Back-Down-to-Earth Day

Just to clarify: the 2.2 score I got was my attempt, as prompted by the post, to game the quiz to get a low score. My real score was closer to mbg's, and it does sound like he consumes a bit less than I do, so I'm confused as to how I got a marginally lower score. My household doesn't eat much meat; maybe that accounts for it?

Thanks Tea Drinker, that's precisely what I'm trying to point out (though I do fully support the banning of styrofoam--I'm from Portland originally and hadn't seen the stuff for a decade till I moved here).

Charles, we may be splitting hairs here. Insofar as the personal adoption of a pro-environment lifestyle leads people to support crucial policy changes, I'm all for it. My concern, as Tea Drinker touched on, is that these personal choices can become a band-aid. I start from the perspective, as the calculator makes pretty clear, that we can never resolve this issue unless natonal policy shifts towards lower-impact energy solutions. To start from the other side, the Al Gore perspective, is inspiring and encourages Americans to see themselves as part of the solution, and that's good. But if they lose sight of the fact that their lower energy prices are the core of the problem, then no matter how many fewer plastic bags they use, no matter how many cfls they install, no matter where they food they buy is from, will really have an impact,

Moreover, a big concern I have is that in a liberal city like Seattle we can lose perspective on the problem. A case in point: free trade coffee. Many people here justly support free trade coffee (particularly of the organic, shade-grown variety). The problem is that when I looked up statistics from the National Coffee Association, a national trade group, it confirmed my suspicion: specialty coffee (including all of Starbucks, and of which free trade organic shade grown coffee is merely a small subset), is well less than half the US coffee market share, while Folgers and Maxwell House control almost half the U.S. market alone. To my mind, that means that really, our personal choice is negligible; so long as consumers want a product, the market will supply it. In this case, we're not changing the way coffee is produced, we're just making use of the seemingly endless set of choices capitalism provides while the rest of the country blithely goes along unconcerned. Without a policy solution, the impact is primarily one of making consumers who care feel better about themselves.

That's not really helping anything, and to the best of my knowledge, efforts to expand the movement beyond ensuring a supply of coffee for ethical consumers towards creating an equitable, sustainable model for coffee production has failed. In other words, it's a band-aid, and given the severity of the enviornmental problems facing the globe, we can't afford to waste too much time on band-aids instead of seeking real solutions.

Thank you thank you for pointing out that these are complex problems requiring thoughtful solutions, and not just band-aids (yes, Nickels, I am talking about your lame and unimaginative bag tax). I hope this reminds me to look at the big picture and unintended consequences more carefully. What's that you say...mercury in those compact florescents?

riddle me this, joker...

* i drive an average of 10 miles per month, i take the bus for another 50, and i walk 50.

* during the winter, i heat my house to a very comfortable 57° (too cold for you).

* i put out one micro-tainer every 3 weeks (mostly cat litter), recycle everything (and put that out every 1.5 months), and compost everything else.

* i don't buy shit that i don't need, including clothes. hey, did you know that one pair of jeans can last for 5 years?

* hot water heater is set to 120° (my hot water is considered cold for many), car's oil changed regularly and the tire pressure is fine (not that it matters much considering my driving), i buy local produce whenever i can (and from local vendors, too), i don't litter (in fact, i even pick up neighborhood litter and put it into my own trashcan)... captured rainwater to water my garden, the rest of the yard is no-maintenance (and a habitat for local birds).

and i scored a 3.2. no, i don't fly. yes, i grow some of my own vegetables. your 20¢ plastic bag tax doesn't affect me since i'be been using canvas grocery bags for more than 10 years.

fuckin' three point fuckin' two? shit like pisses me off. i suspect that i use even less than RJL20.

I don't agree Jeremy. Although I agree that Eco Geek IS probalby right that Americans have a minimum impact on the planet because of our infrastructure, our personal choices do make a difference. Our choices help define the market and policy which can change the infrastructure.

