The Zero Emissions Challenge: A Summary
This is a summary of our Zero Emisisons Challenge: what it is and why we started it. The Zero Emissions Challenge began when I read an interview with global warming pioneer George Monbiot, who said reducing the increase in CO2 emissions isn't enough— we've got to stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere, and begin reducing atmospheric levels. In short, we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 115%. (The IPCC later confirmed this assessment, saying the figures used in their report had been outdated.)
Is that goal, reducing emissions below zero, even possible for an average American household? My wife and I decided to find out. Part One explores the reasons for the challenge, and the rest of the ten-part series examines in detail how we use energy and how we can reduce our consumption.
In Part Two, we tried to find out not just how much electricity we used, but where it was used. This required an electric use audit— and the results surprised us. Not including heating (which we considered seperately), lighting was our biggest use, followed by refrigeration and computers.
We also considered three methods of reducing emissions: the "Easy Method," which required little expense and no major lifestyle changes; the "Planned Method," which utilized all available technology to reduce our emissions; and the "Hard Method," which asked "what if we had to reduce to zero now?" Using the Easy Method, we figured we could cut our electric use by 30%— and if we were willing to spend a few tens of thousands of dollars, we could reduce our grid usage to zero.
Part Three considered out heating needs. Last winter, we used as much electricity for heat as we did for all other uses for the whole year. Plus, we burned propane in our furnace and wood in our stove. According to the Green Guide, burning wood is close to carbon-neutral. We figured that by switching to wood and solar as much as possible, and insulating our barn and pumphouse, we could reduce our emissions from about 21,868 pounds of CO2 to about 1,500 pounds in a normal year using the Easy Method— an astounding 93% reduction in CO2. With some additional expenditures, we could reduce to 260 pounds.
Part Four considered our other propane appliances. This was more difficult: replacing our range with a more efficient one would save only 195 pounds of CO2 from an estimated annual 1,950 pounds. Spending $8,300 would cut the emissions in half to 975. The emissions for this category are not that big to begin with, and reductions, even with the latest technology, would be expensive and not very impressive.
Part Five looked at personal transportation, and concluded, among other things, that it's neither sustainable nor ethical for me to travel 450 miles to Los Angeles to earn my living. Technology doesn't currently offer much of a reduction below my 38 mpg Saturn, so the only answer is to drive less. Out in the country, that's a challenge.
In Part Six, we considered other sources of CO2 emissions: air travel, for example. Plus, each of us has a base footprint for producing and transporting everything we eat, wear, and use. This base footprint isn't included in any of the carbon calculators I've seen. I estimated it at 1,200 to 2,000 pounds per person. Later, I discovered that transporting just the seltzer water I drink adds over 4,000 pounds of CO2 per year! Soda, juice, and bottled water are likely to be similar in their impact. (I've committed to giving up my seltzer water in favor of locally-filtered water.)
Part Seven tallied it all up, and discovered that using the Easy Method— no lifestyle changes or significant investments— we could reduce our CO2 emissions by 70%. That's more than a 2/3 reduction, without any major changes in our lives! If we spent about $80,000 more, we could cut an additional 15%, or 85% total. We also considered carbon offsets to cover the CO2 emissions we're not able to eliminate. (Later, I took a closer look at Native Energy's offset scheme.)
In Part Eight, we considered what it would mean to our lives if we had to cut to zero CO2 emissions immediately, no matter what. The results weren't pretty. We'll be much happier if we reduce voluntarily.
In Part Nine, we committed to the actions we intend to take, and in Part Ten, we asked everyone to take the Zero Emissions Challenge. We'll continue to post progress reports from time to time.
In case you think we're naive or unique in our plans to reduce, check out The 1/2 Project, in which another family posted their efforts to reduce cost-effectively, along with detailed cost and savings estimates. We didn't find this site until after we'd posted our series, and their work gives us a number of new ideas to consider.
By the way, on our first utility bill following our efforts to reduce, our daily grid usage dropped by 1/3. It can be done! And it can be done without hardship. Please, take the Zero Emissions Challenge. Remember, reducing CO2 emissions means burning less energy, and that means ongoing savings you can put in your pocket. It's not just the ethical thing to do— reducing CO2 emissions saves you money.
Congratulations, you are doing the right thing, but I don't think your case is average. Living on a rural non-producing ranch is a VERY wasteful life style to begin with. You had a lot more areas that could be improved than the average urban dweller.
I live in Southern California; use minimal fuel (natural gas) for heating and cooking, and have no air conditioning. We have drought tolerant landscaping, a HE washer and drink tape water. We walk to the market and carry our groceries home in a wagon. We're on the power grid but have mostly fluorescent lighting, no well, no barn, no freezer, and one refrigerator. Our most problematic consumption is that of gasoline, I drive about 400 miles per week, but I do carpool which reduces that by about 40%, and in 4 year I plan to retire which will cut consumption more. My wife rides a bicycle to work most days, and we don't drink imported wine.
