@ZantiMisfit No recipe is needed.
You will do fine.

@ZantiMisfit I should write up thoughts on mead though. [quora.com]

What an amazing tour!
I want to move there.

I see that we have ‘sisterhood!’

That's amazing, yet all of the carbon you prevented going into the atmosphere was probably created on one day by one company that Trump let off the chain with his abandonment of restrictions. Such a shame.

CT is ground zero for Ralph Nader.....good job @ Green living

That's the thing no one is open minded to actually implementing those changes like going vegan. Big ag is the biggest contributer to destruction. I tried to explain this to my parents.

@ZantiMisfit
I think I've always leaned that way, getting more so the older I get. But It doesn't feel like self-denial, or minimalism to me. It seems like the path to abundance. There's a lavish side of it. I have all my time to do as I please. I have no mortgage or rent to pay. Instead of a quarter acre, I have eleven. I have old, well-established friendships that I spend time with regularly (these days by video). I have learned how to eliminate suffering from my life. I eat fresh food from my garden. I wouldn't know what to do with more abundance.

I didn't realize, myself, how much it resembled monasticism until very recently. But the similarities are there. It's very much a contemplative life in rural seclusion. It might not be near as easy for me if not for the wonderful company I find at AgnosticDotCom!

@ZantiMisfit

All things considered... it's not horrible.

@Admin
Thanks. It's selfish, in a way... not investing in the next generation. I would rather have had a family, but it just didn't go that way.

We don’t contribute to animal cruelty that’s for sure.
Animal agriculture weakens and depletes fertile
soils by being one of the main causes of WORLDWIDE DEFORESTATION.

The only one on that list I see the reverse way is number 3. My take has been, 'If it isn't wrong to torture chickens, why is it wrong to torture dogs' in defense of the ridiculous punishment of Michael Vick handed down and carried out by a large number of people who likely torture the fuck out of animals every single day of their lives through the purchase and consumption of meat, purchase of leather, etc.

LOL, I gave up flying because it made my arms so bloody sore, all that flapping and never getting off the ground...LOL.

@Admin

"....voters balk....."

Yes, they do (at least in the US), but so what? I'm tired of that fact being used, for several decades now, to hinder any discussion at all of real solutions that involve modifying our laws to address the fundamental flaw of making "externalities" an exception. If you want my answer, then my answer is that we can take the totality of all measures that a person can take and this does not change anything about the importance of imposing taxes. Whether a person is motivated by price signals from a market that properly addresses the pollution issue, or motivated by making personal financial sacrifices and allowing those who do not make such sacrifices to continue to benefit immensely, the measures themselves are the same, but if we honestly respect that this is a dire life-and-death situation for millions (if not billions) of people, then we need to take the measures that are the most effective. That (in my fallible opinion) means taxes. The climate emergency is serious enough that we should not spend the next 100-200 years trying to prove to ourselves whether we can do some sort of global experiment, preach at people that being "good" community members means lowering their carbon footprint and going negative on carbon, and see if just preaching works, or if finally we will have to impose taxes. I think we should skip straight to taxes, right now, and drop the moralizing.

So, I guess my answer is a meta-issue choice of "the main measure I take is advocate for taxes even though it is somewhat socially painful to do so".

I also think that imposing such taxes is not at all a violation of free market principles, but is entirely appropriate in a global property damages pollution situation. One silver lining here is that with so many US taxpayers so intellectually bankrupt that they think any discussion of taxes (any at all) is inherently anti-free market, they don't seem always to get that banning a product (such as fossil fuel powered vehicles or incandescent bulbs) amounts to imposition of an infinitely high tax without having to use the word "tax". So, at least we can have discussion in the US of some product bans. Anyway, I think with a more enlightened team standing at the Bullypulpit of the Presidency, we'll (maybe) here somewhat more enlightened discussion of the issue I'm trying to raise, and this might (maybe) reduce the amount that voters balk.

