
We have an amazing standard of living in the United States. The way we live is largely driven by our capitalistic economy. Even now, in the midst of a financial crisis, we are an incredibly rich country. I try to live a frugal lifestyle, but I still struggle with the pursuit of goods from time to time. I’m a product of a consumption driven culture. All that consumption produces a lot of waste. My brother-in-law is an engineer that’s very passionate about keeping his energy consumption down. I don’t have his knowledge or dedication to making the world a better place, but some of his fervor has rubbed off on me (to a much lesser degree). I have the desire to be a good citizen. I want to be a part of a clean, sustainable world. The fact of the matter is, living a greener lifestyle can also save you money. I feel like the type of habits you form living a frugal lifestyle reduce what you spend, but they don’t make your life worse in any way. You just change. Living greener is no different. Changing the way you live can make you feel better. I’m not preaching from a high horse here – there are a lot of things I need to do better, too. I’ll try if you’ll try.
There are lots of ways to reduce your carbon footprint. Some of them can save you money. Some of them actually cost more money to implement. When I decided to make this a post, I asked my brother-in-law to compile some resources that would help determine the cost savings of reducing your carbon footprint. This is difficult to pin down. It’s hard to accurately estimate all the costs involved in what you eat, where you live, how much you use, etc. For instance, when you have a beer and don’t recycle the bottle, where do you stop with the costs? Do you consider the cost of the bottle? The reproduction cost of not recycling? The energy cost of shipping? The monetary cost of shipping? The energy cost of bottling? You get the point. Your carbon footprint is an intricate matter. Anyway, access one of the calculators he sent me here.
As you take the test, lots of tips are littered along the way. I encourage you to take the time to read them. Here’s a sampling of the tips - on why we should recycle:
Recycling our wastes has enormous environmental and economic benefits in the form of reduced landfill space, fewer demands for raw materials, less energy consumption, less air and water pollution, lower waste-disposal bills, and cheaper goods. Recycling one metric ton of paper saves 17 trees. It takes 40 – 95% less energy to produce goods with recycled aluminum, glass, plastic, or paper than it does to manufacture them with raw materials. Communities throughout the world are striving for zero-waste economies where the outputs from each resource use are turned into inputs for another use. Zero waste does not aim to simply manage waste, but eliminate its creation in the first place.
Saving 17 trees may not sound like much for a metric ton of paper, but cutting down trees uses a tremendous amount of energy when you think of it. You have to transport heavy equipment to where the trees are, use energy to cut them down, then use more energy to transport them to where they need to go. The heavier something is, the higher the energy cost to transport it. Think about that. Just keeping your golf clubs (insert heavy item here) in your trunk will have a significant adverse affect on the energy it costs to drive your car.
On making things last:
The faster we buy new items, the faster we deplete resources and the more likely it is that we are exceeding the Earth’s regenerative capacity. Unfortunately, today’s economy is designed to convince us to buy often and replace items that are in perfectly good working order. Planned obsolescence – the deliberate manufacturing of products to wear out quickly – adds to the problem. To counter this, we can try to repair things as much as possible and only buy products that are designed to last.
This is one thing that I think I’m pretty good at. I don’t like to buy new things, almost to a fault. I did buy a new car this year, a five year old Camry, but it wasn’t easy for me to do. I try to get the maximum use out of anything I buy as a rule.
On using green products:
Products used to clean floors, carpets, bathrooms, and other building elements often contain harmful chemicals that can have serious human health effects and contaminate water supplies, fish, and wildlife if they are poured down drains, circulated through ventilation systems, or disposed of outdoors. Environmental damage can also occur during the development, manufacture, and transport of these products. Fortunately, biodegradable and non-toxic alternatives can significantly reduce or eliminate these impacts altogether while providing the same level of cleanliness.
These alternatives can be had without increasing your costs that much. This is something my wife and I have talked about and are trying to improve upon.
On greener buildings:
Green buildings significantly reduce demands for energy, water, and materials through ecologically sensitive siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal practices – the complete building life cycle. Passive solar heating, water efficient fixtures, recycled materials and other green design features can generate up to 30% in energy savings, reduce carbon emissions by 35%, reduce water use by 30 to 50% and save 50 to 90% in waste disposal costs.
Right now we own a small condo, and we really don’t use that much energy based on where we live. When we do have a house, we’re going to go all out to make it as green as possible. Things like solar panels have gotten a lot cheaper over the last few years. Hopefully, the cost will be even lower when we’re ready to make improvements to our next dwelling.
One last one, on water conservation:
Fresh water consumed in households requires energy for both delivery and treatment. Household water use also takes water from other beneficial uses such as irrigation or in-stream flow for fish and wildlife. All of these impacts increase a household’s ecological footprint, so saving water is a key strategy for footprint reduction. It has been estimated that by installing water saving features and adopting water conservation habits such as those listed here, households can easily reduce their water footprint by 60% or more.
Most of these things will save you money, as well as the planet. Obviously, using less water leads to lower water bills. A house with better insulation and solar panels saves on energy costs and consumption. On the other hand, shopping at organic food stores can be expensive. Of course, putting fewer chemicals in your body isn’t just better for the environment, it’s better for your health as well.
For the record, I didn’t do all that well on my ecological footprint quiz. If everyone on the planet lived the way I do, we would need about 3 planet earths. That sounds terrible, but I really do try to live pretty green. I was at less than half of the national average in three of the four areas. I did really poorly in the food category – it’s something I need to work on. I eat a lot of meat, which has higher energy costs than vegetables. I don’t eat enough locally grown foods, either. In any case, I hope seeing your carbon footprint inspires you to try to improve wherever you can – and I hope in the process, you save money as well. Thanks for reading.
This post was inspired by my brother-in-law, R.J. - Thanks buddy.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.



{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
On the subject of sustainable food choices, I’m guilty too— I’m a serious meat-eater, with a dilemma. Regardless of all that, there are some serious social inequities that are barriers to a sustainable global food supply. We can do our small part by becoming more conscious of the impacts of the food we waste.
As you saw food is a big factor in determining your footprint – unfortunately very few people realize this. Interestingly eating green food (organic, non-processed) is usually much more healthy and one might have thought this would have gained market traction earlier.
Also your location (country) plays a big role. Just by living in the US, my footprint is higher than much of the world. As part of a study I was involved with a few years ago, we examined the impact associated with a variety of US lifestyles – some of the highlights were a Buddhist monk, a homeless guy, a coma patient and a professional golfer. Even for the homeless guy, his impact was higher than the world average. This is because as a resident of the US he was “charged” for the environmental impact of the many public services all residents benefit from. This include things such as military protection, police, public roads, parks, healthcare, etc. Our work was eventually published and emphasized the importance of US leadership understanding the environmental impacts/implications of of public policy and regulation. That is, while an individual’s decisions can make a significant difference, the entire system also needs major change and the government must play a leading role in this change. This includes both regulatory change and procedural/policy changes within the various agencies/departments.
Great post Todd.
Jabeen – I checked out your blog and am very impressed. Nice job – blogs like yours are critical in educating consumers about the major problems of our current food supply.
As Jabeen points out, the US uses significantly more food that it consumes (for the average American 3700 calories of food are used for only 2100 calories consumed). This is really disgusting and I hope more Americans come to realize this.However the problem is actually much worse than that.
The food industry is unique in that the available market size (calorie demand) scales essentially linearly with population growth. Thus broadly speaking, for a food producer’s growth to exceed that of population growth it traditionally had to displace competition or enter new markets. However over the past few decades a new approach has emerged, one that I feel is particularly interesting/bothersome. This new approach is the low calorie, chemically formulated “food product”. A typical human can only consume ~2000 calories/day, but by introducing calorie free foods the market size can quickly expand. Diet soda and Lay’s half-calorie potato chips are excellent examples. This is the industrialized food industry literally making “food products” that are less efficient – foods that intentionally have no/reduced energy value. This allows unlimited consumption with minimal weight gain consequences. Notice I called them food products because many of them are not actually food.
Thus, that we require 3700 calories of food to consume 2100 is only part of the story. We also consume a vast amount of low calorie food product. This highly industrial food product is derived from a multitude of petroleum and corn based chemicals and takes an enormous amount of energy to produce.
And if this isn’t enough, the US food industry is becoming increasingly industrialized (this includes many organic foods as well). This energy intensive industrial food chain is being developed to utilize a very small number of input materials (namely corn and soy) which is leading to single crop/monoculture farms. These single crop farms rely on petroleum based fertilizers (exception organic food ) which are slowly destroying fertile land.
This all sounds crazy but unfortunately it is reality. While much of the world is without adequate food supply, the US is both wasting much of its food and spending significant money/energy on foods without calorie content. And all this is being done using farming practices that are destroying our valuable fertile land.
I hope consumers become more educated and understand the consequences and costs of our current food choices.
@ Todd
Todd – Here is an article written about the study I referenced: http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Climate-Change/2008/05/MIT-Tracks-Carbon-Footprints-of-Different-Lifestyles/
Indirectly, home heating and cooling systems are the largest source of polution in the world. Homes consume more energy than cars or industry. Remember, saving energy prevents pollution. By choosing high efficiency heating and cooling systems and taking steps to optimize the performance of your heating and cooling equipment, you are helping to prevent global warming and promoting cleaner air while enhancing the comfort of your home and lowering your energy cost.
Heating and cooling costs the average homeowner about $1,000 a year — nearly half the home’s total energy bill. If your central air conditioning unit is more than 12 years old, replacing it with an high efficiency model could cut your cooling costs by 30 to 50 percent.
Robert Hoffmann PE
Vice President
Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning Inc.
1641 Tower Grove Ave
St Louis, MO. 63110
314 664-3100
RobertH@HoffmannBros.com
http://www.HoffmannBros.com