Ethical living
Carbon myths
Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't save
the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate the loft,
says Chris Goodall
* Chris Goodall
* The Guardian,
* Thursday December 13 2007
The global warming consequences of our personal actions are usually
invisible to us. We have no easy means of knowing how our way of life
generates carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases. It is far from
obvious that it takes more energy to produce a paper bag than its plastic
equivalent, or that extra loft insulation usually reduces gas consumption
more than solar panels. Unsurprisingly, this means that most of us are
ignorant about what really matters, which makes us vulnerable to comforting
half-truths. These myths are a problem in themselves because they discourage
us from addressing the important sources of emissions. But our ignorance
also encourages businesses to promote goods and services that offer little
or no carbon-saving.
So, for example, when British people are asked in surveys about the actions
they can take to be more responsible about global warming, domestic
recycling always comes top. Reducing air travel comes far down the list. But
the global warming impact of our Mediterranean holidays is hundreds of times
more than the toll from not recycling. We see the plastics going into the
dustbin every week, but pollutants from jet engines are hidden. So people
who carefully sort their recycling every week continue to fly. And
businesses that are trying to be ethical devote more effort to reducing
packaging than getting their employees to travel less.
We like our myths. Suggesting that British league football isn't the best in
the world or that Monty Python wasn't always funny is a quick way to start
an argument and lose friends. But some of our cherished carbon myths are
dangerously counterproductive. Here is my list of the most common:
I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local farmers'
market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a householder replaces
all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly electricity consumption is
likely to be no more than about 400 units (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma
TV bought at the same time will outweigh any energy savings. The government
talks about banning old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive
impact on energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games
consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their manufacturers
and the online brochures usually omit all details of electricity use. I
couldn't find a single retailer that dares to list the power consumption of
plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting home electricity consumption? Keep
your old TV. If you still feel the need to buy something, get a new
super-efficient fridge.
Nothing arouses fury like the disposable plastic supermarket bag. Gordon
Brown singled them out in his first speech on climate change as prime
minister. The widespread hatred now extends to almost all plastic food
packaging. But although plastic bags are detestable, they are almost
irrelevant to climate change. Each of us uses about 2kg a year of shopping
bags, and they perform multiple useful functions in the home after they have
carried our shopping from the supermarket. Food packaging of all types is no
more than 5% of the weight of our groceries. Wasted food, which rots in
landfill and generates methane, is a far more serious cause of global
warming. Rather than getting our retailers to strip the 3g of protective
polythene from our cucumbers, we need to concentrate on reducing the 30% of
food that goes to waste every week.
There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are an
extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota Prius may be
lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest generation of small
diesels, which cost little more than half the price. Buy a small car instead
and spend the savings on insulating your walls. It will have far more
effect. Worried about the effect on your status of driving a small car? Buy
an electric vehicle and people will simply think of you as eccentric.
It makes sense to avoid unnecessary transport of food. Local food is fresher
and probably healthier, and your purchase contributes to the local economy.
But food transport, unless it is by air, is usually a relatively small part
of a meal's carbon impact. Reducing the amount of meat you eat has far more
effect than deciding to buy locally. A kilo of beef from the farm next door
will have 50 times the global warming effect of a can of beans shipped from
Canada. Taking a few steps towards a vegan diet will reduce carbon emissions
far more than local purchasing. Avoiding meat and also buying locally is
better still.
Politicians extol the virtues of domestic generation of electricity. The
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to paying us
45p a unit for electricity from the solar panels on our roof, about 10 times
the wholesale price paid to the large, coal-fired Drax power station, in
North Yorkshire. Microgeneration may be fashionable, but it is an
astonishingly expensive way of reducing emissions. Less glamorous, but more
effective, would be a plan to put a £20 note in the centre of every roll of
loft insulation. British houses are the worst insulated in northern Europe
and subsidised insulation would cut emissions far more cheaply than
encouraging wind turbines or solar photovoltaic panels
Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
Myth 5 Avoid food miles
Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions
· Chris Goodall is the author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life (Earthscan)
and founder of carboncommentary.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/13/ethicalliving.carbonfootpr
ints
> Ethical living
> Carbon myths
> Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't
> save the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate
> the loft, says Chris Goodall
And you could just cut to the chase and kill yourself thoughtfully too.
Dont make a mess.
> * Chris Goodall
> * The Guardian,
> * Thursday December 13 2007
> The global warming consequences of our personal actions are usually
> invisible to us. We have no easy means of knowing how our way of life
> generates carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases. It is far
> from obvious that it takes more energy to produce a paper bag than
> its plastic equivalent, or that extra loft insulation usually reduces
> gas consumption more than solar panels. Unsurprisingly, this means
> that most of us are ignorant about what really matters, which makes
> us vulnerable to comforting half-truths. These myths are a problem in
> themselves because they discourage us from addressing the important
> sources of emissions. But our ignorance also encourages businesses to
> promote goods and services that offer little or no carbon-saving.
> So, for example, when British people are asked in surveys about the
> actions they can take to be more responsible about global warming,
> domestic recycling always comes top. Reducing air travel comes far
> down the list. But the global warming impact of our Mediterranean
> holidays is hundreds of times more than the toll from not recycling.
> We see the plastics going into the dustbin every week, but pollutants
> from jet engines are hidden. So people who carefully sort their
> recycling every week continue to fly. And businesses that are trying
> to be ethical devote more effort to reducing packaging than getting
> their employees to travel less.
> We like our myths. Suggesting that British league football isn't the
> best in the world or that Monty Python wasn't always funny is a quick
> way to start an argument and lose friends. But some of our cherished
> carbon myths are dangerously counterproductive. Here is my list of
> the most common:
> I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local
> farmers' market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a
> householder replaces all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly
> electricity consumption is likely to be no more than about 400 units
> (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma TV bought at the same time will
> outweigh any energy savings. The government talks about banning
> old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive impact on
> energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games
> consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their
> manufacturers and the online brochures usually omit all details of
> electricity use. I couldn't find a single retailer that dares to list
> the power consumption of plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting home
> electricity consumption? Keep your old TV. If you still feel the need
> to buy something, get a new super-efficient fridge.
> Nothing arouses fury like the disposable plastic supermarket bag.
> Gordon Brown singled them out in his first speech on climate change
> as prime minister. The widespread hatred now extends to almost all
> plastic food packaging. But although plastic bags are detestable,
> they are almost irrelevant to climate change. Each of us uses about
> 2kg a year of shopping bags, and they perform multiple useful
> functions in the home after they have carried our shopping from the
> supermarket. Food packaging of all types is no more than 5% of the
> weight of our groceries. Wasted food, which rots in landfill and
> generates methane, is a far more serious cause of global warming.
> Rather than getting our retailers to strip the 3g of protective
> polythene from our cucumbers, we need to concentrate on reducing the
> 30% of food that goes to waste every week.
> There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are
> an extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota
> Prius may be lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest
> generation of small diesels, which cost little more than half the
> price. Buy a small car instead and spend the savings on insulating
> your walls. It will have far more effect. Worried about the effect on
> your status of driving a small car? Buy an electric vehicle and
> people will simply think of you as eccentric.
> It makes sense to avoid unnecessary transport of food. Local food is
> fresher and probably healthier, and your purchase contributes to the
> local economy. But food transport, unless it is by air, is usually a
> relatively small part of a meal's carbon impact. Reducing the amount
> of meat you eat has far more effect than deciding to buy locally. A
> kilo of beef from the farm next door will have 50 times the global
> warming effect of a can of beans shipped from Canada. Taking a few
> steps towards a vegan diet will reduce carbon emissions far more than
> local purchasing. Avoiding meat and also buying locally is better
> still.
> Politicians extol the virtues of domestic generation of electricity.
> The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to
> paying us 45p a unit for electricity from the solar panels on our
> roof, about 10 times the wholesale price paid to the large,
> coal-fired Drax power station, in North Yorkshire. Microgeneration
> may be fashionable, but it is an astonishingly expensive way of
> reducing emissions. Less glamorous, but more effective, would be a
> plan to put a £20 note in the centre of every roll of loft
> insulation. British houses are the worst insulated in northern Europe
> and subsidised insulation would cut emissions far more cheaply than
> encouraging wind turbines or solar photovoltaic panels
> Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
> Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
> Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
> Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
> Myth 5 Avoid food miles
> Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions
> · Chris Goodall is the author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life
> (Earthscan) and founder of carboncommentary.com
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/13/ethicalliving.carbonfootpr
> ints
>I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local farmers'
>market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a householder replaces
>all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly electricity consumption is
>likely to be no more than about 400 units (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma
>TV bought at the same time will outweigh any energy savings. The government
>talks about banning old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive
>impact on energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games
>consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their manufacturers
>and the online brochures usually omit all details of electricity use. I
>couldn't find a single retailer that dares to list the power consumption of
>plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting home electricity consumption? Keep
>your old TV. If you still feel the need to buy something, get a new
>super-efficient fridge.
Most flat-screen TVs are LCD ones, which consume about 1/2-2/3 as much
power as CRT ones of the same size when the size is a common CRT size,
75-80% or so for larger sizes such as 32 inches. Plasma TVs consume only
slightly more power than LCD ones of the same size.
This link shows some sampling results indicating that plasma has about
the same power consumption per unit screen area as a CRT, for larger
sizes. Power consumption per unit screen area for CRT is greater in
smaller sizes.
The big factor explaining why plasma TVs consume more power is the fact
that they tend to be big. Size matters!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>> I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local
>> farmers' market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a
>> householder replaces all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly
>> electricity consumption is likely to be no more than about 400 units
>> (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma TV bought at the same time will
>> outweigh any energy savings. The government talks about banning
>> old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive impact on
>> energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games
>> consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their
>> manufacturers and the online brochures usually omit all details of
>> electricity use. I couldn't find a single retailer that dares to
>> list the power consumption of plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting
>> home electricity consumption? Keep your old TV. If you still feel
>> the need to buy something, get a new super-efficient fridge.
> Most flat-screen TVs are LCD ones,
Wrong, and you say the opposite below.
> which consume about 1/2-2/3 as much power as CRT ones of the same size when
> the size is a common CRT size, 75-80% or so for larger sizes such as 32 inches.
> Plasma TVs
Which are flat screen TVs.
> consume only slightly more power than LCD ones of the same size.
You say the opposite below.
> This link shows some sampling results indicating that plasma has about the
> same power consumption per unit screen area as a CRT, for larger sizes.
So much for the previous claim.
> Power consumption per unit screen area for CRT is greater in smaller sizes.
> The big factor explaining why plasma TVs consume more
> power is the fact that they tend to be big. Size matters!
There are plenty of LCDs that big too.
XML site map
> Carbon myths
> Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't
> save the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate
> the loft, says Chris Goodall