Sustainability and Logistics – CO2 Bullshit Bingo: An Attempt at Clarification

In a nutshell: The 3rd part of this blog post series is really about … "But the Chinese…" or "Germany is only responsible for 2% of global emissions. And we're supposed to save the world?". The first two parts covered the foundation of all this: greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change. Now we're diving deep into decontextualization and demystifying the black-and-white arguments of the once again resurgent one-dimensional view of facts – and sometimes the distortion of them. Because (and I repeat this now because it is so important): No meaningful discourse is possible when we spend more time debating the existence of facts than their significance. People have always held different opinions. Today they hold different facts. But without a shared reality, no productive collective decisions can be made. So let's get into the different CO2 footprints. In this part, I'll focus first on the individual, before we close out the series with the company and the nation or state. 

Note:Due to the complexity of the topic, I have decided to split this blog post into four parts: 

• Post 1: Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect
• Post 2: Climate Change, Global Warming and the CO2 Bathtub
• Post 3: CO2 Bullshit Bingo Part 1 (Level: Individual)
• Post 4: CO2 Bullshit Bingo Part 2 (Level: Company and Nation) 

This text feels a little odd to me. It deals with climate science. As such, all facts and most descriptions are based on the sources. I've added or reworded things here and there, of course, but essentially I've just pieced together the relevant passages. So if you think this text is brilliant: kudos to the sources. 

The Different Levels 

At every level, there are arguments and reasons used to rail against climate policy. Here are a few examples we all know: 

• The Individual: "It makes no difference whether I give up the cruise, the flight, the daily meat on my plate. I alone cannot save the climate."
• The Company: "Somehow we don't want the planet to go under, but please leave it to our customers to deal with that out of their own initiative and at their own expense. And please, no state regulation – just subsidies for new technologies!"
• The Nation: "It makes no difference whether Germany exits coal ten years earlier, introduces a speed limit, or restricts meat production."
• Europe: "What can the European Union do on its own if China, the USA and Russia don't join in…?" 

The examples listed here all seem "somehow" plausible at first glance. And yet they are not, because they omit the correlations and reduce everything to black-and-white thinking. A cognitive shortcut. It is precisely this under-complexity that I want to challenge with this blog post. 

But wait. One more thing: Why focus "only" on CO2? Because it is THE anthropogenic greenhouse gas. It is our lever for curbing climate change. You'll find the basis for why this post revolves almost exclusively around CO2 in the previous blog post. But beware: watch out for CO2 tunnel vision. 

It is certainly true that the focus must be on the overall ecological footprint – the model used to show how much a person's lifestyle in all its facets burdens the environment (food, drink, housing, mobility, waste, etc.). And beyond that, there are so many other areas of sustainable transformation (see image above) that a tunnel-vision approach could easily overlook them.  

Now, on to the Bullshit Bingo. 

The Carbon Footprint – A PR Masterstroke 

Where does the carbon footprint actually come from? Greenpeace? WWF? Far from it. To answer these questions, we don't need to travel that far back in history. Just to the year 2006. 

"It's time to go on a low-carbon diet". With this slogan, BP published its own "Carbon footprint calculator" on their website that year, allowing users to estimate how our normal daily lives – commuting to work, buying groceries and travelling – are largely responsible for warming the planet. [1] 

20 years later, the carbon footprint is omnipresent. Environmental agencies have carbon calculators. The New York Times and many other online outlets have published guides on "How to reduce your carbon footprint". 

BP?! The world's second-largest non-state oil company, with 18,700 petrol stations worldwide? How so? Well, it was a brilliant marketing strategy. Because two years earlier, in 2004, BP had hired PR experts Ogilvy & Mather to argue that climate change was not the fault of one or more oil giants, but of individuals. Of us. As individuals.  

The strategy was to shift as much blame as possible onto the consumer, in the full knowledge that the consumer is not in a position to bring the situation under control. This reverse psychology fundamentally ensures that nothing actually changes. Entirely in BP's interest. It was (and still is) effective and highly potent propaganda. [1] The website and calculator shown above were part of this BP advertising campaign called "Beyond Petroleum". 

Even if it appears harmless on the surface, the carbon footprint is designed to manipulate how we think about one of the greatest environmental threats of our time: We are the problem. What makes this so insidious is that it isn't entirely wrong. But as long as fossil fuels form the foundation of the energy system, there can never be a sustainable carbon footprint. 

We should not, however, make the mistake of dismissing the concept entirely because of its origins – that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The carbon footprint, used correctly, remains a valuable tool for raising awareness and driving individual action.