No impact man

I highly recommend the documentary No Impact Man where Colin Beavan vows to make as little environmental impact as possible for one year.  You follow the Manhattan-based Colin along with his wife and two-year old daughter in their radical lifestyle change. It means buying local food, eating vegetarian along with no elevators, no television, no cars, busses, or airplanes, no toxic cleaning products, no electricity, no material consumption and no garbage.

Colin Beavan: ”The fact of the matter is that if only I change, it's not going to make a difference, but the hope is that if each of us as individuals change, it's going to inspire everybody to change. So I believe the most radical political act there is, is to be an optimist. The most radical political act there is, is to believe that if I change, other people will follow suit.”

Get inspired and learn new ways to reduce your environmental impact.

My ‘carbon-footprint’

‘Carbon footprint’ has become a buzzword the last years and is a term and concept widely used in the public discussion of the responsibility in the fight against global climate change.

A countless number of websites offer a quick and easy calculation of consumers’ carbon impact. The calculation of the carbon footprint is driven by NGOs, companies and private initiatives and not by research, which has in effect lead to many definitions and suggestions to how the carbon footprint is defined and calculated (Weidema et al., 2008). An extensive literature study executed by Wiedmann and Minx (2007) revealed the term ‘carbon footprint’ in most instances is used as a synonym for CO₂ and non-CO₂ emissions expressed in CO₂ equivalent indicators. This is similar to the global warming potential (GWP) indicator used in life cycle assessment (LCA), where approaches based on comprehensive environmental life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods make it possible to track the total emissions across the entire supply chain (Matthews et al., 2008). The complexity of the LCAs calculations makes it more difficult for the consumer to understand the calculations.

Wiedmannand Minx (2007) proposed the following definition of the term ‘carbon footprint’:

“The carbon footprint is a measure of the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity or is accumulated over the life stages of a product.”

It is debatable whether this definition should be used when defining ‘carbon footprint’ and solely relying on carbon emission as the only indicator when a consumer is calculating their environmental impact.

But at the end of the day ‘carbon footprinting’, has through an abundance of websites, caught the attention of the public where the calculated value is easily grasped and placed in context. The term has gained tremendous popularity and seized to increase consumer awareness and encourage discussion on product’s environmental impact. Discovering that a trip from Copenhagen to San Francisco has an estimated carbon footprint of 2 tons of CO₂ (20% of the annual carbon footprint of an average European) definitely works as an eye opener (Weidema et al., 2008). The most important factor is that the consumer is able to place the value in context and make sustainable decisions.

For industries, on the other hand, it is vital for them to have a complete understanding of the calculations of greenhouse gas emissions. Full knowledge of their footprints can contribute to pursue effective carbon mitigation strategies and to ensure large sources of environmental effects across the supply chain (Matthews et al., 2008).

Try one of the following websites to calculate your household’s carbon footprint:

• http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
• http://carboncalculator.direct.gov.uk/index.html

A book review of 'Green Metropolis': Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability by David Owen

I intuitively associate large, urban mega cities like New York with smog, densely populated areas and smelly trash. Am I in reality having a smaller impact on the planet by living in the city?

In the book Green Metropolis David Owen makes a convincing case of how megacities should be perceived as role models for the suburbs. He argues that we can “permanently reduce energy use, water consumption, carbon output and many other environmental ills” by living in densely populated cities.

The compactness of the city enables the inhabitants to walk, bike and use public transport instead of driving a car, share infrastructure more efficiently, live in smaller areas and use less energy for heating. Owen reports these factors contribute to the average New Yorker emitting 30 % less greenhouse gas than the average American (Royte, 2009).

The leafy suburbs where the population is thinly spread out may seem to have a smaller impact on the environment, but in reality the opposite is true. The environmentally conscious consumer with triple-paned windows, backyard compost and geothermal heat pump still drives a car. Owen states: “Wasted energy is wasted energy no matter how it’s generated.” The conventional environmental ideals of the easy-on-the-earth country living are challenged by a sustainable future looking more like the mega cities of Hong Kong and New York (Royte, 2009).

Owen’s arguments make sense and I am convinced that living in the city has a smaller impact on the Earth than the population spreading out in the countryside.

Another question is: How would the planet respond to the entire society moving into densely populated areas creating mega cities and leaving the countryside to the natural system?

Eco-Friendly Food

The consumption of food causes greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in the various stages of the life cycle of food production (Kramer et al., 1999). Conflicting views make it difficult for me as a consumer to make environmentally conscious shopping choices. I will in this blog entry try to find out how my diet can have the lowest environmental impact.

In the article written by Kramer et al. the calculations of CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O emissions related to Dutch food consumption are presented. Production, processing and distribution of the consumed food are included in the calculation of GHG emission. CO₂ emissions were mainly related to the use of energy, CH₄ from animal husbandry and N₂O emissions from fertilizers (Kramer et al., 1999).

When shopping for food bearing the following points in mind will lead to a reduction in GHG emissions:

• Buying locally produced products
• Limiting meat consumption by substituting with other protein food products (e.g. eggs, nuts and pulses)
• Substituting glasshouse produced food with foods grown on the open field 

Kramer et al. did not include the nutrition value of the food products in the calculations of GHG emissions, whereas an article written by Wallén et al. discusses the possibilities for a Swedish consumer to make sustainable dietary choices leading to a substantial decrease in GHG emission.

A sustainable diet is here defined, as a diet providing nutritional needs in combination with minimising greenhouse gas emissions (Wallén et al., 2004). The article emphasizes that it is often assumed that animal foods cause more GHG emission than vegetable foods. However, results show that imported vegetables can lead to greater carbon dioxide emissions than a meal containing domestically produced meat. It is therefore important where and how foods are produced (Wallén et al., 2004).

Overall, I can conclude there are several factors to bear in mind in order to have a more environmentally friendly diet. As a consumer it is possible to make environmentally correct shopping choices to lower the environmental impact but seen at a larger scale changing food production processes is more important to substantially decrease GHG emissions (Wallén et al., 2004).