I think the best thing that many in your position could do would be choose a less energy extravagant life style to begin with.
Reply to this
John, it sounds like you've already done much more than most Americans, rural or urban, to cut your impact, and I applaud that. However, urban dwellers have areas of consumption that are higher than us rural folk, too. For example, water: most water in Los Angeles comes from hundreds of miles away, wheras our water comes from 75 feet below ground. The City Mayors site says, "So much energy is spent treating and transporting water that the Department of Water Services is the largest consumer of electricity in the state." (http://www.citymayors.com/environment/la_green.html)
Also, although our situation is not an ideal example of this, many rural areas also have more accessibility to local foods since it's grown nearby. In our own case, milk, eggs, and cheese are produced on-site and require no trucking at all-- but most produce, as is the case with much of the country, originates in central California.
Certainly we had plenty of areas to reduce in-- but our starting electricity consumption (360 Kwh per month) was far lower than the average household (887 Kwh per month according to DOE at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html), probably because we have a relatively small house and no air conditioning. Aside from our driving, I don't think our unmodified consumption levels were any higher than the average urbanite-- just different.
Reply to this
Burning wood for heating is only carbon neutral if the wood grows back at the same rate that it is burned. This is not possible with any hard or soft wood grown in north america. Burning wood also creates other byproducts than just co2 so be sure to use a catalytic stove when using wood for heating.
Reply to this
What we burn is "dead and down" wood-- wood that has died of natural causes, or from bark beetle infestations or forest fires, or has been cut as firebreaks. Removing this dead wood makes room for new wood to grow-- and it does grow back, as the continuing forest cover in Utah attests. I would not support cutting green wood for heat, and it obviously doesn't make sense to cut firewood and transport it hundreds of miles to densely populated areas. I have always believed there is no single best solution that will fit all situations. Wood makes sense where we are, because it's plentiful and population is sparse.
Reply to this
I have been recently researching the question of whether to buy catalytic or non-catalytic stoves. There are a lot of critics of catalytic stove performance. It appears to me that the EPA tested performance of many of the non-catalytic stoves is equal to or better than the catalytic performance. There are some efficiency differences, with non-catalytic stove appearing slightly less efficient, but the catalytic component of these type of stoves, needs maintenance and replacement at some interval. Just having to replace the catalyst with commensurate shipping costs may make any difference moot. Additionally, I can't find and information about how a catalytic stove performs after it starts getting dirty.
Reply to this
My block (Chicago, Illinois) currently shelters over 500 people as legal occupants. Can we come and live on your ranch? We'll try not to burn wood faster than it grows back.
Seems to me the best way to 'cut carbon emissions in half' is split the consumption between two people. And then in half again, and again, and again.
I've read recently that Teddy Kennedy has done an energy audit on his primary dwelling, and has determined that his 'carbon emissions' could be halved if the Kennedy family chefs would only use domestic (rather than the more exotic, costly foreign) hummingbird tongues in their creations.
Getting back to the real world, it's a confused person indeed who worries primarily over the hole in his sock when he's driven a ten-penny nail clean through his foot.
Howsabout we look at the U.S. Pentagon's 'carbon emissions' and fuel consumption, and not make our own microscopic little selves nuts with the comparative pilpul of calculating whether 'tis nobler to cook with dried cicada husks or our own back-gas?
Reply to this
You may be interested in this post (http://asymptoticlife.com/2007/11/20/reducing-americas-co2-emissions-we-can.aspx), which considers the per-capita share of total U.S. emissions. We may not have direct control over what the Pentagon (and industry) emit, but we have options.
Reply to this
While there is no doubt that the Pentagon consumes a vast amount of fossil fuel, not many are aware of the pretty amazing efforts that each branch of the military puts into attempting to "green" their operations. Part of this is PR and part of it is good "business" ala WalMart. They realized several years ago that they had much to gain by reducing waste, reducing dependence on petroleum and reducing dependence on the grid. This was done as I said partly for good PR, but everything that has been done was done with an eye toward their mission. I'm not defending the mission per se, just that, like many large monolithic American entities, the military sees innovation in these areas as good for their bottom line, PR be damned.
Reply to this
FYI, the link to part 9 is not correct.
But I really enjoyed reading all the other parts. Thanks for your efforts.
Reply to this
Thanks. It's fixed now.
Reply to this
It all fits in all parts... you are very committed to this I should learn this from you. I already began insulating my house, this is a big change for me but I know I do the best thing and this is rewarding for me. I also want to check all the nine steps.
Reply to this