Sasha Lyutse's Blog: Solving Global Warming

NRDC & Garrison Institute Release "Behavioral Wedge": 15% Cut in U.S. Emissions Achievable Through Simple Inexpensive Personal Actions

2010-03-15T19:42:59Z

UPDATE 3/19: TIME reports on NRDC-Garrison Institute study.

Last week, NRDC Executive Director Peter Lehner presented the “Behavioral Wedge” at the first-ever Garrison Institute Climate, Mind and Behavior Symposium. A joint NRDC-Garrison Institute project, the wedge identified one billion tons worth of annual U.S. greenhouse gas reductions possible through simple and inexpensive personal actions. One billion tons, or one gigaton (Gt), is one-seventh of current national emissions, roughly equivalent to the emissions of the UK and Saudi Arabia combined.

The actions were divided into four sectors, transportation, household energy, food, and consumption. The proposed measures included reducing idling, using a programmable thermostat, replacing red meat with poultry two days per week, and buying recycled paper products.

As Marc Gunther picked up in his blog, Peter was quick to emphasize that personal action is no substitute for policy and regulatory change. Nor is it a competing interest. On the contrary, Peter spoke of a potential synergy between the “personal” and the “political” realms:

“If you start biking to work, you may become more active in your community, to make sure there are bike lanes. Policy is no longer abstract. It’s very real.”

The Symposium brought together leading thinkers and practitioners in the fields of climate change, environmental advocacy, psychology, social media, policymaking, investing, and neuro-, evolutionary and behavioral economics. By engaging these experts in the field, NRDC and the Garrison Institute hope to make behavioral change a reality.

Check out our peer-reviewed fact sheet and official press release, and see further coverage on TreeHugger, Mother Jones, and Globe-Net.

Would you like to reduce and track your personal impact? Sign up for the SimpleSteps community today. Curious to see what behavioral change looks like on a national scale? Watch what happens when your fellow Americans follow your carbon-cutting lead in this interactive simulator.

The One Billion Ton Opportunity Cont'd - Part V: Waste, Recycling and Responsible Consumption

2010-02-23T18:51:03Z

UPDATE 3/18: Table edited.

Today Matt Eisenson continues his blog series on the NRDC-Garrison Institute Behavioral Wedge—a.k.a. the “Billion Tons Project”—with his fifth and final post. The theme today is reducing waste. To catch up on Matt’s earlier posts, see his blogs on reducing emissions from transport, household energy use and food.

When it comes to reducing our personal carbon footprints, the three R’s—reducing, reusing, and recycling our waste—offer a rich crop of low-hanging fruit. For this project we targeted five easy and impactful actions that cut global warming pollution and increase the efficiency of our waste stream:

Figure 1: Proposed measures for reducing waste-related emissions.

We all know that recycling is important. An across-the-board 50% increase in recycling rates would yield an annual reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of more than 105 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMtCO2e) in 2020—more than the combined emissions of Switzerland (54 MMtCO2e) and Singapore (48 MMtCO2e).

An additional 60 MMtCO2e of reductions will be possible through more responsible consumption of paper and plastics, two materials which comprise 31% and 12% of total municipal solid waste (MSW), respectively. Together, recycling and responsible consumption (using less and buying right) will cut almost 165 MMtCO2e in 2020.

Recycle More

According to recent EPA data, just over 33% of municipal solid waste (MSW) is recycled. The 83 million short tons recycled in 2008 offset about 182 MMtCO2e of emissions, which is equivalent to taking 33 million cars off the road. To calculate the savings of a 50% increase in recycling, we multiplied the current masses of each material recycled by 0.5, and multiplied that figure by the corresponding EPA factor for the carbon benefit of recycling over landfilling (we excluded textiles, rubber, leather, and other miscellaneous wastes due to the lack of consumer-accessible recycling centers). Considering that per capita MSW generation has remained nearly constant—fluctuating between 4.5 and 4.6 lbs/person/day over the past two decades— we adjusted the calculated savings directly for projected population growth. The total savings come to over 115 MMtCO2e in 2020, the vast majority of which (96 MMtCO2e) comes from paper. Subtracting the rebound effect for smarter consumption (10 MMtCO2e for paper, negligible for plastic), the total is closer to 105 MMtCO2e.

But can we reasonably predict such a steep increase? The present rate of recycling does indeed represent a dramatic improvement over the past three decades. As you can see in the EPA chart reprinted below, the current national recycling rate is more than double the rate in 1990 (16.2%) and more than triple the rate in 1985 only five years earlier (10.1%). From 1980 to 1990, and again from 1990 to 2000, the rate increased by more than 50% per decade. Over the past decade, however, the growth of recycling rates has slowed considerably.

(Source: Municipal Solid Waste Facts and Figures 2008, EPA)

Historical trends give a mixed message. But with the right combination of market-based innovation (see recent press coverage of RecycleBank and Yourenew.com) and increased demand for recycled products (another important measure in the behavioral wedge, described later), we believe the 50% increase is feasible. EPA estimates we could ultimately recycle 75% of waste.

Responsible consumption of paper and plastics; stop the catalogs!

Each year, 19 billion catalogs are mailed to American consumers, the majority of which are unwanted. According to a recent report published by Forest Ethics, the production and distribution of catalogs is responsible for more than 20 MMtCO2e of emissions per year. Fortunately, a number of nonprofit organizations, such as CatalogChoice, now offer free removal from mailing lists and facilitate switching to e-catalogs. Opting out of 2/3 of catalogs would reduce emissions by 15 MMtCO2e in 2020 (assuming that catalog distribution would grow with population under business-as-usual projections).

Use less paper

For the past two decades consumption of printing and writing paper in the United States has hovered consistently around 30 million tons per year; the average office worker consumes 10,000 sheets, or 20 reams, annually. The recovery rate for this paper is now greater than 50% due to the success of recent recycling efforts and the increased availability of curbside recycling. Unfortunately, the majority of this paper still comes from virgin pulp, much of which is extracted from virgin forests. Post-consumer recycled (PCR) content comprises a tiny 6% of the present mix of printing and writing paper. The annual environmental impact of this consumption, including land-use change from deforestation, is almost 80 MMtCO2e of emissions.

Fortunately, there are several easy and proven ways to reduce paper consumption at home, at school, and in the workplace. Fixing printer default settings to print double-sided will achieve a nearly immediate reduction (see how Rutgers saved 1,280 trees in one academic year). Reductions are also possible through decreasing the number of printers available—using shared office printers as opposed to individual desktop printers—using print preview to prevent wasted pages, adjusting page margins, and promoting a general culture of paper conservation. If the United States reduced printer paper consumption by 1/3, it would preclude roughly 26 MMtCO2e of emissions in 2020, according to this EDF paper calculator.

Choose recycled paper

Paper with a high rate of post-consumer recycled (PCR) content is increasingly becoming available and affordable to consumers. Up to 30% PCR the price is usually competitive with virgin paper; higher recycled content is still slightly more expensive. Ambitious changes in institutional procurement policies and more conscious consumer choices will be necessary to increase the average PCR content in paper to 50%. As of fall 2009, the Government Printing Office prints the Congressional Record on 100% PCR paper, and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy already stipulates that the government purchase paper with at least 30% PCR content; additionally, many universities are beginning to demand 100% PCR paper. By increasing the average PCR content of printing and writing paper (after volume reduction), we could reduce GHG emissions by roughly 10 MMtCO2e in 2020.

Figure 3: the share of total projected emissions reductions achieved through each of the recommended waste-related measures.

Carry a reusable water container

Americans consumed more than 33 billion liters of bottled water in 2007—a 70% increase from 2000. It appears that per capita consumption has finally begun to level off. We propose a 50% reduction from the present level. Bottled water is a big problem, and the carbon impact tells only part of the story. An estimated 2.5 million bottles are discarded daily, the majority of which are not recycled; as many as 845 bottles go to the landfill every second. (For a satirical spin on this sobering fact, check out this brilliant piece from The Onion).

