Shopping causes global warming

Australian newspaper identifies consumerism as warming culprit

Posted by Tom Athanasiou (Guest Contributor) at 12:28 PM on 28 Aug 2007

I was just in Australia, spending some love miles (my wife is an Aussie) but also giving some talks, and while there I was interviewed by a journalist named Wendy Frew from the Sydney Morning Herald. She did a nice piece (August 9) on Greenhouse Development Rights called "Rich will have to help poor to save climate," which is perhaps notable for containing the dulcet phrase "coal is the enemy of mankind."

But that's not what I'm writing about.

What I'm writing about is another article by Ms. Frew, dated August 19, this one called "Top suburbs costing the Earth." Here's the lead:

SHOPPING has been exposed as the big culprit in rising water use and greenhouse-gas emissions -- and Sydney's most affluent suburbs are the worst offenders.

New data shows the electricity and water used to produce everything people buy -- from food and clothing to CDs and electrical appliances -- far outweighs any efforts to save water and power in the home, according to an extensive analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the University of Sydney.

Wealthy families in suburbs such as Woollahra, North Sydney, Mosman, and Ku-ring-gai, who can afford to install solar power and large water tanks, still have the biggest ecological footprint because of the goods and services they buy.

Shopping habits represent such a large part of greenhouse-gas emissions that even if every household switched to renewable energy and stopped driving cars tomorrow, total household emissions would fall by less than 20 percent, the study found. On average, every additional dollar of consumption was responsible for 720 grams of greenhouse gas emissions and 28 litres of water.

It's not very long, but well worth reading, and it's based on a footprint calculator that was developed by the Australian Conservation Foundation. I can honestly say that I've never seen anything quite like it here in the U.S. of A.

Wonder how long I'll have to wait?

For story: Shopping causes global warming
6 Comments | Post a Comment

Sweet

"It is a global deal. Your country has not played a role that your people should be proud of and we are going to have stop saying 'they have to move first'.
"We have to come up with a way of allocating obligation to pay," Mr Athanasiou said.
In Australia's case, it would also mean abandoning the coal industry.
"Coal is the enemy of mankind, not to be too blunt about it," he said.

Hooray! The proper phrasing is, "coal is the enemy of the human race," but I won't quibble when the vital message is being conveyed. Nice work.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 12:35 PM on 28 Aug 2007

Oh,

and it's long, long past time to be "blunt about it."

grist.org

by David Roberts at 12:38 PM on 28 Aug 2007

also

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/6/13/115230/255

a nine-mile queu

wow!

by wackatalpidae at 12:45 PM on 28 Aug 2007

It's the urban areas, not the suburbs

The interesting thing about this study that you are referring to is that it is not the suburbs that are polluting more per capita, but rather the urban residential areas.

I don't know enough about Australia to know why this is the case. Are these districts with higher pollution more wealthy districts (and wealthier people pollute more)? Or is it something about the buildings in these districts (eg- more apartment towers, which tend to absorb more heat, and hence higher air-conditioning bills)?

The article you are citing seems to imply the former, but I don't know if that's the whole picture.

New Yorkers, Manhattanites especially, have a much lower footprint on average than the rest of the country. Yet, they are also more wealthy on average. The main reason for this is a lack of car.

Why would urban Australians pollute so much more than urban Americans?

Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca

by Werdna at 1:08 PM on 29 Aug 2007

? re NYC footprint data

Andrew, did this assessment take into account the impact of the goods purchased by New Yorkers?

I've seen some online criticism that Bloomberg's eco agenda has not taken into account the emissions associated with production and shipping of goods to NYC and the later disposal of the waste associated with these goods.

Perhaps this applies to that study Andrew refers to, in which case perhaps Manhattanites bear greater similarity to the wealthy Australians.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

by NonprofitWatch at 1:20 PM on 29 Aug 2007

why?

> Why would urban Australians pollute so much
> more than urban Americans?

You'd have to see the details in the calculator they're using to be sure (I wish we could, maybe it's open source?)

My guess -- they're using a lot more coal per capita, it's the highest CO2-producing fuel, being all carbon to start with.

by hank at 6:33 PM on 13 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.