Whats your carbon footprint?

[smom1976]

it was still fun tho..

 

[Dar]

mine was 55 but they didnt have any canadian listings for citys...i now the electric killed me cause ALL my hydro is produced from a hydro electric dam so i know my reall number is lower

 

[GopherBoyFarms]

ours was 29 for a family of 3

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

It never asked me about tractors and log splitters and chain saws and chippers and and and and

 

[BlueMoon]

Ours was 51 for two people, but I don't think that's too accurate. We use less than 50 gallons of oil to heat the house, mostly wood. We live in a rural area, so driving is required, but I work from home half the time, which reduces use. Being rural, we recycle all food we don't consume, mostly by letting the chickens have it.
We combine trips, buy mostly used clothes and shop locally. Those are all big factors.

It's a good start, but I think geared more for urban areas.

 

[AngieChick]

Quote:
The impact that animals with multiple stomachs (ie: beef) have is very well studied and documented. However, some of that, as I previously stated, is what they are fed and the way they are farmed. Also, as was stated in the CSM article, much beef is grown in rainforests that have been cut down for that purpose. When the trees are chopped down, not only is a major "holder" of greenhouse gasses removed, but when they break down the CO2 they were holding is actually released back into the atmosphere. Plus they are replaced by hoofed animals, which will render the delicate soil systems of the former rainforests useless and unable to ever be planted back. So yes, your method of animal husbandry would be better.

Quote:
Many states have a coal based energy system, which spits out tons more gasses then say, hydro-electric (which granted, has other issues and isn't impact free).

 

[Mahonri]

60 for an 8 person houshold. We are below average. But... we only eat meat on Sundays and Holidays.

 

[chicken_boy_Kurt]

Quote:
I watched a movie on that, it is part methane but for every 10 pounds of feed you get only 1 pound of beef.

I think that's the part that is worse.

 

[Buster]

Quote:
The impact that animals with multiple stomachs (ie: beef) have is very well studied and documented. However, some of that, as I previously stated, is what they are fed and the way they are farmed. Also, as was stated in the CSM article, much beef is grown in rainforests that have been cut down for that purpose. When the trees are chopped down, not only is a major "holder" of greenhouse gasses removed, but when they break down the CO2 they were holding is actually released back into the atmosphere. Plus they are replaced by hoofed animals, which will render the delicate soil systems of the former rainforests useless and unable to ever be planted back. So yes, your method of animal husbandry would be better.

Ok, I can buy that based on that theory. The theory holds a lot more water to me when you put it in context of the rain forest instead of domestic meat. (Pro- country of origin- labeling here). about 90% of the meat we eat in my home was raised here or at a nearby farm without the concentration of animals that is considered harmful. The survey asked if we ate meat, not beef. What about chicken, turkey, duck, wild game, fish, etc?

 

[Bammony]

59 for my 6 person home.