A recent trip reminded me of the impact of carbon in our society. We face an unwavering and adamant societal condemnation of carbon emissions. There are times when one might doubt comments and perspectives. I heard a speaker recently refer to the amount of carbon humans "create." That was both a broad and incorrect statement. We do not make carbon. Carbon exists. It is around us, and certainly, our activities and actions may release carbon that is presently stored.
Carbon can be stored in a variety of forms. An easy example is trees. As trees grow, they live on carbon. They absorb it and store it, called sequestration. Trees do not dispose of carbon, but they are "sinks." They store it, and they are not alone. When a tree dies or is cut it will cease to accumulate carbon. When a tree dies (old age or is cut) that carbon is released back into the atmosphere, rapidly (burning) or not (decomposition).
Believe it or not, you are also actually a "carbon sink" on a much smaller scale (our bodies store carbon). Most of the carbon attributable to human activity is when something is changed by us and thus carbon is emitted into the atmosphere. Some assert this is the only possible way to add carbon: "The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels - where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years - and combust it." Thus, we are not "making" carbon, but releasing it from sequestration. When you die, you will do so just like a tree.
There is a great deal in the twenty-first-century marketplace about carbon. Periodically, the option is offered to "contribute" to carbon offset. This is a business of some description recognizing that what it does produces some degree of carbon emission. That business is perhaps engaged in a breadth of efforts to minimize its pollution or to convince customers that it is. Among those efforts is the collection of your dollars to "offset" its impact, assuage its feelings, and convince you it cares (about your money at least).
At least eleven airlines offer such an opportunity. There are estimates that airlines worldwide number in the thousands. Of course, some are larger than others in terms of fleet, flights, and other capacity or production measures. If the two lists in these links are cross-referenced, two of the ten largest airlines offer such a carbon program. I was reminded of this on my recent trip when I had the opportunity to observe the incredible volume of humans scurrying about in some large airports. Humans move around a great deal.
At my first stop on this trip, I was privileged to engage with some of the smartest people I know. Perhaps they are simply the smartest people? In either event, I am privileged to periodically watch them work. They are methodical, organized, and efficient. I watched them recently identify, discuss, and dispatch an incredible volume of information in a very brief time. They did so with a scientific approach, intense focus, interpersonal patience, and incredible collegiality.
I have watched them for some time in both in-person and remote efforts. They are incredibly effective, motivated, and dedicated. However, I am convinced that they are more effective in person than in a remote environment. I see the interactions and the asides. I perceive the "feel" of the room. There is an ease of interaction and comprehension that is less apparent or natural in the remote environment. This group is exceptional at task focus and collaboration, period. But in person, it is better still, patently, palpably. To watch them is frankly mesmerizing for a mere mortal such as myself.
The meeting facility was not unlike hundreds I have visited. Once you eat at one hotel, you may have eaten at them all. I have discerned little difference in hotel fare over the years as I made the "rubber chicken circuit." But I was struck in this setting to be offered water, bottled. We consume a great deal of bottled water in America, "15.9 billion gallons" in 2022. According to that source, our consumption is persistently growing. That consumption contributes to carbon emissions.
Each of those bottles, glass or plastic (yes, glass, heavy glass) is produced in a factory. The raw materials are shipped to that factory on some conveyance that burns fossil fuel and emits carbon. The containers are then shipped again to a water source where they are filled. The full bottles are then shipped to a distributor, a retailer, or other customer. Eventually, following some or all of these various emissions of carbon, the water is at our fingertips for consumption.
Water. It is all around us. Some of it cleaner than others. Some of it bubbly, flavored, or otherwise enhanced. But in the end, water. I don't like to brag, but I have a spigot right inside my house that has water available in various temperatures.
That ubiquity of water occurred to me as I consumed that bottled water (my favorite brand), imported in glass bottles to the United States from Italy (5,046 miles away). I chose it over the alternative which was bottled in a small island nation in the Pacific (7,112 miles). These two were (1) the only choices of bottled water, and (2) the only choice (no pitchers of ice water from the local tap, I am not putting down the hotel if they don't have one of those indoor spigot contraptions).
I wondered as I consumed. What is the "carbon footprint" of a bottle of water? In a world of debate about remote versus in-person meetings, we may be able and willing to debate our collective and comparative efficacy from being physically present. I have witnessed it, and in-person is really more effective in various instances and situations. But, is there really any value or merit in the presence of water that has traveled thousands of miles?
What is the impact? It is multi-faceted. And it is worthy of our consideration that there are people whose very lives depend upon their work. They (I) work to eat. In a basic economic exchange, I convey some value that a market is willing to consume and for it there is pay. I use that to live, to consume other goods and services, and in the process I produce (and store) carbon. So it is also for people who harvest resources, make bottles, drive trucks, stack pallets, load trucks, drive trucks, load and unload ships, and a vast array of related tasks. Commerce is commerce. You have to work to live (well mostly, see Hip to be Square, July 2023).
Keep in mind that this all ignores the people that make the shrink wrap and pallets. It ignores the people that produce the fossil fuels and build the vehicles that consume them. It ignores those who produce and maintain a variety of equipment, software, and more that contribute to that bottle of water reaching my hands in a hotel conference room. Literally, thousands of people are making a living through the process of providing me that water. One cannot ignore that their livelihood is inexorably tied to one's decision to consume or not consume that bottle of water. Let's not get carried away too rapidly with our consumption choices.
