Other Ways to Reduce Carbon Footprint
WIP, SOURCES WILL BE ADDED SOON
While going Vegan is for most people the best thing that can be done on an individual level to reduce one's carbon footprint, that isn't the be all end all of helping the environment. Believing that Veganism is pretty much all you need to do to fight climate change is not only objectively incorrect, it also will make you look rather hypocritcal when you claim to care about helping the environment yet not do as much as you reasonably can towards fulfilling that goal.
Make no mistake, the environmental effects of Veganism are still incredibly significant, and going Vegan would easily reduce your carbon footprint more than just about everything else, but you need to go above and beyond if you want to set a good example for others to follow.
Of course, we're not going to be reccomending anything overly drastic like only showering once a week, forgoing any and all climate control, not doing laundry, and subsisting only on beans (though we're not necessarily condemning it if you really are willing to do all that), this article is going to reccomend practicable, efficient, and effective ways of reducing your carbon footprint without hampering your overall quality of life significantly.
Within each item we will also quickly compare their cost-effectiveness compared to Veganism in terms of time, difficulty, and effectiveness. Veganism fundamentally speaking is a fairly easy thing to do (especially with so many vegan alternatives that are accessible) and has a huge return on investment, though this proportion will vary depending on the action and your circumstances.
While the list may seem long and daunting, keep in mind most of these take virtually no extra time, and are often just relatively small lifestyle changes, and modifications of personal infrastructure. There is absolutely no obligation to do every last one of these, and doing as many as you can would still be a huge positive.
Contents
- 1 Potential Criticisms
- 2 Personal Reductions
- 2.1 Transportation
- 2.2 Packaging
- 2.3 Avoiding environmentally harmful foods
- 2.4 Reducing shower time and temperature
- 2.5 Gardening
- 2.6 Greywater Systems
- 2.7 Home Insulation
- 2.8 Energy Efficient Appliances
- 2.9 Thrift stores
- 2.10 Recycling and Composting
- 2.11 Solar Panels
- 2.12 Freeganism
- 2.13 Miscellaneous Actions
- 3 Influencing Societal Reductions
Potential Criticisms
There exists many criticisms against the idea that we as individuals should be concerned about the energy requirements of our lifestyles, many of these are based on ignorance at best and apathy at worst.
It's expensive to be environmentally conscious
Uh yeah no it's not.
As you read the article, you may notice, with some exceptions, that being environmentally conscious is cheaper than living a normal Western lifestyle. Sure, the environmentally conscious option may not be as high quality and convienent, since you aren't paying extra for the luxury. But that's just what they are: Luxuries. Not things needed to maintain a healthful and comfortable quality of life. Often this is due to the energy costs being passed down to the consumers, so generally speaking the more expensive something is, there's a rough correlation to the energy expenditure, except of course in the case of subsidized products. Even going with the cheaper and greener option still allows for a very high quality of life, especially compared to the vast majority of people living on Earth today.
It's actually something of a rule of thumb: If something is cheaper to do, eight or nine times out of ten it's the more environmentally friendly option. We will take care to highlight the exceptions to this rule when they;re brought up.
Rich people have bigger environmental footprints
This is objectively true in the case of 95% of ultra-wealthy individuals. One rich asshole flying a private jet everywhere and living in a big mansion will probably have a lifetime environmental footprint of at least a hundred people. We aren't denying the terrible and unfortunate reality of this. Our response to this criticism boils down to: So?
Yes, they're 100% in the wrong for indulging so disgustingly in their vast wealth that not only could be used for a lot of good to help out other human beings, but pretty much only serves to emit tons of greenhouse emissions at the cost of the world's poorest human beings. What about that exactly means that you shouldn't do anything to help stop climate change? Hitler had the body count of like a million murderers, does that make the murders of people like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer any less terrible?
And just a note, as far as environmental destruction is concerned, the ultra rich are to you as you are to the global poor. Studies have found concerning statistics such as the poorest citizens living in the United Kingdom use five times more resources than almost 85% of India's population, and one American uses as many resources as 32 Kenyans. It's estimated that the richest 20% of the world (which would come out to a household income of roughly $10,000 USD for one person) use 80% of the world's resources, and the poorest 20% only accounts for about 1.3%, and another study found slightly different yet principally similar numbers.
While we should be criticising rich people for their terrible lifestyles, let us not be so quick to cast stones when we have our own indulgences to be worried about. We also find that it strange how this line and the previous "it's expensive to live green" are often used by the same crowd. While they aren't directly contradictory, is it hard to see the problem claiming that being green is expensive, while pointing out that those who can afford expensive things have higher footprints than those who don't?
https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=08-P13-00004&segmentID=3 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/rich-poor-and-future-earth-equity-constrained-world https://environment.leeds.ac.uk/faculty/news/article/5311/shining-a-light-on-international-energy-inequality
Personal Reductions
Transportation
Public transit
This depends on whether or not you live in or near a big city. Governments ideally should invest more in public transportation since it's an incredibly important service, but that's not really something consumers can do much about. If public transit isn't really an option where you live, then you can skip this section.
If however you DO live in an area with well-constructed and maintained infrastructure, it's something you certainly should consider doing. It isn't as fast as having a car, but it is cheaper, and much better for the environment, and bonus points if the buses/trains are electrically powered. Motor vehicles account for one of the largest carbon footprints for the average persons
Now note that taking public transit doesn't completely eliminate your carbon footprint in terms of public transportation, it just reduces it to a fraction of what it would have been if you had taken a car. Any emissions from taking the train are divided between you and however many other people take it at the same time as you do (and this isn't even factoring in the different length of time you may be on it for), making a 15-mile (~24 km) commute by train much smaller than by car.
If you've gone a while taking your car to get to work instead of public transit, it can be a bit of an adjustment to go from one to the other, but it's something worth trying out. Again, you'll also save a bit of money by not needing to pay for gas and potential repairs, and you're also helping promote the city's investment in the infrastructure when they see another person consistently using it.
