The Zero-Emissions Challenge, Part 5: Transportation
Now to consider the area that is perhaps the most difficult for us: transportation. We live outside a small town where mass transit means giving your neighbor a ride. Most stores, employment opportunities, doctors, county offices, and even restaurants are located in Cedar City, 25 miles away. We make an average of four trips per week to Cedar, at an average of 56 miles per trip. Most of these trips are in one of the Saturns (37 mpg ave). When we need to pick up lumber, appliances, hay, or other large items, or when the roads are slick and we need 4-wheel drive, we take the pickup truck or the 4-Runner (16 mpg ave). This seems to happen on average twice per month. Together, that adds 350 gallons per year in routine driving.
Much of my income is generated from periodic trips to Los Angeles, 450 miles away. I'll make six trips this year at about 1,200 miles per trip, driving one of the Saturns. That's an additional 189 gallons of gasoline.
We also use a tractor around the homestead. It has no odometer, but we can figure its emissions by how much gasoline we use: about 15 gallons per year. Other yard tools like the lawnmower, chainsaw, and rototiller, use a couple of gallons per year combined.
What is the greenhouse gas impact of all this driving? A gallon of gasoline produces 22 pounds of CO2, so our total of 556 gallons of gas produces 12,232 pounds of CO2. That's a lot— by itself, it's more than the 11,000 pounds the 1997 Kyoto protocol allows.
How can we reduce? The most obvious solution is for me to stop working in a city 450 miles away. The money is good; it pays our bills. But it's not envirnmentally responsible. That means developing local streams of income— and/or becoming self reliant. (In a later post, I'll look at the carbon ramifications of what we eat.) Ideally, I'd work from home doing tasks by internet— but there's a limited market for bookkeeping and tax preparation that's not face-to-face.
More local work means more trips to town. But if we plan our errands around our work schedule, we should't have to make any more trips than are required to serve clients. If my wife and I serve clients twice per week and carpool, that still cuts the number of trips in half, from four to two per week. Together, these lifestyle changes would cut our annual fuel consumption to about 192 gallons, or 4,224 pounds of CO2 annually.
How could technology contribute? I'm aware of no electric car available for less than $50,000 that can handle a 70-mile trip without recharging, so for now that's not an option. The Phoenix Electric Sport Utility Truck may someday be an option, though its 1,000 payload limit makes it less useful around the homestead, and it doesn't have 4-wheel drive.
At 51 mpg freeway, a Toyota Prius would save us about 34 gallons per year, eliminating an additional 748 pounds of CO2 at a cost of about $23,000. A small motorcycle can get up to 100 mpg, though it's not useful for carrying groceries or traveling in bad weather; if we used it for 1/8 of our trips, it would save us 15 gallons (330 pounds of CO2) per year at a cost of about $3,000. I've been unable to find a greenhouse gas comparison for horse transportation.
These technological contributions would provide limited additional savings at a fairly high cost. The greatest reduction, at least in our case, will come from lifestyle changes that cost nothing.
For those of us living in rural areas, transportation is undoubtedly the greatest greenhouse emmissions challenge. On the other hand, urban-dwellers have their own transportation issues, such as getting food from the field to the table.
More local work means more trips to town. But if we plan our errands around our work schedule, we should't have to make any more trips than are required to serve clients. If my wife and I serve clients twice per week and carpool, that still cuts the number of trips in half, from four to two per week. Together, these lifestyle changes would cut our annual fuel consumption to about 192 gallons, or 4,224 pounds of CO2 annually.
How could technology contribute? I'm aware of no electric car available for less than $50,000 that can handle a 70-mile trip without recharging, so for now that's not an option. The Phoenix Electric Sport Utility Truck may someday be an option, though its 1,000 payload limit makes it less useful around the homestead, and it doesn't have 4-wheel drive.
At 51 mpg freeway, a Toyota Prius would save us about 34 gallons per year, eliminating an additional 748 pounds of CO2 at a cost of about $23,000. A small motorcycle can get up to 100 mpg, though it's not useful for carrying groceries or traveling in bad weather; if we used it for 1/8 of our trips, it would save us 15 gallons (330 pounds of CO2) per year at a cost of about $3,000. I've been unable to find a greenhouse gas comparison for horse transportation.
These technological contributions would provide limited additional savings at a fairly high cost. The greatest reduction, at least in our case, will come from lifestyle changes that cost nothing.
For those of us living in rural areas, transportation is undoubtedly the greatest greenhouse emmissions challenge. On the other hand, urban-dwellers have their own transportation issues, such as getting food from the field to the table.
Check out a biodiesel vehicle. I drive a 26 year old VW diesel, and use biodiesel in it. 40+ mpg using a renewable fuel.
Reply to this