This is one of my longer posts, and it begins with a thought experiment.
What is the “American Lifestyle” exactly? There is a huge discrepancy among citizenry almost anywhere, not just in the country with some of the greatest cultural differences and largest wealth disparities on the planet. East vs. west… north vs. south… red vs. blue… urban vs. rural… white vs. brown… haves vs. have-nots… Backstreet Boys vs. ’N Sync… the list could go on almost infinitely to illustrate the huge variations in lifestyle just in the U.S.
Even choosing whose lifestyle is representative of the “American Lifestyle” is rife with challenges:
- Do I look at average American salaries? Wouldn’t median be more accurate because of the aforementioned wealth disparity?
- What do I use to determine how large the average American home is by square footage? Data on American homeowners? That leaves out a ton of city-dwellers and other renters whose footprint should still be used for calculation purposes…
- What is the average mile per gallon of cars on America’s roads? Does that take into account 0 mpg for the roughly ten percent* of Americans who do not own one?
My rationale for figuring this out is to help determine what you might have already gleaned from the title: Is it possible to continue living similarly and consider ourselves to be environmentalists?
The Median American Lifestyle
I’m choosing to use median figures for a lot of my discussion of what I’m still calling the “average” American lifestyle. This helps weed out some of the data skewing of the Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett-types. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, here are stats on our median American in 2019:
- Is a high school graduate (88% of adults) without a bachelor’s degree (67.9%)
- Lives in a household that earned around $63,000 for the year
- Owns their home (64%), which was valued at $217,500
- Is a white (60.1%) female (50.8%)
- Travels 26.9 minutes to work
I’ve rounded up some additional info on this fellow citizen from other sources:
- Uses a natural gas furnace to heat their home (percentage varies, but it’s a majority)
- Lives in a 2,301 square foot home
- Drives a Ford F-Series or GM Full-Sized pickup truck**
Environmentalism
In order to weigh in on whether or not this lifestyle can coexist with environmentalism, we also have to determine what environmentalism is. Lots of ideas come to my mind surrounding environmentalism, but generally the themes center on environmental stewardship. When you go camping, you follow “Leave No Trace” principles (or “leave little trace,” at least). When producing widgets in your factory, you try not to dump untreated wastewater into the river that runs past.
Ultimately, what I would consider to be the biggest aspect of environmentalism today would be trying to be a good steward of our planet by limiting our collective impacts on climate change. Many other environmental efforts tie into and support this overarching concept, but most will not be successful in the long-term if we don’t get this one issue right.
Overwhelmingly, this means reducing our individual and collective carbon emissions. In democracies, it means voting for those who support this action with policy initiatives. These initiatives can help shape consumer behavior, energy production, energy consumption, technological innovation… Hell, even the technology at the heart of ExxonMobil’s publicity push for carbon capture and storage plays a big role.
So What’s the Verdict…?
As a result, the answer to our query of whether the American lifestyle and environmentalism are mutually exclusive is a resounding yes. The current average American lifestyle is completely incongruent with the actions needed to combat climate change.
But, there’s still some hope.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, I suppose), there is a lot of room for improvement for Americans from an environmental perspective. Our white, lady, high school graduate seems determined to get around in a pickup truck, for starters. I know… there’s nothing like the consummate American vehicle for the consummate American to drive. There just have to be more efficient, more cost-effective ways to get around by car, if necessary, that we can all look into, right?
It seems to be that for the “average” American, certainly they can improve their energy footprint to a significant degree if they have the financial means to do so. Or maybe, more appropriately, many of our fellow citizens might not be able to afford not to improve their energy footprint. This stuff pays, after all.
Whether or not one can truly be considered an environmentalist by consuming more things to get there, there is a good shot at maintaining a comfortable middle class lifestyle while significantly reducing one’s carbon footprint. This idea remains valid for higher-income Americans, as well as those in more rural areas. While I think it’s worthwhile to advocate for lowering energy footprints for everyone, there are sadly things that are far more consequential on which to focus for those less financially fortunate.
The rural and/or higher-income among us are the demographics that we have to improve upon most when it comes to carbon footprint. Here’s why. As a generalist in undergrad, I spent a little bit of time learning about the urban/rural divide. Which lifestyle consumes less? If you assumed that rural living and its closer connection to nature and fresh air indicated a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, you would be wrong.
I thought the same thing. My mind was absolutely blown in learning about big city dwellers whose lifestyles were way more efficient, and therefore less carbon intensive (and more environmentally friendly as a result), than their rural counterparts. Really? With all their smog, traffic, and pavement, these urban jungles were somehow more environmentally friendly than living in the country?
In short, yes.1
Household carbon footprints in high-density urban areas are much lower for several reasons. First, urban homes are smaller in square footage than their suburban and rural counterparts, so they consume much less. Second, there is a higher prevalence of natural gas heating in urban homes. This is less carbon intensive than wood-burning or heavy fuel oil (looking at you, New England!). Third, there is a higher prevalence of attached multi-unit dwellings in urban areas that help to increase their heating efficiency (imagine how a shared wall with a neighbor would not leak as much heat during the winter). Lastly, these city-dwellers are far less likely to own or use a car compared to their rural or suburban counterparts.
Other research seems to indicate, however, that the huge efficiency gains achieved by urban living are more than offset by… the suburbs surrounding these areas.2 Damn! This is my lifestyle! So what is a suburbanite to do about mitigating their environmental impact?
Well, it mostly comes down to consuming less and consuming differently.
Consuming Less
Unfortunately, when most people think about consuming less they think of deprivation. When someone “goes on a diet” to lose weight, they are putting themselves in a negative-calorie state to shed pounds. They are, quite literally, depriving themselves. Unsuccessful dieters continue to view their diets as deprivation, thereby not discovering a new normal in which they can be content. Those who are usually successful on said diets, however, change their perspective and their relationship with food. Instead of focusing on the deprivation, they focus on the change for the better. This makes it easier for them to live healthier on fewer calories. I’m advocating for the latter attitude.
