Tag: environment

There are many environmental success stories

Super fact 46 : There are many serious threats to the environment that we need to take seriously. However, there are also many environmental success stories that we tend to forget about.

It is important to remember the environmental success stories because if we forget about them, it breeds despair, which in turn discourages people from acting and doing the right thing. Denial and Despair are two seemingly opposite emotional reactions that both hinder action on problems. I consider the existence of the many important environmental success stories a super fact because even though it is undeniably true that there are many environmental success stories, some truly amazing, it comes as a surprise to many.

Below I am listing six environmental success stories that I previously chose to be super facts. Super facts are important and true facts that are surprising and perhaps even shocking to many, or widely misunderstood, or disputed amongst the public, but not seriously disputed amongst the experts/scientists. Super facts are facts that are very special and that I think we should be aware of these facts. I should add that this is just a sample of environmental success stories. There are many more.

Super Fact 29:

EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution

EV Cars emit less pollution than Internal Combustion Engine Cars, even considering manufacturing, disposal and many EV Cars being charged by dirty grids. The basic reason for this is the much higher efficiency of EV cars. EV cars emit significantly less greenhouse gases than internal combustion engines even considering construction of fuel production facilities, production of the car, the battery, and the fuel, vehicle operation and disposal. For more information click here.

The histogram graph shows that if you consider construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal the total average greenhouse gas emissions from EV cars is 52% less | There are many environmental success stories
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions comparison of average gasoline car and average EV. This graph is taken from the US Department of Energy.

Super Fact 35:

Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago

Natural disasters kill a lot less people now compared to 100 years ago. That is despite a larger population and despite the fact that climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of many types of natural disasters. Surveys by Gap Minder show that this fact is quite surprising to people and therefore it is a super fact. To read more about this super fact click here.

The reason for the fewer deaths from natural disasters is not that there are fewer natural disasters. It is because we are now much better at predicting, handling and recovering from natural disasters. Our warnings systems, rescue systems and healthcare have improved significantly. The graph below from Gap Minder illustrates the decline in deaths from natural disasters.

The graph shows 300 to 400 thousand annual deaths at the beginning of the 20th century, then 971 thousand annual deaths in the 1930’s, then it continuously gets lower until the annual deaths in the 2010 to 2016 period is 72 thousand deaths per year.
This graph from the Gap Minder article shows the annual deaths from natural disasters.

Super Fact 41:

Emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by 99 Percent

Largely thanks to the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by more than 99%, 99.7% to be exact, according to Our World in Data. This has resulted in the halt of the expansion of the ozone holes. The reduction in emissions of  ozone-depleting gases is saving millions of lives every year. To read more about this astounding success click here.

The NIH estimate that the Montreal Protocol has prevented 443 million cases of skin cancer worldwide, 2.3 million skin cancer deaths, and 63 million cases of cataracts in the United States alone. Globally, it is estimated that the Protocol has saved an estimated 2 million people from dying from skin cancer each year. The graph below is taken from Our World in Data.

Gases visualized in the diagram are CFCs, Halons, HCFCs, Carbon Tetrachloride, Methyl Bromide, Methyl Chloroform. The diagram shows a peak around the end of 1980’s | There are many environmental success stories
The phase out of six ozone depleting gases. Data source UN Environment Program (2023).

Super Fact 42:

Developed nations have successfully reduced carbon emissions

The developed nations (rich countries) have reduced their carbon emissions since the 1990’s despite continued GDP growth, even if we take offshore production into account. In addition, many developing countries have succeeded in reducing their emissions as well. Other fast-growing developing countries have flattened or at least slowed their increase in carbon emissions. Many countries have decoupled economic growth from CO2 emissions.

In other words, we do not need to increase carbon emissions or burn more fossil fuels to grow the economy. To read more about this promising development click here.

The graph shows three plotted graphs, a dark blue one showing GDP per capita, a light blue one showing UK carbon emissions per capita and a red one showing trade adjusted carbon emissions per capita. The GDP graph is increasing by more than 50% over 33 years and the CO2 emissions per capita graph is decreasing by almost 60% and the trade adjusted carbon emissions decline by almost 40%.
Data source: Data compiled from multiple sources by World Bank (2025); Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). Note: GDP per capita is expressed in international dollars at 2021 prices. Graph taken from Our World in Data.

Super Fact 44:

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by approximately 95 percent in the US since the 1970s. This significant reduction is primarily due to regulations like the Clean Air Act. Global sulfur dioxide pollution has also fallen but not as much. To read more about this success story click here. If you visit the aforementioned link you will also see that there are many other pollutants that we have successfully curtailed.

The graph shows a steep increase towards the end of the 19th century with a peak in 1973, followed by a steep decline |There are many environmental success stories
US sulfur dioxide pollution since 1800. US Emissions peaked in 1973. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken from this page in Our World In Data.

Super Fact 45:

Deforestation has peaked

Deforestation peaked back in the 1980s, meaning that is when it was worst. Deforestation has not stopped but the rate of deforestation has slowed as a result of government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements.

Overall, we are still losing forests. We had a 47-million-hectare loss of forest in the last decade, which is very bad, but that is better than the 151-million-hectare loss of forest in the 1980s. For temperate forests we have succeeded in reversing deforestation, which means that temperate forests are now gaining forest. To read more about this topic and how government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements have slowed the rate of deforestation you can click here. This change in deforestation rate is illustrated by the graph below, which is taken from Our World in Data.

The graphs show that during the 1700’s and the first half of the 1800’s the loss of forests was 19 million acres per decade. From the mid-1800’s to 1920 it was roughly 30 million acres per decade and from the 1920 and on it was 115 million acres per decade until the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s when it was 151 million acres per decade. Since then, it has fallen and in the last decade forest loss was 47 million acres | There are many environmental success stories
Decadal losses in global forest over the last three centuries. Decadal forest loss is measured as the average net loss every ten years, in hectares. This deforestation minus increases in forest area through afforestation. There is no single dataset that applies consistent or transparent methodology for deforestation over centuries. Two different datasets are therefore shown: these still shown the overall development and transition of forestation from temperate to tropical areas, but magnitudes should not be combined at the crossover point. Data sources: Pre-1995 data from Williams (2006). The second series is based on data from UN FAO Global Forest Resources.

Note : I am going on a trip with family and will return next Tuesday (5/27). During this time will not do any blogging. I love comments but I will respond to comments when I come back.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US

Super fact 44 : Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by approximately 95 percent in the US since the 1970s. This significant reduction is primarily due to regulations like the Clean Air Act. Global sulfur dioxide pollution has also fallen but not as much.

Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with the formula SO2. It has a pungent smell, which you notice after using matches. It is released naturally by volcanic activity and is produced as a by-product of burning sulfur-bearing fossil fuels and from metals refining. Sulfur dioxide is somewhat toxic to humans and by reacting with water it creates acid rain, which is a serious environmental problem.

The good news is that the Clean Air Act has driven technological advancements and the adoption of cleaner practices in industries that produce sulfur dioxide emissions. This has resulted in a drop of sulfur dioxide pollution in the US by 95% according to EPA and Statista and 94% according to Our World In Data. Statista is a pay site, so I am not going to link to it. Below is a graph from Our World In Data showing the reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution in the US.

The graph shows a steep increase towards the end of the 19th century with a peak in 1973, followed by a steep decline | Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US
US sulfur dioxide pollution since 1800. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken this page in Our World In Data.<<Link-5>> US Emissions peaked in 1973.

I should mention that by clicking this link you can visit the graph above Our World in Data and select different countries and regions and play around with the settings.

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Worldwide

The worldwide emissions peaked in 1979 and fell sharply after that even though the progress (reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions) has not been as spectacular as in the US. Worldwide reductions are around 48%. Again, by visiting the Our World In Data page you can play around with the graph and the settings and view different countries and regions. This is an additional source visualizing the data.

The graph shows a steep increase in sulfur dioxide emissions around 1950 with a peak in 1979, followed by a steep decline, but not as dramatic as for the US
Sulfur dioxide pollution worldwide since 1800. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken this page in Our World In Data. Worldwide Emissions peaked in 1979.
This graph shows the sulfur dioxide emissions for the world as well as for China and India. China follows the world wide emissions but on a smaller scale whilst India has steady increase in emissions that stabilized/peaked in 2023 | Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US
Sulfur dioxide pollution worldwide since 1800 with three major polluters included. The United States is in red, China in green and India in blue. The graph for India is the one corresponding to the least overall pollution but it has no reduction. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken this page in Our World In Data.

Good News with Respect to Pollution

Sulfur dioxide emissions have gone down worldwide, which is good news. However, sulfur dioxide is not the only pollutant that we have succeeded in reducing. The graph below demonstrates that the US has also made great progress in reducing Nitrogen Oxides pollution, Carbon Monoxide, Black Carbon, and Non-methane volatile organic compounds. We have not been as successful with reducing Ammonia pollution.

However, according to Google AI sulfur dioxide, followed by Nitrogen Oxides pollution, Carbon Monoxide, and Black Carbon are the most serious pollutants. The graph below is taken from this page in Our World in Data.

The graphs for nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions , carbon monoxide and non-methane organic compounds pollution peak around 1970’s and then show a sharp downturn. The graph for black carbon peak around 1920 and then show a sharp downturn whereas the graph for ammonia does not peak. All graphs are in red.
US nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, carbon monoxides, black carbon, ammonia and non-methane organic compounds pollution since 1750. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken from this page in Our World In Data.

The graphs for the world do not look as impressive. However, even in this case it looks like some progress has been made. Four graphs have peaked and are turning downwards, and one graph has flattened but unfortunately the graph for ammonia pollution is still heading upwards.

It should be noted that these pollutants are more or less local in the sense that they affect the polluting country and/or surrounding countries the most, whilst the climate change / global warming effect from carbon dioxide and other long lasting greenhouse gases tend to affect the entire planet.

The graphs for nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions , carbon monoxide peak around 1970’s and then show a small downturn. The graph for black carbon peak around 2020 and then shows a small downturn. The graph for non-methane organic compounds pollution flattened around 2020 whereas the graph for ammonia keeps growing. All graphs are in blue | Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US
Worldwide nitrogen oxides emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, carbon monoxide emissions, black carbon, ammonia and non-methane organic compounds pollution since 1750. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken from this page in Our World In Data.

Aside from the success in reducing these pollutants there is more good news.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Scientists Agree that Global Warming is happening and that we are the Cause

Super fact 34: Climate Scientists agree that Global Warming or if you call it Climate Change is happening, and that it is caused by us primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two facts because the evidence is conclusive. Typically, studies show an agreement of at least 97% or 98% among climate scientists.

This is a super fact because surveys show that this is not what the public believes and yet it is true. The public incorrectly believes that there is a large disagreement among scientists on this topic. A note, to understand why the evidence is conclusive as to why global warming is happening and is caused by us click here.

Note : I will use the term “global warming” in this review. Whether you call the phenomenon climate change, climate disruption, or global heating, is not important.

The Scientific Consensus

This extensive survey from 2013 of 12,000 climate papers (papers published over two decades) by Dana Nuccitelli and Cook, etc., concluded that 97.1% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

They also did a science author self-rating which concluded that 97.2% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Another conclusion from the survey was that the consensus had increased from around 90%, perhaps less, in the early 1990’s.

A later review of six independent, peer-reviewed studies examining the scientific consensus about global warming have concluded that between 90% and 100% of climate scientists are convinced human-caused global warming is happening. A more recent study (2021) found that as many as 98% of climate scientists are convinced global warming is happening and is human-caused. Numerous other surveys have concluded the same thing.

People’s Beliefs About Global Warming

This 2024 survey from Yale University show that most Americans (61%) understand that global warming is mostly human caused. By contrast, 28% think it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. Most Americans (58%) <<Link-6>> understand that most scientists think global warming is happening. This percentage has trended generally upward since this survey began in 2008. By contrast, about one in five (22%) think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is happening.

The green graph is going up slightly starting from 46% in 2009 and ending in 58% in 2023. The black graph starts at 33% in 2009 and ends in 22% in 2023. The yellow graph starts at 2% in 2009 and ends in 2% in 2023 | Scientists Agree that Global Warming is happening and that we are the Cause
The green graph corresponds to “most scientists think global warming is happening (%).” The black graph corresponds to “there is a lot of disagreement among scientists (%)”. The yellow graph corresponds to “Most scientists think global warming is NOT happening (%)”. Graph taken from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

However, only one in five Americans (20%) understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) think that human-caused global warming is happening. The aforementioned Dana  Nuccitelli refers to this in his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience as the consensus gap. Again, this large discrepancy between public perception and reality makes the consensus gap a super fact. Research has shown that this discrepancy has a large impact on people’s other beliefs regarding global warming.

This is bar graph. It shows that 2% believe the answer is 0-10%, 2% believe the answer is 11-20%, 3% believe the answer is 21-30%, 3% believe the answer is 31-40%, 8% believe the answer is 41-50%, 7% believe the answer is 51-60%, 7% believe the answer is 61-70%, 13% believe the answer is 71-80%, 13% believe the answer is 81-90%, 20% believe the answer is 91-100%, 22% don’t know | Scientists Agree that Global Warming is happening and that we are the Cause
The question was, To the best of your knowledge what percentage of climate scientists think that human-caused global warming is happening? Graph taken from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

Why is there a Consensus Gap?

In his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience Dana Nuccitelli explains that a relatively small group of so-called climate skeptics, or more accurately called climate contrarians have received a lot of attention from media. Even though their science is bad, and they’ve published their error ridden papers in obscure or discredited journals, and the fact that their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have had an enormous influence on public discourse. Conservative politicians, and many talk show hosts are blindly devoted to their falsehoods, whilst real scientists are being attacked.

It is not just rightwing media who are using them for their purposes, but mainstream media are giving the contrarians undue attention as well. Sensationalism is one issue. A science contrarian claiming that all the climate scientists are wrong, and that he is the only one who finally got it right is a lot more interesting of a story than a repeat of the consensus. Another issue is false balance. Journalist should not feel that they must give equal time to evidence-based science and nonsense, but that is often the case. To read my review of this book click here.

The Oregon Petition

I am mentioning the Oregon petition because I fell for it myself. The Oregon petition was an official looking petition circulated by climate contrarians, claiming that there is no evidence that human-caused global warming will cause catastrophic heating of earth’s atmosphere and disruption of earth’s climate, and that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would even be beneficial for plants and animals. It got an impressive number of signatures, 32,000 after some years.

However, it turned out that the signatories rarely had climate expertise, and were not scientists, and the survey listed many falsified names such as the names of the Spice Girls and several fictional characters. Less than 200 of the signatories were climate researchers.

It was a con, but it was touted in a lot of media as the truth. I saw it over and over and I believed it. I was later surprised to learn that it was a con and that a scientific consensus existed on global warming / climate change. Learning that I had been bamboozled on this matter was one of the red flags that prompted me to start doing some fact checking on the issue global warming.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective

Super fact 33: Actions such as eating locally, buying organic produce, using paper straws, and recycling can be good for the environment but can also be worse for the environment and these actions often have a much smaller positive impact than alternative rarely considered actions. What are popular actions for the environment is often different from what is effective.

I consider this a super fact because the beliefs regarding what is good for the environment and what is bad for the environment and what has a significant impact and what has not, are often based on popular trends and culture rather than knowledge. We need to educate ourselves. Following trends is not the answer to good stewardship of the planet.

A big green hand is depicted to symbolize the protection of the environment, where climate-friendly topics are also depicted, such as wind turbines and recycling symbols | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective
This content was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Asset id: 2531547331

Is Locally Grown Food Really Better for the Environment?

As I explained in this post eating locally is not necessarily ecological. Agricultural products that are grown off season or in non-native environments are often grown in greenhouses, which require a lot of energy and generate significantly more emissions than shipping the produce across oceans would. This is especially true for crops like tomatoes, cucumbers, mangoes and bananas, that require warmer climates to be grown in open fields.

Red cherry tomatoes | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective
From pexels.com by Julia Nagy.

In some cases, the crop requires significant water resources or chemical inputs to thrive and may not be suitable for warmer climates, for example, apples. Some crops, like avocados or almonds require a lot of water but despite that they are grown in dry places like California (80% of California’s freshwater is used for agriculture). From an environmental perspective it would be better to grow these crops in a suitable environment and then transport them.

Is Eating Organic Really Good for the Environment?

As explained in this post eating organic is not necessarily ecological. Despite strong public perception of organic agriculture producing better environmental outcomes, conventional agriculture often performs better on environmental measures including land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution of water bodies. There are, however, some contexts where organic agriculture may be better for the environment.

The graph below gives an overview of the environmental impact of various types of crops grown organically and conventionally. As you can see organic crop often require double as much land compared to conventionally grown crops. It is complicated.

The graph shows the six food groups and their impact across greenhouse gas emissions, land use, eutrophication potential, acidification potential and energy usage | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective
Shown is the relative environmental impact of organic and conventional agriculture across various ecological and resource indicators based on a meta-analysis of 164 published life-cycle analyses (LCAs) across 742 agricultural systems. Roughly, lower in the graph means organic is better and higher up in the graph means conventional farming is better. Data source: Clark & Tilman (2017) – Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. In Environmental Research Letters. The data visualization is available at OurWorldinData.org<<Link-10>>. There you can find research and more visualizations on this topic. Licensed under CC BY-SA by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser.

What really matters though is the type of food you eat, not whether it is organic or not. For example, beef (from beef herd) causes emissions 188 times larger than nuts do for the same amount of protein provided. Another thing to note is that if you eat 300 steaks per year you will have a 100 times larger environmental impact from your meat eating compared to someone who eats 3 steaks per year. You don’t have to become a vegetarian to have a smaller environmental impact but quantity matters.

Is Recycling Important?

The common perception that recycling is one of the best things you can do for the environment is not correct. Its impact is often not very large and if not done properly it can be counterproductive. If you throw a greasy pizza box in the recycling, you can ruin the entire batch.

Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions among twelve that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). As it turns out, those two saved the least greenhouse gases among the twelve options. The option saving the most greenhouse gases among the 12 was giving up an SUV, which saved 18 times as much greenhouse gases as recycling. 17% of respondents picked that one.

A filled recycling bag
Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

According to Our World in Data (and the book Not the End of the World page 114<<Link-6>>), which is based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5% of the carbon emissions for the average American. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Recycling comes in at a savings of 0.2 metric tons according to the same data. EPAs estimates are slightly higher but still low in comparison.

Plastic straws versus paper straws

Producing a plastic straw requires 39 kilojoules of energy and produces 1.5 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. However, producing a paper straw requires 96 kilojoules of energy and produces 4.1 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. So, plastic straws are better for the environment from that perspective. However, this could be compared to a typical passenger vehicle, which emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year according to EPA. That corresponds to more than 3 million plastic straws and more than one million paper straws.

According to the same article the average passenger vehicle emits about 400 grams of CO2 per mile. So, driving just one mile corresponds to hundreds of plastic straws and paper straws.

Plastic straws
Photo by Christopher on Pexels.com
paper straws
Photo by Sarah Chai on Pexels.com

One advantage of paper straws is that they are easier to recycle, at least under ideal circumstances. Unfortunately, they often get soggy, and recycling plants don’t want that so they often throw them out. Another advantage is that paper straws decompose and don’t end up in our ocean.

However, not only are straws very small items, most of the plastic pollution in the ocean does not come from north America(1%) or Europe (1%). Paper straws versus plastic straws seem like a complex riddle but it may not be an important one. Whether you drive more or drive less is probably a lot more important.

Plastic bags versus paper bags

As with plastic straws versus paper straws plastic bags versus paper bags is a complicated question. From an environmental perspective they both have advantages and disadvantages. Plastic bags are less carbon intensive to produce, are easier to reuse several times, and the production of plastic bags require on average four times less energy than the production of paper bags.

On the other hand, paper bags are decomposable and easier to recycle. However, the chemicals and fertilizers used in producing paper bags create additional harm to the environment. It is a complicated question.

Whale Shark swimming in the ocean about to swallow a plastic bag.
Plastic Ocean pollution. Whale Shark filter feeds in polluted ocean, ingesting plastic. Asset id: 1120768061 by Rich Carey

Having a Significant and Positive Impact on the Environment

Some of the allegedly sustainable practices and actions mentioned above are counter productive and others have a very small effect, for example, carbon emissions savings that are a few grams. According to the “Our World Data” and the book “Not the End of the World” page 114, a compilation of data research, some actions that you can take that will significantly reduce carbon emissions are  (savings in metric tons per year, for flight it is per trip):

  • Giving up an SUV 3.6 tons
  • Go car free (average car) 2.4 tons
  • Switch to plant-based diet 2.2 tons
  • Avoid transatlantic flights 1.6 tons
  • Buy green energy 1.5 tons
  • Switch to electric car (from average sedan) 1.2 tons
  • Switch from electric car to none 1.2 tons
  • Avoid medium flight 0.6 tons (1,700 miles each way going and returning)
  • Laundry in cold water 0.25 tons
  • Hand-dry clothing 0.2 tons
  • Recycle 0.2 tons
  • Upgrade light bulbs 0.1 tons

As you can see in the graphs below, the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the World and in the United States is electricity and heat. Unfortunately, the composition of the electric grid is something we as consumers have very little control over. We can save energy, get solar panels for our roof, or buy our electricity from green energy companies, but we cannot easily change the composition of the grid. Energy companies and politicians must do that.

However, we can make our voices heard by calling and writing to our representatives. This might be the single most impactful action that you as an individual can take. Your congressman, senator, or state legislator will probably not read your letter. They have hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents and get lots of letters every day. What is likely to happen is that a staff member will skim the letter and note the concern in a database.

Just make sure that your letter is politely written so it does not go in the wastebasket. Also make sure that you are a constituent. Writing to Ted Cruz when you live in Florida is not going to have an impact. They are interested in finding out what the concerns of their constituents are and according to staff members and other information I have come across, this really has an impact.

The largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the World is electricity and then comes Transport. After that comes manufacturing and construction, agriculture, industry, fugitive emissions, buildings, waste, land-use change and forestry, aviation and shipping, other fuel combustion | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective
Data source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY
The largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the US is electricity and heat but it has gone down. Transport is number two. Then comes buildings, manufacturing and construction, fugitive emissions, agriculture, industry, waste, aviation and shipping, other fuel combustion, land-use change and forestry | Many Popular Environmental Actions Are Ineffective
Data source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY
Conclusion

The survey mentioned above showed that among the twelve environmental actions an individual could take, the one with the second to smallest positive impact was the one that the majority thought had the biggest positive impact, despite it having a relatively tiny impact. The actions that could really make a huge difference were hardly considered.

We, the public, are very bad at determining what is good or bad for the environment and what has a significant and positive impact or not, even though the data is out there and we easily can look it up. Maybe the biggest positive impact one could have on the environment is to look up the facts and get better educated.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Environmental Benefits of Recycling Are Overestimated

Super fact 32: The common perception that recycling is one of the best things you can do for the environment is an exaggeration. Its impact is often not very large and if not done properly it can be counterproductive.

