Earlier this month, more than 15,000 negotiators met for two weeks in Copenhagen to hammer out the details of a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. What they produced is known as the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding agreement that falls well short of expected targets. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf. What went wrong at Copenhagen, and what are the issues left unresolved for a future legally binding agreement?
The Economist magazine offers a good overview – from a business perspective – of what concerns were on the negotiating table. The magazine’s special report, published before the summit at Copenhagen and titled “Getting Warmer” (Dec. 5, 2009), is online at http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14994872. Even according to The Economist, concerns raised by developing countries comprised a core set of issues. However, these issues were largely left unresolved in the Copenhagen Accord.
For a closer look at some unresolved issues raised by developing countries and allies, and to counterbalance the business perspective raised by The Economist, take a look at Jacqui Patterson’s blog, Climate Justice Initiative, https://climatejusticeinitiative.wordpress.com/. Jacqui Patterson, a friend and inspiration, is the Director of the Climate Gap Initiative at NAACP. At Copenhagen, she followed issues essential to all of us, and particularly urgent for those of us living in developing countries: high rates of cancer and other illnesses connected to climate pollution, increasing displacement caused by catastrophic events, climate change adaptation, etc. Her blog offers unique illustrative interviews, actions, protests, and insights that you won’t find anywhere else, all of which is missing from the pages of The Economist.
Do you have thoughts and links to instructive websites and articles that contribute to this discussion going forward? Please feel free to leave a note in the comments section. In the meantime, as we kick off the New Year, I will continue to focus on what we each can do with or without a legally binding agreement on climate change: how we can sustainably use energy and other resources at home.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas and a Sustainable New Year!
This week when I traveled to Washington, DC, for an interview, I visited my dad’s memorial headstone at Arlington National Cemetery. I also visited the graves of Edward, Robert and John Kennedy. This quote, etched in stone near the grave of Robert F. Kennedy, moved me to reflect on the grand significance of each of our contributions—big and small—to the beauty and sustainability of our world.
“It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
- Robert F. Kennedy, South Africa, 1966
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate, and here’s to a Sustainable and Happy New Year! May we, together, send forth ripples of hope, energy and daring.
“It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
- Robert F. Kennedy, South Africa, 1966
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate, and here’s to a Sustainable and Happy New Year! May we, together, send forth ripples of hope, energy and daring.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Saving on Lighting and Appliances
According to the US Energy Information Administration, our lighting and appliances account for 26% of our home energy bill. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_homes. By taking a closer look at the light bulbs and appliances we use and replacing them as necessary, we can achieve better water conservancy, less pollution, and save money.
With respect to lighting and appliances in the US, the key phrase to remember is Energy Star. Energy Star is a joint program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Energy (DOE), agencies that teamed up to promote more energy efficient products and practices.
Starting with lighting, Energy Star recommends compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). CFLs are long-lasting light bulbs that save about $30 over their lifetime and pays for itself in about 6 months. This is because CFLs use about 75% less energy and last about 10 times longer than an incandescent light bulb. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls. Incandescent light bulbs, which waste a lot of energy by emitting heat rather than light, should be dutifully replaced.
Still not convinced? According to Energy Star, “if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than $800,000 cars.” http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls (CFL Savings Facts and Figures).
As for appliances—including stoves, ovens, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, washers and dryers—the suggested rule is to replace any appliance that is (a) was manufactured before 2001, (b) not working efficiently anymore, or (c) cannot be repaired. http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2009/01/rules-of-thumb-on-when-to-replace-old-appliances.html.
When looking for a good replacement, check out Energy Star-certified models. Models that are certified by Energy Star use 10 to 50% less energy and water than federal standards require, and are generally 75% more efficient than models made 30 years ago. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=appliances.pr_appliances. The Energy Guide label (associated with Energy Star certification) on an appliance makes you an instantly smart shopper. It gives you key figures on how much energy the appliance uses, how it compares with other models, and approximate annual energy costs of using the appliance.
What to do with the appliance you replace? If it still works, consider giving it away on Craigslist or Freecycle. If it cannot be repaired or is too old, check to see if there is an appliance recycling program. Some recycling programs will even pick up your appliance curbside.
With respect to lighting and appliances in the US, the key phrase to remember is Energy Star. Energy Star is a joint program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Energy (DOE), agencies that teamed up to promote more energy efficient products and practices.
Starting with lighting, Energy Star recommends compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). CFLs are long-lasting light bulbs that save about $30 over their lifetime and pays for itself in about 6 months. This is because CFLs use about 75% less energy and last about 10 times longer than an incandescent light bulb. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls. Incandescent light bulbs, which waste a lot of energy by emitting heat rather than light, should be dutifully replaced.
Still not convinced? According to Energy Star, “if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than $800,000 cars.” http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls (CFL Savings Facts and Figures).
As for appliances—including stoves, ovens, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, washers and dryers—the suggested rule is to replace any appliance that is (a) was manufactured before 2001, (b) not working efficiently anymore, or (c) cannot be repaired. http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2009/01/rules-of-thumb-on-when-to-replace-old-appliances.html.
