Your country most likely has real green electricity providers, as they purchase or implement the appropriate capacities of green electricity for each customer. The other electricity providers only offer an electricity mix. The share of green electricity is sold more expensive as an eco-tariff to some customers, while the other customers theoretically only receive the shares of gas, coal, etc. http://www.imodeler.info/ro?key=CF8Gsu47BnYHLi5NHUWXKVA

It is always a consideration whether the further use of an older device does not require less energy or water than the production of a new, energy-efficient device. Therefore, the energy requirement along the entire product life cycle (from production to use to disposal) must be considered. Sometimes someone needs a different device and can't afford a new one - then a used device from someone who has bought a new, more economical device, of course, also makes sense. With some devices, the top values are only achieved with large quantities, i.e. washing machines with a lot of capacity. It is to see whether the top values also apply with lower filling quantities, for example for single households.

LED 'light bulbs' are now available for really all lamps, even with pleasantly warm light colors.

Standby power consumption is often reminded and extrapolated. For example, if a TV consumes 5 watts in standby, that is 120 watt hours (Wh) per day, i.e. about one eighth of a kilowatt hour, which costs about 35 cents. So hardly anyone will get up from the sofa for 5 cents a day and press the switch on the TV, or turn off the WLAN router at night, or shut down the computer. Or is it? And how many watt hours could be saved daily in all households? Would this consideration influence your actions?

Modern lamps require little electricity, and yet it is worthwhile not to let them burn unnecessarily, for example when we are not in the room for a long time.

The area that we need to live means the area that is sealed, the building material that is needed, and the space that needs to be heated - and all this against the background of social justice. When more people live in the household, they share rooms such as kitchen, living room or bathroom. In fact, the per capita area is constantly increasing because more older people live alone and longer in large houses and because there are more single households. Not everyone can now rebuild or move out, but those who take these steps can be proud to reduce the living space.

Thermal insulation is extremely important. Investing here means saving energy and costs. The argument that building will then become too expensive must be clearly put into perspective. One way, of course, is to have to insulate smaller living spaces. The other to become generally more efficient when building. Then ecological building materials will also become affordable. Old houses that can no longer be sensibly insulated are perhaps worth so much more as a new building that financing is not a problem. (Note: the figures are for Germany)

Long and hot showers mean water and energy consumption and ultimately high costs. The other effects are even more impressive in the network - or did you know that long showering can be responsible for refugees and the quality of life in Germany? http://www.imodeler.info/ro? key=Ceju1XNHCFZBJc2MpbAOl5Q We simply take a Spartaste when flushing the toilet for granted.

Appliances such as washing machines and dishwashers must specify a value for water consumption when buying new. It is therefore worthwhile to compare water and energy consumption equally and also to research corresponding test reports..

In most living rooms and bedrooms it is too warm in winter - we walk around in a T-shirt instead of putting on thick sweaters and sweaters. The energy-saving potential is considerable. When lowering the temperature, attention must be paid to the indoor climate and the possible risk of mold formation. This depends above all on the humidity.

Food from the region, from the weekly market and from the farm shop have not been transported far (there are of course also exceptions there) and strengthen the local economy. However, there are also inefficient short transport routes when vehicles with little load drive to the points of sale. E-mobility and cargo bikes can help here. Unfortunately, the regional is often also played out against the organic offer: regional, sprayed with pesticides food is not as good as regional organic food, and regional meat is not as good for the environment as the renunciation of meat.

Organic is extremely important for biodiversity. We have the greatest species extinction since the extinction of the dinosaurs and the consequences are greater than those of climate change. Pesticides and mineral fertilizers endanger our future. In addition, soils from organic farming usually store more carbon and thus help against the climate catastrophe. The counter-argument is often that the yields in organic farming are lower than in industrial agriculture and therefore more forests have to be cut down. This is true, for example, with cereals that are not unrestrictedly healthy. But if we eat less meat, waste less food and eat more healthy legumes, we have plenty of additional space available and can feed the entire world organically and even plant a little more forest. Organic is more expensive. But on the one hand, many costs can be saved by less meat and on the other hand, it can be bought and cooked intelligently …. of course, it is also to be questioned whether there must be such a low livelihood at all - environmental policy is also social policy.

Which is better - the organic apple from New Zealand or the sprayed apple from the region? Answer: both wrong. Organic food from the region means less transport and is therefore even better than organic food with wide transport.

Food is wasted from the field to the factories and transport routes to the throw away by us, the restaurants and the supermarkets. This ultimately means that more areas are needed for cultivation and thus forests are cut down and biodiversity is endangered with sprays and fertilizers. We can shop more specifically, throw away goods not only because of the best before date, save food in the household (e.g. freeze bananas or make durable spreads and soups from leftover vegetables yourself), save specifically rescued food (e.g. too small or wrinkled goods) and also donate leftover food in many places, e.g. to the food banks.

There are almost hostile prejudices against electric cars: child labor, coal power, risk of explosion, farmers are expropriated, fear of range, loss of value, etc. It is true: Like every car, electric cars are also a waste of raw materials and energy. But if car, then the electric car is the best solution, because gasoline and diesel perform even worse in all areas. Many studies or Statements by laymen make a mistake: The controversial lithium must not only be counted with its footprint from mining, but this must be reduced by the many times that lithium is recycled again and again in the decades. In addition, what few know: Gasoline contains almost the same amount of electrical energy on 100km for production and transport as it is needed in an electric car for the journey. E-cars would not have to be so expensive and batteries not so big - charging options are more important. Electricity at public charging stations is currently surprisingly expensive, although it would clearly be more important to add the costs of the climate catastrophe and air pollution to the gasoline and diesel price. http://www.imodeler.info/ro? key=Col-EWhyCbIR_KGGP7mXbLw Hydrogen and synthetic fuels in cars are nonsense. There are so-called memes fuelled by individual interests (keyword "Lex Porsche" https://www.cleanthinking.de/lex-porsche-lindner-wissing-e-fuels/), 'ego trolls', which are picked up by 'Troll-Lemmingen', who simply like to be against something and do not want to change. With both fuels, green electricity is first generated and then with loss of efficiency to hydrogen or e-fuel. For e-fuels, carbon is also missing - already today, few airlines that have started with it have a problem buying carbon on the market. Consideo has also gained important insights about hydrogen: https://www.consideo.com/files/consideo/pdfs/papers/eng/ConsideoPaper-BEM-Engl.pdf

We are used to the fact that everything is packed and we don't care much about the packaging. For some foods, the packaging is more expensive in the production than the content. Paying attention to the packaging sends a signal to manufacturers and retailers. Refills are an option as well. For food, there are so-called unpackaged shops or at least the possibility of using deposit containers (own step) or cotton bags brought along for loose vegetables and fruit. In basically all markets, we should have our own bags with us.

Consistently separating waste, including green waste, glass and paper, is not as self-evident as can be assumed. Many make little effort here and don't really know what belongs in which bin. But also special waste, such as batteries, incandescent lamps, electrical appliances, etc. must be disposed of properly.

Saving paper helps to protect forests - recycling paper also ultimately means more demand for fresh pulp from trees. We don't even need to print many things in the first place, but can save them on devices that we already have. Banks and insurance companies offer to carry out the correspondence purely electronically and to save a lot of paper. Of course, there is also a big question as to whether we do not consume books and magazines better digitally. Well, if we already have the devices anyway, downloading and saving are the better alternative for the environment. If we buy extra devices and then hardly use them, the ecological footprint of the devices is greater than that of the saved paper. By the way, the winner is the library/lend library. But books are also a nice experience and if we know what's in them, also a nice decoration for our apartments. Magazines, on the other hand, are not very timeless, and if we need articles later, the online search is easier before.

After unpacked and for drinks after the tap water, the best thing we can do is to buy our food in reusable containers. (By the way, there are also reusable shipping boxes for office supplies as well as some regional delivery services). Also ask whether the containers are transported empty throughout Germany, or whether North German beer flows into the empty bottle of Bavarian beer and vice versa. Next question, what energy does it cost to clean the containers. Composite packaging or cans that are easy to recycle are the better alternative in some studies. In such studies, it is necessary to look closely at what is being compared. Ultimately, it is important to close regional cycles. Next question, whether the containers should be made of glass or plastic - glass is recycled more often, plastic is lighter and means less energy during transport.

This is about living and working in the region, about strengthening the community. The birdhouse from a social workshop or the PV system from the electrician on site (if he has further training).