opting out.pdf

8/14/2019 opting out.pdf

1/120

Meredith EpsteinSt. Marys Project in Environmental StudiesSpring 2008Mentor: Dr. Kate Chandler

Expires 12/31/2015

mmmmmCCCCC SSSSSIIIII ddddd !!!!!

The

to

opting

outValid on Earth only.Limit one planet per eternity, nontrans-ferable. Maximum resource allocation 4.5 acres per personmust be met with sustainability and justice for all. No cash/credit back. Not valid on purchase of sport utility vehicles,coal-fired electricity, polyvinyl chloride plastic, HostessTwinkies or Gucci bags.

Please consume responsibly


2/120


3/120


4/120

Dr. Chandler,Mary, Rachel, Anna, Rosie, Eric, Tyler, Thomas,

Bonnie, Shane, Erin, Joanna,Eli, Brett,

Guy,Pablo,

Kristen,Nicki,Mommy, Daddy, and Chrissie

thanks be to you.


5/120

Tabl e of Cont ent s

1Introduction

9Chapter One: How Much is Enough?

18Chapter Two: Dont Buy It

30Chapter Three: Transportation

47Chapter Four: Housing & Utilities

67

Chapter Five: Household Goods

83Chapter Six: Food

101

Conclusion

104Works Cited


6/120


7/120


8/120

comfortable balance in quality of life (Lerner 343). The movementtoward sustainability needs to be embraced by all Americans, not

just those who are already environmentally-inclined. Thus, allconsumers must not be made to feel guilty or perceive a threat to

our quality of life. We Americans must be given a sense of efficacy,realizing our authority as consumers.Neither the threats of resource depletion nor climate change

are being sufficiently acted upon by big business or the government,both of whom consume vast quantities themselves and create themanagement policies to do so. Top authorities on the issue includingthe UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Britisheconomist Nicholas Stern, and NASA scientist James Hansen have

issued reports stating that climate change is a reality and a threat tothe well-being of all life on Earth, and that action must be taken withinthe next eight years to mitigate its effects before they becomeirreversible. Most of the rest of the developed nations are on board.Yet, the decision-making bodies and economic powerhouses of theUnited States the greatest culprit of all in perpetuating this mess lag behind. With such a small window of opportunity, we cannot

keep waiting for Wall Street and the White House. It is up to eachindividual to start cutting carbon from the American lifestyle. BrianTokar, author of Earth for Sale, stresses that It is not enough tohave new laws if an expansionistic economic model still rules theworld and attitudes of private accumulation continue to dominate we need to shift our values and form a new model around them,changing the way that we live (7). Is it that We the People consumetoo much and create demand for excessive production, or is supply

excessive, duping the consumer into buying more than necessary?More simply, are resource depletion and excessive waste the faultof the consumer or the industry? Says David Gershon, founder ofGlobal Action Plan for the Earth (GAP),

We discovered that business, the perennial villain,was not the primary problem, and that government,

the perennial panacea, was not the primary solutionThe real problem is ordinary individuals in high-consumption countries living lifestyles that areenvironmentally unsustainable given the finiteresources of the planet. If how we live our lives isthe problem, the good news is that how we live ourlives can also be the solution. (Lerner 342)

2


9/120

Consumers and industries cannot be isolated from each otherbecause of the complex relationships involved, so both areresponsible. But consumers can be the ones to demand change.We are the many; corporations are the few. We must work within a

grassroots modelfrom the bottom up. Changing the world is ateam sport, and theres a spot on that team for every person on theplanet, though finding our spot can be damn hard (Steffen 25). As aconsumer, I am one of many among whom the power lies to grow orshrink demand for certain products and practices.

I can choose to use my buying power for good or evil, forgreen or black. Yet, an essential part of that power is also the choicenot to buy. We have the choice to opt out of the convoluted systems

perpetuating not only environmental degradation but also infractionsupon human and nonhuman rights, as well as racial, social,economic, gender, and religious inequality. The choice to opt outholds as much power as the choice to buy X, Y, or Z. We vote withour dollars!

And what exactly is this opting out? It is electing to pull ourmonetary support from a dependence on fossil fuel power, the

dominant food system and other ills of free-market capitalism, andinvest instead in smaller-scale, environmentally and sociallyresponsible alternatives. It is growing alternative economies insteadof contributing to ones that perpetuate suffering and environmentaldegradation so that companies are forced to change how they operateto meet increasing consumer demand for more sustainable and justmethods. Instead of shopping at the local Safeway (becauseregardless of whatyou are buying, your money is supporting a giant

corporation that drives unsustainable agribusiness conglomerates),seek out the mom and pop grocery that is supplied by local farmers.Instead of fueling up at BP (because regardless of which oil companyyouve heard is better, its still an oil company), walk, bike, or takepublic transportation to work.

The primary focus of this guide is how to opt out of systemsand practices that drive climate change because it is the most urgent

issue of the time and its causes and effects are inseparably linkedto environmental and human rights issues at large.The XXXX pounds of carbon dioxide emissions I cut from my

lifestyle each year may barely make a dent. But if each one of usacts to make our lifestyle more sustainable, the sum of those effortscan be enormous. Beyond our own front doors, collective consumerdemand guides business, and constituent concern guides policy.

3


10/120

Change may not be coming from the top down, but it can certainlywork its way from the bottom up. These times call for a truegrassroots movement. In her ground-breaking book Diet for a SmallPlanet, Francis Moore Lapp asserts that

Some call such views unrealistic, visionary, oridealistic. I respond that it is we who are awakeningto the crisis of our planetand to our own power tomake critical changeswho are the realists. Thosewho believe that our system of waste and destructionshould continue are the dreamers. (15)

We must act now , and this is what we can do.

Conscientious, efficient, reduced consumption is the answer.The transformation must come in the sectors with the largestenvironmental impacts food, transportation, buildings, and electricity

as well as the smaller household goods that amass to anunimaginable quantity and impact. Millions of Americans have

become engaged in taking simple steps in this direction, from eatingfairly traded organic foods to switching to more energy efficient lightbulbs and driving hybrid electric vehicles. Not only do these measuresconserve energy, they also save money and increase quality of lifefor all by moving us toward sustainable development. With the helpof celebrity endorsement and the media, these measures have evenbecome fashionable. Buying Energy Star appliances and recyclinghave become things that almost everyone can do.

But this is not a guide

that everyone will be ready for.

This guide is not 101 simple things you can do to save theEarth! This is a guide to looking critically at how we useandwasteenergy and other resources and how we can change that.It is about acting to reduce the adverse effects of our consumption.It is about reevaluating what is considered valuable and meaningful,what makes a person virtuous, and what gives a person higher socialstanding in our society. Do we really value thingsmore than the

4


11/120

assurance of a livable future? Our childrens childrens childrensfuture? Can we make certain lifestyle changes and find happinessin getting by with just enough or what is often still more than enough?Can we find enough appeal and reward in doing what is right to

actually change our habits?This guide is urgent and even radical because the onlysimple thing about this movement is that we no longer have time topuddle around picking up trash and building birdhouses (as good asthose things are). Now is the time to take things a step further toswitch the lights off and to drive less; to use a clothesline instead ofa dryer and to grow our own food; and to purchase little to nothingmore than we NEED. The appeal of such practices will only come

with a reassessment of what is valuable and living the good life inAmerica.

In 1999, Dr. Michael Brower and Dr. Warren Leon wrote TheConsumers Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical

Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists. In this guide I devoteone chapter each to transportation, food, and household operations,which I divide into two chapters, addressing in one our homes as

structures (housing and utilities) and in the other the things we put inthem (household goods). These are the individual household activityareas that Brower and Leon identify as account[ing] for the majorityof environmental impacts (52). The primary difference betweenour guides is that theirs emphasizes that not all consumption choicesare of equal environmental consequence (which is true), and soconsumers should prioritize the most high-impact choices while notsweating the small stuff. Brower and Leon measure the impacts of

many consumables in terms of air pollution, global warming, habitalteration, and water pollution. From there, they identify a list of theseven most harmful consumer activities and later identify a list ofthings consumers should not fret over in terms of environmentalimpact. While I draw great insight from their thorough research anddo quote their findings often here, I do not agree with their overallmessage that there are aspects of consumption that do not need to

be addressed.Much has happened in the ten years since Brower and Leonsguide was published. In 1999 there was not the same level of urgencyin addressing climate change. The fact is that we now know that wehave less than a decade to cut greenhouse gas emissions before acritical tipping point is reached, beyond which the most devastatingeffects of climate change will become irreversible (Hansen et al. 20-

5


12/120

22). We must cut U.S. carbon emissions 30% from the 2000 levelby 2020 and 80% by 2050, which is 2% per year targets backed byscientists, politicians, state governments, and non-governmentalorganizations.

Right now, the federal government and industry are movingtoo slowly to meet these targets. We as constituents and consumersmust push them into action and need to take the responsibility uponourselves to set the example. It is time to start being the change wewant to see in the world. Right now. With such little time to makesuch big changes, every molecule of CO

2counts, whether it comes

from a power plant, a factory, a tailpipe, or our shopping carts.Every person makes a difference, and every molecule makes

a difference. We can no longer go about business as usual with anyaspect of consumption because this is about a complete revolutionin lifestyle that stems from a change in beliefs and values. That iswhy I disagree with Brower and Leons argument that the idea thatAmericans need to reduce their consumption of goods and servicesacross the board and quell their materialistic lifestyleasks

Americans to accept a diminished standard of living without

guaranteeing that their sacrifice will actually solve pressingenvironmental problems (10). Reducing consumption across theboard is the only way to insure a pervasive paradigm shift fromdestructive consumption to peaceful participation in natural cycles.Taking this challenge upon ourselves as individuals is the only wayto achieve the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions necessary toevade the tipping point for catastrophic global climate change.

A paradigm shift is approaching that is on par with that of

Galileos time. Just as the world was shaken into understandingthat the Earth was not the center of the Universe, mainstream Americais now being jostled into understanding that humans never wereeither. Our species is young. If the entire lifetime of this planet wererepresented in a single year, humans would only enter the picturefor the last 3.8 hours on December 31st(Comprehending GeologicTime). We are one strand in an intricate fabric of evolution. But

weve been pulling at threads, even breaking some, and every tugreverberates throughout the entire cloth. We are feeling the effectsof our own tinkering in the forms of global climate change, acid rain,new diseases, and resource shortages. We are learning the hardway that all life is interconnected and we are in no way exempt fromthe responsibilities of that kinship.

6


13/120

Geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism, andanthropocentrism will give way to ecocentrism. As our very survivalas a species is threatened by our own lifestyle, we will come tovalue life, balance, and our connections to the earth more than our

cell phones, our SUVs, and our iPods.

An ecological approach to social transformationspeaks to the urgent need for hope in this period ofdespair. Such hope emerges from a personalidentification with the cycles of the natural world andthe potential for a more earth-centered way of life,one in which people contemplate and celebrate

nature, while actively engaging in its sustenance.(Tokar 122)

Productivity, Progress, Growth, and Development will bereplaced with Sustainability, Conscientiousness, Compassion, andCommunity. Joni Mitchell said it right we are stardust, billion yearold carbon, we are golden, caught in the devils bargain, and weve

got to get ourselves back to the garden.Let us not view the choices to cut carbon from our lives byeating locally, avoiding meat and dairy, biking to work, buying second-hand, and, above all, buying less as sacrifices. We can view thesechoices as valuable, necessary actions to care for the whole of lifeon this marvelous and rare planet, and form a new culture ofappreciation of and connection to the Earth. Rather than deprived,we can feel fuller, stronger, and more responsible. We can become

creators of our own existence and make contributions to that of others.We will find our places in the cycles that have gone on long beforewe came and will continue long after we are gone.

Major changes in American lifestyle have happened overnightbeforereflect on World War IIs Victory Gardens and recyclingeffortsand they can and must happen again. We must target thesources and causes of pollution and injustice, being proactive rather

than reactive. While working to reform ourselves we will be reformingthe sectors with the largest influence and the powers in control ofthemgiant corporations. Being green will never be more than

just a fad and a corporate faade unless it becomes a completereclamation and way of life because changing lightbulbs is justtinkering at the margins of a fundamentally flawed system unlesswe also change our paradigm (Leonard).

7


14/120

I am ready for it, and with an open heart and a sense ofadventure, I think many others can be, too.

8


15/120

Chapt er One

How Much is Enough?

Examining our consumption habits has value only to the degree

that the effort is both liberating and motivating.Frances Moore Lapp

Before embarking on a discussion about opting out ofconsumption, we should be clear about what consumption is andhow much must we consume? There may be as many ways ofdefining consumption as there are things to consume, but for our

purposes here I will define it as the utilization of resources. This cantake many forms. First off, we mustconsume in order to liveair,food, water, shelter. All that we consume can be seen mostfundamentally as energy, whether it is in the form of sunlight to growvegetables and trees, oil to run machinery that produces blue jeans,or coal to power a television. For instance, the production of justone two-pound bag of breakfast cereal burns the energy of half a

gallon of gasoline (Steffen 51). Ultimately, all energy on this planetcomes from the sun because our fuels are for the most part fossilfuels, which are a form of ancient sunlight. Even wind relies on thesuns energy. We can think of every thing that we buy as usingenergy; therefore, paying attention to the type and model of what webuy can increase or reduce energy consumption.

Every time we choose not to buy something we areconserving energy in the forms of natural resources, electricity, fuel,

and water. Each choice in isolation may seem insignificant, but itcounts in far-reaching ways. Changing the way we consume is firstabout changing the way that we think. It is about changing our societalvalues and the views of our relationship with the world. Only whenwe change what we think can we achieve the paradigm shiftnecessary to save the future of life on Earth. An essential part ofthat is thinking about all aspects of life in terms of energy and its

cyclical nature.The evolution of energy consumption has varied at extremes.From a complete reliance on wind, sun, and human power for themajority of human existence to the utilization of fire starting around500,000 years ago to the use of animal power 12,000 years ago, wehave now arrived at a nearly complete reliance on fossil fuelcombustion and nuclear power during the last century (Pimentel 1).

9


16/120

Such a transition has allowed for increasing control over the amountof energy available to each human being.

The gradual departure from subsistence occurred aroundthe time of the Neolithic Revolution, about 12,000 years ago. At that

time humans discovered how to domesticate plants and animals,thereby controlling and increasing agricultural yield. There could bemore than just enough for every person, increasing lifespan and thestandard of living.

Once production surpassed subsistencerequirementsthere was competition within societies for whocontrolled the surplus (Roberts). This competition stratifiedsocieties into class structuresmost basically, the haves and

have-nots. Material possession became valued as symbolic of agood life. The more one had, the higher his or her status. The moreand more we had to have. However, having a little extra grain perperson a few thousand years ago is surely a different story than theconsumption patterns we participate in today, especially in the UnitedStates. This is where I enter the word consumerismconsumptionwell beyond subsistence. Squandering, waste, overindulgence,

excess. Resource depletion.Perhaps surprisingly, there are not finite amounts ofresources; we just make it that way. All natural resources are partsof cycles and will regenerate over time. The scale of that time,however, is enormous. An individual human lifetime is barely a flickerin geologic time. For instance, it takes millions of years for fossilfuels to form naturally. A resource is considered renewable if it canreplenish itself on a time scale that is at least somewhat close to

human timetimber, crops, fish, wind, sunlight. A resource isconsidered non-renewable if it cannot be replenished on a humantime scalefossil fuels, uranium for nuclear power, water, andminerals. Unfortunately, we have come to think and consume onour time scale, not the Earths. It is like spending money faster thanwe make it. It means trouble.

We grab resources from all stages of their natural cycles,

use them, and discard themthrowing the cycles completely offkilter. Returning to the example of fossil fuels, we have extractedpetroleum and coal from the deepest reaches, burned them, anddumped their waste into the atmosphere. Now we are depletingtheir ancient stores and overloading the atmosphere with carbondioxide, covering the Earth in an ever-thicker heat-trapping blanket

10


17/120

and inviting the catastrophic consequences of global climate change.We are about to learn the hard way what happens when you messwith your mother.

However, not all individuals consume at this destructive rate.

Dr. Mathis Wackernagel coined the concept of the ecologicalfootprint in 1996 and is now the executive director of the GlobalFootprint Network. His tool has become widely accepted as astandardized measurement of the amount of natural resources anindividual, a community, or a country consumes in a given year,measured in acres. Wackernagel determined that the averagehuman being has a footprint of 5.4 acres, while there are only enoughresources worldwide for each person to be allotted 4.5 acres

(Footprint FAQs).Bear in mind that 5.4 is a global average. In China, the

average citizen uses roughly 4 acres. In Pakistan that number is alow 1.5. Then there is the United States24 acres per person onaverage, and growing. Whenever the argument arises thatenvironmental degradation is primarily caused by population growthin developing nations, bear in mind that each additional American

born will consume far more than will each additional Chinese orPakistani born (Brower 9). According to Redefining Progresss 2005Ecological Footprint of Nations, humanity is exceeding its ecologicallimits by 39%. . .at present rates of consumption, we would need1.39 Earths to insure that future generations are at least as well offas we are now (Venetoulis 2). If all 7 billion people lived as we

Americans do, we would need at least 5 Earths!After taking the Ecological Footprint Quiz myself, I found that

my footprint is 7 acres 17 acres less than the American average,but still 1.6 acres above the global average and 2.5 acres abovewhat is available to each person given an equal distribution ofresources. If everyone lived the way I do, we would need 1.5 Earths.I still have a lot of work ahead of me.

On shrinking our ecological footprint, clearly, we Americanshave more work to do than anyone else. Within our society, some

individuals have more work to do than others, as some have muchlarger footprints than others. But even the poorest Americans stillconsume much more than most citizens of developing nations.

What causes this excessive consumption by Americans?How have we arrived here? People seem to share a common fearof scarcity, which stems from times of economic turmoil and famine

11


18/120

like the Great Depression and the Irish Potato Famine. We seestarvation, rampant inflation, and genocide in other countries andmake sure that we always have enough. Yet, especially in ourcountry, this turns into too much. As we drown ourselves in durable

and non-durable goods, we are ironically creating the very scarcitythat we fear. Clearly, something is wrong with the cultural andeconomic institutions that have led us toat least in the short termthrive.

What of our free market capitalism? Of all the economicsystems societies have tried, capitalism may be the least stable,but it brings the most freedom and the highest standard of living.But the people who developed this economic system in the 1700s

Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart-Mill, and the likehad noconcept of the ecological limits that we have reached and in somecases even surpassed today. Simplistically, the goals and values ofthe original capitalist model are no longer applicable. Alsounfortunately, the free market system breeds inequalityespeciallyeconomic inequality, and consequently social, racial, ethnic, gender,and religious inequality. True, capitalism brings great wealth, but its

distribution is another matter. In American capitalism, inequitabledistribution of wealth is in part the price of efficiency. Our societyvalues efficiency. It values productivity, development, and growth. Ibelieve the root problems of capitalism lie in these values.

I am proposing a new set of values, or at least a new set ofdefinitions, for free market capitalism: Sustainability,Conscientiousness, Compassion, and Community rather thanProductivity, Progress, Growth, and Development. Our economic

system is based on the idea that unbounded economic andpopulation growth is good. The success of a nation is measured byits gross domestic product (GDP), which is basically the total amountof stuff produced within the countrys borders in one year. Successis morestuff. In 2007 the United States GDP was over $13 trillion,an increase of 2.2% from 2006 (Bureau of Economic Analysis). Thisgrowth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell (Edward

Abbey), and our rampant consumption is a life-threatening condition.Instead of believing that a good life is having more things, shouldnt agood life be defined by comfort, healthy relationships, and love? Dontwe value family and the future more than fashion and fast food?

Both the economic system driving this storm of stuff and ourstandard of living are in jeopardy because it is a linear system

12


19/120

and we live on a finite planet and you can not run a linear system ona finite planet indefinitely, says Annie Leonard in The Story of Stuff.Beyond understanding the origins and destinations of the goods weproduce and consume, we must understand how that line can be

closed into a loopnot cradle to grave, but cradle to cradle. Whenconsidering the environmental effects of a product, we must think ofevery step of its existence from raw natural resources to refineryto assembly to shipment to retail to purchase to use to discard torecycle into a usable resource once more. What is the total social,political, economic, health, and environmental impact of a good alongall of those steps? Where did it come from and where will it gowhen it is thrown away? There is no such thing as away. Most

times away is a landfill or an incinerator, neither of which returnsany materials to their natural cycles so that they can be used again.Recycling is of utmost importance in completing the resource loop,but only a tiny fraction of the products out there are recyclable, andthe sheer volume of stuff is unmanageable. We need to remake theway we make things and flat-out produce and consume less. Theprimary goal of capitalism can no longer be more stuff. The primary

operators of capitalism can no longer be corporations functioningunder the more stuffmodel.Capitalism can work to better the environment and everyone

in society, but the current system must be reformed. Sustainabilityand equity within a democratic system must be the focus of anyfuture economic system where the basic rights of every individualand the Earth cannot be threatened by private power. The greatestreforms we can bring to our economic system are 1) changing its

values and goals, 2) increasing equity and freedom, and 3) seeing itwithin the context of the environment that is, as a closed looprather than a linear model.

These changes will bring us into a post-consumer way oflife (Durning 78). We would all have less stuff but be just as happyif not happier because fulfillment would come from relationships,increased free time, health, and a closer connection to nature. Let

us learn from those that have already done this with their livesBarbara Kingsolver, Wendell Berry, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha,friends and neighbors. The standard of living would not decline if itwere redefined as social wealth rather than material wealth.

A post-consumer economy will need great transition. Initially,many might worry that some industries are going to suffer because

13


20/120

our industrial structure has developed to feed these [unsustainable]consumption patterns, such as fossil fuels, petroleum-basedplastics, and disposable paper products (Durning 79). But this doesnot have to be the case. Especially with a proactive approach, we

can transition unsustainable industries to renewable practices. Jobsdo not have to be lost if we go about the employment transition withforesight and training. Some sectors of the economy would giveway to new ones; any losses would be answered with gains. Forinstance, oil companies would start transitioning away from fossilfuels and turning to renewable energy resources such as wind, solar,and geothermal. Whatever jobs on oil rigs and in refineries are lostwill be gained in the production and maintenance of wind turbines,

solar panels, and geothermal pumps. These jobs are both greenand non-outsourceable. The economic transition to environmentalsustainability will ultimately bring with it more long-term supported(another definition of sustainable) industries, jobs, and standard ofliving because we will no longer be threatening our own ability tosurvive. A sustainable economy will thrive on domestic successesandwe ward off resource depletion.

Current concern over a recession can also be resolved by atransition to more environmentally sustainable economic practices.Increased government spending brought the U.S. out of the GreatDepression by getting money moving again. We will need to increasegovernment spending to create many more jobs than are currentlyavailable if we are going to achieve energy independence and cutour nations carbon footprint more jobs in public transportation, re-outfitting and retrofitting buildings to increase their energy efficiency,

running biodiesel production facilities, maintaining urban gardensand local sustainable agriculture, and more. The Ella Baker Centerfor Human Rights argues that these green-collar jobs providethe most logical, humane and cost-effective pathway to safe, healthyand peaceful cities (Green Jobs).

All of these beneficial transitions must encompass a lessstuffmodel. Even though per capita consumption would decrease,

the market would still flourish due to the fact that consumers wouldpay the true costs of resources and labor. Subsidies need to betransitioned away from unsustainable industries like coal, oil, nuclear,and intensified industrial agriculture and toward sustainable industrieslike solar, wind, and organic agriculture. Gone with the fossil fuelswill go deceptively cheap goods and services, but subsidizing their

14


21/120

alternatives will bring costs down again. Prices should remainmoderately higher than we are accustomed to so that individualsreally do pay what it costs to extract resources, run factories, payworkers a living wage, and transport goods, recycle materials, and

do all those things sustainably. That is, instead of paying a cheapcost up-front and paying dearly later on with tax dollars to clean upthe messes associated with unsustainable practices, we pay forthose practices to be sustainable from the start. Consumers needto know the true costs of goods and services, and what those costscover. For example, purchasing a conventional apple today maycost under a dollar at the grocery store, but that comes at the priceof growing it with pesticides and fertilizers, cheap foreign labor, and

shipping it thousands of miles by burning gas and contributing toglobal warming. We pay much more for that apple later on whenour tax dollars are used to subsidize all of those harmful practicesthat make it cheap in the first place, to clean up the effects ofpesticides and fertilizers on water and human health, and to respondto the many effects of global climate change. Foreign workers payto make our apple cheap by sacrificing their rights and quality of life

for a low wage in order to feed their families. At the other end of thespectrum, the moderately higher price of purchasing a local organicapple tomorrow prevents all of those negative effects so that weonly pay once. It will take that kind of appreciation to be trulyconscientious participants in the economy and the environment.Products will cost more, but we will need fewer because what webuy will be more durable, higher quality, and recyclable. Initialinvestments may be more expensive than they used to be, but

environmentally sustainable cars, solar panels, televisions,computers, light bulbs, and even shoes and clothing save moneyover their life spans. Further, as the economy transitions towardmore sustainable goods and methods, government subsidies andprices will shift in favor of those goods and methods. A truly greenlifestyle will become affordable for everyone. Everything will evenout.

Through these economic transitions will come a lifestyletransition. There is a new American Dream just around the corner.