And the carbon impact? A recent study from the Pacific Institute showed that the lifecycle energy demands of bottled water consumption in the U.S. were equivalent to 32 to 54 million barrels of oil, or 0.33% of total U.S. energy use. If we assume that demand for bottled water would increase proportionately with population growth, the emissions impact of bottled water use would exceed 16 MMtCO2e by conservative estimates in 2020. A 50% per capita reduction in bottled water consumption over the next 10 years would eliminate 8 MMtCO2e in 2020 and save much precious landfill space (for these calculations we converted the energy cost of bottled water [5.6-10.2 MJ] to gallons of gasoline and derived the emissions from combusting that quantity of MJ of gasoline).

Recycling is a necessary component of lowering our carbon footprint, but not sufficient grounds for complacence (click here to learn more about the trap of the single action bias, of which recycling is a notorious culprit). Responsible consumption—essentially, buying less of what we don’t need and wasting less of what we buy—is an equally important piece of the puzzle.

Stay tuned for our Fact Sheet and interactive tool synthesizing the work covered in this blog series. In the meantime, we invite you to join the Simple Steps community at “My Simple Steps” to track your progress in reducing emissions through behavioral change.

This project is collaboration between NRDC and the Garrison Institute’s Climate, Mind and Behavior (CMB) Project, working to integrate emerging research findings about what drives human behavior into new thinking on climate solutions. It envisions a "behavioral wedge" empowering people to eliminate a gigaton of GHG emissions by simply changing our behavior, starting now, even as we continue to work on other fronts to achieve institutional, regulatory and market changes. CMB is convening leading thinkers and practitioners in the fields climate change and environmental advocacy, neuro-, behavioral and evolutionary economics, psychology, policy-making, investing and social media, working together on ways to shift behavior on a large enough scale to realize this potential 1 gigaton emissions reduction.

Climate & Energy Bill to Bring Big Benefits to Arkansas Rural Communities

2010-02-12T20:36:50Z

In an Arkansas Times OpEd yesterday, Kenneth Smith, Director of Audubon Arkansas, made the case for why Arkansas—and specifically Arkansas rural communities, which are rich in natural resources and fertile land—have more to gain than lose from comprehensive climate and energy legislation, like the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, a.k.a. ACES):

Multiple studies by respected institutions show that a balanced climate and energy bill is good for the environment, good for the economy and will lead us to more jobs and greater energy security. Even agriculture and forestry, two of Arkansas's most important industries, can benefit from a balanced bill.

ACES would exempt the agricultural sector from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caps and provide transitional assistance for farmers. The bill would also create a carbon offsets market and spur the expansion of markets for renewable energy, both of which will enhance agricultural revenues. As Smith explains, while farmers may see modest increases in initial energy costs from climate legislation, “a cap and trade market with offsets would generate revenue that would lower the cost of compliance and generate additional revenue to agricultural and forestry producers.” He also notes that climate and energy legislation will create greater demand for biofuels and biofuel-producing crops, adding more revenue opportunities for U.S. farmers.

Smith cites Kansas State University’s review of six recent studies that examine ACES’s costs and benefits for American farmers. The review found that agriculture stands to be a net winner from climate and energy legislation’s passage (see my post on the review here).

NRDC’s own analysis of the economic potential for renewable energy development in Arkansas found that taking advantage of these opportunities in renewable resource development would reduce GHG emissions while creating tens of thousands of jobs for Arkansans and give a big boost to rural communities across the state.

Arkansas’ Clean Energy Resource Potential, Energy Advantages, and Environmental Benefits

A recent survey found that Arkansans strongly support renewable resource development and energy efficiency, want to see a decrease in coal use, and would support a requirement that utilities use renewable energy and energy efficiency to meet electricity demand. Comprehensive climate and energy legislation would create and expand new markets for renewable energy, displacing the costly system of importing energy from across the globe. With these national policies in place, Arkansas could become a key supplier of clean energy and the tools to produce it.

Smith highlights the significant economic and environmental costs of inaction for Arkansas and says “time is ticking”:

Under climate change, agriculture is the most identified domestic economic sector likely to be negatively impacted…

Arkansas's biggest industry is tourism. Total travel expenditures in 2008 for Arkansas were almost $5.6 billion. A 2006 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that $1.8 billion was spent in Arkansas for hunting, fishing and wildlife watching. What happens to the state's tourism and outdoor recreation industry when climate change impacts more waterfowl and wildlife and these species decline or disappear? What happens if smallmouth bass, trout, and cold water fisheries are eliminated from our lakes and rivers?

Despite attempts to scare American farmers about the costs of climate legislation, Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln and her Senate colleagues representing agricultural states, must recognize the important economic benefits a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill would bring their rural constituents. Arkansas’ resources—both natural and human—give it the potential to be a national leader in the production of the clean, renewable energy America needs. Now Arkansas’ political leadership should seize the opportunity to help curb global warming pollution, protect the state’s natural resources and agricultural sector from the costly impacts of climate change, and deliver significant economic benefits to Arkansans by helping to pass clean energy and climate legislation this year.

This blog post was co-written by Pierre Bull.

The One Billion Ton Opportunity Cont'd - Part IV: Diet and Food Waste

2010-02-11T21:38:21Z

UPDATE 3/18: Table edited.

Today, Matt Eisenson continues his series of blogs on the Behavioral Wedge Project with the fourth of five posts, focusing on the climate impacts of changes to our daily diets. (For more on this work, check out Matt’s previous posts here and here).

Diet is the perennial hot topic, and “green” is the current theme. We know that what we eat matters for the environment, but how do we reduce our impact without disrupting our familiar eating habits or breaking the bank? A recent NRDC fact sheet addressed this issue in the broader context. For the purposes of this project—an examination of the potential for Americans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2020 through small behavioral changes—we have singled out two dietary behaviors, swapping red meat for chicken and cutting back on dairy, and also targeted reducing food waste as a whole.

Figure 1: Proposed measures for reducing emissions from diet and food waste.

Eat Less Red Meat and Dairy

Livestock are a leading cause of global warming, responsible for at least 18% of global GHG emissions, according to a United Nations study, when deforestation and land use change for grazing are taken into account. Cattle (both meat and dairy), sheep, and goats contribute more than their fair share. Due to their ruminant (multi-stomach) digestive systems, these animals emit vast quantities of methane (CH4), a GHG 23 times more potent than CO2. Perhaps surprisingly, grass-fed livestock produce more methane emissions than their grain-fed counterparts that comprise the majority of animals raised for milk or meat in the United States. But digestion is only part of the story. After accounting for the extensive upstream emissions of grain production and transportation, grain-fed livestock usually have a higher carbon footprint. In terms of production, the nitrogenous fertilizer applied to grain crops is energy-intensive to produce, and degrades into nitrous oxide (N2O), a GHG 300 times more potent than CO2. Feed crops are often grown thousands of miles from livestock operations, creating long supply chains with fuel-intensive transportation requirements. (That said, you might be surprised to learn that transportation as a whole accounts for only 11% of life-cycle emissions and final delivery from the producer to the retailer accounts for only 4% for the average calorie we consume across our diet).

Red meat’s environmental impact is strikingly disproportionate to that of other foods on a calorie by calorie basis. According to the chart reprinted below from the New York Times, beef produces roughly 4 times the emissions of pork, 10 times the emissions of chicken, and 100 times the emissions of carrots, pound for pound. Pigs are voracious consumers of energy, but, as non-ruminants, they expel less methane. And cheese? Six times the emissions of chicken, 2 times the emissions of salmon, and 20 times that of wheat flour.

