Clotheslines: A simple step to reduce carbon emissions. Photo courtesy DGHdeeo via Flickr WASHINGTON—The United States could cut greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of France’s total annual emissions by getting Americans to make simple lifestyle changes, like regularly maintaining their cars or insulating their attics, a study showed Monday.
If U.S. households took 17 easy-to-implement actions—like switching to a fuel-efficient vehicle, drying laundry on a clothesline instead of in a dryer, or turning down the thermostat—carbon emissions could be cut by 123 metric tons a year by the 10th year, the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found [PDF].
“This amounts to ... 7.4 percent of total national emissions—an amount slightly larger than the total national emissions of France,” showed the study led by Thomas Dietz of Michigan State University’s department of sociology and environmental science and policy.
“It is greater than reducing to zero all emissions in the United States from the petroleum-refining, iron and steel, and aluminum industries, each of which is among the largest emitters in the industrial sector,” the study said.
But the lifestyle changes come with a much smaller price tag and no great change to the way Americans live.
At present, U.S. direct household energy use accounts for 38 percent of the country’s carbon emissions, or 626 million metric tons of carbon—a whopping eight percent of global emissions “and larger than the emissions of any entire country except China.”
To quickly bring down those numbers, the researchers suggested greater focus on consumer behavioral changes and less on efforts to develop new technologies and put in place so-called cap and trade regimes.
The researchers grouped 17 actions Americans could take to reduce carbon emissions into five groups: weatherization, switching to more efficient equipment, maintaining equipment, adjusting appliance setting—such as the temperature on water heaters—and modifying daily personal use.
The action with the greatest potential to reduce U.S. carbon emissions was the switch to a fuel-efficient vehicle. That alone would, according to the study’s model, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by just over five percent by year 10, or by more than 31 million metric tons.
Weatherizing homes by improving attic insulation, sealing or replacing drafty windows and doors, could cut carbon emissions by 21 million metric tons.
Installing energy-efficient appliances to replace those that have reached the end of their useful life would save nearly 12 million metric tons of carbon emissions.
Even seemingly minor steps like not speeding away from a stop sign when driving, regularly maintaining one’s car, or turning down the heating at home in the winter to 68 degrees F (20 degrees C), could save between four and eight million metric tons in carbon emissions by year 10.
The lifestyle tweaks and positive results don’t have to be limited to the United States, either.
Similar percentage reductions are possible in Canada and Australia, which have carbon profiles comparable to that of the United States, while Europe and Japan could save around half of the U.S. level in percentage terms by getting their citizens to make the same changes, the study said.
The study listed carbon emission reducing household actions:
- Weatherization
- Carpooling and trip-chaining
- Driving behavior
- Line drying
- Thermostat setbacks
- HVAC [Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning] equipment
- Low-flow showerheads
- Efficient water heater
- Appliances
- Low rolling resistance tires
- Fuel-efficient vehicle
- Change HVAC air filters
- Tune up AC
- Routine auto maintenance
- Laundry temperature
- Water heater temperature
- Standby electricity
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Comments
View as Flat
Joel W Posted 12:58 am
27 Oct 2009
http://greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/north-america/usa/energy-saving-4-grid-unlocked-towns/
Permalink
TomBlees Posted 1:00 am
27 Oct 2009
What will work is massive deployment of technologies that provide both abundant energy and complete recycling without any effort on the part of people. These are macro problems that aren't going to be meaningfully affected by you hanging your clothes on a line. They need macro solutions applicable on a global scale, solutions that are available if humanity will deploy them. At the risk of seeming like a shameless plug, I'd suggest reading Prescription for the Planet to get away from the idea that personal virtue will save our bacon and start looking at real solutions.
Permalink
canadaguy Posted 8:03 am
27 Oct 2009
http://selfdestructivebastards.blogspot.com/2009/10/voluntary-lifestyle-changes.html
Lifestyle changes could slow emissions growth slightly, they will not reduce emissions. Personal lifestyle changes can only have an impact of a few percent at most. We cannot ignore the other 95 percent of the problem. Suggesting that we can forget about caps and just focus on behavioural changes is insane.
