MIT professor of mechanical engineering Timothy Gutowski recently had his students compare the energy consumption of different people in different socio-economic classes, from a homeless person to a senator. In total, 18 different lifestyles were chosen ranging from vegetarian students to pro-golfers to a five-year-old.
What the researchers at MIT found was that even in the U.S. people with the lowest energy usage, a homeless person, a five-year-old and a Buddhist monk, all have a carbon footprint twice as large as the average global citizen. This is because the services provided for every American, including infrastructure and public services, guarantee set a baseline that no American can drop below.
The carbon footprint of the low energy consumers were about one-third the American average. Americans are big foots when it comes to their carbon footprint. The world average is four tons; Americans on average consume 20 tons.
Bill Gates, specifically chosen for the study, has a carbon footprint about 10,000 times the average. Of course, he also has produced a great deal of wealth and growth for the world. In general, the researchers found that as income rises, so do emissions. A homeless person, who ate at soup kitchens and slept in shelters, had an average carbon footprint of 8.5 tonnes, still twice as much as the world average. Even monks, who lived half the year in the forest, had carbon footprints of 10.5 tonnes.
But the big question of how to lower carbon footprints is a tough answer. The study found that voluntary reductions is likely unobtainable for the average American. Considerably more can be done by the wealthy, but the best way to lower footprints is to tax carbon use which, Professor Gutowski says, is a hard pill to swallow, especially for politicians.
Via Environmental Research Web
Hits: 14891
Comments (21)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Max Gladwell, June 09, 2008
This stands to reason. Rich people pollute more than poor people. The average American pollutes more than the average Mexican or Indian. The average billionaire pollutes more than the average millionaire. And so on down the line. But it's not hypocricy for rich people to want to promote sustainable living. If our measure if green is just impact, then we should be celebrating the poorest billion people who live on less than a dollar a day. Hooray, you're all green! Never mind that you're starving and dieing.
-
- +1
-
-
written by IamIan, June 09, 2008
Another study showing you can make a study to say anything you want it to.
Carbon emissions and pollution are not the same thing... Trees produce Carbon Dioxide at night.. does that mean trees are bad and we should cut them all down to reduce baron emission?? of course not.. because Carbon emissions are just too overly simplified a view of pollution... the public seems to love it... but it is just incorrect and inaccurate way of looking at pollution.
Then to bring in homeless people and talk about what all Americans have is a joke... most large cities still have laws on the books that try to make just being homeless a crime... homeless do not enjoy the benefits that they are supposed to have on paper... society does not treat them the same.... even if it legally should... U.S. society simply does not.
By the reasoning of that study... the Average U.S. Black Bear pollutes more than the average world citizen just because it lives in the U.S....
Grrrerrr.
Carbon emissions and pollution are not the same thing... Trees produce Carbon Dioxide at night.. does that mean trees are bad and we should cut them all down to reduce baron emission?? of course not.. because Carbon emissions are just too overly simplified a view of pollution... the public seems to love it... but it is just incorrect and inaccurate way of looking at pollution.
Then to bring in homeless people and talk about what all Americans have is a joke... most large cities still have laws on the books that try to make just being homeless a crime... homeless do not enjoy the benefits that they are supposed to have on paper... society does not treat them the same.... even if it legally should... U.S. society simply does not.
By the reasoning of that study... the Average U.S. Black Bear pollutes more than the average world citizen just because it lives in the U.S....
Grrrerrr.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kelly, June 09, 2008
Couldn't agree more.
That study is a joke. It brings into question the values of this site too. I am forming the opinion that this site is just a honeypot to attract people of a 'green demographic' for advertising.
That study is a joke. It brings into question the values of this site too. I am forming the opinion that this site is just a honeypot to attract people of a 'green demographic' for advertising.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jon, June 09, 2008
You have right wing propogandists on your site. They stir up discontent, confuse issues, and de-inspire the readers. I recommend you collect their IPs, cooperate with other green sites, and expose them.
Cheers.
Cheers.
-
- +0
-
-
written by NS, June 09, 2008
I can well believe the findings of the study and even if they are exaggerated the kernel of truth that the study undeniably has, exposes the wasteful lifestyle that most Americans have and it seems that taxing carbon use is about the only solution.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Karsten, June 09, 2008
And those who live frugally and simply voluntarily pollute less as well. Uncomfortable to accept - maybe. Uncomfortable to live by - most likely. The poor suckers on this planet still have less impact than those who do well and possibly even those who live well AND do their best to live "green".