The environmental impact of red meat and dairy is so large that substituting 15% of your red-meat-and-dairy budget for chicken yields the same GHG reduction as shifting to a 100% localized diet—a staggering figure, given the fact that the average calorie we eat travels 6,760 km (4,200 miles) across the supply chain and 1,640 km (1,000 miles) for final delivery, from farm to fork.

Including pork, the average American eats about 340 calories of red meat a day. For context, a quarter pound (4 oz.) of ground beef contains about 200 calories; 340 calories corresponds to almost 7 ounces of ground beef. According to the 2005 University of Chicago model developed by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, a substitution of 2/7 of red meat-derived calories for poultry would save 210 kg CO2e per person, and a total of 70 MMtCO2e across the U.S. population in 2020. (The model employs detailed FAO data for average consumption, and lifecycle analyses that measure the relative “efficiencies” of each food group—kcal output/kcal input—and the related non-CO2 emissions. The calculations do not account for the application of fertilizer, and suggest a relatively conservative individual carbon footprint).

The average American consumes 430 calories of dairy products every day. In terms of reducing the carbon impact of dairy consumption, however, the specific product makes a big difference: cheese is 10 times more carbon-intensive than milk. A small reduction in cheese goes a long way; one would have to sacrifice a lot of milk to keep cheese consumption constant. If every American replaced 2/7 of their dairy-derived calories in favor of plant-based calories, this would yield a personal GHG emissions reduction of over 100 kg CO2e and a total countrywide reduction of 35 MMtCO2e in 2020.

To put this in perspective, if every American made these small changes to their diets, the impact would be equivalent to taking 17 million cars off the road.

Cut Food Waste by 25%

According to the USDA’s latest comprehensive survey, 27% of the nation’s food supply is wasted as it passes through retail, food service, and consumer stages of its lifecycle. Other studies place these post-farm losses closer to 40% or 50%. One study suggests that the average family of four in the U.S. throws away 112 pounds of food per month, or about half of the food we buy.

The average U.S. household has an annual carbon footprint for food of 8.1 MtCO2e. If there are 2.6 people per household, this works out to approximately 3.1 tons per person. Ignoring the impacts of dietary change for a moment, if we multiple this per capita “foodprint” by the expected population in 2020 (341 million), we find that the emissions of our food system will exceed 1 billion tons. Subtracting the abatement from the two dietary changes described above (to avoid double counting), we find the total emissions for household consumption to be 955 MMtCO2e. Multiplied by 27% (the USDA estimate of how much of our food in the U.S. is wasted), we find that the emissions related to the production and transportation of wasted food will exceed 250 MMtCO2e in 2020—not including the downstream emissions related to decay (which produces methane) or the transport of waste to landfill. If every American were to reduce their personal food waste by a modest one quarter, the result will be a sizable 65 MMtCO2e of abatement in 2020.

We were especially careful to be conservative with these calculations (the true number could well be double this figure, assuming a higher rate of wastage and considering downstream emissions) because we recognize that cutting food waste is not fully in the hands of the individual. There are many steps along the distribution process that are inevitably out of our control. But what our results show is that we can come a long way from throwing out half of our groceries and take advantage of this important opportunity to reduce emissions.

Figure 2: the share of total projected emissions reductions achieved through each of our recommended diet and food-waste measures.

The next post will tackle other measures for waste reduction. Stay tuned. In the meantime, we invite you to join the Simple Steps community at “My Simple Steps” to track your progress in reducing emissions through behavioral change.

The One Billion Ton Opportunity Cont'd - Part III: Household Energy Use

2010-01-28T19:55:04Z

UPDATE 3/16: Two measures added--delay retirement of personal computers by two years and use dryer more sparingly (line-dry in the summer).

Today, my colleague Matt Eisenson continues his blog series on the NRDC-Garrison Institute "Behavioral Wedge Project" (see here and here for the first two blogs in the series), our effort to see if Americans could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) emissions below business-as-usual (BAU) by 2020—roughly 1/7th of U.S. annual emissions today—through a series of small and simple personal actions and changes to their behavior as consumers. In today’s blog, Matt focuses on the next of four categories of emissions: household energy consumption.

As of 2009, emissions from household energy use in the U.S., including both electric power and local fuel combustion, are responsible for approximately 1.2 billion metric tons Mt of our annual GHG emissions. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will grow from an estimated 310 million today to 340 million in 2020. If the average number of people per household remains near 2.6, there will be around 130 million households in 2020, with projected GHG emissions of at least 1.3 billion MtCO2e.

We have identified measures to cut these household emissions by 380 million metric tons (MMtCO2e) below BAU in 2020, roughly a third of the present amount, and more than 25% of the anticipated future baseline (adjusted for population growth).

Figure 1: Proposed measures for reducing emissions from household energy use.

We assume in the baseline scenario that energy consumption per household will remain flat and behaviors constant. For the most simple actions (e.g. swapping incandescent bulbs for energy-saving compact fluorescents and adjusting temperature settings), we accounted for the projected growth of households. To determine the impact of upgrades and weatherization, however, we measured only the impact on existing appliances and infrastructure, and used conservative present-day EnergyStar standards (in reality, the standards in 2020 will likely be more stringent, so an upgrade in that year would have a greater impact than our estimates suggest). The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Residential Energy Consumption Survey provided a detailed inventory of appliances in use, and EnergyStar’s online calculators offered sufficient depth to account for significant factors such as age and size.

The chart below shows the share of total projected emissions reductions achieved through each of our recommended household energy saving measures:

Efficient Heating and Cooling

The simplest and cheapest measures for weatherization—patching leaks, sealing ducts and installing attic insulation—can cut the costs and associated emissions of household temperature regulation and ventilation by up to 20%. If only half of U.S. households achieved these savings by 2020 (a modest target considering generous government funding for more rigorous weatherization programs), the resulting emissions reductions would total nearly 85 MMtCO2e.

Today, over 70 million out of 115 million of the country’s households set their winter heating thermostat above the recommended level of 68°F, and almost 25 million use a setting over 4°F above this level. In summer, more than 2/3 of all households with central air-conditioning set their thermostat below the recommended level of 78°F. Each degree lower on the heating thermostat equals energy savings of 3%, and each degree less cooling saves 6%. If the average household turned down the heat settings by 2°F in winter and turned up the cooling settings by 2°F in summer, those households would save 6% on heating costs and 12% on cooling costs, reducing GHG emissions by over 35 MMtCO2e in 2020.

The Rocky Mountain institute estimates that installing a programmable thermostat and using recommended nighttime and daytime (away-from-home) setbacks could save 450 kg of CO2e per household per year. (Some studies have estimated potential savings of well over 1 MtCO2e per household per year in many parts of the country). Currently, fewer than 15% of households follow this efficient energy-saving measure. 25 million households own a programmable thermostat, but only 15 million reported using its setback feature, according to EIA. The remaining 85% of households can save over 45 MMtCO2e in 2020 by following suit.

Improving Water Heating Efficiency

Heating water is energy-intensive. Fortunately, it is both easy and cost-effective to improve water-heating efficiency. Ninety percent of the energy consumed by a washing machine goes toward heating the water. With most modern detergents, however, hot water is necessary only for the dirtiest loads, if at all. Efficient showerheads, which include all of those manufactured after 1992, provide a superior, more concentrated stream and limit flow to 2.5 gallons per minute (GPM); older showerheads often allow more than 5.5 GPM. Faucet aerators, similarly, regulate water flow and also reduce splashing.

Washing clothes in cold water, insulating one’s water heater, and setting its temperature down by 20°F (from the unnecessarily high default setting of 140°F), as well as installing efficient showerheads and faucet cap aerators, will cut emissions over 60 MMtCO2e by 2020. Nearly one third of those savings comes from washing laundry in unheated water, one of the easiest and most practical measures proposed.

