Getting concrete

One of the hard parts about the No Impact experiment is that it is not part of any tradition or culture. That is to say that because we are not part of any community, we have to make things up as we go along. That’s why I like this new project launched by Miranda at Simple Living and Sharon at Causabon’s Book, which strives to give a set of fixed and stringent rules for reduction of individual greenhouse gas emissions, in each of seven areas, by 90 percent.

 Sharon and Miranda call their initiative the Riot for Austerity 90% Emissions Reduction Project. They choose the 90 percent mark because climatologists now generally agree that we need to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 in order to prevent the melting of the icecaps and Greenland ice sheet that would cause irreversible change to the climate. Because American’s emit way more greenhouse gas than most of the rest of the world’s peoples, we must reduce our emissions by 94 percent in order to meet the planetary target of 80 percent. Sharon and Miranda rounded from 94 percent to 90 to make it easy (joke!).

 They have a Yahoo discussion group, where people who want to attempt the 90 percent reduction—or even less stringent targets—can discuss. The rules for the Riot for Austerity are based on the average US consumption in each of seven areas. The project targets are calculated as a 90 percent reduction on those averages. I’ve summarized the targets for each of the seven areas below.

[Added since I first posted: I want to emphasize that what I like about this project in particular is the community of people working together towards the goals. I really do believe that each of can only do what we can. These stringent goals are definitely not for everyone. I just thought it would be interesting to show you what some people are working together to accomplish. A community of people who supported each other in the single step of not using plastic bags or to go cups would be equally inspiring. Takers?]

Gasoline:

• 50 gallons per PERSON, per YEAR

Electricity:

• 1,100 kWh per HOUSEHOLD, per YEAR

Heating and cooking energy:

• If your home uses propane or natural gas, 100 therms per HOUSEHOLD, per YEAR
• If your home uses heating oil, 75 gallons per HOUSEHOLD, per YEAR.
• If your home uses locally and sustainably harvested wood: Unlimited
• If your home uses unsustainably harvested wood, 5 cords per HOUSEHOLD, per YEAR

Garbage:

• 0.45 pounds of garbage per PERSON, per DAY

Water:

• 10 gallons per PERSON, per DAY

Consumer goods:

• $1,000 worth per HOUSEHOLD, per YEAR.
• Used goods count only ten percent of their purchase price (so you could buy $10,000 of used stuff).
• Used goods that were donated to Goodwill or the church rummage sale, etc, can be bought in unlimited amounts (since might otherwise just end up in landfill).

Food:

• No less than 70% of food purchases should be organic and be grown within 100 miles.
• No more than 25% of food purchases should be bulk, dry goods (flour, pasta, etc) from more than 100 miles away.
• No more than 5% of food purchases should be wet goods (meat, fruit, shampoo) from more than 100 miles away.

Comments

[Piedmont Pelican]

That's the sort of thing that makes me want to hit the Starbucks. I'm one of the crew who was moved/inspired by Michelle's post to re-think my beverage consumption. From a big pot of coffee each and every day supplemented by canned sodas and juices shipped from far away, I'm down to mostly water. I still have a cup or two of tea in the morning and I occasionally mix up a bit of lemonade. But that's it. I've been walking more, doing my main weekly shopping at my local farmer's market and generally trying to look about me for other areas where I could lessen my personal impact. I've been consistently motivated and liking this new approach where I could feel okay about what I was doing without beating myself up over what I wasn't *yet* doing. I noted that it was the only approach that had actually gotten me moving -- and from the comments posted here that seems true for many.

I do not doubt the goals posted here, but I have to say that if that is what it will take to make me a good world citizen that someone will have to force me into it. Possibly, someone will. But contemplating that bigger picture in detail feels like it is sapping my energy to continue with the small changes that I've been making.

I also find myself quibbling with some of the goals. Like, how is it okay to burn as much wood as you like? Is that really okay for the environment? I know it would be deadly for those with serious respiratory conditions. I realize that mostly my qubbling stems from a human need to knock those goals down a bit.

Intellectually, I can see the fairness and necessity of these goals. But the emotional effect is to make me want to give up completely.

[Jules]

I guess in all of this there's a fine line between doing what we feel we can, and feeling that it's just too damn hard, so giving up. When I read the list of goals my heart sank because I'm having trouble enough getting my flatmates to turn the lights off, let alone toying with the suggestion that we put on an extra jumper instead of central heating and stop buying clothes imported cheaply from Asia.

I guess in all of this it's about doing what we can, and taking pride in that small step, rather than beating ourselves up about another cab ride... (I don't drive - I cycle, walk or train everywhere - so I guess that let's me off a huge hook.)

