By Shelburne, Vermont Financial Advisor Josh Kruk
May 18, 2020
At the beginning of April, I filled my gas tank. That one tank lasted over a month. It’s a microcosm of the impact coronavirus has had on travel and energy consumption, not to mention consumer behavior and spending patterns.
Many people have probably seen opinion pieces about how this experience will cause permanent shifts in societal behavior. Some point to recent improvements in air quality and emissions as an opportunity to be seized going forward. Of course, it’s also entirely possible that as soon as the “all clear” signal is received, it will be back to business as usual. As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Reality and human nature impose certain practical limits. Someone in New York who wants to visit a relative in California is still getting on a plane. And no amount of Zoom meetings will replace the quality of a face to face interaction with a co-worker at the office.
However, it does seem likely that the businessperson who traveled across the country four times a year for a company meeting might only go once or twice now and attend the others online. More people are likely to work some portion of their hours at home, foregoing the hassle of a 5-day-a-week commute, and more employers are likely to be OK with that. How much of the time we spend stuck in traffic, jammed in a crowded subway car, or waiting in an interminable TSA line at the airport is actually necessary to accomplish our goals? And how much is simply force of habit or conforming to norms that haven’t been re-examined in decades?
The overarching theme here is simplification, and it may be an underappreciated asset in the fight against climate change. It’s about eliminating things that aren’t necessary in the first place, all while saving some money and some sanity in the process. The concept can be extended beyond taking a few less flights a year and a few less car trips every week. For example, the average size of a new home in the U.S. increased by about 1,000 square feet between 1973 and 2014. How much of that extra space, which comes with extra electricity, heat and air conditioning, was really necessary? In addition to creating a smaller carbon footprint, a smaller physical footprint usually comes with lower property taxes, less maintenance and fewer headaches.
Simplification takes different forms for different people depending on their circumstances and priorities. At the individual level, the changes are modest, but they add up when multiplied by millions of people. And the best part is that unlike some trade-offs, this one does not have to be a zero-sum game. Reducing unnecessary complexity generally makes people happier. It often costs less and frees up time for more productive endeavors. Any environmental gains are merely an added benefit.