Welcome to our 90% emissions reduction project. First of all, you'll notice that we're using the number 90%, not 93 or 94% - there are a couple of reasons for that, but the first and most important is that the goal is not to drive ourselves crazy. If we're all going to do this, we need it to be comparatively easy - I think a lot of us will get bored and frustrated if we have to keep complicated logs. But using 1/10 of what is used by the average American makes calculations easier for everyone. I've certainly no objection if all of us, or some of us get down even lower, but 90% is still a huge accomplishment - it puts your emissions on par with the average Chinese peasant. The Rules of the Game are as follows: 1. Everyone can play. Even if you only think you can make a major reduction in a few categories, or 1, or even none, you are invited to join us. Every drop in your emissions is a huge accomplishment, and another person who can stand up and say "I can do it, even without any systemic help - therefore, we can all do it." The time period is 1 year - the goal is to reach a 90% reduction (or the best each of us can do) *AND KEEP IT THERE* after 1 year. That is, we're not dropping our emissions instantly and then going back to business as usual later - the goal is to use this year to figure out what we need to do, what kind of adaptations we need, and how to change things. Ideally, we'll all calculate and post our approximate usage right now, as a baseline. [. . .] Otherwise, you are in charge of making choices. We have left categories like health care and housing out of this, on the assumption that you aren't going to buy a new house, or give up needed medical attention. If you want to include some of these issues, great. If you need to opt out of a category altogether, fine. If you disagree with my assessment, say, of how things should be calculated, certainly tell me - you may have a better method than I do - but you can also feel free to make your calculations differently. If you live in another country than the US, you'll have to do your own baseline - it isn't very hard, and your government websites should have the information. For Canada, Australia and the US, Monbiot's calculation is that reductions must be above 90%, so you'll probably want to use the 90% figures with your own national averages. Most of the rich EU nations are in the mid-to-high 80s, and he doesn't offer figures for other nations. I leave it up to those from other countries to figure out whether they want to try for the 90% reduction, or choose another number - 80% or 85%. [. . .] One of the things I think is most important is that we admit when/how/where we fail. We're trying to do something very difficult, and we're doing it without the support that would make this much easier. If there are places where a lot of people can't accomplish a reduction, this is a good argument for some kind of larger intervention. Some things will be easy for one of us, but not another. I think food will be easy for my household, but gas a real struggle. Other people might find the opposite. Ultimately, this is a support network. We're trying for real and radical change, and also to offer up a model for other people who might want to make these changes. Be kind and be supportive. We have an email group; subscribe by sending an empty e-mail to: 90PercentReduction-subscribe@yahoogroups.com [ . . . ] The estimates I'm giving for renewable resources may be controversial. I welcome discussion of the subject, or better guidelines - remember, better, but simple. I've tried to be very conservative - that is, I'm trying to err on the side of greater emissions reduction whenever possible. In that interest, I've measured, for example, the net energy return of some renewables as much lower than, say, a company that makes them would. For example, I give no credit at all for ethanol or biodiesel, since I think they are no better and perhaps worse. In the end, if you really disagree, feel free to use your own numbers, just explain how you are calculating things. We're dividing this into 7 categories. You do the calculation for each one. We've included water, even though it isn't by itself a greenhouse gas problem, because water stress is one of the most serious and immediate consequences of global warming. If you work out of the home, or spend large quantities of time out of your home, you should include calculations for your work environment, or school environment - % of your time, energy used, divided by number of people using it. Now you may not have much control over this measurement, and if you don't, I suggest you keep three tallies - one for home energy, one for work energy, and one for your total energy in each relevant category. But the good thing about including your work is that this offers incentives for trying to get your work to be more efficient as well. Who knows, you may fail, but it is worth a try.
[. . .] Removed by Barbara Ebel. Out of date information about blogs and email contacts. References to deceased web site.
Original documents by Pat Medows