Look. I care about climate change a lot. I'm close to a single-issue voter on the subject!
But we have GOT to stop worrying about what are, in the scheme of things, rounding errors. I hate, hate, hate this kind of personal-responsibility climate stuff, it's deeply counterproductive.
According to their data here (which is, for various reasons, wildly overstating the case) buying 3 paper books per month for four years yields roughly a metric ton of CO2. That's the equivalent of 110 gallons of gasoline. Less then 3,000 miles for a decent car!
If *publishing companies* want to take steps to reduce their footprint, that's great -- they have the scale to do real good. But to pretend that changing your individual purchasing habits for books is going to achieve anything is nonsensical.
The whole idea that climate change can be meaningfully address to consumers altering their personal decisions is so horribly counterproductive it's not surprising to discover it was invented, in large part, by energy companies and other pro-climate apocalypse forces.
Because it generates maximum pain for minimum gain. Consumers seriously affect their lives and make compromises, in order to achieve essentially nothing. Politically, this
a) Staves off more effective government action, and
b) Convinces people that action is going to be a personal hardship.
You see this in conservative talking points -- climate action is framed in terms of having to give up your pleasures, your oven, your favorite food.
Actual effective climate action overwhelming looks like regulation, taxes, and subsidies--to consumers, this might mean "pay a little more in taxes".
Which, look, nobody likes paying more in taxes. (And there's lot to be done to make sure the wealthy pay as much as possible.) But the government isn't going to come in and take away your burgers at gunpoint.
Yes, the antis have done a marvelous job of convincing people that climate action will be painful. We need to talk about the beauty of building a better world - quiet, clean cities with lots of resilience.
The only reasonable and fair way to do things is a carbon tax, and I'm really not sure if a substantial-enough-to-be-effective carbon tax *wouldn't* lead to huge consequences for whoever instituted them. Look at how people reacted to the post-pandemic inflation.
Realistically, our culture is capitalist consumerism. So every problem is going to be viewed through a market-based lens. What actions can consumers take, and how can we profit from that action? Consumers are busy people generating profit for others, and need easy solutions. Too cynical?
I mean my point is, historically, we have a mechanism for when the market produces bad outcomes; it's called "government". Just because Ronald Reagan tried to convince us its bad doesn't mean we have to believe him.
I saw a quote somewhere of "Government should handle all the things that are too important to leave to capitalism." Which strikes me as an excellent point.
The entire reason for government is folks pooling resources to ensure that everyone has basic needs met, organize all the infrastructure needed to support the meeting of those needs. At no point should any of those communal resources become profit. Or other flim flammery to game the system.
I think this kind of moralizing is satisfying but incorrect. Climate change is a *very specific problem* having to do with fossil fuels, rather than consumerism in general. It's very easy to imagine a world that's still consumerist where climate change is fixed.
Consumers can support change, but the majority needs to be done by politics and/or economy. Seriously, how was the usage of single-use-plastic limited in my country? Not by the consumers, but by law that forced the change. Society can signal their support by buy tendencies but not carry it alone.
I agree overall but I think personal responsibility has a place in the green solution because it's fundamentally the root of capitalism. We can cut a lot of beef from our diets, push recycling and reusing higher, etc. That being said, the article scrapes the surface of the question. Tech has to
The breakdown of the real environmental cost of tech, publishing, etc is a little silly because the cost is basically *energy*. We need carbon free electricity, transport, and fertilizer; everything else is basically an afterthought.
I mean, this is sarcasm but I think it's literally true? We either have to use the power of government or end up in Mad Max. In particular, the governments of the wealthy countries are the only ones who can force the corporations to do what's necessary.
It doesn't have to (and won't) look like a whole country becoming perfect overnight. We've made good progress -- EVs and the solar boom are both success stories of focused government research and subsidies working as designed. We need more of that and lots of money for infrastructure.
The footprint reduction I get from ebook readers is primarily shelf space, and secondarily being able to take lots of books on a trip without needing lots of space and weight for them :-)
But if you avoid buying conservative politicians' ghostwritten campaign books, how can you launder donations?
I agree with your whole point that single individuals can't move as much as corporations. But consumers can make corporations take these steps you mention. They don't do that because they feel like it. They do it because they can sell more stuff. And we can decide what stuff we buy.
The market for meat-replacements and other vegan food stuffs has exploded in Germany in the last years. One of the most successful companies is one that used to only sell meat. That didn't happen because they felt like it. Consumers made them do it. That gives me a tiny sliver of hope.
My point is that we have a much more powerful mechanism for this -- we can vote in a government that will regulate and tax according to the real cost of things, and create incentives!
Well. We could, if there were parties doing that. (I don't know enough about how corporations are regulated and taxed in the US, but from what I know they .. erm... aren't that much?)
I agree that it's ridiculous to put all the responsibility of systematic change on individuals. But money speaks.
Did they consider that the act of reading 3 books a month itself reduces carbon emissions because it's an activity that doesn't require driving, electricity etc?
I was in a proper academic research discussion about the power consumption (~10kW) of their quantum computer, and I had to stop it by reminding them that if they really run out of power, I can skip going to sauna one evening. The ratio of quantum computers to saunas in Finland is about 1:2.000.000.
For a sense of the scale of comparison, simply look at the sheer volume of books in a house and compare them to the house itself. I have a fair libary, but it's still negligible compared to the materials & processes that have gone into the kitchen or bathroom, the walls, floors, roof, windows.
Also a minuscule fraction of the amount of paper that gets churned just printing things out for immediate consumption and destruction in corporate America every single day
These discussions are exactly like nearly every article on health. There is not any single correct answer in a complex system. It is like the ridiculous focus on plastic straws. “One simple answer” is an easy sell, but doesn’t actually work. Chaos theory is a hard sell!
I’m a climate scientist and you are absolutely right. The most important thing anyone can do to fight climate change has nothing to do with our personal carbon footprints and everything to do with catalyzing systemic change! bsky.app/profile/kath...
If you are worried about climate and want to make a difference,
🎙️ start a conversation about ❤️ and 🙏 not 🧠
🤲  join a climate action group
💰 make your money count
💡spark ideas at work & school
🗳️ hold politicians accountable
🏡 reduce your 👣 AND make your actions contagious by talking about them!
AI sucks ofc but --
Water is tricky because, unlike CO2, it's not the absolute amount that matters; there's plenty of water, it's just that transporting it is hard. You can build a data center where I live with almost no impact (hydro power + plenty of water) but in Texas' it'd be a catastrophe.
Also Oklahoma, which it somehow only just now occurs to me is right next door...
I'm sure it's because the land is cheap because it's hard to live there, which is of course partly because there's so little water!
