Household Consumption Significant Driver of Climate, Other Environmental Impacts

Environmental Footprint: The world’s workshop  - China - surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on Earth in 2007. But if you consider that nearly all of the products that China produces, from iPhones to tee-shirts, are exported to the rest of the world, the picture looks very different.

“If you look at China’s per capita consumption-based (environmental) footprint, it is small,” says Diana Ivanova, a PhD candidate at Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s Industrial Ecology Programme. “They produce a lot of products but they export them. It’s different if you put the responsibility for those impacts on the consumer, as opposed to the producer.”

Household consumption biggest threat to planet.

That’s exactly what Ivanova and her colleagues did when they looked at the environmental impact from a consumer perspective in 43 different countries and 5 rest-of-the-world regions. Their analysis, recently published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, showed that consumers are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the globe’s greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 80 per cent of the world’s water use.

“We all like to put the blame on someone else, the government, or businesses,” Ivanova says. “But between 60-80 per cent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption. If we change our consumption habits, this would have a drastic effect on our environmental footprint as well.”

The analysis allowed Ivanova and her colleagues to see that consumers are directly responsible for 20 per cent of all carbon impacts, which result from when people drive their cars and heat their homes.
But even more surprising is that four-fifths of the impacts that can be attributed to consumers are not direct impacts, like the fuel we burn when we drive our cars, but are what are called secondary impacts, or the environmental effects from actually producing the goods and products that we buy.

A good example of this, Ivanova says, is water use.

Cows, not showers.

When you think about cutting your individual water use, you might think about using your dishwasher very efficiently, or taking shorter showers.

Those aren’t bad ideas on their own, but if you look deeper, like the NTNU researchers did, you’ll find that much of the water use on the planet is gulped up by producing the things that you buy.

 Consider beef. Producing beef requires lots of water because cows eat grains that need water to grow. But because cows are relatively inefficient in converting grains into the meat that we eat, it takes on average about 15,415 litres of water to produce one kilo of beef.

Dairy products require similarly large amounts of water to produce.

When a group of Dutch researchers looked at the difference in producing a litre of soy milk with soybeans grown in Belgium compared to producing a litre of cow’s milk, they found it took 297 liters of water to make the soy milk (with 62 per cent of that from actually growing the soybeans) versus a global average of 1050 liters of water to produce a liter of cow’s milk.

Processed foods, like that frozen pizza you bought for dinner last night, are also disproportionately high in water consumption, Ivanova said. Making processed foods requires energy, materials and water to grow the raw materials, ship them to the processor, produce the processed food items and then package the final product.

This is particularly bad news when it comes to chocolate, which is one of the most water-intensive products we can buy. It takes a shocking 17,000 liters to produce a kilo of chocolate.

Richer countries, larger impacts

The researchers also looked at environmental impacts on a per-capita, country-by-country basis.

Renewable energy for home use key factor.

While the information is sometimes surprising—Luxembourg has a per capita carbon footprint that is nearly the same as the United States—it mostly follows a predictable pattern. The richer a country is, the more its inhabitants consume. The more an individual consumes, the bigger that person’s impact on the planet.

But the differences between individual countries are extremely high, Ivanova said.

“The countries with the highest consumption have about a 5.5 times higher environmental impact as the world average,” she said.

The United States is the overall worst performer when it comes to per capita greenhouse gas emissions, with a per capita carbon footprint of 18.6 tonnes CO₂ equivalent, the unit used by researchers to express the sum of the impacts of different greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride.

The US was followed closely by Luxembourg, with 18.5 tons CO₂ equivalent, and Australia, with 17.7 tons CO₂ equivalent. For comparison, China’s per capita carbon footprint was just 1.8 tons CO₂ equivalent. Norway, at 10.3 tons CO₂ equivalent per capita, was three times the global average of 3.4 tons CO₂ equivalent per capita.

The results for individual countries also reflect the effects of the electricity mix, or the fuel source that countries rely on for electric power. The prevalence of nuclear or hydroelectric power in countries such as Sweden, France, Japan and Norway means that these countries have lower carbon footprints than countries with similar incomes but with more fossil fuels in their energy mix.

 For this reason, Ivanova says, a significant portion of household impacts from Sweden and France come from imports (65 and 51 per cent respectively), because the products that are imported are mostly produced with fossil fuels.

An enormous database allows comparisons.

The researchers relied on an extremely large and detailed database that NTNU developed in partnership with colleagues from the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Denmark called EXIOBASE.

The database describes the world economy for 43 countries, five rest-of-the-world regions and 200 product sectors, which allows researchers to ask questions about how different products or countries affect the environment.

Environmental impact for countries based on household consumption.

They were also able to ask how an average consumer in each of the countries or regions affects the environment as measured by greenhouse gas emissions (tons CO₂ equivalent), water use (in cubic meters), land use (in 1000 square meters) and material use (in tons).

The 43 countries represent 89 per cent of the global gross domestic product and between 80-90 per cent of the trade flow in Europe, as measured by value.

No surprises: take the bus, eat vegetarian or vegan

The advantage of identifying the effects of individual consumer choices on the different environmental measures is that it pinpoints where consumers in different countries can cut back on their impacts.

“Households have a relatively large degree of control over their consumption, but they often lack accurate and actionable information on how to improve their own environmental performance,” the researchers wrote in the journal article reporting their results.

Eventually, the goal is to be able to use this information to guide policy, Ivanova said. The effort is a part of the GLAMURS project, an EU-funded effort designed to promote greener lifestyles and environmentally responsible consumption in Europe.

In the meantime, two easy ways to cut your environmental impact are to stop eating meat, and cut back on your purchases, she said.

Currently, EU consumers spend 13% of their total household budget on manufactured products. If the average EU consumer switches away from spending money on these manufactured products to paying for services instead, this would cut close to 12 per cent of the EU’s current household carbon footprint, Ivanova said.

 “Any activity where we have a choice of buying a product or using a service, the service will have much less impact,” she said.

Source: Gemini

 

Solar Power on the Rise

Philadelphia’s Temple University To Host 63kW Solar Plant (via Clean Technica)

Temple University’s Edberg-Olson Hall will soon be home to a 63 kilowatt solar array on its south-facing roof, the school’s website reports. The plant will be built, owned, and maintained by Philadelphia-based Community Energy Inc. The power that…

Related articles

 

• Discreet Solar Power For Your Roof
• EnerPlex Packr Backpack Keeps Your Gadgets Going with a Built-In Solar Charger
• Robo Raven Flies on Solar Power
• Why Demand Is Rising for Big Solar Projects

We are better than this

    

Image via Wikipedia

Clean energy: surging in a tough economy.

As the saying goes, 'the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.' And since I'm weary of hot places, especially after this summer's record heat (be it the result of global warming or not), I'm compelled to talk some politics.

Recently I received an alert from the environmental community that bill h.r. 2584 is still slithering across the House floor in Washington, with Congress poised to set it loose upon the world. The bill essentially strips away many sensible, important tools from the EPA and related public groups that help to keep them protecting and administering our nation's clean air and water laws. It's a full assault on America's environment and on emerging clean energy industries, coming straight from the radical wing of the Tea Party. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), who's been working to mitigate the controversial and hidden economic and ecologic costs of mountain-top coal removal in his region, recently described the bill as "the most anti-environmental legislation ever."

My high school recital of W.B. Yeats' words from The Second Coming stirs in my mind:

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

This budget and debt debate has ruptured our country like nothing before. And because it has recently spilled into Home Science turf, I felt it was time, at least for the moment, not to 'maintain neutrality' and to wield the mighty pen with an op-ed in my local newspapers.

Hence, last week the following note from me appeared in suburban Philadelphia newspapers The Doylestown Intelligencer, The Courier Times, and The Burlington County Times...

Jobs, the Debt, and the Recovery:

The causes of the deep recession were many years in the making, and they won't be solved overnight. President Obama has made it clear that we can reduce our deficits while making investments needed to create good jobs and grow our economy — investments in job-creating areas like education, infrastructure, clean energy and cutting-edge research and technology. Investments that truly help middle-class families like mine.

Yet the GOP seems determined to block any means to foster such growth in these delicate times. The Republicans' cure all for our economy is simple-minded: a hasty elimination of debt, and by whatever immediate means available, mostly at the expense of middle-class families. In fact, one ranking Republican lawmaker said last week he's willing to cause "serious disruptions" in the economy to keep our debt ceiling from being raised.

Our president is a firewall against such recklessness. The GOP's methods include a scorched-earth policy toward jobs and investment. If Republicans get their way, later this year millions of Americans will have less money to spend, there will be less economic demand and more money will be zapped out of the economy at a time when we need it most. One might start to wonder if maybe helping the economy isn't really the GOP's top goal. 

(Link to original published article: www.phillyburbs.com).

EPA's Lisa P. Jackson, Phila Mayor Nutter, Earth Day. Image: D.A DeMers.

Now believe me, in contrast to that letter, I'd prefer to write about home energy savings, on ways to make a furnace or boiler more efficient, on weatherization tactics, the latest advances in solar technology, wind turbines, or other items related to renewable energy and energy efficiency - the stuff we focus on here at Home Science.

Instead, I've found myself forced to step across the muck flowing from our politicians in Washington. Plainly stated, I'm just a regular middle-class guy working for a green economy who can put a sentence or two together. I am not a muckraker.

So to the politicians of any affiliation, I plead for sensibility on these issues. Please do not take away the tools we need to remain on the path of an environmentally sustainable economic future, a future that shows to the world the essence of true competitive American ingenuity.--D.A. DeMers.



Coming soon to Home Science - The State of Innovation: PA clean tech start-ups are pulling the economy to a new more energy efficient frontier. Don't get left behind!

 

Related articles

• Does the debt deal 'gut the EPA'? (gcvconservation.wordpress.com)
• Lewis Milford: Debt Deal Puts States Back in Clean Energy Driver's Seat (huffingtonpost.com)
• Business voice: EPA protects health, spurs job creation in clean energy sector (thehill.com)
• Who Will Win The Clean-Energy Revolution? (project-syndicate.org)
• Army to Invest $7.1bn in Clean Energy Through Private Sector (treehugger.com)

The "State" of Clean Energy

Image via WikipediaA press release from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory outlines a new study linking the growth of clean energy with individual state policies. Some interesting findings are included. Sourced with permission from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

States’ policies are important to solar and wind energy development and in reducing energy use says a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The findings are in report, State of the States 2010: The Role of Policy in Clean Energy Market Transformation.

“This report shows the importance of the state and local policy in encouraging clean energy market development,” said Mike Pacheco, NREL vice president of Deployment & Market Transformation. “Specifically, state policymakers may be more effective at driving clean energy investment using a suite of policies and keeping the policies in place longer.”

Building on an emerging body of literature identifying connections between state policy and renewable energy, the State of States 2010 report quantifies the connection between state clean energy policies, renewable energy development and actual reductions in energy use. Renewable energy use increased 3 percent across the United States in 2010, the report says.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory map, via Wikimedia

It is the first time energy efficiency has been considered in this type of analysis, and the report shows significant connections between reduced energy use and building codes, electricity prices and, in some cases, energy efficiency resource standards. Even though state policies might apply to a wide variety of renewable energy resources, the analysis shows that most often there’s a relationship between policy and solar and wind development. So, if states tailor policy to other resources, it might help increase development of renewable energy sources in addition to solar and wind.

“State policy efforts can help sustain the good work started by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in creating economic development opportunities through clean energy,” said LeAnn M. Oliver, DOE Weatherization & Intergovernmental Program Manager. “State of the States 2010 offers practical information to policymakers on how to further promote those policies.”

To track the progress of the states and regions toward a clean energy economy, NREL also provided the analysis and findings for DOE’s 2009 U.S. State Clean Energy Data Book. The data book, published in October 2010, summarizes the status of state-level energy efficiency and renewable energy developments and supporting policy implementation, and can be accessed as a PDF and as an interactive data analysis tool. It identifies the states and regions leading in overall renewable energy capacity and energy efficiency policy. Key findings include:

• In 2009, Maine had the largest percentage—23 percent—of non-hydro renewable generation, mostly from bioenergy.

• Texas leads the country in total non-hydro installed renewable energy capacity.

• California is the leader in solar energy installed capacity.

• Oregon, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania have the strictest building codes, which require high efficiency in commercial and residential construction

NREL provided the analysis for both the State of the States 2010 report and the U.S. State Clean Energy Data Book under its Clean Energy Policy Analyses project. To learn more about CEPA, visit www.nrel.gov/cepa.

NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Related articles

• DOE Can Fund More Renewable Energy (newsfortheproactive.com)
• CU-Boulder leading study of wind turbine wakes (eurekalert.org)
• EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (ees2001.wordpress.com)
• Brown Signs Renewable Energy Mandate (yubanet.com)
• Colorado Applauded for its Leadership in the Cleantech Industry (nowpublic.com)