The Carbon Diet: Climate Change Is Not A Cliché

Have you ever heard the climate change-related expression ‘the carbon diet’? The term first appeared in 2000 in the USA as an encouragement for Americans to reduce their carbon footprints. Typical measures for this initiative were riding a bike instead of driving, or changing standard lightbulbs for eco-friendly ones. A few years later, the world’s environment was beginning to sound like a weight loss campaign, with statements such as ‘Low Carbon Diet: A 30 Day Program to Lose 5.000 Pounds’.

In 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the Governor of California, stated the following:

‘Sticking with an unhealthy diet will lead to an early death, but if you want to make some sacrifices on eating habits and physical exercise, then you can have a long healthy life.’

On the one hand, dealing with climate change is not like trying to lose weight. These metaphors made people see one of the biggest problems on earth as a cliché.

On the other hand, what does a carbon diet mean for three-quarters of the total population that are craving for any energy? Most of the world uses just 10% of the energy, billions of people lack access to electricity. So apparently the same people that are humoristic about the subject are the ones that need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions for everyone’s sake.

The easiest way to understand climate change

The use of fossil fuels to generate energy produces carbon dioxide. The high level of gas existing in the Earth’s atmosphere is one of the main greenhouse gases causing what we known as the “greenhouse effect”.

The chemical compound will first absorb thermal radiation, emitting afterwards in all possible directions.

Part of this re-radiation is back towards the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Thus, the consequence is clear: the average surface temperature on our planet increases above what it would be in the absence of gases. This is called climate change.

Which would be the ideal situation? You can answer that by yourself. Stop consuming fuels containing carbon, such as petroleum, coal and natural gas.

Changing the focus

The bottom line is: instead of focusing on innovating toward low-carbon energy sources, why not find a way of meeting more needs with less power? It is efficient to find new sources of energy, to encourage people and businesses to use renewable energy, to reduce the amount of carbon emissions, etc. However, being realistic, more of us will use more energy in a near future and more of us will live in cities.

What if we could reduce the amount of energy consumed as a whole? What if we do not need that much electricity? We would live to see how global warming is reduced, or even mitigated.

Learn how several companies are already committed to this idea with our free resources.

Leave a Reply