THE VINE SEPTEMBER 28, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It's not considered the height of political savvy here in the United States to point out that European lifestyles are greener than our own. Don't expect that line in an Obama speech anytime soon. Too many facets of European life—the cramped apartments, the clotheslines for drying laundry—would likely strike suburbanites as inconvenient, burdensome, or even downright primitive. But, that said, Elizabeth Rosenthal's essay on living in Italy and seeing firsthand why per-person CO2 emissions there are only half what ours are was interesting to read:
But even as an American, if you go live in a nice apartment in Rome, as I did a few years back, your carbon footprint effortlessly plummets. It’s not that the Italians care more about the environment; I’d say they don’t. But the normal Italian poshy apartment in Rome doesn’t have a clothes dryer or an air conditioner or microwave or limitless hot water. The heat doesn’t turn on each fall until you’ve spent a couple of chilly weeks living in sweaters. The fridge is tiny. The average car is small. The Fiat 500 gets twice as much gas mileage as any hybrid SUV. And it’s not considered suffering. It’s living the dolce vita.
(Granted, it doesn't hurt that Italy also generates more than half its electricity from natural gas, rather than coal.) Rosenthal also looks at a few policies in Switzerland and Germany that have made people marginally more conscious about conserving energy, even though they're probably not any more distressed about the fate of the planet than we are:
In old Zurich, for example, to discourage waste and reduce trash, garbage collection has long been limited to once a week (as opposed to three times a week in much of New York); recyclables like cardboard and plastic are collected once a month in the Swiss city. Since Zurich residents live with their trash for days and weeks at a time, they naturally try to generate less of it—food comes with no packaging, televisions leave naked from the store.
As I nosed around the apartment of a Swiss financial planner, she showed me the closet for trash. A whole week of her life created the same amount as the detritus of one New York takeout Chinese meal.
Likewise, in Germany, I’ve seen blocks of townhouses that are "passive" houses — homes so efficient they do not need to be heated. And an upscale suburb that had banned cars from its streets; you could own a car, but it had to be kept in a garage at the edge of town where parking spaces cost over $30,000 a year, meaning that few people owned cars and those who did rarely used them for small daily tasks like shopping.
Rosenthal wonders whether similar measures could fly in the United States: "I believe most people are pretty adaptable and that some of the necessary shifts in lifestyle are about changing habits, not giving up comfort or convenience." Maybe so, but this sort of talk still tends to be taboo in mainstream U.S. green circles. Josh Patashnik wrote a terrific piece for TNR last year on Arnold Schwarzenegger's brand of "pain-free environmentalism" in California—it's all just peachy to talk about swapping out coal-fired plants for solar-thermal stations, but ixnay on trying to rein in suburban growth or coax people into smaller homes.
Now, the "pain-free" tack isn't delusional. There've been plenty of studies about how we can knock out an enormous chunk of our greenhouse-gas emissions simply by employing smarter energy-efficiency measures—that is, using less energy to keep doing things we've always done. Better insulation for homes. Energy-saving TVs and fridges. Hybrid vehicles. Recycling waste energy from factories and power plants (I have a print piece this week on some of the insane inefficiencies in the power sector). Painless measures that don't require anyone to ditch their car in the outskirts of town or sport drenched armpits in the summer or make any wrenching lifestyle changes. But will those changes alone—along with new, low-carbon energy sources, of course—allow us to curb emissions enough to avoid drastic climate change? I'd like to hope so, though it's possible that they won't. So who wants to make that argument in public?
23 comments
I think we actually have a kind of lifestyle inferiority complex when it comes to Europeans, because quite a few people really get lathered up if you suggest that the Euro lifestyle is better in some way. The fact is, most of the lifestyle differences listed here are very easy to adapt to and have some advantages. For example, a smaller fridge means more frequent trips to the store, but that also means eating fresher food and less waste.
