I said yesterday, if the whole world lived like we in the UK do, we would need 3.2 planets. And while yesterday I talked about living our present lifestyle with 2 billion people on our one planet, today I would like to talk about living on less affluence. Our personal impact can be divided into four roughly equal parts: food, stuff, direct energy and transport. For each category I would like to give a rough 
idea of what it would take to reduce one’s impact to half the national average. While this isn’t quite enough with the current population, it’s what we agreed to do in TN2 in one year starting last July, so I think this is a good basis for getting started. For food, one way of achieving this is to eat only organic, local and seasonal food. This has now become very straightforward to do, by signing up for the TN community supported agriculture. Another way is to halve the amount of food you throw away and reduce animal based food by 2/3. For stuff (a.k.a. embodied energy) I really can’t be of much help, other than to note that buying as much as half the national average must be really exhausting. For direct energy, the easiest first step is to sign up for green electricity, and to lower the thermostat to 17 °C (this was the UK average in the 1970s (or maybe it was the 60s)). I’m not sure whether this would be enough. If you want to do more switch to heating with wood. For transport the solution is to stop flying and replace half of your driving by cycling or walking, or stop flying and replace 2/3 of your driving by train travel. Sounds doable? Join TN2.* The brown dot in the lower right sustainable high quality blue square is Cuba.
Posts
Dear Erik,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your posts - especially this last one about energy and waste literacy.
The difficulty about changing things in a mentally-focussed civilisation is that everyone can be very literate about carbon-reduction but still carry on living with the same affluence and with the same mindset about healthcare and nuclear families etc. As you know talking words and ideas are not a substitute for doing the real thing.
When it comes to waste and energy reduction, action is the only thing that counts.
With best wishes,
Charlotte
Dear Charlotte,
ReplyDeleteIf I paraphrase you as saying 'when words and actions don't agree, believe the actions', I'm all with you (the quotation marks don't mean that I'm quoting you, but that these words are not my own wisdom). However, when you say "action is the only thing that counts", that goes too far for me. I think a theoretical, philosophical, and maybe even a metaphysical underpinning of the new society we're building is not only desirable, but necessary if we want the end result to make sense. Our civilisation is a complex one, and I still firmly believe that this is an asset and not only a liability ('they make bigger, better mistakes' Ben Okri). We can have (some forms of) technology and sustainability. Once you let in more technology than you can build with your own hands, you also need ideas. This is what the Greeks, with their invention of science, have given us, the ability to say: Intuitively, you might think that this action is called for now, but actually ...
Best wishes,
Erik.
Dear Erik,
ReplyDeleteI am not against good ideas or metaphysics but only if they are matched in the real physical world. You only have to look at the double standards of history and Christianity to see that philosophical ideas and complex thoughts do not create the kind of fair-share, people-care society that is capable of making this Transition.
The ancient Greeks are exactly where the fault lies: as they made the life of the "civilised" or city mind superior to earthly experience and the sensibilities of those who live in synch with the planet.
If we don't want to end up as statues, I suggest we all start inhabiting our words.
Best wishes,
Charlotte
Dear Charlotte,
ReplyDeleteWilliam McDonough asked an interesting question: "Who among you consider themselves to be natives?". I'm working on it.
I think it should be possible to have my city and eat from the garden as well. In other words, I agree with both the Greeks and you, I do think the rational mind is superior to the "superstitious" one, but only if it's used to live in synch with the planet.
Best wishes,
Erik.