After this summer down-under, with the worst bushfires and hail storms ever, a lot of Australians are thinking about our individual carbon footprint. From small things like changing to LED lightbulbs, organic food, organic cotton, to bigger things like electric cars and solar panels, it is something we all should be aware of.

So, what is the impact of our hobby? When I first started collecting, I figured that given I was (almost exclusively) buying vintage watches, the carbon footprint was minimal.

However, now as I start buying new/LNIB/newer watches I can’t ignore this issue.

Conceptually, buying a high-quality, longer lasting product is usually better than a short-lived, disposable product. On this basis, buying one high quality watch to last you (multiple) lifetimes, is better than buying a cheap watch every decade. But that isn’t what we do. We buy multiple watches and we fly around the world to pick them up.

Swatch Group has an extensive sustainability report: https://www.swatchgroup.com/en/swatch-group/sustainability-report which shows they produced around 16,000 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.

Omega’s new premises, which opened in 2017, are the work of Shigeru Ban, a highly regarded architect who is also known for his contributions to humanitarian projects. Ban’s design for the Biel-based firm’s new production building mixes concrete with a Swiss spruce timber frame, in line with management’s requirement for an environmentally-friendly construction. Interestingly, the entire volume of timber used is the equivalent of just 2.6 hours of tree growth in Switzerland! The building also meets a zero-carbon criterion. (source: https://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/watch-brands-go-greener/)

Chopard is the world’s largest purchaser of “fairmined” gold.
https://www.watchtime.com/featured/...ow-watch-brands-are-embracing-sustainability/

LVMH is carbon neutral across its brands: https://www.lvmh.com/news-documents...-after-its-creation-with-112-projects-funded/

But despite all this, we are using/consuming natural resources. And all luxury products (whether it be watches, or other things) are in many ways is dependent on consumerism and materialism. I’d also suggest that the market for Veblen goods benefits from increasing the income and/or wealth divide.

As one economist has suggested, in relation to Veblen’s work: Any item that is without a productive function, or that has a price well above what is indicated by its practical utility alone, constitutes a good that is valued predominantly for the social capital that it brings. https://en.paperblog.com/thorstein-veblen-s-economics-of-wealth-and-leisure-800744/

 

Personally, if someone really cares deeply about reducing their carbon footprint, would it not require drastic steps that likely no one really wants to consider?
- don’t have children (or at least not more than 1) - global population of humans inherently lead to more consumption of natural resources (aka bigger carbon footprint)
- don’t travel by airplane
- don’t purchase non-essential goods (no “luxury” watches)
- don’t purchase more of anything than is necessary (unnecessary consumption)

Btw: I’m not proposing the above are necessary or should be desirable. I don’t want to pay lip-service to an idea that I’m not willing to actually do anything meaningful about.

FTR: I drive a ridiculous car (although low annual kms as I work from home), I fly >120,000 kms per year between business and pleasure...

 

Don’t forget not eating meat (with insects I hear being the preferable alternative protein source - footprint-wise).

Good post, @CanberraOmega

 

Yep, we have dramatically cut back our meat consumption, but not gone completely vegetarian

 

My own soapbox: if people were allowed to eat only what they kill and dress, it’d go a long way toward conservation. Most can’t kill; the ones who can know how much work it takes (and results in serious portion control).

 

I eat red meat 5-6 times a week. I'm cutting it out, not for environmental purpose, but health. I'm going to try no red meat for 2 weeks.

 

Well, you can always go the fake meat route, like Impossible™ foods.

 

I have tried it, it was good. But I eat steak. No substitute for a large steak.

 

While Impossible meat is a darn good substitute for folks with ethical objections to eating beef, it’s by no means a healthy option for the heart conscious. It’s absolutely loaded with saturated fat. Which is why it tastes good

And so as not to derail the thread, I’m not sufficiently concerned that watch collecting represents a significant threat to the environment. The type of collecting here is just so incredibly niche (and I’m guessing the Pareto principle applies to the extreme). In terms of “things worn on wrists”, I’d be more concerned with the burgeoning smart watch sector: a product category with obsolescence built into its business model.

That said, it’s an interesting post and I really enjoyed the link to the article re: Veblen.

 

Absolutely. One luxury watch is better than a smart watch, given obsolescence, rare earths, etc.

 

We will somehow reduce our environmental footprint, as our way of living in the “western world” is very unsustainable. It is just a matter of when and how great our problems will get before the penny drops for real. The problem is that we discover new technology and then take it for granted. Why shouldn’t we cut down on flying? It wasn’t the norm 60 years ago. Why should’t we eat less meat? We are a lot less 50 years ago. Why shouldn’t we comsume less? We consume more now than we have ever done.

I have to small girls of 3 and 6 and I am horrified thinking about the state of our environmental, when they reach the age I am now.

I think watches are fairly innocent in the grand scheme of things. We would reduce our carbon footprint more by cutting down on beef, pork and lamb to once or twice a week or even better dont eat it at all, cutting back on dairy and stop driving in car everywhere.

 

Not sure how this would work for the massive populations in cities. Have a million people drive an hour or two out into the countryside to hunt? Is there even enough game near all major population centers to do that? And what about all the additional refrigerators and freezers that would be needed?

Now add to that all the people who will now be regularly training at the rifle ranges. Many, many more bullets need to be made, and cartridges loaded. That stuff sure seems to have a footprint.

 

Problem is, you’re assuming people keep eating meat, and also that they can only kill wild game.

My point and strong assumption instead is both that (1) the vast majority of people would forego meat altogether (so your concerns above are minimized) primarily because they’re incapable of staring their food in the eyes (especially those in major city centers), and (2) that feed lots and the entire modern machinery can essentially stay in place (so your assumptions above are misplaced), it’s just that people have to come bolt-gun and butcher their own.

Put a few industrial feed lots, coups, and finishing pens within convenient distance of major city centers, make people visit them and kill their own, and that alone will make tofu and cricket stock skyrocket.

(And in case there’s any misunderstanding: I’m a hunter with a freezer full.)

 

I dunno. Make them grow and harvest their own vegetables and most will not do that either. They will live off of Doritos.

 

Me thinks the point is otherwise

In any event, back to the topic at thread: I applaud @CanberraOmega for taking serious stock of all his behaviors, right down to his watch hobby. I work for an Australian company, and know that many of my Aussie peers are similarly introspective these days.

I, meanwhile, have a long list of sh*t I should do differently before I make it down to the entry for watch hobby. A long, long, list. It just happens that for me food choices are among the more motivational items on (and higher on) that list in terms of impact.

 

Butcher by trade, and the eating meat thing is a beat up. We already eat less meat PP ( per person ) than 30 years ago.

The biggest thing that is way off balance is westerners now grow crops to feed cattle to supposedly make meat taste better.
Starving kids in Africa and you grain feed beef and even feed them chocolate ingredients to get Wagyu
Marketing is to blame for a lot of this weird quest to pay 20x the price of a steak which is hardly better than a good grass fed steak.
When did we go from eating the lean healthy cows to making them fat as hell before we ate them.


Don’t get me started on the white meats which are A LOT more of a issue than the red meats. Chickens an pigs they don’t get to run out in a paddock anymore. Just think about that one for a while.

 

I love how these companies claim the company is "carbon free", but fail to mention the people who have to commute to the factory to make the watches, plus their suppliers that have to mine and refine the iron, gold, silver, create the sapphire etc etc. (I know for a fact that in the Vallée de Joux, the watch factories are staffed 90% with French workers, almost all of whom drive to work every day, some from as far as 120km).

But, once made, a mechanical watch produces almost zero additional carbon (having it serviced aside, plus the extra weight on your wrist when driving your car, but having a good BM can offset that). The same cannot be said for a quartz watch.

Reducing one's personal carbon footprint can be rather easy without having to move to a grass hut in the mountains a live like a hermit:

- Work from home (if possible) = tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of CO2 saved by not commuting

- Eat "in the seasons". Tomatoes and strawberries grow in summer, not winter. Don't buy tomatoes, strawberries or the like in January if you cannot grown them locally.

- Buy "local", ie: get your meat, fruit and veg sourced locally. Same goes for your beer, wine etc.

- Drink tap water, not bottled.


Other things that can help:

- If you have to have a car, do not lease a car. Buy one and keep it for a long time (making a car produces an incredible amount of CO2)

- Do not buy the latest and greatest in smart phone, tablet, PC, television etc every year. Wait until yours is End Of Life before upgrading.

- Stop buying the latest clothing fashions every season/year.

- Don't fly for business. There no meeting that cannot be accomplished with today's technologies.

- And perhaps the worst for some: stop flying for tourism / holidays.

Granted, should most people adopt that pattern of consumerism, companies like Apple etc would find their profits in the cellar...

 

Very good questions. There's a reason H&M sells clothing that is cheap and that lasts only 1 season: so they can sell you another one 6 months from now to ensure a steady income (I think the US automobile manufacturers invented this "planned obsolescence"). To have a piece of clothing that lasts a long time requires it to be made better, hence it is significantly more expensive. Throw into that the idea of "fashion trends" and unless you are Over Forty, Fat and Don't care anymore, they matter, a lot.

One consequence to if everyone were to change their consumer habits, would be the turmoil for the companies making selling said goods. As profits fall, a lot of people would be put out of work, it might even create a depression. Stock market analysts call things like this a "correction". Maybe consumerism needs a "correction", a reset. But who wants to bite that bullet? Who is willing to bite that bullet?

It's not that hard to do, really. Granted, not if you live in the middle of nowhere where you are obliged to drive to the shops to buy food etc.

But cutting back on meat isn't that hard, just research how the UK survived during WW2 (hint, it involved a lot of vegetables).

 

I happened across a thread on WUS where a poster there had done some research into the environmental policies of various watch brands. He provides a link in the first post to a pdf that some here may find interesting:

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f2/re...tainability-watchmaking-industry-5135801.html

Cheers, Al