World CO2 Emissions and Durban

More than 10,000 ministers, officials, activists and scientists from 194 countries are meeting in Durban in what appears to be a last ditch attempt to extend the Koyoto treaty and to try and to try to tax all the developed nations to pay for climate impacts on poorer nations through the Green Fund for climate assistance. Durban, the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP17) to be held since the United Nations' first began to coordinate an attempt to control global warming through carbon dioxide control has reached the final stretch. At this point it appears that the conference will close without any agreement. The European Union refuses to extend without the United States and China committing and neither country appears likely to make any legally binding commitment. The Climate Change movement has lost its urgency. The failure to get any binding international agreement in Durban may be caused by the global economic problems or by the failure of the Global Warming/ Climate Change models to predict temperatures. Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago, but temperatures have not risen as projected by the climate models.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol bound developed countries to cuts of about 5-6% from 1990 levels in global emissions of greenhouse gases as represented by carbon dioxide by 2012. President George W. Bush rejected Kyoto in 2001, saying it did not impose emissions limits on emerging industrialized nations – chiefly China and India, and now China has surpassed the United States as the world largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China (6.9 billons tons in 2009), the United States (5.2 billion tons 2009), India, the Russian Federation (1.5 billion tons in 2009) and the European Union (3.0 billion tons in 2009) were the largest contributors to global emissions growth to a total of almost 30 billion tons of CO2 in 2009 (the specific breakout for 2010 was unavailable from the International Energy Agency, IEA, but the increase worldwide was about 6% 2010). Canada, who signed the Koyoto pact blew through their CO2 levels exceeding their 2000 levels and joined the United States as among the highest per capita emitters on the planet. Canada had agreed to cut emissions 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 as part of the Kyoto Protocol, but Canada’s emissions (0.7 billion tons in 2009) are now 17 % above 1990 levels, largely because of increased emissions related to the development of the Canadian oil industry. Canada failed to meet its Kyoto targets because they refused to take the large economic hit necessary for a big, cold, northern, sparsely populated, oil and natural gas producing nation to achieve them. There are no meaningful penalties for missing a Kyoto emission target. Even the most cooperative countries are missing their Kyoto targets.

However, Japan has been faithful to their word. Japan's Trade Ministry said on Tuesday emissions of CO2 fell 5.6 % to 1.075 billion tons in the year ended March 2010, bringing the Japanese below their Kyoto goal of 1.186 billion tons a year, when taking into account the volumes of carbon offsets Japan has bought from abroad. However, Japan announced that they are reconsidering plans to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 due to closing of a significant portion of its nuclear power generation, and the costs of the carbon-credit programs that cost the county almost $11 billion to purchase the carbon offsets by investing in carbon abatement programs in other countries.

The failure to get a binding international agreement in Durban has the Climate Model believers in a frenzy as CO2 emissions are up 6%, to over 30 billion tons, in 2010 40% above the 1990 level. This level of CO2 is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. Securing a commitment from major polluters such as China and India to sign up to a Kyoto II in the future – a move spearheaded by the British and European Union Energy Secretaries appear doomed to failure. The failure to get a binding international agreement in Durban may be caused by the continuing steep rises in annual global CO2 emissions without an accompanying significant rise in global temperatures. Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago, but temperatures have not risen as projected by the climate models. The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one assumed in the climate models. In addition, the difficulty in reducing CO2 levels worldwide can be seen in the diagram above. Canada, Russia, and Japan withdrawing from the Koyoto Treaty and the United States not making a binding commitment despite President Obama’s commitment in Copenhagen to reduce United States emissions of CO2 17% by 2020 has doomed Durban.

Arbor Day at Pace West School

On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 The Pace West School in Gainesville celebrated Arbor Day. I was fortunate to be able to participate on behalf of the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District. Pace West will be moving by fall, so this year’s Arbor Day class each received a seedling to take home and care for. The seedlings came from the Virginia Forest Service.

Though Arbor Day is typically observed the last Friday in April, a day of tress is now observed around the world at different times based on ideal planting season. Wednesday, was a perfect day for planting trees in Gainesville, Virginia. Arbor Day was an early recognition of the need for sustainability in how we live on the earth.