Permalink
ToddinNorway Posted 11:35 am
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
BB1978 Posted 8:05 am
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
skitters Posted 8:28 am
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
MuyBien Posted 9:19 am
27 Oct 2009
eBay survey 83 % of the US consumers got unwanted gifts in 2008! If you
want to see a brilliant idea regarding how to adjust/how to solve the problem without having to stop buying gifts, go check out this new recipe:
http://www.brilliantgiftidea.com
Permalink
katmainomad Posted 10:04 am
27 Oct 2009
However, I'm under the influence of Jensen these days, so I'm leaning to the 'civilization just has to go' side of things...
Permalink
BB1978 Posted 11:39 am
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
canadaguy Posted 11:56 am
27 Oct 2009
In additional to big changes in infrastructure, we also need zoning changes so it's more possible to have communities where people can live, work and purchase what they need locally, either within walking or biking distance.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:09 pm
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
katmainomad Posted 1:37 pm
27 Oct 2009
But before I alienate anyone further - no commenter seems to argue with the efficacy of the options, just the feasibility. It comes down to will...and we just don't seem to have that. Sigh.
Permalink
BB1978 Posted 6:42 am
28 Oct 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 3:00 pm
31 Oct 2009
The short answer is: yes, I do think that will happen, if we will it and we're smart about it.
I like the way you think. You're practical, sensible and grounded in reality. That's what we need more of. In my view, too much time and effort is spent looking for pie in the sky instead of using what we have in sensible ways.
We have the technology to meet the challenge. Its here, now, and relatively economical. We just need to cut people loose to get to the "doing" instead of the talking.
The two big contributers to global warming are consumer demand for electricity and transportation. By building wind farms, building transmission lines, and shifting manufacturing of cars toward pluggable hybrids suitable for electricity and chemical fuels, we stand a good chance of meeting environmental goals, building infrastructure and supplying jobs. This may sound a little pie in the sky, but its the way to do it using what we have and what we know right now, today.
Note that there are 120,000 MW of wind powered electrical generating capacity in the world. 3000 MW of wind power displaces about 1 billion pounds of CO2 per month, assuming that the same power was produced using hydrocarbons. That's 40 billion pounds of CO2 displaced per month because of the current wind power installed.
In my San Diego Daily Transcript weekly opinion column for this week entitled: "Halloween and an environmental 'trick or treat'"
By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, October 29, 2009, I pointed out:
"The good news in America, when it comes to renewable energy, is that in the third quarter of 2009, the wind industry brought online an additional 1648 megawatts of electricity generating capacity utilizing wind turbines. The state of Illinois became the 10th state in the Union to have more than 1000 MW of wind power capacity. Those turbines produce electricity and reduce green house gases, reduce global warming and provide good American jobs.
Another piece of good news: recent US Energy Information Agency numbers show CO2 production from coal use dropped 10.1 percent from 2008.
More importantly, between 2008 and 2009 CO2 production from burning fossil fuel in the United States decreased 5.9 percent overall from 5,790 million to 5,446 million metric tons (MMT) or 344 MMT. Changes in the electricity generation mix reduced CO2 emissions by 73 MMT (21 percent). Reduced petroleum use accounted for 102 MMT (30 percent). Not good news: recent economic downturns accounted for 169 MMT (49 percent)."
Permalink
SteveS Posted 2:13 pm
27 Oct 2009
In contrast to this news article, the authors of the study never say that there should be less attention to structural changes and technological innovation. Instead, as they have argued in several earlier articles, there is a significant potential for reducing household emissions that can be realized more quickly and cheaply and should not be ignored.
