How many CO2 to earn 1000 € at work?

[Christophe]

Via this topic, I would like us to compare, in order of magnitude, the CO2 releases and the gray energy consumption to win 1 € (or 100, or 1000 €, it does not matter).

To make an accurate assessment would be difficult, so to begin, estimate therefore simply via the work-to-bed trip!

Examples:

a) My place of work is 30km from my home. (french average = 23 km)

b) I work 21 days a month ie 252 days in the year.
So I have to do: 252 * 30 * 2 = 15120 km to go to work.

c) My car consumes 6 L diesel at 100 km. I therefore reject 156 g / km or 15.6 kg / 100 km

d) To the year I will therefore reject 2356 kg of CO2 to go to work.

e) I earn 1600 € net per month ie 19 200 € net per year. I pay 1000 € tax (income tax, municipal tax ..) per year so I have 18 200 €.

f) So to "have the right" to spend 1000 € (rent, charges, invoice ...), I would have at least rejected 129 kg of CO2, or the equivalent of 50 L of fuel oil burned.

Please note: this value is greatly reduced because it only takes into account the "work-sleep" transport ... In reality, and depending on your field of activity, it could be increased tenfold ...

[Elec]

Every euro won is one euro spent by another, etc.
No balance.

The proposed method leads to count several times the same grams of CO2.

[Christophe]

But what are you saying...???

Each Euro in your pocket, or that of another, is the result of work or a commercial exchange (= added value = GDP ...) which has its equivalent in CO2 and / or primary energy consumed ... .Whatever the sector of activity, there is no "zero" balance sheet!

The CO2 balance sheet is almost never negative even if there are lesser professions than others ... For example: I sell fluo bulbs, so in the long term, the balance sheet can be positive on the CO2 on this activity. ..

I see only one example of work in terms of direct capture of CO2: oyster farming (storage of CO2 in oysters) ... Ah if there are also Bucherons, provided that they make sustainable forestry (with compulsory planting) and that it is not for firewood ...

[Elec]

The carbon intensity per point of GDP (which reflects the economic activity of a country) is decreasing in Europe. It's positive.

In France, it is 200 grams of CO2 per dollar of GDP today. 1830 in Egypt.

http://www.statistiques-mondiales.com/co2_kg_pib.htm

Japanese Kaya formula: CO2 = CO2 / PET x PET / GDP x GDP / POP x POP

I think that the most relevant way to reduce CO2 is to decrease the term PET / GDP, ie increase energy efficiency and / or increase the share of renewable energies.
Touching the term GDP / POP leads to a reduction in economic activity, leading to a decreasing spiral and ultimately to a lower standard of living.


NB - In order to avoid that the same production enters into the calculation more than once, only goods and services form part of the GDP. end

[Christophe]

Yes but it is not exactly the same thing ... the GDP is very global, there I speak of concrete figures for each of us!

The statistics by country I knew them already but you do well to remember them because my example 129 kg of CO2 / 1000 €

Did you know that India was doing better than France on energy intensity on oil (close to the notion of carbon intensity)? I bet that'll surprise you (not too "politically correct for us, right?)

https://www.econologie.com/forums/petrole-et ... t5022.html

It contrasts quite a bit with the 2.2 kg / $ of GDP for India ... but obviously there is not only "oil" in life ...

[Elec]

Relationship between growth and environment: discussion of the Kuznets environmental curve hypothesis - The experience of developed countries has shown that the enrichment of populations has been accompanied by the demand for a healthier environment, which has led to a strengthening of standards and an improvement of the quality of the environment in certain areas (eg air pollution in cities).

This led to the hypothesis that growth would be harmful to the environment in the early stages of development; then, beyond a certain per capita income threshold, growth would lead to an improvement in the quality of the environment. The relationship between growth and environmental degradation would therefore be in the form of an inverted U: in the first instance, the increase in production would degrade the environment (the scale effect is dominant, to use the terminology of Grossman and Krueger), then, beyond a point of inflection, growth would reduce environmental degradation (the technical effect prevails) (....)

The model of the Kuznets environmental curve is based on the idea that the environment is a "higher good", that is, a good whose demand increases with income (like health or Hobbies). This is a very plausible hypothesis: obviously, for the poorest individuals, the task of feeding, housing, clothing, leaves little room for other concerns. What is true at the individual level is also true at the national level: all the personalities interviewed by your rapporteur confirmed that the countries of the South were, in international fora, less sensitive to environmental issues than the countries of the North.

The rise in income would therefore be accompanied by new "citizen" requirements. In addition, GDP growth makes it easier to release resources to finance environmental policies. For both individuals and nations, it may be easier to sacrifice some of its consumption to protect the environment when incomes are high.

If environmental degradation hinders production, the demand for environmental policy will not only emanate from citizens, but also from companies. This point was put forward by Mrs. Laurence Tubiana during her hearing: in recent years, the Chinese authorities have been more concerned about the environment, partly because urban pollution threatens the health of the inhabitants, but also because that pollution of coastal waters prevents aquaculture, and because deforestation threatens the depletion of timber resources.

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r03-233/r03-23332.html

[Christophe]

Mwarf, the curve "goes everywhere" ...

Pollution is vague ... France is where on the scale of the abscissa?

[Elec]

Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet:

"Look at the famous 'bell curves' produced by the OECD. They show the volume of pollution created by each additional point of GDP. They all rise to a climax, from which marginal pollution per point of GDP begins to decrease. Except for waste and CO2. At the highest point, the curve decreases but the global pollution volume continues to increase. But there is a second point, which corresponds to the second derivative of the curve, from which the total pollution is decreasing, although GDP continues to increase. "

We have not yet crossed the first point for the CO2 (we crossed it for many pollutants: SO2 etc.).
The decreasing approach proposes to go back.
Obama's approach, for example, is to go forward.

"By imitating nature, we can eliminate even the very idea of ​​waste." - RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute)
A garbage can be perceived as something that clogs and pollutes, but also as a gold mine.

[Christophe]

Elec, it's windy all this!

GDP (crap index) includes stock market speculation that is worthless in terms of real wealth creation !!

Instead, make a personal CO2 / € estimate in your case rather than pulling me out of political generalities ...

Speaking of GDP as a shit index: https://www.econologie.com/forums/indicateur ... t7186.html

[Elec]

The method you propose is not relevant: it leads to count several times the same grams of CO2.

In order to avoid that the same production enters more than once in the calculation, only goods and final services are included in the GDP

It is also possible to reason in HDI points, an index that also includes GDP.
http://www.populationdata.net/index2.ph ... =1&nom=idh

The Human Development Index, or HDI, aims to try to measure the level of development of countries, without simply remaining at their economic weight measured by GDP or GDP per capita. It therefore integrates more qualitative data. It is an indicator that summarizes (called composite or synthetic indicator) three sets of data:

- life expectancy at birth (which gives an idea of ​​the health status of the country's population)
- level of education measured by average length of schooling and literacy rate
- Real GDP (ie adjusted for inflation) per capita, calculated in purchasing power parity (PPP - that is to say, amount ensuring the same purchasing power in all countries)
GDP per capita gives an indication of the country's average standard of living.