Trying to connect abstract problems of climate change and environmental degradation, & the typical impacts (greenhouse gas emissions, problems from animal agriculture, etc) back to our everyday actions— wearing a cotton t-shirt -> water pollution; watching Netflix -> coal ash
Weird duality between focus on solutions like “don’t use plastic water bottles” and “convert all energy consumption to renewables in the next 10 years”— large systemic changes that are difficult to understand, and small individual actions that we have some control over
This book focuses on four areas ( 1) Internet/technology, 2) Food, 3) Fashion, 4) Fuel pthat we interact with every day
Something we can do: exert pressure on companies involved in these industries to change their practices, be more sustainable and transparent
1. The Internet & Technology
Physical infrastructure of the Internet exists, and used electricity basically all the time!
Internet & communication tech (ICT) industry uses ~1% all electricity, contributes 2-3% greenhouse gas emissions: a little more than air travel, similar to shipping industry
But… projected to reach 8-21% electricity use in the next decade.
Electronic devices themselves -> impact through very harmful resource extraction processes, inefficiency in energy usage, lack of recycling and disposal at end of life (burning plastic is all-around bad)
The Physical Internet:
Follow electricity wires -> you’ll eventually find “fiber cable routes”… electric wires follow telephone wires follow other networks, back to railroads: which ultimately didn’t have a rational national plan; kind of popped up where geographically convenient. All these lines followed similar paths bc easier to negotiate land use with one company, reinforced each other’s communications
Other physical manifestations of Internet, besides cables and devices: data storage centres & farms, Internet exchange points (IXPs, connect networks)— spatially very large and require lots of electricity to process things, cool down
Original Internet = govt system, ARPAnet, meant to enable comms that could withstand nuclear attack? Located in northern Virginia near Pentagon, Tyson’s Corner. Cheap land, cheap energy (coal)
Exponentially increasing internet usage: more people and more video streaming
Bringing the Cloud to Earth: (Possible solutions and ways to scale sustainably)
Data storage centres & servers in Iceland: lots of geothermal energy, naturally cool climate -> less electricity!
Can also increase efficiency in how servers operate, power more by renewables (Renewable a Energy Credits?). Currently a lot use Diesel engines, very bad and emit lots of particulate matter!
“The Cloud” = where servers and data storage are headed— again, an actual physical thing!
Cryptocurrency = digital assets; ex. Bitcoin refers to piece of code & entire network: finite number exist at one time, determined & slowly released by algorithm; “obtain” one by mining, which is a computer doing complicated math to add it to the ledger (the blockchain). Pretty energy intensive.
Taking it Offline: E-commerce:
UPS = biggest global delivery company; e-commerce increasing proportion of their products
Actually very complicated to calculate environmental impact of e-commerce; depending on what to include (do you subtract transportation to stores? include electricity in making the product?)
Cardboard industry actually hasn’t increased on track with exponential growth with e-commerce growth. Regardless, cardboard production by raw materials or recycling is v energy intensive; paper production = 3rd largest use of energy in US (behind chem manufacturing and petroleum refining). We’re pretty good at recycling cardboard, but getting worse— more going to consumers directly instead of stores
Transportation impact: again, not really a direct increase of transit with e-commerce, but transition to more trucks stopping in neighborhoods, causing congestion, more returns (which often get thrown away!), failed deliveries all make existing traffic patterns more harmful. Speed of delivery also important— faster = worse bc air travel, less efficient packing of deliveries
Possible solutions? Delivery lockers, at off hours
Effects on consumption, energy: Online shoppers don’t stop shopping in person, so use more… also, e-commerce increases individual energy usage by consumers (Internet browsing, stores trying to advertise more?)
Leads to dematerialisation if media, games, CDs, DVDs and all, so less physical stuff and related impacts, but more energy and electricity use. Hard to directly compare what the shift ultimately means. Complicated to think about all these things as systems!
Silicon Valley: A Toxic Waste Dump?
