It's great that people are doing things like this to reduce their carbon footprint. But one thing that seems to get neglected is that changes in behavior and lifestyle can also significantly reduce your impact.
What if you moved closer to where you work so you wouldn't have to drive as much to commute (or could even walk to work)? How about buying a smaller house to reduce the energy you need to heat and cool it? These 'sacrifices' can often have more impact than spending $90k on solar panels and heat pumps.
And we often ignore less direct costs. The arstechnica article seems to ignore the energy used to make those solar panels and batteries (which is not insignificant). Some of these things also result in behavior that undoes any benefit. For example, recycling causes most of us to think we can use and toss out cans and bottles without any impact because they are 'recycled' instead of using reusable containers. We ignore the extra energy required to recycle these things.
It started from a good intention (I think), but the right question to ask is why would you want to reduce your individual carbon emissions?
If it's to save us from a climate catastrophe, then I think it's a false good idea.
Imagine if everyone did that? If houses produced zero carbon emissions, we would build even more!
And it doesn't stop there: he is considering buying a newer vehicle and investing in an even more powerful recharging system. See where the problem lies?
For now, the solution lies in reduction and common sense, not in mass overconsumption. Maybe one day we will be able to build without taxing our resources or producing waste, but for now this is not the case.
Reducing our consumption of meat, produce to last longer, reducing tourism, avoiding airplanes, boats and cars, buying less clothing and manufactured goods from abroad, installing a thermal curfew at night would, among other things, be much more effective. But this requires other sacrifices.
Destroying ecosystems through chemical pollution or to find rare materials also means increasing the number of invasive species and reducing the living space of other living species that find it difficult to coexist, spread more disease or simply disappear. We are nevertheless experiencing the 6th mass extinction and this has a direct impact on what makes us live.
The Maya emitted very little carbon, yet, the traces of their massive deforestation still have a significant impact on the fixation of carbon 4000 years later!
Afterwards, this is only my point of view.
I willingly admit that I found it difficult to respect some of these good behaviors myself. But at least I'm trying, and have been since a long time now.
4 comments
[ 6.7 ms ] story [ 25.8 ms ] threadDoes anybody have any good links?
What if you moved closer to where you work so you wouldn't have to drive as much to commute (or could even walk to work)? How about buying a smaller house to reduce the energy you need to heat and cool it? These 'sacrifices' can often have more impact than spending $90k on solar panels and heat pumps.
And we often ignore less direct costs. The arstechnica article seems to ignore the energy used to make those solar panels and batteries (which is not insignificant). Some of these things also result in behavior that undoes any benefit. For example, recycling causes most of us to think we can use and toss out cans and bottles without any impact because they are 'recycled' instead of using reusable containers. We ignore the extra energy required to recycle these things.
Imagine if everyone did that? If houses produced zero carbon emissions, we would build even more! And it doesn't stop there: he is considering buying a newer vehicle and investing in an even more powerful recharging system. See where the problem lies?
For now, the solution lies in reduction and common sense, not in mass overconsumption. Maybe one day we will be able to build without taxing our resources or producing waste, but for now this is not the case.
Reducing our consumption of meat, produce to last longer, reducing tourism, avoiding airplanes, boats and cars, buying less clothing and manufactured goods from abroad, installing a thermal curfew at night would, among other things, be much more effective. But this requires other sacrifices.
Destroying ecosystems through chemical pollution or to find rare materials also means increasing the number of invasive species and reducing the living space of other living species that find it difficult to coexist, spread more disease or simply disappear. We are nevertheless experiencing the 6th mass extinction and this has a direct impact on what makes us live. The Maya emitted very little carbon, yet, the traces of their massive deforestation still have a significant impact on the fixation of carbon 4000 years later!
Afterwards, this is only my point of view. I willingly admit that I found it difficult to respect some of these good behaviors myself. But at least I'm trying, and have been since a long time now.
And even if I did, why do you assume I wouldn't eat 10x more veggies if I stopped eating meat?