I find this blog hugely inspirational, especially seeing that you're managing such radical cut backs in NYC. It makes me see that cutting the impact isn't just for country bumpkins!

[dura mater]

These targets are really daunting.
Sigh.

[LimeSarah]

I'm in the 90% project :-) I actually found that looking at hard numbers made it easier for me...it gives a more concrete picture of what we have to change than just "walk more" or "turn down the thermostat". And I discovered to my delight that I'm already at goal for garbage. I'm actually kind of baffled, and curious as to what other people are throwing away that I'm not.

I'm not going for 90% in all categories, since I rent, so there are many things our landlord won't let us do. But it's an amazingly supportive community with lots of very good ideas on how to reduce consumption to whatever your personal goals are.

[just ducky]

PLEASE DO NOT be discouraged by the goals/guidelines listed in the 90% reduction of carbon emissions! I've been following the whole thing since it's creation. It is not meant to intimidate. It is meant to "step things up a bit" for those who can/want to. Miranda and Sharon have stressed all along---the same that Colin has---do what YOU can. These goals aren't meant to depress or exasperate you. The whole point is to re-think your world. What can you do differently? If you can only cut your carbon emissions by 40%---that is awesome! If you can only cut your carbon emissions by 7%--that's great! It would still be less carbon emitted into our environment and that is the whole point.

[Susan Och]

Why is burning wood OK? Wood is already sequestering carbon, until it burns or rots. Wouldn't it be better to harvest sustainably grown trees for furniture and building, keeping their carbon sequestered for another generation, and making room for young trees that suck up more CO2 than mature trees.

And of course we can't all buy only used goods. If nobody buys new then there is no source of used stuff, is there? It's not about individual households, it's about creating systems that reduce greenhouse gas output overall, for generations.

Maybe there is science to support the idea of burning local, sustainable wood, even in the face of imminent climate change. If so, I'd love to see it.

[Jen]

As another who is participating, I agree with LimeSarah--looking at hard numbers has helped me immensely to see what I'm already doing (gasoline and electricity), need to focus on (food), don't think I can achieve but would like to reduce anyway (consumer goods), and can't track (heating oil, cooking gas, water.)
Honestly, I don't feel like I'm making any great sacrifices. If anything, I get an enormous sense of satisfaction knowing that I'm moving outside of my comfort zone and really thinking about the choices I make.

[Pam]

I would have a lot of trouble with this one:

Gasoline:

* 50 gallons per PERSON, per YEAR

I get 30 miles to the gallon, but I commute to work 30 miles one way. Public transportation isn't an option- it would take two hours to get to there, as opposed to 45 min. to an hour.

I am planning to move to NYC once I've secured a job, though, so I am really looking forward to shedding my car. It will be so nice to walk regularly!

[Leila]

These goals are a good inspiration for individual action but they completely disregard the other half of the equation - what can only be done through changes to industry and to policy. If this is the only avenue to achieve the 90% reduction it will not happen fast enough, that is the long and the short of it. Also, if the only pressure these actions will put on industry and policy is through not participating in their economic system, that will not get them to change their system fast enough either. We need creative people telling and showing industry we will pay them more, today, for producing less. We need to make the policy-makers believe that we believe in and want those changes so they will change the system for everyone.

[michael]

It might help to add a "0" before the "." here:
---
Garbage:

* .45 pounds of garbage per PERSON, per DAY
---
At first I thought I need to produce more to reach 45 pounds! So a 0.45 would help make that immediately clear. I'll have to check out the yahoo group to see how easy/difficult it is to actually figure out these hard numbers for consumption. Instead of Microsoft Money, maybe Microsoft Environment?

[anna banana]

These goals are a good inspiration for individual action but they completely disregard the other half of the equation - what can only be done through changes to industry and to policy.

(i'm also a rioter)
part of the point of this project is to show people that it CAN be done, and that it can be done on an individual basis WITHOUT changes in industry and policy. yes, in order to make it a nationwide reduction, changes in industry and policy may well be necessary, but at this point it will be incredible to be able to go to policymakers and/or doubters and say, "look! i did it! and i did it without help from policy. this thing that you said could not be done? i did it, and so did these other hundred people." that way it seems less daunting to some folks because the way has been forged beforehand.

[Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man]

Please don't be discourage by these goals. I want to emphasize that what I like about this project in particular is the community of people working together towards the goals. I really do believe that each of us can only do what we can. These stringent goals are definitely not for everyone. I just thought it would be interesting to show you what some people are working together to accomplish. A community of people who supported each other in the single step of not using plastic bags or to go cups would be equally inspiring. Takers?
All the best,
Colin aka No Impact Man

[Evan]

I'm another 90%er. None of us has reached all of these goals, yet. It will take time. When I look back at where I was at the beginning of this project and where we are now, we've already made significant changes and all of those changes really add up. Being a part of this community helps to see how much can be saved if 100 people stop ordering take-out food in non-recycleable containers, or begin to grow food, etc. It helps to see how our little efforts combined with the efforts of others add up to big change.

[Katy]

Reading these goals I can see why the green movement is such a turn off to so many people in our country.

While I agree that this kind of radical change is necessary and my family is doing allwe can while still providing for our selves and our future, I can't help but feel really discouraged by that list.

[P~]

I agree with you Colin, it is about the community. I recently completed the Low Impact Week that Crunchy Chicken was hosting and the thing that I loved most about it was the sense of community and that you were not doing these things on your own. I too have been following the 90% challenge from the sidelines; I think it is certainly worthy of attention and I wish the best to all those giving it a shot. I think it is still beyond me at this point, but I am pleased with my progress to date, and will continue making incremental changes, Who knows maybe I'll end up there accidentally. :)
P~

[Wendy]

I don't understand why people who read your blog every day feel overwhelmed and depressed by this other project, and not by comparison with yours.

[Cat]

When I calculated the reductions needed to be made by our family to fit the 90% goals, I was extremely daunted. But guess what? It has caused me to step up my current efforts.

Rather than pat myself on the back for bringing my own cup to the coffee shop, I am compelled to push harder: Why am I driving to the coffee shop? Can't I get my butt on a bike a little more often?

Maybe a person can't immediately change the fact that getting to work uses more than a year's allotment (or two!) of gasoline, as calculated by the 90% group, but it DOES raise awareness of the environmental cost of one's commuter lifestyle--and maybe influences future choices: moving closer to work, finding a job closer to home, using public transportation, carpooling, or heck, if you've got the bucks, buying a Prius retrofitted with one of those nifty add-on batteries that raises the mpg to near 100.

I suspect that if "the world" stopped producing new clothing, furniture, and household goods for Americans, we could get by for several years on what's already in the thrift shops, consignment stores, garages, and basements of the U.S. Some of the thrift stores are completely overwhelmed with goods.

[Sharon Astyk]

First of all, Colin, THANK YOU!!! for publicizing the Riot for Austerity. We really appreciate it.

Second of all, we understand that everyone isn't going to be able to do this. But here's the thing. Those numbers weren't arbitrary - the 90% reduction (actually 94%, but we're starting small ;-) is what is needed to avoid a climate tipping point. If we can get emissions back under 440ppm (according to the IPCC, we're already at 469 and rising fast), we have a 2 out of 3 shot at avoiding the critical 2 degrees of warming that begin to slide us into irrevocable cascade. If we don't do that fairly quickly - in the next decade or so - then those Manhattan underwater pictures are likely to come true.

But no government in the US or any nation in the world has proposed reductions on the scale that are needed - not even the most ambitious, like Sweden. The general consensus is that it is politically impossible.

What we want to do is show that it is politically possible. OF COURSE it would be vastly better and easier to do it with public policy support - with infrastructure changes like telecommuting programs, public transportation, tax and subsidy incentives for reinsulation, etc... but what we believe we can do is provide an answer to the claim that keeping the earth from sliding towards climate disaster is politically impossible.

Right now we have several hundred participants all over the world - and that alone is a big help. With thousands we can answer politicians who say that we have to destroy our kids' future because no one would ever agree to participate. What we can say is "but I did it, even without your help - using only my own dollars, and only my own skills and despite its difficulty - yes it is possible."

We don't want to traumatize anyone, and this is a gradual process to make these radical changes. We all freaked out a little when we first encountered how much a 90% reduction *really* is. But then we took a deep breath and realized - it is just one step at a time again, just more steps. And unfortunately, the science of what is needed won't negotiate with us ;-).

Re: used goods - of course we can't all buy all used goods forever. But as long as there are hundreds or thousands of us, we can live to a large extent off things that industrial society discards, and that's better than buying new. If we ever get to the point where this movement encompasses everyone, we'll need new rules, right ;-)?

Wood: Wood is technically carbon neutral. I'm not ecstatic with the answer we came up with on wood, but generally speaking, burning wood that is sustainably harvested (coppiced from living trees that keep growing, or replaced with new trees), grown locally and harvested without fossil fuels is the best of a bad lot of heating options, and in terms of carbon consequences, is much better than burning oil or even natural gas. Particulate emissions are a concern - but we're concentrating on carbon emissions. Again, if this ever gets to the point where everyone on earth who needs to reduce their emissions (or even a vast majority) is participating, we'll have to change the rules.

