Footprint Reduction - Why Bother?

"Why bother?" Especially when it comes to a large problem like climate change with long-term effects laced with uncertainty that are difficult to predict or quantify and nearly impossible to internalize as just one human being and the feeling that nothing you do will ever make a measurable difference.

Like one lone dung beetle on an industrial cattle farm...you feel like this shit will never end.

Psychologists argue that humans have a limited "bucket of worry" which we fill up with a set number of things. I may care about the environment in times of money and health, but when economic trouble arise this worry suddenly pushes the environment out of my consciousness. I can't be bothered to care about the environment when I'm short on rent or my stock portfolio is threatened.

The "drop in the bucket" theory adds its depressing weight by saying that humans often don't bother taking action because they see their efforts as simply a "drop in the bucket" (or one dung beetle, if you will) of a problem so large that it makes no difference. The bucket will be fine without my drop so who cares.

I admit I see some value in these lines of thinking. I can see how, evolutionarily, the bucket of worry made sure you stopped caring about your claw necklace when food was low. Or how the drop in the bucket prevented you from spending precious group resources on a useless cause.

I'm not even arguing that the environment should fill your bucket of worry, or that you owe it to the world to be the dung beetle.

What I'm arguing is that these buckets don't even apply to environmental action.

You don't try to reduce your carbon footprint because you are worried about the environment. That would be like trying to clean up the BP oil spill with a kitchen mop. No--what you're worried about it your own personal impact. You're taking ownership of the emissions associated with the services and items you purchase. Just like your understand your spending in dollars you understand it in carbon. Instead of inaction based on the hopeless world-view of a problem, you act because of your own intelligent understanding of impacts tied to what you do.

I like to compare it to world harmony and politeness. In no way do we believe that we can ease our worries about strife and violence in the entire world by doing little things to be polite, like saying "thank you" and giving up our seats for elderly people. But that's not the point.

The point is that we try to own our actions, and the little things we do to be polite are worth it because they improve the immediate bubbles that are our lives. Of course no one's always polite, as you can see from the opening paragraph of this blog, but we can consider ourselves polite people as long as we do what we can.

This is essentially how we go through life. You don't have to believe you're working for world peace when you say "thank you" to your waiter. So how ridiculous is it to say that reducing your personal environmental impact isn't worthwhile just because it's not immediately affecting major global issues?

Honestly...if that's your test of validity, there's no bothering to do ANYTHING. I'm not getting out of bed today, because it's not going to solve problems of laziness in the world. Really now? Come on.

It's absurd that "why bother?" is even a legitimate question. The question I'm asking is "why on earth not?!" Just like minding your manners, managing your finances and generally respecting (reasonable) laws, keeping an eye on your footprint is just part of what you do.

NO ONE is perfect about their manners, money or minding every law [jaywalking..anyone?], but the point is we all try a good, decent amount. And I'd say about 80% of the time, 80% of people are doing a pretty decent job and we consider those people to be acceptable in society.

We don't all have to be heroes, it's just a matter of developing a new common sense. Sometimes you splurge on something expensive or sound like a angry trucker or eat a giant steak, but in general you can still call yourself a decent person who makes the effort. That in and of itself is worth a whole bunch of buckets because it's who you are.

Instead of calculating your impacts so that you can worry and feel like a bad person, I say that calculating your impacts gives you the opportunity to feel like a good person with a chance to make their own life-bubble better and more efficient. Of course large political and economic changes will be needed to solve the vast global environmental problems that we face, but what we each face on a daily basis is much more manageable. Beef or chicken? Car or walk? DVD or concert? "Thanks" or no thanks? That shit we can handle.

What does a low-carbon lifestyle look like?

A Vision for A Low-Carbon Luxury Lifestyle That Boosts the Local Economy

Starving students who calculate their carbon footprint get a nice dose of “smug” from their fantastically low footprints—60% to 70% better than average—but let’s be honest, as soon as we go from starving student to salaried employee, our consumption usually increases right up to that average level. Maybe even higher.

However, we are not only increasingly aware of the environmental consequences of “stuff,” many question the basic assumption that this stuff improves our quality of life in the first place. What if I theoretically decide to use my increased income to buy a giant screen TV? Yes, the giant screen is great for watching TV, but now I watch more and more TV, get less exercise, stay up late watching meaningless shows, feel more tired, so I exercise even less…and honestly now I’m questioning how much that really did for my overall life quality.

What if I had instead spent the $1,000 that the TV cost on going to one GREAT concert every month, and getting a $8/month Hulu Plus™ subscription for the shows I really like. Instead of passive TV-watching, I purposely choose my favorite shows and get the most out what I watch. I’m getting out and DOING fun things--dates or days with friends every few weeks. I’m out and about instead of being a couch potato.

Plus I make a bit of a dent in the unconscious increase in TV watching that might have happened just because the TV was there. For big sports games (or the grammies), I get my pals to go watch it on the big screen at the local bar and make it a fun, social group event (without the cleanup afterwards).

