Net Zero Emissions Household

Becoming a Fossil Fuel Free Family

MARCH
2021
Dave
Southgate

1
Foreword
This carbon footprint report updates the first annual carbon footprint report for our household
which I released in March 2020. I have re-worked the data to reflect the changes in our energy and
other consumption that took place over 2020. However, as far as possible I have left the format of
the report unaltered in order to facilitate easy comparison of our total household carbon footprint
between the years.

After some years of thinking only about our household direct carbon footprint, I believe I have now
embedded our indirect carbon footprint into my carbon footprint thinking. I find exploring options
for reducing our indirect footprint to be very interesting because the options are almost limitless.
Having said that, unfortunately the carbon gains from taking any one initiative tend to be small.

In 2020 I needed to buy significantly fewer carbon offsets than in 2019 to achieve a ‘net zero
emissions’ outcome for our household. I envisage that I will be able to achieve a carbon neutral
outcome for 2021 without having to buy any carbon offsets.

Dave Southgate

Canberra

March 2021

2
 Household Carbon Balance Sheet 2020

Debits Credits
DIRECT

DIRECT
Solar PV Exported

9,392 kgCO2e
INDIRECT

INDIRECT
Carbon Offsets
Purchased

3,588 kgCO2e

TOTAL Carbon Debits TOTAL Carbon Credits

= 12,980 kg CO2e = 12,980 kg CO2e

Net Zero Emissions achieved 3,588 kg CO2e carbon offsets

through purchase of

3
 Household Carbon Balance Sheet 2019

Debits Credits
DIRECT

Petrol

Grid
electricity

DIRECT
Solar PV Exported

7,427 kgCO2e
Food
(grocery
shopping)
INDIRECT

NZ
Holiday

EV
(indirect)

INDIRECT
Carbon Offsets
Internet/computing

Clothes 5,743 kgCO2e

Food (eating out)

Coffee (lattes)

Other

TOTAL Carbon Debits TOTAL Carbon Credits

= 13,170 kg CO2e = 13,170 kgCO2e

Net Zero Emissions achieved 5,743 kgCO2e carbon offsets

through purchase of

4
Background
I produced the first Carbon Footprint Report for our household in early 2020. The reader may wish
to refer to this document for a more detailed account of the background to this latest carbon
footprint report.

In essence, this Carbon Footprint Report is part of a suite of documents I have released which
describe our transition from being a 100% fossil fuelled household to one which I intend, eventually,
will be totally powered by renewable energy.

In this document I report the quantum of both our direct and indirect carbon footprints. I have been
computing and reporting the value of our household’s direct carbon footprint (ie the carbon
footprint of the fuels we directly buy to run our household (namely grid electricity and petrol)) for a
number of years. I consider the data used to compute our direct footprint as very solid. On the
other hand, I only commenced computing our indirect carbon footprint (ie the carbon embedded in
the goods and services we use/buy) last year and at this stage I only consider the valuations I have
arrived at as preliminary.

In this year’s report I have attempted to keep the structure, formatting and footprint computation
methodology as close as possible to that which I used in my first carbon footprint report. In some
parts I have retained large sections of text from my earlier report. I have done this not only to make
my job easier, but also to facilitate the transparent tracking of changes between years (within, what I
hope, is a largely standalone document).

Overview
In the two previous pages I have shown an overview of our household carbon balance sheet for 2020
and for 2019. While our total household carbon footprint was approximately 13 tonnes in both
years, there are some significant differences between the years.

Our direct carbon footprint was somewhat lower this year due to a decrease in our consumption of
both petrol and grid electricity (I give details in my project 2020 Annual Report). However, our
indirect footprint increased, primarily as a result of an increase in our air travel footprint (we took
our family holiday in NZ in 2019 while we spent our 2020 holiday in Singapore (very luckily we
managed to get away for 10 days in January 2020 just before COVID-19 restrictions hit)).

The credit side of our carbon ledger also changed somewhat. We installed an extra 6kW of solar PV
on our roof early in 2020 and this enabled us to export about 25% more carbon free electricity in
2020 compared to 2019. The outcome of this was that in order for us to reach carbon neutrality for
the year, I only needed to purchase about 3.5 tonnes of carbon credits in 2020 compared to around
5.5 tonnes in 2019.

As a result of my first attempt at footprinting our indirect carbon emissions, we made a few changes
in our food consumption patterns over 2020. I also bought a number of devices aimed at reducing
our indirect footprint in a few specific areas. I discuss these in Chapter 8 of my 2020 Annual Report.
While I very much enjoyed this exercise, and felt I really got a lot out of my new directions
(particularly using bidets and obtaining a very nice e-ink device), I would not claim that they made
any great inroads into the magnitude of our indirect carbon footprint.

In last year’s Carbon Footprint Report I included some discussion about the validity of the carbon
footprint values I am obtaining. The reader is encouraged to refer to this if they wish to gain a
feeling for the level of confidence that can be placed on my results.

5
Direct Carbon Footprint

6
Chapter 1 Direct Debits & Credits
Debits
As discussed in the Background, we have been working for a number of years to reduce our direct
use of fossil fuel based energy as part of our project to become a Fossil Fuel Free Family.

Figure 1 gives a breakdown of our direct energy use over 2020. This Figure is extracted from my
Annual Report for 2020 and the reader is invited to look at that document if you want more detailed
information.

It can be seen that in 2020 we sourced about 60% of our household energy use from our solar PV
systems.

Total Grid Electricity

Consumption 2020 = 474 kWh

Figure 1: Breakdown of our household

energy use 2020

I have converted our fuel consumption data into CO2e emissions using the Government’s published
greenhouse accounts factors for 2020. The values for our petrol and grid electricity carbon
footprints are shown in Figure 2 in the next Section.

Credits
In my 2020 Annual Report I also discuss our solar PV production and export for the year. We
exported 11,595 kWh of solar PV electricity in 2020. I have converted this to a carbon credit of
9,392 kgCo2e using the published greenhouse accounts factors and assuming that each kWh of
solar PV (carbon zero) electricity that we exported displaced one kWh of grid (mainly coal based)
electricity.

7
Indirect Carbon Footprint

8
Chapter 2
Introduction
Computing one’s direct carbon footprint is very straightforward. The energy user knows very
accurately, from their energy bills, how much fuel they have used over a period of time. The amount
of fuel used can easily be converted into carbon emissions through the application of published
greenhouse accounts factors.

By way of contrast, computing one’s indirect carbon footprint is not straightforward. It generally
involves delving into many layers of data and making many assumptions. For example, if I buy a
widget I can normally find out which country it is ‘made’ in. However, the product may contain
many components which have been sourced from all over the world. Indeed, different batches of
the same product may have components from quite different origins or be made from different
materials. All these unknowns impact on the magnitude of a product’s carbon footprint. Unless one
is carrying out a detailed examination of a particular product one has to accept that the outcome of
indirect carbon footprinting computations is only ever likely to be a gross estimate.

This document is not intended to be a scientific treatise. I have therefore tried to keep the language
and concepts simple by avoiding many of the niceties that the specialist carbon accountant would
use. I have done this not only to appeal to a wider audience but also because I see little value in
getting bogged down in detail when I am only seeking to obtain high level estimates of my family’s
indirect carbon footprint.

Computing our Indirect Footprint

In this, the second of my carbon footprint reports, I have decided not to change any of the values of
the carbon intensity of individual actions (ie the CO2 emissions per unit of consumption) that I used
in the first report. Last year I spent some time researching values for how much CO2 is emitted for
each of the actions we undertake in our day-to-day living (eg eating different types of food, using the
internet, etc) and it was very apparent that the values I arrived at could only be considered
‘guesstimates’; as indicated above, there are just so many variables and unknowns that I don’t
believe I would arrive at any more reliable CO2 output figures/unit of activity if I repeated the
exercise.

