25:52 PM
Train was often the best choice.

Don't be fooled by the train idea.  Trains are more efficient per pound of CO2, but they're all diesel and diesel is super dirty with particulates and NOx emissions.  Diesel actually kills tens of thousands of people (mostly asthmatics) per year by just destroying the air quality in population centers. 

CO2 emissions are still a problem, but they're not literally immediate murder.  Diesel engines are evil, full stop.
Trains in Europe are nearly all electric, especially the long distance high-speed ones.

Eek! Did not know about the NOx thing with trains. There’s just no winning with the US transport system! Wish I lived in Europe with those electric trains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In Europe you'd get the diesel fumes from all the "clean" VW TDIs.  I like some of Europe's differences transportation-wise too, but they're not perfect.

I've been thinking more about this stuff lately.  My next car will definitely be either full electric or Volt-style series hybrid.  Solar panels are a definite yes once I'm in a house I plan on owning for more than a few more years.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 23, 2018, 01:29:23 AM
I've found three new charities to give my $30/ton self-imposed carbon tax to. They're bolded below:

$15 / mo ($180 /yr) – National Resources Defense Council
$ 5 / mo ($60 / yr)  – Earthling Ed
$ 5 / mo ($60 / yr)  – Bite Sized Vegan

$ 5 / mo ($60 / yr)  –  Veganuary
$ 5 / mo ($60 / yr) - Anonymous for the Voiceless
$15/ mo ($180 / yr) –  Earth Justice

------------------------------------------
$50/ mo ($600 / yr) - TOTAL SO FAR

I tried to donate to coolearth.org but the website puked during the transaction. I'll wait a day or two and try again.

I've got $25 more per month to allocate. 
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 23, 2018, 02:25:49 AM
I'm in, using Bonneville Environmental Foundation RECs and offsets: http://store.b-e-f.org/make-a-purchase. Thought about doing this last year, but simply didn't.

What tool are you using for calculating emissions? EPA's Carbon Footprint tool (https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) says my annual CO2e is 11,446 lbs, but they use defaults for waste (and I hardly have any waste, put a small trash bag out about once a month).

I used a couple that I don't recall now (edit: this: https://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm ). The latest was: https://www.carbonfootprint.com

Going through it again, our 3 person footprint is 30 26 tons,or ~9 tons each. A little under half of that is food. But they don't give me a way to indicate that we mostly buy food from within a 500 mile radius. Here's the 'secondary' categories. It's pretty extreme.  (yes our grocery bill isn't the paragon on mustachianism.  What can I say, we live in an area that makes amazing wine and I buy a bottle here and there..and oh, over there too).

(https://i.imgur.com/AHtbLTWl.png)

Another calculator had spit out 36 tons or so for our family of 3, and I subtracted 2 tons each for the baseline budget we apparently should all be striving for. At this point, what we should be striving for is 0.  If we lived in a house that we owned, I would totally get busy installing all the renewable energy generating equipment that I could to eliminate as much CO2 emissions as possible, and more than offset the rest.  One day.

The offsets that carbonfootprint.com proposes are 1/3 to 1/2 of what I'm self-imposing. It's a learning experience for sure.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: rpr on February 23, 2018, 02:32:35 AM
I’m enjoying your current series in your blog. Very thought provoking. Thanks for writing and sharing.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 23, 2018, 04:49:42 AM
I’m enjoying your current series in your blog. Very thought provoking. Thanks for writing and sharing.

Thank you for telling me this rpr.  I let my thoughts unwind on that blog - freeing myself from over-thinking how they'll land on an audience - and in doing so, I remove an impediment. It's easier to think a little deeper, if sometimes off track, if that makes sense.

Once in a while I imagine someone in my family reading my posts over there, and most of them would probably be totally put off.  Then I think, whatever, it's my website. They can go back to posting screeds against Colin Kaepernick on facebook if they don't like it.

Thanks for your comment, rpr.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on February 23, 2018, 04:36:35 PM
Ok, @Malaysia41.  I’m in!

My first planet-saving act will be... riding the bus to this evening’s art event / social gathering.  As someone who drives periodically, this will save emissions.  No $ savings due to bus fare, therefore a purely ecological decision. This thread is already affecting my life.

Going forward, I will:
1. Look for more opportunities to save on CO2 emissions rather than $ in daily life.
2. Articulate things I already do.
3. Start biking more.
4. Explore possible solar install on house.
5. Work my way through the other home projects that are scheduled before solar.
6. Return to exploring purchase of carbon credits.
7. Explore some of the other options mentioned on this thread.
8. Attempt to reach zero net CO2 emissions going forward by year end.  This goal assumes that I will accept some type of offset at a portion of claimed CO2 offset value, and purchase enough offset to balance out my remaining CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 24, 2018, 10:58:41 AM
Ok, @Malaysia41.  I’m in!

My first planet-saving act will be... riding the bus to this evening’s art event / social gathering.  As someone who drives periodically, this will save emissions.  No $ savings due to bus fare, therefore a purely ecological decision. This thread is already affecting my life.

Going forward, I will:
1. Look for more opportunities to save on CO2 emissions rather than $ in daily life.
2. Articulate things I already do.
3. Start biking more.
4. Explore possible solar install on house.
5. Work my way through the other home projects that are scheduled before solar.
6. Return to exploring purchase of carbon credits.
7. Explore some of the other options mentioned on this thread.
8. Attempt to reach zero net CO2 emissions going forward by year end.  This goal assumes that I will accept some type of offset at a portion of claimed CO2 offset value, and purchase enough offset to balance out my remaining CO2 emissions.

That's a commendable goal!  And thanks for joining the challenge BB! We live in an apartment so we don't have a lot of control over the energy sources.  If we were still in CA I'd install solar.  I should have installed solar panels when we last installed a new roof.  My son was four. It was 10 in the morning when the roofer arrived. I invited him in, then my son asked, "would you like a beer?" Patrick, the roofer replied,"No thank you." Then my son asked if he wanted a gun. Patrick declined that as well, as he fought desperately to maintain a straight face.  What he thought of *me* in that moment, I've no idea, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't terribly charitable.

This has nothing to do with global warming aside from it being a moment in time that I could have installed freaking solar panels. It's simply a fond memory of my four year old lil sweet pea being his generous lil self with Patrick the roofer.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 24, 2018, 11:14:37 AM
Oh on my last post - I wanted to say that in lieu of installing solar panels, I'm making a point to raise my voice. Here's a recent example:

The other day I emailed the IPCC and ask about whether they have plans to serve low GHG meals at all of their IPCC meetings.

(https://i.imgur.com/21rzza6l.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/21rzza6.png?1)
(click the image to see a bigger readable image, or read the full text (http://www.lauramariereese.com/email-to-the-ipcc/))

If any of you want to, say, email the IPCC and ask about their plans for serving low GHG foods, you can peruse the Working Group 3 mitigation (Chapter 11) report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf) for tips to include.

Here's the IPCC contact info: http://www.ipcc.ch/contact/contact.shtml

I'm wondering if I should stalk each and every one of the people on this blog (https://www.ipcc-wg3.ac.uk/Blog) and hit them up to pressure the people at the IPCC who book caterers to only serve low GHG foods, and outright ban the worst offenders like lamb, beef, and cheese.

In my email to the IPCC, I copied relevant researches cited in Chapter 11 of the WG3 mitigation report. Two of them got back to me.  One is the author of this book How Bad Are Bananas: The Carbon Footprint Of Everything (https://www.amazon.com/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-Everything/dp/1553658310).  His note was engaging and encouraging. I think I'll read his book next, after I've finished WJ Catton's Overshoot. @sol I imagine you're familiar with this book.What did you think?

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Hirondelle on February 28, 2018, 10:38:32 AM
I'm in! Calculating my Italy flights using $30 per ton CO2 I'd have to donate about $11. That's actually a lot less than I expected it to be!

For now I've set up a €5 monthly donation to Cool Earth. Obviously flying less would be the better solution, but paying a bit more for the flights I do take is a good intermediate solution. Can't talk myself into 0 flying (yet), but I do use busses/trains for shorter trips (<10h bus rides).
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Rimu05 on February 28, 2018, 02:49:12 PM
Thanks for your offer libertarian, but I'll pass. We already limit our flying to the bare minimum for now For example, this summer - we'll take the train to Germany rather than fly. And when we went to Ischia last summer, we took the train rather than airplane. Because it's way better for the environment.

We already don't buy shit we don't need, hang dry our clothes, don't eat any animal products, and we bike everywhere. We don't own a car.  I work from home, so does DH. Well- if you count dickin' around living off of savings as 'working'.  No - I don't feel terribly guilty. But flights are way too cheap.  They should be far more expensive.  So I'm making them expensive.

My carbon footprint is just over half of the average American's, and TBH, I think it's less than that as we live in Europe.  Anyway, even by our US estimate, our carbon footprint isn't much higher than a homeless American who eats at soup kitchens. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

So you'll be happy that since last posting, I've given another $5 a month to the veganuary organization! $45 more per month to go. I don't mind taking my time to donate where I think it'll help the most.

Enjoy modifying your F150 in spite of me! If the world needs anything, it's more dickwads rollin' coal! (/s- seriously can you *believe* people actually roll coal??? WTF?)... Actually the world needs more dickwads eating less meat. You're knocking it out of the park by most other measures.  Kudos.  Sincerely.  Where are you on the eating meat score?

(https://i.imgur.com/vWpGbfJm.png)

... another way of looking at the unsustainable amount of livestock (and humans) in the world today:

(https://www.survival.org.au/images/world-terrestrial-vertebrate-biomass.jpg)

when you have family in another country that you can't visit for years because of the expense. You will not wish flights to be expensive. It took 6 years from the time I came to the U.S to go back to my home country and see family and that was because my mom paid while I was in college. I returned again for a funeral and this is not unique. The many immigrants scattered across the globe trying to make ends meet face this problem. I had the advantage of coming here legally, those who don't will find that they may never see their families again.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 28, 2018, 03:10:46 PM
Flights being cheap is not a good thing. 

Hopefully we're like algae, where at some point, after consuming too many non-renewable resources, we suffer and go from 7+ billion people to some lower number.

But I suspect we're more like fermentation yeast - where after consuming too many resources, our waste products rise to toxic levels for some life-critical biochemical processes, and it kills us all.

Flights being cheap is not a good thing. Cheap flights = more flights. That's not good if we want our planet to be habitable for our children. I mean I get what you're saying - it's awful to not see family.  But emitting unnecessary CO2 is robbing-from-the-future.

As I read this book Overshoot (written in the 80s!), I'm coming to see that my 'self imposed tax' of $30 a ton is bullshit. No matter what $ amount I choose is just patting myself on the back.

This is some depressing shit.  I keep waiting for the acceptance and the equanimity.  But mostly I'm just really sad.

We developed modern towns, lifestyles, and societies around $20-$60 a barrel oil. We should have developed around $200-$600 a barrel oil (or more? IDK an exact amt, I just sense the right number is at least an order of magnitude higher).  I wouldn't be booking Milan to SFO whenever I wanted if oil was priced to account for externalities. But it's cheap, and we'll let the next generation pick up the tab - possibly/probably with their lives.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on February 28, 2018, 03:19:50 PM
My heart goes out to people who have difficulty seeing their families.  Yet moving across the world consumes energy, which usually releases carbon, which overheats the planet, and is not included in the price of the plane ticket.  To fly sustainably (if such a thing is possible) at least requires some action that reduces carbon release, or takes carbon back out of the atmosphere.  Malaysia41 is not raising your cost of flying.  She is paying for actions that reduce the damage of her flying. 

