You Have No Control Over Your Carbon Footprint
Okay… you have a little, but not as much as you think
Have you ever really tried to control your carbon footprint? Have you tried to measure it and see precisely how much you could reduce it? If you do, you will find out one thing very quickly: you cannot control your carbon footprint as it is typically measured.
Bogus Carbon Footprint Calculators
The guides that measure carbon footprint calculate it on a collective basis, not individual. That’s because “carbon footprint calculators” are based on all kinds of factors that have little or nothing to do with your actions and choices.
The calculator by the Nature Conservancy, for example, will change radically based only on changing your location. In my case, I threw in some assumptions and got 41 tons of carbon annually. I change my location to a town a hundred miles away, and it was suddenly 52 tons annually. Same actions, expenses, income, spending, and everything else.
The calculator by the Union of Concerned Scientists does the same thing, although they are a bit more transparent about it. In this article, they talk about why Wyoming residents have a per capita carbon footprint of 104 tons while New Yorkers are just under 8 tons.
The calculator by the EPA pretends to ignore any bigger issues by showing just a slice of one’s actual carbon footprint—those associated with energy usage, transportation, and waste. Yet it, too, starts by collecting your location and household size, as if those would not be accounted for in the amount you spend on electricity. Maybe they are adjusting for the cost of energy or maybe not. It isn’t clear to the casual user.
Carbon Footprint Is Out of Your Control
These and all the calculators I have found point to an uncomfortable fact--your carbon footprint is determined more by the system behind you, than by your individual actions. If the system changes to a non-emitting source of electricity, your carbon footprint will go down without any choice or action by you. If viable and usable mass transit is built in your city, your carbon footprint will go down whether you ride it or not. If gasoline and electric prices soar, your carbon footprint will go down because so many people will choose to reduce their driving and electric usage for financial reasons—even if you do not. And you have no control over gasoline prices, electricity prices, construction of mass transit, or the adoption of renewables by your utilities. None.
That said, the calculator provided by EPA is most interesting. It provides not only an estimate of carbon released by heating, cooling, and other uses of energy but also from driving and waste. It also shows you how certain actions can reduce your contribution. That’s great, but here’s what it does not cover: The average total carbon footprint of Americans based on per capita calculation is just over 20 tons, while the average carbon footprint for Americans from these three categories EPA includes is about 8.5 tons, according to the calculator. What about the other eleven tons of carbon?
In the case of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the three big areas for personal carbon footprint are food (20%), household (i.e., heating and cooling) (10%), and transportation (29%). In other words, if your total per capita footprint is 20 tons, 4 tons is derived from consuming food, 2 tons from heating your home, and 6 tons from transportation, which they note includes trucks, airplanes, trains, and ships—hardly things you have control over. These three areas amount to 59% of the total, and the article never really makes it clear where the other 41% resides. Hence, even if you could personally achieve a reduction in food, household, and transportation consumption of 76%, which is commensurate with the IPCC goal of reducing emissions by 76% to reach the climate goals, you would eliminate 3 tons from food, half a ton from household, and 4 tons from transportation, for a total of 7.5 tons. First, achieving those numbers is nearly impossible. Second, if achieved, they would only amount to a 37.5% reduction, and that would only be for you. Every level of impact you achieve would be reduced by all the others who don’t bother.
Even more to the point, UCS calculates a table showing the per capita carbon footprint by state. Wyoming residents generate 104 tons of carbon whereas those in states like Connecticut, Oregon, and California are less than 10 tons. It is improbable, at best, that the reason for this difference is that Wyoming residents consume ten times more food, ten times more heating and cooling energy, drive ten times more than people in other states, or fly ten times more than other people. To reach this disparity, they would have to do all these things at ten times the level, and on an individual basis, that doesn't even pass the smile test.
Why the Calculators Are Pointless
The point is not that these calculators are wrong. They can give you some insights by using them—especially the EPA version which shows the impact your lifestyle changes could have. The point is that no matter how much you reduce yourself, the calculator models all reflect the fundamental truth that most of your per capita impact has nothing at all to do with your personal actions—it has to do with the system.
Do you see why this is a losing game? I’m not saying don’t conserve. I believe we must all conserve and do our best to make better choices. That’s a good thing. But relying on reducing your carbon footprint as a strategy is doomed to failure. And that's what I am worried about. Most of the good people I know who are concerned about climate change are focused on their personal carbon footprint. Reduce consumption, eliminate meat, and drive less. All good things, even though they can never be enough. What we really need is a change of those sources of emissions where individual consumers are not empowered to make choices—utility-sourced green energy, availability of more efficient appliances and electric cars, efficient and pleasant mass transit investments, and more efficient ways of heating and cooling buildings, moving goods, getting to work and doing our work. And for that, we need the creative energy of concerned citizens to focus on bigger issues than personal carbon footprint.
—Anthony Signorelli
Sharing is caring… please share with your friends and social media.