Originally “established” as site of chip manufacturing, lots of factories— left legacy of lots of toxic waste, extreme pollution… now with tech company campuses build directly over top.
Leaking tanks contaminating groundwater with carcinogens, other toxic chemicals leading to miscarriages, developmental problems… “vapour intrusion” into the air
Also direct effects on workers— now esp overseas, where less transparency & oversight: cancer,
Mining for Tech: what are all these computer parts made of?
Tons of mineral wealth in Africa— Congolese cobalt mines -> lithium ion batteries
Extraction of metals for these is incredibly destructive and dangerous. Health hazards for workers and those who live nearby— heavy metals from deep underground brought up, get into soil and water supplies… cobalt usually processed into parts by Chinese companies so little regulation or oversight
Lithium — indigenous people’s land in Chile, Argentina; don’t get any financial benefits but affected by impacts of mining. Areas already pretty dry, and lithium mining = very water intensive
Graphite: mined and refined mainly in China; lots of soot, pollution of water and air
Vampire Power: devices often draw energy constantly, even at low rates, when off or idle…
Coffee makers, routers, etc; impact only growing as more people use more and more electricity for different things… idle load ≈ 1/4 our total electricity consumption!
Residential power consumption = where most of this happens & where we can make the most changes as individuals
Internet of Things -> so many more devices must on to some degree at all times to be read to receive signals… also increases data storage needs. OTOH, IoT can lead to net decreases for things like AC
Can try to use energy-hungry devices at times of overall lower demand on electricity system -> less likely to need to rely on “dirty” energy sources to accommodate
The Tech We Throw Away
E-waste! So much. Planned obsolescence by companies. Very little e-waste recycled (only 20% in US)
Lots exported to developing countries— people make a living taking apart iPhones, etc. but not really regulated… these exports can even count as donations!?
Lots of precious metals in circuit boards; can be recovered by being smashed, dunked in acid to remove plastic… burned… all “recycling” and leads to lots of pollution, heavy metals in air and water; esp bad bc children often do this work and are exposed to these toxins
Cheaper for us to ship away our garbage to these countries than recycle it formally; incentives from other countries to get access to rare earth and precious metals
Still, much cheaper and more efficient to get metals from recycling than extraction from the ground, so some companies in the US ( Apple, Best Buy) do have diff kinds of programs
2. Food
Red meat not just bad bc methane emissions, but also how we grow feed— corn!
Massive problem of food waste
What is organic? Is it actually good? What about eating locally?
What about overfishing? Fish farming!?
Focusing on these issues out of many just as an example, interesting and complicated topics— but many others out there as well.
The Greediest Crop: (corn)
Climate change in Corn Belt is actually happening at different rates than the rest of places, we grow so much corn! So much photosynthesis it’s actually gotten colder, more humid.
Used for animal feed (40%), ethanol (30%), etc. See Michael Pollan.
Biodiversity and native ecosystem decline— huge loss of grasslands, wetlands, and native plants in Corn Belt. Not usually even good land for agriculture; plus, clearing land for crops -> lots of carbon emissions.
Monoculture is easier to manage in some ways, but also v vulnerable to insects, weather, disease. More dependent on fertilisers and pesticides. Eliminates habitats for other species, which can lead to ecosystem collapse.
Bad for soil: physically less stable, and not given chance to recover nutrients (fertiliser driver). Over fertilisation plus unstable soul PLUS more precipitation from climate change -> soil erosion & runoff, pollution of water supply
Nitrogen and phosphorous runoff down rivers into lakes, oceans -> algal blooms. Block light, killing other animals; algae dies and creates hypoxic (dead) zones
Nitrates also bad for human health… as are the chemicals used to treat water for nitrate contamination
Corn = overall very water intensive, in places with not a lot of water to begin with. Also sucks water out of the soil and transfers to air, leading to drought conditions and also extreme precipitation that washes away the soil
Food Waste: lots of it— 30-40% of total food produced; wastes lots of resources and creates lots of carbon emissions
Lots of reasons: food not valued well, expiration dates suck
1/3 of all the food we waste could feed the Americans who currently go hungry.
Lots of crops go unharvested! Consumer preferences (aesthetic standards), hedging bets vs fragility of monoculture, labor shortages, food safety threats
Meat and dairy also wasted a lot (albeit less than produce by quantity) , and probably worse bc larger envt impact
Organic Food: How Good Is It?
Certified organic = no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, no GMOs, rotate crops, etc. But, can still use organic fertilisers and such (aka manure); some of these compounds also have their own negative impacts… complexity!
Relative energy usage btw conventional and organic varies by product, hard to actually quantify.
And in some regions, just not feasible to farm organically— need strategic pesticide use; leads to movements like “eco” certification (expensive though)
Then the problem of lower yield, esp with increased meat consumption worldwide -> increases in land use… rejection of GMOs not always great, bc these can be an efficient option
More ppl going vegan and veg is an option, but not super realistic and had its OWN complications with land and energy use
Ultimately, need to combine conventional and organic practices to deal with increasing populations, less land available for agriculture, climate change effects while reducing pollution to soil, water, air. Neither is sustainable on its own.
How Far Our Food Goes:
Impact of shipping food to grocery stores from around the world?
US still a net exporter of food, but over 1/2 our fruit, 20% veg come from abroad; more varieties and exotic sorts of things- mangoes!! avocado! Lots comes from MX, South America. Good bc gives jobs to people, more diverse diets, but also hurts American farmers…
Energy impact of the transportation? Actually very small compared to overall energy and envt impact of food production. So buying local really doesn’t do much, esp compared to shifting to more plant-based diet. Also, sometimes actually much more efficient to grow certain crops in other countries, where the environment is more suited to them at different times of the year- less storage, need to keep animals in heated buildings, greenhouses, etc. when we want things “out of season”
Unfortunately, climate change -> may not be able to count on our own year-round farming regions (CA, FL)
Also hard to account for true supply chain of “local food”— where did feed, fertiliser, other ingredients come from?
OTOH… we are also kinda exporting our own agricultural emissions to all these other countries; transport and stuff still an externality to the system as a whole
A Sea of Troubles: (fishing industry… even more complicated than everything so far! Intersection of the wild, industry, farming)
2015: seafood = 1/5 global (animal?) protein consumption
We suck at managing fisheries… climate change is fucking up the oceans (coral reefs, New England cod esp), warning oceans making fish migrate to places they probably can’t sustainably live in
New England cod: initially tons of them! Now, their habitat warming at super high rates, populations not recovering
Acidification -> shell fish and corals sad and dissolving; de-oxygenation from fertilisers, temp changes
Aquaculture: needed to support seafood demand. Huge impact on human health (antibiotics, safety, etc) and environment (energy); connection to overfishing— farmed salmon must be fed other fish (small fin fish like anchovies, most demanded for fishing, but mainly for supplements (oil) and meal, not being actually eaten -> v high risk of overfishing and population collapse)
Chinese companies fish these lil guys the most, off the coast of West Africa, pushing out local fishers and fueling their own aquaculture industry
US actually exports lots of seafood, bc preferences for farmed fish (from China?)
Solutions: try to eat more sustainable species?
Less extinction in oceans than in land so far, but “industrial revolution” moving to marine world could change this— deep sea mining, etc
3. Fashion
Very little data and transparency
Fashion companies acting as though consumers need to demand more sustainable options first for them to make changes, but also don’t provide any info for people to know anything about the problems or do so
Here, focus on some specific issues (denim, athleisure— synthetic fibers, fast fashion, viscose rayon— a fake natural fiber!, cheap cashmere) (mainly bc lack of data); hard to quantify or attribute overall effects on envt bc fashion industry so embedded in other systems; ex. animal agriculture for leather, human health impacts of chemicals, toxic impacts of beauty industry
Thirsty for Denim
First of all, a ubiquitous material, esp in the US! Linked with development of country, slavery, genocide of indigenous people
Starting story with Jacob Davis (tailor) & Levi Strauss— Davis got fabric from Strauss, made for a worker in Cali during Gold Rush, style got popular, patented with Strauss.
Gold mining -> awful for indigenous communities; settling of the West with cowboys, etc and extraction of resources all associated with jeans & denim; also associated with Native American genocide?
Jeans = cotton = inseparable from slavery in the South
Effect of cotton on envt? 1/3 of all textiles, takes up 3% all agriculture land, v big carbon impact. Tons of insecticide use (lots of yield increase), genetically modified seeds (BT-cotton, drought tolerant— complicated bc make agriculture somewhat more efficient, less pesticides, but also enshrined big ag as dominant over smaller farmers). Some problematic labor practices now, too
Biggest problem = water use! 3% of all agricultural water supply; often puts huge strain on places where water supply already stressed— Aral Sea disaster
Even after cotton growth, production of textiles -> even more water, sometimes synthetic fibers; dying, finishing to turn fabric blue (also lots of chemicals) requires tons of washing. Things like “stone-washing” -> mining, pollution…
Chemicals used generally not recycled; pollute water and cause health problems for workers
Current trends in water use -> depleting groundwater at unknown rates, aquifers running dry…
Recycling denim/jeans = difficult bc additions of copper, etc (metal waste!
Each step of production of jeans can happen in different countries -> lots of shipping, also leads to emissions
Some companies trying to start initiatives to lessen water use- Levi’s -> “Water, Less” system is generally pretty effective; Everlane -> trying to be responsible & sustainable with water, resource, energy use for denim production; audit factories a lot and work to improve… uncertain how this translates to their other materials
Athleisure Forever! (basically all made of oil-derived polymers)
Rise of synthetics = recent and dramatic; now surpasses cotton! Require less water, but obviously oil, lots of energy, doesn’t degrade, can release antimony and other toxins/metals.
Synthetic fibers (microplastic fibers) permeate so many environments now— very polluting (maybe most of all things?), in all sorts of wildlife; we know a ton of these come from washing clothes. Amount depends on type of clothing, quality, type of washer, etc. Can end up is wastewater treatment “sludge”, which is used as a fertiliser… then fibers get into groundwater, other entry points to water supply. Very few fibers, but still some, pass through treatment plants into water. Some microfibres literally just blow off our clothes into the air!
Catch-22 for companies like Patagonia who make polyester fleece and clothing with recycled plastic is that they also release these microfibres back into the envt!
Fast Fashion, But Going Nowhere:
Cheap textile production -> fast fashion = brand with physical stores, maybe online; styles derived from high fashion brands but much cheaper and lower quality. Ex. Zara, Forever 21, H&M
Enabled by textile factories in China et al., cheapness and constant abundance of synthetic fibers; clothing thus less expensive than other consumer goods
Fashion can outpace traditional 2-4 seasons— new products all the time! And we buy it all. And have to buy even more, bc lower quality and doesn’t lasts as long.
Also v little recycling, donating of textiles; mostly incinerated or in landfills. Difficult to recycle when combinations of fibers, esp natural + synthetic.
Donating clothes can have negative consequences… 1/2 of US donations exported, depress local textile industries…. we do dumb things like print t-shirts for both side of the Super Bowl, with losing team’s automatically meant for donation.
Closed loop production? Only using reused materials and keep using forever, or turn into biodegradable waste; be good about water usage and stuff. Really hard to actually do, v expensive, not efficient or more environmentally friendly. Kind of fake way of justifying fast fashion.
Better option = renting more expensive/better quality clothing and returning when done, for other people to rent?
It’s Not Wood, It’s Rayon: (viscose rayon)
Made from cellulose from plants and trees; originally as a silk replacement, but now third most used textile fiber after polyester and cotton (7% of all).
Made mainly from wood, milled? into fiber; requires lots of chemicals to make (harmful for human health, probably bad for environment?)
