Reducing Our Impact In Whatever Way We Can

Cars running while sitting idle is my biggest pet peeve. My mom does it on occasion and it drives me crazy (no pun intended)!

I admire the life changes you guys made to reduce your impact on the earth. It really is awesome. I think, though, that not all of us are going to be able to make changes that allow us to work from home and drive very little, without other drastic changes that have other adverse affects. I have to commute 30 miles to work each way (I had a much shorter commute of 9 miles, but got laid off). The unfortunate thing is that the train is available, but costs twice as much as driving and takes 30 minutes longer to arrange all the connections. My husband is laid off and I can’t afford to pay more to commute. So I drive. I can’t live closer without selling my house at a loss (I am underwater like many Americans – not by a lot but still) and probably would have a hard time getting another decent loan/decent house with only my income.

I think the best we can ask of people is to cut back where they can. If it’s bringing your own bags to the store, carpooling when possible, eating less meat, composting, using less water, buying second hand (so that oil isn’t used to transport goods), etc. Not everyone can easily drive less. We have been just because of job loss the last year, but I can’t cut back anymore. I can’t move closer, and it would be a huge risk for me change jobs (to possibly less stable scenario with only me working) just for a reduced commute.

I see your reasons for saying that if we use a car we are responsible for the oil spill, I agree with you, but it is also true that the car industry has not given us the means to go for an alternative until recently. I used to live in London where I didn’t have a car and could pretend that i was much better than all the people driving to work, I used the bus, but really unlike France the bus I took was filled with petrol and I used plastic bags to go shopping, even if I reused them, and shopping at the supermarket meant everything was packed in plastic. We use oil for too many things there are alternatives, health food stores instead of supermarkets, a basket instead of shopping bags. If the only use we had for oil was our cars it wouldn’t be so bad. Knowing all that, we have to make efforts. I drive as you say people here in rural France where I’ve moved to, think I’m a crazy green extremist. I use the car as little as possible, I shop at markets, refuse plastic bags, I eat organic or free range food that is local. All these little things have an impact. People should not think that just because they use a car they are evil or just because they don’t have one they are better. All petrol-based products add up, be frugal with your car, say no to plastic bags and go to markets, shop local, bring your own bags. Little things every day are what makes a difference.

For a fun way to track your milage and cost for gas, use http://www.fuelly.com I have been using it for almost two years and it is really interesting to see the changes over time. (The cost of gas has gone up and stayed up and seeing the seasonal fluctuations in mpg is eye opening.) I think they have a phone application to make it easier, but I just write down my odometer reading on my gas receipt.

If you want to cut down significantly on oil usage, stop using anything with the ingredient “fragrance”. They are usually made from oil and cause cancer anyway, so even more reason to get rid of them.

“95% of chemicals used in perfumes and as fragrances in cosmetics are synthetic compounds derived from petroleum” http://planetgreen.discovery.com/go-green/womens-personal-care/womens-personal-care-definitions.html

I’ve been thinking about my driving habits a lot since the oil “spill” (more like continuous gush)… I now have my (almost SUV-sized) car for sale, with the intention of getting a smaller vehicle for winter and a scooter for my work commute in the spring/summer/fall weather. I would gladly use public transit, if the service wasn’t so dismal in my city. However, the most environmentally responsible choice we have made is to only have one child. The planet is overpopulated and just doesn’t have enough resources to sustain over 6 billion people… especially those who like to drive cars, eat animals and consume STUFF.

My husband and I are fortunate enough to have flexible schedules and jobs to only have one car. I work at home, he works 15 miles away. And even though it’s a long commute, at least only 1 car is doing it. He also saves on oil usage by walking during the day for his job. His job requires moving all over a college campus and although he has use of a vehicle if he requires it, he chooses to walk unless he has to carry more than 2 hands can hold. Most of his co-workers think he’s nuts- but it’s one small way to save a little gas.

I like what you said about making changes where you can- it hard for some people to give up driving but I’m seeing more and more people do it. Just recently some friends of ours decided to become a one car family! But there are still jobs that will require a long commute and in this economy a job’s a valuable thing! So I agree- make changes where you can! Every little bit helps!

I love the point you make about hiding behind things you legitimately cannot give up to continue to use resources you can do without. I drive about 1 hr to work each way. I hate it, but I have no public transportation option. I like to think that I negate that by using cloth napking, real towels (instead of paper!), non-disposable feminine hygiene products, carrying my Nalgene everywhere, and most importantly, not eating meat.

You may not be able to give up everything, but there is still plenty you CAN change.

I think in this day in age, people feel that they are entitled to ease and convenience in every aspect of their lives. The Swiffer with the disposable pad! So much easier than rinsing your mop. It saves 10 seconds! It’s like people don’t give a second thought to what they are doing. It blows my mind!

I appreciate where the author was going with this but the debate around this seems a little one dimensional. There’s a lot more to environmentalism than not driving a car. For example, living in the suburbs or country alone leads to a lot more negative environmental impacts (habitat destruction, much more infrastructure is needed per person, increased water usage for lawns and pools, etc). What about people who don’t own a car but fly transatlantic or pacific several times a year? Are they helping the environment? People might say working from home is saving the environment but is it? Working from home usually involves a lot of telecommunications technology. The huge server farms that Google, Amazon, Ebay, etc are using suck up energy 24/7. We can strive for more efficiency but in my experience there’s usually an environmental trade off (e.g., CFL use less energy but more hazardous materials and are harder to dispose of properly). I think in the end the only choice may be that we must accept to have and do less if we want to save resources.

My husband and I have been a one-car household for 2 years now. We live within 2 miles of both of our jobs, and he has never driven to work. I usually bike, walk, or ride the bus, but tend to end up driving out of laziness at least a couple times a week. Your post inspired me to go out last night and buy an electric-assist bicycle, which is so easy and fun to ride that I don’t have an excuse to drive anywhere within 10 miles of my house any longer. We are seriously considering selling our remaining car, and will probably do so within the next few months. Thanks, FB!

Feel successful because today’s post was great and helpful! I have already implemented many of your suggestions. For a variety of reasons I have given up meat and dairy and eat a primarily vegan diet and I love eating this way. We have a large vegetable garden at home, don’t buy anything that isn’t essential and have cut way back on disposables. We recycle everything that can be recycled.
Although I live in a suburb, I drive very little and use public transportation to and from work to the city every day. For me, this means transportation on a ferry boat.
I get discouraged however with how few bike lanes and trails there are in my town and in towns and cities in general. There needs to be a much larger and organized movement of people across the country pushing for transportation alternatives including the creation of dedicated bike lanes so there are safer ways to get from one place to another by bicycle. I would love to bike to work. It’s less than 20 miles but I would be taking my life in my hands with the amount of automobile/truck traffic en route and no separate bike lanes.

Although it’s still taboo to mention it, the single biggest thing anyone can do to lessen our impact on the earth is to have fewer children, or no children. Adding another being who will someday drive cars, buy food in plastic wrap, use resources, and have children of his/her own far outweighs just about any environmentally irresponsible action a childless person could do.

Having said that, it’s also, for many people, the most difficult choice to make and one that few are willing to make for that reason alone. It’s not one I will make, although I do struggle with it.

mabinogi, frugalbabe — I think it’s not really that simple. Households with children are more economically (and environmentally) efficient on a per person basis. I think it’s fair to say that the upper bound of one’s environmental impact is constrained by his/her income. Households with children tend not to have the highest incomes (less impact per person and overall) vs DINKs.

World population has peaked so fears of exponential population growth are obviously false. The real environmental damage in the future will come from the burgeoning middle classes of Asia. As they aspire to the standard of material living that we enjoy in the Western World it seems they will try to do it the same way we did (by externalizing at least some of the costs to the environment).

I think the real issue is a way of life issue not a population issue. If we agree that everyone (on the planet) deserves to have a modern way of life there will be an environmental cost.

FrugalBabe – I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one who struggles with this question. Do you mind me asking how you managed to move past it and make the decision to have children?

mabinogi — I did not mean imply you were being judgmental of my or anyone else’s choice (I don’t have children).

I think the part of the equation that is missing from your line of reasoning is this: Luxury goods are disproportionately bad for the environment. They use tons of more resources than their low-cost equivalent (hence the expense). E.g. DINKs that can afford to take semi-annual transatlantic trips for vacations are doing a lot more impact to the environment than the family that carpools to take their vacation at nearby relatives. Households with children have less money for luxury goods. Most of the money goes to necessities. A lot of things that make up large parts of family budgets have comparatively little impact on the environment. For example, college education. It is very expensive but most of the cost is simply to pay for the expensive labor (professors). DINKs may not be adding another person to the planet but if they are using the money they saved by not having a child to buy a second residence (summer house) and are driving to it often that may be a zero-sum game for the environment.

Note: I do not mean this as a moral or otherwise attack on DINKs. I think that for most people this rule holds true: if you have extra money you will spend it. This is the root of the problem. DINKs on average have more money total and per person than family households this generally means more consumption (which is bad for the environment).

mabinogi –

I think you’re absolutely right in this regard. However, I think the statistics would show that most DINKs aren’t doing it for the environment. They’re doing it for extra freedom and consumption.

As to the behavior of your offspring. Hopefully if you are a household that is committed to lessening your environmental impact you could instill that in your children.

I was mainly responding to the blanket statement that not having children is necessarily good for the environment. The answer to that statement, as you have shown in your most recent response, is that it depends on what you do after that.

Overall reduction of consumption is good for the environment. Not having children doesn’t necessarily lead to that and I think in general in the West it isn’t the case.

While I can understand the sunk enviromental cost of having kids, the thing that alwatys gets me is the people who don’t give a hoot are the ones breeding.
They are making the next generation as a generation of consumers if the environmentalists don’t contribute to that generation.

While I reconize everyone’s freedom to do as they choose, it would be of most benefit to the planet if mindless breeding were reduced.
What I’m speaking of here are the kids born to parents who don’t care, who just exist – no goals, don’t teach the kids hardly anything except to buy “stuff” – such children get dragged through such bad stuff as their parent follows what ever feels good or is convenient to them(the parent) with no thought to the childs well being. I used to work in the local child support office & it was so sad to see some of these kids and what their parents put them through. If only children who were wanted were born, it would benefit the planet & the rest of us because if the parent wants the child then the parent will probably teach the child, etc. No solution I can think of to that.
Although, I did hear of a lady traveling the country paying homeless ladies to get depo shots but I don’t remember the exact details – I just remember the local controversy when she came through a year or two ago.

I don’t feel bad having my kid – I know that I am raising a compassionate, ethical person who will contribute meaningfully to the planet when he’s older. It’s how I’m making sure that my & my ancestors knowledge makes it into the future where it can be used. It’s also my way to making sure that the concept to rejecting mindless consuming & simple living gets in to the future too.
I know – weird thoughts.

Also, most childless couples I know tend to consume more – have more toys, more vehicles, more new stuff, drive farther & more often, etc.
I know my kids & I have a much smaller environmental foot print then my childless Aunt & Uncle who fly the globe & get a new wardrobe every season. I think it all comes down more to lifestyle choices – not kids vs. no kids.

Although the really huge families I do think go too far and consume too much. But that’s just my 2 cents.

I really liked the emphasize in this post on reducing where you can. Certainly, in some instances it would be near impossible to live without a car. So, knowing that, maybe focus on less plastic consumption, shopping local, etc. All the good strategies you laid out in the post.

I adore the quote “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

It’s so true. I think many people feel overwhelmed, thinking their little changes won’t make a difference- I know, lately, I’ve been feeling this way!- but if all of us reduced our oil consumption by even a fraction- in all of its forms, from internationally shipped produce to driving to plastic use- it would have a huge collective impact.

I think the story of the last 50 years economically has been the massive success of corporate advertising. I’ve been doing my best to cut back on my consumption and to spend consciously for a variety of reasons (financial, environmental, health, time) but even so I think advertising still has an effect on me. You can see the power of it by how much money companies spend on it. Often times now at least as much or more money is spent on the advertising of, than in the production of, movies, games, etc.