It is a zero-sum game. For every bottle of island water I drink, there is a bottle of Italian water foregone. For every drink I get from the spigot in my house, that is a bottle of each foregone. Every this I buy is a that I forego. Every minute I spend writing this blog is a minute I do not have for something productive. Perhaps the most humorous irony of American public education is how infrequent financial and economic education is not required. In the end, much of what people need to examine in life is basic economics.
Just so that Statler and Waldorf don't write me again to ask what this has to do with workers' compensation, many of those employees are covered by workers' compensation. The cost of every element of that production and delivery chain is impacted. And, a great many who read this blog are delivering value in the workers' compensation market, they make it a career. They travel to meetings and consume products there, like bottled water. Any of them might make a difference in their world.
What does it take to move from place to place? An internet calculator informed me that my recent trip contributed "0.496" tons of carbon to the atmosphere. Whether that was imperial or metric, I am not certain. And, I cannot confirm the math (as Mrs. Worthy used to tell us to, but you cannot "show your work" with internet calculators).
There are those who would make a very sound argument that the "cost" of in-person gatherings in this regard is not justified by the marginal benefit (not to suggest it is minimal or de minimus, but that it is "in addition to") of physical presence. But this post is about water. Nonetheless, I generated carbon getting to the water.
A fluid ounce is a measure of volume, not weight. But, the weight in ounces is more (1.0432) than the fluid ounces. Thus, it is fair to say that an eleven-ounce bottle of water weighs more than eleven ounces. That is further supported by the fact that the volume of a bottle makes no account of the weight of the bottle. Did I mention that one of the brands of water was in glass bottles? Those likely weigh more than the plastic ones. Whether one or the other is better in our local landfill is a topic for another day.
For simplicity, the study is then on what it takes to move eleven ounces of water to that recent meeting. I will hear from some who will decry the simplicity. They will want to parse that the fuel consumption from sea travel is different than train, truck, etc. Undoubtedly, that is all true and a finer point could be placed on this analysis by mathematicians far superior to me.
One calculator estimates that to ship one kilogram from that Pacific island to my recent destination would create .25 kilograms of carbon. From Italy, it estimates .15 kilograms. A kilogram is .45 pounds. There are 16 ounces in a pound. So a kilo is about 7 ounces (16 x .45). Therefore the 11-ounce bottle of water will be more than this .25 kilograms. But we can say with reasonable certainty that each bottle of water I consumed at that meeting (which is a lot) unleashed about .2 kilograms of carbon.
Without a doubt, getting me to the meeting was more carbon-intensive than getting the bottle of water there.
Some estimates place the volume of water from the Pacific island at over two million cases annually. The case (24) of either water is more than 10 pounds or about 4.5 kilograms. Two million cases would mean 9 million kilograms in a year. If it is fair to use my recent destination as an exemplar (the carbon footprint of the water is obviously less in New York (Italian) or Los Angeles (Pacific island water), then this 9 million kilograms might mean 1.35 million to 2.25 million kilograms of carbon in the atmosphere from shipping these two water brands.
That is 1,488 to 2,480 U.S. tons, or 1,329 to 2,214 Imperial tons, or 1,350 to 2,250 metric tons. In any event, it equates to a great many tons. Is there an imperative that I be in person at a meeting? That is a decision. I see benefits. I see discretion. I see making good choices. Is there an imperative that the only available beverage choice there comes with such an impact? I struggle to find a patent imperative ("of vital importance; crucial.").
There are other complaints about such, including pollution, social consciousness, and hypocrisy. This post is not about hypocrisy. I love telling Statler and Waldorf that when they contact me. Those two are really entertaining.
Does anyone else think about this impact of shipping? Is there any effort at your local retailers or restauranteurs for "local sourcing?" In our shrinking world, I can have blueberries year-round. Some come from down the street (spring) and some come from a continent away (winter). I can buy cheese from Wisconsin (quite a distance from Paradise) or from France (even further, but the scenery). I have not done the math, but I suspect the Wisconsin cheese presents a lower carbon release for me, but might not for you.
As the virtue signalers preach environment and enjoy their private jets, I am wondering whether they really need to be going. Some like Bill Gates and John Kerry have been criticized recently. The Hollywood elite has also been cited, along with others. I personally gave up my private jet years ago. But, regardless of our mode of transport, we need to question is this a meeting that will greatly benefit from in-person? Is it a gathering from which the attendee will greatly benefit from in-person. Those meetings exist. When it is justified and valuable, absolutely go there. While you are there, make the most of it, pull every bit of value you can from your presence. But water?
I am going to stop opening $2.00 per bottle water from across the globe. I am going to strive to find groceries that are sourced closer to home (apologies to a particular dairy in Oregon, and their highly addictive strawberry ice cream, let me just say "it's not you, it's me."). Do I realize that my consumption decision may impact workers, companies, and their existence? Absolutely. My alternative is to exalt their jobs and livelihood and ignore the carbon that the virtue folks are so upset about.
What would you do? The fact it, this is complicated and we live on a shrinking planet. We are increasingly co-dependent and interrelated. That is true of the economies that employ us and the environment that sustains us. Anyone telling you that there are easy answers is probably missing a few of the finer points. Who is right and who is not? What will you do?