Logging usually not super sustainable… ex. destruction of biodiverse old-growth rainforests one Indonesia & replacement with fast-growing lumber trees. 30% rayon made from endangered, ancient forests. Etc, etc.
When made from bamboo, very easy to greenwash (just bc using pulp from bamboo, making rayon chemically from it still pretty bad. If made mechanically, would be better, but more expensive to do.)
Actual better option = made from Belgian flax, or even other clothing?
Chemicals: carbon disulphide (can cause insanity, among other things! Hydrogen disulphide, lye, sulfuric acid
The Yarn That Makes a Desert: (Gobi Desert, specifically)
Gobi is a delicate ecosystem… growing, bc climate change, and also partially bc cashmere goats
Cashmere used to be pretty expensive, now common in fast fashion. Privatisation of industry in Mongolia -> lots of farmers bought cashmere goat herds; Chinese-driven industrialisation pushes herding to edges?
Livestock always -> waste, GHG emissions. These goats in particular live in extreme envts with limited resources, eat entire grass plant (not just leaves), sharp hooves destabilise uprooted soil -> erosion, dust storms (esp bc droughts and more rainstorms from climate change); desertification
Overgrazing goats then don’t have enough to eat -> unhealthy -> produce worse cashmere -> can’t be sold for as much, farmers aren’t supported… forces nomadic herders to give up ancient lifestyles and move to factory jobs…
Bad cashmere also doesn’t last as long, more waste
Desertification -> dust storms to China, mixes with coal dust -> gets to US in 5 days! Still, so much Chinese pollution is in direct response to the whims of the West that we pretend is now their problem.
Fuel
Kind of the major problem— can be technical and complicated, so here focus on things beyond just GHG and climate change: overconsumption of fuels pollutes everything, but also exasperates inequality, entrenches unsustainable systems…
Coal -> ash, which is really bad, toxins, insidious pollution, esp effects low income and rural communities
Wood: technically “renewable” in Europe, but emits GHG, inefficient energy source… deforestation (in US, esp vulnerable in SE)
AC requires lots of harmful chemicals, developing countries requiring more
Transportation obv an increasing issue; planes sacrifice energy for speed vs cargo ships (but specific fuels for ships are bad, ports are really destructive, harm health of people living nearby); automobile pollution also affects non-white minorities much worse than whites in the US— envt injustice
Future of transportation? What are the implications of ride-sharing, electric vehicles?
Our choices as individuals and collectives wrt transportation may have most impact here, also reveal our global connectivity a lot
The Other Problem with Coal: COAL ASH (byproduct of burning coal)
Despite lack of awareness about it, actually one of the most pressing envt issues; moving closer to disaster…
One of largest solid industrial waste streams in US; contains all the bad things— mercury, lead, boron, other heavy metals; many known carcinogens; does not biodegrade or decay. Stored dammed up in water (ponds) or landfills (uncovered, so it can blow away!)
40% recycled -> concrete, wallboard, added to roads, agriculture, etc. When not contained, v problematic.
Recent disasters = breaking dams releasing toxic sludge, rupturing pipes doing the same into rivers; Hurricane Florence and other strong recent storms release coal ash by damaging dams, overflowing landfills
Legal case in TN: toxic chemicals from coal ash pond releasing into groundwater, rivers, soil— despite being legal setup, some levels/rates of pollution = illegal (no liner on many ponds, and very near drinking water sources…)… very carcinogenic
Also complicated, bc despite all these negative envt impacts, coal power plants also enabled lots of rural communities to improve their standards of living, etc a lot. Then again, coal ash ponds disproportionately by poor/powerless communities…
Best solution = excavating ash, draining ponds, but ash still needs to go somewhere! (Lined and covered landfills? But no one wants these near them) And workers who do this often unprotected -> get really sick.
Coal ash not regulated very much until recently (2015)… but rolled back under Trump.
So what can we do? Why should we care? Important to care, even if things don’t directly affect us! And thinking back to, ex., Internet, maybe us watching Netflix is powered by coal and causes ash to be in someone’s drinking water.