Maybe in a few years’ time, carbon footprinting will have matured, and low carbon agriculture,
manufacturing and transport will have emerged to such an extent that there will be material
reductions in unit carbon footprints.

Given the above, I worked through the list of CO2 generating activities that I reported in Figure 2 of
last year’s report and updated the values for the levels of consumption where I believed they varied
from last year. Figure 2 which follows captures my new estimates. Some of the changes are quite
significant (eg an increase in our air travel in 2020); others are notable (eg the inclusion of toilet
paper) but don’t make any great difference to the quantum of the total carbon footprint.

In my first carbon footprint report I discussed some obvious omissions in the list of
activities/products shown in Figure 2. I have not tried to resolve any of the missing gaps – while
there are obvious data holes in our indirect footprint, as far as I can tell the ones I have identified are
not of great significance as far as the magnitude of our family indirect carbon footprint is concerned.

9
 CO2
Wt CO2e
Emissions CO2e Source Amount Comments
(kg)
Type
Petrol 5,168 kWh 1,250

DIRECT Grid Electricity 474 kWh 380

TOTAL Direct 1,630

Food (grocery
3,730 See Appendix 1
shopping)
Air travel 2,970 Family holiday in Singapore

New EV (Leaf) (mfr) 1 1,000 10tCO2e. Count over 10 years

Clothes 100 items 700 7 kgCO2e/garment

Food (eating out) 600 5 lunches + 1 family meal/week

Coffee 760 cups 380 0.5 kgCO2e/cup

Internet 4 persons 320 80 kgCO2e/person

Desk top computing 4 computers 300 60 kgCO2e/y + printer

Holidays/hotels 1 300 30kgCO2e/night for hotel Singapore

INDIRECT Mobile phone 4 200 50kg/yr

Public Transport 5,000 km 200

Electricity (indirect for 35 kgCO2e for grid + 145 kgCO2e for
180
both grid + solar PV) solar PV
Shoes 10 pairs 150

Library books 250 125 5 kgCO2e/book; book read 10 times

Petrol (indirect) 65 Scope 3 emission factors

Toilet paper 4x104 sheets 60 1.5 g CO2e / sheet

Washing clothes 200 washes 45 220 gCO2e/wash for washing machine

New bike (mfr) 1 25 250 kgCO2e. Count over 10 years

TOTAL Indirect 11,350

TOTAL CARBON FOOTPRINT 12,980

Figure 2: Breakdown of my family’s direct and

indirect carbon footprints for 2020

10
Discussion
I have translated the indirect carbon data in Figure 2 into the visualisation in Figure 3. Food
immediately jumps out as the overwhelming contributor to our household indirect carbon footprint.
It makes up about 40% of this footprint. Given the importance of this component I have given a
detailed breakdown of food’s contribution to our family footprint in Appendix 1.

Figure 3: Breakdown of my family’s indirect

carbon footprint for 2020

If the food carbon footprint is broken down into broad food groups an interesting picture emerges
(Figure 4). About 85% of our food carbon footprint falls into only three groups: meat/fish; veg/fruit;
and dairy. I’m not sure what a dietician would say about this. Anyway, it is easy to see why a vegan
diet is being promoted as a good way to reduce your carbon footprint!

Figure 4: Broad breakdown of my family’s food

carbon footprint for 2020

11
It is also interesting to breakdown our total (direct + indirect) footprint into broad categories. This
picture is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Our total 2020 carbon footprint shown

in broad categories

Amongst other things, this shows the significant contribution that is made by a short overseas
holiday taken relatively close to home (although the footprint for our holiday in Singapore in 2020 is
significantly greater than that for our holiday in NZ in 2019). It is also interesting to note that apart
from ‘clothes’ and ‘EV (indirect)’ all the categories in the Figure involve products that are, to all
intents and purposes, immediate consumables. Sadly, these days even ‘clothes’ are often little more
than short term consumables. I see our New Nissan Leaf, which we bought in August 2019, as a
long-term product and it can be seen that its indirect footprint makes quite a sizeable contribution
to our total footprint. It is estimated that 10 tonnes of CO2 are generated in the manufacture of a
Leaf. I intend to allocate 1t CO2/yr to our carbon debits for 10 years to pay off this carbon debt.

What Carbon Footprint do I Choose?

After I released last year’s report I entered into an extremely useful debate about the way I allocate
a CO2 value to a product. When computing the carbon footprint of a product or service, should I use
the value of the actual amount of CO2 emitted in providing that product/service, or should I use the
derived value if the carbon in the product/service has already been offset by the provider?

For example, the ACT Government has entered into PPAs (power purchase agreements) with
renewable energy providers to the extent that all the electricity consumed in the ACT can now be
considered to be net carbon neutral. Therefore, can I now ignore any CO2 emissions associated with
consuming grid electricity in the ACT or should I compute our indirect carbon footprint using the
actual CO2 emissions made when our electricity is generated (the actual electricity consumed in the
ACT is primarily delivered by the NSW grid which is heavily coal based)? [Data for the actual carbon
intensity of ACT electricity is published in the Federal Government’s Annual Greenhouse Factors
reports.]

12
After giving this some thought, I am most comfortable with aiming to use the actual emissions, and
not derived emissions, when carrying out my carbon footprinting. It seems to me that using derived
emissions can lead to double counting and all sorts of complications. For example, the ACT claims its
electricity is carbon neutral while at the same time South Australia, where much of the ACT’s carbon
free electricity is generated, is also claiming that its electricity is carbon neutral (apparently based on
renewable electricity where much of the carbon has been allocated to third parties through PPAs). I
don’t think this is necessarily a problem, but I think everyone needs to be extremely careful about
their carbon claims.

I believe my approach is more robust and conservative. In essence our indirect carbon footprint will
only approach zero when the grid, and all other parts of the economy, are actually decarbonised.

13
Chapter 3
Managing Our Carbon Footprint
As indicated earlier, the key aim of our energy transition project is now to have net zero emissions,
computed on an annual basis, from this year going forward. In simple terms I will compute our
direct and indirect carbon footprints at the end of each year to work out our annual ‘carbon debt’.
At the same time, I will compute the carbon footprint of our total solar PV export to give us our
annual ‘carbon credit’ [see discussion below]. If our credit exceeds our debt, I will take no action. If
our debt exceeds our credit, I will buy some form of external carbon credits to provide us with a
balanced annual carbon budget.

Direct Footprint
As discussed earlier, I have regularly reported on our efforts over the past seven years to reduce our
household direct carbon footprint. At the current time we are about 95% fossil fuel free as far as
energy use within our house is concerned. I believe that this is about the practical limit and I am no
longer focussing on this as a key area for action.

By way of contrast, we are not going so well on reducing our use of petrol. Our consumption of
petrol reduced quite significantly in 2020 due to a range of changed circumstances but I don’t think
this reduction will be sustained. I have yet to persuade my wife to give up her petrol car – we need
to make this step if we want to seriously reduce the direct carbon footprint of our household
transport. Compounding this issue is the fact that our son has just turned 18 and is getting into cars.
I imagine that as long as he lives at home I will have to just relax about our petrol use.

Indirect Footprint
Throughout 2020 I kept a look out for ways in which we could reduce our household indirect carbon
footprint. I have reported on our efforts in Chapter 8 of my transition Annual Report for 2020.

While we made some minor adjustments in our diet, in particular we made really significant cuts in
our consumption of dairy milk (replaced with oat; soy; cashew milk), the total quantum of the
reduction was not large. As I’ve noted earlier, I really enjoyed some of the new habits I adopted to
reduce my personal indirect carbon footprint (eg using bidets and greater use of e-ink devices) but I
very much recognise that this alone isn’t going to change the course of global climate change.
Having said that, if enough people around the world simply adopt new climate friendly habits in
their day-to-day lives then things can change for the better.

Working against the minor reductions we achieved in our indirect carbon footprint, last year we
were lucky enough to sneak in a short break in January in Singapore before the COVID-19 barriers
came down. This increased our indirect carbon footprint over our 2019 footprint when we took our
family holiday in New Zealand. Holidays involving air travel have a great influence on the size of
your indirect carbon footprint!

Clearly it is not going to be easy for us to reduce our indirect carbon footprint on a sustained basis.
I guess that ultimately we will be relying on all product manufacturers, service providers, transport
providers, etc de-carbonising their offerings. When shopping if I can identify a low carbon product I
am very inclined to buy that product even if competing, higher carbon, options are cheaper.

14
Carbon Credits
To repeat what I said in last year’s report, this is a grey area. When you move into the world of ‘net’
carbon footprinting you are, by definition, moving into an area where there is some form of trading
between positive and negative footprints. To achieve ‘net zero emissions’ some form of carbon
credit will usually be used to balance a carbon debit. This can be done in a number of ways, but it is
often a contested space which leaves many people feeling that any carbon reductions are ‘notional’
rather than ‘actual’.

I see that there are two broad routes that are open to us to offset our carbon emissions. We can
generate our own offsets by putting carbon free electricity back into the grid or we can buy offsets
from a third party.

Generating our own credits

I am most comfortable with using credits which I can physically generate and monitor myself.
Therefore, I have placed a fair bit of emphasis on maxing out the solar PV on our roof and then
exporting as much of our ‘carbon free’ electricity as possible (while minimising our use of grid
electricity).

As noted elsewhere, we installed an additional 6kW solar PV system on our roof at the end of March
2020. This meant that our exports of solar electricity increased by around 25% in the year. I am of
course expecting a further significant increase in our exports over 2021 given that we will have three
additional months of solar generation (during a quarter with high solar PV production).

This increase in our exports meant that there was an approximate 40% reduction in the amount of
carbon offsets I needed to purchase for our household to reach a ‘net zero emissions’ status
for 2020.

Buying offsets

I noted in last year’s carbon footprint that I was disappointed in the range of carbon offsets that are
available for individuals to buy. Anyway, this year, given that we needed to buy a smaller amount of
offsets I did not go to any great lengths to seek out better offsets. I purchased the offsets from the
same provider that I used in 2020 (the offset certificates are included in Appendix 3).

I am reasonably confident that we will not need to buy carbon offsets for 2021 since we will not be
going on an overseas holiday this year (COVID-19 restrictions); and as noted above, we should see a
significant increase in the amount of our ‘home grown’ solar PV credits. Weighing against those two
factors will be the fact that my now adult, but still at home, son is likely to start running around the
ACT in a petrol car.

Going forward, if we need to buy offsets in the future I envisage that I will invest in a community
solar PV project. I may well do this anyway, as I plan to take my family into carbon positive territory
once we have a good handle on our total carbon footprint.

15
Appendices

16
Appendix 1 Food
For completeness, I have only lightly edited this Appendix from the version I included in my
2019 carbon footprint report.

It can be seen from the information I have provided in Chapter 2 that for my family food dominates
our indirect carbon footprint. I imagine this is the same for most families. In fact for us, after years
of working on our direct carbon footprint, food also dominates our total carbon footprint. Given
this, I had little choice but do a more detailed assessment of the footprint contributions of the all the
different things in our grocery shopping basket. I have shown the outcomes of this work in
Figure A1.

As with my analysis in Chapter 2, I relied on searching the internet to find CO2 emission factors for
each of the food types I needed to cover. It is important to note that there are very diverse values in
the literature for the carbon footprint of any given food type. When selecting my references I tried
to use a consistent approach: ideally Australia based; preferably academic research; and give
preference to the most recent work. In many cases in the end I just picked a value for the carbon
footprint which was somewhere in middle of the range of published values. Therefore, I believe all
of the CO2 values I have computed need to be treated with some caution.
Figure A1: Itemised family food carbon
footprint for 2020

Carbon
Weight Total CO2 e
Description Intensity
(kg/wk) (kg/year)
(kg CO2e/kg)

Meat: beef; lamb; chicken

Beef 1 23 1,000

Lamb/pork/other 0.5 12 300

Chicken 0.5 3.7 200

Fish 0.5 3.4 85

Vegies 3 1 150

Fruit 5 1 250

Dairy: yoghurt; milk; cheese

Milk 5 1.3 100

Cheese 0.5 20 500

Yoghurt 1 1.3 65

17
 Carbon
Weight Total CO2e
Description Intensity
(kg/wk) (kg/year)
(kg CO2e/kg)

Non-dairy: milk; margarine

Almond milk, etc 5 0.6 250

Margarine 0.5 1 25

Juices 3 0.6 90

Breakfast cereals 0.3 1.2 20

Cakes; biscuits; chocolate 1 1.5 75

Eggs 6 eggs 1.5 30

Bread 0.5 1 25

Spreads 0.1 2.9 15

Frozen: veg; ice cream

Veg 1 2 100

Ice cream 0.5 2 50

Tinned/bottled: beans; fruit; etc 4 2 400

TOTAL 3,730

In order to get a better visualisation of the importance of the individual food types shown in the
Table, I have produced the bar graph shown in Figure A2.

The information in the Figure has been categorised into groups to provide the picture shown in
Figure 4.

When computing our food carbon footprint, I only tried to capture the foods which make up our
normal weekly shop. There are of course many other items which we use often in the kitchen but
only need to buy from time to time – eg herbs, spices, sauces, etc.

18
 Carbon Footprint (kg CO2e)
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Beef
Cheese
Tinned/bottled: beans; fruit; etc
Lamb/pork/other
Fruit
Almond milk, etc
Chicken
Vegies
Milk
Frozen veg
Juices
Fish
Cakes; biscuits; chocolate
Yoghurt
Ice cream
Eggs
Bread
Margarine
Breakfast cereals
Spreads

Figure A2: Visualisation of our itemised family

food carbon footprint for 2020

19
Appendix 2 References
In a similar vein to Appendix 1, for completeness and to assist transparency, I have included an
unedited version of this listing of the references I used for deciding upon the carbon intensities I use
throughout this, and last year’s, report.

When trying to ascertain the carbon emission factors I simply Googled for the activity/product
groups listed in Figure 2 and the food types listed in Figure A1. I did not do this in a particularly
rigorous way: I always selected at least three separate sites to ascertain the range of the claimed
emission factors; if the first few sites gave a similar answer I did not go further and I picked what I
thought was a good round number for the average value; if there was no apparent agreement I
opted for the figure that was shown on what I judged to be the most credible site. This process was
crude and involved lots of judgement – the figures in the Tables should therefore be considered to
be purely indicative.

When I was going through this process I noted down values and/or captured the links of particular
sites which I’ve listed below essentially unedited. These may, or may not, have been the sites which
I used to obtain the final emissions factor values which appear in the Tables.

While my Googling appears to be haphazard, I deliberately did not want to get too bogged down in
detailed examination of very diverse papers - I think it is self-evident that very carefully working
through masses of poor and inaccurate data is not likely to give you any more reliable results.
Against that background, I reiterate that the computations for our indirect carbon footprint should
only be treated as indicative.

My informal notes/web site links are listed below, this only represents a small sample of the sites
that I looked at:

Beef 50-60 kgCO2e/kg (at best): https://www.theland.com.au/story/6527876/beef-must-stop-

ignoring-its-large-co2-footprint/

Beef 75 kgCO2e/kg beef (derived from figure in article):

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

Beef massive variation in published figures most common figure about 25 kgCO2e/kg (most of these
studies not Australian). CSIRO similar figure: https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/an11030

Fruit and vegies (US): http://www.circularecology.com/news/wonky-fruit-and-veg-the-carbon-

footprint-of-food#.XlYJMWgzZhE

Food Australia (RMIT): https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2016/november/new-study-

provides-carbon-footprint-league-table-for-food

Australian cheese: https://milkmaidmarian.com/2018/06/07/the-aussie-dairy-carbon-hoofprint/

Milk – major differences in different publications (could be global differences)

