How Will Climate Change Affect You Personally?

[Just Joe]

The target I have seen thrown around is about 2 metric tons of CO2 per person per year.. That works out to about 240 gallons of gasoline per year, if you ignore every other impact you have. I bike most days and drive a fuel efficient car. I’ve cut back trips out of town. But, I’m on track to use about that much this year. I’m not ready to completely give up cars or trips, but climate change has prompted me to cut back the amount of fuel I use and beef I eat.

I am surprised that the messaging on climate change hasn’t focused more on concrete numbers that people can actually relate to. Telling people that their personal budget is 2 metric tons of CO2e per year doesn’t really make sense to anyone, but most people can understand it if you tell them they can only fill up their gas tank twice a month.

I have to wonder if the media just softens the message b/c people have locked themselves into a lifestyle without much opportunity for change.

[former player]

The target I have seen thrown around is about 2 metric tons of CO2 per person per year.. That works out to about 240 gallons of gasoline per year, if you ignore every other impact you have. I bike most days and drive a fuel efficient car. I’ve cut back trips out of town. But, I’m on track to use about that much this year. I’m not ready to completely give up cars or trips, but climate change has prompted me to cut back the amount of fuel I use and beef I eat.

I am surprised that the messaging on climate change hasn’t focused more on concrete numbers that people can actually relate to. Telling people that their personal budget is 2 metric tons of CO2e per year doesn’t really make sense to anyone, but most people can understand it if you tell them they can only fill up their gas tank twice a month.

I have to wonder if the media just softens the message b/c people have locked themselves into a lifestyle without much opportunity for change.

Per capital CO2 emissions in the USA are currently about 13.6 tons per year, perhaps half of that is attributable to federal and State activities on behalf of the population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/

[Michael in ABQ]

I wish someone would review the carbon offsets purchased.  We often wonder if they are scams.

The train can work, but is often not that practical unless you have a long time for a trip.  Also, Amtrak is notorious for major delays.  I have known people whose trains were delayed by a day or 12 hours at times.  The Acela Express is highly reliable, and I vastly prefer it to flying from say, BOS-NYC.

I’m in France at the moment and I always feel this is a model for how trains should work and could work if the US would bother with some infrastructure investments. Yet another nice thing that others can have but we can’t.

We took the TGV from Paris to a city in the north of France. It took just under an hour in comfort. Driving would have taken two hours on toll roads. It cost €72 for my family of two adults and three kids and the train reached à top speed of 320km/hr in the straightaways between stations. It is pretty usual in France for the train to be a more attractive option that both driving and flying.

France has a population of about 67 million in an area measuring roughly 450 x 500 miles or about 210,000 square miles (population density of 309 per square mile). Texas has a population of about 28 million in an area measuring roughly 600 x 600 miles or about 270,000 square miles (population density of 110 per square mile). That's actually above average for a state as the US (lower 48 only since Alaska would skew it) is 103 people per square mile. Germany has a population density of 623 people per square mile. Japan has a population density of 899 per square mile. China is actually higher than France at 397 per square mile.

It's simple geography. The only place in the US with the population density to support rail is the megalopolis stretching from Virgina to Massachusetts that contains about 40 million people. Not surprisingly, that's the only area with meaningful rail travel. It's not high-speed due to a variety of factors, but mostly property rights and environmental regulations that make any large-scale infrastructure development in the US an extraordinarily expense and lengthy process. Good luck trying to get the tens of thousands of property owners to sell land for a new rail line. Even with eminent domain a lot of those cases will end up in court which just takes more time and money.

I'm not sure about Europe but certainly in China they can just ignore those issues which is how they've built thousands of miles of new highways and railroads in a short time. The US could physically build that, there's just too many legal hurdles at the local/state/federal level.

[Fru-Gal]

Quote from: Just Joe on Today at 08:00:09 AM
Quote from: Wintergreen78 on August 07, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
The target I have seen thrown around is about 2 metric tons of CO2 per person per year.. That works out to about 240 gallons of gasoline per year, if you ignore every other impact you have. I bike most days and drive a fuel efficient car. I’ve cut back trips out of town. But, I’m on track to use about that much this year. I’m not ready to completely give up cars or trips, but climate change has prompted me to cut back the amount of fuel I use and beef I eat.

I am surprised that the messaging on climate change hasn’t focused more on concrete numbers that people can actually relate to. Telling people that their personal budget is 2 metric tons of CO2e per year doesn’t really make sense to anyone, but most people can understand it if you tell them they can only fill up their gas tank twice a month.

I have to wonder if the media just softens the message b/c people have locked themselves into a lifestyle without much opportunity for change.

Per capital CO2 emissions in the USA are currently about 13.6 tons per year, perhaps half of that is attributable to federal and State activities on behalf of the population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/

Just so I understand this correctly are you saying the goal should be 2 metric tons of CO2 per person, and currently we are averaging 6 to 7 tons per person?

Also, that chart is showing a massive drop since the 1970s of CO2 per person. What caused that?

[wenchsenior]

Quote from: Just Joe on Today at 08:00:09 AM
Quote from: Wintergreen78 on August 07, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
The target I have seen thrown around is about 2 metric tons of CO2 per person per year.. That works out to about 240 gallons of gasoline per year, if you ignore every other impact you have. I bike most days and drive a fuel efficient car. I’ve cut back trips out of town. But, I’m on track to use about that much this year. I’m not ready to completely give up cars or trips, but climate change has prompted me to cut back the amount of fuel I use and beef I eat.

I am surprised that the messaging on climate change hasn’t focused more on concrete numbers that people can actually relate to. Telling people that their personal budget is 2 metric tons of CO2e per year doesn’t really make sense to anyone, but most people can understand it if you tell them they can only fill up their gas tank twice a month.

I have to wonder if the media just softens the message b/c people have locked themselves into a lifestyle without much opportunity for change.

Per capital CO2 emissions in the USA are currently about 13.6 tons per year, perhaps half of that is attributable to federal and State activities on behalf of the population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/

Just so I understand this correctly are you saying the goal should be 2 metric tons of CO2 per person, and currently we are averaging 6 to 7 tons per person?

Also, that chart is showing a massive drop since the 1970s of CO2 per person. What caused that?

I suspect it's the big increase in efficiency in transportation over the decades.

[ender]

Just so I understand this correctly are you saying the goal should be 2 metric tons of CO2 per person, and currently we are averaging 6 to 7 tons per person?

Also, that chart is showing a massive drop since the 1970s of CO2 per person. What caused that?

The reason it looks massive is because the Y-axis isn't showing 0 so while there is a big decrease still it's not as dramatic as it appears (only about 35% or so) and less if you account for covid.

[maizefolk]

Just so I understand this correctly are you saying the goal should be 2 metric tons of CO2 per person, and currently we are averaging 6 to 7 tons per person?

Also, that chart is showing a massive drop since the 1970s of CO2 per person. What caused that?

The reason it looks massive is because the Y-axis isn't showing 0 so while there is a big decrease still it's not as dramatic as it appears (only about 35% or so) and less if you account for covid.

Big shift from coal to natural gas + renewables. (Natural gas releases only about 55% as much CO2 per kilowatt hour as coal.)
Big increase is mileage (from about 13 mpg average in the 1970s to >25 mpg today).

[Wintergreen78]

Just so I understand this correctly are you saying the goal should be 2 metric tons of CO2 per person, and currently we are averaging 6 to 7 tons per person?

Also, that chart is showing a massive drop since the 1970s of CO2 per person. What caused that?

The reason it looks massive is because the Y-axis isn't showing 0 so while there is a big decrease still it's not as dramatic as it appears (only about 35% or so) and less if you account for covid.

Big shift from coal to natural gas + renewables. (Natural gas releases only about 55% as much CO2 per kilowatt hour as coal.)
Big increase is mileage (from about 13 mpg average in the 1970s to >25 mpg today).

To answer the first part of the question, the 2 metric tons per person target gets quoted to avoid some of the worst-case scenarios. If the goal is to undo the damage that’s already been done you would need to lower emissions.

[Arbitrage]

I wish someone would review the carbon offsets purchased.  We often wonder if they are scams.

The train can work, but is often not that practical unless you have a long time for a trip.  Also, Amtrak is notorious for major delays.  I have known people whose trains were delayed by a day or 12 hours at times.  The Acela Express is highly reliable, and I vastly prefer it to flying from say, BOS-NYC.

I’m in France at the moment and I always feel this is a model for how trains should work and could work if the US would bother with some infrastructure investments. Yet another nice thing that others can have but we can’t.

We took the TGV from Paris to a city in the north of France. It took just under an hour in comfort. Driving would have taken two hours on toll roads. It cost €72 for my family of two adults and three kids and the train reached à top speed of 320km/hr in the straightaways between stations. It is pretty usual in France for the train to be a more attractive option that both driving and flying.

France has a population of about 67 million in an area measuring roughly 450 x 500 miles or about 210,000 square miles (population density of 309 per square mile). Texas has a population of about 28 million in an area measuring roughly 600 x 600 miles or about 270,000 square miles (population density of 110 per square mile). That's actually above average for a state as the US (lower 48 only since Alaska would skew it) is 103 people per square mile. Germany has a population density of 623 people per square mile. Japan has a population density of 899 per square mile. China is actually higher than France at 397 per square mile.

It's simple geography. The only place in the US with the population density to support rail is the megalopolis stretching from Virgina to Massachusetts that contains about 40 million people. Not surprisingly, that's the only area with meaningful rail travel. It's not high-speed due to a variety of factors, but mostly property rights and environmental regulations that make any large-scale infrastructure development in the US an extraordinarily expense and lengthy process. Good luck trying to get the tens of thousands of property owners to sell land for a new rail line. Even with eminent domain a lot of those cases will end up in court which just takes more time and money.

I'm not sure about Europe but certainly in China they can just ignore those issues which is how they've built thousands of miles of new highways and railroads in a short time. The US could physically build that, there's just too many legal hurdles at the local/state/federal level.

Disagree.  Not with your numbers, which I didn’t check, but your conclusions.  You don’t decide to build transit based upon the population of Texas, or wherever, since there are vast swaths of sparsely populated land that you can ignore for that purpose.  You look at transit corridors.  Houston-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio has plenty of people to service, and pretty high density if you’re only considering those areas. 

There are lots of high density corridors in the USA/Canada where high speed trains would make a ton of sense.  Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago-pick a direction to another big city.  San Diego-Los Angeles-Las Vegas.  Vancouver-Seattle-Portland.  Detroit-Hamilton-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. 

I agree that nationwide high speed trains might look fun on a map but don’t make much practical sense…but there are tons of places where it could and should be done. 

[Dynasty]

I'll probably have a more fuel efficient vehicle to drive in the future.

Solar panels will likely more affordable.

Beef will be more expensive.

I'll pay more in taxes.

But Climate Change itself, will have zero effect on me.

[nereo]

I'll probably have a more fuel efficient vehicle to drive in the future.

Solar panels will likely more affordable.

Beef will be more expensive.

I'll pay more in taxes.

But Climate Change itself, will have zero effect on me.

Where do you live?

[former player]

I'll probably have a more fuel efficient vehicle to drive in the future.

Solar panels will likely more affordable.

Beef will be more expensive.

I'll pay more in taxes.

But Climate Change itself, will have zero effect on me.

Forum post least likely to age well.

[mathlete]

Short term, I'll probably by solar panels and a hybrid/eV soon.

Long term... I kind of worry that my kid won't get to experience the same cool nature stuff I got to experience. Wildfires are already radically changing the California National Parks experience. And they're expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the coming years due to climate change.

Small silver lining: unseasonably warm December days are kind of nice sometimes.

[HPstache]

I think climate change will be a mild-medium inconvenience at most in my lifetime.  I'm going to continue to try my best to mitigate it, but I just don't think it will have a big effect on me personally.

[GuitarStv]

I think climate change will be a mild-medium inconvenience at most in my lifetime.  I'm going to continue to try my best to mitigate it, but I just don't think it will have a big effect on me personally.

That's probably what the people of Pakistan thought six months ago.

[Dynasty]

I'll probably have a more fuel efficient vehicle to drive in the future.

Solar panels will likely more affordable.

Beef will be more expensive.

I'll pay more in taxes.

But Climate Change itself, will have zero effect on me.

Forum post least likely to age well.

Perhaps, but the world has been on the verge of ending since forever.  This is all just a new variation of a doom cult.

[StarBright]

I think climate change will be a mild-medium inconvenience at most in my lifetime.  I'm going to continue to try my best to mitigate it, but I just don't think it will have a big effect on me personally.

That's probably what the people of Pakistan thought six months ago.

^^^ It is wild to me how just this month a third of Pakistan is underwater, China has experienced its worst heat wave on record (which is also messing with the supply chain!), the rivers of Europe are drying up, Jackson Mississippi is on day 4 or 5 of no water, etc. And there this idea that it won't touch us as individuals (and especially as Americans). Let's not even get into what all of this weird weather is doing to our crops.

I guess if you are in a perfect part of Canada and don't rely on the supply chain and provide your own electricity? But even then?

[GuitarStv]

I think climate change will be a mild-medium inconvenience at most in my lifetime.  I'm going to continue to try my best to mitigate it, but I just don't think it will have a big effect on me personally.

That's probably what the people of Pakistan thought six months ago.

^^^ It is wild to me how just this month a third of Pakistan is underwater, China has experienced its worst heat wave on record (which is also messing with the supply chain!), the rivers of Europe are drying up, Jackson Mississippi is on day 4 or 5 of no water, etc. And there this idea that it won't touch us as individuals (and especially as Americans). Let's not even get into what all of this weird weather is doing to our crops.

I guess if you are in a perfect part of Canada and don't rely on the supply chain and provide your own electricity? But even then?

The floods in Pakistan are pretty nuts . . . more than 33 million people and about 200,000 square km of flooded land.

[YttriumNitrate]

I have to wonder if the media just softens the message b/c people have locked themselves into a lifestyle without much opportunity for change.

