Reducing Impact
Our economy presents few motivations for sustainable solutions. Problems of unemployment, poverty, and financial insecurity drive financial decision making more than threats of global warming, pollution, or resource scarcity. Our lack of action on these matters is not for lack of caring, but due to a lack of economic accounting. An environmental austerity, though clearly warranted, does not register in our economic calculus. This is because we do not pay directly for the use of resources we use or the damage we inflict on the environment. Instead, we pay a resource rent for items that we consume based on who owns them and how they are modified by capital. We strive to reduce labour costs and complain of unemployment, but ignore resource costs that could be reduced with more labour. When we talk of the economic cost of tackling climate change, we are not talking about resource cost, because surely it would cost less in resource terms to reduce the rate of global warming.
The problem with resource rent is that the value tends to dwarf resource costs. Rental costs expand with the inflation of the money supply and are the biggest part of our budget. For this reason, the economic incentive to reduce impact on the environment is just not there. The amount of money saved by turning off a light, recycling, or not using plastic bags for your shopping is insignificant compared to the rents we pay.
The use of markets stimulates production. Rather than ration, markets stimulate overconsumption. Most manufactured goods are over-produced to such a degree that they appear cheap compared to the high fixed costs people have to pay for land, food, and essential services. Over-production occurs because of excess production capacity in the world including a high amount of underused labour. Wages are down as other rents and costs have increased, but because a television or a smartphone is so cheap in relative terms, consumers have little incentive not to buy. There are few signals in the free market economy that would suggest a curb on consumption. On the contrary, goods of every description are produced in vast quantities before there is even a demand expressed. People are encouraged to buy first at the full retail cost, and then at continuously discounted rates that may not even cover the actual cost of production. Because of high capital costs and low production costs at volume, the marginal cost of production is low and much that is produced is not necessary.
We have this problem because there is nothing in our economic system to measure environmental impact. Different categories of value are amalgamated into a single value, the selling price, which is determined by balancing the cost of supply with a willingness of a consumer to pay, or demand. When we buy food, we do not know if the high cost is because it came from some faraway place, or if it simply reflects the high cost of local labour. A high cost can reflect a high capital investment or a high economic rent charged because of a lack of any competition. Rents dominate value in our economy and obscure the cost of resources consumed. The problem is that the amount of rent we pay does not correlate in any way with environmental impact. Our current monetary system is one-dimensional. If we add external costs to the market cost to provide a composite cost (by adding a carbon tax, for example), the consumer is confused and is not able to tell if the cost of the product signifies a high quality product with a low external cost or a low quality product with a high external cost. Our economic system rations only according to wealth, demanding a relative sacrifice of the many in favour of the few, as opposed to an absolute sacrifice of all.
I propose a two-dimensional currency (TDC) to represent separate dimensions of value. One dimension, the same as conventional money now, would represent environmental rent, while the other would represent environmental cost. The consumer does not have a ready alternative to the use of fossil fuels, but many choices exist for the car he or she buys or the source of the fuel. Similarly, there are choices that are more or less environmentally friendly for food, electronics products, and forestry products. Food can be organic and locally grown or imported; it can be beef requiring more land, or sustainably harvested fish. Forestry products can be sustainably produced soft woods or exotic hardwoods that take hundreds of years to grow. Electronics products can be durable or designed to become obsolete quickly. The way to influence choice is with a monetary system that not only determines value in conventional terms, but also values in social and environmental terms—in other words, a two-dimensional currency.
Instead of applying a carbon tax to primary sources, tax should be applied to what is ultimately consumed. One convenient measure of environmental impact is the amount of greenhouse gas or equivalents embodied in the product or service. This is a reasonable simplification because most products or services causing high emissions of greenhouse gases also tend to have high levels of other environmental impacts. Data for greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2E) is readily available from various sources.
Environmental impact can be broken down into six categories of consumption: food, transportation, personal products, residential, private corporations, and public services. Only the first four are accountable to personal choice. For the six categories, let us assume that 20,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents represents an average level of consumption, and a starting point for a carbon budget. This is less than current levels of consumption in North America and Australia, but considerably more than average levels in Europe. The tables below provide examples of the products and services we use and typical values for their associated emissions. The goal should be to reduce emissions by roughly 1,000 kilograms in the first year and 5 percent of the total thereafter. This task will become progressively easier as more energy is derived from electricity from solar sources. Greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity are only 0.2 grams for Iceland where electricity is produced geothermally, but 1,800 grams for India where electricity is produced by burning coal.
Our economy presents few motivations for sustainable solutions. Problems of unemployment, poverty, and financial insecurity drive financial decision making more than threats of global warming, pollution, or resource scarcity. Our lack of action on these matters is not for lack of caring, but due to a lack of economic accounting. An environmental austerity, though clearly warranted, does not register in our economic calculus. This is because we do not pay directly for the use of resources we use or the damage we inflict on the environment. Instead, we pay a resource rent for items that we consume based on who owns them and how they are modified by capital. We strive to reduce labour costs and complain of unemployment, but ignore resource costs that could be reduced with more labour. When we talk of the economic cost of tackling climate change, we are not talking about resource cost, because surely it would cost less in resource terms to reduce the rate of global warming.
The problem with resource rent is that the value tends to dwarf resource costs. Rental costs expand with the inflation of the money supply and are the biggest part of our budget. For this reason, the economic incentive to reduce impact on the environment is just not there. The amount of money saved by turning off a light, recycling, or not using plastic bags for your shopping is insignificant compared to the rents we pay.
The use of markets stimulates production. Rather than ration, markets stimulate overconsumption. Most manufactured goods are over-produced to such a degree that they appear cheap compared to the high fixed costs people have to pay for land, food, and essential services. Over-production occurs because of excess production capacity in the world including a high amount of underused labour. Wages are down as other rents and costs have increased, but because a television or a smartphone is so cheap in relative terms, consumers have little incentive not to buy. There are few signals in the free market economy that would suggest a curb on consumption. On the contrary, goods of every description are produced in vast quantities before there is even a demand expressed. People are encouraged to buy first at the full retail cost, and then at continuously discounted rates that may not even cover the actual cost of production. Because of high capital costs and low production costs at volume, the marginal cost of production is low and much that is produced is not necessary.
We have this problem because there is nothing in our economic system to measure environmental impact. Different categories of value are amalgamated into a single value, the selling price, which is determined by balancing the cost of supply with a willingness of a consumer to pay, or demand. When we buy food, we do not know if the high cost is because it came from some faraway place, or if it simply reflects the high cost of local labour. A high cost can reflect a high capital investment or a high economic rent charged because of a lack of any competition. Rents dominate value in our economy and obscure the cost of resources consumed. The problem is that the amount of rent we pay does not correlate in any way with environmental impact. Our current monetary system is one-dimensional. If we add external costs to the market cost to provide a composite cost (by adding a carbon tax, for example), the consumer is confused and is not able to tell if the cost of the product signifies a high quality product with a low external cost or a low quality product with a high external cost. Our economic system rations only according to wealth, demanding a relative sacrifice of the many in favour of the few, as opposed to an absolute sacrifice of all.
I propose a two-dimensional currency (TDC) to represent separate dimensions of value. One dimension, the same as conventional money now, would represent environmental rent, while the other would represent environmental cost. The consumer does not have a ready alternative to the use of fossil fuels, but many choices exist for the car he or she buys or the source of the fuel. Similarly, there are choices that are more or less environmentally friendly for food, electronics products, and forestry products. Food can be organic and locally grown or imported; it can be beef requiring more land, or sustainably harvested fish. Forestry products can be sustainably produced soft woods or exotic hardwoods that take hundreds of years to grow. Electronics products can be durable or designed to become obsolete quickly. The way to influence choice is with a monetary system that not only determines value in conventional terms, but also values in social and environmental terms—in other words, a two-dimensional currency.
Instead of applying a carbon tax to primary sources, tax should be applied to what is ultimately consumed. One convenient measure of environmental impact is the amount of greenhouse gas or equivalents embodied in the product or service. This is a reasonable simplification because most products or services causing high emissions of greenhouse gases also tend to have high levels of other environmental impacts. Data for greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2E) is readily available from various sources.
Environmental impact can be broken down into six categories of consumption: food, transportation, personal products, residential, private corporations, and public services. Only the first four are accountable to personal choice. For the six categories, let us assume that 20,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents represents an average level of consumption, and a starting point for a carbon budget. This is less than current levels of consumption in North America and Australia, but considerably more than average levels in Europe. The tables below provide examples of the products and services we use and typical values for their associated emissions. The goal should be to reduce emissions by roughly 1,000 kilograms in the first year and 5 percent of the total thereafter. This task will become progressively easier as more energy is derived from electricity from solar sources. Greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity are only 0.2 grams for Iceland where electricity is produced geothermally, but 1,800 grams for India where electricity is produced by burning coal.
Table 1: Measuring environmental impact
Examples |
kgCO2E |
gCO2E/kWh |
|
Per capita greenhouse gas emissions produced per year[1] |
Canada US UK China World |
24,600 18,500 8,600 7,900 6,800 |
|
Per capita greenhouse gas emissions consumed per year including exports and imports[2] |
Canada -5% US +12% UK +46% China -22% |
24,000 21,000 13,000 6,000 |
|
Greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed[3] |
Iceland Canada US India |
0.2 196 586 1,800 |
Category One: Food
The average diet consists of about 2,700 calories (3,500 if you include what is wasted). If you obtained these calories exclusively by eating beef, it could result in about 10,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents, about half the carbon budget.
Food production includes greenhouse gas emissions from converting old growth forests to agricultural land, methane gas from beef and rice production, nitrous oxide from fertilizer, and carbon dioxide from the fossil fuels required for agriculture, transport, and retail outlets. Packaging is a significant fraction of emissions, but helps to minimize food spoilage.
By 2050, we may have to feed ten billion people. Studies of organic farming have suggested that yields are too low to compete with conventional farming practices. Less impact per acre is not an advantage if we have to clear more forests to feed the world. However, a meta-analysis of 115 studies comparing organic and conventional farming by University of California researchers found that the difference is much lower than previously thought, and that certain practices could further reduce this gap to only about 8 percent.[4] Conventional agricultural practices can also improve a great deal to become more sustainable. Techniques of advanced precision agriculture that minimize water, fertilizer, and pesticide use, not only increase yields, but also minimize impact on the environment. Imported food can sometimes have a lower impact than locally produced food because shipping cost, depending on the method used, can be a small proportion of total impact. Consumer preferences to eat meat as incomes rise may mean that farming practices that are even more intensive may be required. All of this is conjecture, however. A measure of impact on the TDC scale using techniques of life cycle analysis is required to determine what the environmental cost of that head of lettuce actually is.
Although using grains to produce meat is wasteful, this does not mean that we all have to become vegetarians. We have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to eat meat. The industrial production of grains is causing many of our problems. The increase in land productivity is only possible with copious amounts of fossil fuels for fertilizers and pesticides, high water consumption, and less variety of food crops. This results in lower quality food and negative impacts on the environment. Eliminating the consumption of beef in favour of more production of grains simply enlarges this problem. The elimination of manure from animals increases reliance on artificial fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. A better approach is to get back to balanced methods of agriculture that incorporate mixed farming methods. Meat from animals grass fed on marginal land rather than grain is healthier, uses less water, and does not displace food crops.[5]
There seems to be a moral preference to farm land-based animals and to hunt fish. However, it is possible to harvest sustainably many wild animals that exist in large populations including kangaroos, deer, reindeer, and rabbits. Fish farming done the right way could be sustainable. Insects provide another large protein source already exploited in many parts of the world. A further possibility is to grow meat from muscle cells without harming a living animal. This is a long way from commercialization, but is technically feasible.
The use of more labour rather than fossil fuels reduces unemployment and increases resource use efficiency. This would allow us to grow a greater variety of food with higher levels of nutrition. Agro-ecological practices mimic nature by integrating crops and livestock with the environment. Growing crops such as maize, wheat, sorghum, millet, and vegetables alongside trees can double or even triple yields. The trees provide shade, improve the availability of water, prevent soil erosion, and add nitrogen.[6] Farmers in Japan use ducks instead of pesticides for pest and weed control. The droppings provide nutrients and the ducks provide another source of protein.
The average diet consists of about 2,700 calories (3,500 if you include what is wasted). If you obtained these calories exclusively by eating beef, it could result in about 10,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents, about half the carbon budget.
Food production includes greenhouse gas emissions from converting old growth forests to agricultural land, methane gas from beef and rice production, nitrous oxide from fertilizer, and carbon dioxide from the fossil fuels required for agriculture, transport, and retail outlets. Packaging is a significant fraction of emissions, but helps to minimize food spoilage.
By 2050, we may have to feed ten billion people. Studies of organic farming have suggested that yields are too low to compete with conventional farming practices. Less impact per acre is not an advantage if we have to clear more forests to feed the world. However, a meta-analysis of 115 studies comparing organic and conventional farming by University of California researchers found that the difference is much lower than previously thought, and that certain practices could further reduce this gap to only about 8 percent.[4] Conventional agricultural practices can also improve a great deal to become more sustainable. Techniques of advanced precision agriculture that minimize water, fertilizer, and pesticide use, not only increase yields, but also minimize impact on the environment. Imported food can sometimes have a lower impact than locally produced food because shipping cost, depending on the method used, can be a small proportion of total impact. Consumer preferences to eat meat as incomes rise may mean that farming practices that are even more intensive may be required. All of this is conjecture, however. A measure of impact on the TDC scale using techniques of life cycle analysis is required to determine what the environmental cost of that head of lettuce actually is.
Although using grains to produce meat is wasteful, this does not mean that we all have to become vegetarians. We have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to eat meat. The industrial production of grains is causing many of our problems. The increase in land productivity is only possible with copious amounts of fossil fuels for fertilizers and pesticides, high water consumption, and less variety of food crops. This results in lower quality food and negative impacts on the environment. Eliminating the consumption of beef in favour of more production of grains simply enlarges this problem. The elimination of manure from animals increases reliance on artificial fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. A better approach is to get back to balanced methods of agriculture that incorporate mixed farming methods. Meat from animals grass fed on marginal land rather than grain is healthier, uses less water, and does not displace food crops.[5]
There seems to be a moral preference to farm land-based animals and to hunt fish. However, it is possible to harvest sustainably many wild animals that exist in large populations including kangaroos, deer, reindeer, and rabbits. Fish farming done the right way could be sustainable. Insects provide another large protein source already exploited in many parts of the world. A further possibility is to grow meat from muscle cells without harming a living animal. This is a long way from commercialization, but is technically feasible.
The use of more labour rather than fossil fuels reduces unemployment and increases resource use efficiency. This would allow us to grow a greater variety of food with higher levels of nutrition. Agro-ecological practices mimic nature by integrating crops and livestock with the environment. Growing crops such as maize, wheat, sorghum, millet, and vegetables alongside trees can double or even triple yields. The trees provide shade, improve the availability of water, prevent soil erosion, and add nitrogen.[6] Farmers in Japan use ducks instead of pesticides for pest and weed control. The droppings provide nutrients and the ducks provide another source of protein.
Table 2: For an average diet of 2,700 calories, the suggested limit is 3,000 kgCO2E [7]
Value |
Examples |
kgCO2E |
Includes |
Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use for energy and fertilizer production. Methane from beef and rice production Nitrous oxide Retail outlets including transport and refrigeration |
|
Emissions per year for a diet of 2,700 calories |
If your diet consisted of only beef (4 to 25 kg/kg CO2E; 13 kg average) If your diet consisted of only tomatoes (0.4 to 50 kg/kg CO2E; 9.1 kg average) If your diet consisted of only rice If your diet consisted of only bananas |
10,000 50,000 3,000 800 |
Typical emissions per year |
Packaging |
500 |
Category Two: Non-Business Use Products
The embodied greenhouse emissions of a product should be calculated according to its expected useful life. For example, over a ten year period, the embodied emissions of a television are 15 to 20 kilograms per year depending on type and size. For computers, the figure is 100 to 150 kilograms per year over a two to five year period, depending on durability—laptops have a lower life expectancy—and size. Watching television for about four hours per day typically generates 150 kilograms per year, but varies greatly according to the source of the electricity. Using a computer for four hours a day and surfing the internet, requiring servers and networks, could generate 100 to 300 kilograms per year. In contrast, a daily newspaper may generate 100 to 150 kilograms per year.
The average person buys about 10 kilograms of clothing per year. The carbon footprint varies from a low of about 50 kilograms per year for synthetic clothing and 500 kilograms for cotton. Cotton displaces food crops and requires large amounts of water and pesticides to grow. In contrast, hemp requires no fertilizers or pesticides and has a low carbon footprint. The consumption of clothing has been increasing in recent decades because of low prices and frequent changes in fashion. Getting back to wearing clothing that is more durable or by choosing more sustainable alternatives to cotton can reduce emissions substantially.
McDonough and Braungart remind us that the design of products should be effective instead of just efficient, that instead of producing less waste (less bad, in their terms), products should be designed for no waste. Instead of recycling, which usually means down-cycling, materials should be up-cycled to become techno-nutrients for other products, or made up of materials that can decompose and become bio-nutrients.[8]
Consumer choice and industrial design can have a big influence. Choices of better quality and less fashion inspired, more timeless styles and managing with fewer products could help, as well as design for repair and replacement of worn parts, or even, in the case of electronic products, completely new technologies replaced in a more durable chassis.
Marketing pressures to increase sales have induced manufacturers to create cheaper products. Added features that make a product more compelling at the point of sale often increase complexity and shorten the life of a product. Consumer products have become less sustainable during the last thirty years. In garage sales, you can find many products designed and manufactured in the 1950s that are still serviceable today. The use of durable materials, simple technologies, and replaceable parts ensured a long life.
Recently, consumer demand for green products has prompted manufacturers to make changes. Some sustainable design characteristics are more marketable than others. The use of recycled materials and low energy consumption are obvious characteristics of a “green” product. It makes sense for materials used to be recyclable, sustainably harvested, and non-toxic. Products should also be designed so that different materials can be easily separated and recycled. There are other standard principles of good design that can be even more effective in creating a sustainable product:
Approximately 10 percent of the 270 million tonnes of plastic produced every year makes its way to oceans directly from coastal areas and via streams and rivers. A large proportion of this is from single use plastic products including plastic bags, food containers, and lids for beverages. The harm that this does to oceans and aquatic life is far beyond that measured by the embodied greenhouse gases in the material itself. The solution is simple, but seldom applied: reusable products.
The embodied greenhouse emissions of a product should be calculated according to its expected useful life. For example, over a ten year period, the embodied emissions of a television are 15 to 20 kilograms per year depending on type and size. For computers, the figure is 100 to 150 kilograms per year over a two to five year period, depending on durability—laptops have a lower life expectancy—and size. Watching television for about four hours per day typically generates 150 kilograms per year, but varies greatly according to the source of the electricity. Using a computer for four hours a day and surfing the internet, requiring servers and networks, could generate 100 to 300 kilograms per year. In contrast, a daily newspaper may generate 100 to 150 kilograms per year.
The average person buys about 10 kilograms of clothing per year. The carbon footprint varies from a low of about 50 kilograms per year for synthetic clothing and 500 kilograms for cotton. Cotton displaces food crops and requires large amounts of water and pesticides to grow. In contrast, hemp requires no fertilizers or pesticides and has a low carbon footprint. The consumption of clothing has been increasing in recent decades because of low prices and frequent changes in fashion. Getting back to wearing clothing that is more durable or by choosing more sustainable alternatives to cotton can reduce emissions substantially.
McDonough and Braungart remind us that the design of products should be effective instead of just efficient, that instead of producing less waste (less bad, in their terms), products should be designed for no waste. Instead of recycling, which usually means down-cycling, materials should be up-cycled to become techno-nutrients for other products, or made up of materials that can decompose and become bio-nutrients.[8]
Consumer choice and industrial design can have a big influence. Choices of better quality and less fashion inspired, more timeless styles and managing with fewer products could help, as well as design for repair and replacement of worn parts, or even, in the case of electronic products, completely new technologies replaced in a more durable chassis.
Marketing pressures to increase sales have induced manufacturers to create cheaper products. Added features that make a product more compelling at the point of sale often increase complexity and shorten the life of a product. Consumer products have become less sustainable during the last thirty years. In garage sales, you can find many products designed and manufactured in the 1950s that are still serviceable today. The use of durable materials, simple technologies, and replaceable parts ensured a long life.
Recently, consumer demand for green products has prompted manufacturers to make changes. Some sustainable design characteristics are more marketable than others. The use of recycled materials and low energy consumption are obvious characteristics of a “green” product. It makes sense for materials used to be recyclable, sustainably harvested, and non-toxic. Products should also be designed so that different materials can be easily separated and recycled. There are other standard principles of good design that can be even more effective in creating a sustainable product:
- Create simple products: the greenest product is one not thrown away. All products, no matter how green, take energy and resources to produce and contribute to the growth of landfills when thrown away. A well-designed product will have a longer life. Simple and timeless design statements will make it less likely that a product will go out of fashion.
- Reduce the product’s weight, footprint, and overall size: Reducing the footprint of a product has several advantages from a sustainability perspective. Space on countertops and in desks, pockets, and backpacks is at a premium. One of the main reasons for throwing away an otherwise useful product is to get a new one that takes up less space. Large bulky products take up more room in shipping containers and warehouses. Products larger than necessary have a tendency to look old fashioned very quickly. Reducing the weight of a product reduces the energy required for shipping.
- Use durable materials and durable technologies: Always design a product for a long useful life. Even products that become obsolete because of changing technologies can often remain useful for longer in the second hand market or for use in developing countries.
Approximately 10 percent of the 270 million tonnes of plastic produced every year makes its way to oceans directly from coastal areas and via streams and rivers. A large proportion of this is from single use plastic products including plastic bags, food containers, and lids for beverages. The harm that this does to oceans and aquatic life is far beyond that measured by the embodied greenhouse gases in the material itself. The solution is simple, but seldom applied: reusable products.
Examples |
kgCO2E |
|
Includes |
Energy for manufacture and shipping Industrial processes Retail outlets, not including administration Computers, smartphones, televisions, and other electronics Paper, inks, and other consumables Sports equipment including snowmobiles, jet skiis, and bicycles Clothing, soft goods, personal products |
|
Emissions per year |
Television per year (over 10 years) Computer per year (over 5 years) Clothing used per year |
15-20 100-150 50-500 |
Emissions from use per year |
Watching television (32 inch LCD) 4 hours per day Daily newspaper Laundry Computer use 4 hours per day Servers and networks |
150 100-150 175 50-250 50 |
Category Three: Personal Transportation
Embodied emissions from an automobile range from 600 to 1,500 kilograms per year, depending on whether it is a small gasoline powered car or a large electric vehicle. Based on travel distance of 15,000 kilometres per year, a car with a single occupant can generate anywhere from 3,000 to 12,000 kilograms of greenhouse gases—the latter, a gas-guzzling SUV. The same distance by train generates about 1,400 kilograms per passenger, and by bus, 750 kilograms. One trans-Atlantic flight and the return generate about 5,000 kilograms of greenhouse gas. Depending on how the electricity is generated, an electric car’s impact can be almost zero if the electricity comes from low carbon sources. There is little advantage to an electric car if the electricity is produced by burning coal.
People use a certain amount of energy whether they are exercising or not and a certain amount of exercise is required to maintain health. The energy required for a distance of less than about ten kilometres per day is therefore included in the standard diet of 2,700 calories. Unless distances are long, walking or cycling, as a person’s only form of exercise, generate no extra greenhouse gases. For longer distances, the energy required can be made up with some extra carbohydrates with a low carbon footprint.
Carbon emissions from ground transportation are a source that could easily be reduced except for the general appeal of the automobile. The automobile is highly subsidized and extraordinarily expensive in environmental terms. It is also so popular that the massive infrastructure of multilane expressways, bridges, and tunnels that now exist are all hopelessly congested. Despite the overall inefficiency of this system, it is unlikely that a comprehensive system of public transport involving trains and buses could ever be set up to compete with it. Ground transport accounts for roughly 20 percent of all carbon emissions. Although fuel-efficient hyper-cars, having a tenth of the environmental impact of conventional cars, could be made with existing technology, the automobile industry is notoriously slow and reluctant to respond in this fashion. An interesting but discouraging statistic is that the average gas mileage in the United States is currently 20.8 miles per gallon. In 1988, it was 22.1. In 1908, the Model T Ford, an average car at the time, achieved 25 miles per gallon.[10]
Buses could utilize existing infrastructure and move people far more efficiently than automobiles. At an average speed of 100 kilometres per hour, 1,200 kilometres of the M25 motorway in Britain could accommodate only 19,000 passengers in automobiles, without congestion. Alternatively, coaches could provide transport for up to 260,000 passengers over the same distance.[11] What may help save the planet are driverless cars and small buses programmed for multiple stops. The technology for this is close and could eventually rival the convenience of the private car. Imagine a smartphone app where you call for transportation. In a few minutes, a driverless car or a small bus comes and picks you up. A comprehensive system like Google Maps determines the most efficient routes, dynamically eliminating waits and congestion. People working from home, virtual meetings, and home delivery could also reduce the amount of travelling required. Better cycling and walking infrastructure, less affected by automobile noise and pollution, would help to reduce emissions.
The one area of transportation that will be the most difficult to improve is long distance international air travel. The environmental cost of getting halfway around the world in a few hours is enormous and there is little reason to believe than much can be done technologically, now or in the future, to change this. To meet our target of sustainability, the luxury of frequent plane journeys to faraway places will have to be sharply curtailed. High-speed trains are not much better and require huge capital costs to set up. Some may consider this a significant loss of prosperity, but one way to counteract this is with an increase in leisure time. With more time on our hands, other opportunities for long distance travel are possible, without involving the same degree of fossil fuel use. For example, airships suspended by hydrogen with an airspeed of around 130 kilometres per hour could get from London to New York in forty-three hours.[12] The experience could be cheaper in environmental terms, but otherwise comparable to a cruise or a scenic train journey.
Embodied emissions from an automobile range from 600 to 1,500 kilograms per year, depending on whether it is a small gasoline powered car or a large electric vehicle. Based on travel distance of 15,000 kilometres per year, a car with a single occupant can generate anywhere from 3,000 to 12,000 kilograms of greenhouse gases—the latter, a gas-guzzling SUV. The same distance by train generates about 1,400 kilograms per passenger, and by bus, 750 kilograms. One trans-Atlantic flight and the return generate about 5,000 kilograms of greenhouse gas. Depending on how the electricity is generated, an electric car’s impact can be almost zero if the electricity comes from low carbon sources. There is little advantage to an electric car if the electricity is produced by burning coal.
People use a certain amount of energy whether they are exercising or not and a certain amount of exercise is required to maintain health. The energy required for a distance of less than about ten kilometres per day is therefore included in the standard diet of 2,700 calories. Unless distances are long, walking or cycling, as a person’s only form of exercise, generate no extra greenhouse gases. For longer distances, the energy required can be made up with some extra carbohydrates with a low carbon footprint.
Carbon emissions from ground transportation are a source that could easily be reduced except for the general appeal of the automobile. The automobile is highly subsidized and extraordinarily expensive in environmental terms. It is also so popular that the massive infrastructure of multilane expressways, bridges, and tunnels that now exist are all hopelessly congested. Despite the overall inefficiency of this system, it is unlikely that a comprehensive system of public transport involving trains and buses could ever be set up to compete with it. Ground transport accounts for roughly 20 percent of all carbon emissions. Although fuel-efficient hyper-cars, having a tenth of the environmental impact of conventional cars, could be made with existing technology, the automobile industry is notoriously slow and reluctant to respond in this fashion. An interesting but discouraging statistic is that the average gas mileage in the United States is currently 20.8 miles per gallon. In 1988, it was 22.1. In 1908, the Model T Ford, an average car at the time, achieved 25 miles per gallon.[10]
Buses could utilize existing infrastructure and move people far more efficiently than automobiles. At an average speed of 100 kilometres per hour, 1,200 kilometres of the M25 motorway in Britain could accommodate only 19,000 passengers in automobiles, without congestion. Alternatively, coaches could provide transport for up to 260,000 passengers over the same distance.[11] What may help save the planet are driverless cars and small buses programmed for multiple stops. The technology for this is close and could eventually rival the convenience of the private car. Imagine a smartphone app where you call for transportation. In a few minutes, a driverless car or a small bus comes and picks you up. A comprehensive system like Google Maps determines the most efficient routes, dynamically eliminating waits and congestion. People working from home, virtual meetings, and home delivery could also reduce the amount of travelling required. Better cycling and walking infrastructure, less affected by automobile noise and pollution, would help to reduce emissions.
The one area of transportation that will be the most difficult to improve is long distance international air travel. The environmental cost of getting halfway around the world in a few hours is enormous and there is little reason to believe than much can be done technologically, now or in the future, to change this. To meet our target of sustainability, the luxury of frequent plane journeys to faraway places will have to be sharply curtailed. High-speed trains are not much better and require huge capital costs to set up. Some may consider this a significant loss of prosperity, but one way to counteract this is with an increase in leisure time. With more time on our hands, other opportunities for long distance travel are possible, without involving the same degree of fossil fuel use. For example, airships suspended by hydrogen with an airspeed of around 130 kilometres per hour could get from London to New York in forty-three hours.[12] The experience could be cheaper in environmental terms, but otherwise comparable to a cruise or a scenic train journey.
Examples |
kgCO2E |
|
Includes |
Energy used Vehicles including automobiles, airplanes, and ships Retail outlets, transport |
|
Embodied emissions per year |
Conventional automobile (200,000 km) Electric car (200,000 km) Bicycle (10 years) |
600-900 1,000-1,400 80 |
Emissions from travel of 15,000 km per year |
By conventional car (one passenger per car) By electric car (depending on source of electricity) By train By bus One trans-Atlantic flight and return (15,000 km) Walking or cycling less than 10 km per day Walking or cycling 40 km per day (15,000 km) |
3,000-12,000 0-4,500 1,400-2,500 300 5,000 0 800 |
Category Four: Residential
For the American average of 77 square metres per person (800 square feet per person) and a house that lasts thirty-five years, the average embodied emissions per person works out to about 1,100 kilograms per year. If the space requirements could be reduced to about 30 square metres per person—more typical in Europe—and houses could last 100 years, the carbon footprint could be reduced to 300 kilograms per year. Energy used typically results in emissions of about 1,600 kilograms per year, but this in theory could be reduced to zero with energy efficient construction and on-site generation of geothermal or solar-based power.
The built environment represents a missed opportunity on a massive scale when it comes to solving the problems of the environment. Although buildings in North America use almost half of all energy consumed, they could be built, at little extra cost, to consume practically no energy. Making houses significantly smaller and of higher quality so that they last much longer would dramatically reduce the amount of resources consumed. The reason they are not is due to a lack of appropriate regulation and the wrong market incentives. Builders will add granite countertops to kitchens to help sell a unit, but if they can remove a feature not apparent at the point of sale, it is more money in their pocket.
The Passivhaus, developed in Germany in the 1980s, has had a slow uptake in the market despite costing less than 10 percent more than conventional construction—the cost of more expensive features is offset by less need for a heating or cooling system. Buildings so constructed would cost more in the short term, but considerably less over the life of the building. Proper regulation could have made a big difference. Simple changes to building codes would add many useful and energy saving features such as heat recovery ventilation, extra insulation, and means of optimizing solar gain. Unfortunately, existing housing stock cannot be replaced overnight, so upgrades and the replacement of fossil fuel energy sources with those derived from solar will be required.
For the American average of 77 square metres per person (800 square feet per person) and a house that lasts thirty-five years, the average embodied emissions per person works out to about 1,100 kilograms per year. If the space requirements could be reduced to about 30 square metres per person—more typical in Europe—and houses could last 100 years, the carbon footprint could be reduced to 300 kilograms per year. Energy used typically results in emissions of about 1,600 kilograms per year, but this in theory could be reduced to zero with energy efficient construction and on-site generation of geothermal or solar-based power.
The built environment represents a missed opportunity on a massive scale when it comes to solving the problems of the environment. Although buildings in North America use almost half of all energy consumed, they could be built, at little extra cost, to consume practically no energy. Making houses significantly smaller and of higher quality so that they last much longer would dramatically reduce the amount of resources consumed. The reason they are not is due to a lack of appropriate regulation and the wrong market incentives. Builders will add granite countertops to kitchens to help sell a unit, but if they can remove a feature not apparent at the point of sale, it is more money in their pocket.
The Passivhaus, developed in Germany in the 1980s, has had a slow uptake in the market despite costing less than 10 percent more than conventional construction—the cost of more expensive features is offset by less need for a heating or cooling system. Buildings so constructed would cost more in the short term, but considerably less over the life of the building. Proper regulation could have made a big difference. Simple changes to building codes would add many useful and energy saving features such as heat recovery ventilation, extra insulation, and means of optimizing solar gain. Unfortunately, existing housing stock cannot be replaced overnight, so upgrades and the replacement of fossil fuel energy sources with those derived from solar will be required.
Examples |
kgCO2E |
|
Includes |
Energy for heating and cooling Building and landscaping Interior furnishings Household appliances |
|
Embodied emissions per year |
House that lasts 35 years (77 m2/person) High rise apartment that lasts 100 years (30 m2/person) Vinyl floor covering (77 m2/person) Large appliance |
1,100 300 400 20 |
Emissions per year |
Energy used (77 m2/person) Energy used (30 m2/person) Washing dishes (dishwasher) Washing dishes (by hand) |
1,600 600 150 700 |
Category Five: Private, Corporate and Non-Government Organizations
Almost everyone in an advanced industrialized country has a second home—the office where they work. The average twenty square metres per person results in about 400 kilograms per year of embodied greenhouse gas emissions in the building and operating energy of 1,800 kilograms per year, assuming office buildings last fifty years. If space per person could be reduced to ten square metres, and buildings could last 100 years, the embodied carbon dioxide and equivalents could be reduced by 75 percent. As with houses, there is no reason why office buildings could not be built to require very little energy for heating and cooling, and energy required could be easily supplied with solar sources.
Table 8: For private, corporate and non-government organizations, the suggested limit is 2,000 kg CO2E.[20]
Whereas an eco-efficient building minimizes energy and water use by making windows smaller and reducing ventilation, an eco-effective building creates its own energy, recycles water used, and collects rainwater. The building is designed to maximize natural airflows and natural light. A layer of native grasses covers the roof.[15]
Almost everyone in an advanced industrialized country has a second home—the office where they work. The average twenty square metres per person results in about 400 kilograms per year of embodied greenhouse gas emissions in the building and operating energy of 1,800 kilograms per year, assuming office buildings last fifty years. If space per person could be reduced to ten square metres, and buildings could last 100 years, the embodied carbon dioxide and equivalents could be reduced by 75 percent. As with houses, there is no reason why office buildings could not be built to require very little energy for heating and cooling, and energy required could be easily supplied with solar sources.
Table 8: For private, corporate and non-government organizations, the suggested limit is 2,000 kg CO2E.[20]
Whereas an eco-efficient building minimizes energy and water use by making windows smaller and reducing ventilation, an eco-effective building creates its own energy, recycles water used, and collects rainwater. The building is designed to maximize natural airflows and natural light. A layer of native grasses covers the roof.[15]
Table 6: For private, corporate and non-government organizations, the suggested limit is 2,000 kgCO2E [16]
Examples |
kgCO2E |
|
Includes |
Energy for heating and cooling Transportation Buildings, equipment, and infrastructure Film industry and theatres Data storage, internet, and social networking Other consumption by businesses |
|
Embodied emissions per year |
Office that lasts 50 years (20 m2/person) Office that lasts 100 years (10 m2/person) |
400 100 |
Emissions per year |
Operational energy (20 m2/person) |
1,800 |
Category Six: Public Services
Growth in infrastructure is the primary reason that developing countries like China and India are achieving double-digit growth. The cost of the infrastructure, created in the short term, should be mortgaged over its life. The size of the economy should be determined by an equation to reflect current consumption plus the cost of maintenance of current infrastructure plus the yearly cost of infrastructure created. Thought of in this way, the economic growth in developing countries would be negligible because they have so little pre-existing infrastructure to maintain and repair. In the developed countries, we can aim to reduce consumption and use this slack in the economy to produce more infrastructure for more efficient transportation networks, and more efficient energy systems with solar sources rather than non-renewable resources.
Growth in infrastructure is the primary reason that developing countries like China and India are achieving double-digit growth. The cost of the infrastructure, created in the short term, should be mortgaged over its life. The size of the economy should be determined by an equation to reflect current consumption plus the cost of maintenance of current infrastructure plus the yearly cost of infrastructure created. Thought of in this way, the economic growth in developing countries would be negligible because they have so little pre-existing infrastructure to maintain and repair. In the developed countries, we can aim to reduce consumption and use this slack in the economy to produce more infrastructure for more efficient transportation networks, and more efficient energy systems with solar sources rather than non-renewable resources.
Examples |
kgCO2E |
|
Includes |
Energy used Buildings Infrastructure including roads, railways, and airports Hospitals and universities |
|
Embodied emissions per year |
Office that lasts 50 years (20 m2/person) Office that lasts 100 years (10 m2/person) |
400 100 |
Emissions per year |
Typical school or university per student over 20 years |
1,400 |
[1] Based on 2012 data from World Resources Institute.
[2] Based on 2012 data from World Resources Institute and 2004 data from Steven J. Davis and Ken Caldeira, “Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions,” PNAS, March 23, 2010, vol. 107, no. 12, 5687–5692. The PNAS analysis only includes carbon dioxide.
[3] Based on data from Matthew Brander et al., “Electricity-specific emission factors for grid electricity,” Ecometrica, August 2011.
[4] L. C. Ponisio, L. K. M’Gonigle, K. C. Mace, J. Palomino, P. de Valpine, C. Kremen, “Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap,” Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20141396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396., 2015
[5] Grass fed beef grown on marginal land can have an impact as low as 4 kg. per kgCO2E compared with a high of 25 kg. and the world average of 13 kg.
[6] Danielle Nierenberg, “Agriculture: Growing Food—Solutions,” in Eric Assadourian and Prugh, Project Directors, World Watch Institute, State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? (Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press, 2013), Chapter 17.
[7] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011).
[8] William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 105-109.
[9] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011).
[10] George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, (Random House LLC, Mar 19, 2009), 155-156.
[11] Ibid, 150.
[12] Ibid, 186.
[13] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011); http://Shrinkthatfootprint.com “Shades of Green: Electric Cars’ Emissions Around the Globe;” BRANZ study report 150.
[14] Data from Roger Hitchin, “Embodied Carbon and Building Services,” CIBSE Research Report 9 (2013). A typical house embodies 500 kg/m2, a high rise about 1,000 kg/m2. The energy used is based on 21 kg/m2.
[15] See McDonough’s design for the Ford Motor Company in William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 157-165.
[16] Data from Roger Hitchin, “Embodied Carbon and Building Services,” CIBSE Research Report 9 (2013).
[17] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011); Roger Hitchin, “Embodied Carbon and Building Services,” CIBSE Research Report 9 (2013).
[2] Based on 2012 data from World Resources Institute and 2004 data from Steven J. Davis and Ken Caldeira, “Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions,” PNAS, March 23, 2010, vol. 107, no. 12, 5687–5692. The PNAS analysis only includes carbon dioxide.
[3] Based on data from Matthew Brander et al., “Electricity-specific emission factors for grid electricity,” Ecometrica, August 2011.
[4] L. C. Ponisio, L. K. M’Gonigle, K. C. Mace, J. Palomino, P. de Valpine, C. Kremen, “Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap,” Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20141396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396., 2015
[5] Grass fed beef grown on marginal land can have an impact as low as 4 kg. per kgCO2E compared with a high of 25 kg. and the world average of 13 kg.
[6] Danielle Nierenberg, “Agriculture: Growing Food—Solutions,” in Eric Assadourian and Prugh, Project Directors, World Watch Institute, State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? (Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press, 2013), Chapter 17.
[7] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011).
[8] William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 105-109.
[9] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011).
[10] George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, (Random House LLC, Mar 19, 2009), 155-156.
[11] Ibid, 150.
[12] Ibid, 186.
[13] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011); http://Shrinkthatfootprint.com “Shades of Green: Electric Cars’ Emissions Around the Globe;” BRANZ study report 150.
[14] Data from Roger Hitchin, “Embodied Carbon and Building Services,” CIBSE Research Report 9 (2013). A typical house embodies 500 kg/m2, a high rise about 1,000 kg/m2. The energy used is based on 21 kg/m2.
[15] See McDonough’s design for the Ford Motor Company in William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 157-165.
[16] Data from Roger Hitchin, “Embodied Carbon and Building Services,” CIBSE Research Report 9 (2013).
[17] Based on data from Mike Berners-Lee, How Bad are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything, (Vancouver, Toronto, Berkeley: Greystone Books, 2011); Roger Hitchin, “Embodied Carbon and Building Services,” CIBSE Research Report 9 (2013).