Abundance? no, strive to use the minimum
The Institute of Chemical Engineers' advice to its members is to be conscious about using the minimum of a substance. And we layfolk could do more for the environment by embracing minimalism
It's not about becoming a Scrooge-like bean counter. But being conscious about how much we take and use - from sheets of loo rolls to the amount of paint we buy for a job - would result in environmental benefits, i.e more trees, less paint ending up in landfill. The Institute of Chemical Engineers gets to the point by considering something as seemingly harmless as making a cup of tea. We don't want to disappear down the rabbit hole, but thinking things through a bit more than we do would make us less wasteful
Cup of tea anyone?
Consider the simple example of boiling water to make a single cup of tea. There is a minimum amount of energy required to raise the temperature of a fixed volume of water from ambient to 100°C at atmospheric pressure, but how close are we to achieving the minimum?
Upstream there is energy associated with collecting, treating and pumping water to our location. There are different ways to provide the heat energy: grid electricity, gas, coal, wood, solar. Each has different energy losses associated with them. How effcient is the device for converting supplied energy into boiling water? How easy is it to boil more water than required? How easy is it to extend the heating time beyond the required minimum? On the downstream side, what energy is required to treat any wasted tea poured into the drain? What energy is needed to clean the cup? This is before considering the tea bag and any milk or sugar. Do you really need that cup of tea?
