![]() Yet household emissions often depend on factors that individuals have limited control over, such as whether public transportation is available in their neighborhoods or whether electricity in their area comes from a highly polluting coal-burning plant or emissions-free solar, wind or nuclear plants. Cities and local governments could use the data to identify the most effective ways to fight climate change - by, for example, encouraging developers to build more housing in neighborhoods where people don’t need cars to get around or helping households in suburbs more quickly adopt cleaner electric vehicles.Īpparel, furniture, appliances, other goods (manufacturing, maintenance, other sources) Jones said he quickly realized the research could be even more powerful in the hands of policymakers. That could inspire individuals to take steps to reduce their climate impacts, such as by composting food scraps instead of tossing them in the trash.īut Dr. The original idea behind the research, which began more than a decade ago, was to connect climate change with daily life, to help people understand how their choices contribute to a global problem, Dr. “And it can help us see what sorts of larger systemic changes are necessary” to help cities reduce those emissions, he said. “When individuals or households want to know what influence they have over emissions, a consumption-based carbon footprint is the most relevant indicator,” said Chris Jones, director of the CoolClimate Network at the University of California, Berkeley, which developed the methodology behind the data set. But a consumption-based analysis assigns those emissions to the households that are ultimately responsible for them: the people who use electricity, drive cars, eat food and buy goods. Usually, greenhouse gases are measured at the source: power plants burning natural gas or coal, cows belching methane or cars and trucks burning gasoline. The data was produced by EcoDataLab, a consulting firm partnered with the university.Ī map of emissions linked to the way people consume goods and services offers a different way to view what’s driving global warming. ![]() The maps above are based on research from the University of California, Berkeley that estimates what are known as consumption-based emissions. America’s largest city provides the clearest example of these patterns:Įven in hyper-dense Manhattan, rich households on the Upper East Side have a bigger climate impact than their neighbors just a few blocks away because they fly more, have bigger apartments and buy more stuff. Higher-income households generate more greenhouse gases, on average, because wealthy Americans tend to buy more stuff - appliances, cars, furnishings, electronic gadgets - and travel more by car and plane, all of which come with related emissions. Moving further from city centers, average emissions per household typically increase as homes get bigger and residents tend to drive longer distances.īut density isn’t the only thing that matters. And they’re more likely to live in smaller homes or apartments that require less energy to heat and cool. ![]() ![]() Residents in these areas typically drive less because jobs and stores are nearby and they can more easily walk, bike or take public transit. Households in denser neighborhoods close to city centers tend to be responsible for fewer planet-warming greenhouse gases, on average, than households in the rest of the country. Note: Data reflects average household emissions footprints in 2017. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |