Carbon Footprint Analysis

Today’s post is focuses on a the carbon footprint calculation presented by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and features an analysis of carbon footprints for two households.

A carbon footprint measurement is the amount of greenhouse gases released by, in the case of this project, a household. Of course, a carbon footprint can be measured for an individual or a larger body of people, such as a company, municipality, or an entire nation as well. In this way the measurement is effective in determining an entity's contribution to global warming. Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas, and the WRI takes this into account by converting other greenhouses gases used into a carbon equivalent in terms of “global warming potential.” The specific unit being used in the calculation is pounds of carbon dioxide per month.

The carbon footprint calculation from the WRI combines driving habits and the amount of electricity, natural gas, heating oil, and propane utilized by the individual or group. However, a true carbon footprint would also account for all the energy used to create and maintain all the products that a person or organization uses. Since transportation and home power usage constitute approximately 40% of all energy used by an average American, this “true” carbon footprint would be 2.5 times the value given by the calculation from the World Resources Institute. For the purposes of the blog, however, I will only be using the original footprint value calculated.

Determining Carbon Footprints of Two Houses

I took carbon footprint data from my house in Kalamazoo and from my Aunt Ginger’s home in Interlochen, MI. I choose her home for comparison because I wanted to see if there were emission differences based on rural and urban settings. Specifically, my aunt, living in a rural village, must commute to work in a larger town and must drive farther for standard day-to-day tasks because of rural dispersal of resources. Furthermore, I wanted to see if there was increased energy use at a home in a slightly cooler climate like the northwest Lower Peninsula of Michigan (where Interlochen is located) compared to southwest Michigan.

It should be noted that because I've only lived in the Kalamazoo house since house since mid-August, I'm collecting data for the two homes between September 2010 and and March 2011 only. Accordingly, data will predominately reflect patterns of winter energy use. Once this data was collected I produced a monthly average rate for electric energy and natural gas use. Transportation figures were averaged on a weekly basis. Also please take not that both houses use natural gas for room and water heating.

My House, Kalamazoo, MI

3 residents

Car1: 60mi/week, 23mpg

Car2: 18mi/week, 22mpg

Car3: 70mi/week, 26mpg

277.57 KWh/month

6.65 mcf natural gas

1835lbs carbon dioxide per month (below national average)

72% Home Energy, 28% Transportation Energy

Interlochen, MI

2 residents

150mi/week transportation, 13mpg

446.71 KWh/month

5.97 mcf natural gas

2472lbs carbon dioxide per month (approximately at national average)

60% Home Energy, 40% Transportation Energy

I think it is very clear that my aunt's transportation played a major factor in her increased carbon footprint. She traveled farther and with far worse gas mileage. This makes sense as she has a large pick-up truck and must travel into Traverse City for work at her office (a drive of about 12.5 miles). What I can not ascertain, however, is how my aunt's home used so much more electricity than mine. Perhaps this energy went to a dishwater and a washer and drier for clothing? My house does not have such equipment and her home does. This is a possibility, but I can not be certain.

I believe that my greater rate of natural gas use can be attributed to two major factors. First of all, there is an extra person in the Kalamazoo house, meaning extra showers that use extra natural gas to heat water. This heating use would probably add up fairly quickly. Second, the windows in my home let out significant amounts of heat, so more natural gas must be used to maintain the comfortable temperature. My original conjecture that a house farther north would require more heating from natural gas seems to be proven false by this test, but of course a complete analysis of that hypothesis would require a study of more than two homes.

I am happy to be able to say that my home was below the national average for carbon footprint. What makes this most impressive is that this level was obtained during a period dominated by the winter months, which are extremely energy intensive because of heating requirements. My home does not have air conditioning, so energy use in the summer months would most likely not rise significantly.

However, there is always room for improvement, and being below the United States' average of carbon emissions still makes me a large polluter from a global perspective. For example, I should absolutely apply energy-efficient plastic around my windows to prevent heat loss. Furthermore, although my aunt is not above the national average, she really should invest in a car with better gas mileage. Even those who are not the major contributors to the problem must help to alleviate it. As always, we're in this together.

The Amateur Vegetarian

As I type this first sentence, I've completed 10, count 'em 10, days of a vegetarian diet. And I still don't really think I know what I'm doing. But I'm still healthy, so I must be doing something right. Right? Until very recently, I specialized in being a carnivore. Today's post is going to talk about what I've been eating since I decided to step away from meat for a while.

Breakfast
This meal hasn't changed a bit for me. It still usually consists of bread and peanut butter or a bowl of cereal if I have the time. Obviously the abandonment of meat is not going to change anything there. However, when I went out to breakfast at locally-famous Theo and Stacy's over the weekend I did have to pass on my usual Western omelet, instead going for French toast, sunny-side up eggs, and hash browns. A more than adequate substitute in terms of taste and fulfillment.

Lunch and Dinner
Eleven days ago or so, essentially every lunch or dinner I was a part of included meat. Lunch was almost always some kind of cold-cut sandwich or a pizza after a shift in the dishroom at the cafeteria I work at on campus. Dinner generally involved a rotation of frozen supreme pizza, frozen beef burritos, fish, chicken, sloppy-joes, and macaroni and cheese with a hot dog thrown in. Ok, you got me, two hot dogs thrown in.  Don't get me wrong, I still ate a balanced diet. Salads, vegetables, fruit, and pasta were all in the mix. But meat was always present.


While meat isn't my mainstay anymore, I'm still eating similar foods. Bean and cheese burritos instead of beef. Cheese-only pizzas. And still plenty of mac and cheese, but without the hot dogs. I've also started eating some main courses that are meatless to begin with, like red beans and rice. I haven't really tapped the tofu scene at home yet, but I did have an amazing tofu sandwich at the Crow's Nest. (It's on S. Westnedge Ave in the student ghetto. If you haven't been there, you really should make a point to.) And of course, veggies are still a major source of nutrition for me.

Snacks and Other Foods
Snacking hasn't changed that much for me either. I still pop open the bag of chips every other night or so at around eleven or midnight. I used to grab a slice of deli ham or something similar for snacking as well, but the urge to do so has been gone since I began this endeavor. I did buy a protein-substitute drink to make sure I'm still getting proper nutrition. But I haven't had to tap too much into it. I think I'm still getting enough protein from other sources.


Status Report

Important parts of my new diet.

As of right now, I'm actually not missing meat all that much. It's really surprising to me. Sure, I'll see a commercial for a Whopper and think, "Boy, that looks delicious," but I haven't had even the slightest urge to break my new habit. Cheese has become a major part of meals. Maybe it has allowed me to enjoy some of that "heartiness" I enjoyed with meat. And I'm still getting a balanced diet. Peanut butter, nuts, and beans are all helping me maintain my health.

Perhaps my relatively smooth transition from meat is because, as stated before, I am eating foods that are basically the same products, minus the meat itself. But that's just fine with me. I wanted to try vegetarianism because of the environmental impacts of meat consumption, not because I wanted to discover vegetable-centered cuisine. As long as the meat is gone, I'm fulfilling what I set out to do.

So far, the experiment is going pretty well.

Music Fix #2 (a and b)

So I had some Pandora stations going during this writing session. Started with the Black Keys, then I decided to go with Ludwig van Beethoven. You might say that's on odd combination. You'd be correct in that assessment. Nothing like some classical and rock.

from Wikipedia Commons

from Wikipedia Commons

Well that was a little terrifying.

I just read the first two chapters from Bill McKibben's Eaarth. And to be completely honest, it scared the bejeezus out of me. These two chapters discuss current climate change facts, the incredible damage that can be done by this change, especially coupled with other human environmental damage and massive resource consumption, and how human civilization has to adjust to changes brought by warming or crumble away. Furthermore, there is discussion of how so far we collectively have failed to do so. The change in some of the planet's dynamics because of climate change leads to McKibben to the conclusion that we are no longer living on the Earth of our ancestors. He states this is a completely changed place.

Satellite imagery of Arctic ice melt.

The facts that McKibben deals to the reader are astounding. The northern polar ice cap is melting, and quickly. In 2008, for the first time ever, enough ice melted to allow for a "Northwest Passage" for shipping through the Arctic Ocean. Hurricane season now lasts for longer periods of time (from July to November in 2008) because of increased air and water temperatures. And the storms are stronger and hitting places they haven't in the past, like Brazil. As tropical climates spread with increased temperatures, so do tropical diseases like dengue fever. The list of problems goes on and on.