The Wood for the Trees: (with a focus on the American SE)
Recent push in U.K. to move from coal power to renewables: but coal power plants turning to burn wood pellets, which counts as renewable! (soon will in the US, too!). All sorts of loopholes and cancelling out of things from replanting trees, not “counting energy usage” twice from harvesting and burning and stuff… and UK = largest importer of wood pellets.
Other problems? Burning wood pellets in common systems actually releases lots more CO2 that coal… less energy dense; releasing sequestered carbon from the trees (and it’ll take decades for replanted trees to replace this)… but power plants who do this get lots of subsidies and avoid paying fees for CO2 emissions
Where the wood is coming from— not enough in Nordic regions or the continent, so import half from the US! Forest and pine plantations in the SE -> big rise in wood pellet mills, not just using “left overs” anymore, but whole new trees, ancient hardwoods.
Happens in South (vs, say, timber-rich NW) bc lack of protection for forests, many forests privately owned -> rapid recent increase in deforestation
Pellet formation itself = very energy intensive, GHG emissions, emission of other compounds bad for envt and human health, smog… mostly not regulated. Wood pellets soon to be “carbon neutral” in US too…
Regardless: sustainable forestry industry important to maintaining forest health— don’t want wildfires, need some controlled burn to keep up overall health; actually increases carbon storage
Sad this is happening in American SE bc very biodiverse, forests protect vs drought and storms. Roots of envt movements mainly in north…
Lots of environmental injustice… shows how problems of one group are problems of everyone.
Staying Cool, Getting Hotter: (AC)
Hydroflourocarbons = big refrigerant, super super powerful GHG… according to Drawdown, limiting or eliminating HFCs = best solution to climate change
Began being used after Montreal Protocol (phased out CFCs, HCFCs). HFCs didn’t harm ozone and impact was unknown— break down quick, but do tremendous damage while they’re there.
Generally not released, except if you have a leak, and sometimes during production
Tension btw developed world- ok with phasing out faster; and developing- just starting to be able to afford ACs with HFCs, and replacements are more expensive, harder to get… also getting hotter in places like India -> eventually “staggered” phase out.
AC also uses lots of electricity! Maybe 6% of all in US, 18% of residential use? And people moving to hotter areas in the US, using AC even more.
Weird cultural impact? AC allowed old ppl to move to Sun Belt, generally vote R… allows people to live in hotter places, reduces heat-related health problems…
Also changes how we live— don’t build houses for ventilation, just for central AC; larger homes and offices
More AC use -> more demand in electric grid -> more blackouts, more use of non-renewable sources of energy to power grid
India, China, Indonesia all experiencing rising incomes -> buying ACs, fridges, TVs (which make ACs work harder)… also all coal powered, and buying inefficient units. But who are we to tell them to not live with AC!? All these places are hot too…
Solution? Energy efficiency standards! Renewable energy on the grid!! Design buildings better!
The Great Big Cargo Route in the Sky:
Where do all those Valentine’s Day roses come from? Probably, by plane, from Colombia, via Miami… trend began (and continued to rise) bc trade agreements to lessen dependence of SA on cocaine; flower exports also protected in more recent agreements to protect soy/corn exports from US (classic). Flowers also pretty high energy impact bc packaging, cold chain
Just an example of SO MANY PLANES flying these days! Lots of increase bc cargo, but even more so bc passengers. Not only GHG emissions, but NO2, SO2, aerosols, water vapour— have heat-trapping effects, ozone
Airplanes = Germany in carbon emissions (2.5%), only increasing— at least getting more efficient. But not a lot of alternative fuels available, and would require large-scale changes in fleets to move to them
Political complications: international airplane emissions don’t actually belong to anyone… shared by everyone. So no one. Some responsibility to airlines to purchase carbon credits, but still difficult to regulate & reconcile total impact
What can we do? Not fly as much, unless really long flights (then better than driving). Fly direct (taking of and landing are worst). Fly economy (more efficient— first class could be 9x less so!). Don’t fly Qantas (apparently least efficient). Buy carbon offsets.
