Consumption feedback loops
We went hiking in Tahoe last week, and ran into a bunch of people doing the Pacific Crest Trail where it overlaps with the Tahoe Rim Trail. One of the ultralight hikers (who claims to be a foster son of the Amazing Randi) got me thinking on consumption. More below, after I meander:
It’s amazing how quickly books date themselves. I’ve been reading The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, which has a lot of really good information. They’ve got what looks to be a good model that breaks down various factors involved in consumer impact - like exactly how much does that SUV contribute to your land use versus greenhouse gas production?
It’s definitely not perfect, but it seems solid. The problem is, it was written in 1999. Yeah, a whole what, 8 years ago? The points still make sense, but some of the scales are way off. For example, they talk about recent advancements that allow consumers to select alternative electricity supplies. That’s now a standard, or getting there. CFLs are now commonplace. They also talk about imagining $3/gal gas to induce shorter trips. The SUV age came and is slowly going out since this happened.
Anyway, to the point. One of the main points of the book is to use the model to decide where the ‘long pole in the tent’ is in order to concentrate savings on those areas. Rather than pushing the public to fuss over minor points and then give up in disgust after the results show minor gains, the idea is to run the model and figure out where time’s best spent.
This makes perfect sense - the approach results in a clear set of goals, with units of measure to gauge progress. Fix the big issues, run the model with the new numbers, and see how rosy the future may or may not look. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damn good step.
However - early on, they discount overconsumption as a specific knob in turning back ecological waste/climate change/etc. They claim it’s too vague and hard to quanitfy, probably for both them and the consumer. It’s true - if your goal is to generically reduce consumption, without a specific guide, there’s no way to tell if all the work being done is doing any good.
This is where I think they’re off base - overconsumption is easy to counter, and it can have some great results. Here’s how:
A. Ask yourself if you really need whatever it is you’re going to buy. If the answer is YES, go to B. Else, go to C.
B. Buy it.
C. Don’t buy it.
Admittedly, this is hard. Quick or bad judgement can blow this simple line of reasoning apart. A more rationed process that can yield the same results is:
A. Ask yourself if you really need whatever it is you’re going to buy. If the answer is YES, go to B. Else, go to C.
B. Write it down on a piece of paper. Write down the date one month from now next to the item’s name. Come back on that date and go to A.
C. Don’t buy it.
If you can survive a few iterations of this, in the end, you probably don’t need it. But at least one iteration is useful to determine if this is moment of compromised reasoning or not.
This process is important, because the consumption feeds on itself. The more you have, the easier it is to buy more. But the more you concentrate on not consuming more, the harder it is to consume. I don’t know why this is - there’s probably a study somewhere.
Now back to the topic on the first line, because an ultralight hiker is a beautiful illustration of this idea. We were hiking about 65 miles, with (more than) enough food for the trip. Our packs were large, and on the edge of a light load, but definitely not ultralight. My pack was 35lbs, with a spike to 48lbs with a full water load. Heavy, but managable.
Pygmy was thru-hiking (2655 miles, but with restock points) with a pack weight of 18lbs, with water. He used to hike with 50-80lbs on his back. But as he lightened the load, interesting things happened. A lighter pack weight can mean a lighter sleeping pad to make up for the sore back. Add in a lighter sleeping bag, lighter tent, and lighter pack frame, and now the overall weight is significantly lower.
What can you do with a lighter pack weight? Well, go farther on the same caloric/nutritional input. So now the food requirements can drop a bit, decreasing weight further for the same distance. Now the pack’s even lighter, and other factors can start to show. What about that propane stove? Drop it in favor of alcohol.
You get the point - the more consumption patterns (shown here in weight) can be turned around, the easier it is to see the smaller factors. So to get back to the original point on the book, it’s definitely sound practice to determine the ‘long pole’ and chase it. However, a simple and systematic approach to reducing overall consumption as shown in the A, B, C pattern above can also expose the same factors. The latter may not do so as scientifically, but a mindset, as the public has shown to have, is a powerful thing and a difficult item to break. If the right one could be put in place, it would be a strong influence on Brower and Leon’s more scientific approach.