Also, Greg, how would you prioritize personal changes. What change in behavior gives the biggest payback. Altering transportation patterns?
There’s a little bit of “that depends,” but it’s possible to identify a few major areas where personal choices make a substantial difference. I’ll provide a little bit of nuance, as I understand it.
This site
points to “Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector.”
1. Power Generation. The leading contributor of greenhouse gas production in the US is the production of electricity. Electricity in this country is largely produced by burning fossil fuels (nonrenewable energy sources such as oil, coal, and natural gas). Of all the greenhouse gas emissions, 30% comes from the electricity sector. This sector emits mainly carbon dioxide but does produce methane and nitrous oxide as well. Burning coal accounts for 39% of the electricity generated in the US, and coal burning is a carbon-intensive process. Natural gas produces 27% of electricity and leads to more methane production than coal. Emissions from electricity production have increased by 12% since 1990.
My own approach to this has been to install solar panels at my home. We produce more electricity than we use, so we do not contribute anything to greenhouse gases when we use our heating or air conditioning, vacuum cleaner, etc. It helps that when it came time to replace our heat pump (heat and A/C) we installed a geothermal heat-exchange system, which costs more up front but is more efficient. Basically, the less efficient your home is (heating and cooling devices, insulation, …) the fewer solar panels you would need to cleanly produce enough electricity to meet your needs.
2. Transport. The second largest greenhouse gas contributor is the transportation sector which accounts for 26% of all emissions. Transportation includes planes, trains, automobiles, buses, trucks, and ships. The biggest problem with transportation is its reliance on fossil fuels which produce mainly carbon dioxide. More than half of the transportation industry’s emissions come from private vehicles.
I use an electric car and an electric motorcycle (not at the same time!). I have a 310-mile range on my Tesla Model 3, so for most trips I’m using my own solar-generated electricity. If I drive across the state and back, I would typically make it to my destination without refueling, and then stop at a Tesla Supercharger and charge for around 15 to 20 minutes on my way home. The car keeps track of how full the battery is, when I need to refuel, where are the conveniently located charging stations, and whether there is any wait time to plug in (there never has been for me so far). It’s very easy, extremely efficient, and electric cars are the safest cars in the world. See a nuanced view regarding safety claims at
We produce enough solar power to power the car, motorcycle, and professional-grade electric tools such as lawn mower, chainsaw, etc. to maintain our wooded 5-acre lot.
3. Manufacturing. Industry, or manufacturing, contributes 21% of emissions. Raw goods and finished products contribute directly, or on-site, and indirectly, or off-site. Indirect emissions come from the factory’s demand for electricity which is produced off-site and by burning fossil fuels. Industry contributes directly by burning fossil fuels for energy. Chemical reactions occur in order to produce metals, cement, and chemicals. Some uncontrolled leaks are also released during production activities.
My own approach to this is to keep in mind that, the more stuff I buy, the more greenhouse emissions I’ve caused to happen. Generally, if you don’t need something, you can choose to not buy it. Or consider buying a used product. Or a recycled product when that’s an option. Of course, use re-usable stuff like shopping bags, and recycle whatever your local recycler will recycle.
4. Homes and Businesses. Commercial and residential emissions make up 12% of greenhouse gases in the US. These are produced by business and people for heating, cooking, and waste management. Air conditioning systems also contribute to refrigerant pollutants, or fluorinated gases. The natural gas and petroleum used for heating and cooking emit carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Waste that is sent to landfills emits methane when decomposing and wastewater (sewage) treatment facilities emit methane and nitrous oxide.
As I mentioned above, we use solar panels to produce electricity, which we use to power our home. We also use Tesla Powerwalls (whole-home batteries), so that we can store excess solar energy during the day, and then use it at night.
We have a well and a septic system, so we use our own groundwater and we mostly return our waste to the ground. There’s a service to pump the septic tank when needed. (I don’t think that tap water and wastewater are big contributors to climate disruption, so this would likely be low on the list of personal priorities.)
—> I received federal tax credits amounting to 30% of my renewable energy systems, including but not limited to the solar panels. That applies for systems installed through the end of 2019. Last I checked, the federal subsidy is scheduled to reduce to 26% for systems installed in 2020; and 22% in 2021. Last I checked, there is no federal subsidy for solar energy systems installed in 2022 and beyond.
Meanwhile, “The IMF [International Monetary Fund] found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. … In comparison to another important, but less well-funded part of the federal budget, fossil fuel subsidies were nearly 10 times what Congress spent on education. Broken down to an individual level, fossil fuel subsidies cost every man, woman and child in the United States $2,028 that year.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-fuel-subsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/
Of course, our elected officials make choices about what to subsidize, and we decide whom to elect.
5. Agriculture. The final contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the US is the agricultural sector which is responsible for 9% of the total. This industry raises livestock on factory farms and produces food for human and animal consumption. Nitrogen is added to soil as a fertilizer which results in nitrous oxide emissions and livestock waste produces methane gases in large quantities. (That’s according to the website for which I provided a link, above.)
