Consuming with the Environment in Mind
by Warren Leon
Juliet Schor, in The Overspent American, presents a compelling case for Americans to get off the overspending bandwagon. Clearly, the environment would be one of the beneficiaries of efforts by Americans to reduce their consumption, since the purchase and use of goods by consumers contributes to such serious environmental problems as air pollution, water pollution, global warming, and the loss of biodiversity.
U.S. Consumption Leads the Pack
Americans collectively use a disproportionate share of the world's resources. Despite representing just 5 percent of the world's population, we use 25% of the oil, 23% of the coal, 27% of the aluminum, and 19% of the copper. An average American uses twice as much fossil fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas) as the average resident of Great Britain and two-and-a-half times as much as the average Japanese. We consume the equivalent of 3.25 pounds of boneless meat (mostly beef and chicken) each week, 50% more than the average Italian or Britain and more than twice as much as the average Japanese.
Yet, it is important to acknowledge that not all consumption has the same environmental impacts. If Americans want their personal spending decisions to best help the environment, they should concentrate on reducing consumption of those things that cause the most environmental damage. Let's, for example, imagine that you decide to economize by spending less on your utility bills.
According to our analysis at the Union of Concerned Scientists, it turns out that reducing electricity use would, in most parts of the country, have roughly 100 times greater impact on common air pollution and global warming than reducing spending on telephone bills by an equal amount, as well as 55 times greater impact on common water pollution and 5 times greater impact on toxic air pollution.
Weight Counts
If you don't know which of your purchases makes the greatest difference to the environment, you can use a simple rule: weight counts. All things being equal, the purchase of a heavy item will have a larger impact than the purchase of a light one. Of course, everything isn't always equal. Chemical pesticides are so toxic, for example, that even a few pounds can have a much greater impact than a ton of bricks. The production of virgin aluminum is so energy-intensive and its mining has such great impacts, that recycling light aluminum cans is more important than recycling heavy glass.
In those cases, however, where the obvious environmental differences between two products are not so large, you should assume that the more weight, the greater the environmental impact. For that reason, it is more important to recycle a three-pound Sunday newspaper than a one-ounce yogurt container. Even if a 100-pound clothes dresser is made from wood grown in an environmentally responsible manner, it will have a larger environmental impact than a half-pound videotape made from human-produced materials, once we factor in the energy required to harvest the wood, turn it into a dresser, and ship it to the consumer. This does not mean that you need to avoid purchasing all heavy products, but you should scrutinize those decisions more carefully, unless you use the light items in high quantities.
Think Big, Think Smart
I am not suggesting that you need to carry around a precision weighing instrument when you go to the store. Instead, I urge you to think in large-scale weight terms. If you use 8,000 pounds of gasoline in your car each year, but only 17 pounds of trash bags, it is clear where you can have a more dramatic impact on improving the environment. It is also important to acknowledge that not all consumption is bad for the environment. A consumer interested in simple living does not do a favor for the environment by holding on to an inefficient 20-year old refrigerator and delaying purchasing a new, more efficient one. The older refrigerator likely uses so much more electricity that it causes much more air and water pollution and contributes much more to global warming.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult for individuals interested in helping the environment to know which of their consumer decisions have the largest environmental consequences. It can be hard to easily find accurate information and credible, straight-forward advice. For this reason, a colleague, Michael Brower, and I have just written a book that will provide easy-to-follow guidelines for those people interested in environmentally responsible consumption. The book, The Union of Concerned Scientists Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Action, will be published next March by Three Rivers Press.
-- Warren Leon is deputy director for programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, MA