Although "environmentally friendly" is not strictly equal to "minimum possible GHG footprint". The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time.
The linked chart about grocery bags[1] is not only about GHG footprint:
> Environmental impact is measured over a full life-cycle analysis (LCA) across the following metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion, human toxicity (cancer effects), human toxicity (non-cancer effects), photochemical ozone formation, ionizing radiation, particulate matter, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial eutrophication, marine eutrophication, ecosystem toxicity, resource depletion (fossil), resource depletion (abiotic), and water resource depletion.
>The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time.
What you described is a non-issue if the bag is disposed of properly. Presumably you, as a environmentalist can be relied upon to do that.
I also wondered this - initially I saw that the chart linked had a "Lifecycle Analysis" and so I nodded and went on my way thinking that disposal had been accounted for.
I'm glad you brought it up, because upon looking at the study the chart is based on, it seems hopelessly optimistic - it accounts for several end-of-life scenarios but they are all 'good' disposals performed after plastic collection, like recycling or incineration. Zero accounting for accidental or incompetent sending to landfills, which indeed seems the main issue with plastic bags.
(The study is also specific to Denmark, where perhaps disposal programs are more reliable than they are in the US.)
An “effective environmentalism” might be a good meme to attempt a rebrand of nuclear, microwaves, and factory farming. But there’s nothing about how to prevent effective environmentalism from becoming performative just like how the author notes environmentalism has.
This is what happens when you optimize for only a single variable.
And the end result won't be what you want it to be. It doesn't do us any good to stop climate change if the ecosystem still collapses out from under us.
Creating a sustainable environment is a systems problem and carbon is just one of many variables in that system. Yes, it's a really important one and in many ways it is the most pressing. But biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services are close seconds, and if you optimize your eating for carbon in the way the author is describing you inevitably end up doing more net harm by undercutting those other two.
Further, a lot of the "data" she's linking is completely with out method or context. And method and context can make a huge difference in these sorts of lifecycle analyses. They are fraught with pitfalls. It's one of the reasons it's been so fucking hard to pin down exactly what the most environmental behavior is.
And this whole mess is one of the prime motivators behind my current effort to write an open academic publishing platform [1] that would allow review to be crowdsourced so that we can open and centralize the whole literature. Because then we actually could get a complete picture of what the best current answer to these questions is with out having to go through secondary sources like this which inevitably cherry pick studies, data, and lack context.
The project looks cool! I've built quite a few open academic publishing platforms, we would have a lot to talk about I imagine :)
You might be interested in what we're doing at LabDAO, including our publishing lab and the community governance we're developing. Note: we're a DAO but it's not about crypto.
By the way, this is exactly what a climate change denier would write, except that that would talk about collapsing the economy if we focused too much on reducing carbon emissions.
The truth is reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic.
At this point, we would have been in a much better position if the Greens had no been so rabidly anti-nuclear. Germany is restarting coal plants now.
At some point, as the article argues, following “environmental intuitions” is self-defeating.
The author confuse being environmentalist with trying to reduce her carbon footprint.
Environment is not all about carbon footprint. Reducing...or rather not increasing as much global warming doesn't help reducing the 7th continent or the micro plastics/graphene/whatever life threatening microscopic waste we are sending in the environment.
I support the use of plastic for many packaging tasks. The lighter weight helps offset the other environmental impacts.
Still support plastic bag and straw 'bans' though.
One small factor to add to the mix is giving less money and power to fossil fuel producers, which I think has an outsize effect.
So I'd like to see most plastics move towards non-fossil feedstocks and better recycling.
Luckily, Extended Producer Responsibility laws lead to both less packaging, less harmful packaging and more recycling of packaging by putting the cost of disposal onto the people with the ability to make systematic change.
The people pushing the "all regulations backfire" line are just anti-regulation because they know they can foist the costs onto other people. If they'd lie about climate change then they've kind of blown their trust with me.
I agree environmentalalsim should be data driven, in both identifying problems and potential solutions. I believe that the meme that it's not is an obvious political fabrication by genuinely bad people.
> The lighter weight helps offset the other environmental impacts.
Only when the minimal amount is used. Clamshell packaging is almost always incredibly wasteful and could be replaced by less weight of cardboard. Plastic jars and similar could often be bags or pouches. etc.
You can't make decisions about "environmentalism" if you haven't decided on your goals. Reduce greenhouse gases? Reduce solid waste and microplastics? Reduce animal suffering? Preserve biodiversity and habitat? Give the social appearance of being "green"?
My imperfect personal tactic is to consume less of everything.
These kind of articles usually have a summary buried in them, this might be it:
> "Lab-grown meat, dense cities, and nuclear energy need a rebrand. These need to be some of the new emblems of a sustainable path forward."
1) Lab-grown meat is nowhere near commercialization. At best we have plant-based meat substitutes that have similar nutritional profiles (high protein) to meat that can be produced at scale.
2) Dense cities don't really matter that much, as each human requires a similar amount of arable land to grow the food they need each year. That per-human land area might be a bit less for vegetarians, but I doubt it's that big of a factor.
3) Nuclear energy is still quite expensive relative to wind/solar/storage, and that won't change because nuclear's catastrophic failure potential requires over-engineering and high-security, plus the uranium ore and cooling water requirements can be problematic.
Are you sure? My understanding is that people who live in dense cities rely less on automobiles, have their waste treated more efficiently, and consume less energy per capita in order to enjoy clean air and water. Those factors are more important than the land mass required to feed someone.
>>Dense cities don't really matter that much, as each human requires a similar amount of arable land to grow the food they need each year.
People use much less resources per unit of quality of life when they live in dense cities. Density provides massively more productivity with a given amount of natural resource consumption.
I find this questionable.
Sure, the type of food is more important than where it comes from - IF you eat meat. This argument effectively states that you can stop making environmentalist choices once you have avoided the biggest offenders.
Now, if you really care about moving towards a more environmentally friendly world, you'll not stop there. You'll first want to change your diet to be plant-based, but then also want to make sure that those plant-based foods you buy are best-in-class (environmentally speaking), i.e. lead to healthier soil and less microplastics.
Beyond the environmental aspect, I'd also suggest looking at what impact your choices have along social and economical axes.
The issue with environmentalism is that we are all the victims of multi decades PR campaigns crafted to deflect people attention from what’s really polluting towards meaningless things.
People are angry their neighbours don’t properly sort their trash while recycling is a shame. Meanwhile planned obsolescence is prevalent.
Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production, oil companies, global manufacturing and shipping and construction.
>People are angry their neighbours don’t properly sort their trash while recycling is a shame. Meanwhile planned obsolescence is prevalent.
Is this seriously an issue compared to trash in general? Sure, people bitch about how it's impossible to repair their iphones or macbooks, but even if you had to replace them every other year, the amount of trash they generate in relation to everything else is absolutely minuscule.
>It’s a conscientious strategy. Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production
But every kilowatt that you don't consume is a kilowatt that's not being generated by the electric grid. In that sense your actions have a direct impact on greenhouse emissions. Sure, you unplugging your electronics isn't going to single-handedly stop global warming, but that's because no one is single-handedly causing global warming either.
Also, you can literally buy a PV system for your house which would cut your emissions to zero.
>oil companies
see above, also electric cars.
>global manufacturing and shipping and construction
Well the goods you buy has to be manufactured somewhere, so presumably you're against the shipping rather than the manufacturing aspect. However, this source[1] says that shipping is responsible for 2.5% of global emissions, which isn't very significant.
Two that I hear constantly: rooftop solar and urban gardening (or "farming" if you must). Both are ecological catastrophes when they prevent the effective use of cities to house people in energy-efficient buildings with low demand for transportation. Protecting rooftop solar with "solar access rights" is something that some find superficially green but is actually ruinous.
What is the problem with urban gardening? On a rooftop, greenery would help with the heat, and I find it difficult to believe that greenery in a space which otherwise has none would be an "ecological catastrophe".
Even tokyo has enough rooftops to provide most of its electricity, and your apartment building can be twice as dense if you make it twostories and cover the whole lot rather than dedicating half of the block to a driveway, dedicating the first floor to parking and making it three story.
If you limit the neighbor to n stories at the boundary and n+1 at a setback of the winter noon sun angle where n is the current building then you can get your solar cake and eat it too.
Agree on the urban farming front (delicious lead). Although when done right, high mass yield, refrigerated, low calorie produce can be a net neutral or minor win there and should he considered as reasonable as any other hobby. There is also something to be said for the follow on effects of praxis, even if the immediate effects are minor.
1a. If you can't do the above, use public transport.
1b. If you can't do that, consider moving to a city where you can do all of the above (if you can afford it). If you're rural, seek a land trust or farmer to buy your land when you do.
2. Insulate your house.
3. Get solar if you can afford it.
3a. Replace all gas appliances with electric (Heat pump, electric water heater, ec)
4. Don't fly.
5. Dietary changes, but remember to include ecosystem services and impact in your analysis. A little carbon is worth it if it means more land stays free of pesticides and continues to provide for the ecosystem.
At least, this is the best I've been able to make of it after a decade of study using open sources. Agriculture is important, but whenever I've actually dug into the referenced data I always find they're optimizing for the wrong things, leaving out important variables, or just all around cherry picking data with an end goal in mind.
Honestly a “fuck carbon emissions” t-shirt is probably an easier and more direct way of communicating your membership to the “environmentalism” tribe while still doing fuck-all to reduce emissions. If you actually care about the environment, then you’re doing everything in your power to promote carbon pricing or other policies that have an outsized impact beyond shallow lifestyle choices. Personal responsibility stuff plays right into fossil fuel industry’s hand—it’s all premature micro optimization. To copy another commenter, it’s arranging deck chairs on the titanic.
That’s extreme and I think most of your point comes from a belief in being vegan as an ethical way of life rather than from a genuine willingness to limit people environmental impact.
The proper way to frame it provided someone has no desire to be vegetarian would be limit your consumption of meat - only eat red meat as an exceptional treat and favour poultry a few times a week - and switch to plant based milk.
Eggs and honey are very much fine as is cheese given the average per individual amount eaten per year.
Let's say you could convince an extra 10% of the world to follow those rules, and that it doesn't cause a rebound effect (as per the Jevons paradox). How much extra time would that buy us before an unstoppable climate catastrophe?
This is just performance, like chaining yourself to a concrete slab. The real thing, if anyone really cared, would be to prosecute manufacturers for planned obsolescence. A washing machine uses a plastic bearing instead of a slightly more exlensive aluminum one? You send it to an FTC like agency, they inspect it and send some VP to jail. This would drastically reduce the size of plastic islands in the oceans, emissions from factories (who are busy manufacturing junk to replace broken junk).
No, but I do appreciate your personal boycott making animal foods less expensive without having any marginal effect on production. As an avid consumer of such foods: thank you for your service.
Congrats, you are actually just an inconsequential stooge. Environmental corruption and depletion is not a consumer problem, at least not directly. It is a product of industrial production processes. Eat meat, eat dairy, preserve your health and your brain in doing so, and find ways to create industry that is clean, that would make you an environmentalist... maybe... if you successfully altered the system.
Stop pretending like climate change is created by consumers and can be controlled by "turning your lights off."
Some of the arguments seem misplaced via bad assumptions. This is exactly the approach that will alienate trad thinkers who need to be convinced in order for any effective action to be taken. Here are the issues I had:
- Highly processed food, including fake meat, could be extremely bad for you. The point is we just don't know yet as there isn't good data.
