The Boston Globe, December 10, 2006
A cleaner, greener Christmas
by Juliet Schor
WHEN SANTA Claus squeezes down the chimneys of millions of New England households in a few weeks, he won't be the only one leaving sooty footprints in the living room. The holiday season has an enormous carbon residue of its own -- as in carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas. But we haven't been noticing it. Americans are fed up with the seasonal consumerism; according to a 2005 Center for a New American Dream poll, nearly 80 percent of us wish the holidays were less materialistic. However, the cultural critique also needs to consider this season's eco-impact.
So just how much carbon does the holiday spending spree generate? The experts haven't yet come up with a holiday-specific measure, according to Audrey Peller of the San Francisco-based Global Footprint Network. But we can work backward to come up with an estimate. The United States emits about 5.6 billion tons of carbon a year, or 19 tons per person. Another way to think about this is in terms of the acres of forest that are necessary to absorb or "sequester" all the carbon that we're putting into the atmosphere. That's called the carbon footprint, and it's currently running at 4.1 billion acres, or just under 14 acres per American. That's a shame, because the United States has only 11.7 acres per person of biologically productive land and shallow sea. The result is carbon buildup in the atmosphere.
Plus, the carbon footprint is only one component of our overall "ecological footprint." This type of analysis gives us the frequently cited statistic that if the whole world were to consume as Americans do, we'd need five additional planets.
During the holiday, things get worse, because consumption of all sorts rises. An estimated 25 percent of total spending occurs during this short time. Household garbage increases 25 percent. We'll be spending $21 billion on consumer electronics alone and sending 2.7 billion cards, enough to fill a football field 10 stories high. If we counted everything we consume during this period, it accounts for about a billion acres of carbon output. (Granted, some portion of this activity would be happening anyway, but this estimate does give us an upper bound.)
While a lot of the holiday angst has focused on useless ties and battery-operated play-with-them-once toys, the real carbon culprits are eating and traveling. Together they account for roughly half of our total ecological impact, compared with 13 percent for products. This year, an estimated 63.5 million of us will be traveling more than 50 miles from home, and chances are we'll be eating a lot when we get there.
Must an eco-friendly holiday be lonely or hungry? Of course not. Good food and strong community are at the core of most visions of sustainability. The question is how we do things. For example, a Canadian newspaper enlisted two gourmet chefs to produce both a holiday meal with locally produced food and a table laden with imports. The latter had 43 times the carbon impact; transporting food -- and people -- long distances typically means burning a lot of fossil fuels. So when you travel, consider participating in one of the increasingly popular "carbon offset" programs on the Web. These calculate the carbon released on your trip, translate it into dollar terms, and allow you to pay for a carbon-reducing action, such as forest protection or windmill construction. Right now, offsetting a ton of carbon costs from $5 to $25. (To give it a try before you head to the airport, visit Conservation International at conservation.org. )
The British government's recent Stern report warns that the "business as usual" strategy of accelerating carbon emissions has put us on a path to irreparable ecological harm and widespread economic costs. But we can avoid the worst of it if we get moving -- starting now.
Please don't think I'm a Grinch at heart. In fact, rather than railing against the wastefulness of Christmas lights, I urge you to flip the "on" switch. Just make sure you're using the LED style (light emitting diodes) , which last 30 times longer, use 90 percent less energy, and create less of a risk of fires.
Wiping up Santa's carbon footprint -- and our own -- may seem daunting. But if we don't get busy on this problem, the gifts we give our children during the holiday will pale in comparison to the climate nightmare they will inherit from us. Happy holidays.
Juliet Schor, a professor of sociology at Boston College, is on the board of the Center for a New American Dream.