@Rimu05, I hope that you get to see your family soon without another funeral.  I seek a world in which we can all see our families, in safety, without harming the environment of our grandchildren.  That does mean increasing the income of the average person so they can be in touch with their families.  To do this probably means that rich people need to pay for actions that cool the climate, while poorer people focus on building their family's income.  I join Malaysia41 in voluntarily spending my own money to cool the climate. 
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on February 28, 2018, 03:50:06 PM
Hopefully we're like algae, where at some point, after consuming too many non-renewable resources, we suffer and go from 7+ billion people to some lower number.

But I suspect we're more like fermentation yeast - where after consuming too many resources, our waste products rise to toxic levels for some life-critical biochemical processes, and it kills us all.

Um... I signed up for doing something proactive, not joining a doomsayer circle.  I don't have to cheer for population collapse to be on this thread, do I???

I suspect we won't go to a lower human population due to climate change.  At least, if the human population drops, I think it will mostly be from other factors, as is already occurring in many countries. 

Re algae, I don't think we need a population drop to stop consuming too many non-renewable resources.  It is perfectly possible that we will instead learn to be more efficient.  We could recycle some (like metals) instead, for example.  Also we can develop alternate methods of achieving a given goal, and change our choices through gentler methods (cost pressures, free birth control) prior to experiencing a deprivation-based population decline. 

@Malaysia41, if this thread departs from discussion of individual actions into general enviro-discussion, you won't mind a positive-minded contribution, will you?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: sol on February 28, 2018, 04:04:59 PM
@Malaysia41, if this thread departs from discussion of individual actions into general enviro-discussion, you won't mind a positive-minded contribution, will you?

You do see the irony inherent in this contradiction, though, right?

Any individual actions that a wealthy American might take, like installing solar panels or buying carbon offsets, are clearly ridiculous attempts to amend for the extravagant lifestyles we lead.  While I invested $30k into solar panels for my US roof, that money could have been used to install 10 times as much capacity in rural Africa, where small amounts of renewable electricity can have enormous impacts on quality of life while simultaneously offsetting dirtier energy sources than my northwest grid hydropower.  My decision to go solar was purely a selfish one, to make ME feel better about my environmental impact, not to actually make the environment better.  There are always more efficient ways to make the environment better than to reduce your personal consumption.

Al Gore took a lot of flak for this approach, living in a big house and flying around the country to promote his global warming movie, but honestly that movie saved far more emissions by influencing the behavior of millions of people than he could ever produce in a lifetime of personal consumption.  He genuinely helped the environment, instead of making himself feel better by just reducing his personal consumption. 
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 01, 2018, 12:00:51 AM
@Malaysia41, if this thread departs from discussion of individual actions into general enviro-discussion, you won't mind a positive-minded contribution, will you?

You do see the irony inherent in this contradiction, though, right?

Any individual actions that a wealthy American might take, like installing solar panels or buying carbon offsets, are clearly ridiculous attempts to amend for the extravagant lifestyles we lead.  While I invested $30k into solar panels for my US roof, that money could have been used to install 10 times as much capacity in rural Africa, where small amounts of renewable electricity can have enormous impacts on quality of life while simultaneously offsetting dirtier energy sources than my northwest grid hydropower.  My decision to go solar was purely a selfish one, to make ME feel better about my environmental impact, not to actually make the environment better.  There are always more efficient ways to make the environment better than to reduce your personal consumption.

Al Gore took a lot of flak for this approach, living in a big house and flying around the country to promote his global warming movie, but honestly that movie saved far more emissions by influencing the behavior of millions of people than he could ever produce in a lifetime of personal consumption.  He genuinely helped the environment, instead of making himself feel better by just reducing his personal consumption.

This existential predicament is a mind-bender isn't it?

 
@Malaysia41, if this thread departs from discussion of individual actions into general enviro-discussion, you won't mind a positive-minded contribution, will you?

When I talk honestly about the situation we're all in, it's typical to jokingly be called a debbie downer or doomsdayer or IDK, 'prepper'?  So I act jovial or laugh to lighten the mood.  But I'm dead serious.

And then there are revelations that turn my thinking on its head - no - not about our fate in general - but about the causes and the methods by which we're driving there.

For example, I'll find myself noting grotesque behaviors that seem to be a result of capitalism. Then I read about the historic extraction and emissions by companies in Russia over time, and it's on par with the US. I realize this is a condition of the human species behaving like any other species filling in niches where resources are available.

It would have taken extremely enlightened leaders - listening to their top ecologists - and working with other enlightened leaders worldwide - to have come up with policies that kept us from fate, all while mastering the messaging needed to get the whole world complying. In other words, our predicament is independent of socio-political organizations. Sure some aspects of the way we organize ourselves make emissions worse, but on the whole, resource depletion and environmental pollution are not unique to particular political philosophies. They're succession-of-species problems.  It's just that I would have liked to think we were capable of transcending this predicament with our big brains. Unfortunately, we're probably not.

And my mind bends thinking of analogies.

We're like 7B siblings who inherited a massive fortune. A small % of us are behaving like wealthy Long-Island heirs in the Age of Exuberance, just before the 1929. We understand the maxim, "DON'T TOUCH THE PRINCIPAL!"  And we're trying to comply, and we're trying to get others to comply.  But the vast majority of our siblings around the world are behaving like the basic profligate high-income-no-savings-lifestyle-inflation people who we regularly apply face-punches to on this forum.  They're like, "The F you talking about? This is mine! I'm gonna do what I want! YOLO! I deserve it!" And we're going, "facepalm", as we book another international flight.

It's a real mind-fucker this predicament.

Quote
Re algae, I don't think we need a population drop to stop consuming too many non-renewable resources.  It is perfectly possible that we will instead learn to be more efficient.  We could recycle some (like metals) instead, for example.  Also we can develop alternate methods of achieving a given goal, and change our choices through gentler methods (cost pressures, free birth control) prior to experiencing a deprivation-based population decline. 

Oh yeah -there are A LOT of solutions we could pursue. ... But we're not. We're putting it on individuals to make individual choices. And even someone like me - someone who (I think) has a fairly good grasp of the enormity of our situation - even I'm not making the choices that need to be made.

Sol's comment on Al Gore arose a new mind-bender for me.  Until now, I've regarded Al Gore as doing more harm than good. Holy shit - you hear my parents talk about him and his hypocrisy and it's clear the'd get behind rolling coal just to russle his jimmies. But there's also the right wing media that has taken every hypocritical thing he's done and not only ran with it - they've distorted what he's said to mean the opposite of what he clearly intended. Here's something I wrote on a specific case a while ago - about the way Fox 'news' selectively edited his testimony on cap-n-trade (http://www.lauramariereese.com/news-spin-example).

But Sol sees the situation the opposite way.  His movie did more good than bad, as it opened up the eyes (and hopefully changed the behavior) of so many people. And then we're back to square one which is that his movie maybe moved the needle one way or the other, but the power of our species to consume at all costs negated much of the potential effect of his movie.

I'm discussing this stuff mainly because I'm working through the grief process myself. I can try to keep it easy breezy as usual. But like I mentioned in another thread regarding industrial factory farming - we're a tough bunch who looks reality squarely on, and we make choices based on that. So I'm also not interested in mis-representing our predicament as a below-the-fold human interest (heh) story. It should be the full page headline.  And we should be doing everything we can to work together to stop stealing from our kids and our grandkid. We need to stop touching the principal. I don't see that happening. I could write here what I think it would take, but instead I'll ask you - what specific actions would it take to avert the impending 'doom'?

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: sol on March 01, 2018, 12:46:47 AM
what specific actions would it take to avert the impending 'doom'?

I think you're looking at "doom" the wrong way.

Yes, environmental catastrophe is one kind of doom.  But it's a slow-rolling boulder, that mostly squishes poor people.  Meanwhile, our cities are burning down around us with more immediate problems.  Opioid addiction, sex trafficking, Mexican cartels beheading people, unregistered pedophiles, soulja boy, homelessness, racists driving their cars into crowds of people... it's a depressingly long list.

If you think destroying the Earth is bad for the Earth, you can feel better knowing that Earth wouldn't blink if humanity were wiped out tomorrow.  It's been here 4.5 billion years and hominids have been here approximately one tenth of one percent of that time.  All of recorded history is approximately one thousandth of one thousandth of one percent of that time, and for the vast majority of that tiny sliver we hadn't discovered fossil fuels.  On the scale of the planet, all of humanity thus far is basically an instantaneous event.

If you think destroying the Earth is bad for the people who live on Earth, then your real concern is human suffering, not environmentalism, and by that metric the environment is waaaaaay down on the list of problems.  Somewhere on Earth today, a child under 6 was raped, a drunk driver killed a single mother, and a bag full of puppies was drowned in a river.  That happens every single day.  Torture still happens.  Thousands of people literally die every day from diarrhea.  Oh and we still have enough nukes to end all human life in under 30 minutes, ready set go!  Compared to these sorts of problems, rising sea level seems a little less like a crisis, right? 

Yes billions of coastal people will have to relocate to new cities, but hey at least they won't die of diarrhea this year, unlike several thousand real humans who are alive today and who won't be alive in 2019, having died horrible painful deaths that were totally preventable.  So are we really worried about the potential inconvenience to future humans?

And yes, the ice caps are totally going to melt and the polar bears are all going to die, but let's not forget that there are only a few thousand polar bears anyway and we literally slaughter 40 million cows every single year, just because they are pleasingly delicious.  So are we really worried about animal welfare?

I realize that I'm probably not helping, at this point.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 01, 2018, 02:20:59 AM
what specific actions would it take to avert the impending 'doom'?

If you think destroying the Earth is bad for the Earth, you can feel better knowing that Earth wouldn't blink if humanity were wiped out tomorrow.  It's been here 4.5 billion years and hominids have been here approximately one tenth of one percent of that time.  All of recorded history is approximately one thousandth of one thousandth of one percent of that time, and for the vast majority of that tiny sliver we hadn't discovered fossil fuels.  On the scale of the planet, all of humanity thus far is basically an instantaneous event.


Sol - I adore you. If we were choosing teams I'd volunteer to be on yours. Gotta say, though, this quoted response is the one that annoys me unlike any other. It feels intentionally obtuse. I mean, I realize you're trying to take me to a higher altitude view, but trust me, I've visited that observation many times already. I understand the earth is ~4.5B years old in a universe that's approx ~13B years old, and that the earth will go on without humans. 

I'm talking about us going into overshoot and killing ourselves off by altering our environment to a point that makes life impossible.  This, despite recognizing our situation and having the capability to possibly avoid it.

I have kids, and nieces and nephews. But even if I didn't, well, call me sentimental, but I care about our species and our fellow earthlings. I don't want to wipe them all out because we're too stupid to 'not touch the principal'.

By focusing on this one huge existential problem, I'm not saying other problems don't exist or don't matter. Shit, I founded a 501c3 organization to pay teachers so that Rohingya refugees on the Island of Penang have a place to go and learn and have a chance to transcend their situations.  I recognize there's daily awfulness everywhere. (by the way, I'm raising $6k to pay a teacher this year you can donate at www.rohyingyafund.org (http://www.rohingyafund.org) (heh)).