- JEFF FREY
September 29, 2009 at 1:40am
The "Lifestyle" Taboo by Bradford Plumer: A comment I wish Mr. Plumer had been allowed more space, or more time to write this article. The world is undergoing a paradigm shift in its approach to energy consumption, energy saving technology, green buildings, greener automobiles, and so on. Mr. Plumer is worried about "taboos." Lifestyle change is not a taboo subject by any stretch of the imagination. Take for example the extraordinary explosion in bicycle transportation in just two cities, Portland, Ore. and New York City. Both cities are also endowed with excellent mass transit systems. Ten years ago, bicycles were for kids. I was suprised when in a hotly contested city council primary race in Brooklyn this September the question, "Do you own a car?" surfaced as a test of Liberal mettle. The depiction of urban Italy is risable. The FIAT 500 is not the most common automobile on the roads. Italian street traffic is high diversified. The Vespa motor scooter, now finding its way to Urban America, is an Italian inspired lifestyle choice--considered very stylish in NY today. Bicycles have always been a common mode of transportation in Europe. All the consumer appliances metioned by Mr. Plumer are obtainable, in many cases they are manufactured, in Italy. The difference between the American and the Italian is that the Italian understands that they are expensive to operate and therefore choose the economical and in some cases the natural way out. They call it 'sunny" Italy for a reason. US and local building codes are being modified to promote a low carbon sustainability. An extraordinary step forward in office building low carban sustainable construction is "One Bryant Park," built by the Durst Organization, @ W 42nd St and Avenues of the Americas, incorporating the most advanced systems, commonly found in new European skyscrapers. Why are we worrying about taboos? Americans are a technologically revolutionary people (you know, "Hip"). Economic determinism will drive the lifestyle changes. Incidentally, the photograph of the red, white and green "johnny pump" is to be found in NYC, not Italy. I suggest Mr. Plumer travels to Europe and engages in real research and please don't forget to bring your camera.
- LawrenceGulotta
September 29, 2009 at 3:40pm
Yeah, I was just going off Rosenthal's description of Italy--I'd much prefer to go there myself than have to blog about it from afar. The bicycle explosion in Portland and NY is a good counterargument, though it still seems in the bulk of the United States advocates for climate policies prefer to shy away from talking up the need to change our lifestyles. (The Oregon governor is one big exception--forgot about him.)
- Bradford Plumer
September 29, 2009 at 4:29pm
The EUs admirable per-capita CO2 emission figures are more due to their confidence in nuclear power. France and Switzerland and generating more than 40% of their electricity from nuclear, and they are exporting throughout Europe. You cite Italy's as a datapoint? If Italy were a state, it would rank as the fifth poorest state in the union. But, if you are going to cherry pick data, then you must look at Idaho, Vermont, Rhode Island and California and New York, as they all have CO2 emissions on par with that of the UK, Netherlands, Ireland, and Denmark. Now, what about the future? If the world population is allowed to emit CO2 equally, and if we must revert to 1975 levels of CO2 emissions to avert disaster (per the scientists), then we're all allowed to emit ~750 Kg of CO2 per year. So, someone in the EU that is at 9.9 tons of CO2 must reduce by 92.5%. And someone in the US that is at 19.8 tons of CO2 must reduce by 96%. Practically, there is not difference between a US and EU polluter. Both lifestyles are a massive problem if the scientists are to be believed. If you are to only to produce your "fair share" of CO2, then you are only permitted annually 1) Drive a prius for 4000 miles. 2) 1-2 months of electricity for a normal house 3) One 8 hour plane ride Quibbling over US versus EU in this context is moronic.
- SeattleEngineer
September 29, 2009 at 8:20pm
It becomes painfully obvious that neither Mr. Plumer nor Mr. Seattle Engineer have ever visited Italy. Campare Italy to a state in what category? If it is natural beauty, then Italy could be compared to California. They each have magnifcant coast lines. It is true that Italy is a poorer economic member of the EU. Counterintuitively, Italy is ranked Number 2 in health care by the World Health Organization, just behind France. I believe the USA is ranked 47? Which auto company, located in the five poorest states, is bailing out a top tier Detroit automaker? Which of the poorest five states has an international reputation in industrial design? Considering the fact that Catsup is used on pasta in Washington State, perhaps Mr. Seattle Engineer could enlighten us about his data source supporting his confusing sentence, " If Italy were a state, it would rank as the fifth poorest state in the union." I suppose comparing a Washington apple to a California orange passes for comparability in "ecotopia."
- LawrenceGulotta
September 30, 2009 at 9:35am
LawrenceGulotta: Considering the fact that Catsup is used on pasta in Washington State, perhaps Mr. Seattle Engineer could enlighten us about his data source supporting his confusing sentence And of course, in Arkansas and Mississippi cars are parked on the front lawns and washing machines are stored on the front porch. And incredibly, those states are about on par with Italy in terms of productivity. It's the per-capita GDP that I'm referencing. It's the primary measure of the productivity of its citizens. The Swedish authors of the referenced report below note "Italy as a state in the USA would come in fifth among the country's poorest" http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf Just to clarify my post above, to only emit your fair share of CO2 means you can only do ONE of the following per year: 1) Drive a prius for 4000 miles. 2) 1-2 months of electricity for a normal house 3) One 8 hour plane ride If the US is represented as a person weighing 400 pounds, the EU equivalent weighs 375 pounds. And both need to get down to a weigh of 160 pounds. For the 375 pound person to call the 400 pound person "fat" is a joke. EU is NOT on a path to solve their CO2 problem. Pretending they are is a lie.
- SeattleEngineer
September 30, 2009 at 11:42am
"EU is NOT on a path to solve their CO2 problem. Pretending they are is a lie." They're further along than we are, but yes, this is true. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
- Bradford Plumer
September 30, 2009 at 12:13pm
What does GDP really tell us? The CIA "World Fact" Book rankings of GDP per capita is as follows: 37 Japan $ 34,000 2008 est. 38 European Union $ 33,700 2008 est. 39 France $ 33,200 2008 est. 40 Greece $ 32,000 2008 est. 41 Italy $ 31,300 2008 est. 42 Taiwan $ 31,100 2008 est. Italy is in the range of GDP per capita of its UE partners. The EU's GDP per capita is low compared to the states of the US, using "Gross State Product (GSP). " GSP is the state counterpart of the national gross domestic product (GDP). By this measurement (GSP), the District of Columbia has the highest GSP of all fifty states: $64,991. This finding is risible. Why would the District of Columbia have a higher GSP than all the fifty states and the GDP of the EU, Japan, etc? What is wrong with the GDP ("the primary measure of the productivity of its citizens") yardstick, Mr. Seattle Engineer? What does GDP really tells us? More apples and oranges and catsup.
- LawrenceGulotta
September 30, 2009 at 12:43pm
Lawrence, do you seriously not understand this, or are you just being coy? DC is a small area with a massive work force compared to the number of people that live there. Same with Luxembourg. Most that work in DC and Luxembourg commute there from other cities, or in the case of Luxembourg, other countries. If you looked at the GDP equivalent for Manhattan, it would be even higher since it's a world finance center with very few residents. In fact, Hong Kong is like that too. There are a few other per-capita GDP anomalies, and those are oil producing nations such as Qatar and Norway. But once you get passed these curiosities, then you are left with the fact that Italy's productivity is dismal. And you are right, Spain, Japan and France are also pretty poor. Of course, you may reject per-capita GDP as a valid measure. Others have proposed looking at GDP per hour worked. That method helps the EU countries rise a bit in the ranking, and brings France to parity with the US. This is because the French work a lot less that their American counterparts. And when you factor that in, their productivity rises dramatically. But even under that measure, Italy, Canada, Japan, Spain all perform pretty poorly. Also, note that Italy taxes it's middle class about 25% higher than the US taxes its middle class. Thus, the middle class has zero incentive to work. And as a result, they don't. It's very simple. The US has such high productivity because we reward work. When Obama was asked "Do you think America is exceptional?" he missed the most fundamental part of America: We've posted such enormous sustained financials BECAUSE we've allowed people to keep their own money and control their own destiny. No other country even 1/10th this size has come this close to providing so much freedom to their population. We can all agree that 100% taxation is slavery. We can debate what 70% taxation is. But many nations impose that on their smartest and potentially most productive members of society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked
- SeattleEngineer
September 30, 2009 at 9:59pm
Gosh. It's very simple. How could we have missed it? I have no problem with GDP per capita as a national measure. The examples given above, however, show that GSP per capita is not automatically comparable to GDP per capita. The idea that productivity is lower in Italy than in the US because of taxation is laughable. Actually, that idea is moronic. The same goes for any such claim about productivity in Japan, although for different cultural reasons. And I'll just note that Germany taxes its citizens much more heavily than the US, but is not only highly productive but also has maintained significant manufacturing, heavy industry, and exports quite a few manufactured goods. I guess taxes don't explain everything. The taxation/slavery line is clever (well, glib), but equally nonsensical. Given that 0% taxation is not the complete absence of slavery, it is clear that you can't equate 70% taxation, or 35% taxation to any meaningful level of fractional slavery.
