Bill Gates uses 10,000 times the energy of the average American, MIT says

[Hannah Bell]

Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37

Cambridge (MA) – Time to start the finger-pointing again. A class at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has begun to track the carbon footprint of different lifestyle in different nations. And the picture painted for the U.S. isn’t pretty: Even the most power conscious people in this country use more than twice the energy of the average person around the world. If you are looking for people with the worst carbon footprint, look among the super-rich such as Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey, MIT says.

It is common knowledge that energy use in the U.S. has been at obscene levels for decades and that nations around the world aren’t happy with the fact that less than 5% of the world’s population is consuming almost one quarter of the energy available worldwide. A new study published by the MIT sheds additional light on this scenario and claims that no matter who you are, you are estimated to contribute at least twice and as much as five times as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as those living in the rest of the world.

The MIT class said that it compared the carbon emissions of Americans in a variety of lifestyles ranging from the homeless to multimillionaires, from Buddhist monks to soccer moms and compared them to those of other nations. What is interesting is that the group found that your carbon footprint impact rises with your income. The class estimated Bill Gates' impact at 10,000 times the national average.

So, what about the average Americans and the ultra-energy conscious? There does not seem to be much hope that Americans can consider themselves as energy-conserving as people living in other countries anytime soon: “Regardless of income, there is a certain floor below which the individual carbon footprint of a person in the U.S. will not drop,” says Timothy Gutowski, professor of mechanical engineering, who taught the class that calculated the rates of carbon emissions.

This “floor” below which nobody in the U.S. can drop, no matter what their energy choices are, turned out to be 8.5 tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions, the class found. That was the usage calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters. If you look at a self-sustaining level, the person with the lowest energy usage was a Buddhist monk who spent six months of every year living in the forest and had total annual spending of $12,500. His carbon footprint was 10.5 tons. The average annual carbon dioxide emission per person was found to be 20 metric tons, compared to a world average of four tons.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37159/113/

[Mind_your_head]

1. That just all means that Bill Gates and Ophray Winfrey have to "go first"

Really.....the planet can't support their 'over-the-top-bad-behavior' any longer.....no matter how many 'greenbacks' they claim to have.

Not too many ppl are gonna support bill or ophra (sp?)

[madeline_con]

2. Monk in the woods 1/2 the year spends over $1000 a month? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

3. It's all the dry-cleaning.

It's killer. :P

[Kaleko]

12. LOL !

JeffR alert.

[csziggy]

5. Probably because of the way the study allocated the cost of services

"The carbon footprint calculation was based on someone’s impact on the environment, including the array of government services that are available to everyone in the United States. These basic services-including police, roads, libraries, the court system and the military-were allocated equally to everyone in the country in this study."

So even if that monk used no services, part of the carbon footprint for them was 'budgeted' for him. Makes sense, I guess.

That is why Obama's intention to make government more efficient will save us all in the energy impact even if not in dollars.

[madeline_con]

6. Dividing everything equally makes the entire study moot.

It's the amount one uses, not what's available, right?

[ContinentalOp]

8. Yes, the study seems pretty nonsensical to me.

And even worse, since it implies that we're in a hopeless situation it obscures the very real actions we could all take to cut our personal consumption and shifts the blame to something larger that's beyond our control.

If even a homeless American consumes more than the worldwide average, then I may as well just keep my Hummer and not worry about the problem right? After all Bill Gates is 10,000 times worse than I am, so I guess my consumption isn't so bad.

[Hannah Bell]

16. why would that be, when your hummer contributes a couple of tons of greenhouse

gases to the picture?

if the us produces 1/3 - 1/2 the world's GHG, SOMEBODY'S using stuff, & it's not just FAT people.

[ContinentalOp]

36. Wow, not sure why you brought fat people into this.

I guess you posted this as a response to that other thread about the comments of some English lord?

My point is that if I believe this study, why bother ditching the Hummer when I can live like an ascetic and still be consuming more than the global average? That puts the solution beyond my control and gives me permission to carry on as usual. I think that's the message this story could unintentionally be sending.

[anigbrowl]

13. On an individual level yes, Overall, no.

I think these individual carbon use cases are more to get a headline than anything else, and not particularly informative. Indeed, they probably undermine their credibility by doing so, which is probably going to have the opposite effect of what they intended.

[Hannah Bell]

14. right, *this* study is bogus, but we should weigh people who fly on planes.

[anigbrowl]

15. I said neither of those things, you fraud.

[Hannah Bell]

17. how's that?

[anigbrowl]

19. I'll leave that for other DU readers to see for themselves.

Arguing with you is a waste of time.

[Hannah Bell]

22. i misread "this population" & "obese population" as a reference to a population of obese people

instead of a population of 40% obese people.

what a fraud!

at least i'm not fraudulent enough to do a bullshit study showing how fat people contribute to global warming.

[ContinentalOp]

4. I thought something sounded fishy with their numbers...

and here it is "The carbon footprint calculation was based on someone’s impact on the environment, including the array of government services that are available to everyone in the United States. These basic services-including police, roads, libraries, the court system and the military-were allocated equally to everyone in the country in this study."

Yeah, that homeless guy benefits so much from the police and military :eyes: How about adding some of those military numbers onto other nations that benefit from the "security" we provide?

[MADem]

7. That's an excellent point you made--we do provide "international police services"

to a number of nations--they should take some of the load off the books from us.

[ContinentalOp]

9. Or better yet...

try to accurately assign the environmental impact to the corporations that benefit disproportionately from those roads, the courts, the police protection, and military adventures.

[MADem]

10. Again, fair point.

I think the idea behind divvying the "blame" up equally is to lay a load of guilt on all of us, even those of us who were early adapters to the "greener" technologies.

[ContinentalOp]

11. I suppose, but I worry it will work the opposite way...

by making the problem seem too large and beyond any individual's control.

[Hannah Bell]

21. Maybe that's because it *is* beyond any individual's control.

The two biggest individual energy uses of ordinary people are heating & cooling their homes & driving. Even someone living at a homeless shelter uses heat, hot water, & air conditioning.

The amount of energy people can save through conservation pale in comparison with the potential savings from overall systemic changes.

[ContinentalOp]

34. I have to disagree with you there.

How are is my personal energy consumption from driving and heating/cooling beyond my control? I can easily drive less, buy a more efficient car, better insulate my home, put on a sweater, etc. The problem with this study is that they weren't talking about somebody who lives in a shelter but somebody who lives on the streets and concluding that that person is responsible for the energy consumption of our military! That's insane logic.

The big systemic changes are important too but I'm not willing to overlook the small contributions we can all make, as long as there are still people driving giant gas guzzling suvs.

[Hannah Bell]

40. "person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters"

not on the street.

this person eats from the same globally sourced, high energy food chain every other american does (e.g. 20% us GHG), & homeless shelters use heat, cooling, hot water, etc. (15% GHG).

the system *is* the problem, not whether a fat person eats 500 kcal more than a thin one. i know you didn't mention the fat issue, but this is the level of discussion so long as energy use & pollution are viewed from an individualist, "choice" perspective. who used more than who, which group is taking "too much," etc. & those who own resources & profit from ownership are very happy to have people fighting amongst themselves because someone took "more than their share".

nut the production & delivery system is the difference between those 500 kcal costing 500 kcals in energy or 2000-4000.

and the same with every consumer good & service. things *can't* change via "individual choice" - for one thing, the economic effects of "success" = lower production w/ further impoverishment of the global working poor unless remaining work/income is allocated equitably. but without systemic change, it wouldn't be.

don't know how old you are, but this "green choice, consume less" thing has been on the menu since the 60s, & energy use has only increased in the us, save for the oil shock period. ditto resources.

[ContinentalOp]

47. Oops, I totally misread that one.

I agree with you about the necessity of systemic changes but will have to agree to disagree about the rest. Some of those systemic issues are things we can personally change as well, for example buying locally grown produce rather than stuff that's been shipped halfway around the world. Both approaches are needed IMO, so I question anything that might discourage people from making personal changes and sacrifices.

