blog

“We’d be fine if only everyone would … [fill in the blank].”

“…quit having kids.”
“…stop eating meat.”
“…eliminate air travel.”

The truth is, there is no magic bullet. If there were a quick and easy solution, people and industries would’ve jumped on it. The flipside of the “no magic bullet” is that there are multiple areas that offer significant opportunities to reduce our footprint. And, a couple of those areas are extra large.

The two big areas, according to my research, are transportation and electricity.

Both the EPA and the Sierra Club report that the transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the USA, over 28.5% according to EPA. (Another EPA webpage says transportation’s share is just 26% — illustrating the difficulty of getting a definitively accurate grasp of the breakdown. Still, the fact remains that transportation contributes a large share to our collective footprint.)

Electricity is up there at 28.4%.

So, if you want to reduce your footprint, transportation and electricity are two really good areas to start.

But, if you feel moved to tackle your footprint from another angle altogether — such as reducing your food footprint, or your household waste volume, or your lawn square footage — don’t think your contribution won’t matter. After all, electricity and fossil-fueled transportation are built into just about all human activities nowadays. And, agriculture does have a sizable share of the footprint.

The EPA offers these figures by economic sector for the USA:

Transportation 28%
Electricity 28%
Industry 22%
Agriculture 9%
Commercial 6%
Residential 5%

In this article How Much Does Animal Agriculture and Eating Meat Contribute to Global Warming?, Skeptical Science includes a World Greenhouse Gas Emissions Flow Chart from the World Resources Institute.

This chart makes clear that another huge contributor to our footprint is deforestation. According to the chart, “land use change” accounts for over 18 percent of our footprint worldwide, and pretty much all of that is deforestation. Anything you and I can do to plant more trees, and leave existing trees in place, will help. The same goes for allowing prairies and meadows to remain in place, or grow back.

Speaking of agriculture, and deforestation, lawns are the largest irrigated crop in the USA, and there may be more acres of lawn in the USA than of the EIGHT next-largest irrigated crops combined!

I know I’m always harping on lawns, and those of you who love your manicured patch of green might think I’m out to spoil your fun, but the fact is that the manicured lawn generates significantly more CO2 than it absorbs. Even if you love your lawn, consider letting it grow longer between cuttings. Also, leave the clippings on the lawn, and stop using chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Also, consider turning part of all of your yard into meadow or forest. (If you’ve got a dictatorial HOA that forbids such practices, consider moving. Or better yet, get on the board of your HOA and shape a saner policy for the future, for your kids and grandkids.)

Long story short, there is no magic bullet, but don’t let that stop you. There are plenty of low-hanging fruit for footprint reduction. Choose the ones that are easiest for you, and/or closest to your heart, and have at it!

P.S. In regard to population control, I’m not going to deny the importance of thoughtful family planning. But whenever I hear someone say the best thing that could possibly happen to the world would be for the human race to go extinct, I’m always tempted to respond, “Mmmmkay … You go first!”

Photos #1 & 2: Palm trees allowed to grow naturally. Notice the graceful shape. Not only are they beautiful; they also provide habitat for bats and other essential wildlife. And shade for everyone!

Photo #3: Palm trees “neatened up” by humans. “Landscaping Gone Bad,” I call this. Some folks do this so they won’t have to trim their trees as often. But then you have to put up with a whole lot of ugly for those months that the crown is growing back (if it even grows back properly, which it often doesn’t).

And the thing is, the palm trees really don’t need trimming. They don’t need ANY human intervention at all. They are self-maintaining; they shed fronds naturally from time to time. And while the old, dead-looking fronds are still attached to the tree, they are actually providing protection and nourishment for the tree.

(And if the property owner fears that a frond is about to fall, and that it might hit someone, it’s easy enough to just clip off that one frond by hand, as opposed to deploying noisy, gas-powered heavy equipment to decimate the whole tree.)

Do we humans not have enough to do? Do we have to manufacture busywork that not only is unnecessary but actually degrades our environment and quality of life?

Another example of Stupid Human Tricks (Subcategory “Landscaping Gone Bad”) is the use of leafblowers to blow tiny, barely-visible bits of stuff around sidewalks for hours on end. The noise and fumes carry for blocks, and nothing really gets accomplished.

Deep-green living suggestion for today: Find an example of “Stupid Human Tricks” in your area (whether “Landscaping Gone Bad” or any other category of your choice, such as “Outrageous Parenting”; “Nanny Government”; “Stamping Out Beneficial Initiatives”; or what have you).

If you’ve been participating unwittingly, make a deliberate choice to withdraw your participation. If it’s a “Stupid Human Trick” perpetrated by someone else, call it out publicly in your neighborhood meeting, City meeting, letter to the editor, or other public channel. Call it out in a way that appeals to people’s self-interest. For example (in the case of the palm-tree mutilation), I can point out that it’s a waste of the limited City budget; it causes noise pollution; the gasoline fumes are noxious; or it’s putting workers in unnecessary danger. Each and every one of us CAN make a difference in stamping out stupid.

If you can’t get your neighbors, co-workers, etc., to work up any outrage over the “stupid” aspect, try pointing out the “just plain ugly” aspect!

