How many things do you think we should be concentrating on to reduce our carbon footprint? A lot or a few?

A lot, surely.

60 actions to save the world

During 2019, the Ethical Consumer magazine compiled a helpful list of 60 actions that individuals in the UK can take against climate breakdown. This list is currently being promoted in 2020 by Greenpeace, as I know from experience. During a recent e-mail exchange between me and Greenpeace’s web team – I was expressing the view that their position on stopping the development of new oil and gas fields with immediate effect is a little unrealistic, not to say potentially deadly, given how dependent our entire society is on fossil fuels – they sent me the list. Perhaps in the hope that I would stop bothering them.

The list is a collection of suggestions made by the magazine’s readers. The suggestions have not been prioritised or compared, except with regard to their popularity amongst the respondents. But this omission just leaves a void which we fill, because as readers we automatically compare listed items, even if it’s to assume without consciously realising we are doing so that they are of similar weight.

For instance, here is the second entry: carry a reusable coffee cup. This recommendation’s position in the list, number 2 out of 60, gives the impression that it is an important action, at least as important as the 58 actions listed beneath. The impression is probably unintended, but it’s subconsciously inevitable in the mind of the reader.

Now whether or not the environment is a net beneficiary whenever someone buys a reusable coffee mug is a complex question; indeed, academic articles have been written about it without reaching a firm conclusion. There are various factors to consider such as the energy and materials used in the mug’s manufacture, how and how often it’s washed up, how long it’s kept, the composition of the disposable cups that would be used instead, the manner in which disposables are disposed of, … But here is an easier thought: the impact is small, one way or the other, compared say with flying over an ocean. It’s even small compared with boiling all the water required to make all those hot drinks.

Another recommendation I came across recently is to purchase and use a bamboo toothbrush. The Independent newspaper described this example as an “easy way to have a big impact”. By way of justifying the claim, the newspaper reminded the reader of the (large) number of toothbrushes discarded by the western world each year. This is a little bit like being reminded that a dripping tap wastes several gallons of water over the course of a year. If you integrate any small act of wastefulness over billions of people, or over a significant period of time such as a year, you are likely to reach a large number. To retain a sense of perspective, we really need to measure the impact of the discarded plastic toothbrush or dripping tap against other things that we do or don’t do.

It seems to me that our enthusiasm for compiling long and unranked lists raises a couple of issues. Firstly, items of different magnitude are mixed together so that we end up in a muddle as to what matters most. Then, from this muddle emerges a temptation to pick and choose: we can ‘do our bit for the environment’ by using a bamboo toothbrush, say, which gives the green light to our travel plans, diet and shopping habits.

Green energy suppliers

One of the choices that concerned citizens make to do their bit for the environment is to choose a green energy supplier. I discussed this option in a previous post (you can search for ‘green energy supplier’ if interested), but to re-cap: hitherto, the amount of renewable electricity in the UK has been largely determined not by concerned consumers but by the overall size of the various subsidy mechanisms: the Renewables Obligation, Contracts for Difference, and (for smaller schemes) Feed-in Tariffs.

As of 2019, the last complete calendar year, circa 37% of our annual electricity consumption is generated from renewable sources. How much would be from renewables if no households had deliberately chosen to sign up with a green supplier over the last couple of decades? Close to 37%, I reckon. It is difficult for end consumers to affect the total amount of renewable energy unless they are willing to pay significantly more than the market rate for their energy, and the extra funds find their way to the developers. There has been an increase in public support for renewable energy – and this might have had some unmeasurable impact on government targets, or R&D, or the commercial rates of return sought by developers – but for the most part ‘green’ suppliers have displaced ‘brown’ suppliers without actually affecting the overall generation mix in aggregate; and real power projects that have secured subsidies and gone ahead have displaced other potential renewable projects that might have been built otherwise.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think it is a good idea to buy energy either from a ‘green supplier’ or on a green tariff from a ‘brown supplier’. (Most suppliers are of a shade in between these two colours.) I also think that consumer impact will be much greater in the future than it has been in the past, essentially because new renewable projects are much closer to being viable without any subsidy and hence sensitive to other influences. But it is obvious from an analysis of materiality that far from such action being sufficient in terms of ‘doing one’s bit’, it does not come close to the handful of big ticket items.

5 actions to save the world (barring miracles)

Which are these:

1) Eat a largely plant-based diet. 2) Travel less in cars and planes, be it for business or pleasure. 3) Cut down on buying stuff. 4) Reduce home heating by living with others, or downsizing, or insulating, or only heating certain rooms, or turning down the thermostat, or installing a heat pump. 5) Don’t spend too many hours data streaming (e.g. Netflix). (And perhaps one should add: 6) Don’t have lots of children.)

Admittedly the bamboo toothbrush, not to mention most of the 60 actions in Ethical Consumer’s survey, sounds more appealing than these rather brutal options – at least to those of us who imagine happiness is obtained from consumption in its various manifestations. The trouble is that nature cannot be fooled (Feynman’s words, not mine). Politicians would have us believe that science will come to the rescue – but climate scientists and organisations like the IPCC are less persuaded of the wisdom of this and largely repeat the points made in the previous paragraph (data streaming might be an exception, being a particularly recent concern). Technology, to qualify an overused phrase, is unlikely to be a silver bullet.

Speaking of politicians, there is a widespread viewpoint that personal action is pointless as we are individually insignificant compared with the sheer might of oil companies, or other multinationals, or governments. But those of us who hold this viewpoint are perhaps confusing the consequences for us as individuals with the mechanism by which those consequences are visited upon us. Whether from government regulation, market pricing, or our unprompted volition, change is in store for our way of life – if we are to avoid catastrophe.

Unless, that is, there’s a scientific miracle or two, or climate science turns out to be vastly mistaken.