Frugalism: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
About half of all [[energy]] usage is affected by '''what people buy, and how much of it.''' | '''About half''' of all [[energy]] usage is affected by '''what people buy, and how much of it.''' | ||
{{minor|<small>Pie chart will be added here soon. See also: [[Why energy usage serves as a good general estimate of carbon emissions]]</small>.}} | {{minor|<small>Pie chart will be added here soon. Mining + manufacturing + transportation of goods... adds up to half of the pie. See also: [[Why energy usage serves as a good general estimate of carbon emissions]]</small>.}} | ||
In this sense, we '''can''' save the planet by being '''cheap'''. | In this sense, we '''can''' save the planet by being '''cheap'''. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Consider various types of consumer goods, such as clothing, electronics, kitchenware, furniture etc. For each good, consider how long it ''could'' last. Then compare with the status quo of how often people ''actually'' replace it. Using the ratio between the two stats, we can calculate what percent of environmental impacts could be avoided if people chose to replace stuff less often. | Consider various types of consumer goods, such as clothing, electronics, kitchenware, furniture etc. For each good, consider how long it ''could'' last. Then compare with the status quo of how often people ''actually'' replace it. Using the ratio between the two stats, we can calculate what percent of environmental impacts could be avoided if people chose to replace stuff less often. | ||
}} | }} | ||
<!-- TODO: | <!-- TABLE could look like this: | ||
{|class="wikitable" | |||
!Product | |||
!How often<br />people replace it<br />(status quo)<br /><small>(statistical harmonic mean)</small> | |||
!Lifespan with<br />minimal effort | |||
!Lifespan with<br />maximum effort {{p|(i.e. being willing to keep it until it's completely unusable)}} | |||
!Note | |||
|- | |||
|Couch | |||
|6 years | |||
|10 years<br />(−40% <small>environmental footprint</small>) | |||
|20 years<br />(−70% <small>environmental footprint</small>) | |||
|Using data from... | |||
|} | |||
--> | |||
<!-- TODO: after adding the data, add this commentary: | |||
'''Why do people replace things so much more often than they have to?''' | |||
* Hypothesis: Psychological motivations may include... | |||
*# Believing that one's current possessions are too worn out or not good enough (even when they're actually still okay). | |||
*# Wanting to "keep up" with trends (note that there are other less-wasteful ways to do this). | |||
*# Unawareness of just how much of an environmental/human-labor impact this all has. | |||
--> | |||
<!-- TODO: more things to add: | |||
* Also mention [[appliances]] - does replacing them really save energy when you consider the energy it takes to manufacture/deliver/install the new appliance? Rule of thumb: if it saves money (without gov't subsidizing the replacement) then yes. (also note that "big oil companies are subsidized too" is true but not a counterargument. manufacturing the appliance relies just as much on subsidized oil (maybe moreso) as the energy in your home). | * Also mention [[appliances]] - does replacing them really save energy when you consider the energy it takes to manufacture/deliver/install the new appliance? Rule of thumb: if it saves money (without gov't subsidizing the replacement) then yes. (also note that "big oil companies are subsidized too" is true but not a counterargument. manufacturing the appliance relies just as much on subsidized oil (maybe moreso) as the energy in your home). | ||
* Talk about [[thrift stores]] (make new page?) and how they get overloaded (too many donations, not enough buyers, stuff still ends up in the landfill) and the solution is for people to not buy so much NEW stuff in the first place. Culturally we need to make it our default that when we need some item we first check our own homes, then ask friends/neighbors if they have one they aren't using, then look for it in thrift stores or used online, and then only as a last resort buy it new. I can uncomment this talk when I phrase it better and after I filled out the 'examples' section above so people can first see why this matters. | * Talk about [[thrift stores]] (make new page?) and how they get overloaded (too many donations, not enough buyers, stuff still ends up in the landfill) and the solution is for people to not buy so much NEW stuff in the first place. Culturally we need to make it our default that when we need some item we first check our own homes, then ask friends/neighbors if they have one they aren't using, then look for it in thrift stores or used online, and then only as a last resort buy it new. I can uncomment this talk when I phrase it better and after I filled out the 'examples' section above so people can first see why this matters. | ||
--> | --> | ||
Revision as of 18:17, 8 September 2023
About half of all energy usage is affected by what people buy, and how much of it. Pie chart will be added here soon. Mining + manufacturing + transportation of goods... adds up to half of the pie. See also: Why energy usage serves as a good general estimate of carbon emissions.
In this sense, we can save the planet by being cheap.
We can still have nice things, just replace them less often.
Note: This is mostly relevant to people who live in developed countries, especially middle-class and richer. If you take a walk in a middle-class neighborhood on garbage day, you'll see the type of stuff people throw out.
Examples
This section has not been filled in yet.
Analysis needed for this section: Consider various types of consumer goods, such as clothing, electronics, kitchenware, furniture etc. For each good, consider how long it could last. Then compare with the status quo of how often people actually replace it. Using the ratio between the two stats, we can calculate what percent of environmental impacts could be avoided if people chose to replace stuff less often.
Tips
This section has not been filled in yet.