And what makes these problems worse is that often our modern economic system handicaps our ability to deal with the problems because of our insatiable need for "growth" in the economy. This growth is a problem because we are attempting to grow on a world with a finite amount of resources. For example, the major source of power industrial society relies on - oil - is going to run out eventually. Some studies have suggested peak oil was reached in 2008.

As this commodity and others, such as water, become more and more scarce, people will cling more and more to the current economic system and the potential for conflicts may rise. We have seen this already as part of the reason for the Darfur conflict. Furthermore, as our attempt to grow falters because of lack of resources with which to expand, there are decreasing amounts resources available to fight environmental degradation. A developed nation, such as the U.S., does not have the resources to help a developing nation such as China embrace green technology. A vicious cycle thus continues with an economic system allowing environmental problems but which is then unable to fight them. McKibben, therefore, suggests we need to embrace an economy that sustains itself, instead of attempting to grow exponentially.

This text had a large impact on me. In fact, I normally drive to my Monday 8:00am biology lecture, but after reading the first chapter Sunday night, I couldn't in good conscience do it. I have always been aware that global warming is an important issue with dangerous consequences, just as I know that consumption levels combined with the number of people on the planet can lead to incredible environmental problems. I suppose I have just never seen all the major issues associated with these two problems stacked on top of one another. Furthermore, I have never been shown examples of how these problems compound with one another from an economic perspective. It has made me look deeper into what I am doing to ensure civilization's continued existence. Perhaps my vegetarian experiment should be permanent.

It is abundantly clear that Eaarth is a much more serious text than McKibben's Hope, Human and Wild. The latter is full of positive examples of sustainability throughout the world that exist despite long odds and can be used as reference points for change in the world. Eaarth on the other hand, points out the underlying problems, which are intimidating if not largely depressing. But, in the last chapters of the book, McKibben does talk about taking action to change society to adapt to the "new planet" we have created through our ignorance.

Action is also what McKibben's organization, 350.org, is concerned about. Through 350.org, McKibben is attempting to raise awareness and mobolize action to curb carbon dioxide emissions (although, as stated in Eaarth, even stopping all emissions now would not come close to alleviating all our problems) and to promote environmental protection and conservation in general. 350.org wants to form grassroots action that will force those in power to act in favor of emission reduction. For example, there is currently a protest campaign against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is believed to be controlled by business interests who benefit from continued hydrocarbon use.

Absolutely, I was frightened by the stew of facts that McKibben serves up in Eaarth. Decreasing carbon dioxide emissions when our economy currently runs on them is no small task. And attempting to solve the problems already occurring from climate change is more than daunting. But it is important that we continue to find solutions. As McKibben states, the fight to change things is where our hope truly lies.

Music Fix #1

I thought it would be cool to let you guys know what I'm listening to while doing these posts. For this previous one it was Radiohead's In Rainbows. If you're not familiar with it, you should give it a listen! Great homework music.

Three Days In

So I began four weeks of vegetarianism on Monday. To be completely honest, I got one last piece of bologna in at about 11:53pm Sunday night. I really do love meat. Feel free to judge me. Now, writing this entry just over 72 hours after that last piece of meat, I'm feeling pretty good. I haven't had an physical withdrawals, probably thanks to the fact that I've kept my diet fairly balanced. I'm keeping up with protein intake - plenty of beans and rice, chick-peas, a meal with tofu, and a protein drink. Hopefully I won't be over-compensating in this regard.

I wanted to use this post to bring to light the environmental benefits of a vegetarian diet, or rather the detrimental effects of meat consumption. This is what really sparked my interest in the vegetarian lifestyle, as opposed to ethical concerns over meat consumption in general. (Although I do feel that factory farms are wrong. But I digress.)

It is important to know that livestock are incredible sources of greenhouse gases, namely nitrous oxide and methane from digestive processes. The EPA has stated that livestock are the number one source of methane pollution in the U.S. The entire commercial process of meat production releases much more carbon dioxide than crop production per calorie produced. Eleven times more in fact, according to PETA.

Livestock production also has a huge impact on natural resources, a subject near and dear to my heart. (My specialization with in my geography major is environmental analysis and resource management.) The EPA has studied the polluted run-off from factory farms and found that it is a larger pollutant of water supplies than industrial processes. PETA has also pointed to the fact that meat production is less efficient in terms of water use. The production of one pound of meat uses 2400 gallons of water, while one pound of wheat needs only 25 gallons. Furthermore, more and more forests around the world are being destroyed for grazing land for livestock. This results in decreases in biodiversity and loss of those forests as sinks of carbon dioxide.

To read more on the environmental impacts of meat consumption, visit PETA's website on the subject. I realize that PETA may seem like a biased source, as they would like to see meat consumption ended regardless of environmental impacts,  but their calls for decreasing levels of animal agriculture are supported by the U.N., the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Lance Armstrong Foundation (a.k.a Livestrong) and other organizations. Livestrong's position on the subject, for example, can be found here.

I firmly agree that meat production and consumption should be decreased. The environmental impacts are, as you can see, quite significant. But I do not believe we have to get rid of meat consumption completely. For me, a good steak is one of the great joys of life. And no one should take away hot dogs on June day at a major league ball park. But could I get by on only two steaks a year, instead of the six or so I eat now? Absolutely. Do I need meat once a day? Of course not. We all need to start taking steps in this direction to ensure more efficient resource use, a better environment, and a bright future.

We can do it.

Kerala's Steps

photo from billmckibben.com

Bill McKibben, in Hope, Human and Wild, focuses on what this blog is attempting to discuss - the need for sustainability of human action, the promotion of environmental integrity, and the recognition that we have the capability to do great harm to the natural world.

One example McKibben gives of a place that has achieved a high level of economic, social, and environmental sustainability is the Kerala State in southern India. Kerala's political and social traditions have in fact fostered a community that is responsible in terms of resource use and consumption while also creating an educated and democratic citizenry. Peaceful protest is not unusual throughout the region, and a strong Leftist foundation, even among the more conservative politicians, has resulted in high literacy rates (96%, an unheard of rate globally in a developing nation) and quality healthcare. This literacy, and general educational quality, has given citizens of Kerala an incredibly strong understanding of the world around them, with a better knowledge of world events than most Americans.

What is even more amazing about the Leftist spirit of the state is that it does not come with the authoritarian figures for which socialism and communism have become infamous. The government has transfered power multiple times from conservative politicians to the Communist Party and back. As someone who leans pretty far left myself (although I'm certainly not an out-and-out Communist), I found this incredibly intriguing and hopeful for the future of socialist thought around the world.

What is truly amazing about the health and educational quality of Kerala is that it came about without massive industrialization or trade with the West. Consequently, however, Kerala is still impoverished in terms of modern economic standards. Unemployment rates are high. Disposable cash is at a minimum, as is material wealth. You will not see a TV in every home. In fact, you won't see a bed for every resident. On the other hand though, Kerala has the ability to feed itself via local farming, it has a rich cultural tradition that is still enjoyed by all, and it has an incredibly small impact on the environment, unlike the consumerist economies of the developed world. This diminished impact on the environment stems from the lack of "convenience technology," which is over-utilized in the West, such as multiple cars per household and the unnecessarily large "McMansions" of Suburbia. Furthermore, the people of Kerala are intelligent, content, and not starving.

McKibben is making the point that the Western ideal stating of ever-constant capitalist economic development and continued consumption is not the only way to lead to a better human existence. Furthermore, and I agree, the exponential nature of consumption that developed nations seem to have embraced will lead to environment disaster, as it is likely that if all people on Earth lived as Americans do today, there would not be enough resources to go around and pollution levels would be astronomical.

Kerala is given as an example of a society in which the environment is respected, resources are saved and shared, and human dignity is placed at a higher level of importance than increased consumption and corporate expansion. That being said, I do not completely agree with what appears to be McKibben's all-out attack on Western consumerism. While I do feel that developed society consumes far too much,  I do still believe that we can obtain an ecological balance with our surroundings without having to forgo enjoyable things like cable television and convertibles. But perhaps I'm just being defensive about the lifestyle have become accustomed to. We'll save the self-psychoanalysis for another post.

Absolutely, however, McKibben is not overestimating Kerala's power as an example of sustainable development in all realms of life. It is possible for human society to have relevant modern existences and live with, and not fight against, the environment around them.

Small steps brothers and sisters, small steps.