Walking/Biking
This one is a bit more obvious (OR MAYBE NOT???). Not only is it good for your health to walk and bike if practical, but there also aren't any emissions released from walking.
This will depend on your lifestyle and location, whether or not you have the time to be walking around so much, or if it's even possible to get from point A to point B given the appalling state of walkable infrastructure in many Western countries.
However, even though there is technically zero energy expenditure when walking or biking a distance, an often forgotten issue is the fact that when you burn more calories, you tend to eat more to get those calories back, and food has its own carbon footprint, which depending on the situation can be better or worse than a drive or bus trip. However, given the huge environmental impact of meat-based diets, this is likely only the case if your diet is centered around, well, meat. Vegan diets have a much smaller carbon footprint, so it's much less likely that walking and biking instead of driving somewhere will have a larger impact if that's the diet your consuming (of course assuming you aren't focusing your vegan diet around environmentally unsustainable foods, which will be covered in the next section).
Packaging
Food packaging is the most important, because it's the most consumed.
Plastic, cans, Boxes
[tables of impact]
Hidden packaging
"Bulk" or produce often has large amounts of hidden packaging that the grocery store threw away for you. [data on this]
Online orders
Boxes, Styrofoam, etc. May not be much less than what a store already throws away for you.
Recycled or bioplastic packaging
The most valuable packaging is recycled packaging, because it incentivizes industry to recycle, or derive packaging from more renewable sources. [link to more about this in recycling section]
[data on impact of bioplastics]
Avoiding environmentally harmful foods
Aside from animal products, we also ought to be cautious about other environmentally damaging foods, including but not limited to palm oil, and excessive amounts of certain fruit as a major calorie source. Palm oil is notorious for being one of the most environmentally destructive crops on the planet, responsible for deforestation and habitat loss (and thus accelerating climate change), and many fruits (sweet fruits in particular) don't have the best yield in terms of calories compared to most other plant foods.
Impact of Fruits
Fruit | Yield per acre in kg | Calories per yield | Phytonutrients per yield[1] |
---|---|---|---|
Apples | 15376.781 | 8026679.682 | |
Grapes | 6069.066 | 4090550.484 | |
Apricots | 5071.163 | 2429087.077 | |
Avocado | 181437 | 29029900 | |
Strawberries | 12110.916 | 2875493.12 | |
Blueberries | 3052.677 | 1740025.89 | |
Raspberries | 4853.4384 | 2562615.4752 | |
Cantaloupe | 14539.631 | 4899855.647 | |
Honeydew | 12954.6 | 4637746.8 | |
Watermelon | 17450.606 | 5304984.224 |
Berries may not have much higher yield, but the nutrient density in terms of phytonutrients is higher allowing smaller volumes of consumption to achieve similar or greater health benefit.
Impact of Vegetables
Vegetable | Yield per acre in kg | Calories per yield | Phytonutrients per yield[1] |
---|---|---|---|
Artichokes | 8636.4 | ||
Asparagus | 1813.644 | ||
Snap Bean | 4435.045 | ||
Broccolli | 6629.7061 | ||
Cabbage | 18852.75 | ||
Carrots | 22535.92 | ||
Cauliflower | 9240.9466 | ||
Celery | 27941.3 | ||
Sweet Corn | 8219.8195 | ||
Cucumbers | 8077.57 | ||
Garlic | 8128.38 | ||
Head Lettuce | 17115.31 | ||
Leaf Lettuce | 12873.314 | ||
Romaine Lettuce | 14732.7 | ||
Onion | 25401.2 | ||
Green Peas | 1778.08 | ||
Bell Peppers | 16348.195 | ||
Chile Peppers | 8006.4496 | ||
Pumpkin | 12162.081 | ||
Spinach | 6548.4223 | ||
Squash | 8280.78 | ||
Sweet Potatoes | 9596.5631 | ||
Tomatoes | 43471.567 |
Some vegetables can be problematic IF they make up the majority of calories, because vegetables are low calorie foods, but vegetables are not typically consumed as a calorie source; they're a source of non-caloric nutrients like vitamins and minerals and minimally caloric nutrients like fiber and protein.
Differences in Grains and Starches
There can even be differences in terms of generally efficient crops, like grains. Rice is responsible for 30% of all the world's agricultural methane emissions, and while being one of the world's major sources of food partially explains this, due to flooding used in weed control, rice does disproportionately produce methane vs. dry land crops like wheat in terms of calories (although nothing compared to beef). There are highland rice options, but usually not accessible.
Potatoes can result in disproportionate emissions due to their storage in some areas, but this may depend on season and location, since potatoes are extremely efficient as a crop if they aren't stored for long times in conditioned spaces.
Differences in Fat sources
Luxury Foods
Coffee is also considered to be an environmentally unsustainable crop, but it's nowhere near as bad as palm oil is, and actually has some incredibly useful benefits in terms of productivity (unlike palm oil which is just saturated fats). It doesn't take too many beans to make a single cup of coffee, and there are verified ways of growing it sustainably, namely, shade grown. Buying shade grown coffee instead of traditionally grown would be pretty significant, if it's possible.
Protein
Beans and legumes are the most efficient and environmentally friendly protein source prevalent in agriculture, and also provide some starches. Mock meats have been concentrated and may have some additional carbon footprint due to processing, however life cycle analyses have shown these are far lower than meat. [more data on this]
Generally speaking, negative impact animal products of all kinds dwarf plant products (even most fruit and vegetables). There are rare exceptions. On that note, while we're agnostic on the topic of oyster sentience, farming oysters is potentially environmentally beneficial since when the oysters grow on the ropes they filter water and even absorb greenhouse gases since the oyster shell needs to cultivate CO2 to develop. Whether or not it's a net negative impact is fairly speculative, so take it with a grain of salt. If you are considering buying oysters, avoid wild-caught oysters (which have the same environmental concerns that commercial fishing has) and go for the rope-grown ones, since those are the ones that may have the environmental benefits.