In general recycling is beneficial, because you conserve natural resources, reduce climate change, save energy and reduce waste and pollution. Battery recycling is particularly important since it reduces toxic waste and reduces the risk of a future shortage of certain minerals. Recycling is often viewed as a very important activity that everyone should participate in, and neighbors often shame those who fail to comply.

The shocking news is that even though recycling in general is good for the environment it may not be as beneficial as it is assumed. It turns out to be complicated. As you will see later, most people think that recycling is the most impactful action you can take as an individual to reduce carbon emissions, when in fact it is of very marginal importance. This is what made me consider this a super fact.

A company where a big green hand is depicted to symbolize the protection of the environment, where climate-friendly topics are also depicted, such as wind turbines or recycling | Environmental Benefits of Recycling Are Overestimated
This content was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Asset id: 2531547331

Recycling and Greenhouse Gases

According to EPA recycling saves 193 million metric tons of carbon emissions, which sounds a lot until you consider that the US emit 6,343 million metric tons per year according to EPA making it 3%. According to this website consumers can save 732 kilograms of CO2 assuming they do the recycling correctly. This should be compared to the average carbon footprint for an American (US), which is 16 metric tons, making the savings for good recyclers 4.6%.

According to our World in Data (Not the End of the World page 114), based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5%. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Actions saving more greenhouse gases than recycling that we as consumers can take, are for example: give up SUV, go car free, have a plant-based diet, avoid transatlantic flights, buy green energy, switch to electric car, switch from electric car to no car, avoid medium flights, laundry in cold water, and hand dry clothing.

Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). Upgrading lightbulbs have an even smaller effect than recycling. It is of course still a good action to take.

However, what this data demonstrates is that we are bad at guessing which actions are impactful. We need to get better informed and not make assumptions. It should be noted that the efficiency of the recycling efforts varies from country to country. Among the 32 developed countries for which there is data the United States ranks 25.

Recycling and Plastic Waste

Greenhouse gas emissions is certainly not the only issue to consider. What about plastic waste? As it turns out plastic is very difficult to recycle (depending on the kind of plastic) and according to the EPA less than 9% of plastic is recycled. According to Our World in Data and the book “Not the End of the World” by Hannah Ritchie the US and Europe have well managed landfills and good waste management systems that make our plastic problem less of an issue. That’s good news.

But what about the awful problem with plastic in the ocean? Plastic ending up in the ocean is indeed a bad problem. However, 81% of all plastic in the ocean come from Asia, and the rest mostly comes from Latin America. Only 1% come from the United States and 1% from Europe and Oceania. According to Scientific American 93% of plastic in ocean come from just 10 rivers. Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong. Two are in Africa – the Nile and the Niger.

None of them are in North America or Europe. Therefore, if we in the developed world greatly improve our recycling of plastic, it would not make much of a difference with respect to the problem of plastic in the ocean. What we need to do is assist China, India and southeast Asia with improving their waste management systems.

Whale Shark swimming in the ocean about to swallow a plastic bag.
Plastic Ocean pollution. Whale Shark filter feeds in polluted ocean, ingesting plastic. Asset id: 1120768061 by Rich Carey

Another issue to keep in mind is that uneducated consumers can do a lot of damage to the recycling process. For example, throwing a greasy pizza box into the recycling bin can ruin the entire batch. You are not just recycling incorrectly you are ruining the recycling efforts of your neighbors too. There are many ways to ruin the recycling process, by throwing items in the recycling that don’t belong there. Recycling requires consumers to pay attention to the instructions. It should also be noted that some companies have been found to ignore the recycling process and throw all recycled items in with the trash. There are also neighborhoods that don’t have recycling.

Conclusion

In summary, recycling may not be as great as it is often made out to be. You should still do it if you care about the environment. Just be aware that there are actions that you can take and that your government can take that are much more impactful.

One of the conclusions you can draw from this discussion is that if you are driving a big SUV or eating red meat every day you should probably abstain from shaming your neighbor for not recycling.

To see the other Super Facts click here