Plastic clothing – Pros, cons and how to deal with micro plastic pollution

In the Textile Material Guide(coming soon) I go through the difference between Natural Fibers and Synthetic Fibers as well as a short description of the materials with their properties along with pros, cons and challenges.

This is a more in depth guide on synthetic fibers. Why it’s so popular, what the issues are and how to tackle these issues.

So first, let’s take a quick recap of what synthetic fiber is.

Synthetic fibers are completely artifial, made by humankind which allows the properties of the fabrics much easier to design. It is made from petroleum – fossil fuels. It’s a kind of plastic.

Picture by Caroline Franksjö

WHY IS SYNTHETIC FIBERS SO POPULAR?

Artificial fibers are more durable and because it is completely fabricated by humans, it’s easier to design different properties like water resistance, stain resistance, dyeing in specific colours is easy and you can also make it elastic or wrinkle free.

One of the reasons it is so durable and last longer than natural fibers is because it’s plastic – which most of us now know isn’t biodegradable and takes centuries to break down.

It has become very popular amongst retailers and customers alike, for the fact that the petroleum and the process of making the fibers and textiles is very cheap compared to natural fibers.

WHY IS SYNTHETIC FIBERS BAD?

First of all, it’s made from fossil fuels. And since we’re in the midst of a climate emergency, we need to keep it in the ground.

But let’s look at some other negatives about synthetic fibers.

  • It’s very heat sensitive and can be damaged, melt or burn
  • It’s not good for the skin, many people getting allergic reactions to it
  • A lot of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals are used during the production and can cause health problems for those working with it and there’s also a risk of it being leaked into nature and water streams
  • It can get very uncomfortable and can make you both sweaty and freeze as the material doesn’t breathe or catch air pockets like cotton
  • Since it doesn’t breathe, you sweat more easily and the smell stays in the fabric and can’t be aired out like natural fibers, which leads to you having to wash it more often
  • They are one of the main sources to micro plastic pollution in our oceans and water systems. Which leads us to the next part of this post. How to minimise the release of micro fibers

HOW TO WASH SYNTHETIC CLOTHES WITHOUT RELEASING MICRO PLASTIC FIBERS

While this might not be 100% effective, it sure does make a big difference. Especially if a lot of people start applying these tips to their laundry routine.

  1. Use liquid laundry soap as the powdered version “rubs” against the fabrics which releases more micro fibers.
  2. Put a new filter on your washing machine, that is made to catch micro fibers and throw the lint in the trash and do not wash it down the drain.
  3. Put your synthetic fibered clothes in a bag that catches some of the micro fibers. Guppy Friend is one brand that had those.
  4. Cora Ball is a rubber ball that catched some of the plastic fibers so you can put that in the wash with your clothes.
  5. Fabric conditioner increases the release of microplastic fibers. It’s not even necessary and breaks down the elasticity of the fabrics as well as often containing toxic chemicals. Skip the conditioner or use some vinegar instead. You will get used to not having your textiles smelling strongly from chemical fragrance. Your skin will also thank you.
  6. Wash less often. If you get a stain, treat the stain only and don’t wash the whole garment.
  7. Wait until you have a full load to laundry before you wash, as it minimise the friction and thus release less fibers.
  8. Wash in colder water. While it’s also good to not use the warmer settings to save energy, it’s also better for synthetic clothes as the heat can damage the fabric which then release more fibers.
  9. Share this information with everyone you know. The more people aware of the issue and who implements these tips, the less microplastics in our water systems.
  10. Reduce the rotation speed. The faster the spin cycle, the more friction and the more fibers released.

NAMES OF SYNTHETIC FIBERS

  • Acrylic
  • Aramid
    • Twaron
    • Kevlar
    • Technora
    • Nomex
  • Microfiber
  • Modacrylic
  • Nylon
  • Olefin
  • Polyester
  • Polyethylene
    • Dyneema
    • Spectra
  • Spandex
  • Vectran
  • Vinylon
  • Vinyon
  • Zylon

RECYCLED PLASTIC CLOTHING

There are more and more brands making clothing out of recycled plastic, such as PET bottels or ghost fishing nets.

But even this has positives and negatives.

Recycled polyester still realeases micro plastics which is very harmful not just for the marine life but for humans, too. If you watched the little video above in this post, you’ll know why.

There are even incidents of brands marketing with having their products being made from PET bottles, forgetting to mention that those were new and unused bottles. A clear case of Green Washing.

But I do have to say some companies are using this as an opportunity to clean the oceans from it’s plastic waste and making products with it, funding the cleanup and making more people move away from buying newly produced synthetic fiber clothing.

One of the companies rescuing plastic waste, making it into clothing or products is Econyl.

Did you know that about 50% of all plastic in the ocean comes from the fishing industry? So the best way to stop the plastic waste in our oceans is to not eat fish.

Picture by Caroline Franksjö

This post was written by our blogger Evelina Utterdahl. You can read more about her here

Sources:

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Slow Fashion Polyester – allt du vill veta och lite till

Textile Fashion Study

Science Direct

What is Fast Fashion

fast fashion environment climate change

Have you ever heard the term Fast Fashion or Slow Fashion?

Do you know what it means?

Not everyone might be aware of what Fast Fashion is, or on what scale it is destroying the planet with its pollution and massive use of new resources. So let’s take it step-by-step.

This is the first of a series of blog posts here about Fast Fashion and how to move away from it towards more sustainable and ethical options.

In this post I will go through what Fast Fashion is and how bad it is

Then I will make posts where I dig deeper into the different alternatives as well as bringing up some of the challenges of Slow Fashion.

So let us begin.

What is Fast Fashion?

Fast Fashion is a term used to describe how low cost brands quickly produce clothes inspired by new trends and put them in stores for customers to access for a low cost.

To keep customers coming back and spending more money, there are two main factors.

  1. They create new products and trends every week now compared to the 2 seasons SS/AW that used to be the standard.
  2. The quality of the clothes are often very low quality, making them break or look bad after a few washes. Since the prices are so low, it is also cheaper to buy new clothes than to fix the low quality ones you already have. Which is why Fast Fashion is also sometimes referred to as ‘Disposable Fashion’.

So another aspect of Fast Fashion is that the clothes not only moves fast from runway to the possession of consumers, but also to landfill.

Photo by: Caroline Franksjö

Why is Fast Fashion bad for the environment?

The environmental impact, as with all things produced starts at the source of the resources and materials to the afterlife when the piece is going to landfill.

From growing cotton that needs an immense amount of water and the pesticides used to keep bugs away from the plants, to the harmful chemicals needed to turn bamboo into fabric, to the poisonous dyeing techniques to the millions of barrels of oil that are used to make polyester each year as well as releasing microplastics into the water when washed.

“The apparel industry accounts for 10 percent of global carbon emissions and remains the second largest industrial polluter, second only to oil. Fast fashion items are often worn less than 5 times, kept for roughly 35 days, and produce over 400 percent more carbon emissions per item per year than garments worn 50 times and kept for a full year.”

Some fast facts:

  • A pair of jeans produces as much greenhouse gases as driving a car aprox. 130km.
  • It takes 2,700 liters of water to make one cotton shirt, enough to meet the average person’s drinking needs for two-and-a-half years.
  • Textiles account for 34,8% of global microplastic pollution.
  • A garment is worn just 4 times on average.
  • 20% of global industrial water pollution comes from the treating and dyeing of textiles.
  • It’s estimated that we make 400 billion mᒾ of textiles annually. 60 billion mᒾ is cutting room floor waste.                       
  • Less than 1% of collected clothing is truly recycled into fresh textiles.
  • Clothing consumption produces 1,5 tonnes CO₂ x household x year.

Ethical aspect of fast fashion

There are 75 million people working to make our clothes, 80% of them are women between the ages of 18 and 35.

The majority of these people live in poverty, being paid less than a living wage while also often exposed to verbal and physical abuse and working in unsafe conditions.

In Bangladesh which is one of the most common places for garment factories for Fast Fashion brands, a living wage is around $340/month but the average clothes maker makes only $68 per month. A fifth of an income needed to provide a decent standard of living and for a full-time worker to have enough money to live above the federal poverty level.

Not to be confused with minimum wage. This setup often puts the workers in a poverty trap from which is basically impossible to get out of.

And let us not forget the health risks for those working in the fields with toxic pesticides or with carcinogenic dyes or treatments like for example chromium which can cause lung cancer, stomach ulcers and anaemia.

The lands around the factories also get poisoned and those who are affected by that are often those who work there. The Daily Mail revealed tanneries in Dhaka dumping 22,000 litres of toxic waste into the Buriganga – every day.

Deaths in the fast fashion industry is unfortunately not a rare occasion.

Rana Plaza Collapse

On 24 April 2013, the garment factory Rana Plaza building in Dhaka, Bangladesh collapsed. 1,138 people died and another 2,500 were injured, making it the fourth largest industrial disaster and the deadliest garment-factory incident in history.

There were 5 garment factories in the building all manufacturing clothing for 31 big global brands.

The majority of these multibillion dollar companies were extremely resilient to together donate a total of $30 million for the victim’s families. An amount that took 2 years to reach. Comparing that to the €300 million pledge for the rebuilding of Notre Dame by two fashion billionaires within a day of the fire makes one ashamed of humanity.

Some of the clothings brands that are still to have donated any money to the ones who suffered from the disaster are Carrefour(French), NKD(German), J.C. Penny(American) and PWT(Danish).

Source: rijans Flickr CC

So how do we stop this?

First of all, we stop funding the companies doing this. We need to stop buying products by the brands responsible for this inhumane model of business.

I know this might seem bleak and seem hopeless, but there are more than plenty option to how we can solve this.

Some of the topics I will dig deeper into in this series is:

  • Second hand
  • Renting
  • Mending and repairing
  • Upcycling
  • Materials
  • Accessibility

This and much more to come the following weeks.

If you want to learn more while you wait for the next posts, I recommend you to watch the eye-opening documentary The True Cost. It’s available on Netflix or to download on their website TrueCostMovie.com

Photo by: Caroline Franksjö

This post was written by our blogger Evelina Utterdahl. You can read more about her here

sources:

Investopedia

Documentary film The True Cost by Andrew Morgan

Fashion Revolution

Podcast “Slow Fashion” by Johanna Nilsson

World Resources Institute

Rana Plaza Agreement

The Daily Mail

Supporting Efficient Cookstoves in Rwanda

Gold Standard

We have now offset another 20,000 ton CO2eq in a Gold Standard certified project!

By distributing cookstove technology to communities in Rwanda, this project benefits the environment by significantly reducing CO2 intense fuel consumption. Health conditions inside homes are improved due to the presence of less indoor smoke, and families can spend less time collecting wood fuel and more time with their families.

Biomass, principally firewood and charcoal, holds huge importance in Rwanda, accounting for a significant proportion of energy consumption. Biomass is often the predominant source of energy for cooking and water boiling, especially in rural areas. Cooking is generally carried out on thermally inefficient traditional devices and produces large amounts of smoke and indoor air pollution.

The replacement fuel-efficient stove will lead to a significant reduction in the annual usage of biomass for users. The improved stove has been designed to balance efficiency, safety, cost, stability and strength with a focus on using locally available materials.

By reducing the consumption of non-renewable wood and providing cookstoves with fuel savings, this project reduces the amount of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. A decrease of deforestation has a positive impact on biodiversity. Households save money by having less fuel requirements for cooking the same amount of food and health is improved through the reduction of indoor air pollutants from cleaner cookstoves. The project also generates employment and income for people via the distribution and maintenance of the stoves, as well as training and employing community education staff.

More information about this project in the Gold Standard registry (including verification and monitoring reports): https://registry.goldstandard.org/projects/details/155

Invoice: invoice Go Climate Neutral

Certificate: coming soon

Klimatberäkningar för företag

Vi har precis släppt vårt verktyg för klimatberäkningar för tjänsteföretag. Gå gärna in och testa!

Om du är intresserad av hur beräkningarna går till så kan du läsa vår metodbeskrivning här: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZavmI-e-JSyFvRuUiKJcxvdjw2MEStZYlYXgUfm3TXY/edit?usp=sharing

Beräkningarna är kompatibla med GHG-protokollet för många mindre tjänsteföretag. Vårt mål har dock inte varit att göra en fullständig scope 3-analys av mer komplexa företag, utan istället göra något som är enkelt för många mindre bolag att göra för att få koll på sina klimatutsläpp.

Du kan även se våra andra klimat-tjänster för företag här.

The Carbon Footprint of Servers

We have done some research about the carbon footprint of running cloud, data center and on-premise servers.

Our goal has been to find a way to estimate the carbon footprint from the servers we need to calculate emissions for in our business carbon footprint calculator. We wanted to find a good approximation of the emissions without forcing the business to enter everything about the server-model and kWh-consumption they use in our calculator.

This is an attempt to summarize our findings.

We quickly realized that just requiring the number of servers running is a too rough measurement, often resulting in estimations 5-10x lower or higher then a precise calculation. So we needed to require more parameters from our business users to not be too off in our approximation.

After some experimenting and reading we found that there are two factors that both are fairly easy to find out and also make a big impact on the carbon footprint of servers, if the electricity used is green or not and if the servers are in the cloud or not.

Therefor we divide our calculations of the carbon footprint for servers into four categories. More categories could easily be constructed to achieve more precise estimations, but as stated earlier, our goal was also to make this an as easy as possible thing to find out for the business calculating the footprints.

The four categories we ended up with are:

  1. Cloud server using 100% green electricity
  2. Cloud server using non-green electricity
  3. On premise or data center-server using 100% green electricity
  4. On premise or data center-server using non-green electricity

To find out which category to use, you need to know if the electricity your servers are using is 100% green (or if the electricity not green is being offset in a credible way) and if your servers can be considered running in a cloud.


How do I know if the electricity our servers are using is 100% green?

With green electricity we mean fossil free electricity, so both renewable energy sources and nuclear energy are considered green – and are in our calculations considered having a zero climate impact. This is not 100% true since both renewable sources and nuclear sources have a carbon footprint from construction and maintenance, but the climate impact are negligible in comparison with electricity from fossil sources.

Depending on where your servers are located, there are different ways of finding out if the electricity your servers use is green:

  • On premise-server – check your electricity contract or contact your electricity-provider
  • Data center-server – check your contract or contact your provider
  • Cloud server – this is a bit more tricky. But if you want the short answer per provider:
    • Google Cloud – 100% green
    • Microsoft Azure – 100% green
    • Amazon AWS – Non green electricity for all locations except US West (Oregon), Europe (Frankfurt), Europe (Ireland), GovCloud (US-West), Canada (Central). More locations might appear in the future here: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/sustainability/
    • Oracle – Non-green except for in the UK
    • IBM – Non-green
    • Alibaba – Non-green

Source and more thorough examination of the cloud providers can be found here: The State of Data Center Energy Use in 2018

How do I know if my servers are in the cloud?

This might sound like an easy question, but there are many local providers that have smaller cloud-like solutions that might be as energy effective and utilize servers as good as the larger ones.

So the question you should ask yourself here – if you are unsure if your servers can be considered being in the cloud or not – is if your provider can utilize servers about as effective as the larger providers and if they can have the same energy efficiency as the larger ones.

The difference between the carbon footprint of servers running in large cloud providers and not can be big. According to the studies we have found on this:

We have decided to apply a simple factor of 0.5 for the energy consumption and server utilization of servers in the cloud. Amazon AWS claims a reduction of 84% in the amount of power required, but since we don’t have data for other providers we are rather a bit more conservative here.

The energy consumption from manufacturing and use

In our carbon footprint business calculator we have chosen to use data from a standard 2019 R640 Dell server. This is deemed as a high end but not unusual server being bought 2019. An exact server model would give more precise data here, but we decided that it was not reasonable to expect people using our business calculator to know the exact name of the servers if the have been bought by the business, and in the cloud it’s close to impossible to know exactly what hardware model your server is run on anyway.

The data sheet for the server we chose can be found here: https://i.dell.com/sites/csdocuments/CorpComm_Docs/en/carbon-footprint-poweredge-r640.pdf

The server is consuming 1760.3 kWh / year and has a manufacturing climate impact of 320 kg CO2e/year assuming a four-year life span.

If you are doing a calculation of your own and you know exactly what kind of server you or your provider uses, you should use those numbers instead.

The Four Carbon Footprint categories

We have used a Nordisk Residualmix as the factor for CO2e emissions per kWh. The factor is 0,329 CO2e / kWh. The reason for us using this is that most business using our calculator are expected to be in the Nordics.

So if we use these number and assumptions from above:

  • Emissions from production of servers for use on premise: 320 kg CO2e/year
  • Emissions from production of servers for use in cloud (since 50% is manufactured for use in cloud): 160 kg CO2e/year
  • Emissions from green power consumption: 0 kg CO2e/year
  • Emissions from non-green consumption for premise power or self managed servers : 1760.3 kWh / year * 0,329 CO2e / kWh = 579 kg CO2e
  • From non-green cloud power consumption : 1760.3 kWh / year * 0,329 CO2e / kWh * 0,5 = 290 kg CO2e

This results in these factors four our four categories:

  1. Cloud server using 100% green electricity: 160 kg CO2e / year and server
  2. Cloud server using non-green electricity: 450 kg CO2e / year and server
  3. On premise or data center-server using 100% green electricity: 320 kg CO2e / year and server
  4. On premise or data center-server using non-green electricity: 899 kg CO2e / year and server

Please comment to this post if you have any questions or comments!

If you want help with doing a GHG-emissions calculation for your business, feel free to use our carbon footprint business calculator or contact us at [email protected] And if you want to start living a climate neutral life, join us today!

This is how we manage the 1.5 degree target!

What do we have to do to manage the 1.5 degree target and avoid the worst consequences of climate change?

Managing the 1.5 degree target is challenging to say the least, but still reachable if we start doing things differently today from yesterday. According to calculations that we have done based on a few studies, in practice, all of us will have to keep a yearly “carbon dioxide budget” and emit maximally 5 tonnes greenhouse gases by the year 2020 (excluding public consumption). Currently, the average Swede emits nearly 9 tonnes greenhouse gases per year (excluding public consumption). The global average is 6 tonnes greenhouse gases every year.

What is possible to do within a carbon dioxide budget of 5 tonnes?

To create an understanding of what can be included within a carbon dioxide budget of maximally 5 tonnes, here are some general estimates of the emissions of a few activities:

  • Driving 10 000 km with a petrol-powered car corresponds to approx. 1 tonne CO2eq emissions.
  • Eating non-processed vegan food corresponds to approx. 0.5 tonne and above CO2eq emissions.
  • Eating a diet based on a lot of red meat and dairy products corresponds to approx. 2.5 tonnes CO2eq emissions.
  • Living in an apartment – electricity, heating and hot water corresponds to approx. 1,5 tonnes CO2eq emissions/apartment (based on Swedish averages with low carbon intensity electricity).
  • Living in a house – electricity, heating and hot water equals approx. 2,7 tonnes CO2eq emissions/house (based on Swedish averages with low carbon intensity electricity)
  • A 5-hour’ flight corresponds to 1 tonne CO2eq (including high altitude emissions). This means that traveling to and from Frankfurt-New York emits approx. 3 tonnes CO2eq. Traveling to and from London-Mexico corresponds to approx. 4 tonnes CO2eq.

If I offset all my CO2eq emissions – can I emit more than 5 tonnes then?

No. Sorry, but it is not that easy. We have been letting out huge amounts of carbon dioxide for so many years now that we are in a hurry, and we have to do everything that we can to even have a shot at managing the 1.5 degree target. A dream scenario would be if we could reduce our emissions to a maximum of 5 tonnes CO2eq by 2020 and at the same time offset all the emissions that we currently cannot prevent (such as public consumption, to give an example).

So, from where did we get “a maximum of 5 tonnes”?

To begin with, we looked at the study 1.5 degree lifestyles (2018). According to this study, globally, in the year 2030, we will be able to emit maximally 2.5 tonnes CO2eq/person to have a chance of managing the decisive 1.5 degree target. In 2040, we will be able to emit maximally 1.4 tonnes CO2eq/person, and in 2050 – a maximum of only 0.7 tonnes CO2eq/person.

Thereafter, we used the theory of the “Carbon Law” from A roadmap for rapid decarbonisation (Rockström et al, 2017). According to the Carbon Law, we must halve our CO2eq emissions every decade to have a 75% chance at keeping the global temperature below 2 degrees Celcius.

We then combined the results from the two studies, starting with the amount of maximally 2.5 tonnes CO2eq emissions in the year 2030 according to 1.5 degree lifestyles, and doubling this amount according to the Carbon Law to reach the number of a maximum of 5 tonnes CO2eq emissions by 2020. This amount excludes public consumption, however, does not include the justice aspect. Used in for example the Paris Agreement, the justice aspect states that poorer countries should be allowed a longer time to adjust their CO2eq emissions than richer countries. For this reason, we use the wording a maximum of 5 tonnes CO2eq.

So, based on these studies, we would have a pathway to managing the 1.5 degree target if we as soon as possible reduced our CO2eq emission levels to below 5 tonnes and at the same time offset all the emissions that we currently cannot prevent. This way, we would give poorer people in the world a greater chance to better life standards and have a bigger chance at stopping climate change.

1) The numbers from the 1.5 degree lifestyles report do not take into consideration the possibilities that negative emission techniques (NETs) could provide. However, the calculations for the Carbon Law presume NETs to manage the target and keep the global temperature below 2 degrees.

2) Our calculated maximum of 5 tonnes CO2eq emissions per person by 2020 also corresponds with WWF’s goal of 7 tonnes CO2eq emissions per person by 2020 (5 tonnes of CO2eq excluding public consumption).

References

https://www.aalto.fi/department-of-design/15-degrees-lifestyles
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2017-03-23-curbing-emissions-with-a-new-carbon-law.html 
https://www.klimatkalkylatorn.se/downloads/Metoddokument.pdf
https://klimatkontot.se/


More than 500 shared their thoughts on climate offsetting and GoClimateNeutral

GoClimateNeutral’s first customer survey was conducted in March 2019 and answered by more than 500 people who use the service on a regular basis. With so many positive responses, we feel super happy to have been able to create a service that enables both individuals and companies to climate offset their carbon footprint and contribute to stopping climate change together.



Climate offsetting through GoClimateNeutral was described as easy (enkelt), good (bra) and reliable (seriöst). It should not be difficult to work for a better world.

What’s your attitude towards your individual carbon footprint?

Almost 90% of the English survey’s respondents who climate offset through GoClimateNeutral are actively trying to lower their carbon footprints. A bit over 5% of the respondents do not actively try to reduce their carbon footprints and around 4% wants to reduce but do not know how – this is something we are working on to get better at!

How did you find out about GoClimateNeutral?

Nearly 30% of the respondents that carbon offset through GoClimateNeutral have come in contact with us through recommendations. To reach even more people and better save the climate, we truly hope that you will continue to discuss and share all possible climate actions with your friends and familiy!

Find more results from the English survey here and the Swedish survey here!

UK Parliament unanimously passed the motion to declare environment and climate emergency

Extinction Rebellion Brussels by Nour Livia

Mayday May Day

The first of May is a day of importance every year, by celebrating labourers and the working class. But on the first of May 2019 this day made history with a massive step forward in the fight against Climate Change, as the UK Parliament declared Environment and Climate Emergency.

The votes were unanimous and this is hopefully just the first of many nations to take the same step in declaring a state of emergency. And while this is a thing to celebrate, we must not let our fists down and think this will change anything. We must put pressure on the politicians to make necessary changes. Words have no meaning without action.


But let’s back up a little.

What does it even mean to “declare a state of emergency” for a nation?

A government can declare a state of emergency during a disaster or warfare and gives the government power to take actions that they normally wouldn’t be authorized to.

When a nation declares emergency it also sends a clear signal to the citizens that there indeed is an emergency, and that changes most likely will be made to deal with said emergency.

Nowadays, a lot of legislations and changes takes a very long time to pass.

A state of emergency gives the government freedom to make important decisions faster.

Because no matter how bleak it sounds, we are indeed in the midst of an enormous crisis. The biggest crisis and challenge since the history of mankind. And we need to act fast. The people with the power to make big changes need to be able to act now. Because we are running out of time.

What now?

As mentioned before, without action this declaration means very little. Hopefully it will lead to more nations taking after the U.K. and vote to declare Climate and Ecological Emergency as well.

Extinction Rebellion and other environmental movements and activists need to keep fighting. Keep spreading the pressure on people in power, and gaining more support from the people.

Because even though it’s the people in power who can make the large changes, they won’t do it unless there’s enough pressure from the people.

And we, the people must act now.

Illustration by Ingram Pinn in Financial Times

This post is written by our blogger Evelina Utterdahl. You can read more about her here

500 personer delade sina tankar om klimatkompensering och GoClimateNeutral

Vår första användarundersökning genomfördes i mars 2019 och besvarades av nästintill 500 personer som använder vår tjänst idag. Med överhängande positiv respons är vi otroligt glada över att på relativt kort tid kunnat ta fram en tjänst som hjälper både privatpersoner och företag att klimatkompensera och tillsammans rädda klimatet.

Ta del av undersökningen i sin helhet här!

Enkelt, bra, seriöst, trovärdigt projekt är några av anledningarna till att många väljer att klimatkompensera via oss.

Klimatkompensation genom GoClimateNeutral beskrivs som enkelt, bra och seriöst. Det ska inte vara svårt att bidra till en bättre värld.

Över 85% av undersökningens svarspersoner som klimatkompenserar genom GoClimateNeutral jobbar aktivt med att sänka sitt klimatavtryck. Knappt 5% jobbar inte aktivt med att minska sitt avtryck och lite drygt 5% av svarspersonerna vet inte hur de kan sänka sitt avtryck – och detta vill vi bättre kunna hjälpa till med!

Sist men inte minst, då över 20% av de tillfrågade som klimatkompenserar genom GoClimateNeutral har kommit i kontakt med oss genom rekommendation, hoppas vi att ni fortsätter att diskutera och dela allt som vi tillsammans kan göra för att rädda klimatet med era vänner och bekanta.

Flight Emissions API

To combat climate change, easy access to data about our emissions are necessary. One of the largest sources of emissions for many individuals is the emissions from flying.

The GoClimateNeutral Flight Emissions API calculates an approximation of the amount of CO₂-equivalents a flight emits per person.

We wanted to build the GoClimateNeutral.org Flight Emissions API to educate people searching for flights what the environmental impact is per person, and thereby enabling people to choose less environmentally damaging flights or ways of travel.

Read more about our Flight Emissions API here.

Read more about how our flight CO2 emission calculations are made here.

Contact us and tell us more about your use case if you want an API-key.