Green Factoids

"Gray Power"

2008-04-19T14:48:00.001-04:00

Great article from the Atlantic on how companies can recycle energy and save millions:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/recycled-steam

Trash pickers save the environment

2008-03-25T01:54:00.003-04:00

"Scorned trash pickers become global environmental force"

Here's a great story about how countries around the world are recycling at extremely high rates, not thanks to government policy but to "trash pickers" in impoverished urban centers. Here's the story, thanks to the Huffington Post:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/jack_chang/story/31468.html

Recycling: Office Paper

2008-03-19T21:07:00.000-04:00

In 2003, only 48.3% of office paper was recovered for recycling.

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Recycling Rates of Different Materials

2008-03-14T10:47:00.001-04:00

52 percent of all paper, 31 percent of all plastic soft drink bottles, 45 percent of all aluminum beer and soft drink cans, 63 percent of all steel packaging, and 67 percent of all major appliances are now recycled.

From the EPA.

Recycling Factoids: Curbside Programs

2008-03-12T12:53:00.000-04:00

By 2006, about 8,660 curbside collection programs served roughly half of the American population.

From the EPA.

That's up from only one program twenty years ago, which is very impressive, but what about the half of the population without access to curbside recycling?

The Growth of Recycling Programs

2008-03-11T09:00:00.000-04:00

Recycling, including composting, diverted 82 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2006, up from 34 million tons in 1990.

From the EPA.

Recycling Factoids: Recycled Paper

2008-03-07T10:47:00.000-05:00

Making paper from recycled paper reduces air pollution by 95%.

National Recycling Coalition

Recycling Factoids: Glass

2008-03-06T13:01:00.000-05:00

This post kicks off our March focus on recycling.

From Earth 911:

Recycled glass saves 50% energy vs. virgin glass (Center for Ecological Technology)

Recycling of one glass container saves enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for 4 hours (EPA)

Recycled glass generates 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution (NASA)

1 ton of glass made from 50% recycled materials saves 250 lbs. of mining waste (EPA)

Glass can be reused an infinite number of times; over 41 billion glass containers are made each year (EPA)

Paper Factoids: Water Use in Paper Manufacturing

2008-02-29T09:53:00.001-05:00

The pulp and paper industry is the single largest consumer of water used in industrial activities in OECD countries and is the third greatest industrial greenhouse gas emitter, after the chemical and steel industries (OECD Environmental Outlook, p. 218)

From the Environmental Paper Network

What we throw away and what we recycle

2008-02-27T09:25:00.002-05:00

Source: EPA

Paper Factoids: Paper in our Landfills

2008-02-26T09:31:00.002-05:00

Paper accounts for 25% of landfill waste (and one third of municipal landfill waste). Municipal landfills account for one third of human-related methane emissions (and methane is 23-times more potent a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide).

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Recycling and Global Warming

2008-02-25T10:22:00.000-05:00

In 2000, recycling of solid waste prevented the release of 32.9 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE, the unit of measure for greenhouse gases) into the air.

National Recycling Coalition

Paper Factoids: NYC Recycles?

2008-02-21T08:56:00.000-05:00

Each year in New York City we throw away 400,000 tons of recyclable paper.

Campaign to Reduce Paper: Change the Margins

2008-02-20T09:05:00.001-05:00

The Campaign To Change the Margins:

Tamara Krinsky has devised an elegantly simple campaign that should warm the heart of anyone trying to promote sustainable living: reduce the default margin setting on your word-processing program. She has helpfully tallied up some of the environmental benefits if every American reduced the margin setting to .75" on all sides of their documents (from the current default of 1.25").

we would save:

-6,156,000 trees

-9,840,368 million British thermal units (Btus), which is enough energy to provide power to 108,136 homes

- 1,459,535,366 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, which is equivalent to the emissions of 132,528 cars

-584,396,539 lbs of solid waste, which is the equivalent of 20,871 fully loaded garbage trucks

- 4.8 billion gallons wastewater, which is enough to fill 7,408 Olympic-sized swimming pools

Comment:
Tamara Krinsky's site should serve as a model for those trying to devise green campaigns. She has a very specific proposal that could not be simpler to implement. It will yield significant cost savings in addition to the environmental benefits. It does away with a usually invisible form of waste, for which there is no benefit: having extra white space surrounding your documents does nothing to improve them, and eliminating it will not affect any conceivable performance measure.

She has also focused on a handful of corporate and institutional targets who could serve as a first wave in the widespread adoption of this measure. Her site includes a petition to Microsoft to adjust the default settings on their software, which would probably accomplish the goals of her campaign without the necessity of persuading a single word-processor--for how many people would go back and change the settings? Until then, however, it is up to us to put in place her excellent recommendations and spread the word to our friends and colleagues.

See Change the Margins for more on the benefits of reducing the margins on your documents.

Carbon Tax / Green Tax websites

2008-02-19T11:20:00.006-05:00

There is a growing movement (I hope!) recognizing the value of Carbon Taxes (aka, Green Taxes, Tax Shifting). The basic idea is we should tax the stuff we hate (pollution, carcinogens) and stop taxing things we want more (employment).

There are a few great sites on the web -- some that just popped up recently -- explaining the issue. Here are the links:

http://www.carbontax.org/

http://www.sightline.org/research/taxes
Run by Alan Durning, author of a great book on the topic, "TAX SHIFT":

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html
Run by Economist Greg Manciw, it is a conservative economists' argument for Green Taxes.

The Libertarian/Conservative argument for Green Taxes:

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/ConservativeCase.php
Great quote in favor of replacing Income Taxes with Carbon Taxes: "Real conservatives really hate the income tax—even more than they hate hippie environmentalists. This should be an easy sell."

The Liberal/Environmentalist argument:

Friends of the Earth:
http://www.foe.org/camps/eco/taxreform/index.html

Paper Factoids: Paperless Bills

2008-02-15T08:53:00.000-05:00

According to Javelin Strategy and Research, here are some of the benefits if all U.S. households viewed and paid bills online:

o Saves 2.3 million tons of wood, or 16.5 million trees.
o Reduces fuel consumption by 26 million BTUs - enough energy to provide residential power to San Francisco for an entire year.
o Decreases toxic air pollutants by 3.9 billion pounds of CO2 equivalents (greenhouse gases), akin to having 355,000 fewer cars on the road.
o Reduces toxic wastewater by 13 billion gallons, enough to fill almost 20,000 swimming pools.
o Lowers solid waste generated by 1.6 billion pounds - equal to 56,000 fully loaded garbage trucks.
o Removes 8.5 million particulates and 12.6 million nitrogen oxides from the air - on par with taking 763,000 buses and 48,000 18-wheelers off the streets.

Paper Factoids: Recycling in NYC

2008-02-13T11:15:00.000-05:00

Recyclable paper makes up about 15% of New York City’s refuse—materials put out for regular garbage collection instead of recycling.

Paper Factoids: Recycled Vs. Virgin

2008-02-12T09:00:00.000-05:00

Compared to using virgin wood, paper made with 100% recycled content uses 44% less energy, produces 38% less greenhouse gas emissions, 41% less particulate emissions, 50% less wastewater, 49% less solid waste and -- of course --uses 100% less wood.

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Paper Factoids: Recycled Content of Different Types of Paper

2008-02-08T18:30:00.000-05:00

Recovered paper accounts for 37% of the U.S. pulp supply. Printing and writing papers use the least amount of recycled content -- just 6%. Tissues use the most, at 45%, and newsprint is not far behind, at 32%.

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Paper Factoids: Office Paper Use

2008-02-06T11:00:00.000-05:00

The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets (20 reams) of copy paper each year.

Office Paper at reduce.org

Paper Factoids: Electricity Needed to Make Paper

2008-02-05T12:46:00.000-05:00

Production of 1 ton of copy paper uses 11,134 kWh (same amount of energy used by an avg household in 10 months)

1 ton of paper = 400 reams = 200,000 sheets

GreenPrint

GreenPrint is a software program that helps companies and individuals eliminate wasteful and unnecessary printing.

Paper Factoids: Reducing Office Paper

2008-02-04T09:09:00.000-05:00

If the United States cut office paper use by just 10% (or about 2 reams per office worker) it would prevent the emission of 1.6 million tons of greenhouse gases -- the equivalent of taking 280,000 cars off the road.

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Paper Factoids: Deforestation and CO2 Emissions

2008-01-31T12:08:00.000-05:00

Deforestation currently contributes about a fifth of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

The New York Times.

Paper Factoids: Percentages of Different Kinds of Paper

2008-01-30T09:23:00.000-05:00

From the Environmental Paper Network

US Paper and Paperboard Production, 2000 (AF & PA)

Paper Factoids: Harvesting Forests

2008-01-29T11:25:00.000-05:00

Most of the world’s paper supply, about 71 percent, is not made from timber harvested at tree farms but from forest-harvested timber, from regions with ecologically valuable, biologically diverse habitat. (Toward a Sustainable Paper Cycle: An Independent Study on the Sustainability of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 1996)

From the Environmental Paper Network.

Paper Factoids: What We Throw Away

2008-01-28T09:19:00.000-05:00

Americans throw away enough office paper each year to build a 12-foot high wall stretching from New York to San Francisco—that's 10,000 or so sheets per person!

From reduce.org

Paper Factoids: US vs. the World

2008-01-24T11:14:00.000-05:00

The United States, which has less than 5% of the world's population, consumes 30% of the world's paper.

From reduce.org

Paper Factoids: American Paper Consumption

2008-01-23T09:47:00.000-05:00

The average American consumes more than 700 pounds of paper a year -- that's the world's highest per capita figure.

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Paper Factoids: Copy Paper

2008-01-22T11:17:00.000-05:00

Printing and writing paper account for about one-half of U.S. paper production.

From reduce.org

In Honor of Dr. King

2008-01-21T10:19:00.000-05:00

"I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the "oughtness" that forever confronts him....

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality."

Speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, December 11, 1964.

Reduce Your Catalog Waste

2008-01-19T19:14:00.000-05:00

Looking for a quick and easy way you can help "save the planet"...? Here's one! www.catalogchoice.org

Each year, 19 billion catalogs are mailed to American consumers--more than 170 per household each year. What’s the impact?

*Number of trees used – 53 million

*Paper used – 3.6 million tons

*Energy used to produce this volume of paper – 38 trillion BTUs, enough to power 1.2 million homes per year

*Waste water discharges from this volume of paper – 53 billion gallons of water, enough to fill 81,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools

*Contribution to global warming – 5.2 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, equal to the annual emissions of two million cars

www.catalogchoice.org offers a FREE SERVICE that eliminates unwanted catalogs from your mailbox! You choose which catalog you still want to get and which ones to remove. Your information stays private.

Pass it along and help save the world!!!

Paper Factoids: Bills Bills Bills!

2008-01-18T10:39:00.000-05:00

Hard copy bills generate almost 700,000 tons of waste and almost two million tons of carbon dioxide.
From The Green Guide.

Solution: Paperless e-billing.

Paper Factoids: Trees into Paper

2008-01-17T11:40:00.000-05:00

42% of the industrial wood harvest is used to make paper.

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Paper Factoids: Industrial Greenhouse Emissions

2008-01-16T15:20:00.000-05:00

The paper industry is the 4th largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions among United States manufacturing industries, and contributes 9% of the manufacturing sector's carbon emissions.

From "15 Facts about the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment" at The Daily Green.

Setting Priorities: My family in 2008

2008-01-15T12:36:00.001-05:00

Having used last week's post to sum up my family’s achievements in reducing our carbon footprint during 2007, I will continue in the January tradition by forming resolutions for 2008. This is not quite as feel-good a process as tallying up our victories. For one thing, we have made a lot of the easier (for us) changes. Most of our bulbs are CFLs, we are very conscientious about recycling, we even compost; as New Yorkers we already rely heavily on public transportation. Other potential changes— for example reducing air travel or canceling our two newspaper subscriptions—would require actions that go by the highly-charged name of “sacrifice.” Changing to CFLs and starting worm composting felt like improvements—they saved money or were interesting. Cutting our newspapers would require reading them online which I hate.

But without making specific promises that may not be met, here are some areas that I would like our family to emphasize in the coming year:

Target #1: Reduce Paper
Switch the rest of my accounts to online billing
Reduce the deluge of junk mail and catalogues
Reduce paper at work

Target #2: Food
Reduce our consumption of meat
Increase our consumption of fruit, vegetables, and legumes
Make more of an effort to get “local” food
Stop drinking bottled water
Reduce food waste

Starting with target #1, reducing paper:

At a recent Green Drinks, a monthly "meet and greet" for New Yorkers concerned about environmental issues, two people separately admitted that they do not recycle at all. Given New York's mandatory but also fairly user-friendly program, I found that somewhat disheartening--if even environmentalists can't be bothered, it is hard to see how New York is going to increase its already modest participation rates which appear stuck at about 50%.

So to encourage holdouts to begin recycling and everyone to reduce paper, Green Factoids will devote the next series of posts to facts about paper.

Setting Priorities: Which Activities Have The Most Impact?

2008-01-14T10:32:00.001-05:00

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists' Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, the following consumer activities are the most harmful to the environment:

Cars and light trucks
Meat and poultry
Fruit, vegetables, and grain
Home heating, hot water, and air-conditioning
Household appliances and lighting
Home construction
Household water and sewage

The Union analyzes the impact of each of these activities on global warming, air and water pollution, and habitat alteration.

Looking at the environmental impact per household on global warming:
32% can be attributed to transportation
35% to household operations
12% to food

Taking Stock: 2007

2008-01-10T13:58:00.000-05:00

Green Factoids returns after a 2 month hiatus during which work pressures left little time for other activities. I will brave the risk of falling into the well-worn cliches of the season in order to look at what I have personally accomplished in the past year in my goal to develop a more sustainable lifestyle.

Successes:

I have managed to cut my family’s monthly and daily electricity use roughly in half. After 6 months of tracking our use, I can confidently say that our low kWh readings are not a fluke. I have made the following changes which have helped bring this about (in order of impact):
1. switching every light-bulb I can to CFLs, especially in the most heavily used rooms
2. becoming much more careful about not leaving lights on
3. using our 350 watt halogen fixtures as little as possible
4. replacing our ancient air-conditioner with an EnergyStar model
5. cutting way back on our air-conditioning
6. adjusting the controls so that my computer sleeps after 2 minutes
7. putting my printer, modem, computer and hard drive on a power strip and turning them off most nights

I switched our electricity supplier to one that relies on wind and low-impact hydro-electric.

I switched from traveling by car to traveling by subway on roughly half my commutes.

I started worm composting in my apartment.

I made “sustainability” an express issue on the syllabus of the courses I teach, emphasizing strategies for reducing paper. In addition to distributing all assignments by email, I encouraged my students to hand in their essays printed on the clean side of scrap paper—of whatever color. I set the example by printing my exams and other materials on scrap paper. I also asked that they eliminate title pages and other opportunities for white space and waste. I would estimate that about a third of my students took advantage of my request, saving about 300 sheets of virgin paper. I also printed out the final essay (submitted by email) on scrap paper, saving about another 300 sheets. Not exactly an enormous reduction of impact, but I believe that the gesture raised my students’ awareness of sustainability in a low-key way that did not involve preaching or departing from the “official” curriculum—18th-century literature. I believe that those students who participated have likely changed their paper habits permanently—as have I. I am going to continue to do this for all of my classes, and also suggest it to my colleagues.

CMI: Efficient Vehicles part 1

2007-10-26T11:14:00.000-04:00

Article 8 in a series that looks Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which has proposed 15 carbon reduction strategies, in 4 broad categories, each of which could be scaled up to provide 1/7th the CO2 reduction necessary to stabilize the atmosphere.

Category 1: Efficiency and Conservation

Efficient Vehicles

One full wedge could be achieved if by 2054 we increase the fuel economy for 2 billion cars (four times the number currently on the road) from 30 to 60 mpg, with the fuel type and average miles driven (10,000/year) unchanged.

CMI: Efficient Buildings

2007-10-19T13:08:00.000-04:00

Article 7 in a series that looks at Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which has outlined 15 carbon reduction strategies, in 4 broad categories, each of which could be scaled up to provide 1/7th the CO2 reduction necessary to stabilize the atmosphere.

Carbon Mitigation Initiative:
Category 1: Efficiency and Conservation

Efficient Buildings:
Programs promoting or mandating efficient buildings in the U.S. are still in their infancy. Two voluntary programs deserve special mention.

ENERGY STAR
A section of Energy Star is devoted to promoting efficiency in new and retrofitted homes. Their program focuses on reducing the energy needed for heating and cooling:

Insulation
Sealed Ducts and Leaks
Efficient Windows
Efficient HVAC, Lighting and Appliances

About 200,000 new Energy Star qualified homes were built last year, about 12% of the total, and another 12,000 were overhauled to improve efficiency, bringing the total to 725,000 and 26,000 respectively. Energy Star homes are between 15 and 20% more efficient than those built to "code." Energy Star is currently partnering with about 3,500 builders.

LEED
The organization that has been getting the most media attention is LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Created by the U.S. Green Building Council, LEED is system that rates buildings for sustainability. According to their web site:

"Based on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. LEED promotes expertise in green building through a comprehensive system offering project certification, professional accreditation, training and practical resources."

While I have had difficulty finding numbers that give an estimate of the impact of LEED, their roster lists something in the neighborhood of 6000 registered projects, representing many million square feet. Given that the certification process only began in the late 1990s, and that in 2002 there were only 12 registered projects, growth in this area has been remarkable. More significantly, thousands of architects and building professionals have become LEED "certified," holding out the promise that these key professionals will make sustainable building the norm.

Certainly, LEED is associated with cutting-edge design, which will hopefully increase its influence, especially with young professionals. One risk, however, which is evident throughout the Green products arena, is that instead of becoming the norm for new buildings, LEED will become more influential as a prestige label. In New York City, certainly, it is best known for a hand-full of ultra-luxury, high-profile "starchitect" projects rather than for more mundane commercial and residential building.

While these voluntary programs have shown impressive growth, again mandatory standards are clearly needed to make sure our building stock is as efficient as possible.

Judging from a paper published on their web site, the National Association of Home Builders is as opposed to mandatory standards as the electricity or auto industries. They draw the following conclusions about emissions tied to residential housing:

• More than half of the energy consumption and CO2 emissions attributable to the residential sector is the result of energy “lost” in the generation and transmission of electricity.

• New homes (those built in the last ten years) account for about 12 percent of residential energy consumption.

• Per square foot, new homes consume less than two-thirds the energy of older homes for the core HVAC uses controllable by builders.

• Behavior of the occupants has a larger impact on non-HVAC energy consumption than those items under the control of the builder.

• More stringent energy conservation requirements for new homes can have a reverse effect of retarding filtering and keeping people in older, less energy-efficient homes.

In other words: the new houses we build are not the problem, old houses are; it's the owners not us; it's the electric companies not us; if you mandate efficient building, people will decide not to move or renovate.

Given the difficulty of educating and motivating 3oo million people, Green Factoids would argue that the least effective and efficient way to control home energy use is by focusing on individual decisions. Is it even helpful for the average person to become knowledgeable about duct-work and high-efficiency windows? It seems clear that if we are going to achieve anything close to one wedge of reductions from efficient buildings, builders should be pressured and ultimately required to maximize efficiency in those areas directly under their control, whether or not homeowners know enough to ask for these measures or not.

CMI: U.S. Programs for Appliance Efficiency Part 3; In Honor of Blog Action Day

2007-10-15T11:11:00.000-04:00

Green Factoids would like to recognize BLOG ACTION DAY and thank its organizers. Not only will this effort help us to reach a wide and potentially receptive audience, but the incredible diversity of the blogs represented should also yield lessons on how to tailor the message of sustainability for different audiences.

Article 6 in a series that looks Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which has proposed 15 carbon reduction strategies, in 4 broad categories, each of which could be scaled up to provide 1/7th the CO2 reduction necessary to stabilize the atmosphere.

Category 1: Efficiency and Conservation
Efficient Buildings

Discussion of U.S. Programs:
Despite some impressive accomplishments, it is hard not to have regrets about our failings in this area, especially that of efficiency standards. The Department of Energy, which has responsibility over standards, has truly fiddled while Rome burned, slowing down the process so much that they are more than 15 years behind schedule setting standards on many items. According to a report issued this January by the GAO:

DOE has missed all 34 congressional deadlines for setting energy efficient standards for the 20 product categories with statutory deadlines that have passed. DOE's delays ranged from less than a year to 15 years. Rulemakings were completed for only (1) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; (2) small furnaces; and (3) clothes washers. The DOE has yet to finish 17 categories of such consumer products as kitchen ranges and ovens, dishwashers and water heaters and such industrial equipment as distribution transformers. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that delays in setting standards for the four consumer product categories that consume the most energy - refrigerators and freezers, central air conditioners and heat pumps, water heaters and clothes washers - will cost at least $28B in forgone energy savings by 2030.

According to some analyses, DOE has been so late that the final standards were largely meaningless, offering no efficiency gains over the current performance of the product. In the meantime states have been blocked from setting their own standards. In comparison, Energy Star has been a model of efficiency, expanding its program to cover some 44,000 separate products.

While regrets here are inevitable, they are also pretty much useless, and do not help us devise any plan for reducing emissions from appliances. Green Factoids will restrict itself to a few observations about this complex topic.

The flip side of the DOE’s failure to enact mandatory standards is that we have barely begun to achieve the savings possible in this area.

CMI's numbers on efficiency vindicate the "little steps" approach; in fact, household and building efficiency could provide one seventh the reduction needed to stabilize carbon levels.

The challenge is that this category represents dozens of different products and appliances, and consequently billions of purchasing decisions by virtually every consumer in this country.

From a policy standpoint, mandatory standards are much more effective than voluntary ones. Despite all of the outreach, only a small percentage of all purchases are Energy Star. For example, according to recent estimates, last year CFLs still only represented 6% of all bulbs in the U.S.

Of all of the different areas explored by CMI, efficiency is the only one where any initial expenses are consistently dwarfed by money saved on energy costs. Many mitigation proposals require enormous investments and are far more expensive than more polluting alternatives.

This wedge cannot be achieved without either consumer awareness and action or much more aggressive government regulatory action. Given the current highly polarized political climate, and the anti-regulatory dogmas of influential segments of the political and economic community, we cannot be certain that the government will move to adopt the necessary standards.

In the absence of effective government leadership, it becomes doubly important that Green activists, bloggers, marketers, and concerned citizens push Energy Star every chance we get and are religious about choosing its products for our own purchases.

Perception of public opinion is important—the government is much more likely to adopt regulations that are demanded by voters, or that already represent the bulk of all purchases. Manufacturers will stop trying to block regulations if consumers already strongly favor efficient and “green” models. We should not forget that after millions of consumers moved away from aerosols out of concern for the ozone layer, it became much easier to ban fluorocarbons in consumer products.

In recent years, corporations have proven more receptive to change or susceptible to public pressure than our elected officials, especially at the federal level. Likewise, the government as it currently constituted is much more likely to adopt changes if they are demanded by the business community.

Major Point: Efficiency represents the single biggest source of emissions reduction that is under control of the average consumer. Indeed, of CMI's four categories, efficiency is the only one that is directly affected by our actual behavior and purchases, rather than just our opinions: our appliances, windows, insulation, and water heaters determine the energy use and thus greenhouse emissions of our homes, often for a decade or more.

CMI: U.S. Programs for Appliance Efficiency Part 2

2007-10-11T11:26:00.000-04:00

Article 5 in a series that looks Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which has proposed 15 carbon reduction strategies, in 4 broad categories, each of which could be scaled up to provide 1/7th the CO2 reduction necessary to stabilize the atmosphere.

Category 1: Efficiency and Conservation
Efficient Buildings

Appliance Efficiency Standards:

Efficiency standards, which are overseen by the Department of Energy, set mandatory baselines for appliance energy use. In a policy development that has strong echoes to today’s battles over carbon emissions, appliance manufacturers initially opposed any standards but eventually came to support federal standards as it became clear that the alternative would be a patchwork of state standards.

Although opposed by anti-regulatory zealots, efficiency standards offer a solution to the problem that the market seems unable to solve by itself: contrary to what we might assume, the market does not offer clear or effective incentives for energy efficient products—to either manufacturers or consumers. Here are a few reasons from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, some of which may sound familiar to readers:

* Third-party decision makers (e.g., landlords and builders) who purchase appliances but do not pay the operating costs of the products they purchase;

* Panic purchases that leave little time for consumers to become educated (how many of us have done this?)

* Inadequate and misleading information about the relative energy performance of products; and

* High first costs for efficient equipment due to small production quantities and the fact that manufacturers frequently combine efficiency features with extra non-energy features in expensive "trade-up" models.

Arguably the most effective standard has been for refrigerators, which represent the largest single energy user in many households. Refrigerators in 1972 averaged 1,986 kWh/year; in 1985, they averaged 1077 kWh/year. Power used by the average new refrigerator has continued to drop, falling 49%, from 974 to 500 kWh/year between 1987-2004, even as the units got larger.

Benefits of efficiency standards
Again, from ACEEE:

# In 2000, according to analyses by the U.S. Department of Energy and ACEEE, standards reduced U.S. electricity use by approximately 88 billion kWh and reduced U.S. total energy use by approximately 1,200 trillion Btus. These savings are 2.5% and 1.3% of U.S. electricity and energy use in 2000, respectively.

# In 2000, standards reduced peak generating needs by approximately 21,000 MW — equivalent to displacing seventy 300 MW power plants. Without these savings, current electricity shortages would be significantly worse.

# Over the 1990–2000 period, standards have reduced consumer energy bills by approximately $50 billion. Under standards, equipment prices have risen modestly, but estimates by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and ACEEE indicate that the benefits are more than 3 times the costs on a net present value basis.

# As old appliances and equipment wear out and are replaced, savings from existing standards will steadily grow. By 2010, savings will total more than 250 billion kWh (6.5% of projected electricity use) and reduce peak demand by approximately 66,000 MW (a 7.6% reduction). Over 1990–2030, consumers and businesses are projected to save approximately $186 billion (1997 dollars) from standards already adopted.

CMI: U.S. Programs for Appliance Efficiency Part 1

2007-10-07T15:46:00.001-04:00

Article 4 in a series that looks Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which has proposed 15 carbon reduction strategies, in 4 broad categories, each of which could be scaled up to provide 1/7th the CO2 reduction necessary to stabilize the atmosphere.

Category 1: Efficiency and Conservation
Efficient Buildings

In the U.S. two government programs emphasize appliance efficiency. One is appliance efficiency standards, overseen by the Department of Energy, and the other is Energy Star, overseen by the EPA in conjunction with the DOE.

Energy Star:

In the U.S. the most well-known program focused on energy efficient appliances is Energy Star. Products that are labeled Energy Star are more efficient than their non-Energy Star counterparts, using between 10 to 75% less energy. According to the EPA's own numbers, during 2006, use of ENERGY STAR products helped Americans prevent about 37 million metric tons of emissions and save about 170 billion kWh, or about 5% of the total 2006 power demand.

In the past 5 years, the total number of Energy Star products sold has doubled, to about 2 billion; the carbon savings associated with Energy Star products has also doubled since 2000, and grew by 10% over the last year. There are now 50 product categories eligible for the Energy Star label, up from only 35 in 2002. About 200,000 new Energy Star qualified homes were built last year, and another 26,000 were completely overhauled to improve efficiency.

Next Post: Appliance Standards

CMI: Building and Appliance Efficiency

2007-10-05T13:46:00.000-04:00

Continuing our segment on the Carbon Mitigation Initiative, Green Factoids will consider in more detail the areas which might be capable of providing a whole or partial wedge. In several papers, lead scientists Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow outline 15 options, each of which could produce one wedge if fully deployed. Seven wedges are needed in order to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Each wedge represents the reduction of 25 billion tons CO2 over the next 50 years, or 1 billion tons per year by 2054.

Category one: ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION

Energy Efficient Buildings:

Roughly one wedge could be achieved if we install the most efficient lighting, appliances, space heating and cooling, and water heating, and improve insulation in every new and existing building by 2054. Doing so would reduce CO2 emissions by buildings by about one quarter.

One half of these savings are in buildings in developing countries.

They estimate that approximately one quarter of a wedge could be achieved just by switching all incandescent bulbs to CFL's.

Next Post: U.S. Government Efficiency Programs

CMI's Stabilization Categories

2007-09-27T12:41:00.000-04:00

Continuing our look at the Carbon Mitigation Initiative, here is a list of the different categories, and the most promising possibilities within those categories, that could be capable of producing a whole or partial wedge of abated emissions. Each wedge effectively prevents 1 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year, or 25 billion tons over the next half century. To stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations, seven wedges are required.

Wedge Summary Table
Category	Technology
Efficiency	Efficient vehicles
	Reduced use of vehicles
	Efficient buildings
	Efficient baseload coal plants

Decarbonization of power	Gas baseload power for coal baseload power
	Capture CO2 at baseload power plant
	Nuclear power for coal power
	Wind power for coal power
	PV power for coal power

Decarbonization of fuel	Capture CO2 at H2 plant
	Capture CO2 at coal-to-synfuels plant
	Wind H2 in fuel-cell car for gasoline in hybrid car
	Biomass fuel for fossil fuel

Forests and agricultural soils	Reduced deforestation, plus reforestation, afforestation, and new plantations
Forests and agricultural soils	Conservation tillage

The Carbon Mitigation Initiative

2007-09-25T09:40:00.000-04:00

In previous posts I have referred to the Carbon Mitigation Initiative, pioneered by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, both of Princeton. As part of their work they have designed a "Stabilization triangle" that illustrates our current emissions trajectory if nothing is done, an increase that will lead to the tripling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and a flat trajectory that will prevent the doubling of concentrations.

In their words:
"In order to avoid a doubling of CO2 and dramatic climate change, society needs to act quickly to deploy low-carbon energy technologies and enhance natural carbon sinks.
The "stabilization wedges" concept illustrates the scale of emissions cuts needed in the future, and provides a common unit for comparing the carbon mitigating capacities of various energy and storage technologies."

Implementing these reductions would prevent 200 billion tons of CO2 emissions between now and 2054. Each of the seven wedges represents reduction in the rate of emissions of 1 billion tons per year by 2054, or 25 billion over the whole period. Their wedges fall into five basic categories: energy conservation, renewable energy, enhanced natural sinks, nuclear energy, and fossil carbon management. All of these reductions can be made using existing and readily available technology, which does not mean that the political and social will is there. In my upcoming posts, I would like to look at some of their numbers, which help illustrate the scope of the challenge and provide a sobering reminder that every nation and sector of society must be involved, and that the average individual only has control over a small part of this effort.

Electricity Factoids

2007-09-19T22:37:00.000-04:00

According to the EIA:

In 2005
Emissions from electric plants amounted to 2,513,609,000 Metric Tons of CO2

Electricity Production:
Coal produced: 2,013,179,000 megawatt hours

Natural Gas: 757,974,000 megawatt hours

Nuclear: 781,986,000 megawatt hours

Hydro-electric: 269,587,000 megawatt hours

Renewables: 94,932,000 megawatt hours

Nuclear, hydro and most renewables produce no greenhouse gas emissions.

Between 1994 and 2005:
We increased renewable energy production by 18,400 megawatt hours
We increased coal production by 322,485 megawatt hours

Emissions from Coal

2007-09-18T13:29:00.000-04:00

From a National Environmental Trust report on "Sources of Greenhouse Gases in the United States":

Coal accounts for about half of electricity generation in terms of kilowatt hours, but 83% of carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector, the largest piece of the pie in terms of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural gas, in contrast, generates nearly 20% of the country’s electricity but is responsible for 12% of emissions in this sector because it is a less carbon-intensive fuel.

Targeting Methane: Manure

2007-09-14T12:20:00.000-04:00

From the EPA web site:

Methane emissions occur whenever animal waste is managed in anaerobic conditions. Liquid manure management systems, such as ponds, anaerobic lagoons, and holding tanks create oxygen free environments that promote methane production. Manure deposited on fields and pastures, or otherwise handled in a dry form, produces insignificant amounts of methane. Currently, livestock waste contributes about 8 percent of human-related methane emissions in the U.S. Given the trend toward larger farms, liquid manure management is expected to increase.

AgSTAR is an outreach program designed to reduce methane emissions from livestock waste management operations by promoting the use of biogas recovery systems. A biogas recovery system is an anaerobic digester with biogas capture and combustion to produce electricity, heat or hot water.

The AgSTAR Program has been very successful in encouraging the development and adoption of anaerobic digestion technology. Since the establishment of the program in 1994, the number of operational digester systems has grown to more than 125 systems across the United States. This has produced significant environmental and energy benefits, including methane emission reductions in 2007 alone of approximately 80,000 metric tons and energy generation of about 275 million kWh. The graph below shows the historical use of biogas recovery technology for animal waste management.

The development of anaerobic digesters for livestock manure treatment and energy production has accelerated at a very fast pace over the past few years. Factors influencing this market demand include: increased technical reliability of anaerobic digesters through the deployment of successful operating systems over the past five years; growing concern of farm owners about environmental quality; an increasing number of state and federal programs designed to cost share in the development of these systems; increasing energy costs and the desire for energy security; and the emergence of new state energy policies (such as net metering legislation) designed to expand growth in reliable renewable energy and green power markets.

Since 2003, methane reductions from operational digester systems have increased almost four fold.

Comment: As with landfill gas, the beauty of the manure digesters is that they not only trap a potent greenhouse gas, but they use that gas to generate electricity--electricity that might otherwise be generated by burning coal.

While the EPA is on the right track, at 125 systems they have just gotten started. According to their own numbers, an 80,000 metric ton reduction represents only about .2% of the 41 million metric tons of methane emissions that come from manure every year. But by some estimates, digesters would be cost-effective on about 7000 dairy and pig farms. These would have a generating capacity of about 722 MW, enough to power about 144,000 homes, and would reduce greenhouse emissions by about 30 million metric tons--the same as removing 4.7 million cars from the road.

One policy point: Given how important the agriculture sector is to tackling climate change, it is especially important that the environmental movement give farmers our support when our interests align. We will need their good will to push more far-reaching changes such as conservation tillage. We should strongly support greatly increased subsidies for biogas digesters--we will be giving farmers another source of income while at the same time preventing water and air pollution as well as methane emissions.

Targeting Methane: Turning Landfill Gas Into Electricity

2007-09-12T22:12:00.000-04:00

Most of us love wind (unless we own a house on Nantucket), but let's not forget about the much less glamorous landfill gas, which offers a cheap source of power that puts to use what is now a nuisance gas. Landfills are already there, so using the gas presents far fewer problems with NIMBYism or people worried about their views.

According to these EPA numbers, we are currently exploiting about half the landfill gas potential in the U.S.:

As of December 2006, approximately 425 landfill gas (LFG) energy projects were operational in the United States. These 425 projects generate approximately 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year and deliver 230 million cubic feet per day of LFG to direct-use applications.

Of the 2,300 or so currently operating or recently closed MSW landfills in the United States, about 400 have LFG utilization projects. We estimate that approximately 560 additional MSW landfills could turn their gas into energy, producing enough electricity to power over 870,000 homes.

Comment: Burning methane produces CO2, but it counts as a renewable energy source since it is basically recycling carbon that was absorbed by (now decomposing) plants and animals. Targeting methane produces a double benefit first by preventing the methane emissions and second by using the methane as a substitute for non-renewable energy sources like coal.

Here are a few back-of the-envelop calculations: Generating 10 billion kWh of electricity from coal would produce more than 10.26 million metric tons of carbon emissions (assuming 2.3 lbs of CO2/kWh).

Using LFG to power another 870,000 homes--roughly another 9.5 billion kWh--would prevent another 9.7 million metric tons of emissions.

In 2006, methane emissions from landfills decreased by 20 million metric tons. If we were to take complete advantage of this resource, we could reduce methane and non-renewable emissions by about 60 MMT of CO2 equivalent--or about 5% of the total emissions from the residential sector (1197 MMT).

In contrast, according to industry numbers, wind currently generates about 17 billion kWh and prevents about 19 million tons of CO2 emissions each year.

Targeting Methane: Landfill Gas

2007-09-10T08:44:00.000-04:00

The EPA is working to reduce landfill gas (LFG) emissions, which represent about 25% of human caused methane emissions. Whether through their program or through other means, U.S. LFG emissions are significantly down. Between 1990 and 2004, landfill methane emissions declined by 18%, or 31.4 million metric tons (CO2 equivalent) per year--that represents about .5% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2004.

The EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program:

Accomplishments since program launch in 1994 include the following:

As of December 2006, LMOP has more than 600 Partners that have signed voluntary agreements to work with EPA to develop cost-effective LFG energy projects.
LMOP has developed detailed profiles for over 1,300 candidate landfills.
There are approximately 425 operational LFG energy projects in the United States. In addition, about 120 projects are currently under construction or are exploring development options and opportunities.
To date, LMOP has assisted in the development of approximately 330 LFG utilization projects - including 32 new projects and 9 project expansions that went online in 2006. These 330 projects have prevented the release of over 24 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE - the basic unit of measure of greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere over the past 12 years.
In the year 2006, all operational LFG energy projects in the United States prevented the release of over 20 MMTCE.

This reduction is the carbon equivalent of removing the emissions from nearly 14 million vehicles on the road or planting nearly 20 million acres of forest for one year.
These reductions also have the same environmental benefit as preventing the use of over 169 million barrels of oil or offsetting the use of over 356,000 railcars of coal.

The graph below illustrates the growth of LFG utilization projects before and after LMOP’s inception. The first LMOP-assisted projects started in 1995, as illustrated by the shaded portion atop the 1995 bar. After 1995, the projects are divided into two categories, those that fall under the New Source Performance Standards/Emission Guidlines (NSPS/EG - in blue) and those that don’t (in yellow). Within those two categories, the shaded lines illustrate LMOP assistance. Since 1995, there has been growth in all of the above mentioned areas.

The graph below illustrates LMOP's emission reduction goals as well as performance in relation to these goals. In 2001-2006, LMOP met its goal and anticipates that in future years will continue to meet increasing emission reductions. For 2006, we have broken down the source of the reductions into its three primary components - electricity generation, direct-use, and flaring.

Sources of Methane Emissions

2007-09-06T12:45:00.000-04:00

from the EPA:

Human-related Sources

In the United States, the largest methane emissions come from the decomposition of wastes in landfills, ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock, natural gas and oil systems, and coal mining. Table 1 shows the level of emissions from individual sources for the years 1990 and 1999 to 2003.

Table 1 U.S. Methane Emissions by Source (TgCO₂ Equivalents)

Source Category	1990	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
Landfills	172.2	134.0	130.7	126.2	126.8	131.2
Natural Gas Systems	128.3	127.4	132.1	131.8	130.6	125.9
Enteric Fermentation	117.9	116.8	115.6	114.5	114.6	115.0
Coal Mining	81.9	58.9	56.2	55.6	52.4	53.8
Manure Management	31.2	38.8	38.1	38.9	39.3	39.1
Wastewater Treatment	24.8	33.6	34.3	34.7	35.8	36.8
Petroleum Systems	20.0	17.8	17.6	17.4	17.1	17.1
Rice Cultivation	7.1	8.3	7.5	7.6	6.8	6.9
Stationary Sources	7.8	7.1	7.3	6.7	6.4	6.7
Abandoned Coal Mines	6.1	7.3	7.7	6.9	6.4	6.4
Mobile Sources	4.8	3.6	3.4	3.1	2.9	2.7
Petrochemical Production	1.2	1.7	1.7	1.4	1.5	1.5
Iron and Steel	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.0	1.0
Agricultural Residue Burning	0.7	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.8
Total for U.S.	605.3	557.3	554.2	546.7	542.3	544.9

Methane Factoids

2007-09-03T21:08:00.000-04:00

According to the EPA:

Methane (CH₄) is a principal component of natural gas. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Once in the atmosphere, methane absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to space. This property can contribute to the warming of the atmosphere, which is why methane is a greenhouse gas.

Methane has more than 20 times the heat-trapping capacity of CO2.
The largest human source of U.S. methane emissions are landfills, with 34% of the total.

Other key human sources of methane are natural gas systems, cattle and other animals, wastewater treatment facilities, rice paddies, and coal mines.

Methane represents 7.9% of U.S. global warming gas emissions--these percentages are given in CO2 equivalents, and have already factored in methane's higher Global Warming Potential (GWP).

We reduced emissions of methane by about 10% between 1990-2004; during that period CO2 emissions grew by 20%.

Comment: methane reduction is the ultimate low-hanging fruit. Unlike CO2, which is produced by many necessary and beneficial human activities, a lot of human generated methane comes from poorly managed waste facilities such as landfills, farms, and sewage plants, or from things like leaky gas systems and old coal mines. Often, reduction strategies turn a waste or nuisance gas into an economic asset--as when manure or landfill gas is used to generate electricity. Also, it is much easier to target a few dozen natural gas companies, a few thousand landfills, or even the nation's dairy farmers, than to change the behavior of hundreds of millions of drivers or light bulb users.

1000 New Pets: Worm Composting

2007-08-30T12:16:00.000-04:00

Our family has taken up vermiculture, or worm composting, the primary composting method that can work in an apartment.

Basically, it consists of a plastic bin, some shredded, damp newspaper, a supply of red worms, and our fruit and vegetable waste. We obtained our bin and worms from Flowerfield Enterprises, the company founded by the late Mary Appelhof, aka the "worm woman," and author of "Worms Eat My Garbage," which came with our bin. I recommend them highly.

Worm composting can work indoors because it is aerobic, rather than anaerobic, and thus does not produce the offensive odors we usually associate with rotting food. We started our bin about 10 days ago. Since then we have added such yummy articles as mushy carrots, soggy lettuce, old basil, roasted pepper skins, moldy fruit, tomato cores, corn husks, and watermelon rinds. Unlike our garbage can, which in the summer heat smells horrendous after one day, the worm bin smells almost poetically pleasant: phrases such as "a forest after the rain" come to mind.

Worms are extremely low maintenance--for example, you can easily go on vacation for a week or two without worrying about feeding them. You must make sure that the conditions in the bin are okay--not too wet or too dry and adequately aerated. Every few months, you must harvest your worm compost, either by dumping out your worms and separating them from the compost, or by putting new bedding and food on one side of the bin, allowing the worms to migrate, and then removing now mostly-worm free compost.

here is a short list of some of the environmental benefits of worm-composting:
1. it reduces amount of garbage sent to landfills, (including fuel needed to take waste to the dump)

2. it eliminates the methane produced when organic matter decomposes in anaerobic conditions: methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases with more than 20 times the heat-trapping capacity of CO2; a principal source of methane emissions is dumps

3. worms produce compost which increases the organic matter (and stored carbon) in soil, matter that in many parts of the world is being rapidly depleted through soil erosion

4. worm castings are a form of organic fertilizer that can reduce or eliminate the need for traditional fertilizer, which is energy-intensive to produce and causes serious environmental problems from run-off

Earth 911 has an excellent article about the benefits of compost for your plants.

While these benefits are real enough, the environmental effects of a single family's composting efforts are pretty modest. In the scheme of things, it is probably more important--in the sense of directly beneficial to the planet--for people to cut their electricity and gasoline use than for them to compost 500 pounds of vegetable scrapings each year.

Actually, I think the more significant benefits may be mental, but I think these also need to be articulated and defended.

Our worm bin is an ongoing biological experiment that is (to say the least) educational for the children and adults in our house--there is a good reason these bins are popular in schools. It helps educate my children about waste, ecology, "bugs," and the life cycle, among other things.

Even a few short days of composting has made us all newly conscious of what is going in our garbage can and how much we toss out every week; this awareness is a necessary first step to reducing our waste.

Most importantly for me, composting has enabled our whole family to recognize that our vegetable scrapings are not worthless--they do not have to be garbage. They can be put to use. As a society, we treat many things as garbage that actually have value: we just don't bother to discover and acknowledge that value. Rainwater is another example of this--in NYC we literally mix it with our sewage.

We need a new way to think about waste: one meaning of waste is "by-product," whatever is left over from a process--in this case carrot peels from dinner and worm castings from our bin. But another form of waste--the one that injures our minds in the deepest sense--is the destruction of potential.

These kinds of mental shift are absolutely key if we are going to adapt as a society to confront the challenges ahead of us.

Campaign Against Engine Idling

2007-08-28T14:54:00.001-04:00

Environmental Defense featured a story today about NJ's new "Stop the Soot" campaign against engine idling. A new law makes it a crime to idle a diesel engine for more than 3 minutes unless it is very cold or the vehicle is loading or unloading passengers--it is always unlawful to idle for more than 15 minutes. Here are some factoids about engine idling:

From the EPA:
Combined, truck and locomotive idling consumes over 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually. Long-duration truck idling consumes approximately 960 million gallons of diesel fuel annually and locomotive switcher idling consumes 60 million gallons of diesel fuel annually.

Long-duration truck idling emits 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, 180,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5,000 tons of particulate matter annually. For detailed information about idling nitrogen oxide emissions view EPA's Study on Long-Duration Truck Idling, above.

From the Natural Resources Canada:

Health impacts of idling

Carbon dioxide is only one by-product of fuel combustion – the vehicles Canadians drive every day also generate other toxic substances that are fouling our air, contributing to urban smog and threatening our health.

Studies by Health Canada and community health departments and agencies have shown a direct link between contaminants in vehicle emissions and significant respiratory health effects. These studies have concluded that poor air quality and smog – caused in part by vehicle exhaust – are resulting in increased hospital admissions, respiratory illnesses and premature deaths, particularly in urban areas.

In fact, Health Canada estimates that more than 5000 Canadians die prematurely each year because of air pollution, and thousands more become unnecessarily ill. Children are particularly vulnerable to air pollution because they breathe faster than adults and inhale more air per kilogram of body weight. Air pollution also causes unnecessary difficulty for elderly people and those with respiratory problems, such as asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

Comment: Diesel engines are the biggest culprits, but all engine idling wastes gas, causes unnecessary carbon emissions, endangers respiratory health, and even damages engines.

Aluminum Factoids #2

2007-08-24T11:45:00.000-04:00

From Earth 911 and the Aluminum Association:

* Over 50% of the aluminum cans produced are recycled.
* A used aluminum can is recycled and back on the grocery shelf as a new can, in as little as 60 days. That’s closed loop recycling at its finest!
* Aluminum is a durable and sustainable metal: 2/3 of the aluminum ever produced is in use today.
* Every minute of everyday, an average of 113,204 aluminum cans are recycled.
* Making new aluminum cans from used cans takes 95 percent less energy and 20 recycled cans can be made with the energy needed to produce one can using virgin ore.
* Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to keep a 100-watt bulb burning for almost four hours or run your television for three hours.
* Last year 54 billion cans were recycled saving energy equivalent to 15 million barrels of crude oil - America’s entire gas consumption for one day.
* Tossing away an aluminum can wastes as much energy as pouring out half of that can’s volume of gasoline.
* In 1972, 24,000 metric tons of aluminum used beverage containers (UBCs) were recycled. In 1998, the amount increased to over 879,000 metric tons.
* In 1972, it took about 22 empty, aluminum cans to weigh one pound. Due to advanced technology to use less material and increase durability of aluminum cans, in 2002 it takes about 34 empty aluminum cans to weigh one pound.
* The average employee consumes 2.5 beverages a day while at work.
* The empty aluminum can is worth about 1 cent.

Comment: We use over 80,000,000,000 aluminum soda cans every year, half of which we currently recycle.

Garbage Truck Factoids

2007-08-23T12:18:00.000-04:00

Here are some factoids on Garbage Trucks from Inform, an organization dedicated to "pushing the boundaries of green innovation":

GARBAGE TRUCK FACTS

An estimated 136,000 garbage trucks, 12,000 transfer vehicles, and 31,000 dedicated recycling vehicles haul away America’s garbage (179,000 vehicles in total).
An average garbage truck travels 25,000 miles annually, gets less than 3 miles per gallon, and uses approximately 8,600 gallons of fuel each year.
Over 40% of garbage trucks are over 10 years old, making it the oldest fleet in the US.
The average diesel-powered garbage truck costs over $170,000 and is not retired for 12 years.
Over 27,000 organizations in the waste industry employ over 280,000 people.
82% of collection services are carried out by private companies, and 18% by public entities.
Industry revenues for 2000, including waste hauling and recycling, exceeded $43 billion.

Recycling in NYC

2007-08-22T11:51:00.000-04:00

Here are some waste Factoids from the Council on the Environment of New York City:

NYC residents produce 12,000 tons of waste every day.

Non-recyclable waste generated in New York City is packed on long-haul trucks and driven to landfills in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia.

Much of Manhattan’s waste is incinerated across the Hudson in Newark, NJ.

Paper waste that is properly separated from regular garbage is recycled locally or is processed for further recycling overseas. Glass, metal and plastics collected at the curbside are sent to New Jersey, where they are processed and sent to various recycling markets.

Waste in New York City

New York City residents currently recycle only about 17% of their total waste—half of what is possible to recycle under the current program.
7.5% of our waste stream consists of plastic film such as bags from the grocery store
Clothing and textiles make up 5.7% of our garbage.

Does Recycling Work?

Paper recycling makes money for NYC, netting $7.5 million after the costs of collection, though almost 15% of our paper is still thrown in the garbage.
Exporting municipal waste for disposal in other communities will cost New York City taxpayers $290 million in 2007.

Food Recycling?

39% of NYC’s waste is organic material, like food scraps and yard waste. Instead of burying this waste in a landfill, it can be composted. Compost is a nutrient-rich, soil-like material made from broken down (i.e. “recycled”) organic material and is a cost-effective, better-quality alternative to chemical fertilizers.
Each year, the world mines 139 million tons of phosphate and 20 million tons of potash to replace the nutrients that crops remove from the soil.
When New York City collects trees and yard waste for composting, we offset the cost of collection by saving money in landscaping--the program pays for itself!

Waste Less, Breathe More

Diesel trucks carry Manhattan’s garbage 7.8 million miles every year. That’s the equivalent of driving more than 312 times around the earth!
Landfills are responsible for 36% of all methane emissions in the US, one of the most potent causes of global warming.

Close the Loop – Buy Recycled

More than 90 percent of printing and writing paper still comes from virgin tree fiber

Comment: our family has officially started "vermiculture," or worm composting of fruits and vegetable waste. We can also compost non-recyclable paper like napkins and paper towels. Look for more information in upcoming posts.

How much will we have to cut?

2007-08-21T11:19:00.000-04:00

Writing for Celsius, Bill Chameides, chief scientist at Environmental Defense, provided this helpful overview of what might be called the Green consensus on what we are going to have to do:

Model calculations indicate that to avoid a temperature increase of 3.6oF, we must stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 parts per million (ppm) or less.

This turns out to be a tall order. Today, CO2 concentration is 380 ppm. The rate of increase is about 2 ppm per year, and is expected to accelerate. If we follow a "business as usual" course, we could cross the 450 ppm tipping point well before 2050.

Naturally, the more CO2 we produce, the higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Four gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere will raise CO2 concentrations by 1 ppm (see CO2 Arithmetic, Science Magazine). Worldwide, 7 to 8 gigatons of carbon are emitted into the atmosphere each year.

To avoid the tipping point, global CO2 emissions should peak no later than 15 years from now, and then begin to decrease. By 2050, emissions must be about 50 percent less than today, and by the end of the century 75 percent less. (Note that this is a reduction in total emissions, not the reduction relative to projected business-as-usual emissions that President Bush referred to in his 2007 State of the Union address.)

Reducing CO2 emissions by 75 percent will require a profound change in the way we produce and use energy, but there is no need for panic or despair. If we get started now, we can make this transition slowly, a percent or two each year.

Comment: Every bit helps. Changes in habit can be especially useful if they become permanent. The U.S. is incredibly wasteful. Many people pay no attention to their energy usage, running their air-conditioners round the clock, idling their cars for no reason, leaving lights on when they leave the house for the day. Changing these bad habits will yield a big dividend immediately, buying us time to put in place more complex changes such as improving efficiency standards for appliances and gas mileage for cars, and building up our renewable energy capacity.

The Sierra Club has created the 2% solution campaign to help us get started. It helps people set a reasonable goal for themselves and encourages them to become aware of their actual energy usage. See my series on Understand Your Electricity to figure out which electricity cuts will have the most impact.

Getting Rich Going Paperless

2007-08-20T15:05:00.001-04:00

It took me a long time to come round to electronic statements and e-bills since I am neurotic about filing and had an irrational fear of computer clutter, irrational because we are utterly drowning (or whatever the metaphor) in paper clutter. But in doing my research for Green Factoids, I realized that if I had gone paperless way back when, I would have been able to check out my old electricity bills so that I could more accurately track our kWh use. Then I discovered some cool factoids about going paperless.

According to Javelin Strategy and Research, here are some of the benefits if all U.S. households viewed and paid bills online:

o Saves 2.3 million tons of wood, or 16.5 million trees.
o Reduces fuel consumption by 26 million BTUs - enough energy to provide residential power to San Francisco for an entire year.
o Decreases toxic air pollutants by 3.9 billion pounds of CO2 equivalents (greenhouse gases), akin to having 355,000 fewer cars on the road.
o Reduces toxic wastewater by 13 billion gallons, enough to fill almost 20,000 swimming pools.
o Lowers solid waste generated by 1.6 billion pounds - equal to 56,000 fully loaded garbage trucks.
o Removes 8.5 million particulates and 12.6 million nitrogen oxides from the air - on par with taking 763,000 buses and 48,000 18-wheelers off the streets.

But imagine this cheapskate’s amazement when I realized that some fund companies, including mutual fund behemoth Vanguard, will waive their yearly fees, now about $20 per year for small investors, if you agree to electronic statements and prospectuses.

So pulling out the old calculator, or actually Quicken’s investment planner, I decided to play with some numbers, and that amazement quickly turned to tears of joy.

Let’s say I treat the fee savings like a $20 investment, to which I add $20 each year. That $20/year is the “principal.” Assuming an 8% investment return I will make:

5 years: $146 (“principal”: $100)
10 years: $332 (“principal”: $200)
20 years: $1008 (“principal”: $400)

PER FUND!!! That’s the miracle of compound interest.

Obviously the environmental benefits are more to the point. But going paperless is yet another powerful example of how eliminating waste also saves money.

Beef Factoids: Water

2007-08-17T11:00:00.000-04:00

From Jay Weinstein's The Ethical Gourmet:

here are some comparisons for how many liters of water it takes to produce 1 kilo of various agricultural products:

Potatoes: 500 liters
Wheat: 900 liters
Sorghum: 1,110 liters
Maize: 1,400 liters
Soybeans: 2,000 liters
Chicken: 3,500 liters

Beef (feedlot): 100,000 liters

Maize and Soybeans are grown primarily for feed.

These numbers continue to astound.

Does the U.S. Government Need to Subsidize Driving to Work?

2007-08-16T10:15:00.001-04:00

A piece in today's New York Times exposed the government's self-defeating policy contradiction of allowing those who drive to work a tax deduction for parking while at the same time spending millions of dollars to fight traffic congestion. Shockingly, the tax code allows a larger deduction for those who drive than for those who take the train. Hopefully the article will mobilize members of the Green community to complain to their elected officials. The Times estimates that 200,000 drivers in the NY metro area (where parking is especially expensive) take advantage of the parking deduction.

New York Times: Mixed Signals: Driving to Work as a Tax Break

Beef Factoids: Cattle and Rainforests

2007-08-16T09:00:00.000-04:00

According to the Nature Conservancy:

In the past 50 years, nearly 15% of Brazil's Amazon forest has been cleared.

Nearly 70% of deforested land in the Amazon is now cattle pasture.

Although ranching is still the biggest threat to Brazil's rainforests, over the last decade large-scale soybean farms have doubled in size, to more than 81,000 square miles.

The vast majority of soy grown in Brazil is exported for cattle and chicken feed.

80% of the world soybean crop is used for animal feed. Only 6% is harvested for direct human consumption in products such as soy milk or tofu.

Comment: Much as it pains us to say it, if you want to reduce your environmental impact, it is crucial that you reduce your consumption of beef.

Beef Factoids: Land

2007-08-15T00:06:00.000-04:00

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists' Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices:

About 800 million acres, or 40% of the U.S. land area, is used for grazing livestock.

Another 60 million acres is used to grow grain for feeding livestock.

American livestock generate more than 2 billion tons of wet manure, over ten times the amount of municipal solid waste generation.

According to Jay Weinstein's The Ethical Gourmet:

About 90% of the grain currently grown in the U.S. is used to feed livestock.

Livestock Factoids: Climate Change

2007-08-14T12:21:00.001-04:00

Here are some of the findings from the LEAD (Livestock, Environment and Development) report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," on livestock's effect on the atmosphere and climate:

With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race.

The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes – especially deforestation – caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops.

Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants.

It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure.

Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

Celsius has an excellent summary of the main findings of this report, "Livestock: Public Enemy Number One."

Bottled Water Factoids

2007-08-13T14:56:00.000-04:00

Here are some factoids from the Earth Policy Institute:

The global consumption of bottled water reached 154 billion liters (41 billion gallons) in 2004, up 57 percent from the 98 billion liters consumed five years earlier.

Making bottles to meet Americans’ demand for bottled water requires more than 1.5 million barrels of oil annually, enough to fuel some 100,000 U.S. cars for a year.

Worldwide, some 2.7 million tons of plastic are used to bottle water each year.

According to the Container Recycling Institute, 86 percent of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter.

Bottled Water Consumption per Person in Leading Countries, 1999 and 2004

Country	1999	2004
	Liters

Italy	154.8	183.6
Mexico	117.0	168.5
United Arab Emirates	109.8	163.5
Belgium *	121.9	148.0
France	117.3	141.6
Spain	101.8	136.7
Germany	100.7	124.9
Lebanon	67.8	101.4
Switzerland	90.1	99.6
Cyprus	67.4	92.0
United States	63.6	90.5
Saudi Arabia	75.3	87.8
Czech Republic	62.1	87.1
Austria	74.6	82.1
Portugal	70.4	80.3

Global Average	16.3	24.2

* Belgium figures include Luxembourg

Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation, cited in John G. Rodwan, Jr., "Bottled Water 2004: U.S. and International Statistics and Developments," Bottled Water Reporter, April/May 2005.

Bottled Water Consumption in Top Ten Countries and World, 1999 and 2004

Country	1999	2004
	Billion Liters

United States	17.3	25.8
Mexico	11.6	17.7
China	4.6	11.9
Brazil	5.7	11.6
Italy	8.9	10.7
Germany	8.3	10.3
France	6.9	8.5
Indonesia	3.4	7.4
Spain	4.1	5.5
India	1.7	5.1
All Others	25.9	39.9

Total	98.4	154.3

Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation, cited in John G. Rodwan, Jr., "Bottled Water 2004: U.S. and International Statistics and Developments," Bottled Water Reporter, April/May 2005.

CT Rewards Residents Who Cut Electricity

2007-08-10T11:30:00.000-04:00

Innovation Awards
CT gets the award for coming up with a plan after Green Factoids’ heart:

Summer Saver - Rewards Program
Save Energy This Summer and Earn a Credit on Your Electric Bill. That's OneThing!

OneThing your utility company is doing to help you conserve energy is giving you a reward for saving! If you use less electricity this summer than you did last summer, you can earn a credit on your electric bill.
Summer Saver Rewards Program

You are eligible if:

* You are a residential or commercial customer of CL&P or UI.
* You will be an active customer for the entire period of July 1, 2007 through September, 2007.
* You were an active customer for the entire period of July 1, 2006 through September, 2006.
* You have had continuous service at the same location for both time periods.

How it works:
Your electric utility company will compare how much electricity you used this summer (from July 1 through September 30, 2007) to how much you used last summer (July 1 through September 30, 2006). If you're able to reduce your usage by at least 10%, you earn a credit on your electric bill!

What you can earn:

* Use at least 10% less electricity this summer and earn a credit equal to 10% percent of the billed generation charges for the eligibility period.
* Use at least 15% less electricity this summer and earn a credit equal to 15% percent of the billed generation charges for the eligibility period.
* Use at least 20% less electricity this summer and earn a credit equal to 20% percent of the billed generation charges for the eligibility period.

Comment: This plan gets it right for several reasons. First, it rewards people who cut electricity during the critical summer months, using a fair, sensible scheme. It is only available to people who have lived in the same house for the past two years and are thus in the position to track their use and make real cuts. However, what Green Factoids especially appreciates is that the plan should motivate people to UNDERSTAND THEIR ELECTRICITY, which regular readers know has been the subject of most of this summer's posts. You won't have much success cutting unless you know how much power your appliances actually use. Hopefully, participants will quickly realize that junking their 300 watt halogen fixtures and turning off their 3500 watt central A/C will get them to their goal a lot faster than unplugging their 2 watt "vampire" VCR on standby. CT should throw in a 'Kill-a-watt' meter for good measure.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector

2007-08-09T12:10:00.000-04:00

From the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:

In the year 2004, the United States emitted over seven billion metric tons of greenhouse gases (CO₂E). Greenhouse gases are emitted by all sectors of the economy, including industry (30% of total), transportation (28%), commercial (17%), residential (17%), and agriculture (8%). In this figure, greenhouse gases from electricity generation have been allocated to the end-use sector.

More Coal Factoids

2007-08-08T12:26:00.001-04:00

More on Coal from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:

Coal plays a major role in meeting U.S. energy needs, and is likely to continue to do so in coming decades.

* Coal can provide usable energy at a cost of between $1 and $2 per MMBtu compared to $6 to $12 per MMBtu for oil and natural gas, and coal prices are relatively stable.

* Coal is inherently higher-polluting and more carbon-intensive than other energy alternatives.

* 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from coal.

* U.S. coal-fired plants have over 300 GW of capacity. Of these, approximately one-third date from 1970 or earlier, and most of the rest from 1970-1989. Only 12 coal-fired plants have been built in the United States since 1990.

* Steep and volatile natural gas prices and high nuclear power costs have led to an estimated 130 new coal-fired plants now on the drawing boards

Coal Factoids

2007-08-07T16:02:00.000-04:00

From the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:
One 500-MW coal-fired power plant produces approximately 3 million tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2).

The United States produces close to 2 billion tons of CO2 per year from coal-burning power plants.

Greenhouse Gas emissions from coal-fired electricity, now 27 percent of total U.S. emissions, are projected to grow by a third by 2025.