Misc
It also makes sense to eat more foods that are generally lower in carbon emissions, namely corn, beans, and even many nuts. Walnuts in particular may have a carbon absorption during their farming, which is something to consider. And if you really want to go further, try and get foods that are packaged better; For instance, it's better to buy bags of beans instead of cans (even if the metal cans are recycled, the bags likely still have a slightly smaller impact).
[Link to section on packaging]
Avoid Organic Foods
You've probably already heard, but Organic farming, despite clever and deceptive marketing and appeal, is not better for the environment and in fact may be worse for it. Organic farming relies on animal agriculture, using products for fertilizer such as blood meal, bone meal, manure, and even whole fish. While it's nowhere near as bad as buying animal products themselves, if you have a reasonable alternative (which is almost always true in the case of produce), go for the non-Organic, and better yet, if available, get something Veganically grown. Making an effort to buy organic products helps the meat, dairy, and egg industries more than necessary. Organic farming also tends to have lower yield than conventional farming, meaning not only more emissions, but also increasing the amount of land that needs to be cleared.
If you don't have any other options, it's not a big deal. IF you do have the conventional alternative, go for that, since it's usually also much cheaper anyways.
Comparing this to veganism, this is pretty much a slightly harder version of Veganism, although this is not a dogmatic and irrational thing to do in addition to a Vegan diet for one who cares about the environment. Ideally, palm oil, and large bulk sweet fruits should play a limited role in your diet anyway considering their inadequate nutrient contents. Simply putting more emphasis on beans instead of rice and berries instead of too much sweet fruit is an easy way to compensate for their reduction in your diet, and generally, plenty of foods with palm oil in them will have some alternative without it.
Reducing shower time and temperature
Everyone loves a nice warm shower, but how long do we really need in there? How much time does one really need to clean their hair, armpits, groin, and asshole, and do a quick scrub of their chest, face, arms, and legs? Five, maybe six minutes? A pretty big chunk of the time we're in there consists of just standing around like an idiot.
Simply shaving a minute or two out of your daily shower would be pretty significant, as would reducing the temperature on the water a little even. Every bit helps.
Alternatively, you can take what is known as a Scottish Shower, which is pretty much just an otherwise typical warm shower that has the final minute with the water being set to the lowest temperature (so if you usually take ten-minute showers, nine minutes will be warm, one will be ice cold). It's also believed to have a few health benefits, so why not give it a try?
Regardless of what you do, just never outright forgo showering, or at least not for more than a few days at a time. Believe it, people will smell you; You know that oily scent your hair gets when it hasn't been cleaned for a little while? Multiply that by ten and put it all over your body; That's what one week of no showering smells like. Although it's important to care about the environment, you shouldn't sacrifice health and hygiene for it if it's not necessary.
Compared to veganism and most of the things here, this is actually one of the easier things to do, it just takes a little discipline. But changing habits can be difficult, so it'd be easier to just invest in a lower-flow showerhead. A lower flow combined with cooler water (or a more efficient water heater) and reduced showering time is a recipe for a very efficient shower, and would save you quite a bit on your water bill. General rule of thumb: If something's cheaper to do, it tends to be better for the environment.
Better yet, if you're a REAL chad, you can take the whole shower ice cold. You gradually get used to them, but it takes a lot of moxie.
Gardening
OK you know all that stuff we said earlier about not buying environmentally harmful plant foods? Well you can go ahead and forget all that if you grow them yourself!
Industrial production of these foods is what makes them so environmentally problematic. It's necessary to grow food for eight billion hungry people out there so it's fair to make some sacrifices to the environment to that end (unless you're fine with having the overwhelming majority of people starve). But if you have the ability to, it's a great to try elimiating resource investments in terms of agriculture.
Another huge and sometimes neglected environmental blight are lawns. Largely an American tradition (though it originated in Britain and Ireland), lawns are enormous wastes of resources such as water, gasoline (powering all that yard equipment like mowers, leaf blowers, weed whackers, etc.), and the immense amount of resources and energy needed to manufacture lawn care such as pesticides. It's also a huge opportunity cost to boot. That land can be used for something useful, such as growing a garden for food, instead of just existing to look pretty and serve as status symbols and not offer anything of significant value beyond that.
You can grow pretty much any plant food in a garden, including fruits, vegetables, grains, and even rice. The foods will be fresh if you're even somewhat diligent, and it's going to save you quite a bit on your food bill (and it's healthy to boot, in terms of diet and physical activity).
We're not going to delve into it here but if you're interested, look up on how to get started on a garden if there aren't any laws on the books preventing you from doing so in your area. It's going to vary depending on where you live, if you have a space to garden in, and if you have enough time to spare (though they generally aren't very high maintenance). It's a helluva lot more rewarding and relaxing than mowing a lawn, that's for sure.
Greywater Systems
Your water usage is one of the largest uses of energy in your household, so while it may sound a little gross, developing a system in your house where water is reused is a huge energy saver.
A greywater system pretty much takes the water used from showering, sinks/faucets, dishwashers, washing machines, etc. and uses it for other water-related tasks (and no, it doesn't use toilet water, in fact greywater explicitly avoids any fecal contamination, though there may be some fecal matter in the water if you clean your anus during a shower, but it's otherwise minimal). The water is usually reused for toilets and irrigation, the latter of which goes great with gardening. Of course the water is not used for cleaning or consumption, but it's incredibly helpful for pretty much every other water related purpose.
Something of a caveat with this is that you need to have the authority to do this to your domicile, so if you rent your home this is sort of off the table. Not to mention it is something of an undertaking (though rewarding one of course), but many tutorials online help simplify the process.
Home Insulation
Another home infrastructure job, this time it's inside the walls (or the building envelope if you're a nerd). Filling the walls with insulation will help the air in your home retain its temperature, meaning less need to use climate control like heating and AC.
Again, like greywater systems, this saves money in the long run, but if you don't have the ability to alter your property in any way it isn't really an option (unless your landlord can be convinced), and it's a huge project to tear down walls and fill them with insulation.
Energy Efficient Appliances
This may be more expensive at first, but it's one of those things that's cheaper in the long run after constant investment results in a net higher cost than the capital cost of an energy-efficient appliance. Basically, something that costs you $100 once will save you more money over the course of a month spending four dollars a day, though depending on your circumstances it may be difficult to afford energy-efficient appliances for everything you use. How are these things cheaper in the long run? Well, since they use less energy, that's less money thrown onto your electric bill at the end of the month.
In 1992 the United States Environmental Protection Agency created the Energy Star Program, which sets guidelines for products in order to be considered efficient. Products that satisfy these requirements are certified by the program. Energystar.gov has a list of products ranging from laundry machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, and other appliances you can shop around for. The program has been successful in saving hundreds of billions of dollars, and according to one estimate, reducing GHG emissions by four billion tons.
Of course depending on your country, there'll be different programs in place with their own standards. Here's a short list:
- European Union: European Union Energy Labels
- Canada: Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
- Japan: P2
- Switzerland: Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE)
If you want to replace your current appliances but are a bit strapped for cash, you might be able to get some of that back by taking them to the scrapyard (which is recycling). Just don't make a habit of stealing metal that's being used, that's kind of dangerous and illegal, especially if it isn't yours.
LED Lighting
There's a pretty good chance that this is the law of the land where you live, but LED lights are nearly twice as efficient as standard incandescent lightbulbs. Similar to other energy-efficient appliances, the capital cost is greater, but due to their efficiency, it'll save more money and energy in the long run, not to mention they tend to last much longer too. Just make sure the infrastructure in your household is compatible (if you aren't sure, talk with an electrician).
If your house has the proper light transformers, this is something remarkably easy to do; Just head to your local home improvement store and pick up enough for every light in your household, plus a few extra, screw them in, and you're all done. On top of that, it's good to reduce usage of lights if you don't need them, like when you leave a room. Even though it's more efficient, there's no reason to leave it on.
Thrift stores
Buying new things can be pricy, and require the production of new items which has its own environmental footprint. While it isn't terribly significant if you're looking to minimize your carbon emissions, this is something that should be worth doing, and it's also a great way to save money.
While we actually do support buying new clothes made in developing countries to help flow more money into their economies to improve conditions over there, it comes with an environmental impact, with not only shipping it across the ocean but production in developing countries tends to be less environmentally friendly than items made in developed ones. Buying from thrift store does not create any new demand for products, and thus, has no environmental footprint.
Some estimates show that shopping at thrift stores for new clothes can save hundreds every year, and creates a neutral environmental effect. Thrift stores don't just sell clothes either, they also sell accessories and other items that can be useful, and often in decent condition, for a very good price.
So, maybe go for something of a mix between buying new clothes and buying from thrift stores, and if possible donate the difference (explained in a further section), since thrift store items tend to be a little cheaper. Oh, and it's also good if you donate any old clothes you have that you don't want to wear any more, help those with less money get cheap clothes, and don't need to create any carbon footprints with it.
Recycling and Composting
While the environmental benefits of recycling have been greatly overstated, that doesn't mean it's something we shouldn't be doing, and considering how easy it is to recycle means everyone should do it anyway (the EPA gives an estimate of one in three Americans recycling, which has been going up over the past few decades, but still concerningly low).
Really, recycling is not hard. Some municipalities will give you bins to use for free, and even if you can't get them for free you can get them at your local home improvement store for under $30. Sure, the environmental benefits are pretty small, but the effort to reward ratio is pretty even. It's pretty useful if you buy a lot of cans and bottles and are looking to neutralize your carbon footprint on that front, and better yet, if you take these to your local supermarket and put them in the Recycling Machines and redeem 5-10 cents for each can/bottle you put in, which can save you a little on your grocery bill.
Of course it all depends on the material you're recycling. Materials like glass aren't very significant, but metals like aluminum and copper have huge returns (relatively speaking). Also when you're in the shops, see if you can get items that are packaged in more recyclable materials. For instance, two shampoo bottles, Brand A is 90% recyclable, Brand B is a virgin plastic bottle, if they're roughly the same cost buy the former. If you want to help make a point, send a message to each of the companies telling Brand A you appreciated their the recyclable nature of their bottle making it a big reason why you purchased it, and telling Brand B we didn't buy their product due to the environmentally unfriendly nature of their product's packaging. Sure, we mostly vote with our money, which sends a stronger signal than any letter could, but telling them why helps make sure they keep doing what made us more attracted to their product in the first place.
In terms of the effectiveness of recycling, it's going to depend on a lot of things, such as your location and where the recycling facility and landfills are, and how state-of-the-art they are in terms of capturing methane emissions. After you they take your recyclable material, it's in the hands of the municipality, and if they screw it up that isn't really on you.
Quick note about grocery bags, yes we are familiar with the studies claiming that they're worse for the environment but they weren't well conducted, and a lot of sensationalist journalism is at play. Reusable bags are better for the environment IF you would reuse your one-use plastic grocery bags for garbage bags anyway, then the impact is virtually zero.
Solar Panels
Doing something like this depends on a lot of things, such as your economic situation, whether or not you own your home, the environment you live in, etc.
Now while solar energy as a solution for powering industry and big cities, it just won't do the job (that's what nuclear power's for!), but a few solar panels on a roof can go a long way towards giving you electricity and also significantly reducing your carbon footprint.
Your mileage will vary with this of course. If you live somewhere that's usually sunny like in Los Angeles, your solar panels will be pretty effective year round, whereas if you live in an area with a varying temperature New York City that has cold winters but very warm and sunny summers, you'll be primarily reaping the benefits for only half the year (you still can get some energy during the colder months, but it won't be as significant).
This is a huge investment in terms of money and resources, so it isn't really something we expect most people to do much about, but if it's within your capabilities, we strongly reccomend it, especially if you live in a sunnier area. It'll even help you save a bit on your energy bill too (and if you're REALLY conservative with your electricity usage, you can have an energy surplus).
Freeganism
Arguably even better than Veganism in terms of environmental impact. Whereas a normal Vegan diet significantly reduces a person's carbon footprint from food, a fully freegan diet does away with it completely.
Freeganism is the practice of consuming food that has been discarded as waste products and are thrown into containers such as dumpsters (hence 'dumpster-diving'). All sorts of foods are discarded, including animal products. If that seems hypocritical for a Vegan wiki to be advocating, remember, it isn't the consumption of meat that's unethical, it's the purchasing of the products and supporting the industry. Eating meat found in a dumpster does not increase the demand for it, and therefore is not an ethical concern (well except for deontologists, but that's their problem). This practice creates no incentive for companies to breed more animals into existence and expend immense amounts of energy to produce products.
Keep in mind, just because something is free doesn't mean it's freegan. A bit counterintuitive, but if you were to say eat free meat samples at a supermarket, or non-vegan pastries at a party, even though those are free, it's still displacing meat that will need to be replaced. Once those samples are done, they have to order more, and at the party, the meat-eating party goers will still want to have dairy desserts and will eat more at home. With foods in the dumpster, that stuff's irrelevant to the economy anyway, so consuming it isn't causing any demand for the products. As far as we can tell there exists little to no demand for companies to have more food to be thrown in the garbage (and even if there was some weird elaborate conspiracy to throw more food out, it's not because they want people to eat it).
This doesn't extend to just food; Dumpster diving can be done to get all sorts of things, and it's pretty amazing how good the quality is of a lot of the stuff that's thrown away. If you know where to look and with some luck, you can find technology, clothes, tools, and even furniture. Clean it up a bit, and it's good to go. It's the same principle as a thrift store, but free!
The reasons why it isn't gaurunteed to be better than a vegan diet is primarily because a fully Freegan diet doesn't do anything at all to promote Vegan alternatives (such as plant milks, beyond/impossible meat, etc.), which are important for spreading Veganism in the mainstream to shift production from environmentally destructive animal products to significantly less environmentally destructive plant products.
A somewhat lesser reason is that eating meat is still less healthy than plants (unless you're diving for only vegetables). You generally should be as healthy as possible in order to help promote Veganism to get others to reduce their carbon footprints, and you may live slightly shorter and won't be able to advocate for it as much. These aren't necessarily arguments against Freeganism, we still support it if someone wants to do it, these are more just reasons why Veganism may be better in practice.
And just note, while there are health concerns with dumpster diving, if you do it right the problems are minimal. Otherwise, freeganism done properly is a safe and rewarding practice that can be done to make a huge reduction in your carbon footprint. Just make sure to wear proper personal protective equipment (gloves, mask, eyewear), thoroughly clean your findings after bringing them home, if possible going in a group to look after each other and to help make sure there's a fallback in case someone gets hurt (cut on glass or touches a used needle for instance) or is exposed to something harmful, and all in all just being smart about it. Also, be sure of the law in your area, though in the vast majority of jurisdictions, it's legal, provided you aren't trespassing on anyone's property.
While this takes a bit of a stomach to do compared to a regular Vegan diet, if you're someone who desperately wants to not contribute to animal suffering and environmental harm but can't give up meat, this might be something you should look into, and given that it isn't all that difficult (just takes some time), this is a pretty big effort to reward investment. Also this saves you a ton of money, which is also something to consider for those who have a hard time getting by.
Miscellaneous Actions
The following actions are relatively minor but easy things to do that don't necessarily fall into their own category but serve as additional things you can do to reduce your environmental impact. They may complement some of the other aforementioned actions (e.g. invest in a more efficient appliance, but reduce your usage of it anyway), and easy ways to go about it. And of course, most of these actions will help save you some money.
Using less air conditioning
Air conditioning is incredibly popular in the US, and is one of the biggest contributors to climate change in terms of energy output. But because it's a contributor, it helps make the Earth hotter, meaning we need more air conditioning to compensate for the increased heat. It's a vicious cycle.
While you probably have an ideal temperature you want your home to be at, there isn't any need to set the AC too high if you're comfortable at a higher temperature. For example, you might want to have your place ideally cooled to a pleasant 68°F at all times, but if you're comfortable with it being at 70°F, you should opt for the latter instead; Every degree counts. Let us enjoy our technological comforts, but let's not overindulge if we're already satisfied.
Something of a trade secret: If you want a quick way to cool off your entire body, run your wrists under freezing cold water (or rub them with an ice cube or something) for about half a minute. If you have access to like a bucket of ice that's even better, but not necessary. This action will quickly cool down your entire body when you're feeling a little overheated, and FAR less energy intensive than cranking the AC up. You will have to make a few trips to the faucet every now and again, but it won't be frequent enough to be a hindrance (and it's also great if you came back from a run and need a way to cool off).
You also can just get naked if you're willing, that works too.
However, if you have some serious health concerns (like getting heat stroke), which certainly applies if you're a senior, don't be afraid to use the AC if it's vital for your health. We do want you to be more conscientious of the environment but we don't want you to put your damn life at stake for it.
Using less heating
A lot of us hate being cold, so indoor heating is great, but same principle as AC: While you may have an ideal temperature for your home to be at during the colder months, try setting it at at a temperature you're comfortable at, rather than what you ideally want (If you're ideally happy at 70°F, but satisfied at 68°F, set it for that; there's a good chance there will be a little residual heat expended anyway). You're still getting warm either way, and the remaining heat you want can be compensated with an extra layer and some quick calisthenics.
Heating is no where near as bad as air conditioning, but it's still good to reduce usage if you can. Again, every degree counts, and if you have some serious health risks or live in like the Yukon or something and are at risk of getting hypothermia, don't feel obligated to reduce your heat too much.
Letting it mellow when it's yellow
Sort of gross depending on who you are, but you really don't need to flush the toilet every time you go for a piss. It's pretty minor, but not flushing the toilet every time can save a little energy (of course if you're in someone else's home or in public, don't be disgusting). Also it should go without saying, if it's solid waste, just flush the damn thing instead of leaving a brown sponge floating there (unless you live alone and don't mind looking at your poop until there's too much to flush).
