I ended my review of 2009 promising to write more about green issues and how I plan to lessen my impact on the environment. Now I expand on those ideas further.
As I reflected upon in my yearly review, I made one substantial change in my behaviour, and a few smaller ones, that are hopefully reducing my carbon footprint. No longer relying on a car is something I can take a great deal of pride in, although I should confess that I still find driving desirable, especially since my discovery of the Volvo C30.
Other small changes — switching off lights when they are not being used, reusing plastic containers when getting a take away, using a bag for life, turning off my computer overnight — might not make a substantial difference, but hopefully set an example to others.
As such, I find myself criticising other people for making decisions that I don’t believe to be in the interests of sustainability. For example, the perceived need to own televisions of ever increasing size, which seems less about improving the viewing experience, more a wish to conform with this unfounded measure of success.
A friend who brought their iPhone at the same time as me, recently upgraded ‘because they were told they could’. This perpetual upgrade cycle, driven by phone companies wishing to get customers onto new tariffs or contracts also frustrates me. I certainly have no plans to upgrade my device for the foreseeable future.
Undermined
Yet on many occasions, friends have questioned such criticism, especially given the amount of flying I’ve been doing over the last few years, which has not only countered other changes I’ve made but also undermined the example I’ve been trying to set.
Having said that, I will staunchly defend the practice of travel. I think leaving the comfort zone of your surroundings, experiencing other cultures and seeing your own from a different perspective is to be encouraged. I believe my world view has fundamentally changed since the short time I lived in the US, and more recent travels around Europe.
Prior to my move to California in 2006, I had flown only once, on a long haul return flight to Australia to 2003. Yet moving to America brought with it the obvious need to return home to see friends and family as often as possible, and flying quickly became second nature.
However, thanks to Dopplr’s ability to track the carbon generated from all these trips I’ve taken, you can see that since returning from America in 2007, there has been a year-on-year reduction of my footprint:
Still, my friends are still right; flying so often undermines my ability to advocate a greener lifestyle. It also dawned on me just how unpleasant the entire experience is anyway. Endless queuing, administration and frustration, just to travel in pretty appalling conditions — I can’t think of any other situation in which waking up two strangers and crawling across a row of seats, just to visit the toilet would be tolerated, but it is here.
Changes
Contrast this with travel by train. Much of the queuing and waiting is gone, and you can travel from the centre of one city to another in a matter of hours. For just a little extra you can upgrade to first class, enjoy free wireless internet, sip champagne and eat freshly cooked meals. Whatever class you travel, the amazing scenery comes for free.
Perhaps it’s no surprise then that I’ve opted for this form of travel lately, and I hope to undertake another rail bound journey around Europe later this year.
However, I feel it’s important to make clear my statement of intent, and also honour the 10:10 pledge I’ve made to reduce my carbon footprint by 10% in 2010. So I’ve decided that this year I will not fly one single mile. Seeing as I returned from Australia on January 7th, this promise will hold true until that same date next year.
I’m not saying this because I had no plans to fly either. I was really hoping to catch up with friends in San Francisco, and this years An Event Apart series looks especially enticing. Yet these can wait. There is of course the possibility I will be asked to fly by my employer (Clearleft has many clients based overseas) yet I hope this is something I can avoid if at all possible.
a.green:focus
Hopefully, by improving my own behaviour and backing it up with firm action, I can once again advocate a green agenda. Indeed, after announcing my plans to build a green coalition of web developers and designers last April, this month I formally launched the campaign. It’s called a.green:focus.
In my inaugural post on the a.green:focus blog, I explained why our industry is best placed to challenge peoples behaviour and help them become more environmentally concious:
Ours is an industry occupied by some of the most talented, creative and empathetic people on the planet. We craft interfaces that are easy to use, design experiences that push the boundaries of a medium and build websites that are accessible to all. We’ve developed social networks that allow us to communicate with each other in new and exciting ways. We are in the business of creating the future.
To help launch the campaign, and with the help of my friends at the Multipack, I’ve organised a hack day, where we hope to build a website or application that will encourage people within our industry to think about how they can reduce their carbon footprint, quite relevant given the upcoming SXSW festival in Austin, Texas. You can find more details about this event on the Upcoming page, but needless to say it’s this Saturday!
Hopefully this is the first in a series of events and initiatives in support of the campaign, and so far the response from friends and peers has been incredibly encouraging. In the mean time, may I suggest you add the a.green:focus blog to your preferred RSS reader.
Lee
11 Mar 2010
Dave McCourt
22 Mar 2010
It's nice to see someone elegantly articulate their considered thoughts on such an important issue.
Some food for thought. Whilst I strongly agree that everyone should be more considerate and not needlessly waste energy, I would urge caution in the tone of your message. I think what's most important is that people do become more efficient and ultimately use less energy BUT aren't made to feel that they can't still enjoy themselves whilst frivolously using energy on the odd occasion. After all, what's the point in living if you give up all fun activity? I think you're New Zealand adventure was worth the environmental impact, but some die hard environmentalists would surely disagree. Would such derision of an otherwise thoughtful individual be helpful?
Education NOT Dictation.
Example: I own an energy inefficient TV (Plasma). I don't leave it on standby, I don't leave it on when I'm not watching it, and I did consider the environmental impact of my purchase before hand. However, I enjoy watching TV (and movies) and believe that LCD is an inferior technology. Hence, I feel I've reached an acceptable balance, and until such time as this TV breaks I'll not buy another. Is this wrong or selfish?
A new topic for you to explore. How much energy does the internet currently consume? I imagine many servers sit dormant a great deal of the time. Would internet users put up with a short wait for a web page to load if it meant that many servers could be kept in a deep sleep state until absolutely needed? If web page designers and coders were to tidy code, use less JavaScript and Flash, would fewer resources (energy) be needed to view web pages? How much energy could be saved? Google for one, have invested in solar energy at their headquarters, how about large server farms in the UK, tidal powered internet?
P.S. iPhone analogy. How about rather than all web designers upgrading to the latest MacBook, accept what you have and make the most possible out of it until it no longer works?