15


22/120

Ot her Resour ces

Ecological Footprint Quizearthday-dev.shs.net/footprint/index.asp

The Ecological Footprint is a complex sustainability indicator thatanswers a simple question: How much of the Earths resourcesdoes your lifestyle require? Using existing, official statistics thatquantify the resources people consume and the waste theygenerate, Redefining Progress translates this consumption andwaste flow data into a measurement of the biologically productive

area required to sustain that flow.

The Story of Stuf f

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff inour lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most ofthis is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production andconsumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections

between a huge number ofenvironmental and socialissues, and calls us togetherto create a more sustainableand just world. Itll teach yousomething, itll make youlaugh, and it just may

change the way you look atall the stuff in your lifeforever.

Use Less Stuff: Environmental Solutions

for Who We Really AreBy Robert Lilienfeld and William Rathje, 1998

Use Less Stuff explains why recycling has failed societies in thepast. They argue that recycling is just the bandaid on the big boo-boo. It cannot heal things unless we stop hurting ourselves tobegin with, and we hurt ourselves by consuming too manyresources. The book guides readers around the house andthrough the marketplace good by good, giving conservation tipsgreat and small. They even provide guidance on where to place

16


23/120

your refrigerator in the house, what to scoop your pets food with,and how to bag produce at the grocery store.

Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping

By Judith Levine, 2006Shocked by the commerce in everything from pet cloning topatriotism, frightened by the downward spiral of her finances andthat of the trash-strewn earth, Judith Levine enlists her partner,Paul, in a radical experiment: to forgo all but the most necessarypurchases for an entire year. Without consumer goods andexperiences, Judith and Paul pursue their careers, nurturerelationships, and try to keep their sanity, their identities, and their

sense of humor intact. Tracking their progressand inevitablelapsesLevine contemplates need and desire, scarcity andsecurity, consumerism and citizenship. She asks the BigQuestions: Can the economy survive without shopping? Are Q-tips necessary?

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things

By William McDonough & Michael Braungart, 2002William McDonoughs book, written with his colleague, theGerman chemist Michael Braungart, is a manifesto calling for thetransformation of human industry through ecologically intelligentdesign. Through historical sketches on the roots of the industrialrevolution; commentary on science, nature and society;descriptions of key design principles; and compelling examples ofinnovative products and business strategies already reshaping the

marketplace, McDonough and Braungart make the case that anindustrial system that takes, makes and wastes can become acreator of goods and services that generate ecological, social andeconomic value. www.mcdonough.com

17


24/120

Chapt er Two

Dont Buy It

Do not be duped. Today, consumers are bombarded with somany choices when shopping that it has become nearly impossibleto discern what is best to buy. This guide will help clear up confusionrelating to products on the green market in the sectors of food andwater, electricity, building, transportation, and household goods.While a few of the goods and services marketed as green arelegitimately beneficial, environmentally sound alternatives, themajority are merely ploys. We have become dependent on labels toinform us, but labels will only tell us the supposed virtues of a product

not its dangers or social and environmental effects.Deer Park may now sport a label boasting that its bottled

water uses 25% less plastic, and Starbucks may make its coffee

cup sleeves out of 30% post-consumer recycled paper, but that doesnot mean that either is better for the environment. Both aredisposable goods that require large amounts of resources toproduce, serve their purposes for a matter of minutes, and end up inlandfills. There is no need for purified tap water that has been bottledin a petroleum-based plastic bottle and shipped hundreds of mileswhen we can purify our own tap water and drink it from durablebottles and cups. There is no need for a disposable paper coffeecup when we can carry it in reusable mugs. Every bottle, every cup;every shoe, tire, and computer adds up. We are casually depletingthe material resources and energy required to produce these thingsand accumulating mountains of waste that are slowly poisoning ourecosystems and ourselves.

18


25/120

It was not too long ago when I believed that goods camefrom a store and were magically gone when the trash got pickedup on Friday morning. But a little schooling and a lot of readingand personal investigation helped me see the light. That way of

thinking is a product of our disengagement with the goods andservices in our lives. For the most part we do not grow our ownfood, make our own clothes, or build our own appliances. Ourconsumer culture masks the origins and destinations of products.When buying a laptop, for instance, we do not see the cadmium,copper, coal, quartz, and silicon that had to be mined, the oil thathad to be pumped, refined, and turned into plastics, the toxicbromine, phthalates, lead, chromium, beryllium, mercury, polyvinyl

chloride (PVCs) or brominated flame retardants (BFRs) thatendanger factory workers, the thousands of miles each of thesecomponents was shipped, or the children scavenging overseaselectronics landfills for the small bits of precious metals containedin our discarded computers.

We need consumer awareness of the complexity of supplychains and examination of the social, economic, environmental,

and moral consequences of goods all the way from resourceextraction to production to consumption to disposal, and how tobring things back around again to extraction. Sustainability callsfor closing the production-consumption-disposal end-stopped lineinto a circle, a cycle. Like composting food waste to make newsoil or papers and plastics that can be recycled over and overagain. Cradle to cradle. Everythinghas a lifecycle even plasticbottles and paper cups that should not end in a landfill but go

round and round. But the sheer volume of our consumption thesedays cannot allow that circle to flow. We use resources tooquickly for them to regenerate. To make that cycle sustainable,we should not be consuming many of the things that we do in thefirst place, or we at least need to scale things down significantly.

Since the 1970s, consumers have recognized that the waysin which resources are used has a direct impact on local and global

ecosystems. People saw that industries control the conversion ofresources into products and also realized that consumers aresovereign over products. We vote with our dollars. One recentexample of this power is renewable energy. As the effects of fossilfuel energy on the atmosphere and climate have become publicknowledge, consumers have begun demanding clean energy

19


26/120

alternatives. Many power companies are now expanding theavailability of wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomassgenerated electricity. The more clean electricity we buy, the morethere will be and the less climate change-driving combustion there

will be. If consumers collectively direct resources to industries thatare meeting consumer wants and away from industries that are notmeeting consumer wants (Brue 34), we can be effective with ourdollar votes. Not all industries can be fixed like electricity, however,and none change quickly or very willingly especially when companiesconvince us that the production of their good or service is not anenvironmental issue.

When the environmental movement grew strong and began

targeting transnational corporations (TNCs) for their environmentaldamages, the TNCs had to do something to counter threats to theireconomic wellbeing. Corporations made one of the most classicmessaging moves. By co-opting the environmental movements ownlanguage and acting like born-again ethical enterprises while at thesame time resorting to a bag of dirty tricks, companies havemanaged not to suffer any losses at the hands of consumer concern

(Lubbers 11). GM is applauded for its research in hydrogen celltechnology while it continues to manufacture vehicles that get lessthan fifteen miles per gallon. The tactic is labeled greenwashbecausethe environmental advertising emanating from the big corporatepolluters, while high-quality in public relations terms, casts a thin,green veil over these corporations true environmental impacts(Bruno 77), just as one would whitewash a fence. Thosecommercials with the SUV traversing the wilderness, its drivers

stopping in a peaceful wood to camp? Greenwash. An advertisementof a compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulb illuminated by clean coalpower? Greenwash.

20

Greenwash(n.):

1. Disinformation disseminated by an organizationso as to present an environmentally responsibleimage (Tenth Edition of the Concise Oxford English

Dictionary);2. The phenomenon of socially and environmentallydestructive corporations attempting to preserve andexpand their markets by posing as friends to theenvironment and leaders in the struggle to eradicatepoverty (CorpWatch) (78).

Greenpeace


27/120

Toby M. Smith, Assistant Professor in the Problem CentredStudies Department at University College of Cape Breton, says thatAs it is not possible for consumers to have full information regardingecological impact of many products, most shoppers rely heavily on

advertising, labeling, popular media, and word of mouth to becomeinformed regarding product impact on the ecological system (93).PR departments are very skilled at taking advantage of that. InEarthsummit.biz: The Corporate Takeover of Sustainable

Development, Kenny Bruno and Joshua Karliner outline five keytactics to watch for in advertising. Companies that are greenwashingwill: seduce you with image ads, impress you with tangential projects,distract you from their destructive products, gain your sympathy by

adopting environmental lingo, and avoid regulations claiming theywill solve the problem themselves (81-82). Be careful evenskeptical when you hear a company boast of its environmentalstewardship, when you read a label that states the product is all-natural, when an oil company is boasting of its investments inrenewable energy. Bruno and Karliner warn,

With green PR, it is important to study actions, notwords and pictures. If Shell or BP tells us they arecommitted to solar power and the reduction of fossilfuel use, we have to look at how much they spend onnew fossil fuel development to determine theirsincerity. If fossil fuel investment dwarfs those inrenewable energy, its greenwash. (82)

And so it is.

21

Figure 1. Beyond Petroleum (BP) Financial Results, First Half 2007.30 January 2008. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/ globalbp/S T A G I N G / g l o b a l _ a s s e t s / d o w n l o a d s / I /IC_investor_fact_sheet_august_2007_accessible.pdf


28/120

The motive behind greenwash is simple: companies are stilldriven by profits, and if producing falsely green goods will makethem money, then produce them they will. Concerned consumersare taken advantage of by business executives looking for a new

way to squeeze one more buck out of each of us, and we are trickedinto perpetuating the very mess we believe we are averting. Tophrase it simply, one persons small awakening to the ecologicalcrisis is another persons market opportunity (Smith 94). Nevermindthe imminent threat of climate change. Despite the fact that theGeneral Motors corporate elite will suffer its effects with the rest ofus, they are more concerned with this quarters profits. Their solutionis to blind consumers with lustrous multi-million dollar ad campaigns

that can, at least on the surface, fool anyone into believing that theirgas-guzzling sport utility vehicles can tread lightly on the earth. Luckilyfor them, this allows for Americans to move contentedly along theculturally insulated path of consumerism. In Earth for Sale:Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash, Brian Tokarasserts that In a highly individualistic, economically driven societysuch as ours, green consumerism makes it possible for people to

feel they are doing something for the earth without questioning thelifestyles or the economic systems that have actually brought us tothe brink of ecological collapse (xv).

The notion of a green niche market first appeared prior toEarth Day 1990 and is booming today more than ever (Tokar xiv). Inmost shopping districts you can find fair-trade organic cotton tunicsfrom Sri Lanka, unbleached paper towels, Lexus hybrids,biodegradable yoga mats, all-natural air fresheners, organic

asparagus flown in from Peru, and travel agents who will fly you toeco-resorts in the Caribbean. And we dont needany of it. Ratherthan actually being a more sustainable method of consuming, asTokar points out, Green consumerism instead views all of life asone big shopping mall. If everyone is equally responsible for thedestruction of the earth, the solution is merely to buy more naturaland recycled products, and companies are more than willing to make

such products available at a premium price (xiv). Companies areturning us into hypocrites, assuring us that we can maintain ourcurrent consumption levels and live sustainably. But really, we dontneed the huge amount of goods available to us. The relationshipbetween the practices of consumption and sustainability is a trade-off. The less we consume, the more sustainably we live. The morewe consume, the less sustainably we live.

22


29/120

23

Tokar suggests that green consumerism

is based on the myth that environmental problemsare largely the result of individual consumer choices,

neglecting all the ways in which these choices areshaped and constrained by decisions made incorporate boardrooms, well beyond the reach ofpublic scrutiny. Indeed, corporate managers makethe vast majority of decisions about what is producedand how, seriously limiting individual choices andshaping patterns of consumption in countlessunacknowledged ways. (xiv)

I believe this is only an accurate description of how society viewsthe layout of power, not of where power actually can, should, anddoes lie with the consumer. Transnational corporations (TNCs)may be considered the most significant actors in the worldseconomy (Greer 17), but they are placed in that position byconsumers. Without their consumers, companies are nothing.

Further, companies are owned by consumers who invest in theirstocks. Every shareholder has a say over how a company ismanaged and what it produces. Transnational corporationschoose which technologies and products to develop based onwhat they believe consumers need, want, and will buy (Bruno 5-6).Supply and demand may be considered two sides of one coin, butindustry will only supply what we demand. Demand as a categoryin economic theory is an aggregate of individual preferences (Smith

8), and if consumers and shareholders collectively demand truesocial and environmental responsibility, companies must satisfy themfor their own best interest.

Up until now, corporations themselves and their politicalallies have set the terms of the debate. It is time for We thePeoples, as it is stated in the Charter of the United Nations, to setnew terms. It is time to expose the greenwash, looking past the

deception of TNCs and pressuring them to clean up their acts, notjust shine up their images. The first step in responding to greenwashis to reclaim the goals, values, and language (Greer 241) thatcompanies hijacked from the environmental movement.

Exposing greenwash, however, will mean nothing unless wework to really achieve the goal TNCs set out to counterfeit to


30/120

consume sustainably. Ultimately, it does not matter what variationsof products we are consuming. What matters is the total volume ofthat consumption, and whether the product in its basic identity issustainable. It does not matter if I buy gasoline from Exxon, Shell, or

BP. The fact is that I am buying gasoline, and Neither corporateenvironmental departments nor green advertising can make a TNCwhose lifeblood depends on toxic chemicals or nuclear reactors afriend of the environment (Greer 241). The only solution is to phasethe burning of fossil fuels out of our energy infrastructure. Theimplications of such a proposition are widespread, calling foralternative fuels and decreased automobile use, which are directlylinked to the layouts of our towns and cities, population concentrations,

public transportation systems, availability of bicycle routes, and themindset that driving is more convenient. The solution is enormouslycomplex, yet that is what it is going to take.

Environmental degradation is most importantly a result ofthe overarching practice, the lifestyle that encompasses all goodsand services, earth-friendly or not. Consumption must be scaleddown, localized, and certain products and practices are simply

beyond the pale, and must be phased out globally (Greer, 242).This includes (but is not limited in the least to) the burning of fossilfuels, the production of nuclear power, the import of out-of-seasonand out-of-area produce, non-organic agrochemical use, theproduction of cars with fuel efficiencies under 40 mpg by 2012 and55 mpg by 2020, and the massive subsidies that guide everythingon this list. This will require both modified consumer demand andcorporate partnership.

It will take a reformed consumer culture that values the originsand destinations of that which it consumes and consumes in aminimalist manner. Some things should no longer be consumed.Resources must be used more efficiently. Goods need to bemanufactured to be more durable and recyclable. Companies havea moral imperative to be transparent concerning their practices andthe impacts of their products or services. People should only buy

what they need to achieve comfort. We can work toward this ultimatevision step by step, but we must start now.For that which must be purchased: be skeptical of every

product; scrutinize every label. Be wary of language such as natural,earth-/eco-/environmentally-friendly, and green. As Sally Deneenof the online periodical The Daily Greenputs it, turn on your B.S.

24


31/120

meter to gauge whether its true. Because there is no officialstandard of what exactly green is, you cannot trust any productsclaim to be organic, fair trade, free-range, or what-have-you unlessit bears a legitimate third-party certification logo. Even then,

consumers must be careful because not all certifications areconsistent. For example, an organic certification logo may be veryreliable for foods but less so with cosmetics because many of theingredients in cosmetic products are not required to be tested orevaluated for environmental and human health effects by the FDA.

The best source I have found for judging the actualsustainability of a product is Consumers Unions Eco-Labels Centerat Greener Choices (http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/).

The site explains in great detail if the label is meaningful, verified,and consistent, and if the label standards and organizationsinformation are publicly available. Products that are legitimatelysustainable all-around will bear varying combinations of labels suchas:

SUSTAINABLE FISHING ORGANIC SUSTAINABLE

AND FORESTRY AGRICULTURE

25


32/120

It only takes a few minutes to visit the Eco-Labels Centerwebsite and become familiar with these certification labels. Otherexcellent resources are Co-op Americas Responsible Shopperwebsite (www.responsibleshopper.org) and Center for a New

American Dreams Responsible Purchasing Network(www.responsiblepurchasing.org). The sites provide detailed guidesto social, environmental, labor, economic, and human rights issuessurrounding major corporations and the products they market. Youcan also find various corporate report cards on the internet, thoughthe factors upon which the grading is based are not always clearand even when they are, may not encompass more than one or twosocial and environmental issues. Further, many of these online tools

assess corporate practices but not what the company makes orwastes for its business. The Coca-Cola Company may receive aStriding Climate Counts score (right; www.climatecounts.org), buthow sustainable is the mass production of unhealthy intensively-farmed-processed-corn beverage products packaged in billions ofdisposable containers (plastic being a petroleum product andaluminum being the most energy-intensive curbside recyclable to

initially extract)?Opinions on companies and products should not be formedsolely from report cards and corporate profiles. Dig around. Look atthe big picture. These toolsthird-party certification labels, corporateprofiles, and score cardsare your allies in making sure you arenot being greenwashed. Your other allies are skepticism and scrutiny.Examine carefully every advertisement that comes your way, which,with our exposure to roughly three thousand per day (Brower 17),

will take a lot of open-eyedness. But you have a right to know toknow the truth. You have a right not to be duped.

26


33/120

TheClimateCoun

tsCompanyScoreca

rd,www.c

limatecounts.org.

27


34/120

28


35/120

The remaining chapters make up the actual guide part ofthis guide. They will give you a set of navigational tools to see pastmarketing ploys and identify the true social and environmentalimpacts of goods and services. They will also provide routes foropting out of our consumption-oriented ideology and infrastructure.Chapter Three looks at our automobiles and the fuels that makethem go. Chapter Four assesses our housing (the structures) andutilities, and Chapter Five goes through household goods (what wefill those structures with). Chapter Six takes an in-depth look at

food, which might just be the economic sector in which Americanscan make the biggest difference on an individual basis.

I want to stress that it is extremely artificial to isolate theseparts of the economy into separate sections with individual reviewsof environmental impact and how-to lists for opting out. Thisinformation is presented to you in isolated chapters and lists for thesake of practicality and clarity. However, we cannot seetransportation, building, utilities, household goods, and food asseparate because each is affected by every other. We cannot makechanges regarding one without making changes to all of them. All ofconsumption, as all of life, is a complex web of interconnectivity.

29


36/120

30

Chapt er Thr ee

TRANSPORTATION

When all forms of environmental degradation are taken intoaccount greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, air pollution,

land use, etc. the personal use of cars and light trucks is thesingle most damaging consumer behavior (Brower 86). Yet

Americans, more than anyone else, seem to place a car among ourother survival needs. In many ways, our cities and lifestyles areorganized in such a way that this has become true and the automobileand oil industries have been the main facilitators.

The automobile industry has become a major focus of

environmental campaigns and government policies. Direct relianceon petroleum has brought its issues to the forefront of the media, beit in relation to the price of gas, proposed oil exploration in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), damage to oil rigs in the Gulf ofMexico after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, or connections to the Iraqwar. Much of that media attention has been devoted to what majorcar companies are doing - and pretending to do - about these things.Fuel economy, the end of oil, alternative fuels, low-emission vehicle

technologies, fuel and vehicle lifecycle impacts, and mostimportantly driving less all need to be addressed as we worktoward the day when our world fleet is made up of zero-emissionsvehicles powered by clean, renewable energy - a day in which wellrarely use our cars anyway, because our cities and towns will be sowell-designed for walking and biking (Rysavy 9).


37/120

The Issues

Air Pollution: Tailpipe emissions contain many polluting chemicals.Carbon dioxide (CO

2

) has the biggest and baddest reputation of allthese days, as it is the leading greenhouse gas fueling climatechange. Other greenhouse gases emitted include water vapor andnitrous oxide (N

2O) (Transportation). Non-greenhouse gas pollutants

include carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide (NOx),

and particulate matter such as soot and smoke. Hydrocarbons andNO

x react with sunlight to form ground level ozone and smog.

Particulate matter can cause mild to severe respiratory problems,

especially increased frequency of asthma in children. It can alsocause lung cancer, earning it the label of air toxic. Air toxics aresubstances such as benzene, formaldehyde, and tuloene, whichare known to cause cancer and other serious health problems inhumans. Aircraft emit CO

2,water vapor, NO

x, and aerosols, and

create climate-forcing contrails (Wuebbles et al. 4). Becauseairplanes pollute high up in the atmosphere, there is concern thattheir emissions may have greater climatic effects than air pollutionat ground level.

Water Pollution: The Union of Concerned Scientists found that in1999 household use of all types of transportation was responsiblefor 23 percent of toxic water pollution (Brower 53). Most of thatpollution comes from processes involved with the manufacturing ofautomobiles (batteries, plastics, paints, lubricants, metals, etc.), but

plenty comes from leaks and tailpipe emissions. The VictoriaTransport Policy Institute estimates that almost half of U.S. cars andtrucks leak motor oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid, and brake fluid(Litman 5.15-1). NO

x, the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether

(MTBE), soot, and other particulate matter in car exhaust are trappedin rain water and washed into ecosystems, threatening biodiversityand causing the acidification of the water, which leads to acid rain.MTBE is strongly suspected to cause health problems in humans,though it has not yet been classified as a human carcinogen. Onethird of the water pollution associated with transportation comes fromthe actual roads as chemicals and salt are applied (Brower 56). Yetanother source of water pollution from transportation comes fromthe improper disposal of motor oil and other car fluids by individualconsumers. One gallon of motor oil renders 100,000 gallons of water

31


38/120


39/120

amount of electricity it takes to create fuel cells and power hybridand electric vehicles.

Climate Change: The U.S. Energy Information Administration

reported that in 2006 the U.S. transportation sector emitted 1,990.1million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e), chiefly

from the burning of petroleum. This includes all vehicles cars,trucks, buses, trains, airplanes, etc. This chapter focuses mainlyon personal automobile use, though air travel is an ever-growingenvironmental concern. Burning jet fuel currently accounts for about3% of all carbon dioxide emissions (Stoller). That can hardlycompare to those from automobiles and power plants today, but

explosive increases in air travel will soon make it a key contributorto global warming. Cars and trucks already are the second leadingcause of climate change. Per household, average greenhouse gasemissions from cars and light trucks amount to 3.7 tons per year,

just over one-fourth of all greenhouse gas emissions linked tohousehold purchases (55). Nationally, our cars account for 40% ofU.S. oil consumption and 28% of our carbon emissions (Rysavy 9).

Globally, our country owns 30% of automobiles and contributes 45%of the worlds automotive CO2emissions (DeCicco & Fung iv).

How does such a common feature of our lives wreak suchhavoc? Dependence on nonrenewable resources (chieflypetroleum), inefficient technologies, and sheer volume.

Figure 2. Table ES1: Rolling stock carbon emissions by vehicle class, 2004 from

Global Warming on the Road: The Climate Impact of Americas Automobiles by JohnDeCicco and Freda Fung, 2006.

33


40/120

Americans burn more than 300,000 barrels of oil every day(Steffen 77). Supplies are dwindling, as predicted by M. King Hubbertin 1956. His theory, referred to as Peak Oil, illustrates that U.S. oilproduction would peak around 1970 and then diminish. His prediction

came true and since the peak we have begun importing the majorityof our oil. Hubberts theory has since been used to describe thepeak and impending decline of global oil production during this decade.In summary, the U.S. peak came and went almost forty years ago,but we continue to consume oil at much faster rates than recoverablereserves are discovered, and thus have become dependent on foreignoil, which is also being consumed at much faster rates thanrecoverable reserves are discovered. Hubbert was the first to warn

of an impending energy crisis.

Despite increasing scarcity, war, and climbing prices at thepump, American demand for oil continues to grow. The transportation

sector now accounts for two-thirds of U.S. oil use, compared toone-half in 1970 (DeCicco & Fung 17). Here we stand at thebeginning of the end of the fossil fuel age with a transportation sectorthat is 96% petroleum dependent, and rather than put money intodeveloping a renewable energy infrastructure we are spending $3trillion on a war that has an enormous global warming impact itself.Oil Change International has calculated the total carbon footprint of

the Iraq War since March 2003 to be 141 MMTCO2e the equivalentof putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year(Reisch & Kretzmann 4). The study claims that Projected total USspending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments inrenewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030in order to halt current warming trends and that In 2006, the USspent more on the war in Iraq than the whole world spent on

Figure 3. Figure 21 Ultimate United States crude-oil production based on assumedinitial reserves of 150 and 200 billion barrels, from M. King Hubberts NuclearEnergy and the Fossil Fuels, 1956.

34


41/120

investment in renewable energy (4-5). We should not be scramblingaround for more oil, but rather developing new technologies andsolutions. The greatest concern over oil should not be that it is runningout, but what burning it is doing to the global climate right now.

In 2004, the average fuel economy of all U.S. automobileswas a lamentably low 19.6 miles per gallon (mpg). Combine thatfigure with the fact that, according to the Union of ConcernedScientists, each gallon burned emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide,and the math is simple we are emitting about one pound of CO

2for

every mile that we drive.The smaller the car, the less fuel it requires to go the same

distance as a larger vehicle. Following the 1970s oil crisis, the size

of cars decreased steadily, concurrent with rising fuel efficiency.However, since the crisis has been distant enough to popularizevehicles like SUVs and minivans, new fleet fuel economy has beenfalling since 1988 due to the market shift from cars to light trucks(6). The convenient classification of SUVs, vans, minivans, andpickups as light trucks exempts them from emissions standardsfor cars, which are always more rigorous. While the technology for

much higher fuel efficiency already exists, car companies continueto resist changing their fleets. Represented under the Alliance ofAutomobile Manufacturers, Toyota, GM, Ford, Daimler Chrysler,Honda, and Nissan were all involved in lawsuits to prevent stricterauto greenhouse gas emissions standards in numerous states(Profile: Toyota).

Figure 4. Table 1: Light vehicle stock, fuel consumption, and carbon emissionsby automaker, 2004 from Global Warming on the Road: The Climate Impactof Americas Automobilesby John DeCicco and Freda Fung, 2006.

35


42/120

Why do we drive so much? Not only do we like to, we oftenhave to. Our cities and towns are designed to be only automobile-friendly, discouraging walking, biking, and mass transit. Everythingis sprawled out in homogenous suburbs. Unlike the town squares

of yesteryear where you could get everything you needed withinwalking distance of your home, Americans usually must drive manymiles to multiple destinations for work, groceries, health care, andrecreation. Deep down, the cultural values of freedom andindependence and the motivations of control and convenience areimportant influences on the common choice to own a car and driveit everywhere, even to the corner store for a gallon of milk (Brower87).

Due to all of these facts combined,

VMT [vehicle miles traveled] per capita has increased82% since 1970double the population growth overthis periodrising from roughly 5,400 miles per yearto 9,900 by 2002. Car ownership (vehicles per capita)has risen essentially in parallel there are now more

cars than drivers, with the latest statistics showingthat the United States has 1.06 personal vehicles

per licensed driver. (DeCicco & Fung 14)

Figure 5. VMT trend by travel purpose from Global Warming on the Road: The ClimateImpact of Americas Automobilesby John DeCicco and Freda Fung, 2006.

36


43/120

The solutions to all these problems exist today, though movingthem along has been a battle. All of these issues can be resolvedwith three big strategies: making better cars, using better fuels, anddriving less overall. The Sierra Club and other environmental

authorities all agreethe single greatest policy step that the UnitedStates could take to curb global warming emissions is to increaseCAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards of ourautomobiles. Non-governmental and non-profit organizations arecrying out the numbers, while few politicians are courageous to standbehind them yet: 40 miles per gallon by 2012, 60 miles per gallon by2054, and zero emissions by the end of the century. In addition toengineering our cars to go further on each gallon of fuel, we have a

number of technologies to outfit them to run on alternatives togasoline.

Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are the poorest option here, asthey are adapted to run on ethanol blends, which have majorenvironmental drawbacks. FFVs often do not amount to much of anenvironmental improvement when compared to conventional carsand trucks. Hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs) are powered by a hybrid

of an electric motor and a conventional internal combustion engine.They are much more efficient and have lower pollutant emissions.But they still use gas and therefore generate a fair amount ofemissions. The greenest cars are zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs),such as fuel cell vehicles and electric vehicles powered by renewableenergy. Few manufacturers currently market ZEVs, making themquite expensive and out of range for the average consumer. Theclassification of cars and trucks as partial zero-emissions vehicles

(PZEVs, one of which is the HEV model) was created to allowautomobile companies further delay in having to produce ZEVs. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) can be ZEVs if they are poweredby clean, renewable energy such as solar or wind. Even now, wehave enough off-peak electricity on the grid to power 73 percent(and if we all drove less 100 percent) of US cars and light trucks ifthey were all PHEVs, though the majority of that electricity comes

from coal (Tarver-Wahlquist 30). We can only have the cleanestcars if they are accompanied by the cleanest electricity generation.

We must kick the petroleum habit, but some of thealternatives out there are little or no better. We do not want to gofrom one socially and environmentally destructive fuel to another.When it comes to alternatives to oil, things tend to get very fuzzy.

37


44/120

Not all cars are created equal, and neither are fuels. Co-op Americahas created a guide to Fuels for the Future that ranks todaysalternative fuels in terms of their viability as climate solutions andgeneral impact on people and environment.

First, corn ethanol is the worst option. Despite what youmay have heard from automobile companies, farmers, politicians,and celebrities, it is the most damaging route we could take in searchfor an alternative to oil. Corn ethanol requires huge amounts ofenergy to produce, which includes heavy usage of petroleum-basedchemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides (so its really made outof oil!), and it burns negligibly cleaner than gasoline. It also diverts afood source for fuel, which is raising food prices because so much

of our food is corn-based. Tortillas have already becomeunaffordable for hundreds of families in Mexico.

Hydrogen fuel cellsare currently a waste of time. Yes, it isa zero-emissions fuel that can be produced using renewable energy,but it will likely be produced using fossil fuels for the time being andthe technology is too expensive to be a viable option for consumersanytime in the near future. Hydrogen technology is a great idea, but

not one that can be applied in time to address the climate crisistipping point.Ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) could be a short term

solution as a cleaner burning fuel for bus and truck fleets, but dieselis a petroleum fuel and thats no good.

Natural gas has 25 percent lower greenhouse gasemissions than gasoline, but it is still a non-renewable resource.Even cleaner renewable options are already available.

Cellulosic ethanol is better than corn ethanol but still notour best option is. This fuel requires less energy inputs and can bemade out of waste materials, but it is not moving forward fast enoughto be a climate solution. The ethanol industry is dominated by giantagribusinesses that are in cahoots with the government to makeheavily subsidized corn ethanol production top priority. If we do reacha point where large-scale cellulosic ethanol production is viable, it

must be produced from waste materials and not utilize cropland.Gas-electric hybridsare one of the biggest steps in theright direction that weve seen so far. Cars like the Toyota Priushave the highest fuel efficiency of all widely marketed vehicles, withlower emissions across the board. However, they still rely on gasolinefor part of their power. A diesel engine running on a high-percentagebiodiesel fuel is better yet.

38


45/120

Biodieselhas the lowest emissions of any of these fuels.But the source material for biodiesel production makes a hugedifference in how beneficial it can be. Biodiesel produced fromfoodstocks would have major drawbacks in terms of energy inputs

and land use. Waste-based biodiesel is the best possible fuel optionwe currently have. It utilizes waste grease and vegetable oil withoutrequiring additional farmland for production. Factories andrestaurants have plenty of oil to get rid of, and biodiesel diverts itfrom the waste stream while making it into something very useful.Biodiesel is the best alternative fuel option we have while transitioning

toward zero-emissions vehicles powered by renewable electricity.

Figure 6. Figure 2C, Net GHG emissions(as CO2 equivalents) during productionand combustion of biofuels and theirconventional counterparts, relative toenergy released during combustionfromEnvironmental, Economic, and Energetic

Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and

Ethanol Biofuelsby Jason Hill, Erik Nelson,David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, andDouglas Tiffany, in Proceedings of theNational Academy of Science of the United

States of America,103 (30), 2006.

Fuel supply infrastructure is long-lived, with large-scale investments

needed to develop new fuel production facilities, so it will actuallytake much longer to switch to alternative fuels on a large scale thanit will to modify our cars (DeCicco & Fung 18). The fastest way tocut carbon in the transportation sector is to drive less, followed muchfarther behind by vehicle modification, followed by development ofalternative fuels.

Driving less overall is the most complex of the three solutions.

To get our emissions down to acceptable levels, the average driverwill need to half his/her time behind the wheel, going from 10,000miles per year to 5,000 by 2054, which is a doable two percentreduction per year (Rysavy 11). However, a change of that scale ismulti-faceted. It has proven to take more than a moral obligation toget the majority of consumers to make such a lifestyle change,

39


46/120

especially when our lives are laid out the way they are. In order fordriving reductions to be feasible and even appealing to Americans,we need to be able to get where we need to go without our cars.This calls for smart urban planning where homes are close to work

and stores, increased telecommuting, scaled up public transportation,and making our towns more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly.I believe it also calls for a less fast-paced lifestyle where

people can afford and enjoy the extra time it takes to go a little slowerand walk to the grocery store.

How t o Opt Out1. Keep your car clean and tuned up.

The healthier you keep your car, the longer it will last and the feweryou will have to buy over your lifetime. Emissions will also be lowerif your vehicle is in good running order. Checking for leaks is veryimportant to reduce water pollution. It all just makes sense!

2. Drive efficiently.

The way you drive your car actually affects how efficiently it usesfuel. Here are some tips from Worldchanging (2006) and the USDepartment of Energy:

Avoid aggressive driving: Aggressive driving (speeding, rapidacceleration and braking) wastes gas. It can lower your gas mileageby 33 percent at highway speeds and by 5 percent around town.Sensible driving is also safer foryou and others, so you may savemore than gas money. Dont speed: While each

vehicle reaches its optimal fueleconomy at a different speed (orrange of speeds), gas mileageusually decreases rapidly atspeeds above 60 mph. As a ruleof thumb, you can assume that

40


47/120

each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20per gallon for gas. Drive Steadier:Jackrabbiting gobbles fuel. Use cruise controlwhen possible. Use an Overdrive Gear: If your car has it, this mode reduces yourengines speed, which saves gas. Avoid Idling: Idling gets 0 miles per gallon. If you need to idle formore than 30 seconds, turn the engine off (unless you are in traffic).It burns less gas to turn the car off and on again than it does to leaveit running idle.