Carpooling
This is probably the most cliched advice but yeah, if driving is necessary for you and several other people, it's best to just go in one vehicle. Bonus points if it's an electric or hybrid.
Reusing items
This should be pretty obvious, if something can be reused, don't discard it just yet. Examples of this include grocery bags, clothes, water bottles, old furniture, paper, bags, containers, etc. There are tons of pages online that not only list things that can be reused, but also suggest ways to repurpose them. Also, if something has a slight defect that can be fixed, it's better to just fix it yourself rather than getting a new one. This applies to other things too, for instance getting crappy shoes then improving them a little (look up ways to improve tattered shoes).
Historically, especially during World War 2, during times of rationing and fewer resources, driving alone was looked down upon as an unoptimal use of resources. If more people carpooled, that would not only mean fewer cars contributing to traffic but also fewer resources burned.
Drinking primarily water
Tap water, of course. Bottled water not only comes with an absurdly high mark up, but it takes a lot of energy to package and ship all of those bottles. While it's great to have coffee, tea, orange juice, plant milk, etc., the healthiest thing you can drink will be water, and it comes virtually free from the tap (even freer if it's cold water, which is what most people enjoy drinking anyway).
Using Google as your search engine
OK, the only reasons why you wouldn't use Google is either because you're an old person who doesn't know how to use the internet properly, or you don't want to support Google as a corporation (or you use DuckDuckGo because you're concerned about your privacy, in which case, y'know, fair enough). But if you don't fall into any of those categories, Google is your best bet because not only it is a very optimized search engine, but they are 100% powered by renewables, meaning no carbon emissions from doing searches, compared to other search engines such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which are not fully green.
Also, we are well aware of the other search engine known as Ecosia, which helps plant trees with every search. Well, kind of.
When you do a search on Ecosia, that isn't what's planting a tree; A tree will only be planted when you click on the ads that pop up in the search results. Most people, especially those who are concerned about the environment (which tends to be younger people) are familiar enough with how the internet works, and are unlikely to be clicking on these ads. So if you use Ecosia but don't click on any of the search ads, you are not only not planting any trees, but are releasing greenhouse emissions; Ecosia is powered by Bing, which as we stated is not powered completely by renewables.
We're also skeptical of Ecosia's impact; While they still have been successful in planting millions of trees that have absorbed tons of greenhouse gases, keep in mind that this sort of thing requires inputs. Buying trees and putting them in plastic pots and providing them fertilizer and irrigation is not carbon neutral, and there is not even a guarantee that it will live very long either. If there is any positive impact, it's likely only very, very slight.
Ultimately, it's best to let forests regrow naturally on their own. Manmade reconstruction of forests takes too much energy to be worth the trouble.
Canceling Junk Mail
Nobody likes spam, and neither does the environment. Junk mail in its physical form comes with its own emissions, and while it's a very minor thing, since it's literally just a waste of space in your mailbox, there's no reason to keep it around. Using companies such as Choice Catalogue will help stop junk mail from getting to your door, reducing your emissions from paper a little bit.
Influencing Societal Reductions
Donating to effective charities
It's great to want to donate some of your money to charities, but where we go wrong is that we almost never donate this money to effective charities. This happens due to several things, such as corruption, incompetence, over-funding, or simply just not focusing resources on the right cause to do the most good.
As you may expect, there exist many charities addressing the issue of climate change, but not all of them are quite so effective (look at Ecosia, as we addressed earlier; has good intentions, but is very likely counterproductive, which is concerning, considering how many organizations have similar structures). We're skeptical of pretty much every climate charity, even ones that have been positively reviewed by Effective Altruist sources, with the exception of animal charities, since promoting veganism would help reduce the carbon footprint of other individuals. If we find a non-animal charity that effectively deals with the issue of climate change, we will edit this section accordingly.
We recommend looking into charities recommended by Animal Charity Evaluators; There may be some criticism of it, but we believe that they give otherwise strong animal charity recommendations. Animal charities may be more effective than most climate charities. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/top-animal-charities-and-climate-change/
Note that you don't necessarily get all of the credit for this person's action, and therefore don't get to put those saved emissions into your carbon bank account. Sure, you may have helped this person go Vegan or Vegetarian, but them choosing to go vegan was their choice, not yours. No doubt someone convinced you to go Vegan too, right? How would you feel if that person got all of the credit for your moral deeds?
We aren't necessarily advocating charity as a way to reduce your own carbon footprint, it's more just a very effective way of doing something that has positive consequences upon the world (being a reduction of greenhouse gases, and of course less animal suffering).
How much should you give? Well, as much as you can really. If you can only give ten bucks a month, then go for it; That's ten dollars going towards a good cause. If you can, try cutting some costs to make room for charity, such as canceling premium memberships, eating at home more rather than going out, and if you've been paying attention to this article, cutting down your energy use.
AS A FOREWARNING: Just because you donate to a charity doesn't give you license to release more greenhouse gases. Not only are those saved emissions not entirely on your part, you should never, ever treat doing good as a way to justify doing bad. If you save ten people, does that mean it'd be OK to kill ten people? Similarly, if you save one ton of emissions, that doesn't mean you are free to waste a whole ton's worth of emissions. We should be going for absolute minimum harm, not neutralizing it. If everyone acted like this, there would be pretty much zero moral progress.
Promoting Vegan Alternatives
So while freeganism eliminates your carbon footprint as it relates to food, that automatically makes it greener than Veganism, right? Well, maybe not.
Freeganism causes no economic incentive for environmentally harmful products, and that's great, but it goes both ways too; Just as you are not giving money to bad things, you aren't quite giving money to good things either. If we want society as a whole to embrace Veganism (the more environmentally friendly option), we have to support the development of plant-based alternatives, even if they are made by non-vegan companies.
Contrary to the claims of anti-capitalist vegans, buying vegan products from non-vegan companies is an essential part of getting Veganism to be more mainstream. Every cent invested towards fake meat is a cent not going towards real meat, which is something that these companies and supermarkets notice.
