Previous articles in this series are available here.
Does the thought ‘Is it worth my while?’ ever cross your mind when it comes to reducing your carbon emissions, or do you think you’re doing everything you can? We reflect on what’s at stake and what still needs to be done to prevent us crossing the tipping point into global environmental degradation.
Making a virtue out of necessity
Expecting individuals to make personal changes to avert the climate crisis might seem insensitive and unrealistic in the face of the many other crises already with us. If you’re struggling to pay for next month’s rent, mortgage or food, reducing carbon emissions in the interests of a 2050 net zero target can seems like postponable concern.
For the first time since the second world war, the middle classes are facing fundamental challenges to their previously assured, comfortable lifestyles. Those who have spent their lives feeling immune from the need to make reductions to their energy consumption ‘because they can afford not to’ are suddenly facing a new economic reality that forces them to reduce costs.
In many instances, this goes hand in hand with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it’s possible that other benefits will follow for individuals and the planet. Once people have crossed the threshold into a new set of financial, food and lifestyle choices, the realisation that change can be better for your pocket, the planet and your health makes further change more likely.
Household carbon footprints
Research shows that the total average annual emissions from any household correlates strongly with its affluence. Even so, individual households have their own carbon footprint that defies simplistic assumptions about the sources of emissions and where they can be reduced most easily.
For example, an affluent household and a less affluent one may have similar levels of emissions from their cars, but very different levels of emissions from household heating. The scope for reducing either will differ depending on the affordability and availability of greener options, such as electric vehicles or public transport. Reducing heating emissions might depend on the daily patterns of occupancy of the home or the funds available to install renewable energy sources or thermal insulation improvements.
So, when discussing ways for households to save money while reducing carbon emissions, we cannot make blanket recommendations about which approaches will be most appropriate. Every household must assess how its way of life is contributing to the global predicted temperature increase which, collectively, we desperately need to restrict to 1.5C. And ‘desperately’ is not hyperbole. If we do not choose to change, change will be forced upon us as the environment around us becomes uninhabitable.
Assessing the ‘sacrifices’
Part of this change in behaviour requires us to let go of the idea that the ‘sacrifices’ we make to our lifestyles will be felt equally by everyone. Indeed, it would be better to use the term ‘actions that will secure a world fit for habitation by our grandchildren and beyond’. Failing in this responsibility is tantamount to saying to future generations ‘I would have played my part if someone had proved to me what I was sacrificing was fair and everyone else was doing as much as me. I never had that proof so I didn’t bother doing anything – apart from putting out the recycling bins’.
The planet cannot tolerate the damage caused by developing countries ‘catching up for lost emissions’ to compensate for the extra three centuries wealthy countries have spent pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is our responsibility to cut back on every possible tonne of emissions we can, while helping developing countries bypass the most polluting stages of industrialisation and move directly to a modern, greener economic model.
Flaunting our own emissions reduction credentials misses the point. Putting our house in order is the least we should do as a privileged nation with available sources of renewable energy and a long history of environmental damage propping up our economic success. At personal, local and national levels, our preoccupation with negotiating for an elusive fairness is the environmental equivalent of re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
England’s carbon emissions
Ultimately, a household’s carbon footprint is a combination its occupants’ personal footprints. The figures below show the distribution of England’s carbon emissions by sector in 2019, including the number of tons this represents per individual.
- Transport (1.9 tons of CO2 per person)
- Domestic (1.4 tons of CO2 per person)
- Industry (1 ton of CO2 per person)
- Commercial (0.5 tons of CO2 per person)
- Public Sector (0.2 tons of CO2 per person)
Source: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Figures exclude embedded carbon in products we import)
In comparison,the average person in the UK will have a greater carbon footprint by 12 January than some people in seven African nations will have in a year, research shows.
Domestic energy consumption
When we see headlines such as ‘the average household will face a £2,500 increase in its annual energy bill’, we often take this to mean everybody will face that increase, and that there is nothing that can be done to avoid it. But that is neither true nor helpful.
A simple online search will reveal inventive ways people are finding to reduce their carbon emissions. Yes, wearing extra layers of clothing and turning down the central heating are amongst them, along with using your energy efficient microwave to cook more of your food. But there are many of others, including this list of tips from Martin Lewis .
The cost of energy has caused huge financial stress in many households. But it is also interesting that the UK’s total household energy consumption has fallen by 10% since the advent of the energy crisis. Most of us like to think of ourselves as responsible users of domestic energy and are conscientious about the effect it has on the environment. But the reality is that we can often go further without huge pain and save ourselves some money too.
