There’s a problem with climate action today: Too many people think they’re going green when, in fact, they’re making the problem worse.
That problem is reflected in findings from a survey conducted last year by The Washington Post and the University of Maryland:
59% of people think that by recycling more, they can tackle climate change (recycling does almost nothing to reduce your climate impact).
51% think flying has little impact on climate change, even though flights often account for the largest chunk of individual carbon footprints.
Less than a quarter of respondents think cutting out meat or dairy will do anything for climate; in fact, animal agriculture is a huge driver of climate change.
These misdirected priorities are what I call climate red herrings, or well-intentioned actions that nonetheless distract us from the bigger, broader threat of climate change. And climate red herrings are everywhere in our modern lifestyle.
Let’s start with recycling: Though it’s arguably the easiest way to “go green” (read: requires the least sacrifice), it has little impact on your carbon footprint: Household recycling ranked 55 out of 80 climate solutions identified by Project Drawdown.
But recycling is hardly the only climate red herring. Remember the straw debate? People got so obsessed with eliminating straws in their local cafes that they lost sight of a major problem in front of them: Coffee beans account for a huge amount of carbon, even higher than other high-emitters like pork, chicken, eggs, and palm oil.
Climate red herrings are so tricky because so many actions feel green.
Urban agriculture is one particularly sneaky red herring. Growing plants locally in cities seems green, but it’s, on average, six times more carbon-intensive than conventional agriculture, according to a study published this month.
“Most of the climate impacts at urban farms are driven by the materials used to construct them — the infrastructure,” said study co-lead author Benjamin Goldstein. “These farms typically only operate for a few years or a decade, so the greenhouse gases used to produce those materials are not used effectively. Conventional agriculture, on the other hand, is very efficient and hard to compete with.”
The same problem is found in local farmers markets. Walking to your farmers market to pick out some locally sourced food seems like the greenest way to spend a morning. But in reality, transportation and packaging account for a mere fraction of emissions from food.
What accounts for a much larger share of transportation emissions is how we get places (god forbid you actually drove to the market). And our tendency to opt for and invest in cars and car-centric infrastructure.
Unlike other sources of carbon, transportation emissions in the United States are actually increasing. The simple fix seems to be just making everything electric. But like most climate red herrings, the simplest option often requires more skepticism.
Some larger electric vehicles (like the F-150 Lightning, whose gas-powered counterpart is the most popular vehicle in the U.S.) release more carbon than smaller, gas-powered cars.
And even smaller electric vehicles aren’t carbon neutral: Their batteries require rare materials, they’re carbon intensive to produce, and they plug into grids that are powered by fossil fuels.
So if everything emits carbon dioxide, what are we expected to do? The easiest option is to throw our hands up and call it a day.
Instead, we should start by recognizing the folly of “carbon footprints.” After all, carbon footprints were invented by oil and gas companies to deflect blame from themselves. And climate red herrings are one of the most popular tools these companies use.
Big Oil/Big Meat/Big Dairy/Big Car/Big Whatever wants you to get bogged down in “green” actions that do little or nothing to slow climate change. It gives them a license to proceed with business as usual (e.g., if people feel good about recycling more, no one questions how much oil and gas are being produced, sold, and burned).
So whenever it comes to a company framing itself or its products as green, it’s best to be skeptical. So many industries are in the business to make money, not to protect the Planet.
Once we recognize this, we can be more intentional about our decisions and avoid the trap of climate red herrings.
yes!!! My most hated one is just random green swaps. e.g. Plastic free phone cases but the company encourages you to buy about five! “Eco” cotton sanitary towels and tampons that go into the same bin. Sure it could been seen as a STEP but it’s not the final destination. Really really carefully considering our purchases choices and saying no i feel will have the biggest impact than simply keeping up the same shopping habits with simple swaps.