Upgrading and Using Appliances Responsibly, Reducing Standby Power and Using Efficient Bulbs

Upgrading one’s refrigerator and dishwasher to EnergyStar-approved models over the next 10 years (in line with the product’s natural expiration date) will save approximately 55 MMtCO2e annually by 2020, almost 40 MMtCO2e of which is for the refrigerator alone. An EnergyStar dishwasher will save water, energy, and money compared to washing by hand; each product will pay for itself, and save an additional $50-75 over its lifecycle.

**NEW PARAGRAPH**: On the flip side, we need to address our inclination to upgrade our gadgets too often. We replace our computers every four years, although they are built to last longer. EPA estimates that we would save around 25 MMtCO2e if we simply delayed retiring our PCs another 2 years. And, to round it out, we overuse our appliances. In the latest RECS, we found that over 85 million households used a dryer regularly, of which the vast majority, 72 million, used one all the time. If these households started using a clothesline or rack in the summer alone, we would save 35 MMtCO2e (based on RMI estimate that a household can save 780 pounds CO2 per year adopting this change).

Comparable savings opportunities exist for those appliances not in use. The average household computer is left in “idle” mode for an unconscionable 6,000 hours a year, drawing 44 watts per hour more than a computer in hibernate. With at least 170 million home computers projected for 2020, the energy savings potential of setting computer defaults to hibernate mode exceeds 25 MMtCO2e in that year. Many devices, including DVD players, cable boxes, and video game consoles, consume more electricity in a year just being plugged in to the wall than in use. These “phantom” or “vampire” energy losses from standby consumption account for at least 5%,and as much as 15%, of total household energy use. Assuming the low-end estimate of 5% in energy losses, cutting standby electricity consumption by a modest 1/3 would reduce GHG emissions from home energy use by 15 MMtCO2e in 2020.

There are approximately 25 million extra refrigerators in American homes, more than 75% of which are more than 10 years old and almost 30% of which are more than 20 years old, according to EIA. These refrigerators, especially the older, inefficient models, place an enormous drain on household energy use and their owners’ wallets. The average small-to-medium size refrigerator (15-18 cf) built in the 1980s draws over 1700 kWh according to EnergyStar’s Refrigerator Retirement Savings Calculator. Unplugging such a refrigerator could save as much as $200-300 per household per year. If all 25 million secondary refrigerators were unplugged, we would avoid over 15 MMtCO2e emissions in 2020.

Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) require less than ¼ the energy of a traditional incandescent bulb to produce the same intensity of light, and often last up to 10 times as long. If we assume the average household light bulb is on for three hours per day and every home replaced six 60-watt interior incandescent bulbs with equally luminous 13-watt CFLs, we would save approximately 25 MMtCO2e in 2020. Additionally, 30 million households leave an exterior bulb on all night, every night. If these households replaced one exterior 100-watt incandescent with a 23-watt CFL, we would save 5 MMtCO2e emissions in 2020. Finally, at least 1/3 of all lighting in the United States is wasted. According to EPA's 2009 inventory, residential lighting accounted for over 100 MMtCO2e of emissions. If we could cut this waste by 50% by 2020, we would save an additional 14 MMtCO2e after subtracting the savings from switching to CFLs (or 18 MMtCO2e without switching to CFLs).

The next post, coming shortly, will focus on food and offer some surprising—and hopefully inspiring—information about the potential impact changes in our diet could collectively have on the climate. In the meantime, if you’d like to reduce and track your own carbon footprint by implementing some of these ideas, join the Simple Steps community by going to “My Simple Steps.”

The One Billion Ton Opportunity Cont'd - Part II: Transportation

2010-01-14T21:03:17Z

UPDATE 3/16: Correction to aviation emissions reductions (56 MMtCO2e NOT 125 MMtCO2e). Additional measures added to Household Energy to compensate for this shortfall.

Last week on this Switchboard blog, my colleague Matt Eisenson introduced the Behavioral Wedge Project, a joint NRDC-Garrison Institute effort to see if it would be possible to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 1 billion tons carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) below business-as-usual by 2020 if 100% of Americans took a series of simple and low-cost personal actions (in many cases, the actions recommended come with no cost, and of the actions that do have some upfront cost, all pay for themselves over time). The actions fall into four categories: transportation, household energy consumption, food & diet, and waste. In this post, he will focus on the underlying assumptions and methodologies of our transportation analysis:

Passenger transportation accounts for 24% of total U.S. GHG emissions. Local transportation (cars, trains, and buses) accounts for 15% of the total, while long range travel (including airplanes) accounts for 9%. Through small, simple changes like carpooling more frequently, reducing idling, and basic vehicle maintenance, our analysis shows that we can cut GHG emissions by over 160 million metric tons (MMt) of CO2e in 2020. Further, among the 20% of the population that takes 3 or more roundtrip flights per year, eliminating just one of those trips could reduce U.S. GHG emissions by another ~~125~~ 56 MMtCO2e.

Figure 1: Proposed measures for reducing emissions from transportation.

It is worth briefly discussing how we estimated the behavior baselines, the future size of the vehicle fleet and vehicle emissions factors. Many people, of course, already engage in a number of the behaviors we recommend, and many others are ineligible to participate in certain measures (e.g. someone who does not fly cannot cut back on air travel). In some cases, this baseline is well-documented. For example, there is a wealth of information on commuting and aviation. However, for a few of our smaller-impact items (using the correct grade of motor oil, engine tuning, and removing excess vehicle weight), we made our own conservative baseline estimates to compensate for a lack of available information. We estimated that 10% of the vehicle fleet could upgrade its motor oil, 25% receive a much-needed engine tuning, and 25% remove 100 pounds of excess weight.

From 1950 to 2007, the automobile fleet grew at an average compound annual rate of 3.1%. Between 1997 and 2007, the growth rate was a more modest 2.1%. To be conservative in estimating the size of the future vehicle fleet we are targeting, we cut this most recent growth rate by one third, and projected an annual increase of 1.4% between 1997 and 2020. Thus, we predict that 249 million vehicles in 2007 will grow to 298 million by 2020.

For our emissions factor, we used an EPA estimate of 11.5 kg CO2e/gallon of gasoline, which includes combustion (9.1 kg) and upstream emissions from fuel extraction, refining and delivery (2.4 kg). We did not factor in emissions from vehicle production (approximately 8.5 MtCO2e per car) because our recommendations are limited to vehicle use and maintenance. Upgrading to a more fuel efficient vehicle, while often beneficial in the long term, is too costly an action to be considered in this project.

Figure 2: the share of total projected emissions reductions achieved through each of our recommended transportation measures.

Changing the Way We Drive

In cars across the country, we waste at least 5% of our gasoline idling. Although anti-idling ordinances and automatic shut-off technologies have begun to take root, until regulation and technology put idling behind us, we can cut our idling time through small changes in personal behavioral. Many people incorrectly believe that shutting off and restarting one’s engine causes wear and tear that exceeds the environmental cost of burning extra fuel. The truth: engine wear and tear is negligible and the gasoline used while idling is much greater than the gasoline used restarting your engine. Promisingly, studies show that drivers are particularly responsive to anti-idling educational campaigns. We estimate that if all Americans cut their idling time by 50%, we could reduce U.S. GHG emissions by over 40 MMtCO2e in 2020.

In this automotive nation, where over 75% of the workforce drives alone to work every day, emissions from local transport alone exceed 1 billion tons CO2e. While using public transportation is one of the best ways to significantly reduce your carbon footprint, public transport options for many Americans are limited. For this reason, we estimated the emissions impact if the solo-commuting workforce in the U.S. carpooled two days a week or, for those with more flexible work arrangements, telecommuted one day per week. At an average daily roundtrip commute of 24 miles, this 20% reduction in vehicle-miles traveled would avoid nearly 75 MMtCO2e in 2020 (assuming conservative growth of the vehicle fleet and commuter workforce).