Agreement for Efficiency Standards

2007-08-06T13:34:00.000-04:00

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy announced last month that transformer equipment manufacturer ABB has agreed to increase the efficiency of its transformers, which are installed on countless electric poles throughout the country. The Council estimates that improving the transformers' efficiency could save 26 billion kilowatt-hours annually, which according to their numbers is enough electricity to power 2.3 million U.S. households in 2005. The savings will reduce annual emissions from electric power plants by 15 million metric tons, about equal to the average annual emissions of 2.7 million automobiles.

The agreement gives helpful insight into the importance of efficiency standards and the crucial role of corporations, manufacturers, government bodies, and environmental groups in promoting efficiency. A change in the manufacturing standards of one type equipment has the potential to reduce U.S electricity use by 2%.

Seriously lower energy bills: A philosophy of Air-Conditioning

2007-07-18T23:09:00.000-04:00

Despite the risk of sounding like a braggart, I feel impelled to boast for a minute about my last electric bill. For the month of June we used only 575 kWh, down from 630 kWh in May and 759 in April. For the month we hit what must be our lowest daily average ever, 18 kWh per day. That is less than half our average of 38 kWh/day from last June. I should add that I was working from home that month and we were not away on vacation.

In case you have no idea what your own usage is, the average American household uses 800 kWh per month. According to the EIA, the middle-Atlantic region, which includes my home city of NY, averages about 650 kWh/month; presumably that number is higher in the summer because of A/C.

How did we cut our electricity use by half? Since I started boning up on all things electrical, I have made the following changes:

1. I have continued to switch our remaining incandescent bulbs to CFLs
2. I do not leave any lights on in rooms I am not in or when I leave home
3. I avoid turning on our halogen sconces (450 watts) as much as possible
4. I have become much more careful about turning off things like fans in rooms that are not being used
5. I set my computer to go to sleep after 5 minutes of inactivity
6. I set up surge-protectors so I can easily turn off my computer, modem, and printer at night
7. I replaced our oldest (12+ years) air-conditioner with an Energy Star model
8. We were lucky with the weather--I don't think there were any days in June where the temperature went over 90.
9. MOST IMPORTANT: I DID NOT USE THE AIR-CONDITIONER UNLESS IT WAS REALLY HOT--during that billing period, I think I only turned it on twice and only for a short time.

There is no question that the final three made the biggest difference.

If you are serious about cutting your electricity use, the quickest and most dramatic way is to rethink your air-conditioning. In my case, this is not about suffering for a good cause. There is a reason people love air-conditioning. I can't stand feeling hot and sweaty, and when I overheat, my productivity and sense of well-being take a dive.

Here is the Green Factoids environmental philosophy in a nutshell:

we are going to have make changes, but I prefer not to think of them as sacrifices; I genuinely see them as improvements.

So with air-conditioning here is my new philosophy:
1. fans work amazingly well, especially ceiling fans in your bedroom and T.V. viewing room; I rarely feel uncomfortably warm with a fan blowing directly on me

2. if the temperature is below 85, you probably don't need A/C--again this is not martyrdom; you will adjust to this a lot quicker than you think

3. 75% of the air-conditioned homes or stores I spend time in are much too cold--(I think we should complain--it is one way to get businesses to be more responsible; congratulations to Starbucks for leading the way by seriously rethinking the appropriate use of air-conditioning)

4. when you do use A/C, blast it for a few minutes and then turn it to the lowest possible setting and hit the energy-saver button--usually when you turn the A/C on, you are overheated; once you cool down, you don't need it on high, or sometimes even at all

5. test how high a temperature setting is comfortable for you

6. this one should be obvious, but never leave the A/C on when you are not home; there is absolutely no efficiency advantage to running it all the time--quite the opposite it is a massive waste that luckily is simple to eliminate

7. if you feel you must leave it on for a pet, keep it to one room, with the door shut, on the lowest possible energy mode--your dog does not need it set to 68; the low 80s should be fine; make sure your rooms are shaded and that your dog has access to plenty of cold water

8. don't beat yourself up for using it when it is really hot

As far as the final point goes, instead of feeling like we have to quit A/C like some sort of evil addictive drug, I think we should be looking to change our assumptions about when and how we use it. The closest parallel I can think of is seat-belts. When I was growing up, I don't think my parents ever once told us to wear a seat-belt. They would do things like ride with a baby in their lap in the front or let me and a bunch of friends smush into the front passenger seat--no one ever wore a seat belt. Now, seat-belt compliance in the U.S. is above 90%--far higher than Europe by the way. My kids have never ridden in the front seat. I don't even back up my car without a seat-belt on. Attitudes change. 20 years from now, I may be marveling with my grandchildren about how you needed to wear an overcoat in the supermarket in July because they kept the temperature so darn low--now we know better.

Green Investing

2007-07-18T17:03:00.000-04:00

This is in no way meant to offer investment advice, but my husband and I discovered a "green" fund called New Alternatives Fund a few years ago that has actually done quite well (7% return over 10 years; 33% last year -- according to their web site). "Green investing" seems to be the talk of brunch in LA -- like IdeaLab, which has started investing in green technology.

New Alternatives is actually an old fashioned mutual fund, run by two guys in upstate NY (father and son) who saw the need, were "personally interested in liberal, social and environmental matters," and gave up their law practices to commit themselves to it. My favorite part is the Shareholder reports, printed on recycled paper -- and written in language I actually understand.

Here's some information:
New Alternatives Fund

Carbon Taxes -- the great solution

2007-07-18T17:01:00.000-04:00

I have followed the carbon tax murmurings for several years -- and the past month has been almost an explosion in the number of people taking the idea seriously. Al Gore's movie (“An Inconvenient Truth”) jump-started the conversation: what do we do about the environment? Most people landed quickly on "control consumption" as the only realistic solution. But how? And the next wave seems to be "tax consumption" -- because the truth is, the best way to lower the demand for a product is to raise the cost.

Carbon taxes are also known as "green taxes," "tax shifting," "ecotaxes" or "Pigovian Taxes" (a phrase coined by Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw, named after the economist who came up with the idea of externalities), and the idea is simple: tax what you don't want (pollution, smoking, green-house emitting behavior) and you will get LESS of it. How much to tax? An easy answer is to calculate the cost of the behavior to society, ie, the “externality.” Smoking causes billions in health care costs; the taxes on cigarettes should reflect that so that users are "paying their way."

The elegant part of tax shifting comes when you take that tax revenue and cut taxes on things you want more (ownership, work) or cut taxes that are regressive (payroll taxes).

According to the book "Tax Shift" by Alan Durning, if we taxed the entire cost of pollution to society, we could eliminate (are you ready?): ALL Federal income taxes; or ALL payroll taxes; or ALL corporate taxes. Granted, gas would probably double in cost. But since you'd be paying no income tax, you can afford to buy that new hybrid.

For More information:
Durning’s book Tax Shift – a great, quick read:

Two articles from the New York Times discuss the idea:
EDITORIAL; Global Warming and Your Wallet

Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax:

discussing a bill before Congress (put up as a joke, but hey, you have to start somewhere):

You might also look at:

Wikipedia on Greg Mankiw

What is a green tax shift?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

The Danish blog EnergyHack notes that Denmark is adopting a plan to tax cars based on their gas mileage, lowering the cost of cars like the Prius and raising the cost of cars like Hummers and Porsche Cayennes.

Understand Your Electricity: which appliances use the most electricity?

2007-07-18T09:19:00.000-04:00

Here are some numbers from the Energy Information Administration . They are from 2001, the most recent available.

The two biggest components of household electricity use are heating, ventilation and cooling, which go by the catchy acronym "HVAC," and kitchen appliances. HVAC accounts for 31% of the total household use and kitchen appliances account for another 26%.

Air-conditioning is the single biggest electricity user in American households, totaling more than 182 billion kWh. More than 85% of that is for central A/C.

Space heating alone accounts for more than 10% of U.S. household electricity use, more than 115.5 billion kWh; space heaters account for more energy use than either lighting or home electronics, even though space heaters are found in only 43% of all households.

After A/C, refrigerators are the biggest electricity users, requiring 156 billion kWh per year. The average fridge uses 1239 kWh per year. Current Energy Star models use between 400 and 500 kWh per year.

Stand-alone freezers use a remarkable 3.5 % of the household total, even though they are found in only 34% of all homes. Dishwashers, which are found in 56% of all homes, account for only 2% of the household total.

Lighting accounts for 8.8% of the U.S. household total, about 100 billion kWh.

All home electronics account for only 7.2%, or 82.3 billion kWh.

Not surprisingly, TVs are the most common household electronic item, averaging more than 2 per household; they account for about 33.1 billion kWh. or 2% of the total.

Way down on the list, cordless phones and answering machines each account for less than .2% of the household total, or about 4.4 billion kWh between the two of them.

Understand Your Electricity: Sleeping your work Computer

2007-07-17T14:05:00.000-04:00

From the Alliance To Save Energy

New Report Highlights the Power of Powering Down

A new report on personal computer usage and power consumption released this month suggests US business could be saving billions of dollars simply by shutting down machines at night. The survey, commissioned jointly by the Alliance to Save Energy and power management software company, 1E, found that nearly half of all corporate computers (roughly 31 million PCs) are not regularly switched off at night. According to the study, this lack of inactivity is costing US businesses $1.72 billion annually and adding over 14 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere per year.

Comment: pulling out my handy calculator, and borrowing a few PC numbers from Mr. Electricity, we can estimate that an average workplace computer uses about 100 watts just sitting there. The Alliance estimates that as many as 31 million PCs are left on at night. Forgetting about weekends, let's assume each of these is on instead of off or asleep for 10 hours every day, four nights a week; each one would thus waste 1 kWh per day, or 208 kWh per year. For 31 million computers that adds up to more than 644 million kWh per year, or a year's electricity for 586,181 homes. (Using my 11,000 kWh/year average). Each computer that is left on for 60 hours over the weekend wastes another 312 kWh per year. If 15 million of these were left on over the weekend year round, they would waste more than 4.68 billion kWh, or enough electricity to power more than 4.25 million homes.

Let's hope that these companies are sensitive to the other green, cost: according to the EIA, the average commercial cost for electricity this year is 9.28 cents/kWh. Using my numbers, each computer left on overnight during the work week wastes about $19 a year and each one left on over the weekend wastes another $30 a year.

Understand your Electricity: Vampires Part 2

2007-07-16T09:23:00.000-04:00

I just read yet another site that recommends that we unplug our electronic appliances: this writer claimed that 75% percent of household energy use goes to power items in standby mode—the site credits the Department of Energy of all places. Considering that according to the most recent Energy Information Administration figures available (2001), all household electronics—TVs, stereos, computers, peripherals, everything—accounted for just 7% of U.S. household electricity use, that number is not just incorrect but utterly insane.

The writer may have wanted to claim that 75% of the total power use of our electronics is used to power items on standby—that could be true: is your printer on all day? how much time do you spend printing? Is your VCR on right now? Is anyone watching it? So we could probably cut a significant proportion of that 7% by shutting these items down.

But let’s get a little proportion. Here are a few numbers from my trusty Kill-a-watt to cut through the green haze we are living in.

The computer system I am currently writing at includes the following components all plugged into a single power strip:
Apple desktop
cable modem
HP printer
external hard drive

That entire system uses between 90-115 watts of electricity, including when I am printing. Starting up, the whole system draws about 105 Watts. The printer draws 21 watts on standby and 27 watts when it is starting up. The cable modem, which many people leave on all the time, draws 7 watts.

That is to say, my whole computer system uses about the power of a single 100 watt bulb or 1.5 60 watt bulbs.

My Energy Star Air-conditioner uses between 700 and 1000 watts whenever it is cooling. It saves energy by alternating its cooling mode with a 0-watt low-energy mode.

As I noted in my previous "Vampire" post, unplugging standby appliances might save you about 72 kWh a year. Turning off your window air-conditioner could save you twice that each week. A central system running at full blast uses 3.5 kWh every hour.

The problem with the internet is that this misinformation tends to take on a life of its own: how many internet start-ups were funded because of the widely repeated but utterly baseless factoid that the number of people on the internet was doubling every three months?

Standby power is a problem on a national not a household scale. Its real solution is efficiency standards. It makes much more sense for the government to revise the codes to minimize standby power draw than for individual consumers to have to research the power use of a dozen electronics that use only a few watts each, or for them to have to walk around turning them off--something that only a small number of people are ever going to do.

Understand Your Electricity: Why Light Bulbs Matter

2007-07-13T11:10:00.000-04:00

Leaving a 7-watt cable modem on 24/7 for a year uses about 63 kWh---.6% of the typical household's yearly total of 11,000 kWh.