Also, the study takes into account several of the complaints offered above. It does not assume that everyone will change immediately or can afford every single item. Nor does it ever use the word "simple" to describe any of these changes. Instead, it estimates rates of adoption for each of these over the next 10 years, based on prior studies of the most effective types of interventions to promote adoption.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 3:17 pm
27 Oct 2009
The study might avoid the word but the article surely does not. Have another look at the headline.
Permalink
SteveS Posted 6:30 pm
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
canadaguy Posted 2:31 pm
27 Oct 2009
"To quickly bring down those numbers, the researchers suggested greater focus on consumer behavioral changes and less on efforts to develop new technologies and put in place so-called cap and trade regimes"
Unless the author is misquoting the study, this exclitly says to spend less effort on new technology and caps. I'm saying we absolutely need caps. Let's all reduce what we can personally, but it's not enough, the caps are still needed. Personal changes alone can slow emissions growth, but they cannot reduce emissions.
Permalink
SteveS Posted 6:40 pm
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
canadaguy Posted 6:53 pm
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
bailsout Posted 10:16 am
28 Oct 2009
Permalink
jestbill Posted 11:49 am
28 Oct 2009
Population reduction worldwide is ongoing. As rural populations move to cities, the number of offspring is reduced. As people are educated, the number of children they have is reduced because they intend to (pay to) educate their children.
Had one been reading the papers over the past 30+ years, the Chinese "solution" has not had favorable press. We're not likely to institute driving restrictions, much less reproduction restrictions. We're still arguing over whether women should be allowed to abort under any circumstances at all.
Permalink
splashy Posted 2:46 am
01 Nov 2009
Permalink
bailsout Posted 12:59 pm
28 Oct 2009
Permalink
SteveS Posted 4:53 pm
28 Oct 2009
Chakravarty, Shoibal, Ananth Chikkatur, Heleen de Coninck, Stephen Pacala, Robert Socolow, and Massimo Tavoni. "Sharing Global CO2 Emission Reductions Among One Billion High Emitters." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (July 6, 2009).
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 3:44 pm
29 Oct 2009
Yes, let's just ask people to do little everyday things. That's so much easier!
Now why on earth didn't we just suggest that 40 years ago, and then just keep suggesting it ever since?
Oh, we did?
We suggested it, and very few have done it?
Hmm, OK, let's think about how to get more of them to do it...
Hey, I have an idea! Let's use financial incentives. We could put a modest price on pollution, which would encourage big emitters to reduce their emissions. We could do this by putting a limit on overall emissions, but allowing polluters the freedom to choose whether to reduce emissions or to pay someone else to do it. They would pass on some those costs of pollution to their customers, so that everyone plays a part. And then consumers will actually do all those little everyday things in order to save money - kinda like they do at the market.
I even have a name for this newfangled idea: cap-and-trade. Just to be pleasantly wonkish!
There, that was simple. My work is done here. Next problem?
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 1:07 pm
31 Oct 2009
When 48% of power is made from coal, conservation actually extends the life of coal plants because it maintains the coal-fired status quo.
We need to focus on bringing on new ways of making power - as a business. Otherwise, we run the risk of a still-born industry limping along, with coal continuing to be the invisible source of electricity.
I recently pointed out in my San Diego Daily Transcript opinion column, "Halloween and an environmental 'trick or treat'" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, October 29, 2009, the following incredibly good news:
"The good news in America, when it comes to renewable energy, is that in the third quarter of 2009, the wind industry brought online an additional 1648 megawatts of electricity generating capacity utilizing wind turbines. The state of Illinois became the 10th state in the Union to have more than 1000 MW of wind power capacity. Those turbines produce electricity and reduce green house gases, reduce global warming and provide good American jobs.
Another piece of good news: recent US Energy Information Agency numbers show CO2 production from coal use dropped 10.1 percent from 2008.
