Meaningful environmental impact

[Ron Scott]

There’s a recurring theme in the forum about the negative effects of consumer-oriented economies on the environment. I think there’s truth in that but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pragmatic strategy in it that can foster change. A huge portion of the US economy depends of consumer spending and developing economies, China most notably, are working hard at building consumer economies to offset their dependency on exports. Assuming enough people will get on a grass-roots anti-purchase bandwagon to make an impact seems like a loser to me.

I really liked that article on South Korea in today’s Times.

“Around the world, most of the 1.4 billion tons of food thrown away each year goes to landfills. As it rots, it pollutes water and soil and releases huge amounts of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

But not in South Korea, which banned food scraps from its landfills almost 20 vears ago. Here, the vast majority of it gets turned into animal feed, fertilizer and fuel for heating homes.”

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.

I make every attempt to buy goods that I will keep for some time, and try to avoid excess disposables, but I don’t expect to have a significant impact that way.


Thoughts?

[Arbitrage]

I agree that meaningful change has to happen on a government level.

However, I also think that grassroots-level changes, even starting on a personal level, help build the public will to vote in officials willing or driven to make those changes, compel the governments to make those changes, or to at least tip the scales such as not to fight the changes once they're proposed (or to not roll them back after they're implemented).

For instance, I think that cities built around the personal auto as mandated and supreme are long-term losers in innumerable ways.  A government could suddenly outlaw cars from the city center of Houston, say, but would that work?  Hell no.  You'd need to build public will and infrastructure over time.  Enough personal decisions and small changes might start convincing Texans that an e-bike is an acceptable way to get around, so they wouldn't coal roll every cyclist and vote down every proposed bike lane.  Get enough people to start supporting and using buses, and they increase bus service and start expanding that to actual trains/light rail.  Get people to recognize how wonderful walkability is, and that it doesn't have to be limited to just theme parks, vacations, and temporary festivals.  So on and so forth.  Incremental changes can make it palatable for people to handle or even support the big changes.

[ChpBstrd]

My simple observation, with very few exceptions, is that if you are spending your money to buy something, you are usually harming the environment.

Every manufactured object you buy will eventually end up in a landfill, and your life's legacy will be perhaps a dozen tons of material in a landfill, representing a few tons of carbon emissions to extract from natural resources and produce the thingy and its packaging. Your home, constructed using tons of carbon-based energy, will eventually be plowed over by a carbon-belching bulldozer and sent to a landfill to rot and leach chemicals into the water.

The bigger you live in a financial sense, the bigger your environmental footprint. E.g. the cheapest cars, like a Nissan Versa for example, have a much, much lower carbon footprint than some of the more expensive cars, such as pretty trucks and SUVs. Smaller homes consume fewer resources to build, and require fewer resources to operate and maintain. Owning fewer clothes, electronics, and gadgets reduces your impact.
If you choose to do things the more comfortable way, such as driving short distances or keeping the thermostat at some ideal, you are harming the environment.

The list of possible exceptions is short, and you'll notice many of them are only exceptions if one assumes they prevent another form of damage you were going to otherwise inflict upon the environment:

> replacement of inefficient appliances with efficient appliances, although premature retirement of working things is probably a net negative
> insulation, which reduces the amount of energy you must consume
> purchases like train tickets if they replace car or airplane tickets
> durable items that replace disposable items, e.g. cotton wash cloths that replace paper towels, food containers that replace ziplock bags...
> certain services such as massages, counseling, teaching, healthcare, or coaching create very little waste aside from workers' commutes and the businesses' inherent wastefulness (office building, utilities, commutes, etc).

Seen in this way, there's a very simple way to monitor your level of environmental destruction. It's roughly equal to how much money you spend. When you are making a decision to spend money, you are generally making a decision to harm the environment. Similarly, any endeavor to raise one's savings rate to extreme levels is also an endeavor to lower one's environmental impact. You can personally improve your environment while getting rich.

[Paper Chaser]

Consumption is the issue. There are ways to clean consumption up (recycling food waste, Electric vehicles, solar energy, etc) which is great, but actual change seems nearly impossible without reducing consumption.
Recycling food waste is fine, but what if we simply consumed less food to begin with? Imagine how much healthier we might be, and how fewer doctors visits, surgeries, etc would help. That's where real change comes in:

EVs can be better than ICEs, but their benefits only come as miles are driven. They reward consumption rather than penalizing it. It would be better to pursue mass transit, or design places where cars are less needed.
Solar Energy is cleaner in use than many other common sources, but manufacturing, shipping, installing and disposing of the hardware all requires more energy. What if we designed our homes and buildings to need less energy in the first place with passive solar techniques, etc?

[partgypsy]

I think about this a lot. I am trying to be better with the way I live. I compost my food scraps, and in addition to re using stuff that would go in trash, I don't need to spend money on compost, and my lot has never looked better. But then it feels like a drop in the ocean, compared to all the other land both privately and publically owned. I do agree there needs to be system wide changes, but so far at the national level there's not much buy in (or words, but no real action). I did sign up recently for "homegrown national park". I'm hoping they can get traction on their big idea. 

[Ron Scott]

I asked the ChatGPT AI—

Consider the positive effects individuals can have on global warming and climate change by reducing their spending on specific categories of purchases and resource uses. Rank order these categories by their potential positive effect and estimate the impact individuals can have. Finally, discuss the relative value of individual positive contributions vs. governmental mandated changes.

Ranking categories of purchases and resource uses based on their potential positive effect on global warming and climate change can vary depending on various factors and individual circumstances. However, here is a general ranking along with some estimated impacts individuals can have:

1. Transportation: Reducing spending on transportation-related activities can have a significant positive impact. Opting for sustainable modes of transportation like walking, cycling, using public transit, or carpooling can help reduce carbon emissions and alleviate traffic congestion. Individuals can have a direct and substantial impact on emissions by choosing efficient vehicles or transitioning to electric vehicles when possible.

2. Energy consumption: Lowering spending on energy-intensive activities and adopting energy-saving habits can make a notable difference. This includes reducing electricity usage by turning off lights and appliances, using energy-efficient products, properly insulating homes, and considering renewable energy options like solar panels. Individuals can significantly reduce their carbon footprint through these actions.

3. Food choices: Shifting spending towards sustainable and climate-friendly food choices can have a positive impact. Reducing meat consumption, particularly beef and lamb, which have higher carbon footprints, and opting for plant-based alternatives can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production. Supporting local, organic, and seasonal produce can also minimize the environmental impact of food transportation and agricultural practices.

4. Consumer goods: Reducing spending on carbon-intensive products, such as electronics and appliances, and opting for energy-efficient and durable alternatives can contribute positively. Additionally, prioritizing second-hand or refurbished items can help reduce waste and conserve resources. Supporting companies with strong environmental commitments and sustainable practices can also encourage positive change.

Regarding the relative value of individual positive contributions vs. governmental mandated changes, both play crucial roles in addressing global warming and climate change. Individual actions are valuable because they create a collective impact when adopted by a large number of people. They can help drive market demand, influence corporate practices, and inspire others to take similar steps. However, individual actions alone may not be sufficient to achieve the scale and speed of change required to address the magnitude of the climate crisis.

Governmental mandates and policies are essential to create a systemic and comprehensive approach to tackle climate change. These can include regulations and incentives to promote renewable energy, enforce emission reductions, support sustainable practices in various sectors, and invest in infrastructure for a low-carbon future. Governmental action provides the framework for large-scale transformation and can drive innovation and progress across industries.

Ultimately, a combination of individual positive contributions and effective government policies is crucial for achieving meaningful and lasting change in addressing global warming and climate change. Both approaches are mutually reinforcing and necessary to create a sustainable and resilient future.


Without government intervention, what impact are individuals likely to have?

Without government intervention, the impact individuals can have on addressing global warming and climate change may be limited in terms of achieving large-scale and systemic changes. Here are some factors to consider:

1. Scale: While individual actions can collectively make a difference, the scale of the climate crisis requires coordinated efforts on a global level. Climate change is a complex, multifaceted challenge that demands comprehensive solutions and transformative actions across industries, sectors, and nations. Individuals alone may not have the capacity to drive the necessary changes at the scale required to mitigate the impacts effectively.

2. Structural barriers: Addressing climate change often involves systemic changes that require structural transformations, such as transitioning to renewable energy sources, implementing sustainable practices in industries, and rethinking transportation and urban planning. These changes often require government policies, regulations, and investments to create the enabling conditions for transformation. Without government intervention, it can be challenging to overcome the barriers and inertia of existing systems.

3. Access and affordability: Some climate-friendly options, such as renewable energy technologies or sustainable products, may still be relatively expensive or inaccessible for many individuals without government support. Government intervention can play a vital role in making sustainable choices more affordable, incentivizing their adoption, and ensuring equitable access to climate solutions for all.

4. Market dynamics: Consumer choices are influenced by market forces, and without strong government policies, industries may not be incentivized to prioritize sustainability and climate action. Government interventions can help create market signals, regulations, and incentives that drive businesses towards greener practices, innovation, and sustainable solutions.

While individual actions should be encouraged and celebrated, relying solely on individual efforts without government intervention may not be sufficient to achieve the transformative changes needed to address global warming and climate change effectively. Government leadership, policies, and international cooperation are critical in driving systemic change, fostering innovation, and ensuring a just transition to a low-carbon future.

[Cranky]

I feel like the biggest impact I have is when I say, “Thanks! I got this at the thrift store!” or when I show someone how to mend an item. Normalizing the actual reuse of items, as opposed to the vague idea of recycling, is a pretty good thing.

[Scandium]

You're exactly right. I've never bought this aspect to the "MMM cult". What we do as individuals is meaningless in the broader aspect of consumer culture. I could bike everywhere my whole life and never get on airplane, and one oil tanker burning bunker fuel for a week would emit more than I'd saved. Yes that tanker would have done that anyway, so some is saved, but so little as to be insignificant. And even then, me not using/buying something will lower the cost, and make it more likely someone else will do it instead. #capitalism!

Not to mention that if everyone reduced their consumption meaningfully the world economy would crash. Humanity has made the choice that'd we'd rather live in a burned out wasteland in a few decades, as long as we get to have some fun toys and treats in the meantime. Me fighting against this is pointless. Having a few cheap toys is all the masses can enjoy in our meaningless, exploited existence in this capitalist hellscape. Hence the rabid response at any threat to taking away their treats. Just see Greta Thunberg, and grown adults publicly posting fantasies about murdering a child. Or AOC barely suggesting we eat less meat (was that even a real story actually?) and people threated to murder her (it's always violence with these people isn't it..?)

More importantly, the whole "individual action" thing is heavily pushed by a lot of people in power and industry titans, because it pushes the responsibility onto the consumers, and away from broader government action. Especially effective in america! Why do you think Musk tells everyone they can save the planet by buying a luxury EV? No need for GHG controls, shut down the EPA! Ya'll just need to compost and reuse ziplock bags! Do that and you can still eat factory farmed shit meat at Applebee's for cheap! It's up to YOU, and only YOU!

/rant.

[nereo]

This suggests a false dichotomy on at least two fronts: that it is either top-down (I.e. “government legislation”) or bottom-up (“grass roots environmentalism”), and that consumption in all its forms is equally bad for the environment while a lack of consumption is detrimental to the economy and therefore people’s standard of living.

[ChpBstrd]

This suggests a false dichotomy on at least two fronts: that it is either top-down (I.e. “government legislation”) or bottom-up (“grass roots environmentalism”), and that consumption in all its forms is equally bad for the environment while a lack of consumption is detrimental to the economy and therefore people’s standard of living.

This is why MMM's message originally resonated with so many people:

A life of lower consumption leads to a higher standard of living.

[nereo]

This suggests a false dichotomy on at least two fronts: that it is either top-down (I.e. “government legislation”) or bottom-up (“grass roots environmentalism”), and that consumption in all its forms is equally bad for the environment while a lack of consumption is detrimental to the economy and therefore people’s standard of living.

This is why MMM's message originally resonated with so many people:

A life of lower consumption leads to a higher standard of living.

I like the term "conspicuous consumption" - which I believe was also one Pete used somewhere in his early blogging years. Basic premise is that much of the consumption a typical middle-class person engages in is mindless, wasteful, and does not improve their quality of life all that much (if at all). But that isn't the case for all expenses. Figuring out what does and does not add value is what separates MMM's philosophy from the extreme-frugality movements elsewhere.

[bill1827]

A resonant phrase which predates Pete by some time. Apparently coined in 1899 by a sociologist called Thorstein Veblen.

In sociology and in economics, the term conspicuous consumption describes and explains the consumer practice of buying and using goods of a higher quality, price, or in greater quantity than practical. In 1899, the sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption to explain the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury commodities (goods and services) specifically as a public display of economic power—the income and the accumulated wealth—of the buyer. To the conspicuous consumer, the public display of discretionary income is an economic means of either attaining or of maintaining a given social status.

The development of Veblen's sociology of conspicuous consumption also identified and described other economic behaviours such as invidious consumption, which is the ostentatious consumption of goods, an action meant to provoke the envy of other people; and conspicuous compassion, the ostentatious use of charity meant to enhance the reputation and social prestige of the donor; thus the socio-economic practices of consumerism derive from conspicuous consumption.

[Scandium]

This suggests a false dichotomy on at least two fronts: that it is either top-down (I.e. “government legislation”) or bottom-up (“grass roots environmentalism”), and that consumption in all its forms is equally bad for the environment while a lack of consumption is detrimental to the economy and therefore people’s standard of living.

Yes, because it is, or it at least subtly planted that seed that it is. The greenwashing and traditional industry are pushing these (mostly meaningless) individual actions to forestall the conversation on broader systemic solutions (the actual solutions). "we don't need a carbon tax, everyone just needs to buy a $60,000 EV!". They'll even gladly spend taxpayer money to subsidize these EVs, because that doesn't cut into the profits of Koch industries. The more it can be frame as the responsibility of individual consumers the better.

Even better if some of these individual actions are very minor and not that inconvenient. For example recycling; it's not a big deal to do every day, it's mostly a waste of time and does almost nothing for the environment, but people feel like they're doing something. "that's it; we're good right? Earth saved. Don't ask me to sacrifice anything else!"

[A mom]

I I did sign up recently for "homegrown national park". I'm hoping they can get traction on their big idea.

The homegrown national park! Yay! Me, too!  It feels so good to do something! I want to give Doug Tallamy's book, Nature's Best Hope to everyone!

[A mom]

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.



Thoughts?

I think you are correct, but my concern with this way of thinking is that it tends to let people stop taking any action at all. I know seveal peoplw who say that the only thing that will change things is the government, but then, besides voting, they do nothing in their daily lives that would show any concern for the environment. Drive a big car, live in a giant house, fly frequently, eat lots of meat, which, fine, those choices for one person don't add up to much on the scale of things. But then people, elected officials, will just look around and say, " See? No one wants to give there things up. I will get voted out of office if I try to change anything."

Anyway, I personally do what I can to support candidates who will do the right thing, but I just can't stomach being part of the problem anymore than is absolutely necessary, so I will keep making the changes that I can to limit my personal contribution to climate change regardless of whether it will make a significant difference in the  long run.

[VanillaGorilla]

My simple observation, with very few exceptions, is that if you are spending your money to buy something, you are usually harming the environment.

Every manufactured object you buy will eventually end up in a landfill, and your life's legacy will be perhaps a dozen tons of material in a landfill, representing a few tons of carbon emissions to extract from natural resources and produce the thingy and its packaging. Your home, constructed using tons of carbon-based energy, will eventually be plowed over by a carbon-belching bulldozer and sent to a landfill to rot and leach chemicals into the water.

The bigger you live in a financial sense, the bigger your environmental footprint. E.g. the cheapest cars, like a Nissan Versa for example, have a much, much lower carbon footprint than some of the more expensive cars, such as pretty trucks and SUVs. Smaller homes consume fewer resources to build, and require fewer resources to operate and maintain. Owning fewer clothes, electronics, and gadgets reduces your impact.
If you choose to do things the more comfortable way, such as driving short distances or keeping the thermostat at some ideal, you are harming the environment.

The list of possible exceptions is short, and you'll notice many of them are only exceptions if one assumes they prevent another form of damage you were going to otherwise inflict upon the environment:

> replacement of inefficient appliances with efficient appliances, although premature retirement of working things is probably a net negative
> insulation, which reduces the amount of energy you must consume
> purchases like train tickets if they replace car or airplane tickets
> durable items that replace disposable items, e.g. cotton wash cloths that replace paper towels, food containers that replace ziplock bags...
> certain services such as massages, counseling, teaching, healthcare, or coaching create very little waste aside from workers' commutes and the businesses' inherent wastefulness (office building, utilities, commutes, etc).

Seen in this way, there's a very simple way to monitor your level of environmental destruction. It's roughly equal to how much money you spend. When you are making a decision to spend money, you are generally making a decision to harm the environment. Similarly, any endeavor to raise one's savings rate to extreme levels is also an endeavor to lower one's environmental impact. You can personally improve your environment while getting rich.

I love the thought and effort you put into your posts ChpBstrd - always thought provoking! I want to like this perspective, but honestly I struggle with it.

Some of my high earning/spending friends spend massive sums on less tangible things than consumer goods or environmentally destructive vacations such as cruises. A few counterexamples spring to mind.

High end education, whether Ivy League Preschool syndrome or not. This also can cover expensive tutors for kids with mild learning disabilities. Less affluent parents will simply not be able to afford special educations. Rich parents can and do. Jewelry. I myself am guilty of having splurged on jewelry that was personally meaningful to me and my SO. The cost was 2-5x what conventional choices would be, added environmental impact is nil. We paid for skilled labor, a custom piece, and unique gems. There certainly was no additional environmental cost.

Expensive food - but I mean groceries - organic, grass fed whatever. I'm vegetarian, but SO is not out of medical necessity. More expensive groceries are probably more sustainable from an environmental perspective.

Plenty of luxury purchases don't have a meaningful environmental impact compared to cheaper choices. An NSX probably doesn't have a bigger environmental cost than a Camry, the additional cost goes into tighter tolerances and better engineering. Both have a similar sized engine, a high end piston doesn't require more steel than a cheap piston, but it's engineered to far greater levels. An affluent vacation might be spending a month in another state, visiting the mountains or the beach, spending a few thousand dollars on an AirBNB, where the less affluent would simply stay at home. It induces a negligible environmental cost, but a fairly high sticker price.

How about expensive landscaping of a backyard? You're employing a number of laborers and skilled designers, but the environmental impact is that of transporting some gravel and pavers. Probably quite negligible compared to a DIY job that costs 5% as much and looks 5% as nice. Same goes for custom kitchen cabinetry compared to the IKEA equivalent - the cost goes for the expertise of skilled labor. How about a $7 tshirt from Target compared to the $100 equivalent from Patagonia. The latter is undoubtedly more sustainable than the former.

Hiring a housekeeper, a nanny, a cook, a private tutor or music teacher, all are extremely expensive but induce virtually no environmental cost.

These forums are consumed with the idea that high spenders buy excessively large houses, fuel inefficient SUVs, powerful boats, and vacation exclusively via international flights and cruises. I suppose that's true for some demographics and less accurate for others.

[Ron Scott]

My simple observation, with very few exceptions, is that if you are spending your money to buy something, you are usually harming the environment.

Every manufactured object you buy will eventually end up in a landfill, and your life's legacy will be perhaps a dozen tons of material in a landfill, representing a few tons of carbon emissions to extract from natural resources and produce the thingy and its packaging. Your home, constructed using tons of carbon-based energy, will eventually be plowed over by a carbon-belching bulldozer and sent to a landfill to rot and leach chemicals into the water.

The bigger you live in a financial sense, the bigger your environmental footprint. E.g. the cheapest cars, like a Nissan Versa for example, have a much, much lower carbon footprint than some of the more expensive cars, such as pretty trucks and SUVs. Smaller homes consume fewer resources to build, and require fewer resources to operate and maintain. Owning fewer clothes, electronics, and gadgets reduces your impact.
If you choose to do things the more comfortable way, such as driving short distances or keeping the thermostat at some ideal, you are harming the environment.

The list of possible exceptions is short, and you'll notice many of them are only exceptions if one assumes they prevent another form of damage you were going to otherwise inflict upon the environment:

> replacement of inefficient appliances with efficient appliances, although premature retirement of working things is probably a net negative
> insulation, which reduces the amount of energy you must consume
> purchases like train tickets if they replace car or airplane tickets
> durable items that replace disposable items, e.g. cotton wash cloths that replace paper towels, food containers that replace ziplock bags...
> certain services such as massages, counseling, teaching, healthcare, or coaching create very little waste aside from workers' commutes and the businesses' inherent wastefulness (office building, utilities, commutes, etc).

Seen in this way, there's a very simple way to monitor your level of environmental destruction. It's roughly equal to how much money you spend. When you are making a decision to spend money, you are generally making a decision to harm the environment. Similarly, any endeavor to raise one's savings rate to extreme levels is also an endeavor to lower one's environmental impact. You can personally improve your environment while getting rich.

I love the thought and effort you put into your posts ChpBstrd - always thought provoking! I want to like this perspective, but honestly I struggle with it.

Some of my high earning/spending friends spend massive sums on less tangible things than consumer goods or environmentally destructive vacations such as cruises. A few counterexamples spring to mind.

High end education, whether Ivy League Preschool syndrome or not. This also can cover expensive tutors for kids with mild learning disabilities. Less affluent parents will simply not be able to afford special educations. Rich parents can and do. Jewelry. I myself am guilty of having splurged on jewelry that was personally meaningful to me and my SO. The cost was 2-5x what conventional choices would be, added environmental impact is nil. We paid for skilled labor, a custom piece, and unique gems. There certainly was no additional environmental cost.

Expensive food - but I mean groceries - organic, grass fed whatever. I'm vegetarian, but SO is not out of medical necessity. More expensive groceries are probably more sustainable from an environmental perspective.

Plenty of luxury purchases don't have a meaningful environmental impact compared to cheaper choices. An NSX probably doesn't have a bigger environmental cost than a Camry, the additional cost goes into tighter tolerances and better engineering. Both have a similar sized engine, a high end piston doesn't require more steel than a cheap piston, but it's engineered to far greater levels. An affluent vacation might be spending a month in another state, visiting the mountains or the beach, spending a few thousand dollars on an AirBNB, where the less affluent would simply stay at home. It induces a negligible environmental cost, but a fairly high sticker price.

How about expensive landscaping of a backyard? You're employing a number of laborers and skilled designers, but the environmental impact is that of transporting some gravel and pavers. Probably quite negligible compared to a DIY job that costs 5% as much and looks 5% as nice. Same goes for custom kitchen cabinetry compared to the IKEA equivalent - the cost goes for the expertise of skilled labor. How about a $7 tshirt from Target compared to the $100 equivalent from Patagonia. The latter is undoubtedly more sustainable than the former.

Hiring a housekeeper, a nanny, a cook, a private tutor or music teacher, all are extremely expensive but induce virtually no environmental cost.

These forums are consumed with the idea that high spenders buy excessively large houses, fuel inefficient SUVs, powerful boats, and vacation exclusively via international flights and cruises. I suppose that's true for some demographics and less accurate for others.

Totally agree.

Classifying others by favored in-group stereotypes is rarely productive and usually just results in more mindless prejudice. Broad statements designed to create a simple we-they dichotomy deliberately ignore complexities: pronouncements like “spending causes environmental destruction“ serve more to confuse than educate. Somethings sucks? Blame the rich. “We are better than they.”

The class wars of the left seem just as discouraging to me as the culture wars of the right. they both create unproductive adversarial relationships within the society.

You may find many reasons to criticize a Manhattan couple who spends $250k a year in living expenses. But if they spend $11,000 a month on a 1500 square-foot two bedroom rental, $40,000 a year on their sons high school education, walk to work and rent a car once a month to visit friends and family, their carbon footprint is smaller than the people in an old $250,000 house with an F150 and a Civic in the driveway.

What you buy has a greater environmental impact than how much you spend.

Generalizing fosters inaccuracy.

[Merrily]

Well, if anyone’s interested, there’s a great non partisan organization that I recently joined that teaches and trains citizen volunteers to work with their elected officials to support various environmental bills. They have chapters all over the country. It’s kinda the best of both, individual action aimed at changing government policies.


https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/

[Ron Scott]

^^^Best of all worlds^^^

[HenryDavid]

I Retired early by using consumption as a proxy for environmental impact. Spend less, save the planet (well, the humans actually). That was my thinking.
But it’s not that simple. Buying way less, then going used, refurb, local, remains smart of course.

Project Drawdown collates and ranks climate solutions. See their list here:
https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions

Food waste is very high on the list. So is educating women. Better concrete production and refrigeration too. It’s fascinating what works on a large scale.
Go forth and reduce CO2!

[vand]

Don't fly anywhere.
Don't drive anywhere.

You're welcome.

[partgypsy]

I feel humbled being around all these smart people who have thought deeply about this subject and thought of novel ways to approach: asking chat gpt, citizens climate lobby, what kind of spending is climate neutral and which is not. I also want to do both (both personal and gov/societal solutions . And I would think, if the environmental externalities were baked into the price of goods and services (vs mostly being disconnected) it would sort itself out more naturally. Myself I keep thinking,I want to maintain tree cover as much as possible in public and private lands. I want to support gov interventions that make it EASY and convenient to do the right thing, vs the opaque mess it is now. I've been thinking we had civilization, high level civilization that was not dependent on burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for hundreds and even thousands of years. We may be able to better reach what it means to be human and humanist, with a culture that allows both humans AS well as our fellow plants, animals, insects to be cared for and co exist. It will mean changing how we view our culture and world. But not impossible.

[NaN]

I was going to create a new thread, but a quick google search and I found this. It fits loosely enough. I'm bumping this up to highlight an interesting article I read today, Income-based U.S. household carbon footprints (1990–2019) offer new insights on emissions inequality and climate finance. It is making the rounds in some of the major news outlets with the typical click bait title.

The conclusion from the article is no surprise, and is discussed already here. Consumption = economy. Economy = investment returns. Returns = income. Income is quite unevenly distributed in this country towards the top 1%. So it is no surprise those reaping the rewards from an $100M investment portfolio are generated through an economy responsible for a bulk of the green house gas emissions in these economies.

But, what is an interesting, sobering thought is that the returns many in FIRE receive to support this idea of being financially independent and retiring early is mostly based on the same economy that those very wealthy are also benefiting from. While the graph of emissions contribution from investments from someone in FIRE is most certainly in the noise, I hypothesize that the ability to do FIRE through passive investments is mostly possible because of the same economy responsible for a bulk of global emissions. Is there a scenario where global emissions are corrected, economies are impacted, and passive income is still possible?

Even if one invests in solar, there is still the rest of the economy that exists in order to support it.

Even if one does not travel at all while on FIRE, their returns are the result from the same emission generating economic machinery.

[roomtempmayo]

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change.

It doesn't seem tough to maintain both that it will take government action to actually solve these problems and that simultaneously it is immoral to make no personal effort to avoid harming others, now and in the future.

[baludon]

The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.

Population growth and the associated human activities creates more environmental destruction through more resource consumption, waste and pollution generation etc. every day.

It doesn’t matter if we cut our consumption individually if there are more and more of us living each year.

The advantage of 8 billion people cutting their carbon footprint in half this year will be negated with the consumption of 16 billion people in the near future.

We hope we can create more efficiencies in our lifestyles in the future to sustain ourselves and protect the environment but the damage we’ve already done now makes me wonder if we are going to get there.

[Zikoris]

I think the best thing you can do is anticonsumption activism. Do the lifestyle stuff, for sure, but also talk about it, share ideas on social media, make videos, that sort of thing. I've done that for many years and had countless people tell me they've made changes as a result, including random people on the street. Presumably there are a lot more who make changes but don't tell me about it (especially strangers). You can multiply your impact dramatically by doing this.

Downside - if you're an average-looking (or worse) person and you make videos/anything with photos of you, you'll get a lot of online comments calling you ugly.

[vand]

The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.

Population growth and the associated human activities creates more environmental destruction through more resource consumption, waste and pollution generation etc. every day.

It doesn’t matter if we cut our consumption individually if there are more and more of us living each year.

The advantage of 8 billion people cutting their carbon footprint in half this year will be negated with the consumption of 16 billion people in the near future.

We hope we can create more efficiencies in our lifestyles in the future to sustain ourselves and protect the environment but the damage we’ve already done now makes me wonder if we are going to get there.

what utter dogshit.

Every living species reproduce, which is how life continues. To pervert this into your own twisted logic that not having offspring is somehow to the benefit of everyone is extreme nihilism. 

You can have a sensible discussion about what is sustainable and sensible, but "I'm great for the environment because I don't have kids" can fuck off.  If everyone was equally great for the environment we'd be on the verge of extinction in 50 years, and I dont think that'd be too great for your 401k.

[LD_TAndK]

...
The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.
...

...
Every living species reproduce, which is how life continues. To pervert this into your own twisted logic that not having offspring is somehow to the benefit of everyone is extreme nihilism. 
...

I agree this idea is usually a doomerist nihilistic argument. I do however think that long term it would be good for world population to slowly and softly decline to a number the environment can handle in perpetuity, without scarcity. So it's probably a good idea to have kids at or below replacement. Just having zero kids "for the environment" seems like a simplification of probably alot of other reasons a person is not having kids.