Arbor Day was founded in Nebraska by J. Sterling Morton in 1872 when a million trees were planted in a single coordinated effort to counteract the deforestation that had occurred as trees were harvested to support the growth of the nation. In his speech to the school children who had planted and later cared for many trees, Mr. Morton described the great oneness of nature in all its parts. Man is dependent on plants for life, for the wealth, beauty and luxuriance of harvest fields, orchard fruits, forest glades, and for the recycling nutrients into the earth. Before the first Arbor Day, wood had been harvested, the lands stripped of trees, without planting to repair the waste. This had resulted in floods and droughts, infertile and barren soil, and even the extinction of entire communities as the land seemed to be used up and blown away across the prairie.

Each generation of humanity takes responsibility of the earth as trustees to hold until the next generation becomes the successors in trust. The next generation will inherit a very crowed earth in need of great care and stewardship. Trees are the first step in caring for the earth. We need to nurture and care for the trees so they in turn can sustain us. According to The Tree Folk “A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs/ year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings.”

Forests which are really treed ecosystems now cover 10 million square miles of earth. There was a time when forests extended much further. Most of the cultivated and inhabited lands of today were once forests or estuaries. The demand to covert ever more land to agriculture to support the increasing human population causes the loss of the forest ecosystem and increased soil erosion and flooding. The loss of large portions of the rain forest is believed by some to be a major contributor to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Trees can also reduce air conditioning and heating needs by providing shade and providing a wind shield for winter and reducing our overall use of carbon based fuels. Trees also act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots, and associated soil filter polluted particulate matter out of the runoff flow towards the Chesapeake Bay. Trees also use and recycle nitrogen and phosphorus which are contributing to the decay of the Chesapeake Bay and its estuary.

Conservation is Smarter than Carbon Offsets

Recently, as we headed towards the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, the Wall Street Journal reviewed carbon offsets in its Cranky Consumer Column. In an article called “Reducing Emissions, and a Guilty Conscience” they reviewed five different companies selling carbon offsets. They evaluated the companies for price and the bells and whistles of their carbon calculators, social media savvy and general feel good aspects of their offerings. I question the actual effectiveness of the programs (not Nancy Matsumoto’s fun article). Many of these so called projects would take place anyway.

The world's biggest carbon offset market, the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM), is run by the UN, administered by the World Bank, and is intended to reduce emissions by rewarding developing countries that invest in clean technologies. According to David Victor, of Stanford University, as many as two-thirds of the supposed "emission reduction" credits being produced by the CDM from projects in developing countries are not backed by real reductions in pollution. In fact, in the February 2010 Harpers’ Magazine spelled out inconsistencies, questionable practices, and potential fraud in the CDM market raising the possibility emission reductions credits are increasing CO2 emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. Even when a CDM credit does represent an "emission reduction", there is no global benefit because offsetting is a "zero sum" game. Voluntary Carbon Standard or Climate Action Reserve are two of the certifications utilized for carbon offsets. This verification utilizes the CDM standards as the underlying structure to certify that the carbon reductions are“additional and real.”

Buildings, both residential and commercial, account for about 40% of primary U.S. energy consumption, 72% of U.S. electricity consumption, 55% of U.S. natural gas consumption, and significant heating oil and propane consumption in the Northeast. According to the Department of Energy, while industrial use of electricity has been flat for about 15 years, electrical use to power commercial and residential building has grown by more than 50% since 1985. U.S. resources and investment have been deployed to build the infrastructure required to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to serve that growth. Reducing the peak electricity demands for air conditioning and heating could alleviate peak demand on the electrical grid, potentially without the need for a smarter grid. Buildings present one of the best opportunities to economically reduce energy consumption and reduce green house gas emissions. A recent study by McKinsey & Company study performed for the Department of Energy found that reducing the consumption of energy in buildings is the least costly way to achieve large reductions in carbon emissions.

