Fostering sustainable life styles to save CO₂

Sustainability is such a broad concept that in all aspects of our life we can get keener to it: we can cycle instead of driving the car, we can change fridge and switch all stand-bys, go on holiday by train and so on. All of these choices can reduce our carbon footprint, that’s to say the amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) generated to satisfy our needs.

Food and drinks consumption, diet and social habits have an important impact on the atmosphere as well. A steak or a pint of beer are produced and brought to our tables in a restaurant or in a pub using a lot of energy, water and various ingredients: the cheapest way to transport cows or tropical vegetables everywhere today is the use of fossil fuels. Organic products are more expensive and form an expanding, but still minoritarian market; locally grown fruits and vegetables, if not produced in a greenhouse, are more sustainable than the ones imported from other countries. The Mediterranean diet and the Okinawa diet (little meat, plenty of fish and vegetables) have a lower carbon footprint because they limit the consumption of meat (more energy intensive being at a high level of the food chain). Moreover these ways of eating are associated with longevity and good health, co-benefits not be overlooked¹.

Carbon labelling schemes are due to be launched on a range of products throughout Europe, Asia and North America, but an international standard for calculating Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) is needed to help consumers to choose environment-friendly products².

Still there is a high barrier for these better options represented by cost: an average citizen in Europe or in the Unites States can legitimately ask “How can I live more sustainably without spending a fortune, especially in this global recession…?”. Here we come to the point that no matter how many people choose better life styles and products: on average sustainable choices and behaviors should be promoted and helped to become economically affordable and thus dominant in the society. Too few people can spend their weekly family budget bearing in mind polar bears threatened by the ice caps melting because there is a persisting lack of culture on global warming; even if everybody was more informed and wanted to help reduce the carbon emissions, too little money is available to many people to do what is needed on a personal level. The subsidies cuts on fossil fuels that are being discussed could generate money to foster renewable energies and consumers’ attitude towards green preferences, for example creating clear rules and standard indicators of sustainability.

So governments and businesses need to change the situation, but the citizens have a degree of freedom of choice that, if used intelligently, can contribute to tackle climate change: the right political and economic decisions may in turn favor people to make their own right choices. The market itself, if the external costs of carbon emissions were included in the price of food and all other products, could then create the shift to a low carbon economy we have to aim for. There are no excuses on any sides and sacrifices are to be taken into account: if people in the developed world want the same life style they enjoyed in the era of fossil fuels at low cost we are not going far, nor we are if the governments are scared to open their wallets for the right reasons such as mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The bill of 300 billion $ per year looks expensive, but it is certainly much cheaper than the one we would have to face in 2020 and 2030 if an agreement on action now is not reached.

Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding To Climate Change

1. http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2008/04/10/2213128.htm
2. http://living.morethan.com/2009/01/26/what-is-carbon-labelling/