More importantly, between 2008 and 2009 CO2 production from burning fossil fuel in the United States decreased 5.9 percent overall from 5,790 million to 5,446 million metric tons (MMT) or 344 MMT. Changes in the electricity generation mix reduced CO2 emissions by 73 MMT (21 percent). Reduced petroleum use accounted for 102 MMT (30 percent). Not good news: recent economic downturns accounted for 169 MMT (49 percent).
When it comes to geoengineering, in order to remove excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and reduce global warming, my favorite method is and always has been trees. Trees: tall ones, fat ones, short ones, skinny ones, old ones, young ones, ugly ones, and pretty ones, just so long as they're live ones."
In my view, conservation should occur when it CANNOT be used to delay shifting to renewable energy, not when it sustains the status quo!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:04 pm
31 Oct 2009
With respect, this would only make sense if additional coal capacity were not being actively prepared, as in my region where Duke Energy is about to build three NEW coal plants. If, as presently seems quite likely, the implementation of these already-approved projects can be delayed by conservation and demand management, they may never be built.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 2:39 pm
31 Oct 2009
The object of the game is to avoid extending the life of coal and coal fired plants. Consider this: if all the power of the US could be supplied by current and existing facilities, and all of the expanded demand due to increased population, and such, were met by conservation measures, there would be absolutely no reason to build new sources of power. That means that new non-carbon wind projects and solar installations would have no one to to which to sell their power, no way to make money, and therefore no way to gain loans for construction. Thus, coal would continue to produce power and CO2, and wind would have no way to enter the market.
Therein lies the problem with conservation - which can account for 18% of electricity usage at lower cost. It maintains coal and suppresses new non-carbon wind and solar projects.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 3:59 am
01 Nov 2009
Sorry, no. Though endearingly counter-intuitive, the argument that we have to continue the emissions in order to destroy them is still wrong. Conservation and other demand-reduction technologies in the most energy-intensive country in the world will not slow the development of renewable energy or the growth in its deployment: it will simply reduce emissions, which is (duh) the actual end in view. The worldwide growth in energy demand, the aging out of existing fossil-fueled plant, and the political inevitability of presently externalized coal costs being brought into the equation will ensure that renewables will continue to be a healthy and growing business for the foreseeable future. According to your own summary, wind achieved 40% market share of new production in the US during a period of flat or declining demand. The market for renewables is strong. We do not need to create one by wasting energy.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:18 am
01 Nov 2009
You assume facts not in evidence: to wit, that demand was declining when the new capacity was built. That was not true when the projects were purchased and built, only after the economic crash. This year we see a decline in new wind projects relative to last year. While still ok at 1648 MW for the 3rd quarter, that is primarily due to pre-planning and tax rebates for the value of the project. Under those circumstances, it would make no sense to stop building when the government has substituted a payment from the Treasury in lieu of a Production Tax Credit or Investment Tax Credit.
You say: "According to your own summary, wind achieved 40% market share of new production in the US during a period of flat or declining demand." This does not do away with the simple economics that when you build a power plant, you have to sell the electricity. If demand declines, there is no reason to build or expend the money - unless the government spends it. Note that the coal companies understand that the longer they can extend the shift to new technology, the more money they make, the better off they are. The "deniers," along with any other thing which slows the shift works to their advantage.
This matter is staring you in the face, but you want to believe that conservation is inherently good. Note that conservation is actually EXTENDING the life of coal fired plants because it reduces the demand for new plants.
Sometimes you have to rethink what your being told by using the rules of the environment in which we live, not what we would all like to happen.
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:48 am
01 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 9:02 am
01 Nov 2009
Coal is a base-load source; other sources tend to be more intermittent.
The people who own coal mines and run coal fired power plants know that their economic lifetime is dependent on slowing down installation of effective competition. The best way to do that is to reduce demand, and the cheapest, most "environmentally friendly" approach is to support conservation.
You'll notice that I said that conservation does not make sense unless and until it can be done without undercutting demand for renewable sources. For example, if the cost of carbon rises, and the cost of power rises, but there is no need to expand supply, then new facilities will not get built. Supply and demand are well and alive in the power business. The only way to assure that this does not happen is with RES or RPS standards, something I absolutely support so long as the grid can stably function with intermittent sources.
