Surprising fact – Page 6

There is strong evidence for the Big Bang

Super fact 37: There is strong evidence for the Big Bang, and we know a lot about how the Universe evolved through time since the Big Bang.

Considering the evidence that has accumulated throughout the years for the Big Bang it is hard to deny it happened. In my experience very few people are aware of this evidence, and they are surprised to find out how much evidence there is and how many details we know about the evolution of the universe. It is easy to believe that scientists are guessing when you don’t know much about the evidence yourself. But they are not guessing. That is why I call this a super fact.

In addition, there’s a lot of misconceptions around the Big Bang as well surprising facts. A few additional things that might surprise people are that the Big Bang was not like an explosion, the Universe did not expand into something. In addition, there might be multiverses and multiple Big Bangs, and there are cyclic models, and so-called eternal inflation. There are things we know and things we don’t know.

The pictures show an expanding Universe starting with quantum fluctuations followed by inflation, then an afterglow light pattern 375,000 after the Big Bang and then the so-called dark ages, the creation of stars and galaxies | There is strong evidence for the Big Bang — This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA. (from Wikimedia commons

The Expansion of the Universe

It used to be believed that the Universe was static. In 1929 the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. He made this observation by analyzing the light from distant galaxies and noticing that their light was redshifted. I am going to explain what that means next.

Light emitted from elements, atoms and molecules have light absorption patterns that are unique to the atom/element in question. This is called a light spectrum. This makes it possible to identify the elements in a star and their proportions. Red shifted means that the absorption lines have moved towards red because the frequency of the light has been shifted due to the motion. This is called the doppler effect.

You can notice this phenomenon for the case of sound when an ambulance is coming towards you and then speeding by you. The sound changes. Hubble was using the redshift to the determine that further away the galaxy was the faster it was moving away from us.

The top shows a colorful spectrum from blue to red with absorption lines in black. The bottom portion of the picture shows the same thing expect the black absorption lines have moved a bit to the right. — Visualization of redshifted absorption lines are redshifted due to velocity away from observer. Top lines are for an object at rest and in the bottom picture the object is moving away. Maxmath12, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

A natural explanation for this is that the universe is expanding, and that it once must have been much more compressed, but it is not the only explanation. However, there is more evidence.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

If you assume that the universe once was much more compact and much hotter than today, particles such as protons, neutrons and electrons would have been free and close together preventing light from freely moving around. However, as the universe kept expanding and cooling these particles eventually should have been able to form atoms allowing light or electromagnetic radiation to freely move around.

Some physicists, Alpher, Herman and Gamow predicted around 1950 that this should have left behind a detectable microwave background radiation. This radiation was detected by chance in 1964 by two physicists, Penzias and Wilson. This radiation had the expected properties and careful study of this Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR or CMB) has given us a lot of information about our universe and may give us information about other universes (multiverses).

Its existence is strong evidence that the universe once was very compressed and much hotter, i.e., the Big Bang. An interesting fact is that in old TVs, between the channels (old people will remember this), you had this fuzz, or war of the ants as some people called it, and part of that TV fuzz is the CMBR.

A big sky map with varying colors, yellow, red, green and blue | There is strong evidence for the Big Bang — This is a sky map of the cosmic background radiation from when the universe was around 380,000 years old. It was created with the help of satellite (NASA) measurements. The colors are artificial and show tiny temperature variations. NASA / WMAP Science Team, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

You can watch a 4-minute video about the discovery of the CMBR narrated by Neil DeGrass Tyson on this PBS web page by clicking here.

Abundances of Light Elements

Yet another piece of evidence is the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium compared to heavier elements. The physics at the beginning of the Universe under the Big Bang tells us that initially regular matter should have consisted of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium and hardly anything else, and that is composition the oldest stars had when they were new. In addition, the oldest stars we’ve found appear to have an age just under the 13.8 billion years that we get for our Universe assuming the Big Bang theory (that’s another piece of evidence).

The picture consists of two pie chart graphs representing stars. The left one is a first-generation star with one pie for the 75% hydrogen and one pie for the 25% helium. — The first-generation stars consisted of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium and trace amounts of Lithium. A second or third generation star like our sun is still mostly hydrogen and helium but also many other elements. The rocky planets circling the sun are mainly elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. Image credit NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI

A Very Brief History of Time

So, it all started with a quantum fluctuation. The first 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds is called the inflationary period characterized by super-fast expansion, much faster than the speed of light, as we know it today. At this time the strong nuclear force becomes distinct from the weak nuclear force.

I should point out that during the first 0.0000000000001 seconds the physics laws may not have applied in a normal sense. I should also point out that this was not an explosion. An explosion explodes into something but there was nothing else outside of the universe, so this is more like superfast growth.

At a fraction of a second protons and neutrons form from quarks and after one second neutrinos came into existence and if primordial black holes exist, they were formed at this time too. After two minutes nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons are formed, and the first elements hydrogen and helium formed. After 20 minutes an opaque hot plasma forms, after 100,000 years neutral helium atoms form, and after 375,000 years CMBR is created, etc.

This is just a small sample of everything that we know happened after the Big Bang, based on the known laws of physics. You can read about all the details in books like The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg or A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

vector illustration of up and down quarks in proton and neutron on white background. The proton (left) is a red and blue up quark and a green down quark. The neutron is a red and green down quark and a blue up quark | There is strong evidence for the Big Bang — The proton and neutron each consist of three quarks. They are formed at a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Asset id: 2333679305 by KRPD.

Pre–Big Bang Cosmology

So, what was there before the Big Bang, if anything? Well, that part is speculation, but there are many good ideas. A popular hypothesis speaks of quantum fluctuations setting off the Big Bang. There are models in which the whole of spacetime is finite, including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition. This means that time itself came into existence with the Big Bang and therefore nothing could have preceded it. This means that the Big Bang could not have been caused or created by anything else, just like a universe that has existed eternally could not have been caused or created by anything else.

In a sense, despite being 13.8 billion years old, the universe in this scenario would have always existed. Because the concept of “always” stops at 13.8 billion years ago. Stephen Hawking used the analogy of the north pole. You can’t go further north from the north pole.

There are other models that include multiverses, for example, eternal inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each endpoint leading to a bubble universe, expanding from its own big bang. You can view this model as inflation being the river of time with the various universes popping up like bubbles in the stream.

In another model inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory and Big Bangs are the result of colliding branes. There are cyclical models, such as Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose’s Conformal cyclic cosmology in which one universe gives rise to another universe as it dies.

Notice that Pre-Big Bang Cosmology is speculative, but the reality of the Big Bang is backed by strong evidence.

Thousands of universes represented as colorful balls | There is strong evidence for the Big Bang — The surface of a multiverse with a lot of universes 3d rendering Asset id: 2256998119 by Dr. Norbert Lange.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Every Symmetry is Associated with a Conservation Law

Super fact 36: Every continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law. This revolutionary insight was mathematically proven in 1915 by a relatively unknown woman, Emily Noether.

It is not easy to understand what this super fact means, and therefore it is easy to miss the fact it says something fundamental about the nature of reality. It says something profound about our Universe and all possible Universes. It is arguably one of the most profound discoveries in science. Since the discovery of Noeth e r theorem, we do physics differently and we view our physical reality differently.

In the book “The Theory of Almost Everything” the author, theoretical physicist Robert Oerter states that the standard model of elementary particles, or most of modern physics, rests on three pillars, special relativity, quantum physics, and Noether’s theorem. Which one of those three have you not heard of? I guess Noether’s theorem.

That question brings me to the second part of the super fact. Emily Noether did a lot for mathematics and physics in addition to her first theorem (stated above), and yet she is not well known. Albert Einstein said of Emily Noether : “Fräulein Noether was the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began”. Notice he didn’t say “woman genius”.

Why I consider Noether’s (first) theorem a super fact is because it tells us something fundamental about reality that is highly surprising and yet undisputable (mathematically proven) and not many of us know about it. The second part of the super fact, that despite being one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century she is so unknown, is also surprising.

A young woman in Victorian clothing sitting at a small table. — This picture reminded me of Emily Noether a genius and one of the greatest mathematicians in human history. This is a submission for Kevin’s No Theme Thursday.

