Footprints in the Sand
The other day, we received a letter from our local power company summarizing the impact of our clean energy purchases. Our electric utility, Pacific Power, offers clean energy through its Blue Sky program, which allocates the dollars we spend toward electricity purchases from renewable sources, including wind farms. In the letter, Pacific Power claims that our family’s purchase of over 16,000 kilowatt hours of renewable power in 2006 represents the equivalent of not driving over 34,000 miles. According to Pacific Power, the aggregate impact of the Blue Sky program, which is the second largest program in the country, was the equivalent of taking 51,000 cars off the road for the year. I’m not an expert on power plant emissions, but those numbers are beyond anything I imagined when we signed up for the program. I’m not naïve enough to accept those numbers without any scrutiny or overlook the fungible nature of electricity, which prevents establishing a direct connection between the dollars we spend and the electricity that arrives in our home. However, at even half those numbers, the impact is impressive. As a comparison, we are on pace to eliminate roughly 3,000 vehicle miles over a 12 month period as a household by eliminating two-thirds of our car trips (most car trips are short, and these are the trips that are easiest to replace). Given the ease of participating in these programs, in contrast to our quixotic efforts to reduce our car use, and the minor rate premium, I’m not sure how someone can justify not participating. A list of utilities offering such programs can be found here.
The contribution of power plants to global warming is beginning to receive significant attention as lawmakers consider various energy policy alternatives. Coal-fired power plants, in particular, have the potential to negate any reductions in carbon emissions from the replacement of fossil fuels in other aspects of our lives, such as driving. Recognizing the enormity of the threat, California is the first state to prohibit the purchase of power from any newly-constructed coal-fired power plants by state-regulated utilities. In Texas, which leads the nation in carbon emissions, 16 new coal-fired power plants are planned over the next six years. While the state has not shown a willingness to confront the major utilities over these plans, the mayors of Dallas and Houston have pledged to fight the construction of these new plants. Due to the lack of comprehensive federal regulations governing carbon emissions, state politicians, with few exceptions, are afraid to lead the way in enacting tighter emissions standards for fear of driving away business to other states. Instead, they fall prey to the strong-arm tactics of local utilities, who impose their short-term, narrow-minded interests on a debate with massive implications for the public.
The decision about where to buy your power or whether to drive your car is part of the broader question of how to reduce the size of our carbon footprint. That term has become more widely used in recent years to describe the carbon emissions generated by the lifestyle of a household or business or institution. As the comparison between our car use and electricity purchases highlights, even the best intentions can be undermined by neglecting the primary carbon outputs in our lives. As I have often stated, where we choose to live and work says more about our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint than more trendy actions like recycling or purchasing organic foods. Economist Edward Glaeser makes a strong case that living in a dense city goes a long way toward reducing your carbon footprint. Glaeser writes:
If the environmental footprint of the average suburban home is a size 15 hiking boot, the environmental footprint of a New York apartment is a stiletto-heeled Jimmy Choo. Eight million New Yorkers use only 301 square miles, which comes to less than one-fortieth of an acre a person. Even supposedly green Portland, Ore., is using up more than six times as much land a person than New York.
This closeness, Glaeser notes, produces some enviable traits:
- Less than one-third of New Yorkers drive to work.
- New Yorkers consume the least amount of gas per capita of any major metropolitan area.
- New York State, due primarily to the lifestyles of New York City residents, is next to last in energy consumption in the country.
New York City’s residents aren’t more concerned about conservation than the rest of us; they choose to live in a city where it is completely rational to live without a car and to minimize the amount of living space you occupy. Planners promote density for exactly this reason. Dense neighborhoods cause people to reduce their carbon footprint on their own without emotional or ideological appeals.
Because of the intrinsic ability of dense cities to reduce energy consumption, Glaeser believes that our largest cities need to resist any NIMBY tendencies and be willing to absorb as much growth as possible. Otherwise that growth with end up in less energy efficient locales. According to Glaeser:
When Manhattan builds up, instead of Las Vegas building out, we are saving gas and protecting land. Every new skyscraper in Manhattan is a strike against global warming. Every new residential high rise means a few less barrels of oil bought from less than friendly nations belonging to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Cities have historically offered refuge for those seeking to start anew. Now is the time to update that story for the 21st Century. Energy independence is not about self-sacrifice and turning back the clock. The answer is a return to bright lights of the big city.
Comments
An excellent post as it acknowledges the complex factors related to trying to reduce our carbon footprint. Here is a related post on the subject of global warming:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/shapiro/134
Posted by: Jeff Singer | February 7, 2007 7:01 AM