While it certainly is not enjoyable to have close to nothing and struggle for survival, I hope our society transforms its values and ends tolerating those who live above and beyond. Don't know how - don't know when, but we need a value revolution and turn away from what is considered desirable by most Americans.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less
While it certainly is not enjoyable to have close to nothing and struggle for survival, I hope our society transforms its values and ends tolerating those who live above and beyond. Don't know how - don't know when, but we need a value revolution and turn away from what is considered desirable by most Americans.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less
-
- +0
-
-
written by Braedel, June 09, 2008
I'm not making excuses for the mega rich but the yacht pictured is the Octopus owned by Paul Allen (He has two of them no less).
Bill charters private planes and "borrows" the Octopus form his buddy Paul.
Bill charters private planes and "borrows" the Octopus form his buddy Paul.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Corban, June 09, 2008
If you look at it from an efficiency perspective, Bill Gates manages to create more wealth per unit of carbon than the average person, while the homeless person, after guzzling 8.5 tonnes, manages to put up surprisingly little.
Oh! Oh! Suddenly the tables have turned, and the homeless is in fact the less sustainable wretch!
Seriously, pay attention to the ratios. Just because Google uses more juice to power its data centers than any other search engine doesn't mean they're bad. Per gigabyte of traffic, they may in fact require less kwh, placing them in the lead. Same goes for this.
Oh! Oh! Suddenly the tables have turned, and the homeless is in fact the less sustainable wretch!
Seriously, pay attention to the ratios. Just because Google uses more juice to power its data centers than any other search engine doesn't mean they're bad. Per gigabyte of traffic, they may in fact require less kwh, placing them in the lead. Same goes for this.
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, June 09, 2008
Why is it studies like this always use the Global Average? The Global Average includes 3rd world countries that are starving and have various other problems. Do they really think that comparing 1st and 3rd world countries is a valid comparison? Let me know when they start comparing the U.S. to other 1st world countries such as those in Europe, Russia and Japan. For that matter, lets see how each European Union country stacks up against the Global Average.
-
- +0
-
-
written by theirritablearchitect, June 09, 2008
"but the best way to lower footprints is to tax carbon use"
And you morons are going to continue to spout this non-sense, regardless of how wrong you will be proven to be about it.
There is only one solution for the likes of you vermin.
And you morons are going to continue to spout this non-sense, regardless of how wrong you will be proven to be about it.
There is only one solution for the likes of you vermin.
-
- +0
-
-
written by BlackMacX, June 09, 2008
@theirritablearchitect, just curious, why is a carbon tax (in your view) so wrong? It would (from what I have read and understood) to the following:
1. encourage ingenuity to develop less polluting and more efficient technologies, etc.
2. it would responsibly penalize those who pollute more compared to those who pollute less.
3. would it not (along with the Cap & Trade mechanism) work to quickly reduce overall inefficiencies?
From what I know, yes, it might initially impact productivity and performance of those countries that don't like it; but we're looking here to solve a global issue (one that doesn't respect territorial boundaries (except one, the vacuum of space and the "bubble" of our atmosphere).
As for people like us (I am assuming you're meaning people who believe in fixing those problems which either we have or have been enacted upon us), whom you seem to call vermin; what did we do to you?
1. encourage ingenuity to develop less polluting and more efficient technologies, etc.
2. it would responsibly penalize those who pollute more compared to those who pollute less.
3. would it not (along with the Cap & Trade mechanism) work to quickly reduce overall inefficiencies?
From what I know, yes, it might initially impact productivity and performance of those countries that don't like it; but we're looking here to solve a global issue (one that doesn't respect territorial boundaries (except one, the vacuum of space and the "bubble" of our atmosphere).
As for people like us (I am assuming you're meaning people who believe in fixing those problems which either we have or have been enacted upon us), whom you seem to call vermin; what did we do to you?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Andrew Leinonen, June 09, 2008
I'm a little surprised at the hostility this has stirred up.
Of course rich people have a greater climate impact than poor people - they consume more. Of course North Americans have a greater climate impact than the global average - the energy embodied in our infrastructure is huge. These are not scandalous, counter-intuitive notions. They make complete sense, and denying them out of some sort of righteous indignation at being "blamed" helps no one.
As for the last comment, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughtful rationale for why a carbon tax is such a terrible solution. And then I'd be happy to debunk said rationale.
Of course rich people have a greater climate impact than poor people - they consume more. Of course North Americans have a greater climate impact than the global average - the energy embodied in our infrastructure is huge. These are not scandalous, counter-intuitive notions. They make complete sense, and denying them out of some sort of righteous indignation at being "blamed" helps no one.
As for the last comment, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughtful rationale for why a carbon tax is such a terrible solution. And then I'd be happy to debunk said rationale.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Corban, June 09, 2008
A carbon tax is creative accounting that has good intentions but questionable execution. Would rebalancing the quantity of carbon in a dynamic system really make a difference? Our meteorologists still can't reliably predict the weather 4 days out!
Relative to other environmentalist measures, elemental rebalancing seems to me a mere distraction. Why don't we start rebalancing our consumption of iron to fit natural and exact stoichiometric ratios? Count every little atom and lose sight of the real reason why we're doing creative accounting!
Relative to other environmentalist measures, elemental rebalancing seems to me a mere distraction. Why don't we start rebalancing our consumption of iron to fit natural and exact stoichiometric ratios? Count every little atom and lose sight of the real reason why we're doing creative accounting!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Steve A., June 09, 2008
As others have stated, I wish to reiterate that the photo you pasted up is not of Bill Gates' Yacht. That is his former business partner's, Paul Alen's ship, The Octopus. To the best of my knowledge, Bill Gates does not own a yacht. While I don't disagree that I'm sure Bill must have a huge carbon footprint, you can at least be accurate in your captions.
-
- +0
-
-
written by wowdude, June 09, 2008
Corban you don't have to tax all carbon. That'd be dumb.
Also, trees emit co2 at night, but oxygen by day, and the total balance is evident in the mass of the tree, which is mostly carbon. So the tree *is* the carbon it has absorbed.
and mr. green people are vermin, go kill yourself and do the planet a favor.
Also, trees emit co2 at night, but oxygen by day, and the total balance is evident in the mass of the tree, which is mostly carbon. So the tree *is* the carbon it has absorbed.
and mr. green people are vermin, go kill yourself and do the planet a favor.
-
- +0
-
-
written by IamIan, June 09, 2008
If you allow a government to tax based on CO2 ... It is a bad thing... I still say CO2 is a very poor very inaccurate overly simplified method of looking at pollution... aside from that ... People breath out CO2 all day every day they are alive... by making a CO2 tax you create a legal system to tax people just for breathing / living... kind of like they said when they made Social Security Numbers that they would never be used as a form of identification and that only the Social Security Service would ever use them.... then today SS# is asked for everywhere you turn and is not optional.
-
- +0
-
-
written by wowdude, June 09, 2008
oversimplified perspective on what a "carbon" tax would be.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kent Ragen, June 11, 2008
Economic wealth and carbon emissions go hand in hand from the perspective of GDP (since energy is the engine of economic wealth, and today the only sizeable energy option is fossil fuels), so I guess it's not surprising that this remains true at a personal level. The problem is not the people, the problem is the lack of sizeable energy alternatives. Ironically, a different study would probably show that the high carbon emitters will make a larger, positive impact on the move to non-emitting energy resources.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Max Gladwell, June 14, 2008
Fossil fuels are bad for our health. Bad for the air and water. Bad for our national security. Bad for our economy. They are non-renewable. The world will run out...maybe not for a couple generations, but do we want to wait to take action? So we need to tax fossil fuels in order to accurately reflect the actual price of burning them, which will create markets for cleaner, renewable sources (plus nuclear).
The universal measurement among all fossil fuels, both those used for electricity and transpo, is CO2. So for accounting purposes, it makes sense for this to be the metric. And just in case human-induced global warming is real (it is), we might be able to solve that, too. So pick your reason. Call it whatever you want. Fossil fuels have to be taxed. If carbon had been taxed since the '90s, we would have depressed demand a long time ago, developed more efficient vehicles, and wouldn't be in the current oil crisis.
We might have more electric cars, which are both more efficient and can run on secure, domestically produced energy...even if much of that currently comes from coal. It's still more efficient as an energy source (cheaper and less CO2), even with a carbon tax, and it doesn't require a war to secure.
The universal measurement among all fossil fuels, both those used for electricity and transpo, is CO2. So for accounting purposes, it makes sense for this to be the metric. And just in case human-induced global warming is real (it is), we might be able to solve that, too. So pick your reason. Call it whatever you want. Fossil fuels have to be taxed. If carbon had been taxed since the '90s, we would have depressed demand a long time ago, developed more efficient vehicles, and wouldn't be in the current oil crisis.
We might have more electric cars, which are both more efficient and can run on secure, domestically produced energy...even if much of that currently comes from coal. It's still more efficient as an energy source (cheaper and less CO2), even with a carbon tax, and it doesn't require a war to secure.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ig, July 04, 2008
Bill Gates is a monster and definitely needs to be reined in. Fortunately for the rest of us, it isn't an issue. Carbon is not a crime. Anthropogenic global warming is a left-wing scam.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
JUN 09
"Power people have the ability to make the difference. The poor doesn'..."
View all Comments