Leaving a 60 Watt bulb on for a year uses 547 kWh--about 5% of the typical yearly total.

Our house has two modems and 50 light bulbs.

Understand Your Electricity: What is a kilowatt hour (kWh)

2007-07-12T09:10:00.000-04:00

What is a kilowatt hour (kWh)?

Glad you asked. We measure the electricity we use at any given moment by watts: a 100 watt bulb is using 100 watts continuously while it is on.

We buy our electricity by the Kilowatt hour or kWh. A kilowatt hour is not a period of time but an amount of power. The dictionary definition of kWh is: a unit of energy equal to the work done by one kilowatt in one hour.

I find this a bit abstract; it is easier to make sense of via equivalences. A device's wattage determines how long it must run before it uses up 1 kWh's worth of power.

1 kWh = the amount of power a 100 watt device uses in 10 hours
1 kWh = the amount of power a 10 watt device uses in 100 hours
1 kWh = the amount of power a 1 watt device uses in 1000 hours

From another perspective:
1000 ÷ wattage = the number of hours the device must run to equal 1 kWh

To calculate how many kWh a device uses in a year, you must know its wattage and how many hours a day it is running.

For a 50 watt device that runs 4 hours a day:
1000 ÷ 50 = 20 hours to make 1 kWh
4 X 365 = 1460 = the hours the device runs in a year
1460 ÷ 20 = 73 kWh per year

As usual, Mr. Electricity has a helpful discussion of the wonders of the watt and kilowatt hour.

Understand Your Electricity: Sleeping your Computer

2007-07-11T12:32:00.001-04:00

One of the most common tips on the “save the planet" lists is to change the settings on your computer so it goes to "sleep" when it is not being used. How much electricity does this save?

Getting out my handy "kill-a-watt" meter, I discover that my Apple Desktop uses about 60 watts for regular functions. I should add that I am not what the tech writers would characterize as a heavy user, no “hard-core gaming” etc., just the usual word-processing, surfing, and email.

While sleeping, my computer’s power draw drops to about 4 watts, just a smidge more than it draws when turned off. Using these numbers, sleeping produces a power savings of about 56 Watts. For simplicity's sake, let's round that to 50 watts.

Assuming a 50 watt savings, every 20 hours that the computer is sleeping rather than running saves 1 kWh of power.

Let’s say that the sleep function was reducing power use 4 hours a day throughout the year. What then is the yearly savings?
4 hours X 365 days = 1460
1460 ÷ 20 = 73

That would save 73 kWh a year. Again using our average American household use of 11,000 kWh per year, eliminating 73 kWh would save about .66% of the year’s total.

Okay, so that is not so impressive from the household perspective. But from a nationwide perspective the numbers are more meaningful.

Again using my Apple numbers, every 50 computers that sleep instead of run for 1 hour save 1 kWh. Every million computers that sleep instead of run for 1 hour save 20 megawatt hours of power. Every 25 million computers that sleep instead of run for 1 hour save 500 megawatt hours of power, or the generation capacity of the typical coal-fired plant.

The most recent census data (2003) put the number of home computers in the U.S. at about 70 million.

If each one of these computers slept for 3 hours a day instead of running, we would save 1,533,000 megawatt hours per year, or 1.533 billion kWh: that's the yearly power use of about 139,000 typical American homes--I would be impressed by that.

A Caveat: Before we all get too excited, I should note that lap-tops use less electricity than desktops so they also save less when they sleep. My husband's Dell uses about 30 watts for normal operations and 2 watts when asleep. Hence, sleeping only saves 28 watts, and the computer requires more than 35 hours in the sleep function to save 1 kWh.

The Bottom Line: this one wins the no-brainer award. Resetting your computer sleep function takes about 30 seconds and will save energy as long as that computer is operating. It is definitely one of the easiest ways for the average person to help the planet.

Beginning this year, a group of technology companies has joined forces to form Climate Savers: Computing to increase computer efficiency. Their goal is admirable as well as achievable:

By 2010, we seek to reduce global CO2 emissions from the operation of computers by 54 million tons per year, equivalent to the annual output of 11 million cars or 10–20 coal-fired power plants. With your help, this effort will lead to a 50% reduction in power consumption by computers by 2010, and committed participants could collectively save $5.5 billion in energy costs.

Take a look at their statement of their initiative.

Understand Your Electricity: Unplugging Vampires

2007-07-09T23:39:00.000-04:00

Every "save the planet" list these days tells you to use CFL bulbs, unplug “vampire” appliances (those that draw electricity even when they are off), and sleep your computer. However, I have yet to see one that tells you the different impact of these activities.

So here it goes, thanks to the “Kill-a-Watt” watt-o-meter, a device that every would-be environmentalist should own. (See the previous post for where to buy this miracle device).

Unplugging Vampires: the only appliances in our house that draw measurable power when "off" are the DVD/VCR player (4 watts), the printer (11 watts), and the computer (2 watts). The toaster, mixer, food processor, TV, stereo, and lamps draw no power.

What then is the impact of unplugging these “vampires”? Rounding our total up to 20 watts and assuming that these guilty appliances would otherwise be off and plugged in 24/7, unplugging them for a month would save about 12 kWh or 144 kWh for the whole year. Respectable, certainly, but equal to about 1.3% of the average U.S. household's 11,000 kWh yearly usage. Obviously, in a more realistic scenario, if we consider our vampires as "off" only half the time, and running the other half, the savings goes down to 6 kWh/month and 72 kWh/year or a tiny .65 % of household usage.

Changing light bulbs: assuming a given light was running 6 hours per day, changing a 60 watt incandescent light bulb to an 18 watt CFL would save 7.5 kWh per month or 90.7 kWh for the year--per bulb. Multiply that number by 40, the number of bulb sockets in the average house, and you are saving 300 kWh/month or 3600 kWh/year, or 32% of the average household's yearly electric usage.

As I noted in an earlier post, changing half of our bulbs and being careful about turning off the lights immediately cut our electricity usage by 20%.

Simple Advice for saving the planet: Change those bulbs and get aggressive about turning out your lights.

Setting Priorities #1: Understand Your Electricity

2007-07-09T15:10:00.000-04:00

The recent Live Earth concert series was an inspiring attempt to raise public awareness of global warming and help educate people about reducing their impact. The main problem is still these "save the planet" tips, which though full of our beloved factoids, do not actually help individuals understand where their carbon footprint really comes from.

Americans have become fixated on driving because we are so dependent on our cars and because of the evil “foreign oil.” You will get no argument from me about cutting our oil usage, for security and environmental reasons. But as far as global warming is concerned, coal-generated electricity is the bigger problem: coal pollutes much more per unit of energy than oil or natural gas. In 2006, more than 2.1 billion metric tons of emissions came from coal, or 36% of the total.

As a society, more of our emissions come from oil, but

for the average individual, the energy used in our homes is responsible for more than twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the energy used by our cars.

So first thing’s first: for Americans reducing electricity use should be the top priority, and to do that we need to understand the following:

1. where we use it
2. where we can cut it
3. where it comes from

Over the next few days, Green Factoids will take a look at our electricity use with the help of a handy device that every household should get: the “P3 International Kill-a-Watt Electricity Usage Monitor.” You simply plug your Kill-a-Watt into the outlet and plug your electric device into the Kill-a-watt to learn how many watts the device is drawing.

The device will also tell you the appliance’s kWh, volts, amps and other cool information.

Amazon currently sells the Kill-a-watt for about $23.

Thanks to our favorite blog, Michael Bluejay's Mr. Electricity, for recommending the Kill-a-watt.

Wind in Europe

2007-07-05T23:20:00.000-04:00

From the Earth Policy Institute:

Europe continues to lead the world in total installed capacity with over 40,500 megawatts, or two-thirds of the global total. These wind installations supply nearly 3 percent of Europe’s electricity and produce enough power to meet the needs of over 40 million people. The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) has set a target to satisfy 23 percent of European electricity needs with wind by 2030. EWEA also notes that Europe has enough wind resources to meet the electricity demands of all of its countries.

Germany, the country with the most installed wind-generating capacity, now gets 6 percent of its electricity from its 18,400 megawatts of wind power. Spain, in second place with over 10,000 megawatts of capacity, gets 8 percent of its electricity from wind.

Denmark’s 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20 percent of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country. It ranks fifth in the world in installed capacity. Denmark is also the global leader in offshore wind power installations, with 400 megawatts of existing capacity. Globally, over 900 megawatts of offshore wind capacity will be installed by the end of 2006, all in Europe.

Comment: Denmark obviously deserves enormous admiration for managing to produce 20% of its electricity from wind, but as a country of only 5 million people, it is hard to see it as a model for the U.S. That Germany, with its population of more than 82 million, gets 6% of its electricity from wind is far more striking. However, according to Greenpeace, the average European household uses 4,667 kWh/year whereas the average US household uses 11,209 kWh/year, so unless we make some progress tackling our efficiency problems, we will have a very hard time achieving European percentages of renewable electricity.

How much does wind energy cost?

2007-07-05T22:59:00.001-04:00

From the American Wind Energy Association:

Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.

Worldwide Wind Energy in 2006-2007

2007-07-05T22:28:00.001-04:00

According to the World Wind Energy Association:

In 2006, 14,900 MW of wind power were added, bringing the global installed capacity to 73,904 MW by the end of December. The added capacity equals a growth rate of 25 %, after 24 % in 2005.

WWEA is predicting that another 16,000 MW will be brought on line in 2007, bringing the total to 90,000 MW, followed by another 19,000 MW in 2008.

Based on the accelerated development, WWEA has increased its prediction for 2010 and expects now 160,000 MW to be installed by the end of 2010.

More numbers for 2006: Five countries added more than 1000 MW: the United States of America (2,454 MW), Germany (2,194 MW), India (1,840 MW) and Spain (1,587 MW) were able to secure their leading market positions and China (1,145 MW) joined the group of the now top five markets and is now number five in terms of added capacity, showing a market growth of 91 %.

Five countries added more than 500 MW and showed excellent growth rates: France (810 MW, 107 % growth), Canada (768 MW, 112 %), Portugal (628 MW, 61 %) and the United Kingdom (610 MW, 45 %). The most dynamic market in 2006, Brazil, faced its long expected take off and added 208 MW which equals a sevenfold increase of installed capacity within one year.

Wind Energy in 2007

2007-07-05T10:11:00.000-04:00

The American Wind Energy Association estimates that more than 3000 MW of wind power will be added to the U.S. market in 2007, a 20% increase over last year’s 2400 MW of added capacity. Wind power will generate about 31 billion KWHs this year, or enough electricity to power about 3 million homes, impressive but still less than 3% of the U.S. total.

Using a common conversion rate, each MW can provide the power needs of about 200 homes. At its current rate, wind power is adding generating capacity for about 600,000 homes a year. BUT that is still less than 0.5 % of the more than 113 million households in this country.

Wind Energy Growth

2007-07-04T10:03:00.001-04:00

From The Union of Concerned Scientists:

As wind power costs become more competitive, demand is growing exponentially all over the world. Global wind power capacity rose from just over 6,000 MW in 1996 to more than 59,000 MW by the end of 2005–almost a ten-fold increase. Growth has recently been most significant in Northern Europe, Spain, and India, but markets in Asia and the Pacific region are emerging as well.

Comment:
Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, designers of the stabilization wedge for the Princeton University Carbon Mitigation Initiative, recommend that we increase our reliance on wind by 50-fold by 2054 in order for wind power to provide one of their wedges. Each wedge = 1 billion tons of emissions avoided; they believe we need 7 wedges to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels. A 50-fold increase would mean adding world-wide wind capacity at the rate of about 61,000 MW every year.

Wind Energy in The U.S.

2007-07-02T23:38:00.000-04:00

Wind Energy Today is:

* Able to power the equivalent of 3 million homes in the US: 11,603 megawatts installed
* Providing less than 1% of US electricity today, while public support remains high
* Second largest new source of power generation in the US, after natural gas
* Saving emissions by 19 million tons of carbon dioxide per year
* Saving water by more than 600 billion gallons this year

Some Companies getting their power from Renewable sources:
Wells Fargo, Whole Foods, Johnson & Johnson, Starbucks, Pepsico (100%), Sprint Nextel, Nike, Staples

Wind Energy Works!

Wind vs. Coal #2: Water

2007-07-02T10:24:00.001-04:00

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

A typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby water bodies, such as lakes, rivers, or oceans, to create steam for turning its turbines. This is enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people.

Wind power generates electricity with...

* No cooling water
* No water pollution

Coal vs. Wind

Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.

Wind Week: Wind vs. Coal Emissions

2007-07-01T15:08:00.000-04:00

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:

* 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.