Noether’s Theorem What Does It Mean

Noether’s theorem, says that symmetries in the universe give rise to mathematical conservation laws. One way to understand this is by using an example. That the physical laws remain the same as you translate a system in time is an example of a continuous symmetry.

If you do an experiment twice at two different times, let’s say at 8:00AM and at 9:00AM, and everything is set perfectly identical both times you are likely to get the same result. Well barring statistical/quantum uncertainty. The point is that the physical laws did not change. If the physical laws do not change between 8:00AM and 9:00AM, then you have a continuous symmetry.

Noether’s theorem says that if you have a continuous symmetry, you also have a conservation law, and the conservation law in this case is the conservation of energy/mass. If the physical laws do not change between 8:00AM and 9:00AM then mathematically the total energy / mass of the closed system must remain constant.

It follows that energy is not destroyed or increased. At first it seems like the time symmetry and energy/mass conservation have nothing to do with each other, but the symmetry gives rise to the conservation law. So, if you ask the question, why is energy / mass conserved, the answer is because physical laws don’t change with time.

There are many symmetry-conservation law pairs in nature. Translational symmetry, the fact that the laws of physics stay the same if you move to the side or forward, results in the conservation of momentum. The symmetry of laws that does not change if moving around in a circle amount to the law of conservation of angular momentum. Other symmetries result in the conservation of charge.

The converse is also true. If you find that a quantity is conserved you can find a symmetry, and if you find a symmetry that is broken you can find a quantity that is not conserved after all. There is not much in science that is more fundamental than that and in addition Noether’s theorem is very useful.

The picture illustrates the collision of two balls. It features mathematics demonstrating that linear momentum (mass times velocity) is preserved | Every Symmetry is Associated with a Conservation Law — If the physical laws stay the same when translated in space then linear momentum is conserved. Conservation of momentum principle in isolated system Asset id: 2319593529 by MZinchenko.

Emily Noether

Emily Noether was born into a Jewish family in Germany March 23 in 1882. She was the daughter of the mathematician Max Noether. She studied mathematics and completed her doctorate in 1907. At the time, women were largely excluded from academic positions, but she worked at the Mathematical Institute of Erlangen without pay for seven years. She eventually gained paid positions. She made huge contributions to abstract algebra, calculus of variations, topology and other mathematical fields.

Her most important contributions are the Noether’s theorems, the first one described here. When Hitler came to power in 1933, she had to flee Germany. She got a position as a professor at Bryn Mawr in 1933. She died in 1935.

Black and white photo of Emily Noether wearing a white shirt, a darker skirt and a black bowtie. — Emily Noether in 1910. Unknown author Unknown author Publisher: Mathematical Association of America [3], Brooklyn Museum [4], Agnes Scott College [5], [6], Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Concluding Summary

Noether’s Theorem changes how we view the Universe and the laws of physics. For example, the conservation of energy is not just something we empirically discovered. It follows mathematically from physical laws not changing by time. It represents a paradigm shift in science that arguably is as important as quantum mechanics or relativity and yet very few people have heard of it. I find that quite shocking.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago

Super fact 35: 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.

This is a super fact because surveys, such as this questionnaire from Gap Minder, show that the vast majority of the public (90%) believe that deaths from natural disasters have increased or stayed the same. Gap Minder is a Swedish highly respected non-profit founded by Hans Rosling that promotes increased use and understanding of statistics. Our World in Data (OWID), a renowned scientific online publication focusing on large global problems largely took its inspiration for Gap Minder and Hans Rosling.

The reason for the fewer deaths from natural disasters is not that there are fewer natural disasters, on the contrary, 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 graphics in this article from BBC show that the frequency of natural disasters has increased, and that the cost of natural disasters has increased, and yet the number of deaths has decreased.

The graph below comes from the Gap Minder article. It shows the annual deaths from natural disasters in ten-year intervals starting with 1930. In the 1930’s there were 971 thousand deaths per year from natural disasters and during the period 2010 to 2016 there were 72 thousand deaths per year from natural disasters, an improvement by more than 13 times.

However, it should be noted that there was a huge flood in China 1931 causing an estimated 3 million deaths, and it skews the numbers for the 1930’s interval.