When you write things like this I feel you're missing my point.

It's not rising sea levels that bothers me. That's a problem, but it's manageable. It's not the slow-descent collapse that bothers me. I mean it does bother me, but in a manageable way. I think many of us have a fighting chance of navigating that with our chosen teams. No - it's the dozens of possible one-way cascades of events we might trigger - from permafrost melting to killing off oceanic phytoplankton due to ocean acidification - to goodness knows what else - that could END us in short order. I don't want to END us, when we have the power and capability to survive.

A year ago I figured that we were facing a long slow boil collapse like you describe - maybe in ten years, maybe in 50, hell, maybe long after you and I are dead. (this is the 'us being algae' scenario).  But the more I've been reading about ecology, and the more I observe the fat headed conversations amongst our leaders, the more I'm coming to realize we're stepping on the accelerator. It may not be a slow boil decline afterall. It may be that we hit a wall all at once (this is the 'us being fermenting yeast' scenario). I can store as many months of beans and oats in my pantry as I want, and that's not going to help if all the plankton die off over the course of months and within a few years, no one outside of $3M hermetically sealed and well stocked bomb shelters can breathe . 

I'm just working through the acceptance of it all. It's spilling out onto the forums. 

But I'm not saying I don't want to hear your wisdom.  I've learned quite a lot from you on this and other topics. e.g. what you've written about your solar panels, even what you said about Al Gore. So I'm sorry if I'm coming off as if I'm asking you to sit down and shut up - I'm not.  It's just that I've been working through so many of these perspectives that some of them feel trite, obvious, and obtuse at this point.  But I'll acknowledge that most people we come across in the world aren't thinking about our predicament much at all, so shifting perspectives is a great tool to pull the rug out and jolt people into seeing the situation. But - the 'earth will go on without us' comment usually comes from people who advocate 'burn baby burn' policy and use that line of discussion to undermine the competence of anyone discussing doing better with the environment. So that makes it doubly annoying.

Maybe 'doom' was too a loaded word. I was simply borrowing Bicycle_B's terminology. I guess I'm asking, what can we do to alleviate our predicament and improve the chances of we earthlings surviving this mass extinction event? Because making individual choices doesn't accomplish much beyond making choosey individuals feel better. I'm not at a point where I'm comfortable saying 'whatevs'.  But that's the point I'm prolly gonna need to work my way toward.

Quote
And yes, the ice caps are totally going to melt and the polar bears are all going to die, but let's not forget that there are only a few thousand polar bears anyway and we literally slaughter 40 million cows every single year, just because they are pleasingly delicious.  So are we really worried about animal welfare?

Yes. I'm also worried about animal welfare. Industrialized animal ag factory farming needs to end. If we all transitioned to whole food veganism over the next 5 years, we'd definitely alleviate our predicament with fossil fuels, return to a much more sustainable terrestrial vertebrate biomass, and end enormous daily suffering of our fellow earthlings.   We should slaughter the cows we have, and stop breeding new ones. Yes -we should do that.

You seem to be arguing that we have to pick just one thing ("so are we really worried about animal welfare"?), but also arguing that by picking one thing we're being hypocrites because there are so many other things to care about ("a child of 6 was raped today"). ???? the fuck man???? I mean that in the most respectful, I-adore-you sort of way, of course.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 03, 2018, 05:16:31 AM
I felt more upbeat about our predicament as I finished reading the book Overshoot.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41djG252w1L.jpg)

Here are some of my comments (http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-16-homo-colossus/) on my blog where approx .13 people show up every day to absorb my fascinating, scintillating prose.

The definition of homo colossus vs homo sapiens is one of many useful ecological concepts / definitions discussed in the book. Highly recommend.

edit: Here's a 45 minute interview with William J. Catton from 2008.  IMO it's worth a watch. He covers a lot of the concepts from the Overshoot book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6F0bgvARc     

edit2: Ah, 2008 - the year that Newt and Nancy filmed this 30 second spot on climate change.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154  ... soon after, the GOP took a hard turn away from ecological enlightenment. :(.  The few Republicans who advocated for carbon taxes and reducing GHG emissions - folks like Rep Bob Inglis from S.C. - got swept from office as tea partiers filled the ranks of the house.   But Mr. Catton advises we not look for villains.  It's hard not to see them everywhere these days though.  Shit - I'm brooding again. I was feeling positive. Dang.

I still have $25 a month to allocate to offset my carbon.  I want to give it to political campaigns - to elect people who take the science seriously, and have ideas and capability to get us to a point where we embrace policies that protect wild lands, and motivate 1st world humans to use less energy, all while encouraging development of sensible renewables.

Any recommendations?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 04, 2018, 04:53:02 AM
Update: I have allocated my self-imposed monthly carbon taxes!

Goal was $75 a month or $900 a year to pay $30 per ton of CO2 emissions for our family of three homo colossi (estimated emissions of 30 tons total based on two online calculators).

$25 /mo  – National level political campaigns (March- Beto O'Rourke) (April IDK Who???) (May ???)
$15 / mo – National Resources Defense Council
$15 / mo – Earth Justice
$10 / mo – National Rifle Association
$10 / mo – Citizens Climate Lobby  (1x pymnt $120)
$ 5 / mo  – Earthling Ed
$ 5 / mo  – Bite Sized Vegan
$ 5 / mo  – Veganuary
$ 5 / mo  – Anonymous for the Voiceless (1x pymnt $60)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Okay - one of those is bogus.  Can you tell which?

And that's $85 a month. Close enough to my $75/mo goal. 

How are you all doing with your self-imposed carbon tax goals /activities?

(Thanks for indulging my hand wringing posts as I go through the throws of coming to terms with the fate of humanity!)


...
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Hirondelle on March 04, 2018, 01:40:23 PM
Wait, why's the NRA in there? What good do they do for the climate (or from European perspective, what good do they do at all)??
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Tass on March 04, 2018, 02:56:08 PM
Wait, why's the NRA in there? What good do they do for the climate (or from European perspective, what good do they do at all)??

Okay - one of those is bogus.  Can you tell which?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 04, 2018, 06:15:41 PM
Malaysia41, well done on finishing your self-imposed carbon taxes!


When I talk honestly about the situation we're all in, it's typical to jokingly be called a debbie downer or doomsdayer or IDK, 'prepper'?  So I act jovial or laugh to lighten the mood.  But I'm dead serious.


For clarity - not asking you to fake it if you think we're doomed.  Well aware that you're serious.  Just making sure that I'm not required to agree we're all doomed. 


Quote
Re algae, I don't think we need a population drop to stop consuming too many non-renewable resources.  It is perfectly possible that we will instead learn to be more efficient.  We could recycle some (like metals) instead, for example.  Also we can develop alternate methods of achieving a given goal, and change our choices through gentler methods (cost pressures, free birth control) prior to experiencing a deprivation-based population decline. 

Oh yeah -there are A LOT of solutions we could pursue. ... But we're not. We're putting it on individuals to make individual choices.

(snip)

So I'm also not interested in mis-representing our predicament as a below-the-fold human interest (heh) story. It should be the full page headline.  And we should be doing everything we can to work together to stop stealing from our kids and our grandkid. We need to stop touching the principal. I don't see that happening. I could write here what I think it would take, but instead I'll ask you - what specific actions would it take to avert the impending 'doom'?

I don't claim to have the Great Recipe For Preventing Climate Change.  I just think that in between "we are not doing enough this year to prevent future climate change" and "shit, 6 of the 7 billion humans just died because of climate change", there will be a period when economic scarcity signals drive up the price of non-renewable resources, such that human responses to the price will be fast and effective enough to keep most people from dying.  We are far from that day right now, in that the price signals are not yet sufficient to drive common behavior. 

I'm on this thread because I think it's a good thing to take the individual actions that we can.  As stated upthread, if self imposing a carbon tax can be reasonably thought to work and be quantifiable, I seek by year end to be positioned for a 2019 of zero net carbon emissions.  That's more than I would do without this thread, so again, glad you started it. 

Soon to come:  BicycleB's confession of difficulties with daily habit change, and first steps to move more in that area.  Aka, Bicycle starts to report on working through his carbon list.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: expatartist on March 04, 2018, 09:54:59 PM
This is a tough one. Until recently, I'd convinced myself that living the life I do wasn't too bad - child- and car-free, tiny apt with very little heating/cooling needed, take electric subway just 2 stops to work, etc. But I eat a lot of imported food: today's lunch is palak paneer on nan from Pakistan, with a Californian mixed-green salad. I also take several flights per year for work, exhibitions, or family - all travel is international from Hong Kong.

And yesterday I had a long chat with a meteorologist-turned-sea kayak instructor who showed me some sobering videos, maps and other info from arctic research institutes. The catalyst was a recycled glass mosaic I'm doing for work in the shape of a recent typhoon, and an art project incorporating rising sea levels. But within minutes I understood my naivety - scientists have said there's no way to predict now we're on an exponential curve in terms of the oceans heating up (air/surface temperatures to follow after) and it was depressing as hell. Beyond depressing.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and links you've been putting here @Malaysia41. Hope to contribute whatever I can. Related: does anyone recommend ETFs with a renewable energy/environmental component, similar to Vanguard's Social Index fund but more environmentally focused? Thanks.

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: palebluedot on March 04, 2018, 09:58:29 PM

edit2: Ah, 2008 - the year that Newt and Nancy filmed this 30 second spot on climate change.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154  ... soon after, the GOP took a hard turn away from ecological enlightenment. :(.  The few Republicans who advocated for carbon taxes and reducing GHG emissions - folks like Rep Bob Inglis from S.C. - got swept from office as tea partiers filled the ranks of the house.   But Mr. Catton advises we not look for villains.  It's hard not to see them everywhere these days though.  Shit - I'm brooding again. I was feeling positive. Dang.

Senator Whitehouse talks a lot about how Citizens United resulted in the GOP not passing any legislation on climate change. Have you read deeper into this? Here's an interview with him: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-big-money-in-politics-blocked-u-s-action-on-climate-change

Quote
I still have $25 a month to allocate to offset my carbon.  I want to give it to political campaigns - to elect people who take the science seriously, and have ideas and capability to get us to a point where we embrace policies that protect wild lands, and motivate 1st world humans to use less energy, all while encouraging development of sensible renewables.

Any recommendations?

Check out 314. I've been donating monthly over the past year. They are the main grassroots organization on training STEM candidates for political office.
http://www.314action.org/home

And yes Carl is awesome! He is missed :-(
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 05, 2018, 12:57:41 AM
Wait, why's the NRA in there? What good do they do for the climate (or from European perspective, what good do they do at all)??

Okay - one of those is bogus.  Can you tell which?

heh.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Hirondelle on March 05, 2018, 01:52:55 AM
Wait, why's the NRA in there? What good do they do for the climate (or from European perspective, what good do they do at all)??

Okay - one of those is bogus.  Can you tell which?

heh.

Haha didn't notice that sentence! Pfew.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on March 05, 2018, 03:35:35 AM
My family has changed lots of habits to reduce our GHG emissions - but it's not enough. So, today, we calculated a pledged to pay a self-imposed tax - mainly to atone for our international flying. 

Unfortunately, spending money will not prevent climate change. This reminds me of how in the middle ages certain nobles and merchants decided that they simply couldn't stop sinning, couldn't they just donate to a worthy charity to make up for their sins? The Catholic Church said, "yes, there is indeed a worthy charity: us." And so, indulgences were born. The nobles kept having fun sinning, and the church got richer, everyone was happy!