What I think the United States needs is a new way to think of reducing our nation’s energy use. I propose forming a series of local not for profit corporations to educate and facilitate all homeowners achieving the easiest steps: Installing an energy saving thermostat, replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and the most effective improving the home insulation. This should be performed according to the guidance from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building Envelop Research performed for the US DOE Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This guidance recommends additional insulation in most the attics, crawl spaces, eves, and duct work. In addition, there are recommendations for insulation under floors, of pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and other areas. The insulation needs to be installed correctly, but is one of the most effective energy saving steps a homeowner can take. If every home and building in the United States were properly insulated and sealed we could significantly reduce the national energy use. These steps reduce energy consumption immediately and more or less permanently. The final steps in home conservation; the replacement of single pane windows or the addition of storm windows, and the replacement of inefficient furnaces and air conditioners and old refrigerators and other appliances with energy efficient models can be accomplished with incentive programs or loan programs. The cash for clunkers program attempted to remove from the roads the oldest and most inefficient cars, and now there is the energy star appliance program, but like many government programs they are blunt instrument and with unintended consequences. Mostly only people intending and able to afford these purchases are encouraged to move forward. Yet the cheapest of the strategies insulation, sealing a home, and installing an energy saving thermostat and compact fluorescent bulbs is the most underutilized.

As Ms. Matsumoto points out it is difficult to assess the quality of projects funded by these carbon offset firms as well as determine with any consistency the size of a personal carbon footprint which in the case of Ms Matsumoto ranged from 7 to 23 tons depending on whose tool she was using and what assumptions the models used. All the carbon offset retailers evaluated in the article were verified by a third-party either the Voluntary Carbon Standard or Climate Action Reserve. This verification helps ensure that the initiatives are "additional," meaning the carbon reduction would not have occurred without the project, and are "real," meaning the emissions reductions are properly quantified and audited, however, these certifying organizations suffer from the same problems as the CDM since they use the CDM as the underlying structure to determine the assumed carbon savings based on various models and assumptions. What you are doing with your carbon offset dollars is making these projects more profitable for the project owners, paying fees to brokers, project auditors and marketing people. Really, I would rather my money and efforts go to supplying education and low or no interest loans to homeowners to reduce their energy consumption. Insulation projects have a very short payback period and could be financed by a not for profit who takes half the energy savings until the project is paid for. The homeowner gets part of the savings, a more comfortable home and we all reduce our national energy consumption. Instead of paying for farm and landfill methane capture projects with our carbon offsets we would be better served to spend our dollars to reach down to make home insulation desirable and affordable to all homeowners. Let the large farm and landfill projects which would probably get done anyway, find other sources of financing and lets tackle educating and funding through loans and grants the insulation and sealing of all homes in the United States.

What Is the Product Carbon Content and is it Useful

The recent announcement of the partnership between the Environmental Defense Fund and Wal-Mart has once more raised the issue of product carbon content. Lately, it has been popular to measure sustainability by the individual and national carbon footprint. Carbon dioxide is a by product of combustion, all combustion. Human beings exhale it at over 3 pounds per day for the average sedentary adult. Carbon dioxide is also released when we burn fossil fuels such as gas, coal or oil to produce electricity, move vehicles, manufacture products etc. In a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is used by plants and trees. However, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising. Carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere has risen from approximately 250 parts per million (0.025%) to 386 part per million (0.039%) in the past 100 years. This increase has been attributed by many to human activity. The belief is that we are producing more carbon dioxide than can be absorbed by the plants and trees because we are burning too much fuel. The certainty of the direct relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations has been called into question in the most recent revelations of manipulated data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and the revelations of unsubstantiated claims from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The popular belief is that this increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in average global temperature since 1900. It was postulated that burning fossil fuels for industry and power was the direct cause of this increase, though other contributing causes might exist. The methods used to determine global average temperature has come into question with the data manipulation disclosures from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, so currently, there is no consensus on what the global average temperature actually is. Nonetheless, the popular climate change theory postulates that the overall temperature of the planet is increasing (global warming) at a faster rate now and causing the earth’s climate to change in unpredictable ways (from floods and hurricanes to heat waves and droughts). The strongest adherents to this belief hold that the burning of fossil fuels must be reduced immediately. The belief is that if we could reduce our carbon dioxide emissions enough we could stop the climate of the earth from changing.

At the height of the Global Warming movement regulators and universities began to calculate the carbon dioxide released when making, shipping and using various products. These were only estimates, depending on some of the assumptions; drastically different totals could be reached. This concept was jumped on by merchants and manufacturers, to advertise a scheme to save the planet thought guided acquisition-purchase enough of the right things and save the planet. The makers of everything from milk to jackets to cars were estimating the carbon dioxide released when making, shipping and using of their products and advertising the results. These were called carbon content labels. For companies looking to get their products carbon labeled, three carbon labeling services are currently in the market. The labels are available in the UK and US and require a processed-based life-cycle analysis (LCA) to be carried out, usually in the price range of $10,000-$20,000 depending on the product. The methods of estimating the carbon content contained a large number of estimates, guesses and assumptions making this calculation easily manipulated and practically worthless for true allocation of resources because it only estimated the generalized cost of a product in terms of energy used in its life cycle. These labels at best are only broad generalizations and may not be particularly useful in evaluating choices for a sustainable life because of the underlying use assumptions as well. While it is very important to reduce the burning or fossil fuels and increase the planting of trees; we should approach this goal as only one aspect of sustainable living.

The fashion for carbon labels may simply fade away and soon be forgotten. Questions remain about how carbon footprints should be measured and whether putting such figures on the label is practical or something shoppers will even care about. Carbon labels beg for a recommended (or mandated) daily allowance for carbon. Building a bureaucracy to ensure that carbon dioxide in each product is measured at a cost of $10,000-$20,000, and potentially develop a recommended daily carbon allowance without a well documented connection between carbon allowance level and sustainable living is simply wasteful. Given the nature of the carbon cycle; how does one create a sustainable and accurate carbon budget?

Another method suggested has been to purchase carbon offsets for all products. The world's biggest carbon offset market, the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM), is run by the UN, administered by the World Bank, and is intended to reduce emissions by rewarding developing countries that invest in clean technologies. According to David Victor, of Stanford University, as many as two-thirds of the supposed "emission reduction" credits being produced by the CDM from projects in developing countries are not backed by real reductions in pollution. In fact, in the February 2010 Harpers’ Magazine spelled out inconsistencies, questionable practices, and potential fraud in the CDM market raising the possibility emission reductions credits are increasing CO2 emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. Even when a CDM credit does represent an "emission reduction", there is no global benefit because offsetting is a "zero sum" game.

The approach currently underway at Wal-Mart may hold more promise. There is real benefit to increasing the efficiency in energy use by selecting efficient technologies in everyday life. There is tremendous benefit to improving insulation in buildings and homes, and passive use of solar and wind. Improving manufacturing practices and farming practice to reduce energy consumption and utilization of pesticides and protect water supplies will yield ecological benefits, but may or may not reduce CO2 emissions. Changes in how and where we live; urban dweller, rural dweller, suburban dweller; whether or not we commute or if we commute using public or private transportation, alone or in a groups, our purchasing and activity choices all will impact our carbon use. Carbon content labels do not give the individual tools to evaluate a purchase choice against not purchasing, which is an important aspect of any decision. However, carbon content only looks at one aspect of the carbon cycle and fails to consider the other resources of the earth. At this point it is unlikely that the labeling of carbon content in products will be mandated. Legislating the measurement of carbon dioxide release in all things will cost money and resources and of itself will not make our lives more sustainable, but will certainly add costs to all things.

Copenhagen Final

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen closed on Friday December 18th 2009 without an agreement. The conference in Copenhagen, the 15th conference of parties (COP15) failed. The parties of the UNFCCC met for the last time before the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and failed to hammer out a new agreement to prevent or stop climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto Protocol requires emissions cuts from developed countries that ratified it. The new accord does nothing and the Kyoto Protocol was made irrelevant by not including the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China, India and the US.

Now, China has proven that we of the United States are becoming increasingly irrelevant. We are only useful for the money we should be paying as retribution for having once been the major industrial power. We are a far less rich nation than we used to be and are rapidly spending our way to insolvency. The Copenhagen conference ended Saturday saying "the majority of countries" showed support for a U.S. negotiated political agreement without clout or consequences. China was clearly in control of the process. U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders of major emerging economies including China, India, Brazil and South Africa met late Friday to hammer out some sort of agreement. Apparently, the President and Secretary Clinton thought they were meeting with China alone and found themselves faced with representatives of all the emerging economies.

Only with Chinas approval was an accord hammered out. The Copenhagen accord set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times and reiterated a goal of rich nations to jointly mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. However, no details were provided as to exactly how such a target would be achieved or where that money would come from. A proposed 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 that had been in earlier drafts was removed. There are no consequences to failure to meet the goals. The U.N. climate conference agreed to "take note" of the Copenhagen accord, as the agreement is known. The accord was not formally approved so that no one is required to comply with the agreement.

With the accord in place emissions of carbon dioxide will continue rising rapidly beyond current level. Total atmospheric CO2 is currently 386 part per million. China, which emits 30% MORE CO2 per year than the US will continue to grow their economy unhindered by any aspects of the Copenhagen accord. China and the other developing nations have promised nothing. At the heart of the disputes in Copenhagen was money and economic strength. The poorest nations wanted a large pot of money (with no strings attached) to compensate them and pay for whatever programs they saw fit to support. China and India agreed to allow their emissions to continue to grow with no target to cut greenhouse gases. Our wants and desires for capping or reducing carbon emissions are irrelevant.

Using Technology to Control Global Temperature

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Bjorn Lomborg says a group of climate economists at the University of Venice led by Carlo Carraro looked closely at how people will adapt to climate change they predict a 0.1% increase in GDP in 2100 among wealthy nations and climate change-related losses of 2.9% of GDP in poorer countries. "This remains a significant, negative effect. The real challenge of global warming lies in tackling its impact on the Third World.” There are several economists who believe that some level of global warming will usher in a golden age others do not. The science community has not yet been able to accurately model the earth ecology. The accuracy our current predictive models is unknown, but they do produce conflicting data. Economic modeling which would seem simpler, is apparently no more advanced.

Professor Lomborg goes on to suggest examination of climate engineering to control temperature change. One proposal he mentions would have boats spray seawater droplets into clouds above the sea to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Since this is just a variation of a natural process, it does not sound dangerous. However, I find the prospect of trying to use technology to control the planet’s temperature frightening. We can not predict the consequences of our actions. In a June Wall Street Journal opinion piece “It’s Time to Cool the Planet” the author, Mr. Cascio, a futurist of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies argues for fast acting geo-engineering like releasing sulfate in huge quantities into the atmospheres using jet-aircraft exhaust. This particular action would be equivalent of several volcanic eruptions each year and while it would probably lower the temperature, what else would it do year after year? It is known that volcanic eruptions damage the ozone layer and plant life. We do not have the knowledge to understand the consequences of direct and quick changes to the plant temperature or carbon content. There is a limit to using technology to try and control the planet’s temperature. Would maintaining the planet's temperature come to consume all the resources of the earth and man? When we stopped, or the technology failed we would have masked a problem and suddenly be faced with a jump in temperature (assuming that the global warming projections are accurate). Sudden changes could be far more catastrophic than any consequence imagined by the long term projections of gradual global warming projected by the climate change establishment. Negative consequences of global warming will spur changes in behavior.

It is difficult for someone of my age and inclinations (having worked for the US EPA in the 1970’s) to think of Climate Change, Global Warming without thinking of other mass environmental movements. For example, Silent Spring and the birth of the environmental movement. Though it is often thought that Carson was calling for the elimination of all pesticides, it was her followers who were the extremists. The movement developed a life of its own. As Eric Hoffer points out in his book, “True Believer” mass movements can never be moderate and rational they attract followers by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change. We are a nation of over reactors. Moderate, responsible action seems impossible for us, but that is the skill we must learn as responsible stewards of this earth and as humane and concerned citizens of the planet.

We must balance concern for the earth, worry about climate change as measured by whatever index suites your world view, with the needs of the lesser developed world to escape poverty and disease. What is the point of saving the earth if not for mankind? We must remember that our knowledge is limited and every action has a reaction. Only arrogance would allow someone to believe mankind could hold the temperature of the earth constant against nature indefinitely. The consensus of opinion is mankind has contributed to climate change, not caused it.

The changes we should consider are not massive interruptions in the natural cycles of nature, but conservation, replanting, control of non-point source contamination, and point source contamination reduction in emerging economies. Maybe if we can restore a watershed, reforest the jungles of the Amazon or the foothill of Mt. Kilimanjaro we could then consider bolder action. There is so much that can be accomplished by conservation and replanting, do that first. Start with replanting. According to the Tree Folks a single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs/ year of carbon dioxide and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. Trees can also reduce air conditioning and heating needs by providing shade and providing a wind shield for winter. Trees also act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots, and associated soil and other natural elements of the landscape filter polluted particulate matter out of the flow towards the water shed and use nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are contributing factors to the decay of water sheds. Trees are pretty.

Carbon Footprint, Carbon Savings and Carbon Offsets

All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. While there are some basic truths, the optimal allocation of your resources is based on your values and goals. We all should be thoughtful in our living, smarter about the ways in which we use the earths and our personal resources.

According to McKinsey and Co. it cost an additional $30-$40 above normal energy production costs to eliminate one ton of CO2 emissions by replacing traditional energy production with solar or wind power (the presumed life of the equipment was unreported). However, when a ton of CO2 was saved using LED light bulbs or energy-efficient appliances money was also saved ($108-$159 less was spent on energy for every ton of CO2 saved). The costs associated with generating power without CO2 emissions are higher than current costs. If the money is spent to reduce CO2 by replacing generating capacity there will be less money to spend on other things that matter to you or are necessary for your life, but if you reduce the use of energy less money is spent on energy and more money is available for other goals.

When you use less energy, by insulating, changing to lower energy light bulbs, controlling passive solar heat, or using energy star appliance, less energy is used, less CO2 released and money is saved. Reducing your energy consumption is a far better utilization of resources. While solar panels and wind turbines are sexy, and renewable sources of energy sound wonderful, these technologies are still in their infancy. Geothermal generation of heating and cooling and nuclear generation of power have failed to catch on in the United States, but have advanced significantly in the past few decades in overseas locations. Conservation and energy efficiency are currently well developed technologies, effective and relatively cheaper. Use less so that we can all live within the productive capacity of the existing infrastructure. Then only expand the generating capacity in ways that do not release CO2, do not burden the earth.

Adding insulation and sealing existing homes and commercial buildings is by far the low hanging fruit and a good source of “green economy” jobs. The Wall Street Journal reports that heating and cooling buildings account for about half of the CO2 emissions in the U.S. My home was built in 2004 and is heated and cooled with a duel system; the upstairs with an air heat pump and the lower levels with a gas furnace and air conditioner. Replacing the heating and cooling systems with geothermal systems would only make sense when the existing systems reach the end of their functional life. After eliminating incandescent light bulbs, upgrading all appliances to energy star, installing reflective films on the window and installing drapery, I found that adding insulation was a good way to further reduce the energy consumption of the house. Following the recommendations of the Building Envelope Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, duct work, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. After six months electricity usage (as measured in kilowatts for the same six months the previous year) had been reduced by over 6% (despite relocating our workspace to the home with all its attendant equipment) and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised (and pleased) at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home.

Though I do not need to commute to a job, I still drive my (gas hybrid car) almost 4,000 miles a year. The hybrid does not make economic sense especially because I drive so little. However, it does make me happy to drive so to me it was worth the extra money I paid for it. In searching for the carbon emitted per vehicle mile I could only find the 1993 data from the Nowak study which lists 0.88-1.06 lbs CO2 per mile. This is probably high for my hybrid, which was not available at the time of the study. The same article states that each person in the US generates 2.3 tons of CO2 each year, which appears in conflict with the automobile numbers until you realize that babies and children do not have cars and city dwellers automobile ownership and use is also much less than suburban use. During the eight years I lived and owned a car in the city, I drove less than 1,000 miles a year. After reducing the energy use in my home, eliminating commuting from our lives, reducing frivolous travel I still wanted to do more.

I found the following fact: “A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs/ year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings.” The Tree Folks are the source of the above information, and are willing to sell carbon off-sets in the form of trees. I tend to think of carbon off-sets for people who want to vacation in Bora Bora or have the wedding or Oscar party of the century, but in truth they are probably for people like me who use various technologies to make their lives richer and happier. My large house comes with a big piece of land. Admittedly, most of the land is wooded undisturbed land and part of the Chesapeake Bay water shed, but I do have about 3 acres of mostly open land around the house. We planted 43 trees of moderate maturity (over 6 foot each). Using the Tree Folk data, forty-two trees absorb a ton of carbon a year and the last tree replaces a diseased tree we cut down. Beyond watering the trees in the first three weeks they were planted, they have thrived on benign neglect. I am already drawing up plans, researching native trees, and saving my nickels for another 3.6 tons of annual carbon off-sets otherwise know as another 150 trees. I may have to make that 152 trees because there are two more existing trees that are not doing well.

Trees can also reduce air conditioning and heating needs by providing shade and providing a wind shield for winter. Trees also act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots, and associated soil and other natural elements of the landscape filter polluted particulate matter out of the flow towards the water shed and use nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are contributing factors to the decay of the Chesapeake Bay water shed. Trees are pretty.