It is also possible that people who could potentially make the biggest reductions are the ones who can most easily afford not to. It’s a delicate subject to raise, but dropping some energy saving ideas into a conversation with your next door neighbours or your profligate cousin is worth trying.
Car and plan travel accounts for over 30% of household carbon emissions
Jumping into the car for short journeys is one of most effective ways of increasing your carbon footprint, assuming your vehicle is powered by a fossil fuel. Riding your bike or walking as an alternative is much better for your pocket as well as for your health.
The way statistics are presented to compare the emissions of different forms of transport, is often confusing and sometimes misleading. Emissions caused by air travel, on a per passenger per kilometre basis, are 25% higher for short haul compared to long haul flights. This is because the long haul flights spread the carbon intensive stages of take-off and landing over a longer journey distance.
And the per passenger per kilometre emissions of a car look much less favourable in relation to long haul flights than one might expect. But the absolute level of emissions tells the real story:
“A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per person – more than twice the emissions produced by a family car in a year, and about half of the average annual carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. Even a return flight from London to Berlin emits around 0.6 tonnes CO2 – three times the emissions saved from a year of recycling.”
The emissions from any aircraft are more damaging than from cars, firstly because they represent longer journeys than the typical car or coach journey and secondly because they emit CO2 and other more harmful greenhouse gases, and deposit them higher in the atmosphere where they cause greater warming.
However you juggle the numbers, there is no getting away from it – flying is bad news for the environment. The only answer is to fly less for business and for pleasure
The methane (CH4) factor
UK agriculture adopted the greenhouse gas action plan (GHGAP), aiming for a reduction of 5.2 million tonnes of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) by 2020 – we missed, achieving only about a third of this objective. CO2e factors in the contribution of all greenhouse gases and presents their greenhouse-effect-causing properties in terms of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. These gases include CH4 (methane), which accounts for about 30% of global warming because it more detrimental by equivalent weight than CO2.
We ignore methane’s disproportionately high warming effect at our peril. Over its relatively short life in the atmosphere (10–12 years) CH4 is nearly 84 times more warming than CO2. CH4 emissions demand more attention than we have previously given them. Reducing beef consumption is a top priority for reducing global warming in the short term.
Meat and dairy products are responsible for a substantial proportion of the methane gases emitted by livestock around the world. Rearing animals to provide protein for human consumption is a highly inefficient use of land. Industrial beef production requires large areas of land to be dedicated to growing crops that are then fed to cattle in intensified feeding conditions. Alternatively, cattle are grazed on pastures. Both approaches use land inefficiently compared with growing plant-based sources of protein
Clearing forests to dedicate more land to rearing cattle to meet a growing global demand for red meat and dairy is adding environmental injury (in the form of lost carbon sinks) to the environmental insult of the substantial CH4 emissions produced by the cows’ digestive processes.
Closer to home, it’s worth remembering that British households discard 30% of the food we buy, most of which starts as vegetable matter grown on the land. So there’s huge scope for saving money while reducing the associated CO2 and CH4 emissions.
Plastic use and food waste
Plastics are a huge source of carbon emissions, since they are produced by high energy manufacturing processes to convert oil into billions of tonnes of parts in manufactured goods, building materials, and packaging. And they are an environmental hazard in their own right, with microplastic particles having been found in fish in the deepest trenches of the sea floor.
Recent research suggests that the piles of plastic waste lying around in the environment are also emitting methane under exposure to the sun. If this effect is confirmed, it means methane is being added in a totally uncontrolled and unmeasured way to the atmosphere.
There is huge scope for consumers to campaign individually and collectively to persuade retailers to further reduce the extensive use of plastic wrapping. Easily disposed of single use plastic is a major culprit. At a local retailer in York, they proudly proclaimed they were ‘passionate about reducing plastic use’. This declaration was printed on four large plastic sheets!
We all must act to reduce carbon emissions
This government has a tendency to abandon its principles and commitments whenever an economic opportunity presents itself. It is up to us to make our priorities known and restrain the government from polices and decisions that work to sustain or increase greenhouse gas emissions.
There are many ways in which households can significantly reduce greenhouse emissions. Small gains by a large number of people can still produce large totals. Think of it as if everyone in the country were to put a penny towards a good cause. That would amount to £700,000. Many would in practice put in more than a penny so the collective effort would have been rewarding and satisfying for all involved. That’s how we need to square up to the challenge of meeting net zero by 2050.