However, unlike "sin", our carbon emissions have a definite and measurable impact on the world.

Couldn't you just... not fly?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 05, 2018, 04:25:14 AM
My family has changed lots of habits to reduce our GHG emissions - but it's not enough. So, today, we calculated a pledged to pay a self-imposed tax - mainly to atone for our international flying. 

Unfortunately, spending money will not prevent climate change. This reminds me of how in the middle ages certain nobles and merchants decided that they simply couldn't stop sinning, couldn't they just donate to a worthy charity to make up for their sins? The Catholic Church said, "yes, there is indeed a worthy charity: us." And so, indulgences were born. The nobles kept having fun sinning, and the church got richer, everyone was happy!

However, unlike "sin", our carbon emissions have a definite and measurable impact on the world.

Couldn't you just... not fly?

Yeah - we've discussed that a lot in this thread.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 05, 2018, 04:26:23 AM

edit2: Ah, 2008 - the year that Newt and Nancy filmed this 30 second spot on climate change.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154  ... soon after, the GOP took a hard turn away from ecological enlightenment. :(.  The few Republicans who advocated for carbon taxes and reducing GHG emissions - folks like Rep Bob Inglis from S.C. - got swept from office as tea partiers filled the ranks of the house.   But Mr. Catton advises we not look for villains.  It's hard not to see them everywhere these days though.  Shit - I'm brooding again. I was feeling positive. Dang.

Senator Whitehouse talks a lot about how Citizens United resulted in the GOP not passing any legislation on climate change. Have you read deeper into this? Here's an interview with him: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-big-money-in-politics-blocked-u-s-action-on-climate-change

Quote
I still have $25 a month to allocate to offset my carbon.  I want to give it to political campaigns - to elect people who take the science seriously, and have ideas and capability to get us to a point where we embrace policies that protect wild lands, and motivate 1st world humans to use less energy, all while encouraging development of sensible renewables.

Any recommendations?

Check out 314. I've been donating monthly over the past year. They are the main grassroots organization on training STEM candidates for political office.
http://www.314action.org/home

And yes Carl is awesome! He is missed :-(

Thanks, 314 looks good. I think I'll send $100 to them, and $100 to Cool Earth.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 05, 2018, 04:40:25 AM
Malaysia41, well done on finishing your self-imposed carbon taxes!


When I talk honestly about the situation we're all in, it's typical to jokingly be called a debbie downer or doomsdayer or IDK, 'prepper'?  So I act jovial or laugh to lighten the mood.  But I'm dead serious.


For clarity - not asking you to fake it if you think we're doomed.  Well aware that you're serious.  Just making sure that I'm not required to agree we're all doomed. 


Quote
Re algae, I don't think we need a population drop to stop consuming too many non-renewable resources.  It is perfectly possible that we will instead learn to be more efficient.  We could recycle some (like metals) instead, for example.  Also we can develop alternate methods of achieving a given goal, and change our choices through gentler methods (cost pressures, free birth control) prior to experiencing a deprivation-based population decline. 

Oh yeah -there are A LOT of solutions we could pursue. ... But we're not. We're putting it on individuals to make individual choices.

(snip)

So I'm also not interested in mis-representing our predicament as a below-the-fold human interest (heh) story. It should be the full page headline.  And we should be doing everything we can to work together to stop stealing from our kids and our grandkid. We need to stop touching the principal. I don't see that happening. I could write here what I think it would take, but instead I'll ask you - what specific actions would it take to avert the impending 'doom'?

I don't claim to have the Great Recipe For Preventing Climate Change.  I just think that in between "we are not doing enough this year to prevent future climate change" and "shit, 6 of the 7 billion humans just died because of climate change", there will be a period when economic scarcity signals drive up the price of non-renewable resources, such that human responses to the price will be fast and effective enough to keep most people from dying.  We are far from that day right now, in that the price signals are not yet sufficient to drive common behavior. 

I'm on this thread because I think it's a good thing to take the individual actions that we can.  As stated upthread, if self imposing a carbon tax can be reasonably thought to work and be quantifiable, I seek by year end to be positioned for a 2019 of zero net carbon emissions.  That's more than I would do without this thread, so again, glad you started it. 

Soon to come:  BicycleB's confession of difficulties with daily habit change, and first steps to move more in that area.  Aka, Bicycle starts to report on working through his carbon list.

You're not required to think anything in particular of course. Anyway, I appreciate your optimism ... and I really appreciate you taking so much personal action to reduce your carbon impact! Zero net carbon emissions in 2019 is a fantastic goal. Looking forward to the Bicycle_B confessional sessions.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Moonwaves on March 05, 2018, 04:43:43 AM
I'm more in the "only way to do it is don't fly" camp than anything else and it was one of the reasons I moved to Germany. Living on an island, unless you're prepared to sacrifice a lot of holiday time to travelling, the only practical way to get anywhere is to fly. In Germany, I can easily get the train to lots of places. Of course, now that I'm here, friends and family come over to visit, so my moving here has actually resulted in a net increase in flights (well, probably. I suppose there is the chance that if they hadn't been visiting me they might have flown somewhere else).

I generally aim for going to Ireland once a year and then, between weddings, babies, and funerals, actually end up going twice or three times. Last year was the first time I actually just managed to go once. This year for the first time I might actually be in a position to have enough holidays at one time that I can get the train/ferry instead of just having to fly because it's faster. It's a process.

By the way, if you haven't read it yet, I found George Monbiot's "Heat - How we can stop the planet burning" (http://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/) really interesting. It too, is now a bit older (2006) but I read it around 2010 and still felt like I learned a lot.   
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 05, 2018, 10:02:48 AM

Regarding plane vs train vs bus:

Bus Station Scene - BBC Utopia (https://youtu.be/rcx-nf3kH_M)

I wrote about it on my bloggie. (http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-10-perspective-jolt/)
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 11, 2018, 12:13:56 AM
I thought some of you might enjoy bits from a text exchange I had with an ex Si Valley co-worker who currently lives in West Virginia. His name for this thread: "LL" - for his self described political philosophy of 'libertarian lite'. We often send each other articles to get the other ones take.  For example, the other week he asked what I thought of the whole Aziz Ansari thing and the metoo movement.

LL has a large home in the WV mountains, a Tesla, and often posts pictures of trips on FB- both for work and with family. 

NOTE: If you'd rather not read the whole exchange, skip to the quotes from him that I've put in bold, then read the end bit.
So a few weeks ago, he sends me a text,

Quote from: LL
Don't know if you saw Rand Paul last night, but I think he did a fair job embarrassing Republicans who ran on fiscal conservatism. Glad he did it. Even Fox & Friends was giving him credit this morning saying this bill in conjunction with tax cuts added twice as much to the debt as Obama's stimulus in 2009 that these sames Republicans railed against -- and that at least Obama had an excuse of the financial melt down.

When I read his text, I thought -ugh. I don't know if you can tell from my posts within this MMM thread, but I'm going through a transition from a news-of-the-day view to a 100,000 ft view where stuff like this - for-profit news 'takes' on how well zingers landed in a speech - well - IDGAF. I was feeling a little punchy when I received that text, and I replied,

Quote from: M41
It doesn’t matter LL. In a world where for-profit corporations deliver our news - cult of personality and show biz artifice will win out. In a system where political influence goes to the highest bidder, and unlimited amounts of money are allowed to be spent on push-polling and disinformation campaigns, , how does it matter if one marginalized libertarian (with insane views about people ‘having healthcare’ cuz they can go to an emergency room (but this is beside the pt)). How does it matter what Rand paul says or that the bootlickers on fox and friends momentarily look up from the boot heel of trump and nod in agreement? I will say that it’s interesting to see how many ostensibly republican politicians are willing to go along with the absolute denigration of our country in order to do the bidding of their donors. And those who stand for actual principle - well - they won’t make a bit of difference until our constitution is amended and systematic democratic processes are established.

But ...it’s getting more and more likely that our generation will see NTHE .

And I’m becoming more convinced that our children are highly likely to experience NTHE even if we don’t. Fucking Scott Pruitt saying global warming may be good?

We are FUCKED.

(Good morning!!)

Quote from: LL
I was going to say you realize I haven't finished my coffee yet, right?
:)

We've since discussed hopium solutions like AI - colonizing Mars, electric cars. Fermi's paradox - the great filter and that AFAIK, it's 95% closed on the human species. The role of capitalism, etc. Back and forth sporadically like this for months.

The other day I sent him this:

Quote from: M41
Oxfam-mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf (https://d1tn3vj7xz9fdh.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf)
"Fossil fuel interests declare spending €44m a year on lobbying the EU in Brussels – around €120,000 a day. In the US in 2013, the oil, gas and coal industries spent almost $157m on lobbying – over $430,000 per day, or$24,000 per hour. "

88 people are stealing the future from our kids

Quote from: LL
I really missed getting the feel good morning messages from you.    Seriously thanks for sending. So far just looked at the graphs. Seems I am the problem. What specifically is driving that - cars, air travel, steaks, big house
I’ll read the data, but just curious if there were a few drivers or if was general lifestyle stuff?

I replied with data from the book I recently read by Mike Berners-Lee 'How Bad are Bananas: The Carbon Footprint of everything.  Some examples:

Quote
LA to Barcelona round trip = 3.4tons CO2 per economy class passenger (13.5 tons 1st class)
 A gallon of milk: 12.6 lbs CO2
100g of beef or lamb : about 4 lbs CO2
100g pork: about 2 lbs CO2
switching from the std western diet to vegan diet saves ~1 ton CO2 per year
1kg of cement is 1kg CO2.
The average new built 2 bedroom bungalow: 80 tons CO2
Hectare of deforestation: 500 tons (associated with livestock industry)
Driving 1000 miles in a normal car is 1 ton CO2 (including footprint of building car - not only emissions; emissions are ~half that)
Electric car: depends on how much your power grid relies on fossil fuels

Then I added,
Quote from: M41
DH calls the fossil fuel lobby, their sponsors, and global warming deniers “pedophiles”.  Because they’re screwing our children

Here I found his engagement and curiosity - well - refreshing. You can see why I like discussing shit with LL

Quote from: LL
M41, Thanks for the data. I have a few questions. I’ve heard from you loud and clear we are “fucked.” If all the people (or half the people) like me/us (top 10%) make dramatic changes in their lifestyle does that change anything or has the tipping point been reached? 

On housing if you already have one is it pretty much sunk cost? Meaning is it better to get solar panels and good insulation than abandon it? My Tesla is a 100% coal fueled car at this point, but I am looking to get the aforementioned solar panels and change that.

On the other stuff – air travel, beef and milk – I am a huge contributor to CO2. Frankly, I like all three … a lot. Doesn’t mean I can’t or won’t change my choices, but they would be really big changes. Without cooking all food at home, I am not sure how we could go vegan here. My last work flight to Philadelphia is Monday, but Wednesday I will be flying (destination TBD) with my dad to watch the first round NCAA basketball game. We plan to (hopefully) follow (our team) all the way to the Final Four. In April I am flying to (NE town) with DW, DD and my mother-in-law for DD to visit colleges. In the summer we will fly to west coast to visit schools there as well. Point being it would be a tough thing to tell my mother-in-law you can’t see your daughter again because it puts too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Or telling DD she has to pick a college sight unseen, etc….