When looking for a good replacement, check out Energy Star-certified models. Models that are certified by Energy Star use 10 to 50% less energy and water than federal standards require, and are generally 75% more efficient than models made 30 years ago. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=appliances.pr_appliances. The Energy Guide label (associated with Energy Star certification) on an appliance makes you an instantly smart shopper. It gives you key figures on how much energy the appliance uses, how it compares with other models, and approximate annual energy costs of using the appliance.
What to do with the appliance you replace? If it still works, consider giving it away on Craigslist or Freecycle. If it cannot be repaired or is too old, check to see if there is an appliance recycling program. Some recycling programs will even pick up your appliance curbside.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
How We Use Energy
We use far more energy than necessary, given (1) the urgent need to mitigate global warming, (2) the current state of technology, and (3) the paradox that reducing our energy use can also help our pocketbooks.
The Department of Energy reports that the average American household spends approximately $1,900 per year on home utility bills. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/pdfs/energy_savers.pdf, p.1. This total cost is comprised of the following categories of expenses, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
41% Space heating ($779)
26% Lighting and appliances ($494)
20% Water heating ($380)
8% Air conditioning ($152)
5% Refrigeration ($95)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_homes.
What if you could take each of those dollar amounts and significantly reduce them? In the process, you can even claim that you are “greening” your home. There are a few websites with concrete ideas on how you can get started. (Please think twice before printing this information.)
The US Department of Energy’s “Energy Saver’s Booklet: Tips on Saving Energy and Money at Home” guides readers on how to create a whole house energy efficiency plan. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/pdfs/energy_savers.pdf. Follow the “Long-Term Savings Tips” to reduce your energy usage (and associated costs) by as much as 25%. My favorite sections in this booklet are the “Home Office” and “Driving and Car Maintenance” sections, giving you ideas on how to save big on less frequently targeted energy guzzlers.
If you plan to remodel a room or buy new furniture, you might also look into the Green Home Guide. http://greenhomeguide.com/. Check out the “Ask a Pro” section of the website that gives specialized tips on specific topics.
You might want to focus on energy savings at work. A good resource for that is Pacific Power’s Business Solutions Toolkit. To use the toolkit, register online at http://members.questline.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx%3faccountID%3d438&accountID=438. Once you’ve registered, the toolkit gives you baseline energy data, carbon calculators, and common ways to save energy in your particular industry (including everything from apparel retailers to schools to warehouses). Pacific Power also has an “Ask an Expert” function for more specific information.
In the next few entries of Sustainable C, we’ll take a closer look at each of the major categories of energy use and see how we can “green” them at home while also saving a buck or two. As always, your suggestions, ideas, criticisms and personal anecdotes are welcome.
The Department of Energy reports that the average American household spends approximately $1,900 per year on home utility bills. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/pdfs/energy_savers.pdf, p.1. This total cost is comprised of the following categories of expenses, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
41% Space heating ($779)
26% Lighting and appliances ($494)
20% Water heating ($380)
8% Air conditioning ($152)
5% Refrigeration ($95)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_homes.
What if you could take each of those dollar amounts and significantly reduce them? In the process, you can even claim that you are “greening” your home. There are a few websites with concrete ideas on how you can get started. (Please think twice before printing this information.)
The US Department of Energy’s “Energy Saver’s Booklet: Tips on Saving Energy and Money at Home” guides readers on how to create a whole house energy efficiency plan. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/pdfs/energy_savers.pdf. Follow the “Long-Term Savings Tips” to reduce your energy usage (and associated costs) by as much as 25%. My favorite sections in this booklet are the “Home Office” and “Driving and Car Maintenance” sections, giving you ideas on how to save big on less frequently targeted energy guzzlers.
If you plan to remodel a room or buy new furniture, you might also look into the Green Home Guide. http://greenhomeguide.com/. Check out the “Ask a Pro” section of the website that gives specialized tips on specific topics.
You might want to focus on energy savings at work. A good resource for that is Pacific Power’s Business Solutions Toolkit. To use the toolkit, register online at http://members.questline.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx%3faccountID%3d438&accountID=438. Once you’ve registered, the toolkit gives you baseline energy data, carbon calculators, and common ways to save energy in your particular industry (including everything from apparel retailers to schools to warehouses). Pacific Power also has an “Ask an Expert” function for more specific information.
In the next few entries of Sustainable C, we’ll take a closer look at each of the major categories of energy use and see how we can “green” them at home while also saving a buck or two. As always, your suggestions, ideas, criticisms and personal anecdotes are welcome.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Green Change Begins at Home
The Copenhagen Climate Summit is underway. In the spirit of John F. Kennedy, the motto ought to be, “Ask not what more your planet can do for you, but what you can do for it.” Climate negotiators alone will not solve this problem.