3. Shop carefully.

Make sure the next car you purchase (if you must) is asenvironmentally benign as possible. Buy used if possible and boycottinefficient vehicles (especially SUVs!). Shop for a small car withthe highest fuel economy look at the numbers and dont buy thegreenwash. Ideally, the cleanest car you could possibly own wouldbe a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle powered by renewable electricity.

Even when buying a bicycle, consider what it is made of and whereit comes from; if you can, buy it used!

Check out craigslist (www.craigslist.org) and Co-op AmericasResponsible Shopper site (www.responsibleshopper.org) to help withpurchasing decisions.

4. Demand better cars.

Talk to dealerships and letthem know that you wont bebuying a car unless it is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle or atleast meets the fuel economy

goals of 40 miles per gallon by2012 and 60 miles per gallonby 2054. For a direct actionapproach, check outRainforest Action Networks

Adopt-A-Dealer Guide online.

41


48/120

42

5. Carpool or use public transportation.

Taking the bus beats both train and carpooling when it comes to

lowest carbon emissions, but each practice helps. If you do not livenear a bus stop or train station, consider biking there. Most buseshave bike racks, and many metropolitan trains will allow bicycles onat least one of their cars if you do not want to lock it up outside thestation. Cars carry an average of only 1.9 passengers, which fora five-person car implies a load factor of just 37 percent (Brower57). Imagine how much more smoothly traffic would flow if each carcarried even just one more person.

Car-share programs are a fantastic recentinnovation. The most successful andwidespread car sharing program is Zipcar(the operating name for the now combinedcompanies Zipcar and Flexcar). VisitZipcar.com to join. Once a member, you

can reserve one of the companyshundreds of cars in cities across the country for a few hours or awhole day. Your Zipcard will unlock the vehicle you have reserved,and youre off! Gas, reserved parking, and insurance included.

6. Use your own energy go car-free!

Use your own power to get where youre going by walkingand biking. Co-op America recommends using a local map and acompass to draw a circle around your home with your farthestknown bikeable location in the circles perimeter so you can bemindful to walk or bike to any locations within that circle (Rysavy 11).Increase your bicycles trunk space by purchasing a cargo carrierfor trips to the grocery store.

7. Plan ahead.

Try to consolidate all your weekly errands (first off, do youreally need all those things?) into one outing to reduce the number oftrips you take. Collaborate with neighbors and friends so you cancarpool and get everything done together.


49/120

43

8. Brew biodiesel.

Of all the alternative fuels out there, biodiesel brewed from recycled

vegetable oil is the winner. This is an important clarification frombiodiesel brewed from new vegetable oil, as it is not utilizing a wasteproduct and the production of new oil for the sole purpose of fuel hasmany issues. It diverts a food source to fuel, and growing the cropshas major environmental effects associated with agriculture (asdiscussed above). There is a huge source of waste cooking oilfrom restaurants and factories that can be utilized as a cleaner-burning fuel. And you can make it yourself! If you live anywhere

near a restaurant you have a (probably free) source of oil, and settingup a small biodiesel brewery in your garage or basement is fairlysimple. Then all you need is a car with a diesel engine, and you maynever have to pay for gasoline again! Many guides to making yourown biodiesel are available online, but I suggest seeking additionaladvice from an expert. BiodieselAmerica.org is an excellent resourcefor all things biodiesel.

9. Fly less.

Dont be part of the Federal Aviation Administrations predicted doublein U.S. airline passengers from 739 million in 2005 to almost oneand a half billion in 2025 (Stoller). This is the only way to reduce airtravel emissions. Take the train. Vacation closer to home to explorethe wonders right around you. Have virtual business meetings ratherthan traveling to meet in person.

10. Purchase carbon offsets.

As a last resort to cover any CO2emissions that you cannot cut

from your transportation, you can purchase carbon offsets toneutralize their impact. Carbon offsets do not get rid of the carbon

you have emitted, but they do counterbalance them. A carbon offsetis monetary support of a new renewable energy project (e.g. a windfarm) that will produce as many kilowatt hours (kWh) of clean energyas you burned of dirty energy (i.e. gasoline). That clean energy willbe pumped into the electricity grid and prevent the necessity of thatmuch energy coming into the grid from a dirty source.


50/120

44

Native Energy (www.nativeenergy.com) is thegold standard for carbon offsets, and their

website features a Travel Calculator. There aremany businesses offering carbon offsets, butbe sure that whomever you buy from is Green-e certified, offers ownership of the offsets uponpurchase, and offers additionality(meaning thatyou are not buying credits of existing renewableelectricity, but rather your purchase produces new renewable

electricity).

11. Consider relocating.

If you do not live in an area close to work, grocery store, pharmacy,doctor, public transportation, etc., one of the most effective moves


51/120

45

you could make is to a new home that is accessible to your needs.This makes sense for many reasons: you spend less money ongas, less time stuck in traffic, have more time for yourself and yourfamily, and get more exercise from biking and walking. Not to mention

the environmental benefits

12. Let the industries and your elected officials hear you.

When it comes to our transportation choices, our best short-term strategy is to get our most fuel-efficient cars on the road (in the

form of plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles), and power them with ourbest, lowest-emission biofuels (biodiesel made from waste) (Rysavy11). These are technological solutions. The long-term strategy mustbe adapting our lifestyles to be less vehicle dependent: a socioculturalsolution. We vote with our wheels!

Ot her Resour ces

The CoolDriver Campaignwww.cooldriver.org

A joint carbon offset program of Clean Air-Cool Planet and

NativeEnergy.

Who Kil led the Electr ic Car? (2006)www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

Writer/Director Chris Paines filminvestigates the events leading to the quiet

destruction of thousands of new, radicallyefficient electric vehicles. Throughinterviews and narrative, the film paints apicture of an industrial culture whoseaversion to change and reliance on oil maybe deeper then its ability to embrace readysolutions.


52/120

46

Revo lut ion Green: A True Story o f Biodiesel in Am erica

www.revolutiongreen.comBased on a true story, Revolution Green follows the lives of Boband Kelly King, whose pioneering vision created Americas first

sustainable biodiesel refinery in Mauiback in 1996. Bob and Kellys company,named Pacific Biodiesel, became thefirst private company in America to divertand refine thousands of tons ofmunicipal grease trap waste and wastevegetable oil into clean-burning,premium ASTM certified, B100biodiesel. Years later, country musiclegend Willie Nelson became veryinterested in the Kings vision ofsustainable biodiesel, eventuallyforming a strong partnership. Over ashort period of time, Willie and goodfriend Bill Mack would single-handedly

use satellite radio to talk to truckers andfarmers about biodiesel, elevating the renewable fuel into mainstreamrecognition.My person al disc laimer: This film endorses diverting agriculturalproduction for biodiesel production, which I believe does more harmthan good. Nevertheless, it is a good overview of the biodiesel conceptand how it can be spread across America. The film does highlightbiodiesel production from waste grease early on, which is the best

way to go.


53/120

47

Chapt er Four

HOUSING & UTILITIES

We shape our dwellings, and afterwards our dwellings shape us.

-Winston Churchill

Traditionally, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)has divided the sources of energy consumption into the categories

Transportation, Industry, Residential, and Commercial. It isby this division that transportation is identified as the largest singlesource of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. However, largechunks of those four categories all have to do with buildings. If welump together the percentages of energy consumption within thosefour categories that are associated with buildings, we would seethat the building sector consumes the most energy and emits the

most greenhouse gases48% (The Building Sector). In the 2007Buildings Energy Data Book, the U.S. Department of Energy reportsthat U.S. buildings carbon dioxide emissions (630 million metrictons of carbon) approximately equal the combined emissions ofJapan, France, and the United Kingdom. And it is the electricity thatour buildings use to operate that makes it so. Thus, electricity useby industrial, commercial, and residential buildings (including


54/120

48

everything inside them) is the greatest source of greenhouse gasemissions from this country.

Buildings have enormous environmental effects besideselectricity use. They alter the landscape significantly, use largeamounts of water, and the very materials they are made out of haveeffects reaching far beyond each structures location. TheWorldwatch Institute estimates that People can live in a typical housefor 10 years before the energy they use in it exceeds what went intoits componentssteel beams, cement foundation, window glassand frames, tile floors and carpeting, drywall, wood paneling orstairsand its construction (Housing). This section focuses onthe environmental effects of the land and materials used in

residences as structures and their operations in terms of gas, water,and electricity. In

Documents

opting out.pdf