It seems someone always has to be the contrarian. We're not too impressed by this article, which ran in the UK paper The Guardian. It lists six "myths" that "distract" people from the real problems of global warming. That's a valid viewpoint, but the "myths" aren't presented with enough data to make the case. For example:
Myth 1
Forget the CFLs -- just hold off on the purchase of a plasma TV and keep your old (presumably tube) TV instead.
Our response: this reflects confusion between plasma TVs, which use lots of energy, and LCD TVs, which are relatively efficient. Better advice: change the light bulbs to CFLs and switch to an LCD TV.
Myth 2
Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions.
Our response: as the article admits, this is actually true, although it's still a problem. (Put another way: 2% of way too much is still too much.) But why present a fact as a myth? Again, this muddles the issue by shifting the discussion to the global warming impact of jets. We can't argue with the facts, but the strategy seems designed to confuse, rather than clarify.
Myth 3
Disposable plastic bags aren't really a problem -- it's the 30% of food we waste.
Our response: saying disposable plastic bags aren't a problem because wasted food rots and produces methane (a potent greenhouse gas) just doesn't make sense. Can't they both be problems? The plastic bag issue is certainly easier to fix with legislation.
We're a bit more on board with myths 4, 5, and 6, which advocate for increasing home insulation to cut energy use. But is is really necessary to cut down one green strategy in order to advance another? This doesn't seem right to us, especially when what's played down is something simple that gives one a real a feeling of empowerment, such as changing a light bulb or carrying a reusable tote.
image by busangane via sxc.hu
Regarding Myth 1, isn't it greener to keep something and use it until the end of its useful life than to replace it with something that has a lot of embodied energy and was imported from the other side of the world? It's not like you are going to save gobs of energy with an LCD TV vs. a tube TV.
view hejiranyc's profile
They really did confuse the issue they were trying to discuss in Myth 2. I think they were trying to say that if Britain reduced its overall emissions by 80%, the current rate of flying would account for 30% of the allowable emissions. In that case, that paltry-sounding 2% - which, for Britain, is actually 6% - becomes even more significant.
But I still don't get what myth they're busting here. All the other myths are common impact-reducing strategies the author attempts to undermine, but I don't remember ever hearing that flying was a way to reduce our environmental impact ("it's only 2%! Much better than taking the train!").
view rorarora's profile
There was a lot of misleading writing. For instance; while it's 'green' to cut down on meat consumption, comparing one kilo of beef from next door to a single can of beans from Canada is rather unfair. The lack of a mass measurement in the latter is typical propaganda tactics; it prevents any meaningful comparison.
In short; with any of their myths it is possible that the popular 'green' solution is not as efficient as something else, but, as you say, there is no reason to have two efficiency solutions compete when they can be in parallel. Further, if the article won't provide any sort of actual comparison, rather than generalized statements, it's hard to assess the validity of the points - and as such is poor journalism.
view EgoWumpus's profile
Apparently, I came away with a far different interpretation of the article. I'd go so far as to say the original post and previous comments are based on a serious misinterpretation of the article. The author's premise is that if you're going to get people to do their bit to fight climate change then you should get them to use their limited time and money in the most effective way and that the six cited myths actually encourage people to waste their time/money.
His arguments are sound, even if they don't cite sources or go into great detail. Here is what I think he's saying
1) It's foolish to install cfls if you've just bought a plasma tv. You'll never undo the damage done by that tv.
2) Air travel is a bigger concern than the airline industry makes is appear
3) Removing plastic packaging from foodstuffs isn't as effective as reducing food waste (2kg of plastic waste is relatively more benign than hundreds of pounds of decaying food)
4) You're better off buying a small car and using the money you save to insulate your house than to spend more on a hybrid.
5) Eating less meat and eating locally is better than eating local meat.
6) For a given amount of money, you'd save more energy by insulating British homes properly than you could by using the same amount of money to subsidize solar panels on peoples roofs.
To clarify point #2, air travel is 2% of CO2 emissions globally, but 6% of the UK's emissions so the 2% figure cited by airlines is misleading. The 20% number is the 6% times a factor (2.7) that accounts for increased damage done by jet exhaust.
view AndrewC's profile
AndrewC, that's clearer than the article!
The only one I hadn't understood the point of was #2, because all the other 'myths' were strategies that purport to help the environment; I couldn't see how #2 fit into that list, as air travel isn't normally considered a low-impact choice, but now I see it's an industry-promoted myth instead. Aha!
view rorarora's profile
Not having a TV and not watching it is the most efficient, no?
To me, really the point is to start to be conscious. In so many ways, I'm still waking up to the wastefulness I create in my every day life without even realizing it. It's all so habitual and embedded in my psyche that it takes some real head banging to get through.
So, any literature that starts us reflecting on our own practices is good in my opinion.
view SFGail's profile