Let’s be honest: how small is our consumption-GHG footprint really? “En pointe” or is it a smidge more elephantine? … And not compared to past ‘achievements,’ our neighbour or some government thought up target, but compared to where it should be? You & I really ought to know our footprint for our own peace of mind & body, because our every choice daily affects the planet we’ll be handing over to NextGen. The community per capita GHG/carbon equivalent footprint for 2022 is calculated at 7.9tCO2e, while the global per capita emissions averaged at 6.5 metric tons[mfn]compiled by the World Resources Institute and divided by the population estimate by the United Nations (for July 1) of the same year. The emissions data do not include land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), nor emissions from the consumption of imported goods. So the global figure will be 0.5–1%point higher.[/mfn] in 2021.

Just as a cosy home can be felt/sensed when standing at someone’s front door, so can the quality of our own GHG legacy! It’s that simple. On the bright side, we can always adapt our personal behaviours at any time … like now. For example:

[two-thirds-first]There [are] currently no environmental initiatives or commercially viable technologies in the aviation industry which would substantiate the absolute green claim “protecting [the planet’s] future”, as we considered consumers would interpret it. — Advertising Standards Authority (UK) 23/03/01 statement on Lufthansa’s 2023 advert[/two-thirds-first] [one-third]


Today there’s added pressure on us honest CO2 emitters because more and more opinion makers[mfn]among others Daniel C. Wahl (Findhorn Fellow)[/mfn] who used to talk up “sustainability” a lot, are now talking “regeneration!”

Good teachers tell us that any top notch discussion starts with “defining terms.” We should never take our own level of knowledge/understanding for granted; Viz the small print in insurance policies! Participants should then agree ideal measurement criteria of those terms, and finally make sure the measures are actually exevuted, and consistently too — even if we don’t like where the results are pointing us. There’s that “honesty” requirement again…

And on the subject of “right measurement criteria,” there’s more: critical thinking is a gateway to uncovering the truths that lie beyond the surface. It’s a journey where our minds soar beyond the ordinary, driven by the flames of reason. With every question we ask, we tread on uncharted paths, revealing the hidden wisdom that awaits within the realm of curiosity. — Zafar.  You & I need to become more critical as citizens: not taking (our own beliefs or) the statements offered by ‘authorities’ (voted for/accepted by us) at face value, and understanding the meaning of terms being bandied about in media &dinner parties. As Pope Francis said on 230430 to an Hungarian IT faculty, the key to accessing this truth [the one that “will set you free”] is a form of knowledge that is never detached from love, a knowledge that is relational, humble and open, concrete and communal, courageous and constructive. That is what universities are called to cultivate and faith is called to nurture. That’s common sense, no? Just like the idea of “Regeneration” itself is common sense: this is “Sustainability+” a little bit more, to create not a neutral but a truly positive end result for all participants.

When the solution is simple, God is answering. — Albert Einstein

So here below is some common sense about the first-world’s seemingly insatiable need for economic growth. I really hope that that need isn’t an excuse for our deer-like paralysis in the face of future choices? Our state of mind/heart must first change before we each (start to) take the best possible, small, individual every day steps, that consciously embody LOVE in action for all our neighbours.[mfn]animal, mineral, vegetal, planetary…[/mfn] Life is constant development, so standing still is not a creative option.

If you’re not a reader , here’s the crux of Author Tim Parrique’s suggestions: we should apply a diversity of strategies to reduce emissions: avoid, shift, and improve. Avoid consists in consuming less of something; shift means substituting one type of consumption for another; and improve is the greening of an existing type of consumption. If we’re talking about transport, we should avoid unnecessary travels, shift to low-carbon modes of transportation, and improve the efficiency of all the modes of transport we cannot avoid using. There is pure sufficiency (avoid), pure efficiency (improve), and a mix of the two (shift). Enjoy the below common sense and check out the author’s linked-sources![vertical-spacer] [vertical-spacer]