“If you were on a ship taking on water, you wouldn’t ask the captain if we’re screwed; you’d pick up a bucket and start bailing out water.” –Jason Smerdon, climate scientist at the Columbia Climate School.
Some climate actions demand big behavioural changes of us. They feel difficult, slow, and unlikely to get widespread adoption. These require system-wide effort and resources to achieve, and I have to remind myself of society-wide changes that have actually happened, like the drop in smoking we’ve seen since the 1960s. I think reducing food waste probably falls into this category, especially because most food waste occurs in individual households.
But other climate actions fall under a nice umbrella of simple efficiency gains, for energy use or the emissions generated. These seem like amazing coincidences, because the systems we already have (or trends that are already in place) make them feel way more doable and attractive to the average person. In fact, people probably don’t even have to care about the climate to adopt them, because they mean exerting less effort, feeling less stressed, or spending less money.
Let’s take a look at some of these.
-
Grocery delivery.
I remember first trying this during COVID lockdowns, and being pretty disappointed by the result. I received a single banana instead of a bunch, and there were many substitutions that I didn’t want. But lately I’ve tried it again, and the systems seem much better.
When Renita and I first started looking into possible options to reduce food system emissions, grocery delivery came up as a surprising one. The science behind it is that a huge amount of emissions are generated simply from everyone driving to the grocery store and home again. Grocery delivery systems can be much more efficient, because the person delivering the groceries can optimize their route, and the efficiency gains go up as more and more people use it.
I find this one funny, because it reminds me of milk delivery systems that used to be much more popular in North America, and that apparently a small group of people still use! A milkman would absolutely take the most efficient route to deliver milk to everyone, and it prevents all the emissions from people firing up their cars and driving around to get milk. I’m not advocating for bringing back the milkman, but it’s interesting that this climate action already has a history.
2. Meal kits
Many people I talk to are concerned about the environmental impact of meal delivery kits like HelloFresh or goodfood. The concerns are usually around packaging waste, but I think there’s also a bit of an underlying assumption that we should be making more home-cooked meals from scratch. When they’re studied, though, meal kits tend to result in less food waste, since each person is getting exact amounts of what they need, rather than buying the amount the grocery store is offering and wasting the rest. Imagine all the times you’ve purchased ingredients for a specific recipe, and then used only a small amount of it and eventually tossed the rest. Anecdotally, I always notice this for myself over the holidays: I want to make something special, I go buy some exotic ingredients, and as a result I usually spend more on groceries and waste more food.
Meal kits also have the same efficiency gains, (or at least potential efficiency gains) of grocery delivery: the company can optimize routes to cut down on emissions from individual customers who would otherwise all be driving to the grocery store and back again.
Although I haven’t seen studies on this, my guess is that grocery delivery systems and meal kits might help at least some people to be more intentional about nutrition and their food budget (again speaking from personal experience). You have to be much more deliberate about what you want, rather than grabbing things from the shelves. I think the added delivery cost might even be less than the cumulative cost of gas, time, and impulse purchases involved with going to the store.
Meal kits aren’t for everyone, but they’re a tool worth having in our toolkit. The convenience factor with both grocery delivery and meal kits is significant for many people. It removes a good amount of the mental load of food, and it saves a ton of time and stress of going to the grocery store. I think it’s a great option for any clients you might have who face these barriers.
3. Microwaves
Microwaves use much less energy, and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions, than ovens. They’re also pretty good at preserving nutrients, they’re convenient, and can save people money on utility bills. Obviously, there are downsides in cooking capabilities, and chefs and foodies might be horrified by this suggestion, but for the average person reheating their leftovers or making an easy weeknight meal, microwaves are in the sweet spot of being easy, climate-friendly, and somewhat nutritious depending on what the food is.
4. LED lightbulbs
I probably don’t have to convince you of the climate benefits of switching to LED lightbulbs, but it’s something we should continue to implement and push for at work and at home. I’m making the case that they’re easier and more convenient than incandescent bulbs because they’re so long-lasting that you very rarely need to change them. Less work and there’s a small amount of utility bill savings (more savings are possible at big institutions like hospitals!).
5. Smart thermostats
Similar to LED bulbs, this tech is becoming more adopted in homes and workplaces because they can end up saving on utility costs, and once they’re well programmed, people don’t need to pay as much attention to ambient temperature compared to regular thermostats.
6. Telepresence
Most people want the option of working from home at least some of the time. Working from home means that people don’t have the time and stress of daily commuting, they don’t have to spend as much money on gas and car maintenance, and it means far less emissions go into the atmosphere (not to mention the general air pollution from all of us commuting). It also helps people to eat out less, which may help them save on food costs and get a bit more nutrition from eating at home.
Telepresence for events like conferences can also have huge potential for equitable access–for people who want to attend something but have mobility limitations, or have kids, or can’t afford the travel costs, telepresence greatly reduces the barriers to entry. Sure, remote work isn’t quite the same as in-person meetings, building relationships, or getting some mentoring from people around the workspace. But having flexibility makes things much easier for most, and it can have significant savings for the climate.
Ok, that’s it! What did I miss? What are you planning to implement after reading this? Write to us if it’s inspired you to make a change for convenience and the climate.
Anneke