By the way, “Stupid Human Tricks” was the title of a segment on the David Letterman Show back in the 1980s. It was pretty much what it sounded like: Silly examples of humans doing stupid stuff. In keeping with Letterman’s show, it was a hilarious segment. But the “Stupid Human Tricks” we see around us each day for real, such as overzealous landscaping, aren’t really very funny at all. They can be deadly serious, in fact.

One way to reduce your eco-footprint is to reduce the maintenance cost of your living and working environments. Maintenance cost can be viewed in terms of time, money, fossil energy, your personal energy, or all of the above. Reducing maintenance overhead is a particularly satisfying way to shrink your footprint, because you’re not only helping the planet but also freeing up your own personal resources, which you can then channel into the things that matter most to you.

Fussy landscaping is a huge drain on resources. As just one example, think of all the gasoline that gets expended each year in the United States of America just to create square shrubbery. I much prefer the approach in this photo. This business owner (a print shop in Daytona Beach, FL) obviously takes pride in the appearance of his/her lot. It’s neat and clean, not abandoned-looking. But the shrubs and other plants have been allowed to grow to a natural shape. Unlike those rigid rectangular landscapes you see, which start to look “messy” the minute one leaf falls onto the lawn, or one tendril grows up from a shrub, this site stays nice-looking with much less fuss.

Reduce your footprint by reducing maintenance. Other examples:

• Don’t have a sofa or carpet that shows dirt easily. Hey, don’t have carpet at all! Have rugs that you can quickly shake out. Or flooring that you can clean with a quick sweep or mop.

• Stop trying to keep your patio or driveway spotless. It’s outdoors; it’s not your kitchen floor or counter. Oil from cars, fruit from trees, bird poop, and just miscellaneous stuff of life is going to leave its mark on any outdoor surface. If some little spot is bugging you, the solution isn’t a scrub brush or (God forbid) a pressure washer; the solution is time. Let the passage of time bring the multitude of spots that add up to a natural, gently mottled surface. (Other solutions for an annoying spot on the driveway include a good book, or time with a friend, or some other worthwhile thing that takes your attention off your preoccupation with a pristine driveway.)

• Same with clothes. Refuse to own clothes that require ironing, dry-cleaning; that show dirt easily. Unless you happen to be one of those naturally neat eaters who never spill anything!

• Let all or part of your lawn revert to meadow or forest. Trying to exert rigid control over a large swath of land is like tackling a tar-baby. It ends up controlling you.

What are some of your favorite ways to reduce maintenance and free up your time and energy?

Anyone can live green. Anyone, of any age, marital status, family structure, income, ability/disability, geographic location, or type of dwelling. It’s not some situation-specific thing.

And, it doesn’t take income to live green. Actually, living in a truly lower-footprint manner should free up money and other resources. If it doesn’t, it’s not really green.

Regarding income and wealth, I will say that extreme income inequality is a major root of environmental degradation, as well as the erasure of traditional cultures around the planet.

You mentioned that you live in a condo. That’s actually an even better setting to live green. In many ways.

Residents can get together on farm subscriptions; buy a share of a beef cow together; ask your condo board to approve edible and native landscaping to replace the purely ornamental stuff that’s just hogging resources.

People talk a lot about having kids, as if having kids prevents a person from being green. In fact, many times kids are a lot more eco-conscious, and would be totally on board with various green lifestyle things.

On a personal note, I get around mainly by foot and bicycle. And I think one of the best things a person can do if they have a family is raise their kids in a walkable area. But that isn’t always feasible. And getting around by bike is really unsafe on these horrific high-speed suburban roads. That said, I have shared in this blog an article about families who are getting along without a car even though they have young kids.

Age doesn’t matter either. I’m in my 60s for what it’s worth.

Q: Hello again Jennifer–fascinating and I wish you could change the world for the better.

The concept sounds wonderful, and as a child I lived next to my immigrant Italian grandparents who had a garden, fruit trees and grape vines, animals and a beagle to help hunt.

But in the age of today, is it really possible to get society to comply to green living?

I can’t imagine the millennial generation, with their cell-phone, eat-out lifestyles, fitting into a deep-green existence. They, nor I would, ever kill a chicken or have a garden. (I live in a condo and the rules wouldn’t allow it anyway). How could what you suggest ever be accomplished.

What is your age? Where do you live this “green” lifestyle? How do you earn your income to be able to live “green?” Are you married, do you have children?

Striving to live green can get to be deadly serious at times. Sometimes a humorous approach is the most effective way to wake people up to common sense.

The other day, as Daytona Beach started getting its first long-sleeve days and quilt-sleeping nights, with lows forecasted in the 40s, a friend of a friend posted this photo on Facebook, showing a thermostat with a big orange note stuck onto it, basically saying there’s no need for heat unless you can see your breath. If you’re cold, you’re not wearing enough clothes.

This note summarizes my approach to a T. I haven’t used heat in over a decade (living in FL for past 8 yrs, Austin before that). But I never thought of writing a fun sassy note like this! Great idea.

(Now to make a similar note for air conditioning, which I do not use either; have rarely used voluntarily in my life.)