That argument aside, I think we all get drawn to one idea as THE solution. But there is no one true way. You can reduce consumption, increase efficiency, improve technologies for further efficiency gains, vote for green politicians, contribute to conservation efforts, speak up about climate change at Thanksgiving, etc. Different people doing all these things in different amounts will still combine to move us in the right direction.

[baludon]

...
The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.
...

...
Every living species reproduce, which is how life continues. To pervert this into your own twisted logic that not having offspring is somehow to the benefit of everyone is extreme nihilism. 
...

I agree this idea is usually a doomerist nihilistic argument. I do however think that long term it would be good for world population to slowly and softly decline to a number the environment can handle in perpetuity, without scarcity. So it's probably a good idea to have kids at or below replacement. Just having zero kids "for the environment" seems like a simplification of probably alot of other reasons a person is not having kids.

That argument aside, I think we all get drawn to one idea as THE solution. But there is no one true way. You can reduce consumption, increase efficiency, improve technologies for further efficiency gains, vote for green politicians, contribute to conservation efforts, speak up about climate change at Thanksgiving, etc. Different people doing all these things in different amounts will still combine to move us in the right direction.

I can only control what I do and not others.

I am not advocating for zero population growth. And I agree that we need to reign in uncontrolled growth rate slowly.

Life has existed on this planet for billions of years.  Modern man came into the scene only in the last 200,000 years.  Our ancestors settled into a sedentary agrarian society only 10,000 years ago.  Now we act like we own this place.  This planet can go on just fine without us.

[NaN]

The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.

Population growth and the associated human activities creates more environmental destruction through more resource consumption, waste and pollution generation etc. every day.

It doesn’t matter if we cut our consumption individually if there are more and more of us living each year.

The advantage of 8 billion people cutting their carbon footprint in half this year will be negated with the consumption of 16 billion people in the near future.

We hope we can create more efficiencies in our lifestyles in the future to sustain ourselves and protect the environment but the damage we’ve already done now makes me wonder if we are going to get there.

what utter dogshit.

Every living species reproduce, which is how life continues. To pervert this into your own twisted logic that not having offspring is somehow to the benefit of everyone is extreme nihilism. 

You can have a sensible discussion about what is sustainable and sensible, but "I'm great for the environment because I don't have kids" can fuck off.  If everyone was equally great for the environment we'd be on the verge of extinction in 50 years, and I dont think that'd be too great for your 401k.

Haha, you are seriously angered by someone saying something obvious - not having a kid is actually a pretty big impact. Chill. You took a simple statement like that and turned it into some straw man of going extinct because we didn't have enough kids. But your last point is pretty hilarious, and is actually my point with the posting about the recent article. Apparently everyone's 401k is depending on having more people to produce economic output that gives us the needed returns on our investments.

Further, the point of the article is also the wealth of the ultra rich is responsible for a good chunk of emissions. The punch line is the top 10% income earners (in the US, in this study) produce 40% of the emissions. While the rich person could be the most environmentally friendly person in the world (just literally sits in their shack as the $100M next door), but still their passive income is responsible for a large chunk of emissions.

Of course, if wealth is evenly distributed amongst everyone without any reduction in economic output then of course the emissions are just spread out onto everyone else. It is essentially a zero sum game, until the economy is less dependent on emissions.

[GilesMM]

There’s a recurring theme in the forum about the negative effects of consumer-oriented economies on the environment. I think there’s truth in that but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pragmatic strategy in it that can foster change. A huge portion of the US economy depends of consumer spending and developing economies, China most notably, are working hard at building consumer economies to offset their dependency on exports. Assuming enough people will get on a grass-roots anti-purchase bandwagon to make an impact seems like a loser to me.

I really liked that article on South Korea in today’s Times.

“Around the world, most of the 1.4 billion tons of food thrown away each year goes to landfills. As it rots, it pollutes water and soil and releases huge amounts of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

But not in South Korea, which banned food scraps from its landfills almost 20 vears ago. Here, the vast majority of it gets turned into animal feed, fertilizer and fuel for heating homes.”

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.

I make every attempt to buy goods that I will keep for some time, and try to avoid excess disposables, but I don’t expect to have a significant impact that way.


Thoughts?

According to the EPA, landfill emissions account for about 14% of of US methane emissions.  More than 500 landfills have methane capture programs already and more are adding them every year.


https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas#:~:text=As%20of%20July%202023%2C%20there,landfills%20and%20LFG%20energy%20projects.

[RetiredAt63]

The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.

Population growth and the associated human activities creates more environmental destruction through more resource consumption, waste and pollution generation etc. every day.

It doesn’t matter if we cut our consumption individually if there are more and more of us living each year.

The advantage of 8 billion people cutting their carbon footprint in half this year will be negated with the consumption of 16 billion people in the near future.

We hope we can create more efficiencies in our lifestyles in the future to sustain ourselves and protect the environment but the damage we’ve already done now makes me wonder if we are going to get there.

what utter dogshit.

Every living species reproduce, which is how life continues. To pervert this into your own twisted logic that not having offspring is somehow to the benefit of everyone is extreme nihilism. 

You can have a sensible discussion about what is sustainable and sensible, but "I'm great for the environment because I don't have kids" can fuck off.  If everyone was equally great for the environment we'd be on the verge of extinction in 50 years, and I dont think that'd be too great for your 401k.

Go find a good Ecology textbook and read the chapter on population size and regulation.  And then realize we are acting like an r-selected species, not a k-selected species.  What is better for both people and our planet is being a species that stays at or below the carrying capacity of the planet, not the boom then bust cycle we are heading for now.

Also remember every living species has lots of mortality - especially in the young.  We have circumvented that with modern medicine.  Or feel free to have 15 children, as long as you are willing to loose 13 of them before they are adults.  I found an old  marker in a graveyard several years ago that was the grave of 6 children, siblings, who all died in an epidemic.  Can you imagine how their parents felt?  But that was why human population grew slowly.

Or we could have a really good plague. Really good plagues kill 1/3 to 1/2 of the population.  Instead, we are the plague for so many other species on the planet they share with us.

[wenchsenior]

The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.

Population growth and the associated human activities creates more environmental destruction through more resource consumption, waste and pollution generation etc. every day.

It doesn’t matter if we cut our consumption individually if there are more and more of us living each year.

The advantage of 8 billion people cutting their carbon footprint in half this year will be negated with the consumption of 16 billion people in the near future.

We hope we can create more efficiencies in our lifestyles in the future to sustain ourselves and protect the environment but the damage we’ve already done now makes me wonder if we are going to get there.

what utter dogshit.

Every living species reproduce, which is how life continues. To pervert this into your own twisted logic that not having offspring is somehow to the benefit of everyone is extreme nihilism. 

You can have a sensible discussion about what is sustainable and sensible, but "I'm great for the environment because I don't have kids" can fuck off.  If everyone was equally great for the environment we'd be on the verge of extinction in 50 years, and I dont think that'd be too great for your 401k.

Go find a good Ecology textbook and read the chapter on population size and regulation.  And then realize we are acting like an r-selected species, not a k-selected species.  What is better for both people and our planet is being a species that stays at or below the carrying capacity of the planet, not the boom then bust cycle we are heading for now.

Also remember every living species has lots of mortality - especially in the young.  We have circumvented that with modern medicine.  Or feel free to have 15 children, as long as you are willing to loose 13 of them before they are adults.  I found an old  marker in a graveyard several years ago that was the grave of 6 children, siblings, who all died in an epidemic.  Can you imagine how their parents felt?  But that was why human population grew slowly.

Or we could have a really good plague. Really good plagues kill 1/3 to 1/2 of the population.  Instead, we are the plague for so many other species on the planet they share with us.

:nods:

I love when people comment with absolute certainty on well-established scientific concepts that they clearly don't understand at all.  Makes for popcorn moments.

[Michael in ABQ]

Global population will peak in the next few decades at 9-10 billion. Basically every developed economy in the world has already slowed population growth below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman and even the few countries that are still averaging 4-6 children per woman are slowing down and will continue to slow as they get richer.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN


But don't worry, I'm doing my part with six kids. Everyone in the US can thank me in a few decades when my kids are in the workforce still paying taxes and contributing to Social Security and Medicare. That is unless robots replaces all workers before then.

[NaN]

Ugh, no one is thanking the individual person who had >five kids for helping save our retirement safety nets at the expense of more emissions. Has anyone thanked my foolish self for buying a new car in 2008 when auto companies were being bailed out? Nope.

Those who choose not to have kids because they feel it makes the biggest positive impact on the environment should absolutely be thanked.

@wenchsenior, not sure what you mean - please elaborate.

@RetiredAt63 , I definitely agree with you on the point about humans being a major impact on this planet. I am reminded of the anthropology book Sapiens, where the author says that homo sapiens have been the world's largest serial killer. It was a funny line, but rings true. And he backs it up with examples, such as how the Australia continent irreversibly changed more in 1k years after the first standing two legged creature set foot on the outback 50k years ago than something like 500k years before that. The migration from the south pacific island didn't happen because of natural evolution steps (we didn't grow gills to swim over to Australia) but had more nonlinear evolutionary steps such as building a canoe that allowed us to side step common evolutionary paths.

[former player]

Are there any human economies where increased long-term prosperity has been matched with a declining population?

And on the other hand, are there any human economies where increased prosperity has not been based on environmental degredation?

Have humans reached the point at which Malthusian theory is undeniable?  Or is it still academically and socially unacceptable to refer to it?

And finally: is there any proof that humans are better than lemmings?

I'd love the answers to be: yes, yes, no and yes.  I suspect they are not.

[wenchsenior]

Ugh, no one is thanking the individual person who had >five kids for helping save our retirement safety nets at the expense of more emissions. Has anyone thanked my foolish self for buying a new car in 2008 when auto companies were being bailed out? Nope.

Those who choose not to have kids because they feel it makes the biggest positive impact on the environment should absolutely be thanked.

@wenchsenior, not sure what you mean - please elaborate.

@RetiredAt63 , I definitely agree with you on the point about humans being a major impact on this planet. I am reminded of the anthropology book Sapiens, where the author says that homo sapiens have been the world's largest serial killer. It was a funny line, but rings true. And he backs it up with examples, such as how the Australia continent irreversibly changed more in 1k years after the first standing two legged creature set foot on the outback 50k years ago than something like 500k years before that. The migration from the south pacific island didn't happen because of natural evolution steps (we didn't grow gills to swim over to Australia) but had more nonlinear evolutionary steps such as building a canoe that allowed us to side step common evolutionary paths.

I was just agreeing with RetiredAt63, pushing back on Vand's overwrought statement.

[RetiredAt63]

Ugh, no one is thanking the individual person who had >five kids for helping save our retirement safety nets at the expense of more emissions. Has anyone thanked my foolish self for buying a new car in 2008 when auto companies were being bailed out? Nope.

Those who choose not to have kids because they feel it makes the biggest positive impact on the environment should absolutely be thanked.

@wenchsenior, not sure what you mean - please elaborate.

@RetiredAt63 , I definitely agree with you on the point about humans being a major impact on this planet. I am reminded of the anthropology book Sapiens, where the author says that homo sapiens have been the world's largest serial killer. It was a funny line, but rings true. And he backs it up with examples, such as how the Australia continent irreversibly changed more in 1k years after the first standing two legged creature set foot on the outback 50k years ago than something like 500k years before that. The migration from the south pacific island didn't happen because of natural evolution steps (we didn't grow gills to swim over to Australia) but had more nonlinear evolutionary steps such as building a canoe that allowed us to side step common evolutionary paths.

I was just agreeing with RetiredAt63, pushing back on Vand's overwrought statement.

Yes, that post made me wonder how many children Vand has.

Michael in ABQ, when I read you have a van for a family of 8 I was really hoping that was for 3 children, 2 parents and 3 grandparents.  6 children is basically what my grandparents had - my grandparents who were born in the late 1800s and had their children in the early 1900s.  Of course if those 6 children are a singleton and then quintuplets I am all sympathy.  If they are 6 singletons my sympathies are all with your wife. 

And just in general, given the spreadsheet proficiency of most people here, I recommend that anyone/everyone just do a nice predictive calculation of population size while playing around with # children and how long the generations are.  Having 2 children when you are 22 and 24 is going to be more demanding on resources than having 2 children at 32 and 34.  It is easier if you do it just for women having daughters, then the replacement # of children is 1.  That is how wildlife biologists do population growth calculations, one for the females, and if necessary because of breeding patterns, another for the males.  A really good book for this is Ecology and Field Biology by Smith and Smith.  But any decent Ecology text will show this.

And in case anyone is wondering if I practice what I preach, I had one child and I was in my very late 30s at the time.

[Jakestersquat]

Ugh, no one is thanking the individual person who had >five kids for helping save our retirement safety nets at the expense of more emissions. Has anyone thanked my foolish self for buying a new car in 2008 when auto companies were being bailed out? Nope.

Those who choose not to have kids because they feel it makes the biggest positive impact on the environment should absolutely be thanked.

@wenchsenior, not sure what you mean - please elaborate.

@RetiredAt63 , I definitely agree with you on the point about humans being a major impact on this planet. I am reminded of the anthropology book Sapiens, where the author says that homo sapiens have been the world's largest serial killer. It was a funny line, but rings true. And he backs it up with examples, such as how the Australia continent irreversibly changed more in 1k years after the first standing two legged creature set foot on the outback 50k years ago than something like 500k years before that. The migration from the south pacific island didn't happen because of natural evolution steps (we didn't grow gills to swim over to Australia) but had more nonlinear evolutionary steps such as building a canoe that allowed us to side step common evolutionary paths.

I was just agreeing with RetiredAt63, pushing back on Vand's overwrought statement.

Yes, that post made me wonder how many children Vand has.

Michael in ABQ, when I read you have a van for a family of 8 I was really hoping that was for 3 children, 2 parents and 3 grandparents.  6 children is basically what my grandparents had - my grandparents who were born in the late 1800s and had their children in the early 1900s.  Of course if those 6 children are a singleton and then quintuplets I am all sympathy.  If they are 6 singletons my sympathies are all with your wife. 

And just in general, given the spreadsheet proficiency of most people here, I recommend that anyone/everyone just do a nice predictive calculation of population size while playing around with # children and how long the generations are.  Having 2 children when you are 22 and 24 is going to be more demanding on resources than having 2 children at 32 and 34.  It is easier if you do it just for women having daughters, then the replacement # of children is 1.  That is how wildlife biologists do population growth calculations, one for the females, and if necessary because of breeding patterns, another for the males.  A really good book for this is Ecology and Field Biology by Smith and Smith.  But any decent Ecology text will show this.

And in case anyone is wondering if I practice what I preach, I had one child and I was in my very late 30s at the time.

