Right now, could you prepare a slice of toast with zero embodied carbon emissions?

Since at least the 2000s, big polluters have tried to frame carbon emissions as an issue to be solved through the purchasing choices of individual consumers.

Solving climate change, we’ve been told, is not a matter of public policy or infrastructure. Instead, it’s about convincing individual consumers to reduce their “carbon footprint” (a term coined by BP: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook).

Yet, right now, millions of people couldn’t prepare a slice of toast without causing carbon emissions, even if they wanted to.

In many low-density single-use-zoned suburbs, the only realistic option for getting to the store to get a loaf of bread is to drive. The power coming out of the mains includes energy from coal or gas.

But.

Even if they invested in solar panels, and an inverter, and a battery system, and only used an electric toaster, and baked the loaf themselves in an electric oven, and walked/cycled/drove an EV to the store to get flour and yeast, there are still embodied carbon emissions in that loaf of bread.

Just think about the diesel powered trucks used to transport the grains and packaging to the flour factory, the energy used to power the milling equipment, and the diesel fuel used to transport that flour to the store.

Basically, unless you go completely off grid and grow your own organic wheat, your zero emissions toast just ain’t happening.

And that’s for the most basic of food products!

Unless we get the infrastructure in place to move to a 100% renewables and storage grid, and use it to power fully electric freight rail and zero emissions passenger transport, pretty much all of our decarbonisation efforts are non-starters.

This is fundamentally an infrastructure and public policy problem, not a problem of individual consumer choice.

#ClimateChange #urbanism #infrastructure #energy #grid #politics #power @green

  • 18107@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The best lie from the fossil fuel industry is putting the burden of responsibility on the individual, and not the corporations.
    The idea of a “carbon footprint” was created by the fossil fuel industry to convince people and governing bodies that individual people are the problem (and solution), and to distract from the pollution caused by industries.

    There is so much completely unnecessary waste in industries that individuals couldn’t possibly compete with. Most people aren’t even aware of how much is wasted before the products even reach them.

    The best way to fight climate change is to hold companies accountable.

      • Monika@mstdn.social
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        @jackofalltrades @18107 @ajsadauskas

        By voting for the parties who don’t take any donations from corporations.

        By voting for candidates who don’t rely on wealth accumulated from investing in those big corporations.

        By understanding what greenwashing is, not falling into a trap of culture wars, and recognising that majority of people have more in common with poor people than with the super rich.

        By understanding that the super rich trade their humanity for cash, every time.

    • JW prince of CPH@norrebro.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @18107 @ajsadauskas - which means the best way to fight is politica. Yes, I know this sucks immensely, I know it’s slow, unforgiving, difficult - but it’s the only way.

      “- and let them know that if they don’t do it, I will rain hellfire down on them all. I will show them that government is more powerful than any corporation, and the only reason they think it tilts the other way is because of civil servants looking for a fat private sector handout…”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A98vqgBsoxQ

    • Michael Heaney@mastodon.scot
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @18107 @ajsadauskas so the 100 million barrels of oil supplied, purchased by consumers and burned into the atmosphere every day has no effect on the climate. That’s good to know. I mistakenly thought my gas boiler, my petrol car and all the plastic I was putting into recycling was harming the planet. Phew. I’m off to fill up my tank.

      • wav3ydave@mas.to
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        @benchwhistler @18107 @ajsadauskas https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

        “This is fundamentally an infrastructure and public policy problem, not a problem of individual consumer choice.”

        The infrastructure is the millions of barrels of oil and the policies & systems in place to maintain its distribution for profit. You may or may not be able to switch out your boiler or use your car less. Many people won’t have any other option without huge systemic changes. Making it about individual choices won’t fix it.

        • Jack of all trades@mas.to
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          @wav3ydave @benchwhistler @18107 @ajsadauskas

          “Many people won’t have any other option without huge systemic changes.”

          Yes. And at the same time many people *have* the option and are picking the wrong one.

          It’s quite simple really, look at it this way:

          Who is responsible for more emissions: the rich or the poor?

          Who has more freedom to choose different options in life: the rich or the poor?