Improving Vehicle Care

As we approach the next item, we brace ourselves for derision. No vocal proponent of tire inflation, from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama, has escaped without scorn. But consider this: in 2005, according to the Government Accountability Office, underinflated tires wasted 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline, which translates to nearly 15 MMtCO2e. This easily remediable problem produced more emissions than each of the 65 smallest GHG-emitting countries of the world.

Other vehicle maintenance measures, including engine tuning, removing excess weight, and using the recommended grade of motor oil can increase vehicle efficiency by 2-4% each. If adopted by the entire eligible U.S. population by 2020, these measures could reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 30 MMtCO2e.

Flying Less

Although scarcely one-fifth (19%) of Americans take three or more roundtrip flights per year, and a majority (52%) do not fly at all, the emissions impact of air travel is disproportionate to the frequency of its use. A British study recently cited in the New York Times found that the average one-way commercial flight from London to Los Angeles produced more CO2 emissions per passenger than the average British commuter produced yearly by car, train, and subway combined—and this is only half the picture. Due to the high altitude at which it releases the majority of its emissions, an airplane’s contrails (cloud-forming vapor streams) significantly increase its heat-trapping impact. As such, the IPCC recommends multiplying the total CO2 emissions per mile by a radiative forcing index (RFI) of at least 2. [For more information on the emissions impacts of air travel see this report].

While it would be unreasonable to expect those who fly only one or two times per year to give up their flight (that flight could well be their vacation), frequent flyers, and especially business travelers, could take advantage of alternative options like telecommuting to cut down on air travel. The average 1,100-mile one-way domestic flight emits 0.44 kg lbs CO2 per passenger per mile, or 0.88 kg lbs CO2-equivalent with radiative forcing. [For more information, see Bureau of Transportation Statistics here]. The average revenue passenger on a roundtrip flight of this length is thus responsible for ~~1.92 MtCO2e~~ 870 lbs CO2e(which is nearly ~~10%~~ 5% of the average American’s annual carbon impact). If those Americans who fly three or more times per year give up just one domestic flight, total emissions savings in 2020 would amount to ~~125~~ 56 MMTCO2e.

Stay tuned for the next post on reducing home energy use. In the meantime, if you’d like to reduce your own carbon footprint by implementing some of these ideas and track your progress, join the Simple Steps community by going to “My Simple Steps”.

Personal Actions Matter: The One Billion Ton Opportunity

2010-01-08T18:36:39Z

I’d like to introduce Matt Eisenson, a new Fellow here at NRDC, who has spent the last few months working with experts at NRDC and friends at the Garrison Institute to develop the "Behavioral Wedge," the one billion ton personal action opportunity. For the next few weeks, he’ll appear as a special guest on this blog to discuss the results of his work:

It’s a new year, a new decade, and a new opportunity for resolutions. For many, this comes with a desire to make a positive impact on our planet by greening our lifestyles in 2010. But what, our inner cynic wonders, can we truly accomplish as individuals?

It is very easy to write off personal action as a futile means to fighting an environmental problem as complex as climate change. Our best intentions too often fold in face of such an enormous challenge. We may know the factor by which our carbon footprint exceeds that of the average Ethiopian—if you’re wondering, it’s approximately 23—but with 300 million other Americans each making daily lifestyle choices, the impact our personal behavior can appear too small to warrant the effort to change.

Besides, behavioral change sounds onerous. The personal costs seem high, and the environmental benefits nearly imperceptible—if not entirely negated by the free riders unwilling to submit to the same sacrifices. Why forego your favorite steak-and-cheese for the “veggie delight” when you know that a big shot’s private Gulfstream G550 emits more than twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) per hour than you’d likely save by going vegan for a whole year?

The hourly emissions of a G550: (400 gallons/hr) * (20 lbs CO2/gallon) = 8000 lbs/hour

VS.

The yearly carbon savings of two strict vegans: (3,300 lbs/yr) * (2) = 6,600 lbs/year

Calculations based on: Jacob Leibenluft, “Six Thousand Gallons of Regular, Please,” Slate (April 28, 2008), and Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, Diet, Energy and Global Warming, Earth Interactions, Vol. 10 No. 9 (2006).

Large, powerful nations are likewise susceptible to the same defeatist mode of thinking—why take action to curb domestic emissions if other countries continue to pollute unabated? We saw this phenomenon clearly on display at the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Carbon leakage (a transnational free rider problem of sorts) and carbon equity (a point of contention between developed and developing countries over historic responsibilities and the implementation of per capita, rather than countrywide, emissions caps) remain major stumbling blocks to achieving a meaningful and binding global climate agreement.

Just as the U.S. should not wait to capitalize on energy efficiency opportunities and other “low hanging fruit” to reduce its national emissions, so we individual Americans should not disregard those simple—and cheap!—personal actions which, while small on their own, have the potential for an immense impact in the aggregate.

Pacala and Socolow’s “stabilization wedges” model for economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions (in their analysis, each wedge represents a measure that, scaled up over 50 years, will yield a one billion ton reduction in GHG emissions below the business-as-usual projection), inspired us to investigate whether there existed a “behavioral” wedge: one billion tons-worth of emissions reductions achievable through simple, zero- to- low-cost personal actions and changes in behavior.

The goal is ambitious. This is an exercise, however, not of probability, but of possibility. We do not presume to estimate the likelihood of adoption for each of the actions we propose; rather, we aim to illustrate the potential impacts of total participation and encourage collective action. We aim to show that if Americans carry out simple and affordable personal actions and achieve modest behavioral change, it will be sufficient to reduce our nation’s GHG emissions by one billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) below business-as-usual by 2020. One billion tons is a full 1/7th of our country’s roughly 7 billion tons of CO2e annual emissions. It is roughly equivalent to the combined total emissions of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia combined, and more than the annual emissions of the Western Europe’s biggest polluter, Germany.

We classified actions and behavioral change in four categories: transportation, household energy consumption, diet, and waste.

Below is a summary of our results (numbers reported in million metric tons (MMt) CO2e):

A blog series describing the specific actions and our estimates of their impact will follow, so please stay tuned. In the meantime, if you’d like to reduce your own carbon footprint by implementing some of these ideas and track your progress, join the Simple Steps community by going to “My Simple Steps."

UPDATE: read more about this project on TreeHugger.

UPDATE: Table revised 3/18/2010

USDA to Partner With US Dairy Farmers to Cut Industry Emissions 25% by 2020

2009-12-16T21:24:48Z

This week in Copenhagen, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that USDA will partner with US dairy farmers to reduce dairy industry greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 25% by 2020. The agreement was signed with Dairy Management Inc. (DMI), which represents 56,000 U.S. dairy producers and will include a ramp up in federal investment in methane digesters under existing farm bill programs that help livestock farmers with financing for the waste-to-energy projects. In his statement, Vilsack referred to the agreement as ‘historic’ and added:

"The actions we are taking today will not only help mitigate climate change, but also provide immediate local environmental benefits, and assist in reducing America's dependence on foreign fossil fuels…I applaud U.S. dairyman for initiating and supporting these actions…Today we'll have the opportunity to see how efforts to address climate change are already creating wealth in rural communities across America; demonstrate the commitment of America's farmers and ranchers to address the issue of climate change; and have a discussion about the path forward so that agriculture is part of the climate change solution."

Of all domestic livestock animals, beef and dairy cattle are by far the largest emitters of methane, a GHG 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Methane digesters capture methane gas from animal manure and allow it be used for gas or converted into electricity—a.k.a. “biogas-to-energy” (see NRDC’s Renewables website for an interactive map of biogas and other renewable energy potential across the US). Though USDA operates programs to encourage the adoption of methane digesters, in conjunction with EPA and the Department of Energy, fewer than 150 have been funded to date. Nevertheless, the systems that have been installed through the program are delivering important environmental and energy benefits—approximately 341,400 MWh equivalent of energy generation in 2008 alone according to EPA.

