Carbon Footprint-Restaurants vs Home Cooking

Though last week I said that Greenhouse Gas Emissions no longer matter, I only meant that no action that we as a nation could take would stop the further increase in carbon dioxide, CO2, concentrations from the emergence of China from a developing nation to developed nation and the ecological consequences from the increasing CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. It’s done, whatever is going to happen will happen because the earth’s atmosphere is interconnected, and worldwide CO2 emissions will continue to grow. That fact does not absolve me from the responsibilities of sustainable living. Of the developed nations, the United States has the second highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 equivalent (CO2e) generation rate. (It’s nice not to be the worst of the developed world.)  Policy mandates to have the United States adopt constraints on fossil fuel energy consumption will have little impact on the global level of CO2e emissions because the United States CO2e emissions are 16% of world CO2e emissions and falling. Our nation’s CO2e emissions are fairly stable at this time while our per capita CO2e emissions appear to be slowly decreasing. Still, as a nation, we should be more sustainable. Making sustainable choices is a moral choice.

 In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources- money, manpower, water, fuel or land. The CO2e footprint has become shorthand for how sustainable you are. However, the method of calculating that footprint and assumptions made will determine if that measurement is an accurate reflection of how sustainable your life is. When seeking to determine the amount of CO2e emitted from an activity or a life choice, it is impossible to measure the emissions directly. Emissions are estimated from a known quantity such as fuel burned, or units of electricity consumed, but that can be misleading. While the combustion of fuel is a chemical reaction where the mass of CO2 emissions is directly related to the type and quantity of fuel burned, only heating your home is a simple calculation. For every kWh of energy supplied by gas the CO2 emissions are 0.206 kgCO2.

The energy consumed to create, manufacture, distribute and deliver any product is complicated and much of the work that has been done is based on averages, which can be misleading. Nonetheless, the information can be useful. I ran across a paper “The American Carbon Foodprint: Understanding

your food’s impact on climate change,” by Mathew Kling, and Ian Hough (2010). The paper was  sponsored by Brighter Planet, Inc., a company whose technology platform calculates the carbon, energy, and resource impact of a variety of real-life emission sources. Brighter Planet sells consulting, but gives away really interesting research including the Carbon Foodprint study.  According to the authors food represents 21% (5.46 metric tonnes CO2e emission) of the typical American’s 26 metric tonne total annual carbon footprint. The actual CO2e emissions associated with your food consumption is dependent on where, how much and what you eat, how the food is grown, transported, processed, prepared and what you do with the leftovers.

The transportation of the food from farm to store was a surprisingly small contributor to the total CO2e emissions embodied in the food. A larger source of CO2e emissions in food are from the delivery of inputs like, fertilizer, water, and animal feed. So that grass fed beef that is pasture raised would have a much smaller CO2e emissions than beef that is feed with remotely sourced grain. (In addition, pasture raised cows are less flatulent than grain fed cows.) Crops grown without irrigation, conservation agriculture and organic agriculture all have different ecological and CO2e emission footprints versus the “conventional agriculture” similar products. One farmer may be more sustainable than another for a variety of reasons. However, most of the food’s transportation related CO2e emissions are from travel to the grocery store and restaurants by the consumer. Personal food-related driving comprise 14% of the average family’s carbon footprint.

It is much more sustainable to eat at home.  The average American eats out at a fast food or full service restaurant about 4.5 times a week, or roughly 20% of the time. The Carbon Foodprint study tells us that restaurants and food service operations consume roughly the same amount of energy as home kitchens producing only 20% of the meals in America– and that's before you consider the carbon impact of traveling to the restaurant. A typical restaurant meal’s CO2e emissions if 3.67 times the CO2e emissions of a meal prepared and eaten at home. Cooking and eating at home is a simple way to reduce your carbon footprint. It is also healthier and saves money.

In addition with some planning and thoughtful actions you can significantly reduce the CO2 emissions associated with your kitchen. The authors tell us that kitchens consume 21% of total household energy and are one of the most energy-intensive rooms in the house. Over 35% of the kitchen energy use is for heating, cooling, and lighting the kitchen itself, with the remainder related to the cooking process and food storage. Refrigeration is the biggest energy hog in the kitchen. On average a refrigerator consumes 30% of all kitchen energy, and emits 650 Kg of CO2e. A modern Energy Star refrigerator performs considerably better than that. Cooking food consumes an average of 293 Kg of CO2e, 14% of the total energy used in a kitchen. Microwaves are the most energy-efficient followed by induction, and traditional burners. Ovens are the least efficient cooking method. Cleaning up and washing dishes uses 14% of kitchen energy. The most energy efficient method to wash dishes is to use a modern Energy Star dishwasher- running it when it is fully loaded.

Recycling, waste reduction and reuse all have an impact on CO2 emissions. Americans discard over 280 billion Kg of garbage each year (excluding recycling and composting) of that trash 29% is food related. The trash is collected and trucked to landfills and accounts for 143 Kg CO2e per person per year that is responsible for 28% of landfill gas emissions each year. In Prince William County about 36% of all trash is recycled and includes packaging and containers, but not food scraps. Knowing how to deliciously use up leftovers will also reduce your carbon footprint.  By simply cooking all your meals at home the average person can reduce their carbon footprint by 1.39 metric tonnes of CO2e a year. Other steps to reduce your carbon footprint further would be: eat more plants, buy unprocessed, whole foods, minimize car trips to the grocery store, use all your leftovers, recycle and compost, buy Energy Star appliances. All of these steps will reduce the per capita carbon emissions further, but will not stop the climate of the earth from changing.  Certainly, anthropogenic activity has been a significant contributor to the 150 parts per million (0.015%) increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past 113 years. The exact relationship of greenhouse gasses to climate is not fully understood, but if all of the United States (or even mankind) were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth climate change would not stop. Nonetheless, dine at home.

Kling, M.M. and I.J. Hough (2010). “The American Carbon Foodprint: Understanding your food’s impact on climate change,” Brighter Planet, Inc. 

http://brighterplanet.com/research

Sustainable Living and Moral Licensing

Moral licensing as explained in the Sunday, July 18th 2010 Washington Post article by Michael S. Rosenwald is one way to describe the seemingly perplexing behaviors that humans engage in. His headline example of swearing by solar heat and driving a Hummer is eye catching, but seemingly unlikely- they didn’t sell many Hummers. Another example of moral licensing is as the commonly attributed cause for the statistic that Prius drivers drive more total miles. However, I prefer to frame this as green budgeting. Instead of driving more miles because they have a Prius, the people whose lives require or include lots of driving and are concerned about sustainable living or the environment choose to drive a Prius. Then there is me; I drive less than 4,000 miles a year, but have a hybrid. Clearly, it makes no economic sense. It is a limited budgetry excess to stay within my conceptual green budget. The life I live (now) requires that I own and drive a car. The hybrid is how I deal with that fact.

In order to live your values, you need to know what your values are and how to go about living them. Seemingly inconsistent choices may result from limted knowledge, information and insight on a topic or simply be part of the trade offs people make in balancing all their life choices. My green budget is an imperfect way to measure my environmental impact to the earth both positive and negative. My true goal is to live a rich and joyous life that is sustainable in all ways. To live sustainably, all aspects of your life- work, entertainment, everyday living, life choices, vacations have to be intergrated into a sustainable plan. Choices have to be made to achieve this, but there really is no sustainable framework to measure and evaluate all those choices. Some have tried to frame sustainable living solely as measured by carbon footprint, but that ignores water, the caring for renewable resources and the allocation of limited resources.

If you will recall, last spring Wal-Mart committed to reduce the carbon footprint from the life cycle of Wal-Mart’s products and supply chain by 20 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the next five years. In part this will be accomplished by having Wal-Mart use their leverage with their supply chain to influence the environmental practices, transportation, and storage of their supplying manufacturer. Part of this reduction will be accomplished by Wal-Mart’s customers who will be educated in more sustainable use of a product. A typical example of customer education is recommending that customers use cold water to wash laundry instead of hot. Some of reduction in Wal-Mart’s carbon impact is smoke and mirrors, but some is truly real. Wal-Mart will engage in an examination and improvement in how things are done in their supply chain and store management, but all decisions will be made based on how much carbon will be saved. The smallest carbon footprint is not always the right answer.

On Wednesday, July 28th 2010 the Wall Street Journal ran an article by Libby Copeland “In Search of the Green Cookout.” In this article she compares the traditional cookout with full fat beef, traditional hot dogs, plastic plates, table cloth and cutlery and conventionaly made ingredients for Smores and condiments to a “green” cookout. The green cookout featured grass fed beef, organic and grass fed hot dogs, disposable plates made from fallen palm leaves, bamboo cutlery, organic ingredient for smores, and green recycled paper table cloth. No measurement was made as to the different impacts these two cookouts would have, but the underlying assumption was merely a substitution of products. Green is achieved by shopping and spending more money. Buying a greener disposable plate or an organic marshmallow is not the answer.

For my most recent cookout, I, too, used grass fed beef. Several times a year, I buy bulk beef from Polyface farms. I drive the 38 mile round trip in my hybrid to pick up the meat at the drop off location. Of course this required that I have a large freezer to store the meat and despite being energy star it still uses electricity. To give my grass fed steaks full flavor (and minimize the formation of carcinogens) I marinate the meat in my own red wine and herb mixture for at least one day. Silly me, since we were cooking out in the backyard I used my everyday plates, my stainless steel cutlery, my casserole dishes to serve the organic Greek pasta salad I made using whole wheat pasta and the bounty of Jimmy Phillips garden, a friend who grows organic vegetables and always plants too much. (His heirloom tomatoes are to die for and free!) For a table cloth I used one of the cotton/poly mix tablecloth I bought years ago when I got the table for the deck and really did not want to iron a table cloth.

There are lots of compromises and tradeoffs in my cookout and life. The basic belief I have is that the greenest product is the one I already own. Reusable is better than disposable; though the disposable versus cotton diaper wars/ discussion highlighted the different ways to evaluate that decision. My choice for sustainably and naturally raised beef from Polyface is about healthful eating and humane treatment of the animals. Years ago, as part of my job I evaluated the environmental impact of CAFOs and farms in the northwest. After a few inspections of both conventional farming operations and alternative and organic farming operations the extra cost seemed more than worthwhile. I have not eaten conventionally raised food since. Thought I have not developed a way to calculate the various impacts on the earth of buying sustainably raised meat and storing it in my freezer for months at a time versus other choices, it is a choice I make. The reality is my husband expects to eat meat (or fish) every day and for health reasons and what I saw in the northwest I buy grass fed, pasture raised meat and wild fish. I embrace the philosophy that the Salatins have used for Polyface Farms, though I really do not know where my choice of meat fits into my green budget.

In a world with imperfect knowledge, we guess sometimes in silly ways and engage in green budgeting which may include a big dose of self delusion or advertised enhanced corporate illusions. In a pilot study performed on dairy suppliers, the Environmental Defense Fund analyzed the costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with a gallon of milk, from dairy farm to distribution center. By gathering and looking at the data, the Environmental Defense Fund identified the easily achieved improvements that “best practices” farm management can have in energy used to produce milk. Simple changes in fertilizer and manure management, at dairy processing facilities can achieve significant improvements in energy efficiency and even in the product itself, such as making milk shelf-stable. It is not always the product that matter, but how that product comes to be that is important. Best management practices, BMPs, can deliver more than a reduced carbon footprint; they can protect the watershed, streams and rivers. Soil and Conservation Districts nationwide have been aware of the improvements in environmental stewardship that can be achieved though simple improvements in farm practices; however, these organizations have not had any leverage to encourage farmers and dairy operations to implement these practices or adequate budget to develop farm plans. Some conservation districts certify farms that have embraced BMPs. Look for products from local farms that have embraced BMPs.

Sustainable living is not about buying the right product, though that is a small part of it. Sustainable living is the sum total of all aspects of your life and all the decision and tradeoffs you make. What is your life’s work, where you live, what things you choose to buy or not buy, medical care versus treatment, healthful living, activities you engage in, exercise, vacations, eating out, cooking at home, hobbies, all the activities and choices you make in your life. The little things you choose to do, recycle, compost, water or fertilize your garden, the temperature you choose for your home, and how you maintain your heating and air-conditioning units. We protect, use or abuse the earth’s resources in every aspect of our lives, but have no clear way to measure and evaluate our choices and so we find that we engage in perplexing behaviors trying to make choices without a clear framework for decision making.

More Thoughts on Sustainable Living, Energy Use and Ecological Impact

Last spring Dr. Chu, US Energy Secretary, advocated for "white roofs everywhere". He said lightening roofs and roads in urban environments would offset the global warming effects of all the cars in the world for 11 years. Unfortunately, I’ve discovered that blanket statements like that need to be more closely examined before blindly accepting them even from Nobel Prize winning physicists working for the government. Both Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Con Edison performed studies of different roofing materials. Livermore Lab only looked at the reduction in energy used for air conditioning probably because their Lab is located in California.
Con Edison divided their training center's roof into three parts: a traditional dark roof section, a section painted white, and a green section with plants growing on it. An energy-efficiency study by Columbia University was designed to help researchers understand how each kind of roof performs. The green and white roofs were found to perform equally well in preventing the “heat island effect,” in which conventional dark roofs absorb sunlight during the day and radiate heat back into the atmosphere at night which is postulated to create along with asphalt pavement the increased temperatures associated with urban and suburban areas.
However, the green roof is beneficial in summer and winter as well as reducing rain water runoff. The green roof reduces summer heat gains by up to 84% and winter heat losses by up to 37% compared to a black roof. The white roof reduces summer heat gains by up to 67%, but reflects heat in the winter when it is desirable to maintain heat. In a cold climate, a dark roof can lower heating costs by soaking up the winter sun. White-roof advocates counter that, in the continental United States, the "winter penalty" is just 10 percent of the overall savings because the roof is covered with snow for much of the winter, but many locations with freezing or near freezing temperatures do not have significant amounts of snow throughout the winter.
Green roofs are clearly the better choice for energy consumption year around. The obvious problem is green roofs only work with flat roofs, my house has a traditional peaked roof so a green roof is not really and option. I can not even imagine my neighbor’s reactions to a white reflective roof glaring at all drivers from the end of the cul-de-sac. Another problem I did not even imagine is maintenance requirements for a green roof. I went to see the Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. building in Gainesville, VA which was one of the first LEEDS certified buildings in Virginia and was dismayed to discover that weeding and replanting after extreme weather was necessary. WSS actually utilizes its interns to weed the roof. I can barely keep up with the hand weeding of my garden (because I do not use weed killers or other chemicals, I dig out the weeds in my beds).
Living in a moderate climate (last winter not withstanding) my roof does not spend the greater part of the winter covered in snow and I might benefit by having my roof absorb heat in the winter. Though, throughout the summer a dark roof would results in extra load on the air conditioning/heat exchanger. One of my goals in the insulation of my attic was to thermally isolate the attic from the rest of the house. For the insulation project, the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces were inspected for adequate insulation. Then following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, 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. My total electricity bills for the following 12 months were 27% less than I paid in the 12 months before I added the additional insulation to the house, 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 at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home. The payback on this project was under 4 years, unbelievably good.
My solution to the roof question was to begin to fill the southern roof span with solar panels. I have covered about 60% of that span with solar panels (so far). The goal is to test their production and function and save up more money for more panels down the road, though my estimate is that the savings from the solar panels will be about the same as from the insulation project. The problem is they cost (before rebates, tax credits and sale of SRECS) ten times as much. A more cost effective next step would be to convert the entire house heating and cooling to “geothermal” heat exchangers, though in truth, I have yet to find any models to estimate my cost and savings from that conversion.
Other recommendations for sustainable living or energy efficiency are based on a set of assumptions that may not be true for all situations. People’s patterns of living are starting to diverge. As an example we live, work and relax from home. I leave the house a few times a week to purchase supplies, pray, and volunteer. I rarely go more than 10 miles from home and drive (my little hybrid) only a few thousand miles a year. My water supply and waste disposal are private and sustainable. According to research performed in Dutchess county the average daily aquifer recharge (from rain and snow only excluding septic recycling) for Soils types C, C/D and D prevalent in this part of Virginia are estimated 326-583 gallons per acre. It is essential in a sustainable system that the groundwater level be maintained with recharge and adequate surface water is supplied to maintain the ecology even during drought years. My property totals more than 10 acres and our total indoor and outdoor household water usage was clocked during the early summer at between 100 and 150 gallons a day. We do not water our garden; trying to plant only what will thrive in the natural environment unaided. Virginia gets plenty of rainfall and it seems silly to plant anything that requires irrigation. Thus, not only is my septic system non-consumptive, the recharge rate vastly exceeds our water usage (and hopefully our neighbors since our water supply is dependent on total demand and recharge of the aquifer). I have an alternative septic system and I am incredibly careful of its operation, management of the load and maintenance.
Yet, with that I use a large amount of electricity for entertainment, to store my meat bought in bulk and the wine put up for the next decade. Thought my refrigeration units are energy star, there are several of them. Our home theatre is an LCD which is far more energy efficient that plasma, but less energy efficient than the now available LED TVs. It may be an LCD, but its large. Sustainable living is about thoughtfully using the earths resources. A fun place to start thinking about the sustainablility of your life is to go to the energy star home page and measure your home energy score.

Sustainable Garden Maintenance

First of all, I am not a gardener. I have no natural gift for it and limited inclination and experience. However, as time goes on, am developing a deep affection for my garden. I am attempting to develop a flourishing and sustainable organic ornamental garden surrounding my house. I am trying to concentrate on native species assuming they will be the most likely to flourish with my form of benign neglect. I did not originally start out to be organic, I actually never thought about it until faced with a nursery consultant wanting to sell me bags of chemicals the year I began planting my garden. The groundwater that I drink is very shallow with limited soil overburden to protect it. In addition, nutrient runoff is a major problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For the most part, the back seven acres of my property are part of the Resource Protected Area under the Chesapeake Protection Act. Anything that goes into my septic system, is spread on my lawn, or sprayed around my house could easily find its way into my water or the water shed (someone else’s water). My first reaction to the offer of fertilizer and weed killers was no. Since that time the more I read about pesticides, herbicides and insecticides derived from naturally occurring substances that are now commercially available, the less I am inclined to use any synthetic chemical products in the garden. Some of the more natural pesticides were introduced in the 19th century, and are derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. At the moment I am practicing a form of feeding the soil through composting. I try to always use the least toxic method to address any pest issues. This requires an integrated pest management approach that includes a series of methods for preventing and managing pest populations based on an ecological understanding of the problem. Time, patience and diligence are necessary for the success of any natural program of sustainable garden and pest management. Chemical annihilation of pest colonies and weeds are not an option.

These older, methods and naturally occurring chemicals are a step back, but believed to be safer than the new generation of pesticides and herbicides developed during last quarter century (encouraged by the US EPA to replace the first round of pesticides banned by the agency). The lower concentrations of the new chemicals and their breakdown products rendered them virtually invisible in water. We could not detect them and assumed they were not present. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new chemical herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped. Recent studies have documented endocrine disruption in a wide variety of marine gastropods, frogs, and fish associated with exposure to low levels of non specific endocrine disrupting chemicals of unknown sources. The current state of analysis only allowed the documentation of EDC presence. EDCs are a structurally diverse group that includes natural and synthetic estrogens, alkyl phenols surfactants, phthalates, bisphenol A, brominated flame retardants and some pesticides.

Pesticide' is a broad term, covering a range of products that are used to control pests. The slug pellets, ant powder, weed killers, and rat and mouse baits that you may use in your everyday life are all pesticides. Other pesticides you may have heard of including: insect killers (insecticides), mould and fungi killers (fungicides), weed killers (herbicides), slug pellets (molluscicides), plant growth regulators, bird and animal repellents, and rat and mouse killers (rodenticides). Often people only think of pesticides as chemicals, but they include a very large range of different types of products. Some as described above are natural, while many are altered versions of natural chemicals. I choose to stay away from the synthetic chemicals. My organic garden requires me to weed the beds on a regular basis, where spraying 2, 4-D, commonly found in household weed killers is certainly much easier. However the more chemical pesticides are investigated the more questions are raised. For example, in a 1991 National Cancer Institute study examined dogs whose owners' lawns were treated with 2,4-D four or more times per year. The study found those dogs had double the risk of developing canine malignant lymphoma than dogs whose owners do not use the herbicide. Our knowledge of the consequences of pesticide use is really so limited considering the widespread use of the substances. I think just doing without pesticides and weed killers in my garden are best. There is simply no justification for adding chemical contaminants to the earth and the watershed for a greener lawn and prettier flowers.

Without the need to spread fertilizer or weed controlling chemicals, my spring clean up of my garden involved, edging, weeding and mulching the beds, replacing the shrubbery that the deer pulled out and the snow crushed and replacing the snowplow damaged sections of the lawn with sod and calling it a day. (It was actually 5 man days and 50 bags of mulch.) For full disclosure purposes I still have one of the worst lawns in my neighborhood, I apply no chemicals to my lawn and never water. However, I do hope to improve the lawn by continuing my fall program of aerating and over seeding and applying my limited amount of compost. So far, not so good despite soil analysis that showed decent soil composition. I may not have a great garden, but at least it is a neat one. Next we are onto assessing the condition of my dozen hollies trees that appear to have been severely damaged by the harsh winter we just had. The arborist will be out to determine what can be saved and what needs to be replaced and I will plant some saplings on the forest edge to increase its footprint.

Living in an RPA under the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act

The Regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act require that a vegetated buffer area of at least 100-feet wide be located adjacent to of all tidal shores, tidal wetlands, certain associated non-tidal wetlands, and along both sides of all water bodies with perennial flow within the Tidewater region. These aquatic features, along with the 100-foot buffer area, are the Resource Protection Area (RPA) and serve to protect water quality by reducing excess sediment, nutrients, and potentially harmful or toxic substances from groundwater and surface water entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The RPAs are riparian buffers and provide critical habitat to terrestrial and aquatic species and stabilize stream banks. You can determine if you have a RPA area on a property by using the mapping function from the Assessors Department. Generally, RPA is one of the available mapping layers.

Riparian buffers are noted for their ability to protect and enhance water quality. A properly planted and healthy riparian zone can trap sediment, and reduce or remove nutrients and other chemicals from precipitation, surface waters and ground waters. Riparian buffers are especially important on headwater and small streams that have the greatest amount of water-land interaction and, therefore, have the most opportunities for gaining and transporting sediment. Once sediment has entered the system it can be continually re-suspended as it travels downstream and should be prevented from washing into the stream.

Riparian buffers perform many ecological functions. While required by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act for water quality benefits, the advantages realized by a natural or established forested buffer go well beyond clean water, erosion control and control of runoff. The presence of properly vegetated buffers provides biologically diverse habitats both in the water and on land. Watching the wildlife on the edge of the forested zone has provided hours of peaceful pleasure. The buffers are complex ecological systems that connect the upland areas with surface waters providing a transitional area through which both the surface and ground waters flow. Protecting riparian buffers protects human health and welfare by protecting the watershed, one of our most valuable resources.

According to Helms and Johnson a healthy forest has living trees functioning as part of a balanced and self replacing ecosystem. That ecosystem is a complex mix of trees, understory shrubs and groundcover. Over time the process of natural succession causes a change in species composition and structure. Small saplings are developing into the next generation of trees as the older ones die out, and understory trees add valuable functions between the larger dominant species. A riparian, forested buffer may require some degree of maintenance to retain its health and function. Since a forest is a dynamic ecosystem, change is inevitable as vegetation grows and dies.

I had noticed that some of the trees on the garden potion of our land (the area not part of the RPA) seemed to be dying, chocked to death by what appeared to be wineberry and some unknown vine. As an experiment my husband cut down much of the vines on three trees that appeared to by dying the year we moved into the house. Two years later the trees seem to be once more thriving. As I studied the garden I noticed vines growing over many of the trees and began to think that maybe the invasive vines should be cut back on all the trees. This raised the question of the health of the RPA. Wanting to be a good steward of the RPA entrusted to me, I turned to the Virginia Department of Natural Resources.

According to the “Riparian Buffers Guidance Manual” it is practically always best to allow the RPA to evolve on its own. Removal of noxious weeds or dead, dying and diseased vegetation should only be done as necessary to maintain the health of the forest or to prevent fire fuel buildup problems. So I contacted the Virginia Department of Forestry to assess the health of the woodland. The Forester seemed to think that the woodland appeared healthy, though he did not have time to walk the acres within the woodland. The Forester recommended that in the area not part of the RPA that a section of invasive vines be removed and replanted with native species, a dying tree removed and replaced with a native species and some additional tree suggestions for expanding our plantings. The Riparian Buffers Guidance Manual had a wonderful section on the management of woodlands that essentially stated that leaving the woods alone is the best plan.

Soil and Water Conservation District Impact to Waters of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

A large portion of both Prince William County and Fauquier County is within the Culpeper groundwater basin. In Prince William County the Culpeper basin consists of an interbedded sequence of sedimentary and basaltic rocks with a lack of overburden that limits natural protection to the aquifer, which is one of the most productive aquifers in the state. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act does not address the importance of groundwater to the watershed nor address the interconnected nature of groundwater and surface water. Under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 2001 amendment, all the perennial flow surface water, connected and contiguous to tidal wetlands and buffer lands or within 100 feet of any of those features were made Resource Protection Areas of the Act. Virginia has not yet determined what percentage of the land area and population are subject to the act, but hopes to do so in the future. The “Tidewater” area as defined under the Act covers some of the most populous areas of Virginia. Portions of my land fall within the Resource Protection Areas of the Act, though according to the old geography books I live within the Piedmont of the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, I take my stewardship of this resource and my responsibilities under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act seriously.

I was very dismayed to read recently, that the Act was a “quasi-regulatory requirement” and is “likely only voluntary in nature because it does not require farmers or landowner to pay for the (soil and water quality conservation) assessments.” The September 2009 report from the Environmental Working Group “Facing the Facts in the Chesapeake Bay,” is the source of that statement. The EWG identifies non-point source agricultural sources as the producers of a significant portion of the pollution in the watershed. This is an undisputed fact. The EWG points out that to achieve the target nutrient reduction in the Chesapeake Bay the six states have assigned two thirds or the nutrient reductions to agriculture. These are really the low lying fruit and can be obtained with agricultural “best management practices.” To achieve that end, the EWG argues that the six Chesapeake Bay states and the federal government must develop and effective regulatory framework to specifically implement the necessary farm best management practices by expanding federally regulatory authority over agricultural non-point source pollution. I do not believe that expansion of federal regulation and control are either cost effective or desirable. Self regulation is a proven and effective model. The resources available to educate and assist property owners should be more widely dispersed.

Virginia's Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) coordinates and directs programs and services to prevent degradation of the Commonwealth's water quality and quantity, though it is unclear if that mandate extends to groundwater. Most DCR soil and water conservation efforts are devoted to controlling nonpoint source pollution. Statewide nonpoint source pollution control programs support natural resource stewardship and assist local governments with resource management. These programs include technical assistance, education and research efforts are provided by the Soil and Water Conservation Districts which are funded through state agency budgets, through programs such as the sale of Chesapeake Bay license plates and by funds available from the federal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program under the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) were established in the 1930s to take ownership of the dams within the state. Across the United States, nearly 3000 conservation districts almost one in every county are helping local people to conserve land, water, forests, wildlife and related natural resources. In Virginia, the SWCDs work to develop comprehensive programs and plans to conserve soil resources, control and prevent soil erosion, prevent floods and conserve, develop, utilize and dispose water. Today, forty-seven districts serve as local resources for citizens in nearly all Virginia localities except Arlington. Virginia's Conservation Districts take an ecosystem approach to conservation and protection. Their vision is to help all citizens of their District to have livable communities in harmony with the environment. The SWCDs offer free technical assistance and resources for many sustainable and environmentally-friendly projects from managing storm water, to technical assistance to farmers with specific nutrient management to protect our waterways. The SWCDs provide technical assistance for natural resource conservation best management practices and offer tax credits and financial incentives, when appropriate.
I plan to work with my local SWCD in the coming months to add my skills to their programs and to see how this great resource contributes to moving towards a sustainable Virginia and healthier Chesapeake Watershed.

Sustainable Living with a Lifecycle Approach

The carbon footprint and IPAT approach failed to encompass the balance with which we live with the earth. When I lived in the city I did not often think about all the resources of the earth pulled to support the city entity itself. I never considered if urban living was more or less sustainable than country or suburban living. Certainly, when we worked in the city, living within walking distance of work seemed more sustainable. The work I did in environmental evaluations and redevelopment of Brownfield properties was clearly improved use or re-use of the land and a sustainable form of land use. How does the work you do contribute to the sustainability of your life? What is the cost of supplying cities with power, water and food? Is the ecological impact of a city greater than the ecological impact of the individuals merely because of the concentration of population? These are truly tough questions, and I do not have the simplicity of an answer that measuring a carbon footprint would. Truly measuring your ecological footprint and choices accurately might require some of the computing power of NASA.

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. Living within your personal means, financial means and your ecological means would be a sustainable life. The problem is how to determine what is or should be your ecological means, what is sustainable in a dynamic and interconnected environment. A useful model in sustainable living could be a great tool in decision making. In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources. Recently, I came across an article by Phillip E. Savage, PE of the University of Michigan, “What Does It Mean To Be Green.” In the literature cited was a book, “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living,” written/published in 1991 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Thanks to the internet excerpts from the book were available to read as well as a summary of the book. It appears to be a guide to the principles and actions of sustainable living on this earth. The first part of the book was even called “principals of sustainable living.”

There is a “popular adoption” of the book called “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Survival.” That is the book I ordered. The book summary reads in part, “The principles of sustainable living are respect and care for the community of life, improvement in the quality of human life, conservation of the earth's vitality and diversity, reduction of nonrenewable resource depletion, (and) maintenance of the earth's carrying capacity… Changes in community attitudes and practice in the care of their own environments, a national framework for integrating development and conservation.” Sounds like powerful and encompassing view that I hope has not been made obsolete with the passage of 18 years. Hopefully, I will find universal principles to evaluate choices.

Until I find a truly workable model of sustainable living I will try to stumble through life’s choices, balancing wants and desires with resources and trying to make good choices for us and the earth. Following a systematic plan to reduce the non-renewable the energy footprint of our home and lives. Living within the limits of the hydraulic system of the Culpeper Basin. Acting as responsible stewards of the watershed. Making responsible choices on how we spend the money we have available. For example, I will admit that for health and taste reasons (and because I evaluated the environmental impact of CAFOs in the northwest and Texas) I buy meat from what my husband refers to as the meat underground. Every six weeks or so, I drive my little hybrid on a 35 mile roundtrip to pick up my meat order from the appointed pickup location that the husband always describes this as “under a bridge by the river.” It is actually at the end of a cul-de-sac. My meat is more expensive than what could be bought in groceries (with the exception of the grass feed organic meat at Whole Foods that I buy when we are in California). My meat co-operative is a relatively local Shenandoah Valley Farmer, Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. Just recently, Mr. Salatin and Polyface Farms received a Heinz Family Foundation Award for helping to bring about a cleaner, greener and more sustainable plant. After reading that in the local “Co-op Currents” I feel really good about all the money I spend on meat. Since I calculated that I have about 28,000-30,000 more meals to cook for my husband, they might as well be tasty, healthy and sustainable.

By the way, just in case you care, Salatin rotates his livestock’s location on the farm, so that different species are helped by the proximity of the other animals. He uses portable infrastructure and equipment, and does not use chemicals or fertilizers, instead using composting and pigs as aerators. He is too ornery and libertarian to jump through hoops for organic certification, so you take it or leave it with his guarantee. For anyone who has not spent time at concentrated feed lots or by their official government name “concentrated animal feeding operations, CAFOs, I recommend Michael Pollen’s excellent book, “An Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Food.”

Sustainable Living and Your Carbon Footprint

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. Living within your means and your ecological means would be a sustainable life. The problem is how to determine what is or should be your ecological means. In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources.

A very popular viewpoint right now is sustainability is tied to 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. In a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is used by plants and trees. However, the belief is that we are producing more carbon dioxide than can be absorbed by the plants and trees currently available to use it because we are burning too much fuel. The fuel represents carbon dioxide that was trapped under the earth's surface for millions of years. It is believed that the human population by breathing and burning fuels has caused the increase in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere from approximately 250 parts per million (0.025%) to 386 part per million (0.039%) in the past 100 years.

The popular belief is that this increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the under 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in average global temperature since 1900. (It is to be noted that that increase was 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit when measured in 1998 and 2005, but the average temperature has fallen somewhat since then.) This theory further 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 goal of Cap and Trade legislation is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by capping the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted by all industry, reducing that amount each year and allowing the industrial sector to reduce their releases off the base and sell each other release permits, thus reducing the burning of fuels. The belief is that if we could reduce our carbon dioxide emissions enough we could stop the climate of the earth from changing. The models predicting this are at the earliest stages of development because our knowledge of our environment is really limited, hard data points especially for the oceans has been limited in quantity and duration.

There is a price to reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and we need to the costs and benefits in terms of comforts, services, possessions and environmental balance before we act. It is likely very important to reduce the burning or fossil fuels and increase the planting of trees; however, we should approach this in the most cost effective manner. It is not clear how regulations to limit point source carbon dioxide release, to reduce our carbon footprint (reduce our burning of fuels) will of its self make living more sustainable. Certainly, the current fuel usage in the United States will decrease and may make the climate of the earth more stable if carbon dioxide emissions do not increase else where in the world. In addition, as the previous review of global warming research showed some research suggests that climate change may have components that are other than of anthropogenic (human) causes. Certainly, anthropogenic activity has been a contributor to the 136 parts per million (0.014%) increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past 109 years. The exact relationship of increases and decreases greenhouse gasses to climate change is unknown, if mankind were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth as in Alan Wisman’s February 2005 essay “Earth Without People”, climate change would not stop. The climate is neither static nor fixed, but without mankind it would certainly be different.

Building a bureaucracy to measure, control and tax carbon dioxide will have unintended consequences and consume resources and energy. There is real benefit to increasing the efficiency in energy use by selecting technologies, like hybrid or dimpled cars, ground source heat exchangers, solar panels or wind turbines. There is tremendous benefit to improving insulation in buildings and homes, passive use of solar and wind. Changes in how 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 footprint.” However, this approach only looks at one aspect of the carbon cycle and fails to identify what is a carbon budget if such a thing exists, it does not consider the other resources of the earth. 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. Limiting carbon dioxide emission by industry might reduce the use of energy in the United States by industry. Energy will become more expensive, a reduction in use will be achieved by a rationing of energy and products by price. A greater allocation of my resources to heating, electricity and food will make me poorer though not necessarily more sustainable in my living on this earth. Too many important aspects of sustainable life are missing from this viewpoint.

Sustainable Living Rethinking the Approach

When I moved from city living to the outer edge of the suburbs sustainable living became a much more complicated topic and approach to life. In the city, sustainable living had been straight forward low impact green living. Work as an environmental consultant, recycle, choose well in purchases (local food, wine and other products), conserve water, limit travel, limit car use, live without heat or air conditioning (which is not particularly difficult in San Francisco). My footprint on the earth felt small. However, here on the outer edge of the suburbs the topic becomes much more complicated and I no longer have a firm definition of what sustainable living is, and I need to rethink sustainability and expand my view. First the easy, we do not commute beyond the walls of our home, but sustainable living is a complicated topic that needs to be fully explored.

Over the next several days let’s look at the various definitions of sustainable living. Sustainability has its earliest roots in the tools developed to assess the environmental, social and economic activities of life. The first approach that I am aware of was IPAT.
Impact = Population × Affluence × Technology
Affluence and technology were believed to worsen the impact of humanity on the natural world. This theory is attributed to Barry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich and John Holdren in 1971. The equation was developed in the 1970s during the course of a debate between them. Commoner who argued that environmental impacts in the United States were caused primarily by changes in its production technology following World War II, while Ehrlich (Population Bomb, 1968) and Holdren while emphasizing the role of population growth, argued that all three factors were important. There was a strong movement in the 1970’s for zero population growth and John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich strongly supported population control.

The past 28 years have given us the opportunity to evaluate these point of views. Despite widespread fears amongst environmentalists that populations would continue to expand at an exponential rate until checked by plague and famine, in recent years world population growth has slowed as women are having fewer children. This phenomenon is believed to be a result of a variation in the demographic transition theory in developed nations, as people become richer, mortality rates drop and they have fewer children. As a result, the UN believes that human population might stabilize around 9 billion by 2100. Of course, the supporters of population control questions if the earth can support 9 billion people in a sustainable fashion. I do not know what life on earth a hundred years from now will be.

History shows that Barry Commoner was more right than wrong. As time goes on we see the power of technology of production and living to change our impact on the earth. Affluence and technology have worked together in the United States to promote pollution prevention, remediation and environmental awareness. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests and preserves more expansive. It appears that after industrial development the next stage of an industrialized society, is environmentalism. The environmental movement and technology join together to reduce and prevent pollution in a number of industries. Waste reduction and point source reduction are the great successes of the second stage of industrial revolution. Technology can potentially take the next step into product reduction, by delivering services electronically. Consider, information and music. Just as we moved from vinyl, to CD’s to electronic music files, I am afraid that IPAT approach is very vinyl in this analysis. It appears that technology will deliver new aspects of life that are more electronic than physical, efficiencies will improve.

Currently, sustainability is tied in the public consciousness with ecological or carbon footprint. Next we will look at the carbon footprint as a method of determining an maintaining a sustainable existence.