Most obviously, if we weren't making the choice to try and be sustainable, then the market wouldn't be shifting toward more sustainable materials and infrastructure. I know your feelings about the "sustainability" bubble, but while there may be a million companies out there that are getting gobs of VC cash and which will probably go nowhere, a fair number of them are creating amazing and useful technology which will change our infrastructure because more and more consumers are demanding it.

Also, another word for consumers is "voters." I'm willing to bet that the people who make these "green" choices are also more likely to vote and that is changing the face of policy. More than half the states in the country have renewable portfolio standards. A number of states and counties are working on building massive transmission infrastructure and reserving large percentages of the space on it for renewable energy. There's a pretty good bill in the Senate right now to create cap and trade markets for CO2. (no it's not perfect, but it's a good step in the right direction and better than nothing.) All three presidential candidates support it. Many, many representatives and senators want to extend tax breaks for solar and wind. Northwesterners use less gas now which means that more of us are taking transit which translates into more light rail (it'll happen) and buses.

So, I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong that our personal choices won't fix the problem. When we make the choice to use canvas bags at the store, the electeds start to see the trend and begin making policy changes to reduce the amount of waste we send to landfills in a variety of ways.

We choose, the policy changes. They go hand in hand.

Eco Geek is all too right on that one, which is one of the reasons I do take issue with the "we can change this if we change our behavior" versions of environmental concern. In the end, you just plain don't do that much damage personally, it's the macro-level impacts of policy which make the difference. Don't get me wrong: I totally back conservation, happily bus and/or walk to work every day, live centrally so I can walk to the grocery store and bars and clubs, all that jazz. But for all the publicity that personal choice gets (the NY Times Magazine was devoted to "green" choices this weekend), the biggest and, surprisingly, least painful ways to benefit the environment, decrease carbon footprints and so on are policy choices, particularly regulation. But these days regulation has become so demonized it's the last thing on any policy-maker's mind.

My eco-vice is definitely travel (damn family insisting on lving on the WRONG coast). JMB, I gotta come clean and admit that I am unable to visit them via bike.

With out any research or even serious consideration, I can only guess that US footprints start with a basic min-threshold that represents our energy intensive infrastructure. Even if the individual lives the green life, they must rely on our societal support system which is ultimately unsustainable. Boo.

I got a 2.1 and that was just my life, which I try to keep pretty green. The kicker, in my case, was the coffee I drink. Oh and the airplanes. Those are bad.

On the one hand, it's cool to show people how much of an impact their personal lives have on the environment; on the other hand, this footprint doesn't take into account the systemic inefficiencies that personal behavior won't affect at all. I'd much rather try to raise all boats than interest everyone in burlap chic.

When you take the quiz, go ahead give yourself lots of credit for using renewable sources for electricity.

Hydro 89.8%

Nuclear 4.6%

Wind 3.5%

Natural Gas 1.1%

Coal 0.9%

Other 0.1%

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/FuelMix/

4.1?!?!

Thats crazy. Im just going to stick my head back in the sand...

Our friend the policy analyst actually discovered the Australian thing, too: that activities have a greated benefit in Australia than here. The analysis (it's good to know analysts) is as follows:

with a little searching and a little division, the comparative energy sector breakdown of the us versus australia utility electric power (2006)...US: 90% thermal; 59% coal; 0.27% renewables (excl. hydro); 10% renewables (incl. hydro)...AUSTRALIA: 84% thermal; "mostly coal"; 14% renewables (incl. hydro); "mostly hydro"...

the big shocker as to why you can't live sustainably here no matter how many cfls you use, or how much you bike...we have virtually no access to renewable energy while we heavily subsidize thermal sources (esp coal and nuclear now)...no surprise that aussies can have more success if they want a smaller footprint--their policy supports it, though it's not the best in the world. even if we all wanted to switch to wind or solar here, it's not possible to employ any of it beyond 0.0027 of the country's total generating capacity. in essence, if you and an australian each check the "green power" box on the electric bill, only his is going to matter

I can get it down to 2.2, but no lower than that. If I take the Australian version, it gives me some other options and I can get it down to 0.8.