Here's an interesting look at the nuts and bolts of CO2
Emissions from Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL), in context of their
Fee-and-Dividend proposal. The propose charging for carbon content
in various items, not just food, then refunding the charges collected as
a "dividend." Cap-and-Trade is second-best.
Before quoting CCL's conversation, here's a look at the carbon content of various food items:Carbon Footprint Ranking of Food
The following table shows the greenhouse gas emissions produced by one kilo of each food. It includes all the emissions produced on the farm, in the factory, on the road, in the shop and in your home. It also shows how many miles you need to drive to produce that many greenhouse gases. For example, you need to drive 63 miles to produce the same emissions as eating one kilogram of beef.Meat, cheese and eggs have the highest carbon footprint. Fruit, vegetables, beans and nuts have much lower carbon footprints. If you move towards a mainly vegetarian diet, you can have a large impact on your personal carbon footprint.
|
Rank
|
Food | CO2 Kilos Equivalent | Car Miles Equivalent |
|
1
|
Lamb |
39.2
|
91
|
|
2
|
Beef |
27.0
|
63
|
|
3
|
Cheese |
13.5
|
31
|
|
4
|
Pork |
12.1
|
28
|
|
5
|
Turkey |
10.9
|
25
|
|
6
|
Chicken |
6.9
|
16
|
|
7
|
Tuna |
6.1
|
14
|
|
8
|
Eggs |
4.8
|
11
|
|
9
|
Potatoes |
2.9
|
7
|
|
10
|
Rice |
2.7
|
6
|
|
11
|
Nuts |
2.3
|
5
|
|
12
|
Beans/tofu |
2.0
|
4.5
|
|
13
|
Vegetables |
2.0
|
4.5
|
|
14
|
Milk |
1.9
|
4
|
|
15
|
Fruit |
1.1
|
2.5
|
|
16
|
Lentils |
0.9
|
2
|
(This comes from the first link below, a link that has many other helpful hints about reducing one's carbon footprint)
......
From CCL:
Might this Carbon Pricing Panel Discuss a Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee and Dividend?
Here’s how a Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee and Dividend might work.
Subscribers
would pay the regular price of the item, plus the CO2 emissions
required to make and deliver the item. Here are some examples of how
the prices might increase:
The
following table shows the greenhouse gas emissions produced by one kilo
of each food. It includes all the emissions produced on the farm, in
the factory, on the road, in the shop and in your home. It also shows
how many miles you need to drive to produce that many greenhouse gases.
For example, you need to drive 63 miles to produce the same emissions as
eating one kilogram of beef.
Meat,
cheese and eggs have the highest carbon footprint. Fruit, vegetables,
beans and nuts have much lower carbon footprints. If you move towards a
mainly vegetarian diet, you can have a large impact on your personal
carbon footprint.
Rank
|
Food
|
CO2 Kilos Equivalent
|
Car Miles Equivalent
|
1
|
Lamb
|
39.2
|
91
|
2
|
Beef
|
27.0
|
63
|
3
|
Cheese
|
13.5
|
31
|
4
|
Pork
|
12.1
|
28
|
5
|
Turkey
|
10.9
|
25
|
6
|
Chicken
|
6.9
|
16
|
7
|
Tuna
|
6.1
|
14
|
8
|
Eggs
|
4.8
|
11
|
9
|
Potatoes
|
2.9
|
7
|
10
|
Rice
|
2.7
|
6
|
11
|
Nuts
|
2.3
|
5
|
12
|
Beans/tofu
|
2.0
|
4.5
|
13
|
Vegetables
|
2.0
|
4.5
|
14
|
Milk
|
1.9
|
4
|
15
|
Fruit
|
1.1
|
2.5
|
16
|
Lentils
|
0.9
|
2
|
Figures from the Environmental Working Group’s Meat Eater’s Guide and the EPA’s Guide to Passenger Vehicle Emissions.
The CO2 Kilos to make a kilo of food would be equal to the CO2 pounds to make a pound of food.
Say
you bought a pound of lamb. You would pay the regular price of lamb
($12.99 a pound) plus the Social Cost of Carbon in the CO2 emissions
required to make that pound of lamb. That is $220 a ton of CO2
according to the following Stanford scientists.
I
believe they mean $220 a metric tonne of CO2. Dividing by 2205 pounds
per metric tonne, and multiplying by 39.2 pounds of CO2 for the pound of
lamb would add $3.91 dollars to the pound of lamb. Your charge would be
$16.90 cents a pound for the pound of lamb.
The
$3.90 would go into the “Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee Fund” that would
be divided at the end of the month by all the customers of Whole Foods
who subscribed to the "Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee and Dividend”
Program. At the end of the month, you would get back a portion of the
“Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee Fund”. The amount you got back would be
proportional to the total amount of money you had spent at Whole Foods,
compared to the total amount of money all the subscribers in the "Whole
Foods CO2 Emissions Fee and Dividend” Program had spent at Whole Foods
for the month. This would favor the vegetarians who would
proportionally get back more money than the lamb eaters.
If
the lamb eaters did not like this formula, they could propose a
Dividend Fee based on the amount they had put into the fee, compared to
the total amount of money in the “Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee Fund”.
Whole
Foods would begin asking all of its suppliers to state the CO2
emissions that went into the making of their foods. For example, lower
CO2 emissions are found in organic versus “business as usual” bananas.
Would
a successful "Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee and Dividend Program” help
Congress find value in a National Fee and Dividend as proposed by CCL?
If
Whole Foods had a “CO2 Price” listed below its regular price, we could
start to shop for items that did not put so much CO2 into the air.
As
part of this program, Whole Foods could educate us about our CO2
emissions budget, and how every citizen of the world must emit on
average 7.4 pounds of CO2 per day for the next 85 years, and then our
CO2 emissions must drop to zero if we are to avoid 2 degrees Centigrade
of warming and Dangerous Climate Change.
Few
Californians are going to emit 7.4 pounds of CO2 per day, since the
average Californian in 2012 fitted 73 pounds of CO2 per day.
Whole
Foods could let subscribers to the "Whole Foods CO2 Emissions Fee and
Dividend Program” know the CO2 content of their purchases for the
month. These could be entered into the following spreadsheet so people
would get a general idea about the “pounds of CO2 per day” they emitted
for the month.
Sacramento CCL website: www.sacramentoccl.org
National CCL website: www.citizensclimatelobbby.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SacCCL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sacccl+unsubscribe@
To post to this group, send email to sacccl@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/
Few
people would be motivated to do this, unless there was a high school
competition to see which high school student and which high school could
decrease their CO2 emissions the most comparing their “pounds of CO2
per day” emitted in November, and their “pounds of CO2 per day” emitted
in April.
Perhaps Whole Foods or the
participating students might donate a little money to reward the student
that can cut their “pounds of CO2 per day” the most, and inspire others
to decrease their “pounds of CO2 per day.”
Below are some references if you want to know where "7.4 pounds of CO2 per day” comes from
Thanks,
Bruce
The following paragraph seems pertinent.
Limiting the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone with a probability of >33%, >50%, and >66% to less than 2°C since the period 1861–188022, will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1570 GtC (5760 GtCO2), 0 and about 1210 GtC (4440 GtCO2), and 0 and about 1000 GtC (3670 GtCO2) since that period, respectively23. These upper amounts are reduced to about 900 GtC (3300 GtCO2), 820 GtC (3010 GtCO2), and 790 GtC (2900 GtCO2), respectively, when accounting for non-CO2 forcings as in RCP2.6. An amount of 515 [445 to 585] GtC (1890 [1630 to 2150] GtCO2), was already emitted by 2011. {12.5}
If
we have 2900 GT CO2, and have already emitted 1890 GT CO2, that leaves
1,010 GT CO2 left for the world to emit, and then we get 2 degrees
Centigrade of warming and “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the
Climate System”, or Dangerous Climate Change.
Dividing this 1,010 billon metric tonnes of CO2 by 7 billon people in the world leaves 144 tonnes of CO2 per person.
Assuming
it will take about 85 years to find substitutes for all coal, oil and
natural gas (like the World Resources Institute in the Low Emissions
Pathway
We can divide by 85 years and get 1.697 tonnes per year.
Dividing by 365 days per year gives 0.00465 tonnes per day.
Multiplying by 2205 pounds of CO2 per day gives us 10.25 pounds of CO2 per day.
So, we might say our goal is to emit only 10.25 pounds of CO2 per person per day.
This
is similar to the World Resources Institute Low Emissions Pathway that
recommends 32 pounds of CO2 per person per day for the year 2015, and
then decreases that amount to that the 1,010 GT CO2 is used up by the
year 2100.
In
the Low Emissions Pathway of the World Resources Institute, the world
emits 10 PgC of carbon from 1012 to 2020. 10 PgC of carbon can be
converted to 32 pounds of CO2 per person per day assuming a world
population of 7 billion people.
We
might note that when the world population grows from 7 billion people
to 11.2 billion people as per UN Projections, our 10.25 pound per day
budget of CO2 will decrease to 6.5 pounds of CO2 per person per day.
Should we plan ahead and save extra pounds of CO2 now for the people in the future when there are more than 9.7 billion people?
UN population projections are the following:
2015 7.3 billion people
2030 8.5 billion people
2050 9.7 billion people
2100 11.2 billion people.
Let us make the calculations for 9.7 billion people.
1010 Gt CO2 divided by 9.7 billion people
divided by 85 years
divided by 365 days per year
times 2205 pounds per ton
Comes to 7.4 pounds of CO2 per person per day.
Is that a better goal, saving more pounds of CO2 for the people living after 2050?
If
the world cannot reach 7.4 pounds of CO2 per person per day, is this an
argument for trying to limit population growth to a number that will
help us avoid Dangerous Climate Change?
The average Californian emits about 73 pounds of CO2 per person per day.
This
number is derived from The California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
which says that Californians emitted 458 million metric tonnes of CO2
equivalents within the State of California in 2013
Dividing
458 million metric tonnes of CO2 among 38 million Californians, and
expressing it in pounds per day comes to about 73 pounds of CO2 per
California per day.)
(3)
Spreading the CO2 emissions evenly over the 85 years is not as
reasonable as giving us more “pounds of CO2 per day” in 2015, and
decreasing our budget of “pounds of CO2 per person per day” in future
years when we have developed better technologies for reducing our
“pounds of CO2 per person per day.”
We
could use the World Resources Institute Low Emissions Pathway, and
convert their graph to “pounds of CO2 per person per day” for each year
between now and 2100.
We
could use the United Nations Population Projections from the following
website (World Population Prospects The 2015 Revision):
and the IPCC conversion of pentagrams of Carbon = 3.67 billion tons of CO2
Here is a table that could be made in to a graph like the World Resources Institute Low Emissions Pathway Graph:
World Resources Instritute Low Emissions Pathway
|
||||
Converting 10 PgC of Carbon to Gt of CO2 =
|
||||
1 PgC = 3.67 Gt of CO2 = 3.67 billion metric tonnes of CO2
|
||||
PgC Carbon
|
10.0
|
7.5
|
5.0
|
0.0
|
World
|
||||
population (billions)
|
7.0
|
8.5
|
9.7
|
11.2
|
Pounds of CO2
|
31.7
|
19.6
|
11.4
|
0.0
|
per person per day
|
||||
Year
|
2015
|
2030
|
2050
|
2100
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
One of the objects if this blog is to elevate civil discourse. Please do your part by presenting arguments rather than attacks or unfounded accusations.