A smaller footprint?

In 1973, Noddy Holder of the British band Slade announced to the world "It's Christmas!" The song was the Christmas number one in the UK that year and Noddy has been screaming it ever since. 'Tis the season to consume. And why not? Since at least when Dickens has the reformed Scrooge splashing out on all kinds of goodies, Christmas has been a season of conspicuous consumption. Like all animals we humans are consumers—air, food, water, space, stuff to build on our space, stuff to clothe us, stuff to get us from A to B, and stuff simply to enjoy. And all of it requires energy. Every day we consume and every day our consumption leaves a footprint. The human footprint is eroding ecosystems, spoiling the planet, making it unfit for us and for other animals. Environmentalists tell us to leave as small a footprint as possible. They have a point. 

Some clever folk have constructed an algorithm to determine how many planets we would need if everyone lived the way we do. You can calculate here: Footprint calculator. (I double dare you to do it!) I have taken the test a number of times over the years. Currently, the test tells me it would need 2.9 planets if everyone on the plant lived the way I do. I think that is just about my best score to date. I'm vegetarian, practically vegan, I drive an electric car to work, at home we consume only electricity produced by solar power. And still I am taking more than my share of the planet's resources. Sheesh! What's a guy gotta do!

Weirdly, it seems you have to have wealth to have a smaller footprint. Organic, local food is more expensive than food in the supermarket brought to you from the other side of the world. Want to use less gas (petrol)? Go electric! New electric cars are not cheap. Want a product made by a local craftsperson or firm rather than a cheap but well made Chinese import? Better start saving! It's not easy to reduce your footprint and having a decent amount of cash helps. Yet not everyone has the cash to spend on a smaller footprint. High inflation is squeezing more and more people.

I'm going to oversimplify and suggest there are three responses to this dilemma: the puritan response; the hedonist response; and the pragmatist repsonse.

The puritan goes all out to reduce their footprint to zero, and woe betide you if you don't match the puritan's demands. You will be judged. Drive a car? Judged. Eat meat? Judged. Not got solar panels? Judged. Bought a new coat? Judged. The English Puritans banned Christmas. Old Ebenezer was a puritan, too. I've faced my share of puritan wrath over the years. It came up in conversation, once upon a time, that I am vegetarian. I suffered a lecture telling me I had to do more. Only vegans are righteous. I'm not a fan of Puritanism in any of its guises. It's loveless, lifeless, severe and no one matches up.

If you can't be pure why bother? The hedonist looks at the immensity of the task, gives in as hopeless and just enjoys as much as they can. If we can't fix things, what's the point in trying. Take as much pleasure as you can right now. It might be in short supply in the future. Grab your share now.

The pragmatist takes a middle way. The truth is we are consumers. We will leave a footprint. It would be foolish to pretend we would not. But we can be mindful. We can make incremental changes that help but that don't take away all the joys of life. The pragmatist will likely not meet the demands of the puritan. Nor will the pragmatist ignore the the perils of our current plight.  Nor will the pragmatist ride roughly over others needs. So, four things: Do what you can. Don't beat yourself up. Resist judging other folk. Enjoy life.

'Tis the season. Consume wisely and compassionately.

+Ab. Andy