Used the old file for assignment (was already done); only the last part was used
with the new file.
1.​ EPA Household Calculator
2.​
a.​ Hosted by United States Environmental Protection Agency
b.​ 34,311 lb per year (15.56 metric tons/year)
c.​ Assumptions calculator used:
$28/month per person in a household for natural gas
$56/month per person in a household for electricity
3 person household
Near my location
Assumption that we get newspapers and magazines
3.​ After making small realistic changes: 33,457 lb per year (15.17 metric tons
per year)
1.​ Carbon footprint calculator from Conservation International
2.​
a.​ Conservation International
b.​ 17.04 metric tons per year (10.99 metric tons for household, 6.05 metric
tons for transportation)
c.​ Assumptions made
Diet has impact
Only included household and transportation information
Likely averaged heating costs and AC costs using size of housing
3.​ No realistic changes can be made for this calculator as my parents need to
travel using the cars they have, and do not have enough money to afford
other ones with better miles per gallon. The household size will not be
changed, and the diet of the household is not up to me. The annual carbon
footprint will still be 17.04 metric tons per year.
4.​
a.​ The calculators used for this assignment were the EPA Household
Calculator and the Carbon footprint calculator from Conservation
International.
b.​ EPA did not give me the option to calculate my individual carbon
footprints, and as I live on campus with no clue as to the bills of
heating/ electricity, etc, I used my general household for this. My
family household footprint was 34,311 lb per year in the EPA
Household Calculator and 17.04 metric tons per year in the
Conservation International calculator.
c.​ The small changes I made in the EPA household calculator was
recycling plastic, newspapers, and magazines. All the other options
were to replace cars with ones with better miles per gallon and
switching out machines/lights for more environmentally friendly
ones, but that was unlikely to happen for financial reasons. It was
also impossible for my household to turn down heating/AC as the
heater only works sometimes and we don’t have AC in our house.
There were no changes made to the calculator used in Conservation
International as it is unrealistic that my household would change
housing, diet, or transportation in any way.
d.​ The main differences between the two calculators was how they
calculated the amount of carbon footprint in a household. One only
had transportation and household information, while another had
transportation, household info, and waste management of a
household included for the calculation for Carbon Footprints. The
Calculator from EPA was definitely more specific, as it included
monthly bills to be inputted for energy usage, such as natural gas
and electricity. This was not included for the other calculator. It is
also possible that both calculators had different assumptions, such
as the impact of transportation or gas usage in a household having
varying amounts of impact on carbon footprint.
e.​ (From new file) In the US, the CO2 emissions per capita is 13.8 tonnes
in 2023. Compared to my results, my household is contributing less to
the carbon footprint compared to other US residents (Since there
are 3 people in the household). I think that the distribution of the
right to emit carbon emissions depends heavily on the
circumstances. For some families, they can’t afford to reduce carbon
emissions, since according to the carbon footprint calculators, the
ways to reduce carbon footprints is by recycling, replacing machines
with ones that reduce carbon output, and even getting a different
diet. However, most families would not be inclined to do that, as if
they are low on finances, they would not spend the time nor money to
reduce their carbon footprint. It may be possible if there is an
incentive for people to do it, like being paid for proper recycling or
per amount of carbon emissions reduced compared to the average,
but that’s within the realm of governmental policy. A way to consider
per capita rights to atmospheric commons is giving those who need
it most the most rights to carbon emissions and those who can
afford to cut back on it less.