Obviously, I am making a point being a bit dramatic. I imagine I am more willing to change than most, but it would be a big deal to do so and would be a real inconvenience. I realize the destruction of all human life is inconvenient as well, but to most anyone one is much closer and has obvious impact where the other is at least father away and with a less certain impact. It is a real dilemma. Asking people not to have a once in a lifetime basketball road trip with you ~80 year-old-dad, etc… those are big asks. Maybe the solution is air travel gets way more expensive via a carbon tax which is used to do CO2 neutralizing things (and would also reduce the number of trips people are willing to take). Any solutions?

You've just witnessed a 1st world human starting to see our collective predicament, and his role in it.

I replied with a few answers. I'd include them but this post is long enough, and I think y'all have witnessed enough of my apoplectic ranting.  No, don't worry, my response to LL wasn't unhinged; it was just a list of staid facts and conclusions - Including this video from carbonbrief about the global carbon budget and where we currently are: https://youtu.be/VbhlWSxcoYg

@sol - do you have a list of trustworthy climate science sources, and/or a list of doubt-manufacturers? I'd like to send this to LL. I've got a semi-list in my head.  For example, I think carbonbrief.org is a good source, IPCC obviously too.  Corby Robertson's 'CO2isgreen' website - obviously not so much. FYI Corby owns ~20 b tons of coal reserves that he picked up for a song in the 80s when non-psychopaths were exiting the market. He's an example of the group of people who DH calls pedophiles. I think of him more of a psychopath. Potato potato.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 11, 2018, 10:25:36 PM
If I don't get the confessions started, the thought of how shamefully weak my current efforts are will stop me from posting on the thread again.  So here goes.

1. "Mustachian-ish" in my profile means "mechanically inept despite half a century of rare attempts, most of which I did not like" and "just doing the not-choose-the-MOST-expensive option" part... got a long way to go on the Stoic and hands-on pieces. 
2. Reviewing my list of This Year's Eco Steps, step 1 is...vague and scary, don't want to change my comfy ways...

Going forward, I will:
1. Look for more opportunities to save on CO2 emissions rather than $ in daily life.
2. Articulate things I already do.
3. Start biking more.
4. Explore possible solar install on house.
5. Work my way through the other home projects that are scheduled before solar.
6. Return to exploring purchase of carbon credits.
7. Explore some of the other options mentioned on this thread.
8. Attempt to reach zero net CO2 emissions going forward by year end.  This goal assumes that I will accept some type of offset at a portion of claimed CO2 offset value, and purchase enough offset to balance out my remaining CO2 emissions.

3. Item 3 in the list is worse because, well, my screen name is aspirational.  As in, I chose it to inspire myself to start bicycling. But after 6 attempts, not really in the bike habit yet.
4. For both daily life and the bike piece, the smart thing to do is bike to the grocery store instead of drive in any cases where the only destination would be the grocery store.  But that comes in conflict with the thing that I just about least want to change:  MUST HAVE DAILY JUNK FOOD FIX and won't buy more than 1 or 2 days of junk food because I'd just eat even more of it.

That's enough confessions for now. 

So ok, since posting the do list, I did avoid 3 junk food trips out of 4 that I would have driven.  Made a batch of pancakes instead of going to buy cookies.  (First pancakes in 30 years.  No milk, either - methane win.   Thanks, internet.)  Scraped through a day of no junk.  Walked to store (1.1 miles each way). 

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: palebluedot on March 11, 2018, 10:33:18 PM
Thanks for sharing Malaysia. Some deep thoughts there.

There's one group of people who raise doubts on AGW I've seen post on Phil Plait's (Bad Astronomy blog) comment section.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/warmest-year-evah-except-for-the-others/
I'm not skilled enough to sort through their argument but hopefully someone can take their time and point out any flaws.

I like https://skepticalscience.com/ and Katherine Hayhoe's Global Weirding youtube series for a more layman approach. I'll be watching Utopia series soon. I couldn't find it anywhere legit so I had to resort to "other sources".
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 12, 2018, 02:51:53 AM
If I don't get the confessions started, the thought of how shamefully weak my current efforts are will stop me from posting on the thread again.  So here goes.

1. "Mustachian-ish" in my profile means "mechanically inept despite half a century of rare attempts, most of which I did not like" and "just doing the not-choose-the-MOST-expensive option" part... got a long way to go on the Stoic and hands-on pieces. 
2. Reviewing my list of This Year's Eco Steps, step 1 is...vague and scary, don't want to change my comfy ways...

Going forward, I will:
1. Look for more opportunities to save on CO2 emissions rather than $ in daily life.
2. Articulate things I already do.
3. Start biking more.
4. Explore possible solar install on house.
5. Work my way through the other home projects that are scheduled before solar.
6. Return to exploring purchase of carbon credits.
7. Explore some of the other options mentioned on this thread.
8. Attempt to reach zero net CO2 emissions going forward by year end.  This goal assumes that I will accept some type of offset at a portion of claimed CO2 offset value, and purchase enough offset to balance out my remaining CO2 emissions.

3. Item 3 in the list is worse because, well, my screen name is aspirational.  As in, I chose it to inspire myself to start bicycling. But after 6 attempts, not really in the bike habit yet.
4. For both daily life and the bike piece, the smart thing to do is bike to the grocery store instead of drive in any cases where the only destination would be the grocery store.  But that comes in conflict with the thing that I just about least want to change:  MUST HAVE DAILY JUNK FOOD FIX and won't buy more than 1 or 2 days of junk food because I'd just eat even more of it.

That's enough confessions for now. 

So ok, since posting the do list, I did avoid 3 junk food trips out of 4 that I would have driven.  Made a batch of pancakes instead of going to buy cookies.  (First pancakes in 30 years.  No milk, either - methane win.   Thanks, internet.)  Scraped through a day of no junk.  Walked to store (1.1 miles each way).

@Bicycle_B maybe it's time to join my other Throw Down the Gauntlet Challenge: Go Plant-Based (Vegan) Diet in 2018 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/throw-down-the-gauntlet/who-will-pledge-to-go-vegan-in-january-with-me)

Just thought I'd share since you brought up ongoing issues with junk food.

Thanks for gathering up the courage to confess all here BB! :)
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 12, 2018, 03:13:13 AM
Thanks for sharing Malaysia. Some deep thoughts there.

There's one group of people who raise doubts on AGW I've seen post on Phil Plait's (Bad Astronomy blog) comment section.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/warmest-year-evah-except-for-the-others/
I'm not skilled enough to sort through their argument but hopefully someone can take their time and point out any flaws.

I like https://skepticalscience.com/ and Katherine Hayhoe's Global Weirding youtube series for a more layman approach. I'll be watching Utopia series soon. I couldn't find it anywhere legit so I had to resort to "other sources".

I had to resort to some "other sources" for Utopia BBC too.  Not proud of it. 

Funny, I've always avoided skepticalscience.com because I've become acutely skeptical of any organization that claims to be skeptical.  They're everywhere and they're nearly always disingenuous, obtuse dick-wads.  It's most disheartening when these twats bubble up as top links in google searches.

As for the other link - not going there. It's notorious for bullshit.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data)

I don't go to any laymen sources. Only climate scientists or university research, nasa, noaa, etc. IDGAF how laymen interpret the data, because they're not qualified. We've had enough disinformation propagated by laymen such as Lord Monkton or James Delingpole.

Sorry - I'm not attacking you PBD.  While for most knowledge topics, finding blogs that discuss the issue is informative. However, when it comes to climate change, unfortunately, the internet has been flooded with so much bullshit, it all bubbles up when we're seeking answers. 

This paper explains why:

Drexel University Research Paper on CCCM Funding (http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx)

CCCM = Climate Change Counter Movement.

It's so disheartening because our kids' future hangs in the balance here. The fossil fuel interest doubt campaign has been successful for way too long.

And I come back to working through the acceptance phase - accepting that we're fucked. I mean, how do we counter a propaganda campaign that is funded by billions of dollars? How? My whole family has been duped by it. All of them. They think I'm pretty much a loony screaming into a megaphone on the street corner. They don't listen to me - because the CCCM has won. And it's continuing unchecked. How do we fight it?

The CCCM is having effect in Europe - but it's overwhelmingly effective in the US. Republicans who speak out on climate change get primaried. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/bob-inglis-climate-change-and-the-republican-party)

How do we fight the CCCM?

The only thing I can figure is to fix the system - political system. Information system. But those are decades long endeavors. We don't have that much time.

IDK - Maybe Trump is the best thing to happen. Maybe it'll bring on a blue wave in 2018. But I doubt it.  Because billions are being spent by a handful of people to counter progressives from taking office. And the propagandists they employ are highly skilled at using FB, reddit, local news, radio talk shows, and mailer campaigns to insane levels of effectiveness.  Just read up on Cambridge Analytica.  CA may very well be employed by the white house at this point - they were in discussions for a contract at the end of 2017.

How do we fight all this?

The only thing I can think of is starting represent.us groups in every freaking town in America. 

If I lived in the US, I would be starting a chapter right now.  http://volunteer.represent.us/chapters/ (http://volunteer.represent.us/chapters/)

Any of you want to start up a chapter, I'll contribute $100 for start up costs. Hey - consider it an extra carbon tax. I'm willing to pay it.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 12, 2018, 01:30:54 PM
I'm shaking I'm so angry what my dad sent me. Half angry because he's giving so much weight to the disinformation campaign - the CCCM (Climate Change Counter Movement).  Half because of the actual quotes from an article he read in the WSJ today. 

I posted our email exchange in full. It's not pretty.  I said his political party was on par with Nazis. yeah - I'm out of the will. IDGAF.

Burning Bridges with Dad (http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-25-bridge-burning-dad)
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 12, 2018, 06:36:41 PM

@Bicycle_B maybe it's time to join my other Throw Down the Gauntlet Challenge: Go Plant-Based (Vegan) Diet in 2018 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/throw-down-the-gauntlet/who-will-pledge-to-go-vegan-in-january-with-me)

Just thought I'd share since you brought up ongoing issues with junk food.

Thanks for gathering up the courage to confess all here BB! :)

Bought no meat/eggs/dairy/fish for maybe 7 or 8 months a couple years back, but returned after that.  Never a meat fiend anyway, and get "Are you vegetarian?" sometimes from casual observers, but not focused on that part.  My junk food jihad is vs sugar.  The ordinary world is in 1950s grainy black and white, cookies are in vibrant HD color. 
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on March 12, 2018, 09:02:23 PM
I posted our email exchange in full. It's not pretty.  I said his political party was on par with Nazis. yeah - I'm out of the will. IDGAF.

Burning Bridges with Dad (http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-25-bridge-burning-dad)

Do you believe that this is an issue worth severing all family ties for?

I wonder: have you children of your own? If so, do you think it is possible that you may disagree on political issues in the future, when things we think are ordinary and inoffensive are held to be evil and wrong, and things we think are bad are held to be good?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: expatartist on March 12, 2018, 10:26:41 PM
Photo posted today by a homeless charity I sometimes volunteer for, really like this bit and will try to apply it, especially the section I bolded: "No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding. If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change."
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 12, 2018, 11:49:47 PM
I posted our email exchange in full. It's not pretty.  I said his political party was on par with Nazis. yeah - I'm out of the will. IDGAF.

Burning Bridges with Dad (http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-25-bridge-burning-dad)

Do you believe that this is an issue worth severing all family ties for?

