Walk the Talk: figuring out a “carbon footprint”
March 7, 2008
Hey there all. Welcome to yet another new section of the CEP blog. This one is in response to the emails that people send to me privately, asking – what do YOU do to cut your carbon consumption? What does YOUR carbon footprint look like?
The short answer: I’m learning as I go. Note the title – “walk the talk.” Please remember that all too often, walking involves tripping and falling on one’s face. Likewise, talking often involves tripping on one’s tongue. This pretty much sums up my experience so far with trying to reduce my family’s carbon footprint.
First: What exactly is a carbon footprint? It’s a phrase that only recently became mainstream, and understandably lots of people aren’t sure what it means.
As far as I know, the phrase “carbon footprint” comes from the term “ecological footprint.” Before carbon dioxide and climate change burst upon the public awareness, plenty of folks were already concerned about their larger ecological impact on the world and resources around them. Ecology is the science that studies the interconnections of all living organisms, and how they interact with their physical surroundings. Over time, ecology has also emerged as a popular idea, even an ethos – the principle that humans shouldn’t use more than their fair share of resources, and those that they do use, they should do so with some sense of limits or restraint.
A carbon footprint is a more focused version of an ecological footprint. Your carbon footprint represents your activities that produce carbon dioxide emissions. (Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that helps contribute to global warming, which leads to climate change.) I’m laughing as I write that, though, because – really, what human activities DON’T produce carbon dioxide on some level?
About here is where many people do indeed throw up their hands and walk away. A carbon footprint can be very hard to calculate. There are plenty of websites where you can try (American Forests, for example, or the EPA’s). However, often all these calculators do is depress the living daylights out of you. Some do offer solutions at the end, but those small actions often seem way too minor to reduce such a huge impact.
I find it also helps to understand the larger context – the general categories of human activities that produce carbon dioxide. Most of them are the result of burning fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and petroleum for electrical generation, transportation, heating and cooling buildings, industrial uses, etc.
It also helps to understand the major ways you can reduce a carbon footprint – using energy more efficiently (energy efficiency), consuming less energy to begin with (energy conservation), developing renewable energy, and supporting environmental practices that sequester carbon in the soil or in other natural carbon sinks.
So. What my husband and I try to do in our daily lives to reduce our carbon footprint. Read more.
Working at home today. Advantages: big giant monitor, ergonomic keyboard, comfortable chair, woodstove. Disadvantages: dish for internet. Which explains why the blog posts are coming a little slow today. Also watching an incredibly cute possum do its best to get to the bird feeder. (Ain’t gonna happen, sweetie.)
Pretty clearly the dogs have not yet caught sight of the possum. Or else I would no longer have functioning eardrums. Pretty clearly no other humans are around, either, because many folks are not big fans of possums. As long as he/she stays out of the feeder, though, I don’t have any particular problem.
Net metering. So cool, I just had to post it: The Colorado legislature just passed the Homegrown Renewable Energy Act, which allows homeowners, ranchers, etc., to receive a fair price for selling the excess energy they generate with wind and solar back to the grid (Rocky Mountain News).
Colorado already had good net metering statutes in place, but this legislation improves the financial benefits for home generators. The point of net metering is to offer incentives for homeowners to install renewable energy. The Colorado legislation is very different on many key points from the net metering for solar provisions currently included in the Holcomb/ energy bill to go before Kansas Governor Sebelius.
FYI, on Thursday March 13 at 9:15, the House Committee on Energy and Utilities is receiving a briefing on net metering and renewable portfolio standards from Trudy Forsyth of the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL).
Rural Development/ Energy Efficiency and Renewables. We’ve covered a lot here lately regarding the USDA’s RUS program suspending financing for coal-fired power plants for 2008 and probably 2009. However, the tap is still flowing for renewables and energy efficiency – $220.9 million in loan and grant applications are currently available within USDA’s Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program (press release). Quotable:
Loan guarantees and grants are available to agricultural producers and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable energy systems or to make energy efficiency improvements.
Eligible applicants may seek loan guarantees to cover up to 50 percent of a project’s cost, not to exceed $10 million. Grants are available for up to 25 percent of a project’s cost, not to exceed $250,000 for energy efficiency improvements and $500,000 for renewable energy systems.
Special Interests. The Kansas battle over the Holcomb/ energy bill is increasingly earning the dubious honor of national media coverage. (Oh gee.) Most recently, a Houston Chronicle editor was apparently interested enough to pick up an AP story by John Hanna, detailing the recent Kansas controversy.
Lots of big energy producers in TX. The eyes of Texas are upon you.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Lions and tigers and bears, ha! Dorothy hadn’t seen anything yet.
Regulating carbon. Can states do it? EPA thinks no. States think yes. Court cases ensue. EPA head administrator Stephen Johnson is one beleagured man. His staff agrees with the states. CSMonitor updates us on this issue. Reminder: all the presidential candidates currently support implementing carbon regulation.
Vote trading. That’s really not a pretty phrase. Gov. Sebelius came up with an even un-prettier one, though – “auction” (Wichita Eagle). She accuses House Speaker Melvin Neufeld of – well, in effect, horsetrading votes in perhaps not the most democratic manner.
Sebelius said she is “stunned” by talk that supporters expect to get enough votes by making trades on other issues. House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, a strong supporter of the bill, said opponents will “let me know what they want” on the budget and other issues.
“He seems to be inviting a legislative auction on a very important policy decision,” Sebelius told The Associated Press. “I think their constituents would be disappointed that they would be playing ‘Let’s make a deal’ with energy policy.”
If this whole shebang falls through (ie, if the House is not able to override the Governor’s veto of the Holcomb/energy bill) Sebelius is willing to open up negotiations with Sunflower once more, for the terms of her original deal.
I also found a blog response to the vote trading from the other side – a self-identified red blogger who warns the legislature not to bloat the budget in an effort to get votes for Holcomb (blog.stayredkansas.com).
RUS financing drama. More news outlets are picking up on the story that the RUS program has been temporarily suspended for 2008 and 2009 proposals (ENS). Remember, this is the USDA rural development funding mechanism that supports financing for rural coal-fired power plants. This story goes more in depth into the Sunflower financing, which was approved in 2007.
EDITS: A few updates before I head off to meetings (that are scheduled to take place nowhere near the Capitol)- no plans for live blogging today, BTW.
Climate change – there are legislators who are listening. The other day, the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee heard testimony from a former KDHE director on the impact that climate change would have upon KS. He spoke at the invitation of Sen. Jim Barnett (KHI News Service). Quotable from the story:
Barnett said he wanted members of his committee to hear about the science and health consequences of global climate change instead of the rhetoric surrounding the coal plant controversy. Previous hearings on the coal plants focused mostly on the economic consequences and the state’s energy needs with relatively little heard about global warming and what scientists believe it will mean for the environment and human health.
Neufeld responds to Governor’s charge of “auctioning” votes – The LJWorld carries House Speaker Neufeld’s response.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
