Climate Inaction

By Skip Holmes

We have been totally absorbed by the global pandemic for most of 2020. Many of us stayed home for months and occasionally went outside this spring while working from home, trying to home school our children, ordering groceries and other items online. Having prepared food delivered by masked drivers who only took credit or debit cards.

As we transitioned from winter into spring many people were feeling an overwhelming need to get outside and experience fresh air, the natural environment, and attempt to get some much-needed exercise. A recent poll in New York State found that 46% of the people responding stated that they had put on weight.

We were inundated daily with statistics about how many people were being tested for the virus or had contracted it. Much of other news was not playing well in the media. The adage ‘if it bleeds it leads’ seemed to be the operative norm.

The climate crisis that was permeating the news cycle in 2019 seemed to have vanished. Did it get solved by so many people staying home for months, driving less, not flying, eating less chicken (since some processing plants were shut down), and using fewer paper products – remember the toilet paper crisis? A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions did occur for a short time, and was measurable, but it climbed back up to its previous levels as the summer approached.

So where do we now stand in regard to the timeline of trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Turns out we have made very little progress and the critical date of 2030 is now just ten short years away. In 1995, when I started working on energy reductions and associated greenhouse gas issues, the year 2030 seemed like it was an eternity away.

There are many efforts that can bring about changes that are necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and attempt to limit the increase in the average earth temperature change to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius). The Earth’s average temperature has already warmed up by 1.8 degrees F (1.0 degree C).

In conversation with friends at two colleges that were shut down this spring due to the pandemic, they measured electric energy use reductions in the range of 30 to 40%. Even with students, faculty and many staff absent from campuses the reductions were not as great as many thought. Many of those absent from campus were now at home working on their computer, turning up the heat since they were home all day, turning on more lights and cooking more. On a global level energy use and emissions was more of a shift in location.

In the United States, the average carbon dioxide production is currently 15 tons per person per year. In Britain the annual average is five tons per person, and in India it’s about two tons per person. The higher use in the US can be attributed to our larger vehicles with poor mileage, more air travel, purchasing disposable consumer goods, eating habits and food waste.

The average American eats six times more red meat than is recommended by the USDA. Food consumption and food waste accounts for approximately ten percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 40% of food purchased in the US is thrown away. Discarded food ends up in landfills that generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

A recent survey in the US found that there are many misconceptions in regard to how our personal choices are affecting the climate. We do not have sufficient information to make the appropriate decisions in regard to choices that would be better for the environment. An example is how many people have purchased a hybrid vehicle and now drive more since it has better fuel economy. 

When asked what they should do to help the environment, many people reply that driving less is the answer. Yet we have not seen a significant reduction in driving except during the first several months of the pandemic. With gas prices being at recent lows and people having been home for months there is more traffic in the Adirondacks and elsewhere. Many people have traveled to the Adirondacks from other states believing that they will be away from areas that had increases in Covid-19 cases.

The pandemic has temporarily or permanently closed many fitness centers, gyms and indoor pools. The response by many of us has been to purchase fitness equipment to use in our homes. Think about how hard it is to get a Peloton machine, a new bicycle, a kayak, or even a bike rack for your car. How many of these pieces of equipment will end up in the basement as clothes racks when we get beyond the pandemic. How much energy and resources were used to produce and ship these items from all over the world? This is what we call a shadow carbon footprint. There was a time when the average carbon footprint for a person in the US was 21 tons per person. Now it is 15 tons per person. What changed? Did we become so much more environmentally responsible? 

What happened was that much of the manufacturing moved overseas by corporations searching for lower labor costs. Now the energy used to manufacture all these consumer goods was consumed in other countries. Other countries such as China and India have seen their carbon footprint double or triple on a per capita basis. And when a country such as China triples its per capita emissions it means multiplying the three tons by 1.3 billion people, no small increase! We look better when looking at the problem from an emissions accounting basis but we are now ‘just less bad.’

What should we do as we rapidly approach what is called the tipping point for climate? The slogan used to be “practice the three Rs” – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Helpful but certainly not adequate for the short timeline we are facing as 2030 is just around the corner.

The global population is now at 7.8 billion people and growing. Think about what it will take to feed the 9 billon people we may have by 2030. Food will become a major issue as more people in other countries try to adopt our diet with an increase in meat consumption. I am sure you have heard from the vegetarians who promote their diet. Previously I mentioned the fact that we in the US eat six times the recommended amount. The average American eats over 260 pounds of meat a year. If you consider yourself below average for this metric, imagine the people who are above average! If you really take a moment to look at the amount of meat you eat, you’ll be surprised. Could you switch to a vegetarian diet? Perhaps not, but could you reduce your meat consumption by 10 percent at a minimum? That would not be a difficult challenge.

So perhaps the challenge is to reduce everything we do by 10% or more. That is actually a low bar to jump over. In addition to slightly modifying your food diet, how about lowering your energy diet as well. Can you drive your vehicle 10% less? Can you use 10% less electric energy? Do you even know how much electricity you use on a monthly basis?

Electricity is magic. It just comes out of the outlets in your wall without any noise. Those electrons have to travel hundreds of miles, unless you have photovoltaic panels or a windmill. Approximately 10% of all electricity produced is lost in the delivery before it even gets to your outlet. Of the electricity generated by nonrenewable sources, only 30% actually gets used in your home. The rest is turned into thermal losses by the process. If you can reduce your consumption by 10%, you’re actually saving significantly more, and reducing carbon emissions by a larger amount.

Isn’t time for you to take a more active role in reducing your carbon footprint? Can you take a challenge to reduce your footprint by at least 10%? Much like the challenges we all take on to hike mountains, ride a century, compete in a triathlon, or run a marathon – set a PR for your carbon emission reductions! To evaluate your use, there are numerous carbon footprint calculators; one is from the Global Footprint Network (footprintnetwork.org).

Beyond your personal efforts there are actions you can take in your own community. The town of Bethlehem, where I reside, adopted the NYS Climate Smart Communities program years ago. They have reduced energy use in their buildings, installed a large-scale photovoltaic system of approximately 3.75 megawatts, recently installed electric vehicle charging stations at town hall and the local town park. These actions came about due to residents getting involved at the community level. You should ask your local representatives what they’re doing to reduce the community carbon footprint – and get more involved!

There are many non-governmental organizations. These NGOs are working at the local, state and national level to develop initiatives to support climate change. Here are a few of the numerous organizations working on the environment and climate concerns: Sierra Club (sierraclub.org), League of Conservation Voters (lcv.org), Adirondack Mountain Club (adk.org), and Adirondack North Country Association (Adirondack.org) which has a dedicated group working on clean energy for the Adirondacks.

At the state level, New York’s nation-leading Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (climate.ny.gov) is devoting substantial resources to the state while leveraging private sector capital. The CLCPA sets a new standard, codifying New York’s goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030, while also cutting greenhouse gas emissions 85% by 2050.

At the federal level, there is an initiative in the Congress called the Green New Deal, that’s focused on climate issues and developing an economy based on a set of renewable energy principles.

If you’re concerned about the future of our environment and climate, take the time to become informed, and vote this November.

Skip Holmes (serottaskip@gmail.com) of Delmar provides training programs for Urban Green Council of NYC and taught sustainable building design at RPI for many years. He is a member of Mohawk-Hudson Cycling Club and Capital Bicycle Racing Club, and can be found road and mountain biking, kayaking, canoeing, hiking or Nordic skiing.