I’ll note that this is article is concentrated on individual action, not on political action to change policy, which has a far bigger impact than individual action can.
As far as individual action:
By far the most effective thing form the least effort is don’t waste food. I.e. eat your leftovers and meal plan to reduce waste. It saves time, money and GHG.
The other easy effective thing is eat less beef. It is as simple as getting chicken instead of beef at chipotle or getting a chicken sandwich instead of a cheeseburger at a drive thru. Order online ahead of time so you can save time, money,.and GHG emissions sitting in a drive thru.
Also, eating industrial food over organic:
First because, per calorie produced, organic farming emits 12 to 40% more green house gases.
(Depending on the study).
Second, because you’ll be less healthy and die sooner.This only works if you pretend the organic farm depletes soil carbon and emits NO2 at the same rate as the fertilizer farm, fugitive methane doesn’t exist (anything with fossil gas in its upstream suplly chain has its emissions under-reported by a factor of about 3), and that the vast tracts of land poisoned and degraded by fracking are completely fine.
You also have to cherry pick small scale lifestyle blocks for your analysis and assume that the land previously degraded by industrial agriculture could be used further at the same yield.
I wasn’t aware of that. That is bleak.
In general, the price of a good in a competitive market is directly tied to its energy cost (either manual or machine labor), which is itself tied to its carbon footprint. If something is more expensive, it is very likely that its production emitted more GHG, or that you’re getting scammed.
As an exemple, beef is more expensive than chicken, which is itself more expensive than vegetables.
That’s why the best personal action to save on GHG emissions is still to become poorer/reduce your material comfort. Compensate with richer interactions with others and a sense of community.
In general, the price of a good in a competitive market is directly tied to its energy cost
Yes. That is an old idea too. This is why doing things the FIRE movement promotes to save money is also beneficial for the environment.
Check this out:
https://www.madfientist.com/vicki-robin-interview/
Go to the transcript and find the text below and read through it. The whole interview is worth listening to IMO.
“There was a World Commission on Environmental Development”
Great post! Thanks for this.
"Ninety percent of the world doesn’t need to reduce their [personal] emissions, but most readers of The Washington Post probably do,”
*same article on archive.is.
Mostly unrelated environmental stuff like microplastics come up a lot when talking about climate. People confuse climate and environment.
Recycling can worsen things when boats full of plastic waste are shipped to China for “recycling”.
I thought China stopped accepting those some years back.
Did they? I guess I’m out of date. Do we ship them to a different country or just handle it in the US now, do you know?