Recall also, Power Purchase Agreements give coal fired facilities long term contracts which must be honored. One risk we run in raising the cost of carbon is that some of those contracts probably allow a pass through to the customer. This means that higher prices, bigger profits, longer life to coal facilities. The object of the game is to reduce the amount of coal burned, and the best way short and long term is to have other facilities in place to provide the power without the CO2.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:54 am
01 Nov 2009
Conservation enables consumers to accept these rate increases without pain. Heating and cooling my all-electric non-solar-anything home now costs less than my monthly cell phone bill, following a few simple and fairly inexpensive conservation upgrades. Are you really telling me I did a bad thing?
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:23 am
01 Nov 2009
I am not an insider. I have a chemical engineering background, am an attorney, and have been committed to enviromental matters for nearly 40 years. I have seen the inside of things, but I am speaking as an experienced observer.
I study the issues, read the literature, and because I have an opinion column in a published newspaper, I interview a lot of different kinds of people.
Permalink
jestbill Posted 2:03 pm
01 Nov 2009
It's hard to reply in the right place here...
No, the object of the game is to decrease the production of CO2. Whether it's done by preventing the building of new plants or by putting old plants out of business, doesn't matter at all. It's the CO2.
If conservation results in reduced CO2 production and over-aged coal power plants, that's a good outcome. Alternative production can be built on the promise that the old plants will be closed. The claim that extending their lives is bad is just wrong--that is exactly what we need if it means that new ones will not be built.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 3:44 pm
01 Nov 2009
Reduction in CO2 is the object, an objective which is keenly related to reducing the coal burned, but you cannot get below a certain level, a level which is uniformly judged to be inadequate, unless you shift to renewable energy sources. Note that 48% of electricity is produced in the US from coal. If you leave the status quo and impose conservation, then levels of CO2 do not drop as fast or at all, compared to that which can be achieved if you build new non-carbon facilities and shift power production to them.
The coal companies want to stay in business as long as possible and if there is no economic incentive to support building renewable power production because there is no demand for the product that they produce, then coal stays in business longer, even if at a lower level of production overall. For the coal companies, conservation is a way to stay in business longer because it suppresses their competition and starves the renewable companies out of the market.
The economics of the situation must be rationally considered in light of the overall objective, not merely a fine idea.
I stand by my position that the objective is to reduce coal burning - something fundamentally linked to higher levels of CO2.
Permalink
jestbill Posted 5:06 pm
01 Nov 2009
I'm assuming that since there is widespread agreement that we must reduce CO2 production, new coal plants will not be built unless it looks like there will be a power shortage. Arguments against conservation are arguments in favor of new power plants.
Worries that conservation will extend the lives of old plants are misplaced. "Continuing emissions in order to destroy" them is a great line--and is telling.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 7:09 pm
01 Nov 2009
I did not say "continue emissions to destroy them," you did; you say it is a "great line - and is telling." But it can, therefore, only be telling about you.
Dan
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:15 pm
01 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:51 pm
01 Nov 2009
The people want to slow that process down have so many subtle ways of pulling, packaging, distracting and appealing to a variety of audiences, I feel its necessary to point out that not every piece of low fruit is necessarily the best to eat.
Renewable energy is an infant industry trying to make its way in a mostly hostile world against critics on all sides. I think we should support what they are doing and not adopt policies which don't inadvertently, with the best intentions, undercut what they need to make it work in a commercial world.
Best,
Dan
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:30 pm
01 Nov 2009
Permalink
jestbill Posted 7:48 am
02 Nov 2009
Well, that's exactly what I find reading Grist! So often I read some criticism of what seems to be a constructive idea that misuses simple arithmetical logic to prove that 1+1=3.
"We just can't raise the price on carbon because it will harm poor people."
