[MCN] How much does consumer spending contribute to greenhouse gas emissions?

[Lance Olsen]

Google’s AI Overview
Consumer spending contributes to over 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the production, transport, and use of goods and services for households—including housing, food, transportation, and clothing—generate a massive amount of emissions, both directly and indirectly through supply chains. For example, emissions from producing a single piece of clothing or a new phone often occur in the supply chain before the item even reaches the consumer. 
Key impacts of consumer spending on greenhouse gas emissions
Direct and indirect emissions: Household consumption is responsible for a significant portion of emissions, a figure that rises when considering both the energy used in homes and the emissions from all stages of a product's lifecycle, from raw materials to manufacturing and transportation.
Transportation and housing: These are two of the largest contributors to household emissions, both at home and through imported goods.
Food and goods: Food choices, like consuming a lot of meat and processed items, and the purchasing of new goods like clothing, furniture, and electronics, are major drivers of emissions, especially overseas emissions from supply chains.
Service sector: Even services like healthcare, banking, and lodging have a considerable carbon footprint, with a large portion often coming from their supply chains.
Income disparity: The carbon footprint of consumption varies significantly by income. A study found that the wealthiest 21% of households were responsible for 61% of total emissions, and high-income households have a much higher per-capita carbon footprint. 
What this means for climate solutions
While systemic changes from governments and industries are crucial, household consumption patterns are an essential component of climate policy.
Changes in lifestyle, such as reducing consumption of energy-intensive goods, switching to a more plant-based diet, or choosing to buy less or buy secondhand, can have a significant impact. 

=============

“...many scientists say deep emissions cuts are necessary … to prevent … dangerous consequences of global warming. 

"Getting from here to there would require a massive economic shift.”

Rachel Pannett and Jeffrey Ball. “Australia Approves Energy Bill.”  
The Wall Street Journal  p.A7, August 21, 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The energy transition is strictly necessary. But it’s going to be very, very hard.

 “Every sector of the economy will have to switch to new technologies, consumers will have to change behaviors, new supply chains will have to be built, and all this has to happen in every major economy, in just a few decades, and at the cost of a whole generation’s savings,” BloombergNEF’s Michael Liebreich wrote in 2023. “What could be harder?”

Well, a business-as-usual scenario would be harder. In a trajectory where the world does not curb its greenhouse gas emissions, climatic conditions would soon become untenable for much of the world, leading to major food shortages and dangerous levels of political unrest, among other crises.

Decarbonization is going to be brutal, but a failure to act has resulted in a ‘code red for humanity.’ Ultimately, we can make it easier for ourselves. We should start by being realistic about the challenges we face so we can plan together how to overcome them. 

Ollprice.com May 1, 2024

The Cold Hard Truth  About  Renewable Energy Adoption

By Haley Zaremba

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Cold-Hard-Truth-About-Renewable-Energy-Adoption.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bigskynet.org/pipermail/missoula-community-news_bigskynet.org/attachments/20251104/6249bfcc/attachment.htm>