Consuming less doesn’t have to be about deprivation. From a perspective of energy efficiency, as a homeowner, you would generally be wise to add insulation to your home. This added insulation helps you to consume less without having to change anything in your life. I added blown-in insulation to the attic of my former house and increased the R-value (the insulation rating) from around R-20 to about R-50. This cost me a whopping $455, increased the comfort level of my upstairs significantly, and ended up saving me around $130 per year in heating and cooling costs.
The fact that it took just over three years to pay for itself is amazing, plus I have locked in those gains forever! If that isn’t enough to push you toward adding insulation, some experts estimate attic insulation adds $1,446 in value to your home when it’s time to sell. Not too shabby.
Another avenue you could pursue would be to add LED lighting to replace old incandescent bulbs. The added benefit of that is also that you don’t have to keep changing bulbs all the time! Last time I checked, an 8-pack of 60 watt-equivalent LED bulbs from Home Depot cost $9.94, which amounts to $1.24 per bulb. That’s about what incandescents used to cost.
So please, do NOT bemoan the disappearance of incandescent bulbs from the marketplace. The 60 watt-equivalent LED I mentioned uses 9-watts. Put another way, it uses 85% less electricity than old incandescents. Please don’t suck as a human. Use LEDs.
Another easy fix is to get a tube of caulk or some weather-stripping and seal up your house a bit better around doors and windows. That’s it. YouTube it if you are curious as to the particulars. If your windows or door frames are drafty, this cheap fix will make your life much more comfortable and less inefficient.
All of these are changes you can make that will not cause any kind of deprivation in your life—I guarantee it.
Another way to consume less: when it’s time to replace your major appliances (HVAC, water heater, washer/dryer, dishwasher, toilets, etc.), opt for more efficient models. They’re usually a bit higher cost; however, they usually pay for themselves within a few years of installation. A heat pump is the new rage when it comes to efficient electric heat in your home.*** The house we bought and now live in has one, and I am definitely a convert. More to follow in another post.
Consuming Differently
With regard to consuming differently, that’s generally a level of difficulty slightly above consuming less. If you’re up for the challenge, however, you’ll often benefit the environment, future humanity, and your wallet!
I would like to designate a lot of these factors as investments in our collective future, too. Unfortunately a lot of them have fallen victim to political culture wars. I say unfortunately because I think when we ask any American whether they want the future to be better for their children or their children’s children, they would respond overwhelmingly in the affirmative. These are the decisions that will help point our ship in the right direction in that regard.
- If you have to drive a car, and it’s time to buy a new one: please go electric. According to The Nature Conservancy, travel is responsible for about two times as much carbon emission than any other aspect of Americans’ lives (including heating/cooling your home!). That means your choice can have a huge impact on both your environmental impact and your wallet.
- If you can afford the cost, choose to either (A) source your electricity through your utility from renewables, or (B) opt for rooftop solar (or wind, or micro-hydro, etc.).
- This is one I haven’t fully come around to yet, but am working towards: Eat less meat. The amount of water, energy, land, and carbon output that go into meat is astounding. I’m not asking everyone to immediately go vegetarian, but a little bit of reduction on a large scale can certainly help. I get it, though. Cows are tasty. Do your best. Try out an Impossible Burger.
- Buy less stuff. I feel like this doesn’t even deserve a descriptor sentence, but stuff takes resources to manufacture, transport, and then (eventually) dispose of. Every time you say “I don’t need it,” and proceed not to buy something, you’re making a difference.
- Have fewer children. I’m certain if everyone in the US read this last sentence at the same time, you would hear an audible screech of cars braking, airplanes falling out of the sky, explosions, etc. This is a tough prescription to make, but it’s an honest one. A Latter Day Saints (renowned for their large families) friend of mine once told me that 3 children is the new 7. I’ll take it, for now. Maybe the next generation could move even more towards comfortably fitting into a compact car with their nuclear family? Whatever you do, don’t be these people.
Everything I’ve advocated for here is a no-B.S., surefire way people can improve their environmental footprint and lessen their impact on the world. Sadly, it takes a broad, informed, societal effort to make a lot of these things work on a large scale, so the chances are good that not everyone will be willing to take action.
I will ask, however, that you do something. This is one of those things where I’ll happily defer to someone smarter than me to offer guidance (or at least it’s misattributed to someone smarter than me–the essence still holds true):
You must be the change you want to see in the world.
Mahātmā Gandhi
*This is a “roughly” guesstimate because there’s a range of data out there on this, typically from 8.7%-12% based on where you look. Even these figures are mostly estimates—the data is incomplete. Don’t nobody know!
**This blew my mind. It’s not even close. Toyota Camry is the top-registered car on the road in the US, with 6.9 million in operation. Ford F-Series has 16.1 million and GMC has 18.1 million. Sweet Jeebus!
***The good news, according to a study published in Nature Energy, is that homes with air source heat pumps enjoyed a 4.3-7.1% price premium over homes without them.3
1. Timmons, D., Zirogiannis, N., Lutz, M., Location matters: Population density and carbon emissions from residential building energy use in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science 22, 137-46 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.011
2. Jones, C. And D. Kammen, Spatial Distribution of U.S. Household Carbon Footprints Reveals Suburbanization Undermines Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Population Density, Environmental Science & Technology 48 (2), 895-902 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1021/es4034364
3. Shen, X., Liu, P., Qiu, Y. et al. Estimation of change in house sales prices in the United States after heat pump adoption. Nature Energy 6, 30–37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00706-4