We are noticing the actual effects of this: Dairy milk has been sharply declining, with the plant milk market exploding, with some speculating that dairy milk will be completely irrelevant to the average consumer in a few decades, Impossible and Beyond meats have taken on in the mainstream, there are now dedicated vegan sections in many supermarkets, and tons of restaurants now have at least a handful of vegan options available where it would actually be pretty strange if a place doesn't have any. All of this has been the result of people buying vegan products, making them more mainstream, and getting more people to buy them and choose the much more environmentally friendly option.
The relationship can be thought of like this:
- Buying animal products: Bad for the environment
- Buying whole plants such as veggies and beans: Roughly neutral
- Buying vegan alternatives: Better for the environment due to market shift
It has a fairly similar effect to donating to effective Vegan charities, and the economic approach to Veganism has its place, and is certainly one of our most effective approaches. The easier we make veganism, the more people will make an effort to cut down on their meat consumption. Whether it's buying Vegan products at the grocery store, or getting the Vegan option at a restaurant, it all goes toward creating more incentive to invest in these alternatives.
And as another bonus, assuming you eat more to compensate for loss calories after walking/biking in lieu of driving, if you walk/bike to the grocery store to pick up mock meats, that's a trip that can be considered carbon negative. It may still apply if you drive and have a net positive impact, but it won't be as dramatic. Still something to consider though.
Another thing to consider is writing to grocery stores and restaurants and asking them to stock more Vegan options (especially ones that you really want to try but aren't available), and to thank them for doing something to cater to Vegans. An example of that would be something like this:
Dear Supermarket/Grocery Store,I greatly appreciate your selection of Vegan products, and I would love to see even more. Adding to your current supply, please consider adding Vegan chicken, bacon, etc. (list some brand names and some of their products too), and I really would like to buy them and try them out.
Thank you for making an effort to accommodate those with different diets, keep up the great work on this.
If they get enough messages, they are very likely to follow through with the request, and stock more Vegan options, which makes them even more visible to curious meat-eaters, which makes them much more likely to buy them.
Voting and Political Participation
Despite all the things you can do in your personal life to reduce your carbon footprint, there come not only diminishing returns but also where you're up against a brick wall. You can only do reduce your energy usage so much without putting too much of a strain on your overall quality of life, that there comes a point where there needs to be a change in the infrastructure (that's beyond our control) we rely on in order for there to be environmental progress worth giving a damn about.
The only way for this paradigm to occur is to have governing bodies do their part and invest in these changes. But the only way for them to do that is to have the right people in office. In many parts of the West (particularly in the US and many European countries), climate change denial and skepticism is a characteristic of many right-winged political parties. Obviously, these guys are less than ideal for candidates to solve climate change, but to be fair, they do have valid criticisms of many politicians who run on environmentalist platforms who don't advocate for nuclear. They will (correctly) criticize renewables as inadequate replacements for large-scale energy provided by fossil fuels. Nuclear power (and maybe to some extent renewables) will be on their list of energy sources they support, along with usual fossil fuels such as coal and oil. This isn't really ideal, but it's still much better than candidates calling for moratoriums on nuclear.
We're not going to discuss why Nuclear Energy is so important as far as climate policy is concerned, but long story short, any energy policy not primarily focused around nuclear power is dubious since it's the only clean energy source that can adequately provide enough for industry and cities, whereas solar and wind can not (hydro can, but that depends on geography, and there are issues with methane). Of course we're not against other clean energy sources, solar and wind have tons of applications (solar as we said are great for domestic power) and those should play their part, and natural gas, while a fossil fuel, is much cleaner than oil and coal, and should serve as a transitory energy source while we convert to nuclear and renewables (and maybe keep it around for things like cooking). The closer a politician comes to something like this, you should consider giving them your vote. At the very least, make sure your vote is not going towards someone who wants to end nuclear power since that is only going to force us onto fossil fuels.
Anyway, politicians are the ones who are able to completely change our infrastructure, so getting them in power is the best way to do this, and there is some serious hope for nuclear energy and clean energy becoming more and more prominent. In the United States, the recent Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed by President Joe Biden offered a six billion dollar investment and nuclear power and over 70 billion in renewables. In the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson (BOJO!!!) announced in 2022 the increased investment in nuclear and wind. In France, 70% of the country's energy is provided by nuclear power.
Sure, politicians might drop the ball more often than we like, but looking at changes like this, it becomes tempting to write off any putz who dismisses politics and says crap like 'Voting doesn't matter' as someone who pretends to be cynical when in actuality it's just thinly veiled apathy. Nuclear is going to face some obstacles, but we are seeing some real changes happen. Aside from the more over-zealous environmentalists putting ideology before science, most politicians support nuclear power to some extent. And with Russia being sanctioned due to their stupid invasion of Ukraine, there's a fair chance more European countries will adopt nuclear energy since they aren't relying so much on Russian oil.
And energy, while the primary environmental concern in terms of politics, other similar issues exist. Namely, investing more in environmental protection, effective recycling programs, scientific research to improve the efficiency of technology, strengthening current programs and agencies, etc. Boosting these programs will go a long way in doing their part to help the environment.
By the way, even though voting is probably the most cost-effective thing you can do for climate politics, it's also good to go a little further such as staying in contact with your political representatives. Make sure to contact a variety of them for each level of government, and there isn't any need to call them every day (though go for it if you really want to), giving different representatives a two-minute call every week would go quite far in terms of bringing political attention to the issues, and show those in power that there are people who care and want to see things done.
Considering how relatively few people actually make an effort to call their representatives, even just 40 or so people making a call on an issue signals to representatives that a significant portion of their constituencies wants to see action on it. Talk to them about supporting nuclear energy, renewables, more government investment in green technology and research, and even more environmental regulations. Some organizations, such as the Good Food Institute, may have action alerts where they'll encourage people to contact their representatives about investing in vegan food research.