Don't get me wrong. I do think you're right that US voters balk, and my answer is outside your framework and might be construed as trying to throw a monkey wrench into your discussion. And maybe unfortunately I'm doing that, but it's just been too many decades now that I've run into this "we can't talk about taxes so we'll preach at people" thing, so I feel like I have to voice my views here on that.

Fortunately the 4% or so of the world's population that lives in the US of A does not determine the conversation outside the USA, and significant portions of the populations of the rest of the world see these issues much more rationally and smartly than US citizens, and are moving on from the intellectually bankrupt total bs that continues to come from some in the US population. Maybe with the change in Presidents the US collective approach to these matters will start to be smarter and more appropriate, but I"m not strongly holding my breath on that. I'm looking forward to the rest of the world, when they wake up even more, at least seriously talking about imposing major carbon taxes on the US, and quite rightly.

@Admin

and not to be completely a pain in the neck here, but to respond more directly to the poll:

• Relatively energy-saving concrete home (www.terra-dome.com)
• Solar PV 2.7 kW (though not enough to cover all my energy use, still grid-tied)
• 12 kWh battery pack in garage (actually I don't think this lowers my footprint, though maybe with some sort of complicated demand-response tie-in, in the future, it could?)
• Long Range Battery Electric Vehicle (recently purchased, no more gasoline, ever, hopefully)
• solar hot water (sometimes requires supplemental electric heating of water, in winter or rainy season)
• I telecommute on my job for about 10-15 years now.
• LED bulbs throughout house for about 10-13 years
• Energy Measurement device to help me be informed about which behaviors and devices are using more energy and then in some cases allowing me to modify my energy use for the better (though I am dubious as to how well this is working.)
  Expensive split-zone heat pump for heating and cooling (but not ventilation)
• No gas (propane or natural gas) to the house, in any way.

Still a problem

• I need an Energy Recovery Ventilator
• water to the house from the city is unacceptably hard (high mineral content) and my solution is resource-intensive. In general, I have found water to be a big under-discussed consideration when I try to think of ways to make my overall resource footprint more modest.
• I still need to look at doing rainwater harvesting.
• I may be mishandling some of my landscaping decisions if carbon footprint is the metric.
• to be fair, my home location is relatively far from certain things in this semi-rural environment, and I think this drives up the carbon footprint in some ways (such as that deliveries to the house by fossil fuel vehicles have to travel a bit far).
• I am also going to guess that a true expert in personal and building carbon footprints could find some big gaps and ignorance points in my thinking.

Also, I think a key finding after 17 years at this location is what I thought, which is that adding fancy technology does not always cut down on energy use. I try to use the semi-botched home energy measuring device to figure out my tendencies and when I first moved in, keeping things simple, I was able sometimes to see less than 50 Watts of energy use. I was down below 3 or 2 kWh per day when away on vacation. With all of the energy "saving" devices I've added, and some of the lifestyle choices I've made (watching a big-screen tv for example, or using a microwave internet dish and a router and switch plugged in 24x7), and with the tendency of some of the devices actually to drive my carbon footprint up in some ways (the inverter for the solar and batteries, for example, tends to have its own 24x7 energy use), I seem to be up to around 3-5 kWh per day when away, and many multiples of that when home working or relaxing. This summer was, by far, the hottest summer in this area in Southern Arizona and if I looked at my energy bill I suspect I'd have to say "what are you talking about?" if I tried to claim that the place is energy saving.

@Admin Gotta start sometime. No time like the present.

Humans are the ones that have ruined our planet. I agree less humans. The current ones have not learned yet. There's not going to be a planet for me.

@Secur I am so sorry. The message of overpopulation has been going on since the birth of the environmental movement. People were starting to listen but then corporations got on board and pushed the message of their pro-growth economic strategy. Now it is the future generations that will have to bear much of the pain. Just hope they can change the direction before we all start to go extinct.

@JackPedigo Doubt it. The are plenty of people that are broke as fuck who keep having children. Humans are too fucking stupid.

@JeffMurray Statistics have shown throughout history the poor groups tend to have the highest fertility. The US was a anomaly during the great depression in that it's birth rate actually declined to about 1 million annually. [usnews.com]
To address your statement, the fertility rate of the US has actually been going down and has actually gotten below replacement. However, our increasing immigration numbers has actually added some 2 million directly or indirectly (births from the first generation). Many 'liberals' welcome this under the guise of 'diversity.' Problem is the diversity is cultural human diversity which actually reduces the bio-diversity which is critical for a healthy natural environment.

@JackPedigo In relation to global warming, it doesn't matter at all if the population growth comes from all nations or just some, just matters that it's going up, no? My point also makes no mention of or cares about political affiliation, race, diversity, etc. Simply put, I believe humans are collectively becoming more incapable of doing the right thing and fixing their problems. Smoking is a perfect example. Three is, or at least should be, next to 0% of the population that doesn't know smoking is one of the worst, most personally and collectively costly things you can do to your body, yet it's still legal and millions of people still do it. People keep starting smoking for fuck's sake. My uncle was so mad that they were banning trans fats that he went to several grocery stores to try to buy up all the "real Crisco". To be honest, I don't know if that was even possible or if they didn't announce until after the switch, but that was his goal. I didn't even notice a difference in taste or performance myself. But even if I had, I'd want to get rid of the shit that scientists had determined was so poisonous that they banned it, not buy extra stock of it to use for years to come. People don't believe in facts. They don't believe in science. They can't make appropriate decisions for themselves, yet given all this they want, and feel they deserve, more autonomy than ever. Humans are fucking stupid.

@JeffMurray NO, Population in itself is only a part of the problem. The basic equation for Impact = PAT population X activity X technology. It was once estimated that the footprint of the average US is ten times that of the average world citizen. I hear this all the time hat everyone is equal in their impact on the planet and that is totally false. What is being said is that when people go through great lengths to reduce their impact they are wasting their time as we all have the same impact. The person on the street has the same footprint as the wealthy person with a yacht, plane,several houses and living in a mansion. People with a low carbon footprint mostly come here or any other wealthy country for one reason - to increase their footprint. This is normal and not to be condemned but the planet cannot supply resources for billions of humans.
My late partner, an immigrant, once asked her 2nd graders what is more important people or dirt? No one can ever be more important than the system that sustains us. That system has broken down. Population/immigration is a very complex subject. It would be great if more people studied population demographics. [overpopulation-project.com]

@JackPedigo I think I kinda misspoke. You said our population wasn't going up from birth, but because of the elevated birth rates elsewhere and immigration our population is still growing. So I meant to say it doesn't really matter how our population is growing if from our own country or from others.
Ultimately, my point was less about any of that other stuff and more the fact that humans are idiots, and they are always going to find a way to fuck everything up for everyone.

@Admin And what about all the high emitters here already? What about the number of citizens who are trying to reduce their emissions? Should the new people be forced to stay at their present emission level? When on the board of ZPG (in the late 90's) there was a woman fellow (lol) board member who lived in a high end area (Bellevue) and she and her husband had a very successful financial advisory business. She had always wanted lots of kids and already had 2 sons. When she learned about the population issue she and her husband agreed to stop. She won an award in having given workshops to various classes (ZPG had workshops for kindergarten to college level - I even gave a few myself) every day for a year. She would ask middle - upper class women how they felt about limiting their fertility and they almost always said they would but they felt the lower classes and new immigrants would not and soon they would be the majority. yes, a racist comment but there is lots of evidence for that. People come her to increase their footprint. Most couldn't possible survive if they had to stay at the same level as they did in their country.

We need to stop making this an issue about people. It needs to be an issue about a system under which all, citizens and immigrants, must live. We see here in 202 what has happened to that system. We have shot way past natures carrying capacity.

I'd like to point out to Admin that JeffMurray's comment here helps illustrate my sort of meta-point, which is that we should discuss and address the lack of carbon taxes and rewards to help us get the price signals many of us need to improve our behavior with the end goal of avoiding the worst of the global catastrophe for all of us.

JeffMurray wrote:

"...I'm going to drive my 8mpg 600hp Cobra, eat delicious burping cows, and throw all my refuse directly into the trash. ...."

@kmaz
That sounds great to me. I may pay more than you in carbon tax, but I'll pay a tiny, tiny percentage of what anyone with kids would pay. I already think that the tax breaks for having children are bullshit, so it would be great if we could mitigate the disparity of taxes paid with a carbon tax.

Even though I have 1 child by my first marriage my 2nd partner and I agreed to not have any children. A group started up in our state called ChildFree by Choice and it took off. There are many reasons people don't want to have children and this group was a real eye opener for me. Our media really hypes marriage and having children and every series I have seen with a couple eventually ends up with them having children. One real shocker for me was one of my favorite series, "Bones" had a woman scientist, atheist marrying a strict Catholic and having a kid. The change in her attitude was heart wrenching for me. [childfreebychoice.com]

@JeffMurray

You raise an interesting point. I'm not sure if this is what you meant directly, but the elimination of tax breaks for having children might well be seen as a major carbon policy measure that would dramatically help the world. As well, and separately, institution of fairly clear and basic carbon taxes and negative-carbon rewards might provide additional incentives to couples to rethink how many children they can realistically afford.

@kmaz Either way it would benefit me. Either the tax breaks for having children would be eliminated increasing their tax burden and lowering mine (hopefully), or the money that would be needed to fight global warming would be an additional tax of which I would pay a super small percentage because of my lack of children. Or best case scenario, both happen, I keep a lot more money in my check AND tons of funds are made available to fight global warming (or more likely, to mitigate negative effects of the past point if no return situation we got ourselves into).

@Admin I think it was on this site that someone made the important point that a vast majority of people are not financially capable of buying Earth conscious products. It's easy to say, next to impossible to do. And that's not even taking into account all of the things we buy/use we can't control production of by voting with our wallets.

@kmaz Where did your last reply go?

@JeffMurray

I deleted it. On second thought it was pretty clear what admin meant. It was kind of borderline. There was an important principle I thought I articulated well (which is that criticizing corporations is really not the main alternative here to personal virtue, as a key tool to getting to negative carbon) but I was writing on the fly and didn't want to needlessly get on the case of admin if they were feeling defensive about the thread.

@kmaz I mean, I get you. I am a proponent of fixing climate change. I mean, it may be more apt to say I was. I'm still for (and would support and vote for) sweeping change that may mitigate some negative effects, but I'm no longer willing to sacrifice anything personally unless it's part of something that will actually do something. (I take you back to my example of a non-peeing section of our collective pool.) If my sacrifices will be part of a collective that will merely postpone the really terrible effects by a few months or even years because the big polluters are given free reign to fuck mother Earth in the ass, it's just not worth it. To me, that's like telling someone with a terminal disease they shouldn't eat any junk food because it has poor nutritional value. Could eating clean postpone their death by a small amount? Sure? Are those extra days of eating kale really days people want to live? Not me.

@JeffMurray

One point you made which I had in mind to pursue a bit further - the ~600 hp Cobra. I kind of work in an area related to this, and so have put some thought into some of the issues. There was a decent interview by Chris Harris at Top Gear of a utility guy that I saw recently, and the point Harris voiced I think was on a lot of our minds, which is the question of what happens to all the wonderful IC vehicles we have if we have to use only BEV. And the utility guy said something half-soothing about how a century ago vehicles replaced horses, but people still rode horses for fun even today, and so now with the transition from high carbon to low or zero carbon transport, he envisioned you could still use your IC vehicle now and again. But he was missing a point (IMO) I'd like to tie into your Cobra use:

What I'd like to see happen is that when you drive your Cobra, the only fuels you're able to find are either:

1. increasingly taxed (and eventually phased out entirely, which is to say, infinitely high taxed)
   or
2. zero carbon drop-in replacement fuels. These are the fuels that were supposed to become more widely available, but never did. I think there was to much focus on "bio" derivations, but eventually I think it will be possible simply to synthesize the molecules, using only zero carbon energy, and you have your fuel.

