Chunky, challenging, change.

A very brief history of my attempts at 90%.
I started out trying to get in touch with www.acfonline.org to see if their footprint calculator could be updated to fit the 90% reduction parameters discussed at Casaubon’s Book. Inflation (particularly for food) means even a couple of years can give a distorted picture. No reply after a couple of weeks. Busy working on their own save-the-planet projects, I guess.

Then I tried seeing if I could modify the underlying data (the spreadsheet behind the calculator is at http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/. So I sat down and gave some serious thought to what was really going on here, and what was actually achievable and what was really necessary instead of just a “me too”.

For the benefit of anyone else who’d like alternative ways to approach this very worthy project, here’s my plan.

Premise 1: Targets and benchmarks are good. The main problem with this one is that it’s proving quite difficult to find Australian benchmarks – particularly ones that are clear about exactly what is being counted. The ISA spreadsheet behind the ACF calculator is probably the best I’ve found, being integrated (and thereby factoring in the water used to generate the energy you use and vice versa and etcetera) but it includes 1.0 hectares automatically (out of a total average 7.0) for government services and defence. True enough (I benefit from the infrastructure that’s paid for by the taxes paid by coal mining companies who export carbon emissions to China) but that 1.0 ha is already more than a 90% reduction would allow – even if I never ate, drank, purchased, consumed, or disposed of anything else. I lose before I even begin, which is a recipe for doomerism.

Premise 2: While the 90%ers note the importance of being able to show governments and others (through critical mass) that these significant reductions are achievable, Here in largely-coal-fired Oz we’re in an earlier stage of the movement - in fact, I'm not sure there really is a Peak Oil movement yet. And we KNOW our government isn't listening. I think we need to build the groundswell before we can develop community solutions.

I believe the best thing for me to do is make change that’s radical enough to get people talking, (to galvanise others into action) but not so radical they talk without being tempted to see if they can do it too. 90% for me is discouraging. The truly irritating thing about Sharon at Casaubon’s Book is how precisely she defeats my intellectual rationalising before I even formulate it(the most recent being my very important job blah blah which I couldn’t give up blah blah because it actually helps the environment etcetera blah).

Mostly, I think what we need now are more people, discussing what this means in an Australian context, and harnessing wider people power for the job of paving the way for acceptance of greater change.

As readers may have realised I’m still in the closet on lots of this stuff. I work in a suit, in the city and fly interstate for work once a month. The mums at my local kindy have expressed (outward) admiration for the healthful contents of my kids' lunchboxes, but one recently confessed to my partner that they think the kids are deprived on that basis. My nearest farmers’ market is a drive away (and no farmer is “local” to Sydney’s eastern suburbs). My water bill is identical quarter after quarter regardless of how much we use (they don’t bother working out usage in our apartment block). And a pot of basil on the kitchen bench is doing quite nicely, but not making inroads into feeding our family local foods. I'm up against some very pedestrian challenges, like many ordinary concerned people. I’d like to think that my audience is others like me (you know who you are!) in suits, cities, suburbs, and our school community and I'd like to show that chunky changes are possible. Easy even. This movement has to BE mainstream after all.

So in case you’re still with me, here’s my plan. Please feel free to comment, suggest, argue, disagree and / or compete. Most of all, I want you to hold me to it. And to tell me what your “stretch” goals are on this front. The important thing for me is not what you’re doing (or not doing) but what you commit to do that you aren’t doing now. The change is the challenge.

The broad target for me is a 50% reduction of current overall impact, over 1 year, with further reductions (probably a further 50%, but TBC) the following year.

It’s not 90%. And I’d like to say that right up front, because it’s tempting to blame the lack of data, the weather, the alignement of stars – anything to evade responsibility. Here’s the reality: I can’t commit to 90%. I am limited in what I’m prepared to forgo. The job, for the moment isn’t negotiable. The fact of work-outside-the-home limits the time I can spend on labour-intensive at-home-reductions.

In some areas, our reduction to 50% of our current may approximate the 90%.

The ISA site gives an average electricity figure of $510 per person, per year ($2040 for a family of four) which I’ll estimate at $550 to allow for inflation since the calculator was produced (ie $2200/family/year). Our annual household bill for 100% green energy is $680. The same amount of ordinary energy would probably (again, just an estimate) be $550. That makes us about a quarter of average consumption. Halving it would take us to 12.5% of average (close, no cigar, to the 90% plan). (Is this right? Have I missed something? ) I am aware of course, that green energy means I’m theoretically not creating any carbon emissions from domestic energy use, but I accept the argument that renewables are a chimera and that energy efficiency / usage reductions are the only long-term solution.