"We'll increase CO2 production by trying to regulate it."
"We'll increase CO2 production by trying to reduce it."
All I get out of our preceding long conversation is that Mr. Coffey seems to think that replacing coal with natural gas is the "solution" to the problem and therefore anything that slows that transition will be detrimental. No, you didn't say that--but it just sounds like another 1+1=3 argument to me.
I think it will be easier to retire very old coal plants than it will to retire very new natural gas plants so that in the long run it will be advantageous to prevent new ones being built. Conservation, if it supposedly will slow alternative development, will also slow power plant construction: a good thing.
BTW--in our present situation, we're "extremely hungry" and low hanging fruit will hit the spot: the only "fruit" we should reject at this point is that which is poisonous.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:23 am
02 Nov 2009
to think that replacing coal with natural gas is the "solution" to the problem and therefore anything that slows that transition will be detrimental. No, you didn't say that--but it just sounds like another 1+1=3
argument to me."
It is a 1+1 =3 argument, but its YOUR argument, NOT MINE. I never said anything like that. You should go back an reread what I said. At least accurately assess what I am saying instead of misreading it and then setting up a straw man argument to make it appear obtuse or ridiculous.
I said that we should replace coal with wind to the extent possible. Natural gas is what has been recently installed, along with wind and coal - I gave the percentages for new installations for 2008.
Jestbill: The technique of rephrasing using misstatements is exactly what the Naysaying community does. Why are you adopting that technique?
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 9:01 am
02 Nov 2009
After you spend the 5 billion dollars on conservation, you have no new power production, but use less electricity. The amount of emissions has fallen in proportion to the reduced electricity. Coal still produces base load power, probably to the same extent it did before the conservation steps - because it produces base load power. When you reduce consumption, you typically cut off the top layers of demand which are produced via other means than coalfire, but the baseload remains roughly the same. In other words, coal usage tends to remain roughly the same because it is meeting basic requirements, not peak power. (Obviously every situation is different and varied, but this allows for some sensible conversation.) In this scenario, you do not gain the additional power for additional economic activity unless you ramp up CO2 emissions.
After you spend 5 billion on wind projects to produce non-carbon based electricity, you have the additional power producing capacity for additional economic activity, only now the CO2 emissions are also decreased. Some of that power can be used to supplement baseload power, which further reduces the need for coal fired power, thereby reducing the CO2 emissions further.
After expending the money, in which scenario do you have the additional electricity which enables you to build, manufacture, and produce more renewable energy products? Even assuming you get the same initial CO2 reduction in both approaches, I think it is with investment in renewable power production, not conservation, that you gain the tools to produce more products to be used for either future conservation or more renewable energy production. It takes electricity to produce these things.
It seems that you gain more by investing in new ways to produce electricity without carbon usage than merely cutting back on the same way of doing things - for the same money.
Understand that I am not arguing for no conservation, but rather for investment in better ways to make necessary power.
Permalink
jestbill Posted 4:26 pm
02 Nov 2009
It seems that you have made up a bunch of imaginary economics.
How do you compare $X in conservation with the same number of dollars in alternative generation? Do you imagine that would amount to the same number of kwh produced/saved?? No wonder it sounds like 1+1=3--it's actually "pine"+"rutabaga"="mountains."
Do you imagine that "conservation" involves only "cutting back on the same way of doing things?" Conservation also involves doing things differently and NOT doing things that don't need to be done.
Are you claiming that if we use less electricity we'll shut down our wind farms to run our "base load" coal plants? Are you claiming that coal plants are going to last forever unless we keep demand high? Are you claiming that new plants will not last longer than the old ones?
There is so much inertia in our power generation installation that nothing is going to happen quickly and no one direction ("conservation" or "alternatives") can be taken alone so I think the scenario you started out with is unlikely to come about.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 4:31 pm
02 Nov 2009
Thanks for your thoughts, but I can't really help you at this point in the conversation.
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink