I’ve just filled in a WWF carbon footprint questionnaire, go on techies, give it a go: https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/
It came out as 97% of target footprint size.
That seems a bit optimistic if you ask me!
Hmm, what does optimistic mean in this context?? I came out at 101% - could do better! Indeed, to take carbon seriously, I would prefer to out-perform government targets - I’d prefer to be ahead of the game, and I’d suspect the targets are on the weak side.
Drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrum-roll, please, da-dum-da-dum… 57% “Scout’s Honour” 
Noting that the question about air travel asked something about carbon offsets, and hearing that carbon offset is relatively cheap even compared to cheap air travel, I subsequently came across this which might be of interest:
Vox’s report on the best charities for climate change lists ones that claim to be able to prevent one ton of carbon emissions for $0.12 and $1, compared to the $10 you would get on normal offset sites. Their top choice is Coalition For Rainforest Nations (but see criticism here), and their second choice is Clean Air Task Force.
Not that I think offsets are a global solution, but they might be a way for an individual to do something.
1 Like