What can you do about climate change? Plenty, and no one is talking about it

It’s not about carbon footprint

We all know we have a problem with fossil fuels. You may think the problem is carbon, and you are partially correct. We burn carbon, it goes into the atmosphere, traps heat, and the earth warms up. The result is climate change. Most people get this by now.

But the real problem is something else — we simply can’t live without fossil fuels. Indeed, our need for energy exposes the fundamental problem with the “leave it in the ground” mantra. We can’t start by leaving it in the ground because to start there means serious human needs cannot be met — heat, transportation, food production and acquisition, cooking, lighting, computing, and more. Without an alternative source of energy in place, “leaving the oil in the ground” provokes a perceived existential crisis. People perceive that their survival is at stake. And they are right. We need heat, cooling, transportation, food, etc. to live our lives. These are basic needs we cannot live without. Yet the way we meet those needs is causing the planet to burn up. That is our fossil fuels problem.

One would think that given this problem, the answer is obvious. We need a different way of meeting these essential human needs. And yet, if you talk about technology as an answer, the criticism often comes back that you are a techno-utopian, or you are in denial about the caustic effects of capitalism, or that you don’t understand the big picture stress the entire biosphere is under. Nonetheless, the answer is indeed obvious: We need a different way of meeting these essential human needs.

And that different way is new technology. There are cheaper, cleaner, better ways of meeting human needs. We can generate electricity with renewables, we can complete most work, both in business and in our personal lives, with electric machinery and appliances. And most of these are coming available fairly quickly. Yet, too few people are participating. AS David Wallis Wells says in an article in the New York Times, “Since 2010, the cost of solar power and lithium-battery technology has fallen by more than 85 percent, the cost of wind power by more than 55 percent. The International Energy Agency recently predicted that solar power would become “the cheapest source of electricity in history,” and a report by Carbon Tracker found that 90 percent of the global population lives in places where new renewable power would be cheaper than new dirty power.” And yet, only about 20% of US electricity is generated with renewable resources.

I can’t help but wonder why — why aren’t more people adopting these new ways? Could it be that they are spending too much time examining their personal carbon footprint? Could it be that they are spending too much time biking to work and not enough time replacing their gas-fired furnace? Or could it be that they are wasting precious time on the bus, which still emits carbon, rather than using their electric vehicle in 1/3 the time and dedicating the rest of their time to real solutions?

These are speculations, but you see where I am going. Possibly the biggest deception in climate history occurred at the hand of BP when they popularized the carbon footprint as a means of looking at personal responsibility for carbon — specifically to take the gaze of the world off of BP itself. The reality is that carbon footprint is an amorphous metric that cannot be calculated. It has duped millions of people into a self-examination that they cannot quantify, while simultaneously luring them into thinking they can determine the carbon footprint of a steak, a lamp, a piece of clothing, or a banana, when in fact, they cannot. Of course, this luring is incredibly convenient because while people make choices to be vegan based on no real evidence that this is helpful, they are still burning natural gas in their furnaces, gasoline in their cars, propane in their grills, and buying their electricity from a non-renewable source.

I hate to say the bad news no one wants to hear, but here it is: Well-meaning people have been duped. Mike Berners-Lee, the author of How Bad Are Bananas, which is the most earnest attempt to actually calculate the carbon footprint of things, makes it clear: “The carbon footprint, as I have defined it, is the climate change metric we need to be looking at. The problem is that it is also impossible to measure.” Anyone in business knows that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Yet so many people go around trying to shrink their carbon footprint, and worse, telling everyone else they should do the same.

This is important because many people believe that by not eating beef or by boycotting air travel, they are making a real difference. They are not. These and other supposed carbon footprint reduction strategies do not work at all unless you can convince an overwhelming number of people to join you. Since there is no worldwide commitment to veganism or to swearing off air travel, your boycott of one has exactly no impact whatsoever. But you have the self-delusion that you are making things better by your self-denial. The bad news is that your sacrifice is making no difference. None. Nada. The planes are still flying and the cattle are still grazing. And you may convince yourself that, nonetheless, you have done your part. You feel good. And you take your gas-powered car to Whole Foods to get your organic vegetables.

I know this sounds harsh and many readers may want to just click away at this point. That’s fine. Do so if necessary. But I would suggest that you can be far more powerful than you are when it comes to climate change. Instead of managing your carbon footprint, manage and eliminate your direct emissions. This will work better, it is easier to manage, you’ll see results, and it will make a real difference.

Direct emissions are those things that you emit directly from the way you live. We’re not talking about upstream carbon in beef, home construction, or clothing. We are not talking about the amorphous and undefined carbon footprint of a window, of the steel in a garden tiller, or of a computer printer. No. We are talking about the things that you generate directly — carbon from the tailpipe of your vehicle, carbon from the chimney of your furnace, and carbon from the non-renewable sources of electricity you use. These are the things you have direct control over, and these are the items on which you can take direct action.

By examining your direct emissions, you have an alternative to the carbon footprint delusion. Rather than the complexity of figuring out the carbon footprint difference between a banana and an ear of corn, simply look at your personal energy consumption and how you can change it. The carbon burned getting to work, carbon burned heating your home, and carbon burned operating your home are the high-impact levers everyone can look at. They are true measures of your personal contribution. And when you take direct action on these, you are making a real, direct impact on carbon because you are no longer burning it. Here are some ideas on how to think about each of these categories.

Renewable electricity

To source your electricity renewably, there are many opportunities, not just building your own rooftop solar system, although that approach will work and work well. Whether it is grid-tied or off-the-grid, rooftop solar can generate more than enough electricity for all your needs, even if everything is converted to efficient electric appliances and machinery. If you are grid-tied, the excess goes back to the utility to redistribute. If you are off the grid, you need to store the electricity in batteries for later usage. In some cases, people in the far north with very short winter days may need a backup generator for this approach. If that’s you, you can nonetheless radically reduce your direct emissions, even though you need to fuel a generator.

For many people who live in urban forests, apartments, or whose rooftops are otherwise shaded, many utilities offer subscriptions to renewable energy. Some of these are at a slight premium to current cost, while others are at a significant discount — a lot depends on local regulations and policy. These subscriptions fund the development of renewable resources, so they make a very real difference. They enable the utility to build solar and wind farms, thereby replacing coal and fossil fuel-based electric generation. The higher percentage of your electricity subscribed in such situations, the more you reduce your direct emissions.

Replacing appliances — furnace, stove, water heater

Your furnace, stove, and water heater are usually the biggest carbon emitters in your home. Each of them can be replaced with electric appliances. These electric appliances eliminate carbon emissions if you source your electricity without emissions. But it is also important to ensure you are replacing them with the most efficient appliances.

In most cases, for example, a heat pump is a far better and more efficient solution than gas or heating oil-fueled furnaces or boilers. A heat pump is also more efficient than baseboard heat or in-floor heating because heat pumps don’t generate heat — they concentrate heat that already exists. So you need less renewably sourced electricity to run a heat pump than you do for other forms of electric heat. This can allow you to build a smaller rooftop solar system, or reduce the size of your subscription to renewable energy. But either one enables you to eliminate your direct emissions. For some people, a combination of the two will work best, and it will still eliminate your emissions.

Although gas stoves are preferred by many cooks, they too generate carbon. They burn either natural gas or propane, both of which are fossil fuels and both of which generate carbon. In these cases, however, carbon and the other emissions from these appliances emit right into one’s home, and even with venting, those emissions often linger. It fascinates me that environmentalists love their gas stoves even though the stoves are putting pollution directly into their homes, but the more important point is that they emit carbon into the atmosphere. Stoves and ovens are generally easily replaced with electric versions, and when you do that, you eliminate the emissions altogether. You might even find that they are easier to cook on than you think. I love to cook, and I prefer electric stoves by a long shot.

Water heaters offer similar opportunities. Instant water heaters that still burn gas are far more efficient than the standard tank water heaters used in the US, but they still burn gas and therefore emit carbon. Electric water heating can be easily done, and again, if your source is renewable, emissions can be eliminated completely.

Replacing Cars

There are lots of ways to replace cars to reduce or eliminate your direct carbon emissions. Many people replace their vehicles with bicycles or mass transit, and to the extent that they do this without using a car at all, they have made a big reduction in their emissions. Yet many of these same people remain dependent on their cars or delivery vehicles for procuring things like groceries, clothing, or household items, thereby dampening the effect. In addition, bicycles and mass transit are not practical alternatives for many other people.

So, if you are not in the bicycle or mass transit category, what do you do? The answer is obvious — you move away from an internal combustion engine (ICE) and toward electric vehicles (EV). Hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and all-electric EVs all fit into this category. EVs are getting better and better all the time, so much so that Consumer Reports just came out with their list of top cars in 2023 and seven out of ten were some type of EV. The vehicles are nice.

Hybrids still require gasoline, but they will reduce your direct emissions substantially, especially if you get the highest gas mileage versions. Folks with older cars and gas mileage at 15–20 miles per gallon can make a huge improvement with a hybrid that gets 50 mpg. Tailpipe emissions would go down by 60–70 percent in that situation, and those gains do not depend on having a renewable electricity source.

Plug-in hybrids charge their batteries by plugging them in. As a result, they get a bigger charge and can run on electricity only for a larger portion of time. This reduces tailpipe emissions, but to be totally clean, the electricity needs to be carbon-free.

Fully electric EVs have no emissions at the tailpipe, but their benefit only accrues, just like with the plug-in hybrid, if the electricity comes from non-emission sources.

At this stage, any of these options reduce one’s direct emissions from cars, and the right choice will likely depend on a person’s situation. People in rural areas, for example, may be better off with a hybrid until the range of EVs improves, whereas urban drivers may find plug-in hybrids to be just the ticket because they can run on electricity in the urban area, but extend the range for trips to the countryside. The point is that moving into this category reduces your total direct emissions from transportation.

Personal climate action nirvana

If you want to take personal action on climate, the answer is to eliminate your own emissions — those you actually emit from your own activities in your home or car. You can get to zero with the right steps, and when you do, you will have gone a very long way toward helping solve climate change. Indeed, this is the most significant contribution anyone can make.

Beyond the personal benefits, however, these actions are what enable us to propose a legitimate “leave it in the ground” policy because by buying into these answers, we demonstrate that the alternatives are indeed viable. We can live and live well with different answers to the need for heat, air conditioning, cooking, hot water, and transportation. “Leaving it in the ground” ceases to become an existential crisis because the alternatives not only work, they make life better!

Carbon footprint, if it matters at all, is a second or third-tier concern. You can’t control your carbon footprint, and the further your analysis goes away from your direct behaviors and technology adoptions, the less you can measure, control, or even affect it. Efforts to do so will be the next level of impact you can have after your direct emissions are handled. Your personal responsibility can be seen best through your personal decisions about your own direct emissions. Handle those first, and you will have gone a very long way to contributing to a real solution.

Anthony Signorelli

Get my free newsletter Intertwine: Living Better in a Worsening World here.