I am sometimes asked: what actions can we take to reduce our individual climate footprint?  I confess the question always unsettles me a little, as I feel it has been answered.  I do wonder whether we over-complicate the issue because deep down we are reluctant to change.

Be that as it may, here are a few seasonal thoughts.  With a month to go until Christmas, we naturally think about being warm, what presents we might buy and receive, and – if we can afford it – a holiday to rediscover sunshine.

The simple sweater

The late David Mackay used to comment that perhaps the most effective single action that everyone could take (in a non-equatorial country like Britain) was to turn the thermostat down and put on a sweater.  Even a degree makes a considerable difference to energy consumption if it is cold outside.

Last year, I bought a tasteless Canadian lumberjack shirt (I am a tasteless Canadian and it was the appropriate thing to have for a tasteless celebration of Canada’s 150th anniversary).  Wearing it about the house, it is quite remarkable how much warmer I feel.  For those with class and discernment, I think it is possible to buy similar items that even look good.

People should not be cold; but wearing enough clothing is a useful first line of defence (or perhaps a second line of defense, if in addition you are able to be physically active).  We have no inviolable right to pad around the house in shorts and T-shirt on a winter’s day.  Turning up the thermostat might well be necessary, but why not do that as the last resort rather than the first?

The meaning of Christmas

Growing up, I remember watching a screen adaptation of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens on a low-quality black-and-white television.   The story was a lot more vivid in my imagination than on a rudimentary cathode ray tube display.

We rightly think of Christmas as a time of generosity towards our fellow humans.  Perhaps, though, what really matters most is to be generous to the poor.  We can be generous-spirited to everyone, rich and poor, but the former are less in need of material stuff.

The trouble is that, given our consumption levels, stuff is pretty bad for the planet.  New stuff at least.  Yet our culture seems to think it is miserly to give people things unless they are brand new and sparkling.  Why does that have to be the case?  Could we not find the spirit of Christmas in giving things to each other that might be second-hand, or perhaps not bothering too much with material gifts – devoting the money saved, perhaps, to those in genuine need?

Many will say we have to spend money on stuff for the good of the economy and jobs.  The sooner we can break out of this damaging mindset, the better.  As a society, we can choose to reduce consumption, even if it means re-jigging the world of work.

Holidays closer to home

I am an energy consultant; and one of my more interesting conversations in recent years was with managers from a Malaysian power company.  They claimed that London has more sunshine than Kuala Lumpur, where it tends to be relatively cloudy.

I must admit that I have not confirmed this myself, so the claim is hearsay.  Please do not rely on this specific example in conversation.  Yet it makes one think.  It is definitely true that solar resource – the Malaysians were looking at prospects for renewable energy in different countries – depends on clear skies rather than warmth.  If it’s sunshine we’re after, and relief from the ill effects of its seasonal deprivation, then we could think about having a winter holiday close to home.  Maybe it’s being outside during the daytime that’s really what matters most, rather than being somewhere hot.

We could even go wild and invest in some high tech outdoor clothing to keep out the biting wind and damp.  That’s less damaging than flying south, even if we’re forced to buy it new …

Just a thought.