Instead of being the friend with the big TV, I become the friend who generates activities for my group, the center of the social activity hub. The person who gets people to DO fun things together instead of passively consuming together. Not only do I increase my quality of life, I increase the quality of life for all of my whole social circle, too (or my relationship with my significant other).

This also reduces my footprint because the one one-thousanth of the emissions from the concerts I attend are far less than manufacturing and operating a giant screen TV, even counting my Hulu-viewing every night on my relatively efficient laptop. As a general rule, producing services (like concerts or theatrical productions) are far less polluting per person than goods (like TV’s). By focusing on fun events and experiences instead of things, you can have a huge increase on your quality of life without a giant jump in your footprint.

There are lots of similar trade-offs for other goods. Purchasing digital music over physical CD’s has a lower footprint. Digital magazine subscriptions have a samilar benefit (and minimize clutter around the apartment or house). Going to lectures, plays, and other live learning or entertainment events boost quality of life without boosting your impact through the roof.

On the same very appealing vein, getting a professional massage each month generates far less impact than buying a mass-produced massage chair. Plus, you have the added benefit of directly paying someone who works in your local economy, rather than a string of mega-corporations on some international supply chain. This argument also goes for any service where you’re directly paying for the skill or knowledge of another human in your neighborhood being rather than subsidizing international industrial trade that gives a tiny percentage to the people doing the actual work.

Suddenly you have an argument for personal training services, personal cosmetic services (use your extra income to go for ones that use non-toxic products) and a great tutor for that language you keep saying you'll improve.

A great solution for the problem of “fashion meant to go out of fashion” is buying used or consignment and employing the services of a skilled local tailor to having clothing fitted. Not only do you spend far less money, you’re going around in beautifully tailored clothing fit especially to you. Look like a million pounds of carbon while feeling utterly smug about your low-cost, low-impact smarts.

It certainly takes more time, but for many people the satisfaction of knowing that you’re only spending $20 for a gorgeous pair of brand-name slacks and then maybe $30 for tailoring is worth it. And you look fantastic.

Since food is a major impact area, that’s another thing we want to consider. As income goes up, we tend to spend far more on food because we’re eating out more and buying higher-quality stuff. It's definitely possible to do that and maintain or even decrease your carbon footprint from food. With diet, it's less about how much you spend and more about what you spend it on. Namely, beef, dairy and seafood products tend to carry high inefficiencies in pollution produced per serving.

It’s possible to cut your food footprint nearly in half by selecting chicken and plant-based gourmet meals instead of beef. Of course, many people really enjoy eating red meat or seafood, so an idea there is saving you high-impact intake for one or two really high-end steak or seafood dinner places to patronize once a month. You drastically reduce beef consumption, but also drastically increase the utter culinary ecstasy for the times that you do eat beef. Baby back ribs: it’s what’s for dinner…once a month. My most sincere apologies to the vegetarians I piss off. This is a very carbon-centric view of diet.

Other lower-impact options include refurbished electronics, which nowadays through services like CEX (Consumer Electronics Exchange) come with robust warranties and fantastic selection.

If you earn an increase in income, the American dream (i.e. sense of entitlement) says you earned a right to more stuff. Shifting towards personal and professional services, digital goods & events can actually provide a luxurious, awesome lifestyle while minimizing CO2.

Where Are Your Emissions? The Big Picture in the Bay

<-- All the carbon pollution we pay for in the San Francisco Bay Area including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma Counties.

[click on image for larger version]

"Consumption-based emissions" just means that instead of trying to figure out exactly how much emissions are released in the Bay Area, we're counting all the emissions to produce things consumed by all of Bay Areans.

I think consumption-based tracking makes the most sense since we can't control who happens to drive through our territory but we have can (mostly) control our own purchasing and travel behavior

I felt compelled to post this graph after hearing about a California official who was actually quite knowledgeable about consumption based footprints guesstimate that "about 50%" of our consumption footprint was from electricity. As you can see, it's actually about 6% (Res[idential] electricity).

It's no surprise whatsoever, as residential energy efficiency is often the only thing we hear about and represents a billion-dollar industry in California--which is great! Don't get me wrong; it's great to be energy efficient, but it's also great to focus on the category where we can have the most meaningful impact. Around here that's transportation.

Basically, if you don't have a car in California you're pretty much one of the greenest people in the United Sates. Kudos, environmentalist!

I love that people are starting to ask me "What's the one best thing I can do?" and I wish I could pull this chart out of my pocket because then I could show them that reducing gas use by 1/4 is the same as going COMPLETELY off-grid for electricity. Amazing.

Now we have all this buzz and awareness happening around carbon footprint reductions, it's important that our enthusiasm and effort goes in the right direction and that it goes by foot, bike, and bus.

Source: All data is from the excel spreadsheet version of UC Berkeleys' CoolClimate Carbon calculator. See a (somewhat outdated) data page here: coolclimate.berkeley.edu/documentation

Note: "Vehicle mfg" = vehicle manufacturing