- JEFF FREY
September 30, 2009 at 10:45pm
The Europeans receive something valuable for their tax dollars. Call it the "social market," or "the welfare state," or "the safety net." In the US, we are taxed high enough and get below average public education, declining social services and aging infrastructure. In most of the EU, both the Conservatives and the Social Democrats are committed to this path. Where do we go as soon as we save up enough to take our little two-week vacations? Spain, Italy, France, UK, Germany. More and more Americans have seen and experienced the high quality of life in Europe and can no longer be fooled by the xenophobic rantings and propaganda of our domestic "Babbits." The dislocations of our "Great Recession" should give you pause to think about the severe problems our country is facing: 46 million uninsured; massive foreclosures of residential properties; foreclosure of commercial properties--shopping malls, office buildings; 90 + bank failures and 400+ banks at very high risk of failure; out of control Wall Street financial manipulation; unaffordable higher education and deep student debt loads; skyrocketing unemployment, catastrophic declines in the value of the nation's 401k retirement accounts. The list is long and getting longer. Tell me more about GDP and Productivity...... please. Europe has many warts, god knows, but nowhere near the level of your smug, self-satisfied analysis. Haven't you heard about "The Death of Conservatism," a new book by Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the NYT's Book Review and the "Week in Review." I suggest you check it out of the Public Library, that very local, tax supported, social democratic American institution. It will increase your gross intellectual productivity (GIP).
- LawrenceGulotta
September 30, 2009 at 11:10pm
Read the EU versus America link above, Lawrence, and you'll understand that the middle class European has very little discretionary cash. And that should be no surprise, because the average EU citizen makign the equivalent of US$45K is paying $10-$15K more in taxes than the average American making $45K. Yes, they get health care for "free". But in the US you can buy that same health care for $6K and still have a bunch of money left over. If you want the government to take all your money and then provide everything for you, then move to Europe. The US was founded on freedoms that were unmatched 200 years ago, and remain unmatched to this day. Our education system is what you make of it. I work with plenty of people that attended state schools that are making buckets of money. I have friends from all over the world that pay dearly to get their kids into our state schools. The top 20% of students in the US are doing better than ever. The bottom 20% are doing worse than ever. You could take that bottom 20% and put them in any schools system in the world and they'd struggle. The death of conservatism? Are you kidding? Did you see Europe's last wave of elections? Are you seeing the falling tax rates throughout Europe? The crackdowns on social program sponges in Sweden? Are you seeing the resurgence of nuclear energy throughout Europe as governments realize alt energy won't meet the demands? And I think you'll see in 2010 a big shift in direction here too.
- SeattleEngineer
September 30, 2009 at 11:50pm
Jeff Frey: The examples given above, however, show that GSP per capita is not automatically comparable to GDP per capita. Yes, good point. Why don't' you contact the Swedish economists that made that comparison in the link above and let them know. Their phone number is on the front page of the pdf. Remember, Stockholm is about 6 hours ahead of New York, so please take that into consideration when you call. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear your analysis. The idea that productivity is lower in Italy than in the US because of taxation is laughable. Laughable? Christina Romer, yes, Obama's Romer, noted in her research paper The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks that "an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent." And yet you call it laughable? This is something economists study often. And you call it laughable? This is the basis for PhD dissertations. And you call it laughable? The only thing that's laughable here is your debating technique. Why don't you cite some research that explains how taxes impact GDP. I've cited Romer and Swedish study. You've cited...Nothing...except your own facile gut feeling. http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html
- SeattleEngineer
October 1, 2009 at 12:02am
Tell me again how tax rates explain the difference in productivity between Italy and Germany. And while we're at it, why don't you cite some evidence for your claim that "the middle class [in Italy] has zero incentive to work" because "Italy taxes it's middle class about 25% higher than the US taxes its middle class," and your assumption that this actually explains something about Italy (or Europeans). Or was that just your facile gut feeling? Sorry, pal, there's a world of difference between saying that tax rates have some effect on GDP (Romer) and claiming that tax rates explain all sorts of differences between countries (you). I love Italy but when productivity in Italy lags some other countries, it ain't because of tax rates.