- Dense cities have the potential to be inhumane and not worth living in for various health (e.g. particulates, aerosols, nitrogen, disease) and social (digital-gov tight controls over movement, work, and access to resources) reasons. Just look at covid era China. Large groups of people displaced into under resourced cities ends badly.
-Nuclear is great until you get something like Ukraine where its used as a stick against the rest of Europe. Thyroid cancer rates in western europe would spike as a result of a critical incident. Or ofc Fukashima and Chernobyl. I'm totally pro nuclear but not mentioning its failures is a bad take and I don't believe the figures about nuclear related deaths.
> Dense cities have the potential to be inhumane and not worth living in for various health (e.g. particulates, aerosols, nitrogen, disease)
Sure they have the potential for this, but only if we don’t take these problems into account and mitigate them. Take particulates for example (and noise, which you didn’t mention but is also an issue); a lot is from cars. If we assume that every city resident will have and frequently use a car, then sure that becomes an issue. But if we provide viable alternatives to driving and make them as or more convenient than driving, much less of an issue.
The climate's been changing since the world came into being. Stop trying to play God and think you can control nature. Fear mongering. Look how miserable western countries are with their eco warrior solutions.
[+] [-] _petronius|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] copirate|3 years ago|reply
> Environmental impact is measured over a full life-cycle analysis (LCA) across the following metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion, human toxicity (cancer effects), human toxicity (non-cancer effects), photochemical ozone formation, ionizing radiation, particulate matter, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial eutrophication, marine eutrophication, ecosystem toxicity, resource depletion (fossil), resource depletion (abiotic), and water resource depletion.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...
[+] [-] gruez|3 years ago|reply
What you described is a non-issue if the bag is disposed of properly. Presumably you, as a environmentalist can be relied upon to do that.
[+] [-] jrajav|3 years ago|reply
I'm glad you brought it up, because upon looking at the study the chart is based on, it seems hopelessly optimistic - it accounts for several end-of-life scenarios but they are all 'good' disposals performed after plastic collection, like recycling or incineration. Zero accounting for accidental or incompetent sending to landfills, which indeed seems the main issue with plastic bags.
(The study is also specific to Denmark, where perhaps disposal programs are more reliable than they are in the US.)
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...
[+] [-] AstralStorm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simple-thoughts|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AstralStorm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbingham|3 years ago|reply
And the end result won't be what you want it to be. It doesn't do us any good to stop climate change if the ecosystem still collapses out from under us.
Creating a sustainable environment is a systems problem and carbon is just one of many variables in that system. Yes, it's a really important one and in many ways it is the most pressing. But biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services are close seconds, and if you optimize your eating for carbon in the way the author is describing you inevitably end up doing more net harm by undercutting those other two.
Further, a lot of the "data" she's linking is completely with out method or context. And method and context can make a huge difference in these sorts of lifecycle analyses. They are fraught with pitfalls. It's one of the reasons it's been so fucking hard to pin down exactly what the most environmental behavior is.
And this whole mess is one of the prime motivators behind my current effort to write an open academic publishing platform [1] that would allow review to be crowdsourced so that we can open and centralize the whole literature. Because then we actually could get a complete picture of what the best current answer to these questions is with out having to go through secondary sources like this which inevitably cherry pick studies, data, and lack context.
[1] https://blog.peer-review.io/we-might-have-a-way-to-fix-scien...
[+] [-] Blahah|3 years ago|reply
You might be interested in what we're doing at LabDAO, including our publishing lab and the community governance we're developing. Note: we're a DAO but it's not about crypto.
Contact in my profile if you'd like to chat.
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|3 years ago|reply
The truth is reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic.
At this point, we would have been in a much better position if the Greens had no been so rabidly anti-nuclear. Germany is restarting coal plants now.
At some point, as the article argues, following “environmental intuitions” is self-defeating.
[+] [-] prmoustache|3 years ago|reply
Environment is not all about carbon footprint. Reducing...or rather not increasing as much global warming doesn't help reducing the 7th continent or the micro plastics/graphene/whatever life threatening microscopic waste we are sending in the environment.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|3 years ago|reply
Still support plastic bag and straw 'bans' though.
One small factor to add to the mix is giving less money and power to fossil fuel producers, which I think has an outsize effect.
So I'd like to see most plastics move towards non-fossil feedstocks and better recycling.
Luckily, Extended Producer Responsibility laws lead to both less packaging, less harmful packaging and more recycling of packaging by putting the cost of disposal onto the people with the ability to make systematic change.
The people pushing the "all regulations backfire" line are just anti-regulation because they know they can foist the costs onto other people. If they'd lie about climate change then they've kind of blown their trust with me.
I agree environmentalalsim should be data driven, in both identifying problems and potential solutions. I believe that the meme that it's not is an obvious political fabrication by genuinely bad people.
[+] [-] Schroedingersat|3 years ago|reply
Only when the minimal amount is used. Clamshell packaging is almost always incredibly wasteful and could be replaced by less weight of cardboard. Plastic jars and similar could often be bags or pouches. etc.
[+] [-] xnx|3 years ago|reply
My imperfect personal tactic is to consume less of everything.
Refuse -> Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle
[+] [-] photochemsyn|3 years ago|reply
> "Lab-grown meat, dense cities, and nuclear energy need a rebrand. These need to be some of the new emblems of a sustainable path forward."
1) Lab-grown meat is nowhere near commercialization. At best we have plant-based meat substitutes that have similar nutritional profiles (high protein) to meat that can be produced at scale.
2) Dense cities don't really matter that much, as each human requires a similar amount of arable land to grow the food they need each year. That per-human land area might be a bit less for vegetarians, but I doubt it's that big of a factor.
3) Nuclear energy is still quite expensive relative to wind/solar/storage, and that won't change because nuclear's catastrophic failure potential requires over-engineering and high-security, plus the uranium ore and cooling water requirements can be problematic.
[+] [-] rkallos|3 years ago|reply
Are you sure? My understanding is that people who live in dense cities rely less on automobiles, have their waste treated more efficiently, and consume less energy per capita in order to enjoy clean air and water. Those factors are more important than the land mass required to feed someone.
[+] [-] ETH_start|3 years ago|reply
People use much less resources per unit of quality of life when they live in dense cities. Density provides massively more productivity with a given amount of natural resource consumption.
[+] [-] timlod|3 years ago|reply
Now, if you really care about moving towards a more environmentally friendly world, you'll not stop there. You'll first want to change your diet to be plant-based, but then also want to make sure that those plant-based foods you buy are best-in-class (environmentally speaking), i.e. lead to healthier soil and less microplastics.
Beyond the environmental aspect, I'd also suggest looking at what impact your choices have along social and economical axes.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] WastingMyTime89|3 years ago|reply
People are angry their neighbours don’t properly sort their trash while recycling is a shame. Meanwhile planned obsolescence is prevalent.
Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production, oil companies, global manufacturing and shipping and construction.
[+] [-] gruez|3 years ago|reply
Is this seriously an issue compared to trash in general? Sure, people bitch about how it's impossible to repair their iphones or macbooks, but even if you had to replace them every other year, the amount of trash they generate in relation to everything else is absolutely minuscule.
>It’s a conscientious strategy. Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production
But every kilowatt that you don't consume is a kilowatt that's not being generated by the electric grid. In that sense your actions have a direct impact on greenhouse emissions. Sure, you unplugging your electronics isn't going to single-handedly stop global warming, but that's because no one is single-handedly causing global warming either.
Also, you can literally buy a PV system for your house which would cut your emissions to zero.
>oil companies
see above, also electric cars.
>global manufacturing and shipping and construction
Well the goods you buy has to be manufactured somewhere, so presumably you're against the shipping rather than the manufacturing aspect. However, this source[1] says that shipping is responsible for 2.5% of global emissions, which isn't very significant.
[1] https://www.ukri.org/news/shipping-industry-reduces-carbon-e...
[+] [-] jeffbee|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CatWChainsaw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Schroedingersat|3 years ago|reply
If you limit the neighbor to n stories at the boundary and n+1 at a setback of the winter noon sun angle where n is the current building then you can get your solar cake and eat it too.
Agree on the urban farming front (delicious lead). Although when done right, high mass yield, refrigerated, low calorie produce can be a net neutral or minor win there and should he considered as reasonable as any other hobby. There is also something to be said for the follow on effects of praxis, even if the immediate effects are minor.
[+] [-] seasox|3 years ago|reply
1. stop buying meat
2. stop eating meat
3. stop buying dairy-based products
4. stop eating dairy-based products
5. stop eating eggs, honey, fish
6. use public transport, if possible
7. don‘t fly, if possible
Congrats, you now are an environmentalist.
[+] [-] dbingham|3 years ago|reply
1. Walk or bike.
1a. If you can't do the above, use public transport.
1b. If you can't do that, consider moving to a city where you can do all of the above (if you can afford it). If you're rural, seek a land trust or farmer to buy your land when you do.
2. Insulate your house.
3. Get solar if you can afford it.
3a. Replace all gas appliances with electric (Heat pump, electric water heater, ec)
4. Don't fly.
5. Dietary changes, but remember to include ecosystem services and impact in your analysis. A little carbon is worth it if it means more land stays free of pesticides and continues to provide for the ecosystem.
At least, this is the best I've been able to make of it after a decade of study using open sources. Agriculture is important, but whenever I've actually dug into the referenced data I always find they're optimizing for the wrong things, leaving out important variables, or just all around cherry picking data with an end goal in mind.
[+] [-] throwaway894345|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lacerda69|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WastingMyTime89|3 years ago|reply
The proper way to frame it provided someone has no desire to be vegetarian would be limit your consumption of meat - only eat red meat as an exceptional treat and favour poultry a few times a week - and switch to plant based milk.
Eggs and honey are very much fine as is cheese given the average per individual amount eaten per year.
[+] [-] dane-pgp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xenocratus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AstralStorm|3 years ago|reply
Get your house insulated. Helps with both heating and cooling.
Use a fan rather than AC if you can.
Do not buy unneeded stuff, buy durable, sell or repair rather than junk.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bjourne|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akomtu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blueflow|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samatman|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theqabalist|3 years ago|reply
Stop pretending like climate change is created by consumers and can be controlled by "turning your lights off."
[+] [-] xor99|3 years ago|reply
- Highly processed food, including fake meat, could be extremely bad for you. The point is we just don't know yet as there isn't good data.
- Dense cities have the potential to be inhumane and not worth living in for various health (e.g. particulates, aerosols, nitrogen, disease) and social (digital-gov tight controls over movement, work, and access to resources) reasons. Just look at covid era China. Large groups of people displaced into under resourced cities ends badly.
-Nuclear is great until you get something like Ukraine where its used as a stick against the rest of Europe. Thyroid cancer rates in western europe would spike as a result of a critical incident. Or ofc Fukashima and Chernobyl. I'm totally pro nuclear but not mentioning its failures is a bad take and I don't believe the figures about nuclear related deaths.
[+] [-] ryukafalz|3 years ago|reply
Sure they have the potential for this, but only if we don’t take these problems into account and mitigate them. Take particulates for example (and noise, which you didn’t mention but is also an issue); a lot is from cars. If we assume that every city resident will have and frequently use a car, then sure that becomes an issue. But if we provide viable alternatives to driving and make them as or more convenient than driving, much less of an issue.
[+] [-] hotz|3 years ago|reply