CO2 Carbon Footprint Gas Heating vs. Heat Pump in New Buildings

other CO2 compensations

Except for renaturation (preferably fast-growing firewood for wood fires in developing countries...) there are not many alternatives left (excluding CO2 injection or similar). Unfortunately, that only helps in the coming decades, but not now. Just think about it. And as much as we already compensate through some certificates (e.g. CO2 certificates purchased from Tesla), the world must already be saved. Oh yes, those are only certificates for non-pollution because of electric cars (but a lot of CO2 during production)... In the end, there is only one sensible option: saving CO2. Blowing it out the chimney at all costs (not to mention the high heating costs) and then hoping for compensations to save the world is perhaps a bit naive...

something good for the environment

P.S. If you or the acquaintances really want to do something good for the environment, then don’t build new, but take a used property. The CO2 footprint of a new building is not really good. +/- 50 tons of CO2 are consumed by construction alone – in relation to the total consumption over the entire usage period, that is already very high.

P.S. If you or your acquaintances really want to do something good for the environment, don’t build new, but rather take a used property. The CO2 footprint of a new building is not really good. The construction alone consumes +/- 50 tons of CO2 - in relation to the total consumption over the entire service life, that is already very high.

I absolutely agree with that, although in our discussion it was not the fact of new construction, but rather the possible gas heating that caused the outrage, and I actually didn’t consider that such a big issue. Then I became interested and according to my calculation above, I am somewhat surprised that the gas heating, in my opinion, doesn’t come off that badly. According to the perception of some, it is pure devil’s stuff.

New buildings will be built anyway, but one could build smaller, etc. sure – granted. By the way, I also wasn’t so aware that traveling/flying has such a large CO2 footprint. Entire families can heat for two years if one person does not fly overseas.

whereby in my opinion that does not completely change the calculation in favor of the heat pump either. D

You want to decide cleverly based on the calculation and make gas look good, so go ahead. Two more points, for us, the gas connection in the new building would have cost €13,000 and about €20 monthly basic fee, electricity is always at the house

You want to decide smartly based on the calculation and are making gas look good in your calculation, so just do it. Two more points, with us the gas connection in the new building would have cost 13 T€ and about 20€ monthly basic fee, electricity is always available at the house

The calculation is broken down completely transparently above - please tell me where it is "made to look good," that is the real question.

The invoice is broken down completely transparently above – please tell me where it is "nicely" calculated, that is the real question.

The "beauty calculation" lies in the fact that price optimality does not reflect resource optimality. If it were really about environmental protection, all "compensation" measures would be taken even if people only installed heat pumps. Instead, there is mere window dressing. Of course, every emission that could be avoided is even then superfluous and therefore harmful, even if compensated. Because the reference is never the current state, but what could have been done better instead. Economic calculations and climate balance are not congruent.