Doing something about climate change

[Jamie in Chile]

Thanks for sharing your advice

Thanks the house has cavity wall insulation and I have added loft insulation prior to the potential heat pump installation. I also had someone check for drafts and they told me maybe need some new seals on the windows, but I am going to look at that after the heat pump is installed.

After checking many, many suppliers I have only found one installer that met these criteria

1 good reviews on a site that looks trustworthy (have to be careful with sites where the companies make their money from the companies being reviewed)
2 nearer 8k pounds so 3k after grant (others were 10k+)
3 responded to my messages and seemed professional

Therefore I want to go ahead with this company but have no backup plan if it falls through

Not doing solar for now in this house we rent out (although do have it in my own house) but may or may not look at that at a later time. I´m not convinced on the solar-heat pump match up for heating though. Looks like October-March you typically won´t have any spare electricity from a solar system anyway in the UK. Perhaps September and April there is some match to be had, but even then we would need extra batteries to transfer the solar heat to the evening (depends if the house is well insulated enough that you can mainly heat it until 4pm and then turn off the heating and it´s still hot at 10pm, probably not in our case I suspect). But perhaps you mean more for hot water. I suspect the basic logic of it is that you can use your solar for hot water year round, and heating requires grid.

Thanks for the tip on weather compensation.

I don´t think I have any more questions for now, but perhaps if it goes ahead maybe later.

 

[majorbloodnok]

No problem, @Jamie in Chile.

it goes without saying, I hope, that it’s also well worth spending time on the various (particularly UK) forums related to renewable heating. When you read the horror stories and the successes, there are several recurring themes and once you recognise them you can better judge your chosen company’s suggestions and system design.

Good luck.

 

[Vai101]

1. Reduce your carbon footprint: Minimize your energy and water consumption, drive less and take public transportation, reduce the amount of meat and dairy in your diet, and buy local and sustainable products.

2. Educate yourself and others: Learn about the issues related to climate change and share that knowledge with your family, friends, and community.

3. Support renewable energy: Look for ways to support renewable energy sources (e.g. solar, wind, hydropower) in your area, or support local businesses that use renewable energy sources.

4. Advocate for change: Get involved in your local government and support climate change initiatives. Write letters to your representatives and vote for politicians who have a strong commitment to fighting climate change.

5. Plant trees: Planting trees helps offset our carbon emissions and can help fight global warming. Plant a tree in your backyard or join a local tree-planting initiative.

6. Support organizations: Consider donating to organizations that are actively working to reduce the effects of climate change and promote sustainability.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

No problem, @Jamie in Chile.

it goes without saying, I hope, that it’s also well worth spending time on the various (particularly UK) forums related to renewable heating. When you read the horror stories and the successes, there are several recurring themes and once you recognise them you can better judge your chosen company’s suggestions and system design.

Good luck.

Got the heat pump installed in the house we rent out and it's been going fine so far.

 

[Lou]

The Washington Post is behind a paywall. So I've included the text of the article for those of you who can't read the Post.

The Post has a Climate Coach

The Post’s Climate Coach answers your questions​

Advice by Michael J. Coren​

Climate Advice Columnist

The environmental math of going vegan​

Hi, Climate Coach. My question is: Does living a vegan lifestyle make any difference at all, especially since few people live this way? Thank you. — Sal Garcia on PostReports podcast​

​

Let’s start with the big picture: People have a tendency to jump to extremes. It’s either vegan or bust. And given that most Americans aren’t vegan or vegetarian — only about 5 percent, estimates Gallup — it’s not that useful to cast this in absolutes.​

​

​

The 80:20 rule applies here: You can get about 80 percent of the results for about 20 percent of the effort. In this case, even a small change in diet can lead to a big reduction in emissions.​

​

That’s not to play down what vegans are doing. It’s just to say that when you run the numbers, you can have enormous impact with a small amount of effort.​

To give you an example, when you look at the sources of greenhouse gas in the average American’s diet, they’re mostly meat and dairy. About 57 percent, give or take, comes from meat and 18 percent from dairy. So that’s 75 percent of your dietary emissions right there.​