That would be contrary to a fundamental principal of journalism: "if it bleeds, it leads." A story about how we're all going to die unless drastic change occurs is much better for ratings than a softened message.

[nereo]

I'll probably have a more fuel efficient vehicle to drive in the future.

Solar panels will likely more affordable.

Beef will be more expensive.

I'll pay more in taxes.

But Climate Change itself, will have zero effect on me.

Forum post least likely to age well.

Perhaps, but the world has been on the verge of ending since forever.  This is all just a new variation of a doom cult.

There’s a enormous spread between “the world is ending” and “it will have zero effect”.
I don’t see the world literally ending from climate change, but also think it’s absurdly unlikely that someone will not experience sizeable impacts in a normal lifespan. Most adults already have.

[mm1970]

I think climate change will be a mild-medium inconvenience at most in my lifetime.  I'm going to continue to try my best to mitigate it, but I just don't think it will have a big effect on me personally.

That's probably what the people of Pakistan thought six months ago.

^^^ It is wild to me how just this month a third of Pakistan is underwater, China has experienced its worst heat wave on record (which is also messing with the supply chain!), the rivers of Europe are drying up, Jackson Mississippi is on day 4 or 5 of no water, etc. And there this idea that it won't touch us as individuals (and especially as Americans). Let's not even get into what all of this weird weather is doing to our crops.

I guess if you are in a perfect part of Canada and don't rely on the supply chain and provide your own electricity? But even then?

Yeah, I've been seeing the effects of climate change personally for several years now (hello CA drought and wildfires), but goodness it seems to have accelerated.

[Kris]

I think climate change will be a mild-medium inconvenience at most in my lifetime.  I'm going to continue to try my best to mitigate it, but I just don't think it will have a big effect on me personally.

That's probably what the people of Pakistan thought six months ago.

^^^ It is wild to me how just this month a third of Pakistan is underwater, China has experienced its worst heat wave on record (which is also messing with the supply chain!), the rivers of Europe are drying up, Jackson Mississippi is on day 4 or 5 of no water, etc. And there this idea that it won't touch us as individuals (and especially as Americans). Let's not even get into what all of this weird weather is doing to our crops.

I guess if you are in a perfect part of Canada and don't rely on the supply chain and provide your own electricity? But even then?

Yeah, I've been seeing the effects of climate change personally for several years now (hello CA drought and wildfires), but goodness it seems to have accelerated.

It really has. I wouldn't say it has impacted me very much materially yet. But that doesn't mean I don't see/feel its effects around me.

[joe189man]

I think climate change will be a mild-medium inconvenience at most in my lifetime.  I'm going to continue to try my best to mitigate it, but I just don't think it will have a big effect on me personally.

That's probably what the people of Pakistan thought six months ago.

^^^ It is wild to me how just this month a third of Pakistan is underwater, China has experienced its worst heat wave on record (which is also messing with the supply chain!), the rivers of Europe are drying up, Jackson Mississippi is on day 4 or 5 of no water, etc. And there this idea that it won't touch us as individuals (and especially as Americans). Let's not even get into what all of this weird weather is doing to our crops.

I guess if you are in a perfect part of Canada and don't rely on the supply chain and provide your own electricity? But even then?

The floods in Pakistan are pretty nuts . . . more than 33 million people and about 200,000 square km of flooded land.

to put that in perspective that is an area the size of Nebraska - all under water

An NPR story quotes a Pakistani official saying the area flooded is larger than the state of Colorado - ~270,000km2

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1120472954/pakastan-flooding-relief-efforts

[Daisy]

On the subject of Amtrak and tying it in to the tactics learned on this forum, I have used travel hacking to accumulate quite a few points on Amtrak. I have traveled across the country once, from Philly to DC to Chicago to Seattle, another trip from Seattle to Utah, some smaller trips...all using points! I have never purchased an Amtrak ticket with cash. I have gone through 2 Amtrak based credit cards. I have had them for a year then cancelled them.

It does take longer to travel, but I am FIREd, so I am OK with it. It does suck when there are Amtrak travel delays. Another downside is sometimes the train arrives or departs at your desired location at odd times like 3am or so.

I hope to use Amtrak again soon to travel from Florida to the Carolinas for a cycling event. My sister asked how I'd get my bike there...just put it on Amtrak! I could fly, but I hear of many travel issues with flying recently. I can't take my bike on the plane. I could drive, but I get sleepy driving after 4 hours and take rest breaks and gas is more expensive, even with my hybrid car. Amtrak is the perfect solution sometimes!

The trip would take 9 hours or so of driving, without stops. It can easily turn into an 11 or 12 hour drive. The train ride is around 13 hours.

[Fru-Gal]

Those train trips sound great!