I’m sorry maybe I’m not following but what is the reasoning that having kids later in life is less demanding of resources? Are you referring to the monetary resources of the parents because in theory they would be more established or are you implying it’s less demanding of environmental resources…

[vand]

you know, the first world problems that everyone bitches and moans today are going to be solved in the future by the cycle of people having kids today so that those kids will grow into adults and improve the world for everyone.

What, do you think that new people grow on trees or something?

A good question to ask yourself is: what if everyone else though the same way? Obviously the human race would be pretty fucked if the global birth rate immediately dropped to zero.  And obviously if birth rates immediately multiplied it wouldn't be optimal either (though in such a case mortality rates would adjust accordingly) -- what is sustainable and maximise outcomes is somewhere in the middle. 

So just don't conflate your own small family unit with what is best for the planet... you sickos. You haven't put yourself into the shoes of those for whom the opposite position makes all the sense in the world.


If you want to have a meaningful impact then look immediately at each meal you ear. There is plenty of research done to show that while food production chains have become super efficient, most of the wastage happens in the final part, ie between you pay for it and the time you eat it --stuff goes out of date, not all food bought is consumed, or you just decide that you don't like how it tastes.. the wastage that happens is nearly all on the individual.

[nereo]

you know, the first world problems that everyone bitches and moans today are going to be solved in the future by the cycle of people having kids today so that those kids will grow into adults and improve the world for everyone.

What, do you think that new people grow on trees or something?

A good question to ask yourself is: what if everyone else though the same way? Obviously the human race would be pretty fucked if the global birth rate immediately dropped to zero.  And obviously if birth rates immediately multiplied it wouldn't be optimal either (though in such a case mortality rates would adjust accordingly) -- what is sustainable and maximise outcomes is somewhere in the middle. 

So just don't conflate your own small family unit with what is best for the planet... you sickos.
[snip]

What kind of convoluted logic is this? To solve problems driven by large populations you are proposing having more kids in the hope that they will solve the problems we already know how to solve but don’t because we lack the will to do so?  Plus some false argument that “if everyone does it” our species will go extinct?  Good lord that’s a big pile of BS to shovel away…

[Ron Scott]

Solutions that essentially deny human nature, like stop-reproducing, or which have massive economic implications (dramatically reducing consumption) but don’t even acknowledge any downsides, simply cannot  be taken seriously.

[NaN]

Solutions that essentially deny human nature, like stop-reproducing, or which have massive economic implications (dramatically reducing consumption) but don’t even acknowledge any downsides, simply cannot  be taken seriously.

Wait? The original topic you posted about is, paraphrasing, what actions can one do to make the most meaningful impact to the environment. When @baludon said the most meaningful thing they could do was not having kids, the answer should never be "that's dogshit". That's a perfectly valid point. One person making a choice not to have kids for the environment should never in one step go to fear that we are going to go extinct or that our 401ks won't work anymore. To argue that's not a meaningful impact to the environment, that's a bunch of BS.

[Ron Scott]

Solutions that essentially deny human nature, like stop-reproducing, or which have massive economic implications (dramatically reducing consumption) but don’t even acknowledge any downsides, simply cannot  be taken seriously.

Wait? The original topic you posted about is, paraphrasing, what actions can one do to make the most meaningful impact to the environment. When @baludon said the most meaningful thing they could do was not having kids, the answer should never be "that's dogshit". That's a perfectly valid point. One person making a choice not to have kids for the environment should never in one step go to fear that we are going to go extinct or that our 401ks won't work anymore. To argue that's not a meaningful impact to the environment, that's a bunch of BS.

If you’re going to paraphrase me at least read the post, which you are clearly not paraphrasing from:

There’s a recurring theme in the forum about the negative effects of consumer-oriented economies on the environment. I think there’s truth in that but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pragmatic strategy in it that can foster change. A huge portion of the US economy depends of consumer spending and developing economies, China most notably, are working hard at building consumer economies to offset their dependency on exports. Assuming enough people will get on a grass-roots anti-purchase bandwagon to make an impact seems like a loser to me.

I really liked that article on South Korea in today’s Times.

“Around the world, most of the 1.4 billion tons of food thrown away each year goes to landfills. As it rots, it pollutes water and soil and releases huge amounts of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

But not in South Korea, which banned food scraps from its landfills almost 20 vears ago. Here, the vast majority of it gets turned into animal feed, fertilizer and fuel for heating homes.”

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.

I make every attempt to buy goods that I will keep for some time, and try to avoid excess disposables, but I don’t expect to have a significant impact that way.


Thoughts?

[RetiredAt63]

Ugh, no one is thanking the individual person who had >five kids for helping save our retirement safety nets at the expense of more emissions. Has anyone thanked my foolish self for buying a new car in 2008 when auto companies were being bailed out? Nope.

Those who choose not to have kids because they feel it makes the biggest positive impact on the environment should absolutely be thanked.

@wenchsenior, not sure what you mean - please elaborate.

@RetiredAt63 , I definitely agree with you on the point about humans being a major impact on this planet. I am reminded of the anthropology book Sapiens, where the author says that homo sapiens have been the world's largest serial killer. It was a funny line, but rings true. And he backs it up with examples, such as how the Australia continent irreversibly changed more in 1k years after the first standing two legged creature set foot on the outback 50k years ago than something like 500k years before that. The migration from the south pacific island didn't happen because of natural evolution steps (we didn't grow gills to swim over to Australia) but had more nonlinear evolutionary steps such as building a canoe that allowed us to side step common evolutionary paths.

I was just agreeing with RetiredAt63, pushing back on Vand's overwrought statement.

Yes, that post made me wonder how many children Vand has.

Michael in ABQ, when I read you have a van for a family of 8 I was really hoping that was for 3 children, 2 parents and 3 grandparents.  6 children is basically what my grandparents had - my grandparents who were born in the late 1800s and had their children in the early 1900s.  Of course if those 6 children are a singleton and then quintuplets I am all sympathy.  If they are 6 singletons my sympathies are all with your wife. 

And just in general, given the spreadsheet proficiency of most people here, I recommend that anyone/everyone just do a nice predictive calculation of population size while playing around with # children and how long the generations are.  Having 2 children when you are 22 and 24 is going to be more demanding on resources than having 2 children at 32 and 34.  It is easier if you do it just for women having daughters, then the replacement # of children is 1.  That is how wildlife biologists do population growth calculations, one for the females, and if necessary because of breeding patterns, another for the males.  A really good book for this is Ecology and Field Biology by Smith and Smith.  But any decent Ecology text will show this.

And in case anyone is wondering if I practice what I preach, I had one child and I was in my very late 30s at the time.

I’m sorry maybe I’m not following but what is the reasoning that having kids later in life is less demanding of resources? Are you referring to the monetary resources of the parents because in theory they would be more established or are you implying it’s less demanding of environmental resources…

Definitely the less demanding of resources.  It is basic population biology.  If you don't want to look at all the math, go down to the end.  But it is worth looking at because small differences can lead to big changes.

Let's just deal with the female side - assume the male side is also doing much the same thing.

A young woman has a daughter at 20. Her daughter has a daughter at 20. And her grand-daughter has a daughter at 20.  And so on.  So they all got to have a replacement child.  No dying off of family lines or anything.

Le's add dates.  First woman was born in 2000.  So daughter is born in 2020, and we have 2 people.  Grand-daughter is born in 2040 and we have 3 people.  Great-granddaughter is born in 2060 and we have 4 people.   Sometime in the next 20 years, before the next daughter is born, the first one dies of old age.  So we will continually have 4 women.