Margarine: https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/the-impact-footprint-of-producing-eating-butter-
margarine/

Coffee: https://www.ecowatch.com/coffees-invisible-carbon-footprint-1882175408.html

20
Food miles debate: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving

Eggs: https://www.australianeggs.org.au/dmsdocument/521-environmental-assessment-of-an-egg-
production-supply-chain-using-life-cycle-assessment

Bread: https://blog.csiro.au/how-green-is-your-bread/

Cakes etc detailed study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550918303087

Sandwich: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jan/25/scientists-calculate-carbon-
emissions-of-your-sandwich

Juices: https://stanfordmag.org/contents/getting-the-most-sustainable-squeeze-from-your-oj-
essential-answer

Peanut butter: https://www.farmprogress.com/peanut/peanut-s-environmental-footprint-stretches-

beyond-farm

Frozen veggies: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/6377/7/gottfridsson_l_140304.pdf

Ice cream: https://www.benjerry.com/values/issues-we-care-about/climate-justice/life-cycle-

analysis

Nissan Leaf indirect: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-

climate-change

Latte 340g CO2: https://www.ecowatch.com/coffees-invisible-carbon-footprint-1882175408.html

List of footprints for food: https://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html

Australian study food list: http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-december-

2016/study-provides-carbon-footprint-table-food.html

Family footprint/year: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet

Wooden furniture: https://www.panelsfurnitureasia.com/en/news-archive/un-wooden-furniture-

reduces-more-carbon-emissions-than-other-materials/462

Newspaper: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/nov/04/carbon-
footprint-newspaper

Bicycle: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/mar/15/lifecycle-carbon-
footprint-bike-blog

Books: https://www.csbsju.edu/Documents/CSB%20Sustainability/SHM%20e-
readers%20vs.%20books%20poster(0).pdf

Shoes: http://news.mit.edu/2013/footwear-carbon-footprint-0522

Clothes: https://www.systain.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/Systain_Studie_Carbon_Footprint_English.pdf

Internet shopping: https://ctl.mit.edu/sites/default/files/library/public/Dimitri-Weideli-

Environmental-Analysis-of-US-Online-Shopping_0.pdf

21
Use of internet:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238634031_Carbon_footprint_of_the_Internet

Mobile phone: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/jun/09/carbon-

footprint-mobile-phone

Desktop computers:
https://h22235.www2.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/environment/productdata/Countries/_Multi
Country/productcarbonfootprint_deskto_2017104233915185.pdf

Washing clothes: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-

blog/2010/nov/25/carbon-footprint-load-laundry

Hotel room: https://considerategroup.com/carbon-emissions/

Buses efficiency: https://the-riotact.com/the-efficiency-of-buses/57534

Electrical appliances: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201459c

22
Appendix 3

Carbon Offset Certificates

23
24
25
About the Author
Dave Southgate retired from the Australian Government Public Service in July 2012 after a 31-year
career as an ‘environmental bureaucrat’. After working for 8 years in government environmental
agencies at both the State and Federal levels he joined the Australian Government Transport
Department in late 1989 and stayed there until he retired. Throughout his time in Transport he
specialised in aircraft noise; in the latter years he also became involved in aviation climate change
issues and developed a particular interest in carbon footprinting.

From 2004 to 2012 Dave was the Australian Government representative on the United Nations
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP). He pursued his interest in carbon footprinting while on CAEP and was a member of the
group that oversaw the development of the ICAO Carbon Calculator.

Not long after his retirement Dave began a process aimed at transforming the energy use patterns in
his 100% fossil fuelled house. This project is aimed at his family becoming ‘Fossil Fuel Free’ (in
essence the goal is for his household to no longer directly buy any fossil based fuels, namely grid
electricity, gas or petrol). Dave has written numerous reports and articles about this project. These
can be viewed and/or downloaded from his website.

Dave has a science/engineering background and has degrees from the Universities of Liverpool,
London (Imperial College) and Tasmania.

You can find consolidated information on our household energy transition project at my website:
https://netzeroemissions.net/

26