The numbers behind the science explain why. The most frequently used numbers include “before and after” comparisons of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, global temperature increases, and basic probability. Along these lines, the Economist magazine reports that “[a]tmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million [ppm] last year, compared with 280 ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC [9ºF]…Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration.” http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14994872
To stabilize the runaway effects of climate change, a movement is underway to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to 350 ppm by the year 2050. http://www.350.org/about/science. What does this mean in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions? “On the basis of the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s)] figures…emissions need to drop by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.” http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017322
So far, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the United States Congress has set sufficiently high goals to get us there. According to the Economist magazine, “[g]lobal carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by 20% since the [Kyoto Protocol] was signed in 1997…the plan has evidently not worked all that well.” http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017322. In the US, the favored cap-and-trade legislation currently before the Senate, the Waxman-Markey bill, targets a mere 4% in cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454 Greenpeace, along with a few other bold environmental groups, wisely opposes the bill in its current form because, with a target of only 4%, it falls miserably short of the 25-40% range required to insure against catastrophic events. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-says-waxman-markey
In plain English, this means that everyone must take initiative. For example, you can urge your US Senator to increase target cuts in the Waxman-Markey bill. At home and in the office, you can also set a range for cuts in your own carbon footprint. Start simple with 5% cuts through the New Year, increasing to 10% cuts by the end of 2010, and increasing again to 20% cuts by the end of 2011. Join me in achieving 50% cuts by 2020.
Do you need help or want company on your journey? Consider signing up for the next No Impact experiment, starting January 10. http://noimpactproject.org/experiment/ You might also consider leaving a comment on this blog, where we can initiate more specific discussions about personal goals, choices and challenges. To help get the conversation started, I will post two blog entries per week on facts and tips that help you and me consider ways to reduce our impact at home. Please, bring your own ideas and let me know how it’s going.
The numbers behind the science explain why. The most frequently used numbers include “before and after” comparisons of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, global temperature increases, and basic probability. Along these lines, the Economist magazine reports that “[a]tmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million [ppm] last year, compared with 280 ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC [9ºF]…Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration.” http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14994872
To stabilize the runaway effects of climate change, a movement is underway to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to 350 ppm by the year 2050. http://www.350.org/about/science. What does this mean in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions? “On the basis of the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s)] figures…emissions need to drop by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.” http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017322
So far, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the United States Congress has set sufficiently high goals to get us there. According to the Economist magazine, “[g]lobal carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by 20% since the [Kyoto Protocol] was signed in 1997…the plan has evidently not worked all that well.” http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017322. In the US, the favored cap-and-trade legislation currently before the Senate, the Waxman-Markey bill, targets a mere 4% in cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454 Greenpeace, along with a few other bold environmental groups, wisely opposes the bill in its current form because, with a target of only 4%, it falls miserably short of the 25-40% range required to insure against catastrophic events. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-says-waxman-markey
In plain English, this means that everyone must take initiative. For example, you can urge your US Senator to increase target cuts in the Waxman-Markey bill. At home and in the office, you can also set a range for cuts in your own carbon footprint. Start simple with 5% cuts through the New Year, increasing to 10% cuts by the end of 2010, and increasing again to 20% cuts by the end of 2011. Join me in achieving 50% cuts by 2020.
Do you need help or want company on your journey? Consider signing up for the next No Impact experiment, starting January 10. http://noimpactproject.org/experiment/ You might also consider leaving a comment on this blog, where we can initiate more specific discussions about personal goals, choices and challenges. To help get the conversation started, I will post two blog entries per week on facts and tips that help you and me consider ways to reduce our impact at home. Please, bring your own ideas and let me know how it’s going.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
O, Christmas Tree
According to the National Christmas Tree Association, an acre of Christmas trees produces the daily oxygen for 18 people. http://www.christmastree.org/Recycle_start.pdf, p. 4. Friends who celebrate Christmas, ‘tis the season to think environmentally about gift giving and the tree you buy.
Earlier on Sustainable C, I listed one website where folks can buy environmentally friendly gift wrap, www.ecoshikis.com. A great alternative is making your own reusable wrap.
When it comes to finding a tree, the most environmental option is buying a living replantable tree. If you don’t have the space to plant the tree after the holidays, consider donating it to Friends of Urban Forests, http://www.fuf.net/, or a like-minded organization near you. You could also "rent" a living tree through http://www.livingchristmastrees.org.
If you absolutely must buy a cut tree, look for organic growers who avoid the use of pesticides. Once the holiday season is over, you may also want to consider “treecycling.” To find a treecycling center near you, check Earth911, http://search.earth911.com/?what=Christmas+Trees%3F.
For ideas on Christmas tree alternatives, please see the discussion in the comments section below.
Earlier on Sustainable C, I listed one website where folks can buy environmentally friendly gift wrap, www.ecoshikis.com. A great alternative is making your own reusable wrap.
When it comes to finding a tree, the most environmental option is buying a living replantable tree. If you don’t have the space to plant the tree after the holidays, consider donating it to Friends of Urban Forests, http://www.fuf.net/, or a like-minded organization near you. You could also "rent" a living tree through http://www.livingchristmastrees.org.
If you absolutely must buy a cut tree, look for organic growers who avoid the use of pesticides. Once the holiday season is over, you may also want to consider “treecycling.” To find a treecycling center near you, check Earth911, http://search.earth911.com/?what=Christmas+Trees%3F.
For ideas on Christmas tree alternatives, please see the discussion in the comments section below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
