"Biggest fire in California's history", "Researchers warn of a hothouse Earth" and "Record emissions of greenhouse gases" - a quick glance at recent headlines is enough to see that climate deterioration has long since begun. But every single one of us can do something in the fight against climate catastrophe.

Following the motto "Think globally, act locally", everyone is called upon to help achieve the climate targets of the Paris Agreement by changing their individual lifestyle. Franz Prettenthaler, head of the Centre for Climate, Energy and Society at Joanneum Research, talks to ORF.at about a "Paris lifestyle" - one that corresponds to two tonnes of CO2 equivalents per person per year. Currently, the Austrian average stands at 14 tonnes. The path to a climate-friendly lifestyle involves many small steps.

Mobility: giving up air travel

One of the biggest climate offenders is transport. But this is also where there's huge potential for reduction. To avoid having to give up private transport altogether, Prettenthaler recommends the more climate-friendly option of e-mobility. At the moment, this is best suited to urban areas and short distances. Car-sharing is also now widely available.
While walking and cycling are the most climate-friendly alternatives, flying is the most environmentally harmful form of transport. Since aircraft operate in a very sensitive part of the atmosphere, pollutants remain active there for particularly long periods, and the low temperatures act as an additional amplifier. According to the Austrian Portal for Environmental Education, the direct climate impact of burning kerosene is therefore around three times higher than that of ground-based fuels.

CO2 emissions from air travel are also growing faster worldwide than in any other sector. Across Europe, twelve per cent of transport-related CO2 emissions come from the aviation industry - and the trend is upward. According to the environmental education portal, aviation emissions in Austria have more than doubled within a decade. The climate protection report shows that greenhouse gas emissions in this country rose by around one per cent between 2015 and 2016.

"Within Europe, night trains are now a serious and time-saving alternative to air travel. That would be another step towards reducing our ecological footprint," says Prettenthaler. If necessary, emissions could also be offset directly when booking a flight, through relevant offerings from travel providers. "Reputable providers actually do reduce the emitted CO2 package somewhere else in the system, effectively removing it from the atmosphere," says the environmental economist.

Heating: switching to CO2-neutral fuels

According to Greenpeace, heating is responsible for the biggest deficit on many people's "climate account". But just as with transport, there's potential for savings here too: every degree lower in room temperature can save up to six per cent in heating energy. Good insulation and efficient ventilation can further reduce heating requirements. Prettenthaler also recommends switching to CO2-neutral fuels such as biogas, geothermal energy, wood heating systems and solar installations, or investing in the building envelope.

Electricity: switching to green energy

Crude oil, as the most important energy source, causes 40 per cent of emissions from fossil fuels through its combustion and has a poor CO2 balance. The picture is similarly bleak when it comes to burning coal for energy generation.
Switching to a green energy provider means giving up coal-generated and nuclear power, and can improve your CO2 balance from private electricity consumption by around 90 per cent. An average three-person household can save up to 1.9 tonnes of CO2 per year this way. And: "Anyone with roof space or a balcony can now produce their own solar power quite affordably," says Prettenthaler. Standby mode on electronic devices, where energy is often wasted unnecessarily, offers relatively little in the way of savings potential.

Diet: less meat, more organic

Livestock farming makes a significant contribution to the emission of climate-damaging gases. The world's five largest meat and dairy corporations are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the biggest oil companies ExxonMobil, Shell and BP. This was recently shown by a study from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the environmental organisation GRAIN.
The main culprit is the methane released by animals during digestion. Although methane persists in the Earth's atmosphere for considerably less time than CO2, it traps 28 times more heat from the sun and therefore warms the atmosphere many times more intensely. On top of that, rainforests - which are invaluable for the climate - have to be cleared to make way for grazing land and the cultivation of soya as animal feed.

According to Greenpeace, a balanced diet with reduced meat consumption saves the global climate around 400 kilogrammes of CO2 per year. The environmental organisation also says that buying organic food is an effective way to cut CO2, as organic farming requires only around half the energy used in conventional agriculture.

What's more, organic farming does without pesticides, artificial fertilisers and long transport routes. Just 100 grammes of asparagus from Chile generates 1.7 kilogrammes of CO2 emissions through transport alone. From your own region during asparagus season, it's just 60 grammes. Prettenthaler also recommends seasonal and regional vegetables - though as a general rule: "As long as it's not frozen vegetables, you can't really go wrong," says the long-time vegetarian.

Consumption: buying less

When it comes to climate deterioration, what tends to be underestimated, according to Prettenthaler, are the indirect emissions from consumer goods that might otherwise seem "innocent" - such as textiles. "Here we're importing vast amounts of greenhouse gases without keeping track of these emissions," says Prettenthaler. This becomes clear when looking at the consumption-based calculation of Austria's greenhouse gas emissions. The question to ask isn't how much CO2 is caused by goods produced in Austria, but how much is caused by the goods and services consumed here.

This reveals that as much as 41 per cent of personally caused CO2 emissions come from the purchase of a wide range of products beyond those that usually get the most attention - such as heating, mobility, electricity and food.

"Climate catastrophe instead of climate change"

Since mindful use of resources reduces our ecological footprint, it's worth prioritising high-quality products when making new purchases and rethinking our consumption habits in general - as well as the very term "climate change" itself, according to experts.

Linguist Elisabeth Wehling, for instance, argues that the term fails to convey the true threat it represents. Since "change" can always imply something positive, the term plays down the actual danger. She therefore suggests speaking instead of a climate crisis, climate catastrophe or climate deterioration. Because the way we speak influences our thinking - and ultimately our actions too.

<link https: orf.at stories external-link-new-window internal link in current>Click here for the article on the ORF website