|
 very
once in a while you run across a book that is so obviously needed
that you wonder why nobody has done it before in quite that way.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced such a book: The
Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices.
 "From
apples and armchairs to zinnias and zip drives. Which of all
the things Americans buy cause the greatest problems for the
environment and which are relatively benign?"
The premise
that our everyday choices add up to a huge environmental impact
is unquestioned. There has been a glut of advisory and how-to
books with 15, 50, 100 and even 1,000 things simple and otherwise
that individuals can do to reduce or shift their environmental
impacts. But who can keep track? And what really matters? How
much can a consumer really do?
UCS helps
by separating the crucial from the trivial. "Repeated instances
in which wrong or misleading information is given can turn even
the most enthusiastic green consumers into cynics. Like the boy
who cried wolf, environmental activists who loudly trumpet dangers
that later prove false or exaggerated risk turning off the very
constituents they are trying to mobilize."
First things
first. One of the most highly touted questions paper or plastic?
turns out to be as we always suspected: a trivial choice. "Some
consumer decisions, like whether to chose paper or plastic grocery
bags, are insignificant," said Dr. Warren Leon, coauthor
of the book. "Our book shows people how to focus on those
environmental choices that make the biggest difference."
UCS developed
an economic model to analyze the impact of household spending
on the most significant consumer-related environmental problems:
air pollution, water pollution, alteration of natural habitats,
and global warming. After grouping 134 consumer spending choices
into 50 categories (like furnishings, clothing, computers), the
authors discovered that most consumer-related environmental degradation
is linked to seven basic categories: driving cars and light trucks,
meat and poultry production, growing produce and grains, household
appliances and lighting; home heating and cooling; home construction;
and household water and sewage.
Cars and light
trucks (including minivans and pickups) cause the most environmental
damage overall, and are responsible for nearly half of the toxic
air pollution and more than one-quarter of the greenhouse gases
traceable to household consumption.
"Driving
less and buying a cleaner car are the best things people can
do for the environment" said coauthor Dr. Michael Brower,
a physicist and expert on energy and environmental issues. "Because
cars cause so much harm, even modest changes matter."
Food is second
only to transportation as a source of consumer-related environmental
impacts. Red meat causes especially high amounts of environmental
damage for the nutrition it delivers. Cutting the average household's
meat consumption (both red meat and poultry) in half would reduce
food-related land use and common water pollution by 30 and 24
percent, respectively.
"Replacing
beef with grains and produce, or even chicken, can significantly
improve the environment, and people can also lower their personal
environmental impacts by buying organic foods," said Brower.
Other consumer
activities that are highly damaging like lawn pesticides, snowmobiles,
large powerboats, and fireplaces did not make the "dirty
seven" because they account for very small shares of total
consumer spending. But aware consumers should increasingly avoid
using these items.
UCS suggests
that people stop worrying about choices that involve alternatives
whose differences are insignificant. "No one should feel
guilty about modest use of such things as spray cans, paper napkins
and polystyrene cups," said Leon. Making their "Don't
Worry about unimportant decisions" list are: cloth versus
disposable diapers, paper versus plastic bags, disposable cups,
paper plates, napkins and plastic utensils, spray cans, and styrofoam
cups. Non-disposable alternatives are always better, but they
have found that people are too often worrying over trivial changes
when the same amount of effort could be spent on choices that
would reduce impacts much more.
"By focusing
on the especially damaging aspects of their consumption, Americans
can reduce overall environmental damage dramatically."
Their seven
rules for responsible consumption focus on key principles for
those who want to make choices that matter. They include: give
more attention to major purchases; size matters (in general,
the purchase of lighter items has less impact than heavier ones);
look for opportunities to be a leader (the early purchase of
new environmental technologies and practices helps support successful
introductions); and buy and use more of the things that are better
for the environment.
On this better-choices
list are: microwave ovens, recycled products; water and energy
saving devices, and equipment needed to support telecommuting.
"If the purchase of a computer, answering machine or fax
for the home is the obstacle preventing you from setting up telecommuting
from your office, you should feel justified buying these things
on environmental grounds." Telecommuting that reduces driving
and traffic congestion is one of the most positive environmental
trends.
But the burden
of environmental impacts cannot be handled by individual changes
alone, since consumer choices are often limited. UCS also addresses
what you can ask the government to do. They list and discuss
the four primary areas where government policy changes are critical:
making the marketplace work for the environment; setting high
standards; investing in the environment and making land use an
environmental issue.
The task of
ranking environmental impacts raises some difficult issues. It
is easy to name a host of problems; it is much harder to know
which are most important to deal with. Like the scientists they
represent, UCS does not claim their findings are the final word
or that their analysis has no room for improvement. But their
findings do provide a much clearer overall picture of the impacts
of household spending on the environment. This practical and
rational analysis of the relationships between consumers, their
spending choices and the environment is an important step forward
to help people match their good intentions with actions that
count. 
|
.