[Hannah Bell]

53. some people can buy locally grown produce. some can't. & since

half of workers make $15/hr or less, some will/must buy whatever's cheapest. Price & ease of access are the biggest determinants of what's bought, which is why walmart is successful.

i don't know how old you are, but i, like many in my generation, was very enthusiastic about buying green, buying local, the whole package - in the 60s. I've heard the bright spiel endlessly ever since, but i no longer buy into it.

50 years later, capital is more concentrated & distribution networks more far-flung & oil-reliant. If individual consumer choice was an effective way to change the world, the world would be changed. It's changed, but mostly in the opposite direction.

Because concentrated power & capital has more power over consumer behavior than consumers have over the behavior of power & capital.

"consumer power" is just another psyop, splitting the market for food & other items into upscale/downscale, a source of profits.

additionally, it's difficult to tell what the unintended consequences of complete transition to local ag might be. if ag deconcentrated, for example, would adm turn a lot of their cornfields into tract housing, as weyerhauser is doing with their timberlands?

who knows, but nothing is simple.

[Hannah Bell]

23. or maybe to the *owners* of the corporations, like bill gates, oprah winfrey,

in addition to their mega-estates & private jets.

[Hannah Bell]

20. why? we don't "defend" them as a altruistic favor, but for our benefit.

or rather, in the defense of us capital.

[MADem]

26. The issue isn't altruism or benefit, it's accuracy. Making shit up

to "make a point" is just dumb and agenda-laden.

[Hannah Bell]

31. how's that?

[MADem]

33. How's what? I was pretty plain. It's not that hard to grasp my point. nt

[Hannah Bell]

38. "accuracy" is the point? how is it "accurate" to say iraqis have a big carbon footprint

because the us military is occupying them?

[MADem]

39. Well, that point whooshed right over your head. Try substituting Japanese.

Or Saudis (who have stashed us in Qatar, but we still "do the job" from there). Or South Koreans.

You know, the folks who PAY the US military, in some form or another, to be there and do there heavy defense lifting for them.

If the Japanese, for example, ever modify their constitution to turn their "self defense forces" into full-fledged militaries, doing much of the work that we are doing over there, all of our service people will come home, our ships and aircraft will no longer patrol the South China sea or the Pacific on their behalf, and our forces will cease belching out toxins to protect their shores.

THAT's the point. Don't be provincial and wrap everything up around Iraq or Afghanistan. Those aren't the only places in the world where the US military has a presence and has a large and stinky footprint.

[Hannah Bell]

42. the point of disagreement is your assumption that the us military is "doing the heavy lifting"

for others.

japan's military is limited because the us enforced this diktat, & the us "defends" japan because the us wants it that way.

[MADem]

45. They are free to change their Constitution. They haven't done it because

they get the best end of the stick--there isn't a great deal of distance between their perspective and ours.

You're mired in old paradigms and outdated "diktats" that do not exist and have not for decades now.

The discussion comes up every couple of years in Japan, to strip the "defense only" clause from their constitution. They haven't done it yet because they know how to add, and they know they get a better and much cheaper deal letting us do that heavy lifting you question for them.

The Japanese have been trending in this direction for some time, FWIW.

Some background: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-plans-to-change-its-pacifist-constitution-516526.html

http://www.peaceactionme.org/changing-japans-constitution-giant-step-backwards-world-peace

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3905247.ece

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5511T220090602

[Hannah Bell]

50. i'd say on global military matters, the view from the nose-bleed seats is very different

from the view from the box seats.

and most "strategic" info from the msm is worthless.

[MADem]

51. Well, you have fun with your POV, now, whydonchya? I don't particularly care about your

place in the audience--if it makes you happy, fine, otherwise I don't care much, unless you are shrieking with distress.

I don't believe in the Gospel of the MSM, anyway. Never did.

If you did, and you now, suddenly, feel deceived, then enjoy your view, and shake your fist at them, if it makes you feel better

[Hannah Bell]

52. it's not about me. sorry you have to make it about me.

ps: you & i, to the best of my knowlege, are both in the nose-bleed seats.

if you're actually personally privy to the inner working of the nato high command, my apologies.

