We are not big on “end of the world as we know it” scenarios. We accept that Climate Change is a major issue and try not to focus on “what will happen,” discussions.  However, here’s a cool (or warm?) website you should check out if you  want to see a more graphic depiction of what we could be in for, according to the UN Statistics Division Demographic Yearbook 2007: http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/content/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final  The site shows how a 4° Celsius (7° Fahrenheit) increase could impact the earth. It lets you choose your issue: forest fire, crops, water availability, sea level, marine, drought, permafrost, tropical cyclones, and extreme temperatures. This is a clear way to see what could happen.

Our Science Partner, Jamie Lloyd made a great presentation at Emory this week that covered the “hows” and “whys” of Climate Change. The issue is clear to any reasonable climate scientist. Jamie presented a graph that shows the temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the last 647,000 years. It shows that we are now at 385 parts per million (PPM) of CO2, and rising, while spending 647,000 years between 170 and 300 PPM of CO2. The chart shows the temperature and CO2 rise caused by the industrial revolution and the wholesale burning of fossil fuels.

Yet… the latest Pew Research shows a decline of in Americans who believe that there is solid evidence that Global Temperatures are rising. I hate being about fear and scaring into action – its just that I am afraid.

The price of oil is rising. It hit $78 a barrel Friday, its highest level this year. There are 42-gallons-per barrel. As a rule of thumb, the per- barrel price will be 65% of the total retail price of gasoline. That translates to a retail price of $2.86. Once again we all wake up and realize that we need to find new energy alternatives (I’m tempted to say dah, but I won’t). With high oil prices green innovations become more beneficia l and economically sound.  Higher gas prices suddenly make energy-efficient cars more important. 

According to www.fueleconomy.gov, the 2010 Prius gets 49.7 MPG highway. If we use a 12,000 miles a year average,  a Prius has a 2.1 metric ton Carbon Footprint and uses 241.7 gallons of oil a year. The fuel cost is $690.55 at today’s prices. This compares favorably to the Honda Accord, which gets 25 MPG, has a 4.3 metric tons Carbon Footprint and uses 480.0 gallons of gas a year.  That’s  $1,371.43 in gas a year-a difference of $680.88.

The 2010 Prius has an MSRP of $22,000. The 2010 Accord has an MSRP of $21,055-a difference of $945. The average new-car buyer trades in their car every 4 years.  Look at it on a matrix below based on 4-year ownership and different  prices:

So what does this chart say? It says that at $4 a gallon a Prius owner (50 MPG) will spend $3,840 less on gas during their 4-year ownership of their car than a Honda Accord (25 MPG). Based on this you would buy a $22,000 Prius every time.  

This is just an example. The same can be said for solar panels, wind turbines and any other efficiency. It is amazing what a motivator high oil prices can be.

Averages don’t always account for large variations. The best way to conceptualize the problem is: the average wealth level of you, me and Bill Gates is not an accurate representation of our true net worth. However, averages do help us understand large numbers. That being said, the average air travel per passenger mile CO2 footprint is less than that of an average car.

We took the information from the US Department of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 28 (”the Book”), and adjusted for fuel type. It is important to note “the Book” makes assumptions about passenger per vehicle. For example, they assume a car holds 1.57 passengers and an airplane has 97.20 passengers (I’ve never seen 1.57 people before, but that’s averages for you). Then, in order to put it into a real-world context we looked at as if 1.57 people were traveling from the Atlanta airport to the Los Angeles airport.

Click to Enlarge
Under this scenario the most CO2e efficient way to travel is by motorcycle. I don’t know about you but I think I’d be pretty sore after a drive like that and I don’t know where I’d put my luggage.  Driving, in the average car with 1.57 people in it, would create 0.49 metric tons of CO2e and AMTRAK would create 0.36 metric tons of CO2e. If it’s just me, flying would be the more carbon effective way to travel at 0.28 metric tons of CO2e. 

Now it can get more complicated. For instance, you could add hotel stays and the waste associated with eating. But on the other hand, if you plan to travel with more than one person to the same destination the entire footprint gets flipped on its head.

I have been in a terrific position to look at new technologies. I hear about solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear energy and biomass energy creation. I read up on electric cars and smart grids.  I meet with biodiesel companies, bio-digester project managers, geothermal energy managers and waste-to-energy specialists.   I know about CFLs, LED lighting, thermal imagers, power factor balancing, door blowers, benefits of ceiling fans and green roofs. All are important parts to energy reduction and smaller carbon footprints.

The benefits of these technologies are touted loudly, the drawbacks whispered about.  At lunch today, a customer, who is a knowledgeable sustainability director, mention how wouldn’t it be great if there was one big solution to halt climate change. We all came to the conclusion that there is no “one solution” - it is a lot of little solutions. For example: CFLs have mercury and do not deal with power factor. LEDs are fragile and the light may not be as pleasing as CFLs or incandescent. Thankfully there are applications for both.

We need to improve transportation efficiency and hopefully move to electric cars. This would reduce CO2 emissions but push more demand to the electric grid. The grid is very fossil fuel dependent. However, solar power, wind turbines and landfill methane are not as steady as fossil fuels. There would be outages if we moved exclusively these technologies. Nuclear energy is great until you need to deal with the waste-and there is not an infinite amount of uranium.

We need to go on a carbon diet, which means: managing our homes and offices better. I live in a 1920’s home and it is drafty. I don’t want to move. I’m in the process of improving it but it will never be LEED rated. So I buy offsets to neutralize my effect on the environment.

I will buy an electric car and hope that my local utility cleans up power generation. I’ll use CFLs and LEDs carefully. There’s a buffet of energy options, there is no excuse for households and businesses to not do their part to reduce energy usage.