Planes now flying more over (and closer to) the Arctic… not good.
Shipping: The World in a Box (int’l shipping industry)
≈90% of cargo shipping (cf. 1% by plane).
Mainly by container ships— 1950s, NC guy McClean wanted more efficient system… just put stuff from truck containers straight onto ships! Eventually sized standardised, boats getting bigger -> dredging of ports (v bad for envt, like mangroves!)
This centralised system -> decentralized manufacturing industry. So we can cheaply outsource labor (and our carbon emissions) to China, etc. with less regulations
Shipping is most energy efficient compared to alternatives, but! Problems! Too many ships -> often returning empty, esp since China stopped accepting recycling. Run on bunker fuel, what’s left after all the refinement of oil (tons of sulfur) except for asphalt; a “dirty fuel” that leads to more than carbon emissions- soot, sulfur oxides.
Most shipping lines, and thus pollution, near coastlines (airborne impact), also directly pollutes oceans
What happens to ships when they’re done for? Scrapped! Bad for environment! Also outsourced! (literally deforest and dredge to make scrapyards, leading to extinctions…)
Black carbon = more powerful pollutant than CO2; “stains” regional atmosphere, absorbs heat— esp bad for ice and snow in Arctic, Himalayas, Pacific NW. Comes from heavy fuel oil, which is already much harder to clean up if spilled bc sinks, emulsifies, sticks to ice… and more shipping happening through the Arctic as it melts. Basically, black carbon = super impactful… on the plus side, also big impact if use is reduced!
Cars, Trucks, and Justice: (Beyond CO2)
Trucks -> disproportionate carbon emissions… really inefficient (7 MPG!!), run on diesel (dirtier fuel), loopholes around engine regulations (“gliders”)
Lots of trucks are empty and under-utilised -> very inefficient (bc “instant shipping”)
Cars- we drive. A lot. Mileage regulations would help, but Trump. Internal combustion engines are super inefficient- waste ~80% gas!
Parking lots, roads = bad. Cement production -> tons of emissions.
Disproportionate effect of air pollution from vehicles:NO2, ozone, PM2.5 = some of most tightly regulated forms of air pollution, v bad for human health. All effect non-white, low income communities much more— likely to live near roads.
Pollution magnifies existing inequalities by causing different health outcomes solely based on where we live, usually a legacy of racist govt policies, which in turn lead to more economic inequality, and so forth. But even race alone leads to more exposure.
Not just in US; also UK, other European countries.
Hitching a Ride(share):
Do ride-hailing apps lead to more or less cars on the roads?
To clarify: cars themselves are the problem! Just looking at how ride-sharing services play into things.
Main argument for Uber et al = reducing personal car use, ride-share instead. But the latter cars still add miles… maybe even more-so, bc have to pick random ppl up all over, drive around empty all the time. And personal car ownership on the rise… also leads to decreased use of mass transit, which is far more efficient
Can maybe help w mass transit by connecting people to subway stations and stuff, but also can be a replacement to efforts for cities to invest in their own public transport
People don’t actually use the “shared” feature (ex. Uber Pool), even if they want to, very low actual match rates.
Overall adds traffic… annoying and air pollution (even literally inside your car)
Solutions? Lyft maybe buying carbon offsets for all rides? Uber very tentatively encouraging drivers to use electric cars? Automated vehicles? (Would be more efficient in some ways, bc reduce drag, no personal use; but also more convenient, cheaper -> increase driving overall, less public transit? Could combine with ride sharing to be good though!) Cities trying thing congestion pricing plans.
Conclusion
Everything is connected!
We use things because we can, with little regard for consequences for environment, other people
Living in line with our personal values is important, even though it won’t fix everything (/anything). Our small sacrifices remind us of what’s at stake.
Always better to know more to make better decisions re: consumption, but it’s also responsibility of corporations to be more transparent so that we can actually do this.