In his announcement, Vilsack said USDA would work to streamline current requirements for farmers who want to enter the program. Importantly, though digesters will be one of the largest targeted investments to help reduce GHG pollution from dairy farms, the dairy industry committed to looking for ways to reduce emissions throughout the entire dairy supply chain, from farm to shipping to storage.

Digesters do raise some environmental concerns, particularly their tendency to release nitrogen oxides, an important Clean Air Act non-attainment pollutant in places like California. Also, there are concerns that federal incentives such as support for digester installation can increase the economic viability of new or expanded concentrated livestock feeding operations, which have been found to be major contributors to water pollution and have serious negative impacts on public health. There may be a variety of strategies to reduce these risks—stay tuned for a follow up post that takes a more in-depth look at these issues.

Nevertheless, DMI should be applauded for publically setting an aggressive GHG emissions reduction target and actively seeking to be part of the solution to global warming. This type of initiative is particularly important at time when the American Farm Bureau is campaigning to kill any national climate policy. As Vilsack continues to highlight the role the agricultural community—both domestically in the US and worldwide—can and must play in reducing GHG emissions, now is the time for other agricultural industry groups to join DMI in making strong commitments to reducing emissions and supporting a clean energy future.

Kansas State University Review Finds U.S. Farmers Will Gain From Passage of ACES

2009-12-11T21:37:50Z

This week, Kansas State University released its review of six recent economic studies that examine the cost-benefit impacts of the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, a.k.a. ACES) on the domestic agricultural sector. The review provides a summary of each of the studies’ assumptions, analytical methods, and major findings and their implications. Though the studies vary according to analytic framework, economic performance metric, geographic and economic scope, degree of disaggregation across agricultural sub-sectors, and timeframe of analysis, the Kansas State reviewers are able to conclude:

Overall, the research suggests U.S. agriculture has more to gain than lose with the passage of H.R. 2454. The bill specifically exempts production agriculture from emissions caps, provides provisions to ease the transition to higher fertilizer prices and fosters the development of carbon offset markets which likely will enhance agricultural revenues.

The Kansas State assessment identifies direct and indirect cost impacts for the agricultural sector including increases in the price of fossil energy-intensive inputs such as diesel, natural gas, gasoline and electricity, as well as fertilizer and other farm chemicals. The report, however, correctly notes that farmers will be able to adapt to changing market conditions, as they have done for centuries, and mitigate some of these price impacts by substituting lower-cost inputs, shifting cropping patterns, and adopting new technologies. [Though not specifically addressed in the report, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) estimates that improvements in on-farm energy efficiency alone could generate savings upwards of $1 billion a year for farmers. This means $450 in direct savings for an average 418 acre U.S. farm].

The report seriously considers the need to consider both costs and benefits to agriculture from cap and trade legislation, stating:

Although changes in costs and revenues are important economic metrics, we believe that the change in net income from crop and livestock production is the best economic metric for assessing the impact of H.R. 2454 on agriculture. [emphasis in bold mine]

The need for comprehensive analysis seems obvious but is totally missing in the studies most frequently cited by ACES’s opponents, who continue to focus exclusively on increases to fossil energy costs, erroneously concluding that cap and trade will financially devastate farmers (see my previous blog on this here).

The review examines potential gains to agriculture from climate legislation, citing new sources of revenue from the sale of carbon offsets in a federal offsets market and increased demand for bioenergy driven in part by a Renewable Energy Standard (RES)--both new markets which ACES would establish. The report states that, in both cases, financial benefits would accrue to farmers since the agricultural sector will be a main source of domestic offsets—through changes to agricultural practices and land use that either directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions or enhance carbon sequestration—and feedstocks for bioenergy production. The Kansas State report also highlights the positive impacts ACES will have on land value, benefitting farmers and other landowners.

The analysis additionally touches on the impacts of ACES on the price of fertilizer—a major fossil energy-intensive input in farm production. Climate legislation opponents cite increases in fertilizer prices—driven by increases in natural gas prices as a result of a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions—as a principle reason why ACES will hurt farmers, raise the costs of food production and thus, food prices. The report, however, correctly points out that while most of the indirect energy price increases will be felt immediately, fertilizer costs will be largely unaffected in the short and medium-term of the cap and trade program. This delay occurs because ACES includes provisions to ease the transition for energy- intensive, trade-exposed (EITI) entities covered by the cap, including nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. This EITE assistance will be gradually phased out through 2025, giving farmers time to adapt their production practices. The report concludes that the “analyses that do not include the impact of EITE provisions may overstate the short-run cost impacts [of climate legislation]”, and based on USDA’s analysis, “the EITE provisions are very favorable to the agricultural sector in the short run”.

It is likely that most of the studies the Kansas State authors examined overstate ACES’s cost impacts on agriculture by not considering input substitution and technology adoption effects—i.e. assuming no change in on-farm practices in response to changing market condition. The studies also likely understate the legislation’s potential benefits by focusing exclusively on opportunities in the offsets and bioenergy markets without considering the full suite of new income opportunities farmers will see under ACES from expanded markets for renewable energy—for example, from leasing their land for wind turbines. The Kansas State review, however, does recognize that any analysis of the climate legislation’s impacts on the agricultural sector is incomplete if it fails to look at changes to net farm income, including costs and benefits. And the report concludes that U.S. farmers will see net gains from the passage of ACES.

For a more detailed analysis of opportunities for the agricultural sector under ACES, see NRDC’s Fact Sheet entitled Opportunities for Agriculture: How Energy and Climate Legislation Will Help Farmers Cut Energy Costs and Raise Farm Income.

“Stacked” House Ag Subcommittee Hearings Don’t Change the Facts: Farmers to Benefit from Cap and Trade Bill

2009-12-09T22:02:29Z

Last week the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research held hearings on the economic impacts of climate legislation on the domestic agricultural sector. Certain members of the Committee continued to cite one-sided studies that focus on increases in fossil fuel costs, despite multiple independent studies showing that the benefits to U.S. farmers from a cap and trade bill would outweigh costs (see earlier blogs highlighting these here and here). These legislators’ arguments ignored the benefits farmers will see from new and expanded markets for carbon offsets and renewable energy, not to mention the potential costs of inaction to farmers in the form of decreased yields, harsher droughts, changes in water supply, and more frequent and extreme weather resulting from unmitigated climate change.

The congressional naysayer’s two most repeated claims were: 1) agriculture is a fossil energy-intensive industry so anything that increases the costs of fossil energy is bad for agriculture, and 2) the offsets program will encourage taking cropland out of food production in order to plant trees, which will increase food prices. Let’s take on each of these claims separately.

First, USDA’s analysis of the effects of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454 a.k.a. ACES) shows that short-term costs to agriculture will be extremely low, resulting in a net farm income loss of less than 1%. USDA estimates that new revenues from the sale of agricultural offsets could cover these costs entirely in the short-run. And USDA projects that, though costs to agriculture rise modestly over the medium and long-term (a decrease of 3.5% and 7.2% in net farm income, respectively), benefits accruing to farmers from offsets rise over time and will overtake costs. When asked whether the cap and trade bill will disproportionately affect the agricultural sector , Dr. Joseph Glauber, USDA’s chief economist, drove home the point by saying that, though agricultural is an energy-intensive industry and will be affected like other energy-intensive industries, farmers can take advantage of opportunities for offsets that producers in other industries do not have. Dr. Glauber’s full statement can be found here. [It is important to note that USDA’s estimates are conservative because they assume no changes in on-farm production practices over time, such as increases in energy efficiency or improvements in technology—i.e. they do not account for the ability of farmers to successfully adapt to changes in market conditions, something American farmers have done for centuries].

New and expanded markets for renewable biomass resources, such as agricultural and forestry residues as well as some dedicated energy crops, will additionally translate into substantial new sources of revenue for farmers and jobs in rural communities. According to a recent analysis by the Nicholas Institute, new direct revenues to farmers from the sale of offsets and greater bioenergy production will be in the range of $1.77-$18.11 billion per year under ACES and complementary energy policies such as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the ACES Renewable Electricity Standard.