Contrary to popular lamentation, politicians are not all corrupt, dishonest, self-interested human beings who don't care about helping the people who elect them (no doubt though that there are politicians who fall into those categories, but this is not the majority). Various studies have shown that most politicians keep, or at least attempt to keep most of their promises, and the broken promises don't automatically mean they don't care, it's often due to bureaucratic difficulties, and not being able to get around to fulfilling them. Passing laws is not as simple as we might believe, even with a cooperative government. But sometimes they don't do what we want them to do because they aren't sure what we're demanding; Maybe a reason why we feel as though politicians don't always give us what we always hope for is because we're not exactly clear on what we want from them?
So get off your ass and VOTE! Every person who doesn't vote is another vote given to the people who don't care about climate change.
Activism
We firmly believe that being Vegan in and of itself, while great and already has some influencing power, is not enough. While yes this article primarily concerns environmental harm, this section in particular will also discuss more how it helps out animals.
When we talk about activism, we simply just mean convincing others to cut down on their meat consumption in any way shape or form. There is no need to go out and be as outspoken as Gary Yourofsky, Peter Singer, or Earthling Ed and garner huge followings and media presence if you don't want to carry that daunting burden. There also isn't any need to go extremist and liberate slaughterhouses, cause public disturbances, telling people to their faces they're eating slaughtered babies and chicken periods, and crimes such as arson (forms of activism we actually discourage, as we view it as counterproductive due to the negative associations it creates with Veganism).
Simply doing things such as talking with friends, family, and acquaintances about Veganism, leafleting, volunteering with local animal rights groups, petitioning governments, giving talks, and just setting a good example for your community would all go very far in spreading Veganism, and thus, reducing the carbon footprint of all who hear your message.
Again, morality isn't any Ponzi Scheme; Converting someone to Veganism does not give you the liberty to eat meat again and drive a hummer. The goal is to maximize the amount of people who cut down on their consumption of animal products, not relieve our egos of the burden of caring about our actions.
And this applies to reducing carbon footprints; Even though getting people to cut down on meat would provide probably the largest return on investment, also telling them to extend compassion and consideration to other parts of their lives such as reducing energy usage and donating to animal charities would help bring society closer to a state of consideration of our actions, rather than apathy. Plus, encouraging them to spread Veganism in any way they can would help continue the cycle even further.
Having children
Ah. This.
There's a growing school of thought that one of, nay, THE best way to reduce your carbon footprint is to simply not have children. By having children, you are creating another human being who will have a huge carbon footprint. On paper, this seems like a perfectly valid and logical action to take. After all, the largest source of carbon emissions is, after all, another human being, needing food, water, clothes, bathing, transportation, electricity, heating, air conditioning, and a hundred other things that time energy. There's also the argument that given how much climate change will affect future generations, it's actually unethical to have children. If you claim to care about the environment, you shouldn't have kids.
Well, not so fast.
Despite how intuitive it comes across, this type of thinking is fundamentally flawed, and lacks significant amounts of nuance. While we've already addressed many of the philosophical flaws with Antinatalism, we've never quite discussed why the environmental argument in favor of it is also problematic, both practically and empirically.
Let's begin with analyzing the climate impact of having a child. Compared to an average adult human, up until about their late teen years, children have a much lower carbon footprint.
Their main transportation will involve taking the bus to school or being driven five minutes there (sometimes done before the parents head to work), or over to Billy's/Sarah's house. They very rarely need to be bought new clothes, since they're often just hand-me-downs (since they're very lightly used), and when they don't need them anymore they can be donated. The largest parts of their environmental footprints can be attributed to their use of electrical devices (which use relatively little electricity, and can be reduced further if solar panels have been installed), and food, which, if you're feeding them appropriate vegan diets, will also be low.
When they start entering their late teens (17-19) their carbon footprints will shoot up, since now they have more autonomy and will start earning their own money, they'll be more indulgent in their energy use. They'll begin driving, buying more clothes, and more wasteful with things like food (they haven't quite learned the value of a dollar). But this will take over a decade and a half to reach, and for a child born today, by the time they reach this age, energy use will likely be more efficient too (not to mention the release of emissions in developed countries has been steadily declining), and policies are being implemented today which have the goals of limiting emissions within the next few decades. The fact remains that the most pressing emissions are the ones released TODAY, not the ones released 20 years from now.
A person who refuses to have children out of concern for the environment is exactly the type of person who should have kids, though a common trend we've noticed is carnist antinatalists who claim to have the environmental high ground over Vegans since they don't have kids, which absolves them of their meat-eating and other wasteful behaviors. It's very unlikely that these people actually do care about the environment, since if they did, they would not have children in addition to not eating meat and reducing energy use.
We've touched on this in our Antinatalism article; Even if antinatalism was philosophically correct and consistent, in practical terms, it's still not a good idea. Unless you decide to pursue the incredibly authoritarian policy of forbidding childbearing (good luck with that), you are going to have a very, VERY hard time convincing the vast majority of people to not have any children, something we're biologically hardwired to do.
Like Buddha said, you know, we are all just here to fuck. -Charles Châtenay
Given the unsavory nature of an idea such as antinatalism, most people are going to be incredibly put off by it. Worse still, when it's associated with Veganism and Environmentalism, it's going to give the impression that these movements themselves is based on a quasi-religious idea of helping the environment, no matter how ridiculous or outrageous the action is, which will only make things worse.
And having children is not a one way deal. Raising children to be compassionate individuals will help bring a net negative carbon footprint (by raising them on values of environmentalism and secular ethics), if they do even some of the aforementioned items listed in this article. You'd be effectively breeding intelligence and compassion out of the human population if you, someone who cares about the environment, refuses to have any children. How exactly does preventing an environmentally conscious human being who will serve as a positive influence to others from existing a good thing?
No matter how many people you convince to not have kids, there will always be people who have kids, and they won't always be the most conscientious. You can argue that either way it's a net positive since there aren't as many children, but this ignores the fact that there are issues other than environmentalism, and now that there's no chance of changing the minds of others for the better and positively influencing them too.