* 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.

* 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.

* 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.

* 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.

* 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

* 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

* 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

* 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

Wind power generates electricity with...

* No air emissions

Coal vs. Wind

Comment: A typical coal plant produces about 500 megawatts or electricity for about 100,000 households. There are about 600 in the U.S.

For a discussion of this year's victory in halting the construction of 8 new coal fired plants in Texas, see the following article from Environmental Defense.

http://environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5983

For some spectacular photos of off-shore wind farms check out:
Dark Roasted Blend's piece on wind-power-in-stormy-waters.

Total U.S. Carbon Emissions for 2006

2007-06-30T08:20:00.000-04:00

The U.S. emitted 5.887 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2006.

Here are some Department of Energy Numbers on U.S. Emissions and their change over the last 16 years.

MMT= Million Metric Tons.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions fell 1.3 percent in 2006, from 5,955 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in 2005 to 5,877 MMTCO2 in 2006.

Changes Between 1990-2006
In the residential sector, emissions increased from 954 mmt to 1197 mmt.
In the transport sector, emissions increased from 1567 mmt to 1965 mmt.
In the industrial sector, emissions decreased from 1684 mmt to 1669 mmt.
In the commercial sector, emissions increased from 781 mmt to 1046 mmt.

Through 2006, total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have grown by 17.9 percent since 1990.

The commercial sector has grown the most, 33.9% or 1.8%/year. The residential sector has grown by 25.6% or 1.4%/year. The transport sector has grown 25.4% or 1.4%/year. The industrial sectors decreased .9% over the period, or .01%/year.

Both the commercial and the residential sectors are dominated by electricity. 2006 emissions from the electric power decreased 46.4mmt (2%) and generation decreased by .1%.

Energy Information Administration

Comment:
We have a lot of work ahead of us. If the U.S. were to ratify the Kyoto treaty, we would be committed to reducing our emissions to 7% below our 1990 levels. Many scientists are recommending that we reduce our emissions by half by 2055, or basically avoid emitting 200 billion tons of carbon, or 7 billion tons/year, worldwide. However, increasing appliance and lighting efficiency in all buildings to Energy Star standards could reduce total emissions by 1/7 the amount needed.

Fans vs. AC

2007-06-29T08:29:00.000-04:00

Straight from Mr. Electricity himself:
A window unit AC uses 500 to 1440 watts, while a 2.5-ton central system uses about 3500 watts. That's a lot of energy. A floor fan uses only 100 watts on the highest speed, and ceiling fans use only 15 to 95 watts depending on speed and size.

Comment: Michael Bluejay, aka Mr. Electricity, runs a site devoted to saving electricity. Green Factoid has spent many happy hours on his site, literally spellbound by his wealth of technical data: the site can only be described as nirvana for the factoid loving.

As far as fans and ACs go, here are a few numbers. We currently pay about $.18/kWh. So a single 1000w air-conditioner costs the seemingly low $.18/ hour. Running that AC 24/7, however, would cost us a not-so-modest $130/month. Using the same numbers, with central, you will pay $.63/hour and $453/month.

While no one but my father runs their AC round the clock (and his is central!), in our profligate days we would often run three ACs at a time to cool our apartment. That could easily add up to more than 24/7 use in July and August, especially since I work at home during those months.

One the other hand, running a 100 watt fan for the same period costs less than .02/hour and a whopping $13/month. Ceiling fans are even less.

Playing with a Calculator #2: Appliance Emissions

2007-06-28T09:14:00.000-04:00

For those who like Wonky sites, check out the "Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center"--yes there is such a center--which is part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy. The site is a factoid lover's dream.

From their site:
Q. How much CO2 is emitted as a result of my using specific electrical appliances?

A. For this answer, we refer you to an excellent article, "Your Contribution to Global Warming," by George Barnwell, which appeared on p. 53 of the February-March 1990 issue of National Wildlife, the magazine of the National Wildlife Federation. The article, assuming that your electricity comes from coal, calculates CO2 emissions corresponding to the use of various electrical appliances. For example, one hour's use of a color television produces 0.64 pounds (lb) of CO2, and each use of a toaster produces 0.12 lbCO2, whereas a day's use of a waterbed heater produces 24 lb CO2.

In general, the coefficient is about 2.3 lb CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. You can calculate the kWh of electricity by multiplying the number of watts (W) the appliance uses times the number of hours (h) it is used, then dividing by 1000. For example a 60-W light bulb operated for 24 h uses

(60 W) x (24 h) / (1000) = 1.44 kWh.

This use of electricity would produce an emission of

(1.44 kWh) x (2.3 lb CO2 per kWh) = 3.3 lb CO2

if the electricity is derived from the combustion of coal.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

Green Factoid has spent long hours, calculator in hand, fooling around with these equations. For example, our 1998 side-by-side GE fridge is rated at 71kwh/month or 852 kwh/year. That equals about 1960 lbs./year. Send Green Factoid some of your own calculations.

Should you go Carbon Neutral?

2007-06-27T22:57:00.000-04:00

A lot of companies are advertising that they are “carbon neutral” and Al Gore’s site among others suggests that individuals calculate their impact and then buy offsets based on the number they get. There is obviously not much to debate if the purveyors of offsets are crooked, but assuming we are buying from legitimate “offsetters” the question still remains: do we think this is a good idea?

It does feel a little like a cocktail party conversation topic rather than a true solution: after all, how many people are really going to buy these? Enough to actually be useful? On the other hand, I can understand why big shots who have legitimate reasons to, say, fly hundreds of thousands of miles or people in the public eye who worry about their green credentials might want to buy some bragging rights/peace of mind, a la Richard Branson. However, I can’t say I think any number of offsets could ever excuse a 20,000 square foot house—I mean, really, how much space can one family possibly need? Ditto driving massive gas-guzzlers.

An argument I find more compelling concerns experimenting with and developing the market itself. I am convinced that we will need a variety of different solutions: voluntary, mandatory, market, government, industrial, residential. It is worth testing the market for offsets, if only to measure the levels of public commitment to voluntary solutions.

Personally, I will have to do more research to see if I think offsets give an adequate environmental bang for my buck—versus just giving the money to the Sierra Club or planting some trees. As far as Green Factoid is concerned, the highest priority for everyone should be curbing their own energy use. So screw in those CFL bulbs, turn off that A/C, and then rejoice in the savings on your electricity bill, and as a bonus, should you choose to go that route, you will have less emissions to offset.

For More Information:
Environment Defense has an excellent article discussing the principles behind carbon neutrality, the usual (mostly specious) arguments advanced against it, and recommendations for some legitimate places to buy offsets.

Carbon Offsets Count

Electricity Factoid Month

2007-06-27T09:19:00.000-04:00

Since the northeast is expecting its first day of +90° weather, and I have finally turned on my (new energy-star) air-conditioner, I will kick off Electricity factoid month.

These numbers are a few years old, but the percentages should hold up.

U.S. HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Electricity consumption by 107 million U.S. households in 2001 totaled 1,140 billion kWh. The most significant end uses were central air-conditioning and refrigerators, each of which accounted for about 14 percent of the U.S. total.

From the Energy Information Administration

The EIA is part of the Department of Energy and is a goldmine for factoid-addicted environmentalists.

Recycled Toilet Paper

2007-06-25T14:42:00.000-04:00

Seventh Generation sure does love its factoids:

If every household in the U.S. replaced just one 4-pack of 260 sheet virgin fiber bathroom tissue with 100% recycled ones, we could save:

* 988,200 trees
* 2.5 million cubic feet of landfill space, equal to 3,700 full garbage trucks
* 356 million gallons of water, a year’s supply for 2,800 families of four
* and avoid 60,600 pounds of pollution!

Seventh Generation

Product Review: We have been trying out their recycled paper toilet paper (I can barely bring myself to write, let alone say, the phrase "bathroom tissue") which is made from an impressive 80% post-consumer paper. It’s a pretty decent product: the phrase “fluffy as a cloud” does not exactly leap to mind, Charmin style, but neither does “sand paper.” Their paper is nice and sturdy and comes in hefty double rolls that last much longer than some of the earlier types of recycled TP. My only problem is that it is not cheap.

Energy Star Pledge Update

2007-06-23T12:38:00.000-04:00

From the Energy Star site today:

533,814 People Have Taken The Pledge

Collectively, we have pledged to change 1,129,886 bulbs. That means we will avoid using 318,627,852 kWh of energy, prevent 502,799,270 lbs of greenhouse gas emissions, and save $31,862,785 in energy costs. You're making a difference!

Comment: In the month since I took the pledge myself, 10,000 more people have pledged to change another 100,000 bulbs, reducing emissions by another 39,500 tons. Companies like Home Depot, GE, and Sylvania are running campaigns. Energy Star is right: we are making a difference.

Take the Energy Star Pledge

Playing with a Calculator #1: the Sierra Club's 2% solution

2007-06-23T11:20:00.000-04:00

Continuing from the previous post: The Sierra’s Club’s 2% solution--reduce your emissions 2% a year for 40 years--seemed too good to be true, and at first I thought there was something hinky with their numbers, especially when I took our first-year number, 270 lbs, and multiplied it by 40, yielding 10,800 lbs: that seemed absurdly easy, but then I realized that only tells us the reduction of the final year. Since we are currently reducing by a lot more than 270 pounds, the number I really wanted is the total number of pounds over the whole period. Using an all-too-human process of rationalization, I figured that if we accelerate our reductions, we will not have to reduce by as much later in the 40-year period.

What Sierra Club doesn't make explicit is that they are using an arithmetic progression. To compute it with round numbers, let’s say 2% for you equals 100 lbs of CO2 emissions. The first year you reduce by 100, the next by 200, then 300, and so on until in year 40, you have to reduce by 4000 lbs. Arithmetic progression has its own cool factoid concerning Carl Friedrich Gauss, whose teacher asked his third-grade class to calculate the sum of the numbers 1-100. The 10 year old child immediately popped out with the answer, 5050.

For those of us who still struggle with calculating 15% tips, the formula is:

N(a1 + an)/2=Sn

Again with our example:

40(100 + (100 x 40)/2=82,000

or a total of 82,000 pounds over the whole period.

Our family’s number was 270 lbs, so our 40-year total is 221,400 lbs. That averages to a 2.76 ton reduction each year—roughly 40%.

The old faithful, Wikipedia, has a helpful explanation of the formula, including the Gauss factoid.

The Sierra Club’s 2% solution

2007-06-21T00:27:00.000-04:00

From their web site:
The world's scientists agree: Global warming is real, here, and happening faster than anyone predicted. But scientists also say we can curb global warming and its consequences -- if we take bold, comprehensive action now that adds up to an 80 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050. That's a do-able 2 percent cut a year for each of the next forty years.

The Sierra Club’s 2% solution

Comment: 2% is quite modest when you think about it—at least in the beginning. If we start with our “Al Gore” base-line rate of 6.75 tons or 13,500 pounds of emissions, we would only have to reduce our use by 270 pounds a year, about the equivalent of one CFL light bulb. On the other hand, by the end of our 40 year period, our emissions will have to be a meager 2700 pounds, a reduction of 5.4 tons per year.

Just changing to wind energy reduced our emissions by 1.9 tons a year—a 28% reduction. Luckily for us renewable energy is an option in New York. Changing our light bulbs and getting serious about turning lights off has reduced our electricity use by about 20%. Unfortunately, these two reductions somewhat cancel each other out. If we added a car as efficient as the Toyota Prius, we would reduce our emissions from our base line by 50%.

Getting started

2007-06-20T15:18:00.001-04:00

It is helpful to establish a base-line so you can keep track of your progress. Al Gore’s site allows you to calculate your current emissions. It is worth seeing how your family stacks up against the average. According to the calculator, we emit 6.75 tons/year, which is “average.” However, when I switched us to 100% renewable electricity, our impact went down to 5.3 tons, “smaller than average.” If we drove a Toyota Prius instead of a Honda Odyssey, it would go down to 3.3 tons—very tempting. On the other hand, if we drove a Range Rover it would leap up to 8.5 tons--more than the Hummer!

It is also worth it to keep track of your electricity bills so you can see how many kWh you generally use in a month. Then as you put in place energy savings measures, you can see if your hours go down. Our energy savings measures have had a definite pay-off. Our average daily usage is down by about 5 kWh, which works out to about $30 per month.

Calculate Your Impact

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: Factoid #2

2007-06-19T14:14:00.000-04:00

If every American home replaced their 5 most frequently used light fixtures or the bulbs in them with ones that have earned the ENERGY STAR, we would save close to $8 billion each year in energy costs, and together we would prevent the greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions from nearly 10 million cars.

Energy Star