I did donate to TeamTrees when it was doing the rounds on YouTube but I have ignored TeamSeas completely as pointless. I will continue to ignore future attempts to extract money from me to save the environment too, except in the case of rare natural disasters that need an acute response.
We all have probably seen campaigns urging us to do this and that to reduce our carbon footprint. Go Vegan. Meatless Mondays. Walk instead of driving. Plant a tree. Etc.
Well, I have been using public transport for most of my life until I was 30 years old but it was driving a car that has allowed me to cut my personal carbon footprint significantly. Why? How? And why it does not matter in the Grand Scheme of Things?
Driving a car has allowed me to get a significantly better-paid job in a destination where public transport just did not go at times that would allow me to have reasonable working times, even with a very lax and flexible working schedule. And while initially using fossil fuels for driving did of course increase my personal carbon footprint temporarily (and minusculy), the extra money that I have earned has allowed me to do things that I would never ever be able to do on my previous pay. I was able to replace old leaky windows in my house. I was able to insulate and renovate the facade and the roof. I was able to overhaul the central heating system. In a few years, the biggest contributor to our carbon footprint – burning coal for winter heating – was reduced to less than one-third. From burning through 10 metric tonnes of coal and being cold all the time we went down to 3 tonnes and having constant-ish temperature throughout the day whilst more than handily offsetting the 100 700 l of gasoline that I have burned on commute per year.
I did not stop there and I made another overhaul to my central heating, converting it to a high-efficiency wood-burning stove. Wood is not always a renewable resource, but I do grow 5-10% of it in a truly renewable fashion on my own land and it would be much more by now if it were not for the blasted water voles who keep destroying my trees planted in the coppice. My health does not allow me to go vegan and my finances are no longer so good that I could put solar panels on my roof, but I do not think that it matters anymore (for the environment) for the same reason that none of my personal actions so far mattered.
I was able to significantly reduce my personal carbon footprint because I have in many aspects fairly privileged life. I own a house with a huge garden, in the country, where I am free to use the land as I please (within reasonable limits). A person living in an apartment in a big city, or even a person owning a house in the suburbs, does not have the same range of choices that I had, or even might not have any choice at all. Thus most people here are stuck with heating their homes with fossil fuels and using electricity from the grid that mostly relies on fossil fuels. Meatless Mondays, planting dozens of trees, or even going full vegan and cycling everywhere will do diddly squat to their carbon footprint, as will literally any other thing they personally can do within the limits given to them by their life circumstances. Not to mention that it is possible to grow meat in a carbon-neutral (and in some places for a limited time even carbon-negative) way.
I view the calls for personal action as a distraction and I am cynical enough that I would not be surprised if at least some of these campaigns were covertly financed by fossil fuels interests. Trying to convince a large number of people to significantly change their lives on their own does not work, because many simply cannot do it no matter how right or righteous the cause is. Trying to convince everyone to go vegan is an exercise in futility, but it might help to associate people advocating for green policies with fringe, unreasonable ideas. A red herring, throwing the public of the scent and putting the guilt on people instead of the corporations and moneyed interests.
However, that does not mean that nobody should take any personal steps to reduce their carbon footprint. Everyone should still do that. If going vegan works for you, go for it. If you can cycle to work, great. I won’t dissuade anyone from doing what little they can to help.
But public campaigns must focus on the only thing that matters in the Grand Scheme of Things – changing policies in a way that makes the polluting of our planet, including CO2 emissions, unprofitable. Without that, nothing you or I do will do diddly.
How intelligent, realistic and true. Expect hostility.
It was actually the fossil fuel industry that invented the personal “carbon footprint” so that people’s attention would be drawn toward the small personal things we can do that make very little difference. By all means use a bamboo handled toothbrush and have another kid, and keep flying to Portugal for vacation!
I’m down from many flights/yr to less than 1, which is a huge personal difference but the airlines are still flying and the Biden admin is still handing out drilling leases. How to convert the small actions to the significant ones? Politicians are in the way.
@sonofrojblake, I do hope this blog is not frequented by the kind of people who respond with hostility to this. Someone might respond with a convincing counterargument.
@Marcus Ranum, I did not know that the “carbon footprint” was invented by the fossil fuel industry (BP specifically), now I do. My cynicism is vindicated.
_______________
Corrected a typo in the amount of petrol used annually on commute.
Currently, due to Omicron, people are traveling way less. Some because of quarantine restrictions, some because they aren’t fucking idiots. That should be good for the climate, right?
But right now, plane companies are flying thousands of empty planes every day so they won’t lose their much coveted landing permits. The only thing that will change this is a massive crash in the industry, but in that case the national governments will just rescue the plane companies.
I share Charley’s cynicism. And I absolutely hate how it’s being turned into a personal problem. Take transportation. For decades our towns and cities have been built around cars. Public transport has been cut, no decent cycling roads.
But what is praised as the “solution”? Making driving an expensive pita. Only the people with the 100k SUV will hardly care, it will not magically conjure alternative methods of transport into existence and it will not restructure our communities. It will especially not shorten my commute or establish a wormhole between the two places my school is located at.
And even for the c people who can switch to public transport or such, the additional time and loss of comfort is all supposed to be “paid” by employees, never employers.
@Gilliel:
But what is praised as the “solution”? Making driving an expensive pita.
All of the taxation proposals are simply a way that the wealthy (who are the problem) can pay a little more of temhe money they already have, to keep doing what they want to do. It’s a scam. The thing that would work is non-transferrable carbon rationing: you get 300gal of petrol or one airplane ride/yr use it wisely. If you sell it, it’s confiscated and the buyer loses their ration permanently.
As Vijay Ghosh pointed out, if we were serious about carbon reduction, the developed world would close a coal-fired plant everytime India or some country in the developing world opened one. But in fact the whole carbon saving routine is carefully constructed so as to be easy to get around.
And that’s not counting the US which decided that its military doesn’t count “why?” You may ask? Because fuck you that’s why.
Also “cap and trade” schemes still allow the Lamborghini set to buy their gas. They don’t care if it’s $5/gal or $500/gal -- they can afford it and someone who drives a $600,000 car or owns a private jet doesn’t care. Meanwhile they want everyone else to agonize over their personal impact, but they’re suckers.
The biggest personal thing you can do for the environment is to not have kids. Meanwhile it’s the rich, not the poor, that are breeding like flies.
There’s a good 15 minute long youtube clip on this here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc&list=TLPQMDIwMTIwMjIg9XKsJ09iSQ&index=3
By Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell FWIW.
Marcus
But that’s just more of the same. It still makes it a personal problem, not one society has to solve. What do I do once I run out of fuel which is 90% used on getting my ass to work? Call in sick?
Disagree again. Because people tend to use their money. And people without kids tend to have more “fun money” than people who have them and they spend it. You’re not seeing many families with young kids going on cruises. Sure, my kids will need resources once I no longer need them due to being dead, otoh, it also gives me a personal stake. Again, this is taking this to an individual level instead of a social problem.
It also again disregards rich fuckers burning the planet for shits and giggles. It’s been estimated that Bezos’ fun ride into the outer atmosphere produced as much CO2 as the poorest billion on this planet produces in a lifetime. The US military is the single biggest producer of CO2 and they are a net negative for the planet otheiwise.
Disagree again. Because people tend to use their money. And people without kids tend to have more “fun money” than people who have them and they spend it.
It’s not a matter of opinion. The carbon cost of a child is humongous and it’s been modelled over and over. For one thing, by choosing not to have kids, I have reduced the population by 1 or 2 highly polluting Americans, who would emit more carbon than almost 1000 Indians or 10000 Nigerians. It’s not a matter of “fun money” its that the kids are going to live and grow and consume and have more kids.
The single best thing to do for US CO2 emissions would be a “one child” or better “no children for the 1%” policy like China used to have.
Not a fan of his at all -- though admit seeing Kirk in space made me happy -- but factcheck :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/20/tweets/how-much-co2-did-bezos-rocket-ride-release-close-z/
Plus see also :
https://www.space.com/new-shepard-emissions.html
Also far rather billionaires -- a group that shouldn’t exist -- spent their money on space like Bezos, Musk & Branson rather than like Murdoch.On science & NOT on politics..
I wrote “the biggest personal thing you can do”… is not having kids. Demilitarizing the US is not an option for me. Of course nothing I can personally do is going to come close to what Bezos or Gore (who flies a lot in a private jet) or the US military can do.
That is the point. Our individual ability to effect change is nearly zero even if we do things that are personally radical for us.
Marcus @9:
I’d like to see what assumptions those models make about future individual carbon use, and the implementation of policies enforcing them. If they assume the same levels as we have now, they’re not much use.
Of course, if everyone chose not to have kids, that would certainly solve a lot of problems in the next couple generations…
@11: Al Gore doesn’t have a private jet, and he claims to be offsetting his flying via charter or commercial flights in various ways.
I’d like to see what assumptions those models make about future individual carbon use, and the implementation of policies enforcing them.
Go look them up, then!
As basic starter is that you have another American consumer, and can apply an estimated 2050 carbon use to them when they reach adulthood. Compare that to, uh, fucking zero. You can even assume they don’t have kids, too, if you like. But, if it’s an American kid you could safely assume it’s going to start driving a car at 18. Unless the whole model of American consumption changes so much that, basically, your model is “a miracle happens.”
Al Gore doesn’t have a private jet, and he claims to be offsetting his flying via charter or commercial
The only reference I found about Gore flying commercial was one time when AF2 wasn’t ready to go when he wanted to fly. Charter is “a private jet” -- sure, maybe he doesn’t own it but it’s a jet that’s just flying him and his retinue. And you believe in carbon offsets? How cute. Do you also believe in santa claus?
The problem with that model is that it assumes that this will just mean one person less in the USA. Reality is that when societies run out of their own children, they import other people’s. Just look at how industrialised countries, whenever they need workers in a sector, they import them. In the end it means that other nations pay the price for educating your future nurses without reaping the benefit of having nurses.
Marcus @13:
Nobody should have to look up the justification for an assertion you make. It’s as though you just expect people to accept whatever you say. Anyway, here’s something for you to read.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
No, but I believe in addition and subtraction. I also believe in multiplication. What an individual does may be nearly zero, but multiply that by hundreds of millions and maybe you have something.
People like you are part of the problem.
@Rob Grigjanis, what is your point with regard to the OP? Do you have one? If so, could you please formulate it better, because I do not get it?
@Charly: I was responding to Marcus’ comment. If his comment was relevant to the OP, you should be able to figure out the connection. If you’re saying that every comment must directly address the OP, I’m not sure how to respond. Do you discourage conversations that veer away from it? Interesting policy, if so.
I do not wish to discourage conversations, It just was not clear to me if you only answer to Marcus or if you also have a point in regard to the article. If your only wish to have a conversation with Marcus, have at it.