Second, though the offsets market would provide an incentive for farmers to shift lands to forest, this incentive wouldn’t kick in until the later years of the program when carbon prices are higher, because afforestation projects are relatively expensive to implement. According to a University of Tennessee study for the 25 x 25 Coalition on the impacts of climate change and energy legislation on U.S. agriculture, the agricultural sector will see no large-scale afforestation of croplands as a result of offsets incentives. Though the study only models up to a carbon price of $27/ton, this takes us out to roughly 2030 according to EPA modeling of carbon prices under ACES. Professor Bruce McCarl, developer of the model used by EPA to estimate the supply of agricultural and forestry offsets under ACES and panelist at last week’s hearings, stated that these newly forested acres would still constitute only a tiny fraction of total U.S. cropland. Other panelists similarly argued that given the changes farmers can expect to see in the coming years as a result of population growth, increased demand for meat in developing countries, as well as the impacts of climate change itself, any new offsets-based incentives to afforest are just one small driver of change in the domestic agricultural sector.

Importantly, Dr. Glauber correctly highlighted the need to focus on the structure, administration and regulation of the offsets program itself. Agricultural producers and their representatives should help ensure the carbon offsets market is governed by sound rules and that agricultural and forestry offsets represent a high-quality, high-value commodity, instead of continually peddling biased and misleading analysis of cap and trade legislation’s economic impacts on the agricultural sector and raising unfounded fears about food prices. Done right, a market that ensures a high-quality supply of offsets and thus maintains investor confidence will create a stable source of new income for farmers.

American Corn Growers Association Pushes for Senate Climate Bill by Year’s End

2009-11-05T20:26:32Z

In a statement released yesterday by its President Keith Bolin, the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) added its voice to the rapidly growing number of industry groups across the U.S. economy supporting the U.S. Senate's effort to pass comprehensive federal clean energy and climate legislation.

In his statement, Bolin highlighted not only the range of economic opportunities for U.S. farmers and ranchers from new and expanded markets in renewable energy and carbon offsets in a federal cap and trade system, but also the potential costs to farmers of inaction — the impacts on agricultural production of a changing climate, with increased droughts, changes in water supply and more frequent extreme weather events — if the U.S. fails to provide global leadership by acting to curb its greenhouse gas emissions:

"Agriculture must not continue to keep their heads in the sand regarding climate change. Farmers and ranchers will pay a huge price if we fail to take action...If agriculture continues to ignore sound science regarding the effects of increased greenhouse gasses, and our climate becomes increasingly erratic, to the point of even worsening production problems around the globe, the United States will be seen as obstructionists to a global effort that had great potential to help sustain the environment that family farmers depend on.

ACGA recognizes that because agriculture has so much to lose from unmitigated global warming, the stakes for U.S. farmers are high if Congress fails to pass strong clean energy and climate legislation. They also understand that America's agricultural community has a major opportunity to come to the table and be part of the solution to global warming, helping to transform rural economies in the process. As the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act moves today from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee toward the Senate floor, other agricultural industry groups must now follow ACGA's lead in building support for a clean energy future.

American Corn Growers Association Pushes for Senate Climate Bill by Year’s End

2009-11-05T20:26:32Z

"Agriculture must not continue to keep their heads in the sand regarding climate change. Farmers and ranchers will pay a huge price if we fail to take action...If agriculture continues to ignore sound science regarding the effects of increased greenhouse gasses, and our climate becomes increasingly erratic, to the point of even worsening production problems around the globe, the United States will be seen as obstructionists to a global effort that had great potential to help sustain the environment that family farmers depend on.

Nicholas Institute Study Finds ACES Will Yield Gains for U.S. Farmers

2009-09-24T18:29:49Z

A new report released by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions adds to a growing body of analysis, including a recent study by USDA, which shows how U.S. farmers are well-positioned to gain from clean energy and climate legislation, such as the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

As I've discussed in previous blogs, studies that purport to evaluate the impacts of ACES on the agricultural sector but focus only on increases to the costs of fossil inputs tell only half the story and are thus highly misleading. No such analysis is complete without consideration of both the costs and benefits to farmers. The independent Nicholas Institute report does just that, focusing on four key clean energy and climate policy drivers that affect the agricultural sector:

1) The ACES cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that will gradually increase the costs of fossil-fueled energy and energy-intensive products vs. clean, renewable energy;
2) The ACES offsets program in which capped firms can meet their compliance obligations by purchasing carbon offsets from uncapped sectors such as agriculture and forestry;
3) The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which boosted the required volume of biofuels under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), established mandates for the use of second generation cellulosic biofuels and added GHG emission reduction thresholds for several classes of biofuels; and
4) The ACES Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which mandates a certain share of U.S. annual electricity come from renewable sources, such as bioenergy, wind and solar.

Using a recently updated and enhanced Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG), the team modeled the effects of these policies on the U.S. agricultural sector. The model was used to simulate agricultural and forestry production responses to changes in carbon prices at a price of $15, $30 and $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), including how production practices, land use, and different markets respond, and the resulting GHG flows in the sector.

Under a cap and trade system in which agriculture and forestry remain uncapped but participate in the carbon market by selling offsets, the results show that both sectors have the potential to generate significant supplies of offsets-and thus new sources of revenue-from activities that reduce direct on-farm emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in soils and forests. In addition, the study finds that increased emphasis on second generation cellulosic biofuels creates new markets for agricultural residues like corn stover and wheat straw and dedicated energy crops like switchgrass. In addition to these direct benefits in the form of lucrative alternatives for managing farmland, renewable energy mandates also provide indirect benefits through increased prices for conventional agricultural commodities as land is allocated to energy production.

The results show that though the costs of GHG-intensive, fossil fuel farm inputs increase, the total cost burden changes little across carbon price scenarios, primarily because farmers are assumed to adapt in response to higher input prices and GHG-offsetting alternatives to traditional crop management. This is an important enhancement to the USDA analysis which, as I discussed here, produced what is likely a conservative estimate of net benefits to farmers from ACES because it assumed no change in technology or on-farm production practices in response to changing market conditions.

Though indirect benefits are the largest component of additional revenue, the Nicholas Institute estimates that new direct revenues to farmers for emissions reductions and sequestration, both as a result of offset activities and abatement resulting from greater bioenergy production, will be in the range of $1.77-$18.11 billion per year.

For comparison, EPA estimates that in 2020, at a carbon price of $30/tCO2e, 404 million metric tons of domestic agricultural and forestry offsets could be available, worth over $12 billion to the agriculture and forestry sectors. In addition, a 2005 USDA study estimated that U.S. farmers could sustainably harvest 75 million dry tons of corn stover. Sold as feedstock for bioenergy production at a market price of $50 per dry ton, this translates to roughly $2.85 billion in annual net profits from stover alone. Together, this means nearly $15 billion in new revenues.

Despite increases in the costs of fossil fuel inputs, farmers are well-positioned to benefit from clean energy and climate legislation, both directly from new and expanded markets for bioenergy and offsets-based emissions reduction, and indirectly from increases in commodity and land prices. Importantly, the Nicholas Institute analysis does not take into account other important revenue opportunities for farmers from expanded renewables markets, such as lucrative land leases for wind power, whose deployment will be bolstered by the ACES cap on GHG emissions and complementary policies like the RES.

A Clean Energy Bargain; Containing Costs by Investing in Energy Efficiency, Renewables and then High-Quality Offsets

2009-09-17T21:27:58Z

NRDC released the results of its year-long economic analysis of clean energy and climate protection legislation today. A summary of our main findings can be found here but I'd like to highlight some specific findings on the role of offsets.