I'd also observe that speaking as someone who harvests her wood by hand, from her own woodlot, it is damned hard work, and you don't burn any more than you have to
;-).

Again, thank you Colin - and even if this seems overwhelming, check it out! More people can do this than think they can. We welcome people who for one reason or another are uncertain they can achieve 90% in all or any categories - smaller reductions are also important. And it is a very warm and supportive community of people who are very passionate about what they are doing.

Sharon, co-founder of the Riot for Austerity

[Mandy]

My family is really, really trying to reduce our carbon emissions. We have been using way less electricity lately (we turned the air up to 81, in Kentucky!), and we already avoid plastic, buy organic, etc.
But there is just no way we can cut our carbon emissions enough until public transportation improves.
I hate that being poor makes it so hard! If only we could afford a better car!

[Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man]

@Sharon--
One question: what about the common air pollution caused by burning unlimited wood?
Best,
Colin aka No Impact Man

[sara]

While I really like the idea of the 90% project (though I do agree with those who find it rather intimidating), I don't know if the online community would be enough. Ever since I've been more proactive about lowering my own carbon footprint, I have felt supported by people like Colin and others who post on this blog, but somewhat alone among my friends and family. I have been labeled "obsessive" and even my family doesn't take me seriously when I explain what I am doing. It seems like the average American accepts the idea of reducing carbon emissions in theory, but is dumbfounded and aghast when they actually encounter someone changing their lifestyle in an effort to do something about it. I feel like following the 90% rules would just isolate me even more--as it is now, it seems like the more discreet I am, the less obsessive I seem. 90% would definitely not be discreet.
Any thoughts or suggestions?

[Anne]

Speaking of social communities supporting each other in consuming less, our local natural foods store decided to give away re-usable bags with every purchase of over $35 during the month of June. Both of my roommates buy organic and local, but they haven't gotten in the "bring your own bags" habit. It seems to have started taking root this month however. I also talked to a couple of friends who are also conscientious and active, and told them about the promotion, and they started thinking about taking bags.

[Spacemom]

two questions:
1) 50 gallons of gas a year =4 tanks of my car (relatively)
If I lived in a city and walked everywhere or biked, then this would work. However, there are arguments that putting people in cities causes a strain on the resources too.
Any thoughts on how congregating people in cities may cause more damage to the environment?

2) Is there a balence between being "green" and having a comfortable standard of living? For example, I live 16 miles from work. There is a bike path that I "could" take. But I also have to get my kids to daycare. That adds another 5 miles onto the commute. I could have chosen a daycare closer to work, but at the risk to my kids (we left the close one due to safety issues)
We chose to live out of the city. We try to balence the environment and our standard of living, but we are probably closer to 10% instead of 90%.
How does one balence these two issues?

[Mary B]

The bag thing is starting to happen, I do bring bags to the grocery store and I occasinally see others do it. The more people who do it the more it will be out there and others will find it more acceptable.

I find the guidelines a starting point, a concrete place to compare my lifestyle with an earth-responsible lifestyle. I have made baby steps, it has to be a constant evolution and if many people even make small changes it will make a difference. Your example will give others ideas to make changes in their lifestyle.

[MartyL]

It is also possible to take action with a positive environmental impact. I've planted over 100,000 trees (not all survived, of course), many thousands by hand and many thousands more by hiring mechanical planting equipment. It was hard work at times, required some investments, and patience, but is very rewarding.

My suggestion: buy some land (as much as possible, but at least 20 to 40 acres) and reforest it. No, don't plant a tree, plant 10,000 trees.

Not a total solution, of course, but trees absorb carbon during growth and it's always cooler in a forest, just like it's hotter in the city. Marginal farmland at a goodly distance from urban centers will be the best buy; northern forests sequester more carbon than southern ones in most cases.

I think it's unwise to rely on solutions that require major lifestyle changes of the masses in the short run; cutting consumption is necessary but you can't counteract other people's consumption habits. But consider this: one percent of the US population is about 3 million. If that one percent of smart, foreward thinking folks planted on average 10,000 trees apiece, that would be 30,000,000,000 trees.

The trees will also help the watershed, the wildlife, produce renewable resources, be a decent financial investment (maybe even an excellent one) and, if you're like me, you'll find great joy in watching them grow.

Be sure to plant a wide variety of species, including trees that produce food both for humans and wildlife, and if you're an urbanite you'll want to enlist a local forestry consultant to 'ride herd' on the place.

North America is blessed with huge areas of wonderful land; and yes there is life beyond the city.