On the first page of the Freep's Living section, an article tries to show how you can reduce your "carbon diet" in your neighborhood. The boxed insert, titled What You Can Do, makes almost no sense to me (unfortunately, they are not available on line). To reduce your carbon emissions, they urge you to
Use power strips for appliances, and turn off or unplug appliances when they're not in use.
Plugging your appliances into a power strip saves no energy. It may make it easier to turn off your appliances when not in use, but there's no energy saving.
Compost....keep food waste out of the landfill.
The only way I can figure that this reduces your emissions of carbon is because you're not having your food waste trucked to a landfill. Somehow, I don't think that's what the proponents had in mind.
Lower the temperature to 120 degrees on the water heater.
OK, I'll buy that one. But there may be a cost here. Will the lower water temperature be high enough to kill bacteria on your dirty dishes? My understanding is that you need a temperature of 140 F.
Pick one day a week when you walk, ride the bus, or don't buy anything.
Walking and riding the bus I can understand, but not buying anything? So I don't buy anything on Wednesdays. I just buy what I would have bought on Wednesday on Tuesday and Thursday. What have I accomplished, other than making my life more complicated?
Buy local foods.
The jury is still out on that one. It's not at all clear that the carbon cost of growing and transporting food from a local farm to a local store is less than that of growing and transporting food in large quantities from somewhere far away to your local store
Out of five recommendations, most would have little, if any, impact.
So, how do you get people to reduce their carbon footprint? The best way is to raise the price of using carbon. Gasoline at $3.50 a gallon does just that. People scream and legislators try to legislate it away, but anyone who is truly in favor of getting people to use less energy should hope that $3.50, or $4.00 a gallon gas is here to stay.
On Earth Day, I bought a new car.
The good news is that, since my old car had been running for a good 6 months with the “Check engine” light on, I’m probably fouling the air less than I was the day before.
Posted by: Tarunkjuyal | April 24, 2008 at 08:07 AM
Professor Woolf,
Unplugging appliances that are powered by electricity generated from hydro and nuclear does nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
Mr. Tarunkjval,
Or could you have serviced your existing vehicle by simply replacing an oxygen sensor, EGR valve, DPFE sensor, adjusting the fuel mixture or replacing the catalytic converter. You are most definitely probably fouling the air less with your new car, but I am not sure the proponents of Earth Day intended for it to be a day to consume more given they want us to buy less. Regardless, I hope you are enjoying your new vehicle ... nothing quite like the comfort and security of a new vehicle.
Sincerely,
James Ehlers
Posted by: James Ehlers | April 24, 2008 at 10:12 AM
The intent of using power strips is to physically cut the connection to the attached devices because most consumer appliances have 'phantom loads' meaning, they consume electricity even while turned off.
Posted by: Greg Decker | April 24, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Greg Decker is correct. I am told that phantom loads from appliances that one supposes are "off" are quite significant.
Posted by: Bill Polk | April 24, 2008 at 08:50 PM
Hi Art -
I think you dismiss eating local too quickly. Do you have economic data that shows that large, factory farms use less energy to produce more food than smaller operations in Vermont, and further shows that trucking it to distribution points, then to local stores is less energy intensive? It might be true, but seems anti-intuitive.
We're eating local more, and also changing what we eat - so more honey and maple syrup as a sweetener than sugar. We're using more cheese and dried local beans than nuts for protein. We're also raising our own animals for meat, dairy and eggs.
You know I trust you as an economist - so please do a more detailed posting on this issue, with some hard data?
Best,
Mary
Posted by: Mary Barrosse Schwartz | April 26, 2008 at 12:39 PM
In response to Mary's question, I don't have a cite for an academic study, but here is a good piece from the Boston Globe last summer on the subject. It even comes with a Vermont lead:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/22/the_localvores_dilemma/?page=1
And here's one from Tim Harford, who writes for the Financial Times and is the author of The Undercover Economist, a great introduction to economics, with not a graph in the book.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3bf7f32-f819-11da-9481-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1
Posted by: Art Woolf | April 26, 2008 at 09:32 PM
Mary I'm just curious what is local? Is it within 1 mile? 5 miles? 20 miles? Or does local follow arbitrary borders such as towns, states, and countries? I need to know what local is before I can buy local. And does everyone need to limit themselves to working and vacationing local as well?
Posted by: GreggB | April 27, 2008 at 04:07 PM
Why the "factory' modifier before the word farm? Is that something that is supposed to frighten or disgust us? When all farm work wasdone by hand, was the addition of draft animal power viewed as becoming 'factory farming'?
While we are adding adjectives, how about "industrial environmental advocacy"?
Posted by: Lazarus Long | April 28, 2008 at 08:13 AM
What I find alarming about producing food on a very large scale (like a factory) is the ability of a few bad actors to hurt many millions of people by pushing downer cattle down the kill chute. (Westland Hallmark, Feb 08)
Art - I'm not sure 2 magazine articles (even one in FT) are going to convince Vermonters who have embraced the localvore idea that food shipped thousands of miles are somehow having less of an impact on the environment. The first article stressed that the scale was tipped if food produced locally used fossil fuels to grow out of season. That's surely not what localvores are proposing.
We eat local food in season, and I grow foods using passive solar energy in a greenhouse to extend the season. No or little use of fossil foods here.
I do love my coffee, avocados, and citrus of all kinds, though Art. But I surely wouldn't dismiss the idea of eating local as an environmental effort so easily.
Best to you,
Mary
And - I do switch off power strips for the computer, tv, dvd player, and some other electronics because of that phantom power load.
Posted by: Mary Barrosse Schwartz | April 28, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I'm still wondering, within how many miles is local? And if we are floating coffee beans and avocados up here at pennies/low fuel a ton what's the harm in throwing in some tomatoes?
If we buy enough of their produce they will be able to afford our maple syrup, why send the boat back empty. On the other hand perhaps maple sugaring should be outlawed based on how much energy/carbon it takes to make the stuff.
Posted by: GreggB | April 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM