What do Grand Theft Auto, US coal exports and juicy steaks have in common?
Other than being unhealthy in large doses, they are the subjects of recent studies on pollution footprints that reach some surprising conclusions.
To recap the research:
- US coal exports to South Korea could lead to a 21% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), finds a study in Environmental Science & Technology.
- Downloading video games could result in more carbon emissions than driving to the store and buying games on Blu-ray disc, according to an article in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.
- If Americans improved their diets in accordance with government guidelines, it could boost GHGs 12%, estimates another Journal of Industrial Ecology report.
At face value, these studies fly in the face of traditionally held beliefs about sustainability best practice. But do these curious findings really mean we should support new coal export terminals on the West Coast, abandon healthy foods and stop downloading video games?
Before answering that question, it’s best to consider the uncertainties, caveats and tradeoffs involved in applying this research to sustainable business practices.
In their study on emissions related to US food production and diets, University of Michigan researchers present an entire menu of meaty morsels with broad implications for individuals and companies.
For instance, the study found that beef accounts for 36% of US food-production emissions, while making up just 4% of retail food supply. But if Americans collectively ate less meat and adopted a more health-conscious diet, in line with US Department of Agriculture recommendations, it would actually increase emissions by 12%. This is largely due to an increase in recommended dairy consumption, the study found.
Vegetarian diets, however, could result in 30% lower emissions than the average American diet. The US could reduce emissions by about the same rate by eliminating “food losses”, food that is wasted rather than consumed. Simply eating smaller portions would also help.
Based on these results, the Michigan researchers conclude: “Real and important opportunities exist to improve the resource use efficiency and environmental impact of the US food system that do not require increased yields or shifts in production, but are instead dependent on consumer behaviors.”
In other words: waste not, want not.
Consumer behavior also features prominently in a new study on the carbon footprint of video game distribution, relying on PlayStation purchases in the UK. Contrary to findings on music files, this research indicates that distributing video games via Blu-ray discs in stores is less carbon intensive than downloading games at home. This is because the emissions associated with the electricity required to download larger video game files in the UK are higher than the emissions caused by driving to the store.
The results “illustrate why it is not always true that digital distribution of media will have lower carbon emissions than distribution by physical means when file sizes are large”, determined the researchers from Stanford University, the University of Surrey and the Social Innovation Center in France.
In an important note on carbon footprint studies, the authors advise fellow researchers: “Care should be taken to ensure that general principles taken from such research are relevant and applicable before being used to guide decision making on environmental policy.”
Duke University’s study on coal exports, produced with the University of Calgary, seems devoid of such concern.
The study theorizes that exporting US coal abroad could cut GHG emissions compared to using that same coal here. Specifically, the researchers posit a scenario in which Oregon allows Australian company Ambre Energy to ship 8.8m tons of Powder River Basin coal annually to South Korea. They calculated a 21% drop in GHG emissions because of “the superior energy efficiency among newer South Korean coal-fired power plants and lower emissions from the US replacement of coal with natural gas”.
It’s an intriguing hypothesis. But how likely is that scenario?
Even setting aside the fact that Oregon last month rejected Ambre Energy’s proposal, which the company has appealed, there are “many uncertainties”, admitted co-author Dalia Patiño-Echeverri, a professor of energy systems and public policy, in an email. Significantly, the researchers do not know whether the coal, if exported, would land in South Korea, and they also don’t know whether it would displace nuclear, natural gas or coal.
Replacing nuclear or gas – as US coal exports are doing in other parts of the world – would reverse the study’s conclusion. The Duke professor says such uncertainties highlight the main takeaway of the study – namely, that it is essential to assess domestic energy policies in an international context.
That is important, especially given that Powder River Basin coal producers, which are among the potential losers of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, are using the Duke study to argue in favor of Northwest export terminals to access global markets.
As this use of the Duke study shows – to which Patiño-Echeverri declined to respond – surprising conclusions about carbon footprints sometimes can be used in predictable ways by vested interests not necessarily concerned with sustainable business. Whether the topic is coal exports, video game distribution or food supply, such studies should always be consumed with a grain of salt.
Read more posts like this:
• Science and sustainability goals: what researchers want businesses to know
• Game on: could gamification help business change behaviour?
• The business cost of climate change: what the science says
• Too big to save: why commercial buildings resist energy efficiency
Garrett Hering is a San Francisco-based journalist covering energy, technology, business and the environment. His articles have appeared in California Energy Markets, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and elsewhere.
The Science Behind Sustainability Solutions blog is funded by the Arizona State University Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
