There was recently a quiz in the NYT which compared lifestyle changes Americans thought would have a positive effect on climate change versus what actually would.
The results showed an inverse relationship, as well as some confusion between addressing other environmental problems, and greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the NYT, the following, though upvoted, all have a “small effect”:
recycling
lowering the room temperature
energy efficient appliances
buying fewer things
car pooling
these have a “moderate” effect:
heat pumps
eating a vegetarian diet
eating organic food
the “large effect” changes almost exactly paralleled those that Americans thought did not have a large effect, and not coincidentally are debatably the most difficult:
vegan diet (only 6% of Americans guessed this would have a large effect)
avoiding long plane flights
using renewable energy sources
giving up your car
I myself already do all the “small effect” things except carpooling (because I don’t go anywhere). I eat organic whenever possible and am working my way slowly back to a vegetarian diet (would be easy if my husband wasn’t strongly inclined to eat red meat and sausage on a daily basis) I avoid long flights mainly because I avoid all flights, due to a passionate loathing of airplanes. But besides heating with wood (with oil-fueled back up boiler), there’s nothing on the “large” list I’m doing. I am not prepared to go vegan and I cannot give up my car and live rurally, which I require for sanity. It would be great to have a solar-powered car, eh?
What are you all doing, in the light of this simple, not-exhaustive list? Why or why not?
The list is far too small and simple. Also there are a lot of caveats to some of what is listed.
The US is very much a car oriented nation and for far too many people, the current housing and work situations makes giving up a car currently impossible. But increasing efficiency of cars would be a big step for those commuting.
The vegan diet is probably over-stated. It seems to not take into account how far a lot of the food has to travel on very polluting ships. I don’t accept the large effect.
No mention of composting but mulching grass and leaving it should be on the list. Composting food waste has a small effect also.
Insulation, this is a big one that appears to be completely overlooked. A big improvement in just attic insulation can reduce energy use more than adjusting room temperature without sacrificing comfort.
Energy efficient appliances and lighting is more than a small effect. I’m surprised it is rated so low.
I guess you aren’t the only one to argue with the way the list is ranked, judging from the results of the quiz. But firstly, NOT an exhaustive list. It was designed to be a quiz comparing some different activities. Secondly, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time arguing with the NYT methodology, myself. They tend to be overly cautious with their facts, not the reverse.
If you look at what most vegan diets are composed of, you probably wouldn’t make the argument that its virtues are negated by a reliance upon imported foods, because I’m pretty sure that the US grows the majority of its own grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables. In any case the same would apply for any other diet. The point is that animal-derived foods are climate-costly.
I think it also goes without saying – indeed, I actually said it in my OP – that the activities listed that are the most difficult for most people are exactly the ones that have the greatest effect, and are ALSO the ones which most people do not think make a big difference. That’s the point.
recycling - we do this lowering the room temperature - I try to do this, but I admit it’s a great weakness that I want perfect temps at all times energy efficient appliances - we do this buying fewer things - I am currently making an intensive effort to do this through adaptation of a minimalist lifestyle. Currently in the early stages - decluttering and delaying expenditures on non-critical goods. car pooling - don’t do this, probably couldn’t because I don’t have any coworkers in my area
these have a “moderate” effect: heat pumps - willing to seriously consider after I buy a house eating a vegetarian diet - working on it. Flexitarian. eating organic food - don’t really do this. It’s quite expensive.
the “large effect” changes vegan diet (only 6% of Americans guessed this would have a large effect) - I’m not 100% vegan but we cook a lot of vegan meals. Rice, lentils, beans and vegetables are most of what we eat at home. avoiding long plane flights - we don’t fly much using renewable energy sources - I’m not sure how we would do this giving up your car - Not possible. I would prefer to drive an energy efficient vehicle, and did prior to having a child, but I had to get a Mom-mobile (small crossover SUV) for space and maximum road safety. I’m hoping to move to hybrid/electric in the future.
One thing we do with cars that probably does help is we drive them into the ground. We are brand loyal to a brand that typically lasts 20+ years.