I wonder: have you children of your own? If so, do you think it is possible that you may disagree on political issues in the future, when things we think are ordinary and inoffensive are held to be evil and wrong, and things we think are bad are held to be good?

My family and I disagree on political issues all the time. So I not only believe it’s possible, it’s what I practice.

Are you saying global warming is a  political issue? I realize it’s become one, since the rise of the well funded CCCM, but I refuse to regard it as s political issue. It’s science.

Yes I have kids. And I’m terrified for their future. And my dad can go to hell for taking part in stealing from their future.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 12:50:36 AM
Photo posted today by a homeless charity I sometimes volunteer for, really like this bit and will try to apply it, especially the section I bolded: "No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding. If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change."

Yeah - you're right of course. How to understand my dad - he was raised by a misogynist drunk who'd been abandoned by his parents as a toddler. My dad's father was angry, sensitive, judgmental, and self-righteous. I never liked my grandfather. Every movement was judged. And yet my dad, and my aunt, still send emails revering their father. 

My dad loves people. He loves strangers. He thinks everyone has a huge heart like he does - well everyone he meets in person. Incredibly, he believes in this big evil liberal conspiracy that hates America, hates liberty, and wants to destroy everything he stands for. And it fuels an anger in him. He believes these people exist, despite never having met any of them. He believes they exist because he tunes into propaganda. It doesn't matter how many times I've fact checked his email forwards, he continues to believe there's this evil liberal conspiracy that hates America.

I've been through so many cycles of feeling annoyed, or even angry at him. Then I pray for his health happiness and prosperity, and work on letting my anger go, and inviting sympathy in.  It's easy to do when we're talking about healthcare, or taxes, or Russia, or even Trump.  I can do that.

And I understand that ecologically - independent of political philosophies - the human race is bound to overshoot, collapse, and either go extinct, or recover with a small population.  We could have averted it, what with our big brains, but given the resources underground, and the nature of man, behavioral biases, etc., we are no smarter than a colony of poo-munching bacteria. I know all this. I've accepted all this.

So I've adopted a policy of not trying to change my family's minds on anything. It hurts too much. Better to do activism with inquiring friends or strangers. In a couple weeks I'll be doing the Cube of Truth in Bologna for example. If I can nudge a few dozen people to take a good hard look at the industrial animal factory farming system, and consider their role in it, that's better than me doing the same with one family member.

So I regret sending that original email. Because I knew I'd hate the answer. I can pray for my dad's health, happiness and prosperity every day. I can sympathize with the hand he was dealt as a kid. I can understand his political views.

But this is not a political issue and it's unforgivable for him to be on the side that is stealing from my son's future. It's almost impossible to reconcile. I don't know that we can visit them this summer. We may need to stay here. Anyway, I don't want to fly.

You'll be happy to know that it was empathy that stopped me sending the subsequent screed that still sits in my drafts folder. There are dozens of similar drafts sitting in that folder from over the past few months. I do have some control.

But he needs to know that the side he's choosing is the side that's killing his grandkids' future. Why? Because it's true. I'm not willing to stay silent on that any longer.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 12:55:57 AM

@Bicycle_B maybe it's time to join my other Throw Down the Gauntlet Challenge: Go Plant-Based (Vegan) Diet in 2018 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/throw-down-the-gauntlet/who-will-pledge-to-go-vegan-in-january-with-me)

Just thought I'd share since you brought up ongoing issues with junk food.

Thanks for gathering up the courage to confess all here BB! :)

Bought no meat/eggs/dairy/fish for maybe 7 or 8 months a couple years back, but returned after that.  Never a meat fiend anyway, and get "Are you vegetarian?" sometimes from casual observers, but not focused on that part.  My junk food jihad is vs sugar.  The ordinary world is in 1950s grainy black and white, cookies are in vibrant HD color.

Sugar.  Yeah - if you're not vigilant, you end up consuming way more than you'd think - especially if you're eating processed foods. 

A friend of mine did a month of zero added sugar.  She inspired me to do the same. Just the exercise in reading labels was a learning experience. It felt great not having sugar.

Have you seen the movie, "That Sugar Film" by the Australian bloke?   I think it's on Amazon Prime, and it may be on Netflix.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 12:59:58 AM
Have any of you read that latest WSJ Opinion section article by the guy at the Manhattan Institute?  What did you think? 
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on March 13, 2018, 05:48:46 AM
Are you saying global warming is a  political issue? I realize it’s become one, since the rise of the well funded CCCM, but I refuse to regard it as s political issue. It’s science.
Climate change is science. What to do about it is a political issue. Do we use laws? Free market? Subsidies? Taxes?

Should Western countries be subject to these laws, but not developing countries, or vice versa? What if the free market wants to build a wind turbine next door? Should wind be subsidised, but not solar? How about "clean coal"? Should we with 30kWh electricity a day available each stop using coal in our country, but export it to developing countries so they can have 1kWh a day? Should there be a carbon tax, and if so what should with do with the revenues?

All these are political questions, and their answers are more reflective of an individual's ideology than science, since the scientific answer is "stop all emissions NOW." Which means disconnecting from the internet and turning off the computer. NOW.

Quote
Yes I have kids. And I’m terrified for their future. And my dad can go to hell for taking part in stealing from their future.
Would you like to do a carbon audit of your family's household with us publicly so that we can point out how you're "stealing from their future", too? We could even invite your dad on, and we could compare relative emissions. After all, are we to judge your carbon emissions from how much you say you care about climate change, or from how much you and your family are actually responsible for?

I'm not Christian, but "judge not, that ye be judged" by the same standards is a good principle.

These are important issues. I am very aware of them. Resource depletion is also an issue, several years ago I wrote an article about it on TheOilDrum.com, "The Freezing Point of Industrial Society." [http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3228] I wrote other articles about reducing emissions, such as "Just One Tonne." [http://www.bicyclefixation.com/howto.html] So if you really want to go down into the reeds on these issues, we can do that.

But you may just want to think about what you're doing. In a resource-constrained society, family and community ties will be very important. Cross the bridge before you burn it.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 06:57:13 AM
Are you saying global warming is a  political issue? I realize it’s become one, since the rise of the well funded CCCM, but I refuse to regard it as s political issue. It’s science.
Climate change is science. What to do about it is a political issue. Do we use laws? Free market? Subsidies? Taxes?

Should Western countries be subject to these laws, but not developing countries, or vice versa? What if the free market wants to build a wind turbine next door? Should wind be subsidised, but not solar? How about "clean coal"? Should we with 30kWh electricity a day available each stop using coal in our country, but export it to developing countries so they can have 1kWh a day? Should there be a carbon tax, and if so what should with do with the revenues?

All these are political questions, and their answers are more reflective of an individual's ideology than science, since the scientific answer is "stop all emissions NOW." Which means disconnecting from the internet and turning off the computer. NOW.

Quote
Yes I have kids. And I’m terrified for their future. And my dad can go to hell for taking part in stealing from their future.
Would you like to do a carbon audit of your family's household with us publicly so that we can point out how you're "stealing from their future", too? We could even invite your dad on, and we could compare relative emissions. After all, are we to judge your carbon emissions from how much you say you care about climate change, or from how much you and your family are actually responsible for?

I'm not Christian, but "judge not, that ye be judged" by the same standards is a good principle.

These are important issues. I am very aware of them. Resource depletion is also an issue, several years ago I wrote an article about it on TheOilDrum.com, "The Freezing Point of Industrial Society." [http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3228] I wrote other articles about reducing emissions, such as "Just One Tonne." [http://www.bicyclefixation.com/howto.html] So if you really want to go down into the reeds on these issues, we can do that.

But you may just want to think about what you're doing. In a resource-constrained society, family and community ties will be very important. Cross the bridge before you burn it.

Hey Kyle,

Yes - in that sense - policy is political. I agree. And the time to start those policies was decades ago.  Carbon tax - YES. What to do with the funds - buy up all US coal reserves, close down all the coal plants, do what needs to be done to relocate and retrain the employees of the coal industry and spread them out over all of the renewable energy industries that seem to have decent potential for delivering clean energy over the long haul. For example of one of many things we should be doing.

Do we use laws? Yes. Do we use the free market - to a degree, yes. Do we use taxes. yes. Should we use subsidies? Yes.  Should we fund wind not solar? Why would we choose just one? Why not subsidize both, and others? Spread the bets.

Yeah - the details get thorny.  But you've got to at least agree on the science and move forward, even if imperfectly.

But the CCCM has made the science political.  The main source of my frustration - and judgement - is the extent and effectiveness of their doubt campaign.  The thing that kills me is that my family is so taken up in it.  The last sentence my dad quoted to me was,

Quote
" If a projection of climate-change cost ignores adaptation, we can safely ignore it."

^^^ That is chilling.  In other words, 'you can safely ignore this issue altogether'.  And that was in the WSJ.  A lot of people are influenced by that paper. I'm not aware of many people who stopped their subscriptions when Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ.  And so they don't realize it's a conduit for CCCM propaganda.  I mean - the Manhattan Institute?  FFS. They're notorious for the climate change doubt campaign.

This past few years have seen us figuring out our own C footprints and reducing them as much as possible. We've gone vegan, haven't owned a car in a couple years, bike every where, try to buy local-ish food.  We don't buy clothes unless we need to replace old clothes that can't be mended. We keep the heater low. etc.

Just by living in the western world, and buying food at the grocery store, I don't see how a person can have a footprint under 8-10 tons per year.

Yeah - I'd totally be willing to be put under the microscope. But I think we'll come out a couple tons above that homeless person whose footprint was determined to be 8.5tons a year.  Western infrastructures were built on $20-$60 oil, when they should've been built on like, $600 a barrel oil. So now, there's no escaping having an outsized footprint unless you take to the woods like Ted Kazinsky. But even he biked into town for provisions. So his footprint was non-zero.

Do you agree with me - that just by virtue of buying food at the grocery store, you're locked into multiple tons of CO2 footprint?

What I'm saying is this: it isn't my dad's carbon emissions that anger me. It's my dad's refusal to see the propaganda machine he's tapping into.  Even after I've pointed it out dozens of times.  It's the fact that every time he propagates their messages, like a cog in their system whose only function is to maintain the status quo - the more he's part of the problem.  And I take it personally. Because my son is going to pay dearly for our inaction. And my dad is contributing directly to our inaction.

My friend just posted about flying business class roundtrip from LA to London.  It's like fingernails on chalkboard.

I've got your links loaded in browser.  I've gone into the weeds enough personally, but thanks for the offer. I just read Mike Berners-Lee's How Bad Are Bananas: The Carbon Footprint of Everything.  And I'll read your papers. Thanks for linking them. Do you have something else in mind that I'm missing?

Sorry for the long reply.  My posts could do with a little more succinctness.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 13, 2018, 12:16:48 PM
Sugar.  Yeah - if you're not vigilant, you end up consuming way more than you'd think - especially if you're eating processed foods. 

A friend of mine did a month of zero added sugar.  She inspired me to do the same. Just the exercise in reading labels was a learning experience. It felt great not having sugar.

Have you seen the movie, "That Sugar Film" by the Australian bloke?   I think it's on Amazon Prime, and it may be on Netflix.

No.  For me the issue isn't info.  It's on the craving/addiction spectrum. 

To be clear, quitting junk food is not on my list of eco plans.  Carbon wise, junk food is merely the potential cause of unnecessary driving to the grocery store.  My objective related to step 1, look for ways to generate less carbon daily, is to avoid the junk food driving.  Hence my related actions to date have been cook pancakes instead of buy cookies; do without junk for a day; and walk to the store instead of drive.  As the year progresses, hopefully experiments/attempts of this sort will become habits.  Applause (or mere patience with detailing attempts until the habits form) will be gratefully accepted!    :)
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 12:26:42 PM
@Kyle Schuant ,

regarding your http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3228 paper. Interesting way to think through where societies might land after the end of cheap oil. A couple points that struck me:

The breakout of the different economies and the specific $ amounts and affordability of levels of petrol made it easy to visualize what you're talking about.

Your ecotechnic economy for one - it's a nice visualization of a goal.

and for example, this:

The transition is less likely if the fuel prices are mostly due to high taxes, since a tax of more than 100% on anything creates a significant black market for it, which will keep the effective affordability at better level. (http://The transition is less likely if the fuel prices are mostly due to high taxes, since a tax of more than 100% on anything creates a significant black market for it, which will keep the effective affordability at better level.)

It seems high(er) taxes would be useful, but you're arguing they've a practical upper limit that is far south of what is needed to spur transition from a wasteful industrial economy to a ecotechnic economy.  That makes sense.  You'd have to pull off a marketing  coup - convincing everyone of the wisdom of keeping all coal and most oil /nat gas in the ground for future generations if you wanted to stop a black market from developing. It's possible. Unfortunately, the good advertisers are working for fossil fuel interests, and they're firing on all cylindars their campaign of pressing fear buttons in the minds of people with authoritarian outlooks (Lakoff).

Even if there's a practical upper limit, still, I'd like US petrol taxes to be much higher than present day - if nothing else but to trim emissions for now,and make people think before consuming energy. In other words, to cut some of the waste in our wasteful society.

This is all the kind of stuff I'd like our policy makers to be contemplating and planning for.   Even in an ideal world - where everyone agrees on the science - getting to a soft landing is not a simple endeavor.  But by putting it off, we may kill ourselves in the meantime when god knows what precious ecological processes collapse from so much GHG in the air and acidification in the ocean.   You can see why the doubt campaign stresses me out so much. No?

Is it really so strange for me to be upset with family members who are only too happy to stick their heads in the sand at the mere suggestion by propagandists?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 12:29:06 PM
Sugar.  Yeah - if you're not vigilant, you end up consuming way more than you'd think - especially if you're eating processed foods. 

A friend of mine did a month of zero added sugar.  She inspired me to do the same. Just the exercise in reading labels was a learning experience. It felt great not having sugar.

Have you seen the movie, "That Sugar Film" by the Australian bloke?   I think it's on Amazon Prime, and it may be on Netflix.

No.  For me the issue isn't info.  It's on the craving/addiction spectrum.

Yeah - I have that too. I'm a big fan of dark chocolate with hazelnuts.   And Valpolicella Superiore.  I'm like a chocoholic. But for booze - and chocolate.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 13, 2018, 12:39:56 PM
Sugar.  Yeah - if you're not vigilant, you end up consuming way more than you'd think - especially if you're eating processed foods. 

A friend of mine did a month of zero added sugar.  She inspired me to do the same. Just the exercise in reading labels was a learning experience. It felt great not having sugar.

Have you seen the movie, "That Sugar Film" by the Australian bloke?   I think it's on Amazon Prime, and it may be on Netflix.

No.  For me the issue isn't info.  It's on the craving/addiction spectrum.

Yeah - I have that too. I'm a big fan of dark chocolate with hazelnuts.   And Valpolicella Superiore.  I'm like a chocoholic. But for booze - and chocolate.

Ah, you understand exactly!
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 13, 2018, 02:17:34 PM
So - just finished reading that oildrum.com article.  Looks like predictions within the article and market evidence since publication suggest that its conclusions are incorrect, as does economic theory. 
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3228

I like several points in it, especially the review of societies by energy price and the attempt to predict if and when wasteful industrial societies will change into manual, mixed or ecotechnic.  Fwiw, I agree with its estimates of the border lines between different society types.  Where I think it goes wrong is the statement "machines need fuel", and the assumption that as fossil fuels are used up, fuel will run out.  A more accurate statement is that machines need energy, and fossil fuels will not be replaced as that energy source until some other source is cheaper.

It's awesome that the author has the guts to include predictions.  As a science-and-truth fan, the real test of a theory is whether it has predictive power.  The article, published in 2007, mentions "there are  those who" predict that oil prices will be "$240/barrel almost certainly by 2015."  The author doesn't commit to the $240 price himself, which is a good thing.  Today's price of Brent crude:  $64.47, almost the same as the $64 price from 2006 that is listed in the article itself.   He just says "if demand continues to rise 2.3% annually, demand for oil will be more than 50% higher than supply," leading to a price of $1600 per barrel by 2025.  We're 11 years into his 18 year prediction period.  Do we appear to be trending towards $1600/barrel?

From the viewpoint of climate change, obviously cheap oil is worse, because it's easier to pour tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  But we're not likely to plunge into a manual or even ecotechnic society as the article describes (one where energy is conserved as a scarce resource).  As the price of renewable energy drops, we're more likely to see a society of increasing global energy abundance with rising percentages of renewable energy sources.  It's just not likely to happen fast enough to prevent heating up the biosphere.  Hence I am still "in" the challenge for this thread.

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 11:53:52 PM
Quote
.As the price of renewable energy drops, we're more likely to see a society of increasing global energy abundance with rising percentages of renewable energy sources.  It's just not likely to happen fast enough to prevent heating up the biosphere.  Hence I am still "in" the challenge fo

Exactly. I fear that when if/when we wait to get to the pt where oil prices become 10-20x current day, we’ll have by then an atmosphere that won’t be habitable. So I’m still in too ;)
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 15, 2018, 04:33:34 PM
As promised, a quick runthrough on previous moves to save CO2:

1.  As 20something, bought 1600 sq ft 4-bedroom house, rented out the 3 spare bedrooms.  Maintained this most of the past 20-odd years.  So, 400 sq ft / person => more efficiency (compared to US average of 750), less carbon.  Since we're near the city center, also less transport pollution, shorter commutes.  Ongoing.
2.  Signed up to pay fixed rate (initially a higher rate) for household electricity in order to finance construction of renewable energy facilities, mostly wind generators.  Program described our electricity as 100% renewable, though in practice it's mixed with everyone else's.  Program lasted 10 years.
3.  Recently signed up for the new version of that program.  Rates fluctuate, but still we assist in renewables generation.  City as a whole has risen to 30% renewable, with 55% targeted for 2025.
4.  Increased insulation on house.
5.  Added roof vents to allow hot air to escape attic.  Helpful in summer-dominated climate.
6.  After finding MMM, started consciously doing several errands per drive.  Ongoing.
7.  After a Cowspiracy viewing, 8 months or so of no dairy/meat/eggs/fish.  Not planning a return yet, unsure about ever.
8.  Always sought 75 F summer, 68 F winter temps in house... settled on 70 and 75 due to roomies.
9.  More recently, sought 68 and 78 more vigorously.  Got a year of 68 and 78, then a year of 69 and 77.  Ongoing.
10.  Six attempts so far to restart bike use after 25 year hiatus.  Failures so far, but it's not over yet.
11.  A few walks to the grocery store instead of driving.  Maybe more to come.
12. Bits of bus use instead of car use.  More to come, probably.
13.  Replaced cereal habit with rice and beans.  Ongoing.


Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 15, 2018, 10:17:36 PM
Awesome BB.

I wish I’d had the sense to buy a house in town and rent out rooms in my 20s. We’d probably have 2x the stash at this point.

Impressive.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 18, 2018, 10:13:59 AM
Daily life CO2 improvement 1st week:

79 degrees F in the house most of this week, no air conditioning turned on.  (Spring has sprung in Tejas.)
Bus instead of car to local festivals.
No grocery car trips yet (stopping by grocery after other errands 2x, ok by me since requires no extra driving).

Will check in after 1 month.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Tass on March 18, 2018, 07:00:57 PM
My bike has been out of commission for a month and a half now because of a flat tire I don't have the equipment to fix.

I have been really swamped at work - and that's not likely to change soon - but I'm posting here for accountability. Because I'm burning more gas than necessary. And I really need to just buy a pump.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 28, 2018, 09:19:19 PM
My bike has been out of commission for a month and a half now because of a flat tire I don't have the equipment to fix.

I have been really swamped at work - and that's not likely to change soon - but I'm posting here for accountability. Because I'm burning more gas than necessary. And I really need to just buy a pump.

@Tass - have you fixed the flat?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Tass on March 28, 2018, 11:33:53 PM
Oooooh, guilty... Public accountability biting me in the butt I guess. I have my PhD candidacy exam in 3.5 weeks and I had sort of put everything else from my mind.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on March 30, 2018, 09:42:05 AM
Good luck with your exam, Tass!

For the thread public - if a US governor candidate says he'll ban fracking in his state, then start a class action lawsuit by the state against fracking, is contributing to his campaign a legitimate self imposed carbon tax?

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/dennis-kucinich-vows-to-end-all-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-ohio-if-elected-governor-and-then-take-the-industry-to-court/


Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 30, 2018, 10:55:37 AM
Good luck with your exam, Tass!

For the thread public - if a US governor candidate says he'll ban fracking in his state, then start a class action lawsuit by the state against fracking, is contributing to his campaign a legitimate self imposed carbon tax?

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/dennis-kucinich-vows-to-end-all-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-ohio-if-elected-governor-and-then-take-the-industry-to-court/

I'd say so. I've been including political donations in my tally.  I think I'm up to $40 a ton so far because of all the political donations I've been making. Here are a few suggestions (http://www.lauramariereese.com/reddit-fast-day-35-100-10-day-revolution/).
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: palebluedot on April 01, 2018, 09:01:40 PM
Finished watching Utopia a few days ago. I was only watching 1 episode per night :) Incredible show with an unfortunate ending that won't have any follow-up to it.

I've been keeping my eye out on Sunrise Movement (https://www.sunrisemovement.org/) - a youth based organization going all out on climate action. I feel that the kids, just like the gun violence movement, will be the ones with the loudest voice to make change. I met the NYC chapter of Sunrise in the fall and they are passionate in what they're doing. We had a time capsule event (http://www.climatetimecapsule.org/) where we put a letter written to your future self or someone you love and have it buried until 2067.

They are also getting elected officials to sign the no fossil fuel money pledge: http://nofossilfuelmoney.org/candidate-signup/
You can use it as well for your community.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on April 02, 2018, 03:23:05 AM
Finished watching Utopia a few days ago. I was only watching 1 episode per night :) Incredible show with an unfortunate ending that won't have any follow-up to it.

I've been keeping my eye out on Sunrise Movement (https://www.sunrisemovement.org/) - a youth based organization going all out on climate action. I feel that the kids, just like the gun violence movement, will be the ones with the loudest voice to make change. I met the NYC chapter of Sunrise in the fall and they are passionate in what they're doing. We had a time capsule event (http://www.climatetimecapsule.org/) where we put a letter written to your future self or someone you love and have it buried until 2067.

They are also getting elected officials to sign the no fossil fuel money pledge: http://nofossilfuelmoney.org/candidate-signup/
You can use it as well for your community.

Cool you watched all of Utopia. The cinematography, colorization, acting, *music*, dialogue, and premise all combine to make it a compelling tv series. I enjoyed the evolution of Wilson in particular. About 2/3 of the way through the second season, the plot scattered a bit, but I'll give them that mulligan.

Thanks for the link to the Sunrise Movement. I've signed the petition and may send my next installment of self-imposed carbon taxes to them.

My thinking on where to direct these self-imposed-tax funds has evolved quite a bit since starting this thread. Thanks to all of you pitching in with your views on the matter. Sure, giving to eco non-profits is fine. But change will only come after we've put scientists, engineers and reasonable, data-driven people into power. These have to be people who represent people, not fossil fuel interests, not corporations, and preferably not entrenched political parties. Sure, they can run under a political party banner, but I don't want them dialing for dollars half the time they're in congress. I want them working for my kids futures. 

Top issues:

- getting $ out of political campaigns (e.g. public financing / overturning citizens united ala represent.us or wolf-pac)
- climate action ASAP

Until that first issue is addressed, the other issues - even though very important - can't really be fixed. I only list climate action because we can't wait until the system is fixed - we can't wait for a constitutional amendment or for durable legislation to pass and come into law. Other issues - like civil asset forfeiture, which violates our 4th and 5th amendment rights - can wait.

The first step is removing the willfully-obtuse, hateful, propaganda-believing tea partiers, and replacing them with progressive majorities in both chambers of congress. Sure, I dislike the DNC - after all they're funded by private and corporate $ too. But I'll take them over this grotesque version of the GOP. Every time.

I can't believe I was a registered republican for 20 years!!! It was Newt Gingrich's bullshit bloviating that first made me question my affiliation. Well that, and their blatantly manipulative questionnaires I received in the mail. But it wasn't until Mitch McConnell and GOP leadership unabashedly aligned with the Koch donor network / climate action propagandists that I finally re-registered as 'unaffiliated'. I just don't understand how educated people - my engineering masters degree holding father included - can be so taken up with their bullshit - and believe every word of it. They've been convinced to trade in my son's future world for a little bit of - what - 'liberal bashing'? short term shareholder value? 'sticking-it-to-the-know-it-all-bureacrats'? 'maintain the status quo'? Pretty much. Yeah. That's the bargain they've agreed to. I just can't fathom this way of thinking.

Maybe I'm ranting again. Yes. I'm ranting again. But I'm not wrong. So I'm leaving that paragraph. Thanks for the link to Sunrise Movement @palebluedot .
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: dutty on April 02, 2018, 04:02:38 AM
My fear with getting involved in carbon sequestration as a form of carbon offsetting is that it would creep into justifying further indulgence. I feel that it would perniciously shift a very strict and concerned lifestyle, into one that is looser and that may start to think, "It's ok to take that flight to Japan, I'll just increase my donations".

I am not saying that carbon offsetting should be avoided, I am saying for the weak minded it could do more harm than good?

Ok, so what if I donate a really high amount each month to carbon offsetting organisations, an amount that means I am likely to be offsetting 100 tons a year. And let's say my footprint is 10 tons. In this scenario it is sooo tempting to think that taking that extra flight with a 2 ton footprint is acceptable.

I have been struggling with these thoughts for a while now and it has actually prevented me from putting money into carbon offsetting, which of course just feels ridiculous.

Help!
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Hirondelle on April 02, 2018, 04:10:23 AM
REPUBLICAN OF ALL THINGS? M41, that's a major confession! How could you ;)

A bit off topic, but I was just thinking about something else the other day. How do you guys invest your money? There have been some issues going on here re banks and how sustainable they are (e.g. some banks will not invest your money in let's say weapens or oil) and I also realize that by putting my money in Vanguard or other funds I often invest in companies that I "don't like". I've started investing in one "sustainable" fund which excludes certain companies (tobacco, weapons, animal fur and some others) which reduces the money going to "bad" places but I feel it still isn't significantly making any change/impact/improvement. Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Hirondelle on April 02, 2018, 04:14:49 AM
My fear with getting involved in carbon sequestration as a form of carbon offsetting is that it would creep into justifying further indulgence. I feel that it would perniciously shift a very strict and concerned lifestyle, into one that is looser and that may start to think, "It's ok to take that flight to Japan, I'll just increase my donations".

I am not saying that carbon offsetting should be avoided, I am saying for the weak minded it could do more harm than good?

Ok, so what if I donate a really high amount each month to carbon offsetting organisations, an amount that means I am likely to be offsetting 100 tons a year. And let's say my footprint is 10 tons. In this scenario it is sooo tempting to think that taking that extra flight with a 2 ton footprint is acceptable.

I have been struggling with these thoughts for a while now and it has actually prevented me from putting money into carbon offsetting, which of course just feels ridiculous.

Help!

I think this is one reason it's important to introduce a Carbon Tax on flights (and meat/dairy and many other highly polluting products) so that compensation won't be a voluntary choice to pay of guilt, but that the overall price will get higher and the actual number of flights taken (and meat eaten) will be reduced. PLUS that the money will be actually used for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and will not disappear in the pockets of the CEOs or governments. I realize that this will turn these products into "luxury goods" and reduce the number of people having access to them, but I do believe it is necessary to make an actual impact.
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on April 02, 2018, 06:05:49 AM
My fear with getting involved in carbon sequestration as a form of carbon offsetting is that it would creep into justifying further indulgence. I feel that it would perniciously shift a very strict and concerned lifestyle, into one that is looser and that may start to think, "It's ok to take that flight to Japan, I'll just increase my donations".

I am not saying that carbon offsetting should be avoided, I am saying for the weak minded it could do more harm than good?

Ok, so what if I donate a really high amount each month to carbon offsetting organisations, an amount that means I am likely to be offsetting 100 tons a year. And let's say my footprint is 10 tons. In this scenario it is sooo tempting to think that taking that extra flight with a 2 ton footprint is acceptable.

Check out http://www.314action.org/home (recommended by @palebluedot ), pick a candidate, go to their direct website and give them $.  We're fighting 1/2 Billion dollars in Koch donor network 2018 election $. It's overwhelming. But maybe lots of small donations can get some of these people into power - and kick out people who are working for the fossil fuel industry.
I have been struggling with these thoughts for a while now and it has actually prevented me from putting money into carbon offsetting, which of course just feels ridiculous.

Help!

You describe a very real moral hazard. We need to suppress total carbon emissions.  Giving ourselves 'an out' for adding more carbon emissions runs contrary to our goal. 

Like Hirondelle says, a direct tax on flights, gas, meat/dairy, high-use home energy, etc. is really what we want.

So let's vote people into power who will demand everyone pay use taxes on high carbon activities.

It comes back around to what I've come to realize is our #1 goal right now: electing people to power who understand the threat of global warming, who are not beholden to fossil fuel interests, and who are capable of crafting law and policy that make carbon emitters PAY and thus bring down overall carbon emissions.

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on April 02, 2018, 06:12:58 AM
My fear with getting involved in carbon sequestration as a form of carbon offsetting is that it would creep into justifying further indulgence. I feel that it would perniciously shift a very strict and concerned lifestyle, into one that is looser and that may start to think, "It's ok to take that flight to Japan, I'll just increase my donations".

I am not saying that carbon offsetting should be avoided, I am saying for the weak minded it could do more harm than good?

Ok, so what if I donate a really high amount each month to carbon offsetting organisations, an amount that means I am likely to be offsetting 100 tons a year. And let's say my footprint is 10 tons. In this scenario it is sooo tempting to think that taking that extra flight with a 2 ton footprint is acceptable.

I have been struggling with these thoughts for a while now and it has actually prevented me from putting money into carbon offsetting, which of course just feels ridiculous.

Help!

I think this is one reason it's important to introduce a Carbon Tax on flights (and meat/dairy and many other highly polluting products) so that compensation won't be a voluntary choice to pay of guilt, but that the overall price will get higher and the actual number of flights taken (and meat eaten) will be reduced. PLUS that the money will be actually used for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and will not disappear in the pockets of the CEOs or governments. I realize that this will turn these products into "luxury goods" and reduce the number of people having access to them, but I do believe it is necessary to make an actual impact.

Oh you don't even know the worst of it - I went through a whole Ayn Rand objectivist libertarian phase in college too. What a simplistic, anti-human philosophy that was. Recently, while reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, I was reminded of this twisted philosophy that assures people that doing whatever the f they want is always good for society:

Pyotr Petrovitch says,

Quote
“Science now tells us love yourself before all men, for everything in the world rests on self-interest. You love yourself and manage your own affairs properly and your coat remains whole. Economic truth adds that the better private affairs are organized in society – the more whole coats, so to say – the firmer are its foundations and the better is the common welfare organized too. Therefore, in acquiring wealth solely and exclusively for myself, I am acquiring, so to speak, for all, and helping to bring to pass my neighbor’s getting a little more than a torn coat; and that not from private, personal liberality, but as a consequence of the general advance.”
It’s like reading Ayn freakin’ Rand from 1865
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Tass on April 02, 2018, 10:00:34 AM
I read Atlas Shrugged in high school. Wasn't fully convinced but wasn't quite old/mature enough to articulate my issues with it. Ayn Rand will mess you up.

@Hirondelle I've wondered about ethical investing as well. I know I've read discussions on this forum - I thought it was this thread but now I can't find it - that ultimately investing in a company, especially a tiny amount through an index fund, doesn't ultimately make them money, but it's certainly still uncomfortable. My other concern is that no ethical index addresses all concerns, and I don't have the time/knowledge/will to do all the research and assemble a list myself. How far can you go down that path before it counts as stock picking?
Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Bicycle_B on April 02, 2018, 10:22:48 PM
My fear with getting involved in carbon sequestration as a form of carbon offsetting is that it would creep into justifying further indulgence. I feel that it would perniciously shift a very strict and concerned lifestyle, into one that is looser and that may start to think, "It's ok to take that flight to Japan, I'll just increase my donations".

Help!

Good points, @dutty.  I think that whether this is good or bad depends on whether these donations have any real effect.  If their effect of the extra donations really is more than your flight, then taking the flight and increasing the donations is better than staying home and not increasing them, right?

Granted, the best thing is to produce no carbon and buy as many credits as possible.  But as a multi-faceted human being, these tradeoffs are reasonable.  IMHO the key is to separate a feeling of virtue (must be strict! must try hard!) from evaluation of what's useful (what is the best net carbon impact I can bring myself to have?).

There might be a ceiling to how much carbon can really be pulled from the atmosphere by purchase of carbon credits, but we're probably nowhere near it.  All options should be on the table, all contributions welcome.

Title: Re: Self Imposing Carbon Taxes - Who's With Me?
Post by: Malaysia41 on April 20, 2018, 02:26:02 AM
Last weekend my son and I did a little activism in Bergamo Italy.  A big reason I do this activism now is to inspire people to consume less food based on animal products.  I urge reduction not only for ethical and health reasons - but also to lower the carbon footprint and mind-boggling environmental devastation of the livestock industry. 

Anyway, here's a short video I made, giving a glimpse into our 3 hour long demonstration/art-installation/activism on the streets of Bergamo, Italy.

And yes - M12 and I - we took the train there in order to minimize our own carbon emissions for the day.


(https://i.imgur.com/f7ScGckm.jpg)
 (https://youtu.be/ThCCYWTkeTY)

https://youtu.be/ThCCYWTkeTY

What do you think of the video? Have you seen Cube of Truth demonstrations before? What do you think of this kind of activism?