This is one area where, as I understand it, the answer to Damon’s question includes “it depends.” Consider this analysis, from this source:
Food’s carbon footprint, or foodprint, is the greenhouse gas emissions produced by growing, rearing, farming, processing, transporting, storing, cooking and disposing of the food you eat. In the US, each household produces 48 tons of greenhouse gases. Transport, housing and food have the three largest carbon footprints. Food produces about 8 tons of emissions per household, or about 17% of the total. Worldwide, new reports suggest that livestock agriculture produces around a half of all man-made emissions.
I think that that site (greeneatz) comes up with 17% for food, rather than 9%, because it is considering greenhouse gases produced during transportating food and at warehouses and grocery stores, along with the greenhouse gases used to produce (grow) the food.
A website I mentioned before, this one
provides some specific tips for personally reducing greenhouse gases associated with food, including, “The carbon print of a vegetarian diet is about half that of a meat-lover’s diet.” Also, cooking at home — and eating some raw foods at home — reduces energy consumption and provides an opportunity to limit food waste. Organic farming typically uses less energy and less water.
It so happens that, to a remarkable degree, choosing foods that are better for the planet overlaps with choosing foods that are better for your own health.
We almost exclusively eat plants and plant-based foods; and we mostly eat whole foods (including whole grains). We mostly eat at home, and we mostly buy organic foods. We grow some food in our aquaponics system, but we mostly eat grocery-store-bought food that we prepare at home. I like to cook enough to have leftovers for a few days, so on most days it’s as easy to eat a home-prepared meal as it is to eat something that someone else prepared for me. (And often tastier and more nutritious.)
Meanwhile, according to the Office of the Chief Economist of the United States Department of Agriculture, “In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40 percent of the food supply.”
The more you eat food that you prepared at home, the more you can control your contribution to food waste, and therefore to unnecessary release of greenhouse gases.
—
Just in case someone wonders about the relevance of this to a psychology listserve, I encourage folks to read the article for which Stephen sent a link, which notes that psychotherapists are experiencing many of the same stresses that psychotherapy patients are experiencing:
In 1992, I did volunteer mental-health work in south Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. My work was mostly providing support and other psychological services to first responders, many of whom were experiencing profound disruption in their own lives and in their family’s lives. I remember looking at a scene of devastation with one of the local emergency services as that person described seeing not only the current destruction but the devestation to the tax base that supports that local emergency service.
We’re now experiencing that, and anticipating more of that, on a global scale. And we know that it is preventable, and we know that many of our leaders are not currently embracing a plan of action that approaches a scale sufficient to address the problems as scientists are identifying them. I’m convinced that it is essential that humanity, including the USA, implement plans as encompassing as the framework in the Green New Deal.
With Douglas Adams in mind, imagine hanging a sign outside your office that reads, “The Psychotherapist at the End of the World.”
—
Meet the Green New Deal
The Green New Deal starts with a WWII-type mobilization to address the grave threat posed by climate change, transitioning our country to 100% clean energy by 2030. Clean energy does not include natural gas, biomass, nuclear power or the oxymoron “clean coal.”
The implementation of the Green New Deal will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change and make wars for oil obsolete. This latter result, in turn, enables a 50% cut in the military budget, since maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could no longer be justified. That military savings of several hundred billion dollars per year would go a very long way toward creating green jobs at home.
On top of that, the Green New Deal largely pays for itself in healthcare savings from the prevention of fossil fuel-related diseases, including asthma, heart attacks, strokes and cancer.
Moving to 100% clean energy means many more jobs, a healthier environment and far lower electric costs compared to continued reliance upon fossil fuels. Studies have shown that the technology already exists to achieve 100% clean energy by 2030. And we can speed up the transition by making polluters pay for the damage they’ve caused, starting with a robust carbon fee program.
The Green New Deal is not only a major step towards ending unemployment for good, but also a tool to fight the corporate takeover of our democracy and exploitation of the poor and people of color. Our transition to 100% clean energy will be based on community, worker and public ownership and democratic control of our energy system, rather than maximizing profits for energy corporations, banks and hedge funds.
--
Obviously, I think that all humans should make personal choices that contribute to humans living sustainably on this planet.
Meanwhile, there is a need for psychotherapists to understand anthropogenic climate change and what can be done about it. That’s necessary for us to properly diagnose and treat psychotherapy patients seeking help with managing stress and anxiety. One way to apply such understanding comes when we help psychotherapy patients who ask for help in applying something along the lines of Reinhold Niebuhr’s prayer,
“Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Best,
Greg
Gregory DeClue, Ph.D., ABPP (forensic)
16443 Winburn Place
Sarasota, FL 34240-9228
phone 941-951-6674
gregdeclue@me.com
http://gregdeclue.myakkatech.com