While that’s the goal for the 12 month period, for the coming 3 months, the aim is to maintain our energy bills at current levels. We are moving from a very warm, sun-drenched apartment optimally designed for passive solar gain to a draughty old house with room for a veggie patch. If we can manage this without getting a heater over the winter, I’ll regard it as a victory. Ironically, our greenhouse footprint will go up in the new house, because cooking is gas instead of green. Still more ironically, our total energy bill will go down as a result of this extra pollution, gas being significantly cheaper than renewables in our screwed up energy market. BTW there’s only 3 other areas for reduction I can see at home : hot water, fridge and standby stuff. (The only other electricity we use in any quantity is light, cooking and computers). That’s not going to stop me trying to halve usage charges come Spring (I’m thinking solar hot water or instantaneous gas hot water).

A different example: food consumption. ISA gives animal products meat (0.9ha) & dairy (0.15ha) consumption a combined 1.05 hectares (out of a total food and bev 1.8ha). As vegetarians, we are already between 10 and 15% of average as far as animal foods are concerned, or already 50% for food overall (though presumably, we eat more veges and grains to make up for the absence of meat). I don’t think we spend $28 a week on dairy (which is what ISA suggests is average for four people) and other obvious areas would be “Other foods” and “beverages” - I’m guessing this is sweets, convenience foods, and other items that are manufactured rather than grown (already not much of this in our diet).

I want to reduce household car-dependency by 50% over a year – perhaps the most ambitious of my Stage 1 plans. We offset our carbon emissions with Greenfleet this year, but I know having a few trees planted somewhere is a questionable stop-gap measure (and a bad attitude). The whole car-culture has to go. My goal for the year (underway) is to move somewhere where a car is not required (we’ll go from being homeowners to being renters to do this in the next couple of weeks) and the aim is to get rid of one of the cars over the next six months eliminating half of all car-trips from our life (ie not allow the other car to absorb trips the eliminated car previously took). I’m thinking seriously (still thinking, not yet doing) about getting and using a bike instead, although public transport or carpooling remain better options than our current car-dependant lifestyle. Some tough decisions / interesting choices start to emerge here. We can’t reach most of our friends or family without a car. Do we build a life around a new local community? Do we limit school choices available to our kids? I have nothing but respect for Sharon, Colin Beavan and others, but for the moment I’m trying to do this in the context of an urban, Sydney life.

I want to grow enough food to reduce our food purchases to mostly “dry goods” by $ value – grains, dried pulses, spices (none of which, I’m afraid, will be local). This is easier than working out any kind of 50% because (embarrassingly) I have no idea what we spend on food (or anything else for that matter until compacting, for which I can list every transgression). My dairy estimate is based on how many times we buy milk each week and how often we run out cheese. This is potentially challenging because I suspect that the veggie patch thing, even if successful, won’t be productive for several months. Not to mention that with both of us working full time (with little time and less experience) I’m not sure how productive this patch will actually be (whaddaya mean you have to pick off the caterpillars every day???).

There’s a limited amount I can do on water without any idea how much we currently use. We shower in pairs (a toddler or two gatecrashing), flush only when necessary and use a front-loading washing machine quite sparingly. If we can grow food without irrigating with tap water, that will be a significant water reduction on current, bought food. A rainwater tank would also help – if our new landlord is into it - and I’m going to design and implement full greywater recycling onto the (planned) veggie patch by summer.

We are going to have to make some purchases in order to “fund” some of these reductions (warm clothes stands out if we’re to have no heating – a bike, when we get rid of a car). But I can live with reductions as a reason to buy – even new if it’s the only useful option.

Oh and one last thing. In true pyramid scheme fashion (and so that my “groundswell” reasons for eschewing 90% aren’t just hot air) I’m going to convince two other people to accompany me on the 50% down journey and be accountable for their commitment. Aside from 50% reductions they commit to, they need commit to convincing two more people (for whom they will be accountable) and so on (like a chain letter).

Reductions beyond a certain point are much more difficult to make and sustain. This part of the plan recognises (much like a carbon trading scheme) that it’s less painful and more significant a reduction for me to buy my neighbour compact fluros than for me to turn off my last light. It allows us to make big reductions for relatively little pain *initially* by picking all the low hanging fruit regardless of whose garden it’s in (another overtired mixed metaphor). And importantly, it’s a way to build a larger community of people alert to austerity measures, so we can ultimately work together for more radical change.

*****

Let’s just be clear (in the spirit of full disclosure). I’m aware the limits I’m setting on what’s negotiable limit my reductions. I am baffled at what mental gymnastics allow me to keep my job, a car, a fridge etc in the circumstances.

I’m aware that refusing the heroic-sounding 90% challenge is in effect giving the finger to someone, somewhere, probably on the other side of the world, who this week cannot feed their kids because of my consumption.

And it is a very empty feeling to see my selfishness win over what I know would be just.

I’m not seeking absolution on this, I just wanted you to know I know.