One point is that the synthetic fuels would have come about more quickly if the taxes had been in place, but we have let things go too long without the taxes.

Another point is that, in either scenario, when I see you driving along, I'll know you've paid the price. I won't have to look at your car and feel any resentment at all that you're having fun and driving your adult toy, because I'll know it's either polluting activity for which you're paying a major financial penalty, (and this will be phased out when the zero carbon synthetic option becomes more widely available) or that it's entirely zero net carbon (in terms of the fuel being burned).

@kmaz I'm fine with all that, so long as the taxes are linear, proportional, and without exception. If my Cobra is going to cost me an extra $100 to drive a year (I live in Ohio and this thing is so fast it can't even drive safely in the rain so I don't drive it a lot at all) then having a child should cost tens of thousands. But you and I both know that shit is not how it's going to go down. Just like how alcohol and tobacco are disproportionately taxed even though junk food's effects on health care costs are at least in the same ballpark and they don't get taxed at all.

@JeffMurray

I'm involved with both a lot of industry and business conversations where there is some eschewing of moralizing and just sticking to the facts, but I am also involved with many advocacy conversations. In those conversations, where we are trying to envision the way things should be, as to policy, as soon as someone says "I'm fine with that so long as....", then I partially stop listening.

It is only a partial stop because I know what you mean by wanting a level playing field, but I'm not fine with the whole approach because, if we are trying to get something done (such as if our motivating goal is to save millions or billions of lives) then if we wait until you or I or someone is satisfied with their personal version of "first this, then that" ordering of things, it will be the year 7371 before anything (anything at all) happens.

Maybe a better example here (I'm not sure your comments are a great example, I think you were just laying out an issue you have with the unfairness of it) is that recently I was chatting with another climate emergency activist and I tried to make a point about the importance of negative carbon and cleanup. They seemed to be ignorant of some of the latest push on this, but they did not seem aware of their ignorance and were somewhat insistent that first we should take care of getting renewables into place and then we could worry about whatever it was I was worried about.

@kmaz I wouldn't blame you for no longer listening to me. I don't listen to the people worse then me who don't even believe in climate change I'll absolutely admit that my attitude towards it isn't the best. I could be doing what I used to be doing to help, and that previous level could be improved upon. This is kind of the same argument I have with a buddy about eating meat and voting. He says that he still occasionally eats meat even though he thinks it's wrong to kill animals for food because he alone giving up meat wouldn't ever prevent a single animal from dying. He also doesn't vote because he "knows" he'll never be the deciding vote so it doesn't matter. I tried to tell him that if everybody felt that way, etc. And whether his argument or mine is ultimately the correct way to think, there is still another difference. The sacrifice of spending an hour or so every 2 years or not eating the little amount is meat he does eat is quite small compared to all of the sacrifices I'd have to make to be net zero. Plus, my footprint is so much smaller than every parent in this country and probably a good chunk of non-parents, so I don't really feel bad about it even though I wish it was all different.

@JeffMurray

Hi - Don't get me wrong, I was just going off on a tangent on a pet issue, which is really a side matter in this case. I think your comments are valuable to this discussion and worth thinking over.

I believe you are correct. It is estimated that 50% of the world's population will be displaced from their homes because of rising sea levels in the next 2-3 decades. Most of what I have read and heard from climate scientists points to the fact that this isn't a maybe because we're already at the point of no return.

Neighbors are wrong more trees means we can breathe easier....thankyou Green Cast1es

GOOD!