​

And from a climate perspective, not all meat is created equal. Beef is nearly seven times more emissions-intensive than chicken, for example.​

To zoom out, if you think there’s not much positive climate impact without a vegan or vegetarian diet, it isn’t true. What’s more accurate is thinking about the small changes you can make to have substantial impact.​

​

Fruits, nuts and seeds add variety to the diet. (iStock) (LanaSweet/Getty Images/iStockphoto)

There are some mind-blowing numbers that have come out of a 2021 study in the journal Nature Food. University of Michigan researchers collected data from a vast set of epidemiological studies looking at the global burden of disease.​

​

The question they asked was: What is the health and environmental burden of individual foods? They looked at the impact of about 6,000 types of foods common in the U.S. diet. When they ran the numbers, they found a remarkable effect. Substituting just 10 percent of daily caloric intake from beef and processed meats with fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes or even seafood had more than just profound health effects. It also slashed the carbon footprint of the average American by about one-third.​

​

So you’re getting massive impact from a very small change.​

As for the impact of going vegan, watch the Climate Coach column for more details on that.​

​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/05/09/climate-change-solutions-vegan-electric-car-batteries/

 

[Graeme M]

And from a climate perspective, not all meat is created equal. Beef is nearly seven times more emissions-intensive than chicken, for example.

I guess this is irrelevant to vegans, but from a vegan perspective this seems like bad advice. One can eat maybe 200kg of food from one steer yet that would require perhaps 130 or more chickens raised in a CAFO to replace it. Also, I think it's a bit misleading to point out how much CH4 cattle emit as though that is all there is to it. Due to the rapid turnover of CH4 in the atmosphere, there should be no net addition to global stores if herd size doesn't increase. As far as I know, that is the case for the US, so in effect beef cattle farming is not really adding much to warming.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

The total amount of harm from climate change from methane from herds may remain fairly constant if herd sizes remain the same, but that is still a constant harm that could be reduced by reducing herds, so each cow is adding to warming and each unit of warming is causing human and animal suffering and death.

Your argument is a bit like saying 1,000 children are dying each year from mass shootings so any additional mass shootings are not really adding much provided we don´t go over 1,000 each year.

On the other point (and I can´t quite tell from your comment if we agree or disagree) it is true that beef causes much more emissions, but eating chickens causes more direct suffering because 1 dead cow is a meal for more people, and also because from what I read chickens seem to have worse lives than cows, so may suffer more.

I think it´s very likely that the total harm from eating chickens (which would be mainly the suffering of the chickens themselves) is more than the total harm from eating beef. I once did some analysis on this and concluded that this is probably the case. So I think replacing beef with chicken is bad advice, and it´s coming from a human centric environmentalist perspective that doesn´t consider animal suffering.

 

[Graeme M]

The total amount of harm from climate change from methane from herds may remain fairly constant if herd sizes remain the same, but that is still a constant harm that could be reduced by reducing herds, so each cow is adding to warming and each unit of warming is causing human and animal suffering and death.

Yes, that's true. But given herd sizes in some countries (like the US and UK, I think) have remained stable or are reducing slightly, there probably is less imperative for them. Where herds are growing is more the concern, but then these are developing nations so perhaps less chance of getting them to change?

I think it´s very likely that the total harm from eating chickens (which would be mainly the suffering of the chickens themselves) is more than the total harm from eating beef. I once did some analysis on this and concluded that this is probably the case. So I think replacing beef with chicken is bad advice, and it´s coming from a human centric environmentalist perspective that doesn´t consider animal suffering.

Yes, that would be the case I'd have thought.

 

[Lou]

Just inserting a little humor in order to stay sane....

According to Futurama, if all the robots simultaneously vented their propellants into space we could increase the earths orbit - adding another week to the year - and solving global warming forever.

fast fwd to 3:00

 

[Lou]

BTW, Nixon proclaims that the extra week should be called Robot Party Week.

Oh and this solution is arrived at only after they give up on the original idea of adding a giant ice cube to the ocean.