[MADem]

54. I spent a few years doing some of that heavy lifting. NT

[ContinentalOp]

37. Agreed, but that was exactly my point.

The US military doesn't "defend" me personally either. It defends the business interests of people like Dick Cheney. Therefore it's highly questionable to assign the energy consumption of the military to a person living on the streets.

[Hannah Bell]

49. i agree; the military GHG should be assigned to the account of global capital

disproportionately.

but you won't find that study in any journal; just about the contribution of fatties, smokers, third world moms having too many babies, & other convenient scapegoats.

[Hannah Bell]

18. The US fuels the US military. The US military is the biggest single energy user in the US.

The US government, elected by the US people, makes decisions about how to fund & fuel its military.

The military exists for the defense of the interests of the US & US capital, not for the citizens of those "other countries".

The US military in Iraq is currently one of the biggest military energy sinks.

You're suggesting that energy use should be billed to Iraqis' "carbon footprint"?

[ContinentalOp]

35. No, not the Iraqis but maybe the Saudis or the Israelis!

Really though, I'm saying it shouldn't be billed to ANY individual. The blame should be put on the military. The fact that the military is the single biggest energy user in the US is HUGE and should have been the headline. Instead they shift attention away from that fact and try to spread the blame out evenly. So we can feel good by blaming Bill Gates and a homeless guy on the streets and ignore the real problem.

I'm not saying this was done maliciously but I think the study was framed poorly. It creates a continuum between Bill Gates (10,000x the average) and a homeless person (still consumes more than the worldwide average!) with the average American somewhere in the middle, able to feel smug that at least they're not the worst, and anyway, what can be done if even an ascetic Buddhist monk is overconsuming?

[HughBeaumont]

24. To top that off, they fire workers .. . .

So they can employ slave-state denizens that make 1/10th as much as the average American.

Wasteful, greedy AND monopolistic. Such fine qualities.

Remind me why Republican poor and middle classers idolize the wealthy again? Oh that's right, because they're horse-dick stupid.

[Hannah Bell]

25. no worries, americans will soon make the same as 3rd-world workers.

1/2 will be employed in "sustainable" ag, doing stoop labor to produce nice organic vegetables for their betters.

There will be a strict upper limit of 2000 kcals/person (but you'll be able to cap & trade your food with others).

[Deja Q]

28. Yet our cost of living remains higher than those developing nations...

Hardly anything like true "globalization"...

[Deja Q]

27. Well, his "income" is just under 1,000,000 times that of his average US programmer too. So what?

:hide:

[Hannah Bell]

32. no, just his "wages". his income is considerably higher.

[Deja Q]

29. BTW: He "needs" to. The system requirements of Vista demand no less...

:evilgrin:

[Hannah Bell]

44. lol

[OhioChick]

30. Gates is such a gem....

:sarcasm:

[spanone]

41. oh, i thought al gore was the worse.....

pffffft

[Hannah Bell]

43. he's in the same class of hypocrites, yes.

[Spike89]

46. Bogus study and oversimplified statistics

Obviously the model isn't accurate and worldwide energy consumption statistics are nonsense without factoring in some very difficult to quantify things. A couple spring immediately to mind...worldwide energy availability? Does that include hydro (developed or potential), solar, geo. If you think about this you can see the problem--if I build and install the world's first and only electric generator (based on any fuel) I'm using 100% of the world's electricity.
A second problem is that any industrialized nation is an exporter of many things. Despite what you may have heard, the U.S. produces a lot of the medicines and vaccines used to save lives around the world (takes a lot of energy to support the infrastructure to do that). The U.S. also exports millions of tons of grains and other foodstuffs...again, using energy. To keep it on an energy-->energy level...does anyone believe that solar, high-efficiency batteries, and other "green" technologies are going to be invented without an energy-rich environment?
I'm certainly not saying that the U.S. doesn't waste and that it isn't our responsibility as one of the leading industrialized nations to work toward a solution. It is however not fair to take raw figures and use them without thinking.

[ContinentalOp]

48. Good point.

Who's carbon footprint is it when a Chinese factory under Chinese emissions standards manufactures a widget and ships it to the U.S. on a Chinese boat, ultimately to be sold to an American buyer? It's way too hard to quantify all of this.