Because we were concerned with the impacts of the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) on the U.S. economy, a major goal of our analysis was to provide insights into how the U.S. can achieve its energy and climate protection objectives at the lowest cost. Naturally, the availability of offsets, and their affordability, was one of several key factors that affected the total costs of the program. Our modeling reflected the 2 billion ton annual limit on the use of offsets found in ACES, split evenly between domestic and international offsets, with the ability to raise the limit on international offsets should there be insufficient domestic supply. From 2017 onwards, we also included the 5:4 discount ACES applies to international offsets, so that for 4 tons of emissions, capped entities must submit 5 international offset credits.

Using NEMS-NRDC, the first of two well-known energy models, we attempted to approximate what will happen under ACES, given real-world market imperfections. By comparing these results with those from MARKAL, a model that uses perfect foresight to choose the "ideal" -- i.e. least cost-outcome for the entire economy in the long-run, we were able to learn valuable policy lessons.

With regard to offsets, this comparison tells us something important about containing costs in general and the importance of environmental safeguards if we rely on offsets as a major source of abatement.

While domestic and international offsets serve as a major cost containment mechanism in NEMS-NRDC and account for 50% of economy-wide abatement in 2030, MARKAL uses much fewer offsets and still manages to keep allowance prices low.

MARKAL uses its foresight and invests more heavily and more quickly in energy efficiency and clean tech because many of these investments actually turn out to be cheaper than offsets in the early years -- for example, many energy efficiency investments have a negative cost over the long term once fuel cost savings are taken into account. As a result, the largest source of abatement in 2030 comes from a shift in the electric power sector away from dirty fuels towards a mix of clean energy sources. Less reliance on offsets reduces attendant concerns about their environmental integrity -- and therefore our ability to achieve our environmental objectives-and means we send less money abroad, investing instead in our domestic economy.

The implications are twofold:

First, the single most important thing the U.S. can do to minimize the long-term costs of meeting our emissions reduction targets is to begin our transition from a fossil-fueled economy to a clean, energy-efficient economy as soon as possible. To do so, we need strong complementary policies that accelerate deployment of efficiency and renewables and immediately begin transforming key sectors such as power and transportation. Together with a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, these policies will ensure that we meet our climate protection and energy independence objectives at the lowest cost, delivering jobs, security and a healthier environment.

Second, given that NRDC-NEMS, without the advantage of perfect foresight, provides a closer reflection of reality, it is likely that a sizeable chunk of abatement will indeed come from offsets. As a result, it is critical that we set rigorous quality standards for the offsets market and make certain offsets regulations are enforced to ensure the environmental integrity of the entire program.

For more detailed assumptions and results, see our presentation.

USDA Finds ACES Benefits to Farmers "Easily Trump" Increased Energy Costs

2009-07-28T22:27:15Z

Last week, the USDA's Office of the Chief Economist published its preliminary analysis of the effect of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) on the U.S. agricultural sector. The conclusion was clear: ACES will help, not hurt, American farmers.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack delivered this conclusion on the same day in his testimony before the Senate Agricultural Committee:

"In the short term, the economic benefits to agriculture from cap and trade legislation will likely outweigh the costs. In the long term, the economic benefits from offsets markets easily trump increased input costs from cap and trade legislation."

Using EPA estimates of energy prices under ACES to assess the short and long-term impacts of the bill on energy costs to U.S. farmers, USDA found that farmers will at minimum break even in the short-term and stand to gain substantially from ACES in the medium- to long-term, once new revenues from the sale of offsets are included. In the short-term, EPA estimates the sale of agricultural offsets could generate $1-$2 billion annually in new revenues for farmers, (net of the costs associated with implementing offset projects), rising to about $20 billion per year in 2050 (in 2005 dollars). Adjusting for the fact that EPA includes revenue from forest management offsets while USDA does not (forest management offsets comprise approximately half of the total domestic offsets potential in the near-term and approximately one quarter in the long-term), net returns to farmers could total roughly $0.5-$1 billion per year in the near-term and roughly $15 billion per year by 2050. By comparison, USDA's preliminary analysis found that increased energy costs will reduce farm sector income by only $0.7 billion in the short-term and roughly 4.9 billion in the long-term (in 2005 dollars).

Importantly, as USDA indicates in its preliminary report, these cost estimates represent an upper bound because they assume no change in production practices — i.e. they do not account for the ability of farmers to successfully adapt to changes in market conditions — for example, through increased on-farm energy efficiency or a shift towards more renewable energy sources. (ACES includes strong standards and incentives to improve energy efficiency and increase renewable energy, which will help farmers reduce their dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels. The House-passed bill calls for 20 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources and efficiency improvements by 2020 and allocated $90 billion in incentives to energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, including federal tax credits for farmer for energy efficiency upgrades). As a result, USDA's analysis of net benefits to farmers from clean energy and climate legislation are likely conservative, something that Secretary Vilsack appropriately highlighted:

"...we believe these figures are conservative because we aren't able to model the types of technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more crops and livestock with fewer inputs. Second, the analysis doesn't take into account the higher commodity prices that farmers will very likely receive as a result of enhanced renewable energy markets and retirement of environmentally sensitive lands domestically and abroad. Of course, any economic analysis such as ours has limitations. But, again, we believe our analysis is conservative — it's quite possible farmers will actually do better."

Nevertheless, USDA's analysis has come under criticism from ranking Senate Agriculture Committee Member Saxby Chambliss. In response to the publication of USDA's preliminary analysis, Chambliss and other members of the Committee sent a letter to USDA's Chief Economist, criticizing the agency's use of EPA data and estimates, both of energy price impacts and domestic offsets supply potential in the agricultural sector.

EPA's estimates of energy price impacts under ACES are in line with non-partisan analyses of the bill, including that by the Congressional Budget Office. With respect to the potential supply of agricultural offsets — the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions EPA estimates the agricultural sector will be able to reduce or sequester, given their estimates of what the carbon price trajectory will be under the ACES cap, through practices like no-till farming, capturing and flaring methane gas from livestock operations, reducing nitrous oxide emissions from the application of nitrogen-based fertilizers, and planting trees on marginal farmlands — EPA's updated June, 2009 estimates, which are frequently criticized for being too pessimistic and therefore short-changing farmers, now seem to be coming under attack from Chambliss and others for being too high and optimistic for farmers!

EPA's analysis of domestic offsets potential is amongst the most credible estimates available and reflects recently updated assumptions about agricultural and forestry practices, policies affecting the agricultural and forestry sectors, as well as land, energy and other commodity prices. Though modeled estimates of offsets potential have obvious limitations, the larger point is that offsets are only part of the story. USDA's analysis does not account for the substantial revenues farmers stand to earn from biomass production for bioenergy or other markets for renewable energy like wind, solar and biogas recovery. Importantly, it also takes no account of the costs to farmers of inaction — the damages farmers will experience from increased droughts, changes in water supply and extreme weather events as a result of unmitigated global warming pollution.

Estimates of revenues from the sale of offsets also do not take into account the potential for innovation — the development of new project types that qualify as offsets over time. The House-passed version of ACES allocates 0.28 percent of emissions allowance value per year from 2012-2016 towards supplemental agriculture and renewable energy incentives programs, with at least half going specifically to agriculture, including investments in the development and demonstration of practices that reduce GHG emissions or sequester carbon in agricultural operations where these opportunities are currently limited. Over time, interest will likely grow in funding projects to explore additional ways to enhance emissions reductions and carbon sequestration on U.S. lands. Once a track record of success is established, these activities could also qualify as tradable offsets, expanding the potential for offset-based revenues to farmers.

The American agricultural community is well positioned to benefit from passage of clean energy and climate legislation. To maximize these benefits, agricultural representatives should now work together with business, environmental advocates, foresters and the American public to help ensure the carbon offsets market is governed by sound rules and that agricultural offsets represent a high-quality commodity that gains the confidence of investors and the public.