The Jump: Program to reduce footprint

[AxelHeyst]

A program making the case that individual action can make a difference (25% of required cuts to meet 1.5C in this case).

The Jump campaign asks people to sign up to take the following six “shifts” for one, three or six months:

• Eat a largely plant-based diet, with healthy portions and no waste
• Buy no more than three new items of clothing per year
• Keep electrical products for at least seven years
• Take no more than one short haul flight every three years and one long haul flight every eight years
• Get rid of personal motor vehicles if you can – and if not keep hold of your existing vehicle for longer
• Make at least one life shift to nudge the system, like moving to a green energy, insulating your home or changing pension supplier

I thought it was interesting because 1) It's one of the first mainstream articles I've read that doesn't take an either/or frame on personal action vs 'the gov+corps must chamge', but a both/and frame, and 2) The actions are more significant than typical change your lightbulbs or handwavey "think about something you can do for the planet, and do it!! #smileyface #omgisntthisfun". I suspect most folks would think these actions are actually pretty significant, so it seems remarkable that campaigns aimed at 'most folks' are getting to this level. A sign that the Overton window is moving, I think.

[jacob]

It looks like I don't have to make any changes to get onboard that program.

They are pretty significant for the average person though. Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen/heard endless howling about energy prices going up. "The government should do something", "Drill more", and "Lowering my thermostat by one degree is too much, Sir, too much, I declare!"

For many "saving the climate" is not enough of a carrot.

I'm also curious to see if lasting change can come about from a campaign. This could end up like a "30 day" challenge.

The Overton window for the IPCC is moving though. Non-consumerism or anti-consumerism has infected about 1% of population now and that's enough that it's beginning to become "detectable" as a scientific research project. By my current count, I've had 3 students contact me for writing about FIRE for a semester project and 2 professors wanting to include these ideas in a course somehow. It is moving. But it was also moving 50 years ago, so I think the best outcome is that the people who do get on this program will not be the ones whining about how the cost of everything is going up in the future.

[bostonimproper]

I like the idea. Six month pledges seem too short to make an impact on most of these, but nice to increase awareness and to get into the swing of living with a lesser footprint.

I personally find the environmental impact of flying to be the hardest to break. Largely due to far flung family and friends (opposite coast and internationally). It would be nice if there was a greener alternative to long distance travel.

[AxelHeyst]

I'm holding out for dirigibles...

[Slevin]

Also just jumping in some for self congratulatory backpatting for already being compliant with this ruleset. As you’ve said, this accounts only for 25% of emissions, and only for greenhouse gases I.e. doesn’t take into account other systemic issues of humans causing climate change. For most of history (anything before 1990s I think), I think following these rules (except plant based, which wasn’t in the societal sphere yet to any large degree) would be considered incredibly extravagant in that the norm was to keep stuff longer and flying was hella expensive.

Also, insert some lengthy argument I don’t really want to make again here about needing a more specific definition of “largely plant based + healthy portions”. Some people may take that to mean only eating meat once per day, some once or twice a week.

@bostonimproper if you get lucky on location the train is really nice (though obviously very limited) and it is 3x the cost of flying usually due to lack of government subsidies, etc.

[bostonimproper]

@Slevin I’d be more than willing to eat the cost, but 80-90 hours each way on a train to do NYC to LAX sounds unpleasant. But probably I should just suck it up and put my lower back where my mouth is?

[Slevin]

@bostonimproper That's fair. I'm always only doing Denver to SF, so its just about a day through some of the most beautiful sections of the country, and it is night at different sections on the way there and back, so you basically see all new terrain. Also, it isn't a plane, you can get up and walk around and play cards and board games with your travel companions, if you have them. And no weight limits on luggage, and extra bags past the two free ones (no size limit I think) are cheap, so bringing board games is actually viable. But yes, it does take like 3 days if you go the whole way......

[theanimal]

I'm with you, @bostonimproper. Each flight to visit family for me essentially amounts to the equivalent of a cross ocean flight given the distance. I desire to see my family and have extremely low desire to move. Hence the conundrum. I really do like travelling by train and would take one if there was one going the whole way. But as it is, not accounting for schedules not lining up, it would amount to 1 day train, 4.5 day ferry, and then a 2 day train. The difficulty in changing is also that the environmental cost is not factored into the cost of flying. Not only is there some friction (perceived or not) with regards to the time, but financially as well. For example, if I were to do the above alternative, it'd cost roughly $1200 versus a 7 hr flight for ~$250.

[jacob]

I've found that regular zoom meetings (2hr/month on a monthly basis) obviate my need to see people physically. I'm not a hugger though.

[Lemur]

Electrical planes / Hydrogen-Fuel powered planes https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/06/desig ... 20aircraft. or something would be a nice welcome in the 21st century.

I'm normally not a pro-tech will save us type of person but I don't see air travel going away. Might as well make it climate affordable.

Would like to go to a giant Earth meeting and request that we take a step back from becoming an interplanetary species and fix up our own planet first but I think trying to go to Mars and trying to fix the climate is generally* a conflict of interest lol.

[Slevin]

Would like to go to a giant Earth meeting and request that we take a step back from becoming an interplanetary species and fix up our own planet first but I think trying to go to Mars and trying to fix the climate is a conflict of interest lol.

Same, one of the main reasons I stopped working on the Orion spacecraft (other than hating the infinite bureaucracy of the whole place). I was reading a bunch of environmental books and reports (many of which were recommended to me here) and realized it was infinitely more important to build human systems in a scale-able and systemically sustainable way here, before worrying about going to different planets and wasting the absolutely absurd amount of human capital and resources to go "visit" another planet for what amounts to a photo-op.