OK, first daughter at 30, each succeeding daughter at 30.

So 2000, 2030, 2060, 2090.  In 2060, where there were 4 people alive when the generation size was 20 years, here we only have 3 people alive because of the longer generation size.  That 4th person isn't due for another 30 years, and by then the first one will have died.

Multiply that by 1000 and we have 3000 versus 4000.  Multiply it by 100,000 and we have 300,000 versus 400,000.  And see what a difference it makes?

Historically I would have wanted to do a separate one for men, because historically there was often a large enough age gap that it would make a difference. But people are tending to marry (or equivalent) within roughly their own age group these days.  So the men would be similar.

Let's be a bit more extreme.  She has her first daughter at 35, and her daughter does the same.  This is basically my family, by the way, babies in our 30s.

So 2000, 2035, 2070.  Oops, we missed 2060, in 2060 there were only 2 women alive.

That is the power of extending having babies to later in life.

Let's look at societies where girls marry young and have babies young.  And let's assume that they still live in an area with horrible health care, and still only have that one daughter. So married at 15, first daughter at 16, 16 year gap between generations, but the women are tough (they would have to be!) and make it to 85.

We now have 2000, 2016, 2032, 2048, 2060.  5 women alive.

Let's look at more than one daughter.  Say everyone is having 3 children, half and half, so I am going to switch to 1000 to avoid messy fractions.  On average that is 1.5 daughters.

20 year generation time:
2020, 1000
2020, the original 1000 plus 1500 (1.5x1000) daughters = 2500
2040, the original 1000 plus the 1500 daughters plus 2250 (1.5x1500) grand-daughters = 4750
2060, the original 1000 plus the 2500 daughters plus 2250 grand-daughters plus 3375 (1.5x2250) great-granddaughters = 8125

Back to looking at 1 instead of 1000, we had 4 total with one daughter, we have 8.125 total for 1.5 daughters.  So think of the quiver-full people , or anyone really, who are having masses of children- they are really using up resources.  I am not going to do the math for 6 daughters, way too depressing.

The other interesting thing is that you don't need to have 1 baby policies.  If almost everyone stops at 2 , the ones who have one more and the ones who have one less don't really affect the numbers much.   If there are more families who have 1 child than there are families that have 3 children, then the population size will slowly decline. If they wait to have the children, the population will also slowly decline, without huge social upheavals.

This isn't even looking at social pressures to have more sons than daughters.  This is just straight numbers.


By the way, this is a favourite topic in SF.  Because in a colony, there may be reasons to have lots of children quickly, but there may also be limited resources and the push is to have fewer children, and later, not more earlier.  Even assuming the new environment doesn't affect fertility in very negative ways.  So how does a new society manage its reproduction?

[NaN]

If you’re going to paraphrase me at least read the post, which you are clearly not paraphrasing from:

There’s a recurring theme in the forum about the negative effects of consumer-oriented economies on the environment. I think there’s truth in that but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pragmatic strategy in it that can foster change. A huge portion of the US economy depends of consumer spending and developing economies, China most notably, are working hard at building consumer economies to offset their dependency on exports. Assuming enough people will get on a grass-roots anti-purchase bandwagon to make an impact seems like a loser to me.

I really liked that article on South Korea in today’s Times.

“Around the world, most of the 1.4 billion tons of food thrown away each year goes to landfills. As it rots, it pollutes water and soil and releases huge amounts of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

But not in South Korea, which banned food scraps from its landfills almost 20 vears ago. Here, the vast majority of it gets turned into animal feed, fertilizer and fuel for heating homes.”

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.

I make every attempt to buy goods that I will keep for some time, and try to avoid excess disposables, but I don’t expect to have a significant impact that way.


Thoughts?

Yes, you talk about goods and food scraps. But then you willingly bring up oil lobby, fossil fuels, building codes, electricity. You talk about efforts led by governments.  You mention the economy depending on consumer spending.

So a topic as vague as "meaningful environmental impact" was generic enough that I thought I could post something related to it. Then again, if I'm not matching your original thought on the specificity of your post, my apologies, but then again the conversation is very topical to the original title and post. But you started a post on 'meaningful environmental impact' and wrote that specifically. If you did not intend to be vague then maybe you should start a post with a title that is way more specific.

[mistymoney]

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.



Thoughts?

I think you are correct, but my concern with this way of thinking is that it tends to let people stop taking any action at all.

I agree with you, amom, but I also think the whole "indivual actions are not effective/meaningless" is a pernicous and meaningless trope circulated for questionable reasons and of dubious origin.

It is only the individual that actual does anything. It is the individual that votes, that holds or does not hold their elected representatives accountable, that makes consumption decisions, and communicates with companies (about their products, their business practices, and their packaging).

Anyone noping out taking any actions or any responsibility for their personal choices is just being lazy and/or actually doesn't care.

Wake up people! "the government" or "big business" is us. Look in the mirror. You are the problem, and you can do better. Start today.

[mistymoney]

I was going to create a new thread, but a quick google search and I found this. It fits loosely enough. I'm bumping this up to highlight an interesting article I read today, Income-based U.S. household carbon footprints (1990–2019) offer new insights on emissions inequality and climate finance. It is making the rounds in some of the major news outlets with the typical click bait title.

The conclusion from the article is no surprise, and is discussed already here. Consumption = economy. Economy = investment returns. Returns = income. Income is quite unevenly distributed in this country towards the top 1%. So it is no surprise those reaping the rewards from an $100M investment portfolio are generated through an economy responsible for a bulk of the green house gas emissions in these economies.

But, what is an interesting, sobering thought is that the returns many in FIRE receive to support this idea of being financially independent and retiring early is mostly based on the same economy that those very wealthy are also benefiting from. While the graph of emissions contribution from investments from someone in FIRE is most certainly in the noise, I hypothesize that the ability to do FIRE through passive investments is mostly possible because of the same economy responsible for a bulk of global emissions. Is there a scenario where global emissions are corrected, economies are impacted, and passive income is still possible?

Even if one invests in solar, there is still the rest of the economy that exists in order to support it.

Even if one does not travel at all while on FIRE, their returns are the result from the same emission generating economic machinery.

This is certainly food for thought. Even someone living in a cabin in the woods with a modest portfolio who picks up a shovel to go poop is still relying on the planet destroying economy for their small income from the modest portfolio.

[mistymoney]

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.



Thoughts?

I think you are correct, but my concern with this way of thinking is that it tends to let people stop taking any action at all.

I agree with you, amom, but I also think the whole "indivual actions are not effective/meaningless" is a pernicous and meaningless trope circulated for questionable reasons and of dubious origin.

It is only the individual that actual does anything. It is the individual that votes, that holds or does not hold their elected representatives accountable, that makes consumption decisions, and communicates with companies (about their products, their business practices, and their packaging).

Anyone noping out taking any actions or any responsibility for their personal choices is just being lazy and/or actually doesn't care.

Wake up people! "the government" or "big business" is us. Look in the mirror. You are the problem, and you can do better. Start today.

Just to note - I include myself in the "can do better" group! I have been on the environmental bandwagon since the 80's and it is ingrained in me to always try to pick the best option. But, I know I can do better. I'll give some thought today on what other actions I can try to work into the daily/weekly habits.

[mistymoney]

also - for individual actions...

Greta Thunberg
@GretaThunberg
·
Aug 18
We must keep up the pressure and not let the people in power get away with sacrificing people and the planet for the sake of profits and greed. Everyone is welcome and needed in the climate justice movement, the fight has only just started.

Greta is just getting started :)