- JEFF FREY
October 1, 2009 at 12:14am
The productivity difference between Germany and Italy is modest and their tax rates are comparable on the middle class. Are you expecting a massive difference? It's time for you to cite a paper since I've cited two. Luckily for us both, economists have also studied how tax rates impact the hours worked. As you can imagine, 100% tax rate results in someone wanting to work very little, and 0% tax rate results in someone wanting to work a lot. Romer didn't say taxes have SOME effect on GDP. She (and her husband) said they had a measurable and sustained impact on GDP. 5% increase in taxes results in 10-15% whack to GDP. 10% increase in taxes results in 20-30% decrease in GDP. It's not a confined response. It was the Swedish authors that spent 48 pages explaining how tax rates have impacted productivity in Europe. If you read the article, they make a compelling case. You certainly don't have to take my word for it.
- SeattleEngineer
October 1, 2009 at 1:07am
Well, to be more accurate your favorite Swedish paper spends 10 pages documenting that PPP-adjusted GDP per capita in the USA is higher than in Europe, which is hardly news (although I did find it interesting that few Italians and Spaniards have vacuum cleaners -- I'm guessing tile floors is a more important factor than the crushing tax burden). I don't think the statistic that GDP per capita in Germany is similar to GSP per capita in Arkansas is very informative about the relative desirability of lifestyles in Germany and Arkansas. I might point out that if a German spent their 5 week vacation in Arkansas, they would find everything to be very cheap, while the average Arkansan could not afford to spend 5 weeks in Germany, aside from camping or hostels. Then there are 7 pages arguing that GDP and economic prosperity are correlated. Then 7 pages of "WHY EUROPE LAGS BEHIND – A QUALIFIED GUESS", the only section of the paper to discuss tax rates, which leads to this stirring conclusion: "Needless to say, the above is pure guesswork, a sketch of conceivable cause of European backwardness. Nor is the thesis a very new one, but that does not make it any the less interesting. The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbour in the west." A mighty compelling case. Hey, maybe its taxes! As for the Romers' article, they are serious people so I assume they have done a careful job. The synopsis points to some subtler points you have glossed over, such as tax increases for deficit reduction having less cost to the economy than tax increases for other reasons, but I decided against paying the $5 to read the original study to get more details. But I'm willing to bet you are extrapolating their 1%:2-3% figure to 10%:20-30%, and you really don't know that the relationship is linear. But good night anyway.
- JEFF FREY
October 1, 2009 at 2:03am
A mighty compelling case. Hey, maybe its taxes! As they note, the thesis is not new, and yet it's widely believed to be valid. It's interesting that when Ireland dropped tax rates, their productivity dramatically increased. Alas, still no paper to cite to the contrary? Figures. Read the Romer report. See figure 5.
- SeattleEngineer
October 1, 2009 at 3:00am
The idea of spending six-months in Europe and six months in the good old USA sounds sounds inviting! I hope that after working a lifetime I can at least visit the EU often. Really Seattle Engineer, you can do better than "love it or leave it" style argumentation. The EU countries have democratic political systems. Elites circulate. What has remained consistent since WWII is that both the right and the left have embraced the welfare state. It is possible to have a "conservative welfare state" or a "liberal-social democratic welfare state." Regarding energy alternatives, I don't have a problem with nuclear energy. The French appear to be doing a good job in this area. As a layman in the energy field, my guess is that the jury is still out on sun, wave and wind power. Interestingly, NYC is working to harness the power of the East River to provide energy. I'm disappointed you are so upset by the successful EU and the advanced welfare states. I hope you are able to spend some time doing field research in Europe. A five week vacation, a l'italiana, will do you a world of good. Take Bradford with you. I also like Seattle. Bring us up-to-date about the "free" downtown bus service. Sounds too good to be true.