[white belt]

Another techno-optimist solution is to use zeppelins that are filled with hydrogen but have a variety of safety measures to prevent another Hindenberg disaster, which would be much more fuel efficient than current aircraft. They are slower than planes but faster than boats.

The problem of flying may very well sort itself out with high energy prices. I just checked a common ~2 hour domestic route I fly to visit DGF and see that it has doubled in price compared to when I flew it a month ago. That is one thing that is influencing me to make the drive instead, even if it's 7-8 hours.

The low tech solution if you don't want to move is to just go on a fewer trips but stay longer for the trips you do go on, which happened to be the solution that people went with prior to the advent of cheap air travel. This might make ground transportation options more practical as well. I get that many people are tied to job locations, but if you are a remote worker then I don't see why that would be an issue. Part time and seasonal work also pair well with this. A few days driving or on a train each way is much more palatable for a 1+ month trip than it is for a 1 week visit.

[AnalyticalEngine]

I like these. I've been lazy about actually putting my money where my mouth is lately, so I think I'm gonna do these. I'm already doing four of the six, but there's room for improvement

@Slevin - Do you know how taking a long train ride works? Does the train stop for breaks or do you go straight through?

[chenda]

Another techno-optimist solution is to use zeppelins that are filled with hydrogen but have a variety of safety measures to prevent another Hindenberg disaster, which would be much more fuel efficient than current aircraft. They are slower than planes but faster than boats.

I was about to say the same; helium is a safer alternative and I think is used in the few airships still in use.

But there is no current substitute really for long haul travel; trains can work for short haul destinations but air travel is so absurdly cheap compared to trains currently that it does not make any financial sense, even ignoring the time savings. Well maybe ocean liners will also make a come back.

Whilst it seems inevitable that air travel will have to increase in price due to the current situation, there are currently some real bargains to have as if airlines are desperate for customers. I've just been quoted £18 London to Milan return in July. People will literally spend more in the airport bar than the price of the ticket, which is how airlines now make their money.

[theanimal]

@AE- IME from Chicago to Seattle (Amtrak). The train makes frequent stops, perhaps one every hour and each stop is about 5 minutes or so. You have time to go out and stretch your legs and walk around for a minute before the conductor calls everyone back on board. They are not long enough stops to wander around towns, get supplies etc along the way.

[AxelHeyst]

@Slevin - Do you know how taking a long train ride works? Does the train stop for breaks or do you go straight through?

Goes straight through, five min stops at most. Either pay more for a sleeper cabin with an actual bunk, or the chairs in coach cabin on long routes tend to recline quite a bit more than airplanes. Basically a big lazyboy. (Abq <> LA Amtrak, others might differ?).

Another way would be to buy tickets split up .. get off for a day in a city to get a good night's sleep, hop on the next train. If you aren't in a hurry.

[jacob]

@Slevin - Do you know how taking a long train ride works? Does the train stop for breaks or do you go straight through?

Depends on which continent you're on. European high speed trains like ICE go almost straight through (it doesn't make sense to slow them down or speed them up constantly). They stop for 60-90 seconds at major stations. You can practically set your clock by their arrival times. At 185mph, they're ~3x faster than most of the US train system. Even the regional trains are getting pretty snappy around 100mph.

[chenda]

Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen/heard endless howling about energy prices going up. "The government should do something", "Drill more", and "Lowering my thermostat by one degree is too much, Sir, too much, I declare!"

Remember though for some low income people rising energy prices mean having to decide between eating or heating.

[jacob]

Remember though for some low income people rising energy prices mean having to decide between eating or heating.

Or turning the thermostat down below 16C/61F and putting on an extra layer.

I don't want to be the bad guy, who appears completely out of touch, but that measure seems to almost universally unpossible/inconceivable with the exception of most people over 80 who still remember a time when this was normal room temperature.

(Sorry, I've been having this discussion elsewhere all morning.)
Q: The energy prices are so high. I can't afford this.
A: Maybe turn the thermostat down?
Q: But then I'll be cold.
A: Put on an extra layer.
Q: But what about mold?
A: Regularly open the windows to air out.

The idea of seasonally dressing up for the indoors as well as the outdoors does not seem to have occurred to anyone. Neither does the idea of solving their humidity problem with fresh air instead of keeping the temperature high. The corresponding adulting skills for high energy prices aren't there anymore and haven't been there for 2+ generations.

It's a basic lack of cultural capital and heavy resistance towards acquiring it.
Everything on the JUMP list would save people money if they implemented it.

[chenda]

Or turning the thermostat down below 16C/61F and putting on an extra layer.

I don't want to be the bad guy, who appears completely out of touch, but that measure seems to almost universally unpossible/inconceivable with the exception of most people over 80 who still remember a time when this was normal room temperature.

I don't deny there is a lot of wasteful consumerism of energy, but energy poverty is also a real thing for many people.

As I'm sure you know electricity is a lot more expensive in Europe. I live in a very well insulated flat of less than 40 m2, I have three electric heaters of which I only ever use one or two during the day in the autumn/winter. I'm usually wearing two jumpers during the day and the heating is always off at night I just layer on the bed blankets (as an aside you can sleep better in a cold room)

Yet my monthly electric bill is still £100/$130, which is about to go up by 50% next month. And probably a lot more given the news this afternoon. I'm not complaining as I can accommodate it, but lots of people can't despite careful use of energy.