Now here’s the thing. The above mentioned changes were not implemented solely to combat the climate crisis. There were secondary and tertiary reasons. In the case of eating vegan, that started because meat is so damned expensive. It was continued because eating that way feels physically fantastic. Which suggests that there needs to be a higher motivation for adapting these things, especially the more difficult things. Reducing vehicles, carpooling etc. might be more attractive if you consider how much money you will save, for example.
How much money you will save isn’t a higher purpose than saving the planet. It’s a lower purpose. But I think you are right, in that saving the very ground we live on simply isn’t much of an incentive for the vast majority. I also very strongly believe that the only real way to incentivize any of this changes is through the government.
Another thought – it is extremely difficult for most people to make a big effort/sacrifice that also looks weird and even contemptible to their neighbors and friends. It’s way way easier to hop on the moving train of everyone else beginning to make those changes.
I agree. I meant higher in terms of motivation. Something that motivates people more than saving the planet. “Saving the planet” is such a vague, long-term concept it is unlikely to engage that many people. Humans are just bad at behavioral change when the result is very far off. Look at how few people save sufficiently for retirement, and that’s a case where the lack of foresight directly impacts them personally. But I agree the more people who jump on the bandwagon, the better. When we normalize electric vehicles, heat pumps, etc it will be easier for others to make those changes. And I do know at least one person planning on getting a heat pump, so these ideas are catching on.
For me I’m really making an effort but it’s difficult as a single consumer to move the needle that much. We recycle, but as I understand it, most of that stuff doesn’t get recycled. I would love to end my dependence on shipping, but I can’t find many things I need in stores - and things have to be shipped to those stores anyways. I would love to drive an EV, but our local electric source is gas powered anyway, so the benefit would be minimal. I use reusable grocery bags, but not even those do much good, they have to be used a ridiculous amount of times to beat out single use plastic bags. It’s just hard to feel like anything I do matters.
Which is why I appeal to multifactor motivation (and systemic change.)
I’m willing to give up some relaxation time and the expectation of non-sore muscles in order to plant more trees. I’ve added over 50 in the past two and half years on our property and more seedlings/saplings are waiting to go in.
Not a perfect solution (none exists) but the results are gratifying.
I’m a lifetime member of a small environmental organization that has worked to clean up waterways and to fight climate change through a variety of programs with the highlight being an annual 2 day music & environmental education festival every year. I’m been part of this since I was 22.
I am also a member of Sierra Club.
I vote Green.
On my last house I was an early adopter of Solar Power being the first in my town of over 15000 to do so. I then added more panels later to pretty much zero out my net usage.
When I was commuting 20,000 friggin miles a year I bought a Prius to reduce my emissions to near 0 and cut my gas usage in half.
I mulch and compost.
With my new house, I found the attic insulation was at best about a 3 r-factor. I went through a Gas Company program and got the R-factor over 46. I saw the energy reduction quite starkly. We also upgraded to a super efficient hot water heater.
All my appliances at energy star and any major users I purchase is near the top end of efficiency.
I retired early and barely drive any more. We run our cars into the ground. Though this is not really all that green in the end. It is more neutral.
We downsized and don’t buy much new stuff.
We recycle and reuse. I also repair a very large number of this that break.
We conserve water.
Lighting: we upgraded to CFLs very early and then to LEDs very early.
I actually have a Kill-a-watt meter to see if appliances and electronics are amperage hogs. The cases where I found stuff, I either leave the items unplugged or upgraded to an efficient replacement.
For the bit of travel I do these days, I try to be efficient and I carpool a lot.
I moved to a walking town where I can do a lot without driving.
I will never go vegan and am strongly opposed to doing so for myself. I also question a lot of facts around veganism and organics.
My personal bug bear. Giving up capitalism and the nation state would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by exactly zero grams.
The global 10% (i.e. pretty much everyone in the developed world, if you earn over 100k you are in the global 1%) needs to actually start changing their lifestyle not just complain about “there’s no ethical consumption in capitalism”.
The atmosphere does not care if the oil that was burnt to increase it’s physical properties was produced by a big bad oil company or an artisanal employee owned cooperative.
I don’t see that there is any evident that ostensibly “non-capitalist” societies are any more sensitive to environmental issues, and indeed, the Soviet Union and even pre-Xaioping Peoples Republic of China were environmental horrorshows. The focus on profits above all is certainly a perverse incentive to ignore “externalities” but I think countries like Sweden and Denmark, which are still very “capitalist” despite being an icon of democratic socialism, have at least made strides toward environmental awareness. Now maybe you are arguing to move away from industrialization because of the inherent damage in industrial-scale systems of production and how they are inevitably out of harmony with the rhythms of nature, but a rapidn move from industrialization is a death knoll for hundreds of millions of people in terms of food production alone.
The abolition of the “nation-state”, even if it were plausible, is not a solution to anything; in the void left by geographically-defined nation states you will end up with corpor-capitalist empires akin to a modern version of the various East India Companies, Compagnie du Congo Belge, and various plantation corporations of the early 20th Century. Wherever there are material and human resources to be profited from, someone will step in and fill that void with control. Human beings are fundamentally tribally-oriented animals and until you can make fundamental changes to the human psyche that will not change.
I think this is an unreasonable expectation, not just from the human nature perspective but also because economies require both producers and consumers, and as much as we might automate the production of good and many services, there are many “touch labor” and creative services that require human input and effort. If the idea is just to not have children at all, what is the practical impetus to care about the future of the planetary ecosphere? Maybe the argument is to have fewer children but that is a natural consequence of industrialization and wealth anyway as children move from being a labor resource to a financial burden, and most industrial societies are facing demographic reduction by the third or fourth generation (the post-WWII “baby boom” aside).
Planting trees is a kind of feel good activity that doesn’t really accomplish much. What is needed to combat climate change and ecological damage is the fostering and protection of whole biomes, especially boreal forests and wetlands that are huge carbon sinks and filters in addition to limiting the emissions of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as well as concentrations of phosphates and other runoff from industrial farming and materials/goods production.
Well, that’s really the point. Individuals can’t really have any material impact upon climate change or other large ecological damage, and mitigation has to be done at a societal level, either by government regulation or “voluntary” action by the industrial performers who are responsible for controlling the outflux of their processes.
I made some choices that limit my options and make me an above average CO2 producer, even for the industrial world. I moved to the US, which makes trans-Atlantic travel the only way of seeing family and friends again and ended up in a place where the infrastructure is not great for limiting emissions (we first lived in Boston where there is decent public transit).
I’ve been back twice in five years, instead of just flying back and forth whenever, which some people do.
I don’t invite friends and family, because I’m uncomfortable with being the cause of their increased emissions.
I’m mostly vegetarian, because it’s blatantly obvious it causes less emissions overall, unless you comparing getting the bulk of your nutrients from the worst vegetarian options and you only eat deer shot in your own back yard.
We have only one car.
I try to reduce hot water usage.
We have a heat pump and heat in part with solar heated water connected to a floor heating system.
That still leaves me with a CO2 footprint that is too large if it were the average for the planet, but it makes me feel I haven’t just given up in the face of overwhelming evidence we as a species are steering straight into the “not all that far from the worst case scenario”…
Veganism-- or vegetarianism, for that matter-- and I say this as someone who has been a vegetarian my whole adult life-- can have a greater or lesser impact depending on how you do it.
Consuming a whole lot of soy “meat” products isn’t especially helpful, because manufacturing them takes a lot of energy; diets high in non-local food also aren’t very helpful. But if you mostly eat beans grown locally, or close to, and the same with grains, or rice, but at least rice bought in very large bulk amounts (speaking to people in the US), then those diets are very, very low energy.
Regarding cars-- I have a car with the highest MPG available at the time I bought it. I lived in an apartment, and didn’t have much of a chance of getting my landlords to put in a charger for an electric car, and gas stations in the area hadn’t put them in yet, so an electric car wasn’t an option.
Driving to work is the only thing that works right now, and when I get big items, I drive to the store, but generally, I do walk or bike places. I don’t go through very many gallons of gas a week-- the tiny car has an 8 gallon tank, and I don’t refill more than twice a month, unless I have an out-of-town trip.
I would happily use an electric car, though, if I thought I could get an outlet installed at my building.
I’m also not having children, but ascribing the emissions of the children to the parents (or the emissions of every descendant for decades, as one infamous, but widely used report did) is nonsense. Society needs there to be a next generation, so those emissions are everyone’s burden.