- LawrenceGulotta
October 1, 2009 at 4:49am
Sorry, Seattle -- deadlines abound at work and I just found a new bug that must be fixed before I travel next week. No time to argue further, and I really shouldn't even look at TNR Online until all that is done....
- JEFF FREY
October 1, 2009 at 9:26pm
Jeff, "I think we actually have a kind of lifestyle inferiority complex when it comes to Europeans, because quite a few people really get lathered up if you suggest that the Euro lifestyle is better in some way." Correction: liberal elites have a lifestyle inferiority complex compared to Europeans. Bidets as a substitute for showers will not find much headway elsewhere in the US. I like to take a long hot shower every day. And on the days I exercise I take two! It's too bad gyms don't sell carbon indulgences. Maybe that's an opportunity for Al Gore?
- jibaholic
October 2, 2009 at 10:04am
seattle has a numbers fetish, and will torture statistics to...well, I guess just say no. People have a delusion that having a small carbon footprint means misery. All of the electricity I use is generated by a windmill farm at La Ventosa. I spend maybe $40 a year in electricity. I don't own a car and I walk to work. I take my bike when I go shopping, I have a little basket in front and I carry a backpack. I have a hot water heater but don't use it, and all of my water is well water. I live in a very hot area and have become used to it. My office at work has no air conditioning (though some Profs have them, I find the change in temp. jarring). Yet I find the lifestyle down here to be wonderful. The food, the velas, the beaches, the people. There is far more sense of community here than I ever saw in the states, where people choose to tote around their environment with them. When the southwest turns to desert, it is the people from around here who are best suited to that environment. The only benefit I see for when the earth kicks our ass is that the brain dead jackasses who said nothing could be done, or even should be done, will feel it most.
- blackton
October 2, 2009 at 6:03pm
I guess my community is a bit European. They only switch from heating to air conditioning and back twice a year, because it's expensive and time-consuming. So, there are always those couple weeks to establish a trend of cold and hot before they'll do anything. Seattle Engineer, in rebuttal to Lawrence's point that Europeans receive something valuable for their tax dollars you say 'the middle class European has very little discretionary cash. And that should be no surprise, because the average EU citizen makign the equivalent of US$45K is paying $10-$15K more in taxes than the average American making $45K. Yes, they get health care for "free". But in the US you can buy that same health care for $6K and still have a bunch of money left over.' Regarding health care, you're right if you have an employer-based plan. But 46 million plus Americans clearly don't. The premiums you cite of $500 sounds like it would purchase health insurance for a healthy individual male under 50, while of course excluding any previous conditions he might have had. Maybe even a healthy female, too, provided she doesn't have a baby in which case they won't cover that. Regarding infrastructure, Lawrence is right. Ours is crumbling and unsafe, most of Europe's is beautiful. Do you propose a middle class person taking some of the extra $10-$15K in tax savings that they have over their European counterparts and owning their individual choice to build or repair the roads or bridges that they need? That's nonsense. Infrastructure is necessarily a public good, and must be covered through taxes. Not enough tax revenue, watch infrastructure (and other svcs. like the public library) suffer. Jibaholic, I'll attempt to respond to the substance of your statement rather than your code word "liberal elites," whatever that meant anyway. The few times I've talked with people about European vacation allotments, everyone gets jealous, including McCain voters. And child care busts everyone's wallet, including those who enjoy Rush Limbaugh. The economics of child care could provide a strong disincentive for one spouse to quit work.
- Juniper
October 2, 2009 at 6:11pm
Blackton, I hope you at least have cool nights! I never minded hot days, but I need some temperature control to sleep. On my previous comment I meant the economics of child care could provide a strong incentive for one spouse to quit work.
- Juniper
October 2, 2009 at 6:14pm