Originally, I set the headline for this super fact to be “10 Times more people died from natural disasters a hundred years ago” but I changed it to “Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago” because I realized that the 1930’s peak is an outlier because of the 1931 flood. I don’t want my headlines to be click bait.

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 | Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago — This graph from the Gap Minder article shows the annual deaths from natural disasters in ten-year intervals starting with 1930. The trend is down.

This does not mean that we should not worry about the increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters from climate change. First of all, there are no warning systems and healthcare available for Koalas and Elephants, secondly cost matters, and thirdly there is no guarantee that we can keep improving our ability of predicting, handling and recovering from natural disasters enough to match the accelerating risks for natural disasters.

What People Believe Regarding Disaster Deaths

The Gap Minder article above report on a question survey conducted by Gap Minder. They asked large groups of people in 14 countries the following multiple-choice question “How did the number of deaths per year from natural disasters change over the last hundred years?” The choices were:

A. More than doubled
B. Remained more or less the same
C. Decreased to less than half

Most people answered A, a lot

of people answered B, but only 10% got the correct answer C, decreased to less than half. In other words, if chimpanzees had answered this question by randomly picking an answer, they would have done better than people. This is why I consider this a super fact. Below is a graphics taken from the Gap Minder article that shows how people in different countries responded.

There are 16 bars divided into three colors, green for the correct answer – “decreased to less than half”, orange for “remained more or less the same”, and red for “more than doubled”. The 16 bars correspond to 14 countries, one for the average (10%), and one for random answers by chimpanzees (all 33.3%). The 14 countries are Finland, Norway, Japan, Sweden, UK, Australia, US, Spain, Canada, South Korea, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, and France | Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago — The histogram graphics above show the answers to the question “How did the number of deaths per year from natural disasters change over the last hundred years?” The correct answer “decreased to less than half” (in green) was rarely picked. The graphics is taken from the Gap Minder article mentioned.

EF3 Tornado in Dallas

In October 2019 an EF3 tornado ripped through our neighborhood. It left a 2-3 miles long trail of destruction. Roofs were lifted off houses, cars and buses were flown around, hundreds of houses were destroyed, bricks were flying around in the wind, trees were uprooted, and tree branches were flying around, and pieces of concrete crashed into buildings and hit steel fences so forcefully that it bent even quarter inch thick steel fences.

Unlike many of our neighbor’s houses, our house stood, but our chimney was smashed by a piece of concrete coming off a neighbor’s house, we had to replace our roof, our garage door, the wiring in the attic, our fence and my grill flew around in the yard. The amazing thing was that no one in the neighborhood died.

Why did no one die? Was it maybe because no one was outside walking the dog, or driving around, because everyone had received the alarm on their mobile phone about the approaching tornado and was therefore sheltering inside in a safe place? Imagine the same thing happening in the 1930’s.

Below are a few photos from that day and here are two links with more photos, link-1 , link-2. On the five-year anniversary of this event NBC news interviewed me about this event. To see the interview click here . My interview is at one minute and ten seconds.

A neighbor’s house with the roof ripped off after the EF3 Tornado in Texas. — NBC used this photo. A neighbor’s house the morning of October 21^st, 2019. Again, click on the image, or here, to see the interview. My interview is at one minute and ten seconds.

The photo shows a severely damaged house and lots of debris consisting of wood and trees and tree branches after the EF3 Tornado in Texas. — Another neighbor’s house. This house was about 100 yards from our house. It took a direct hit from the tornado.

This photo shows a house that is completely destroyed after the EF3 Tornado in Texas | Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago — Another house in our neighborhood.

My wife Claudia asked me to go check on her parents. I drove about 50-100 yards when a neighbor’s roof lying across the road stopped me. I turned around but this time I was stopped by a large pile of trees lying across the street. So, I started walking, but this time I was stopped by a group of firemen telling me that it was too dangerous to be outside. They told me to go back home, and I did. The next day we were able to visit her parents and below is what we saw.

The photo shows my wife Claudia walking into a house with debris everywhere after the EF3 Tornado in Texas. — Inside my wife Claudia’s parents’ house. This was the morning after. In the photo we are walking into their house to check on them (that’s my wife).

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

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.