#84 Nov/Dec 2006
The Washington Free Press Washington's Independent Journal of News, Ideas & Culture
Home  |  Subscribe |  Back Issues |  The Organization |  Volunteer |  Do Something

SPECIAL REPORT: GLOBAL WARMING

Are You Even Close to being Kyoto Compliant?
And even if you were, would it help much?
by Doug Collins cartoons by John Jonik and George Jartos

I'd like to be less responsible for global warming...
...but finding the most climate-friendly option is not always simple
INCLUDES CARBON DIOXIDE CALCULATOR
by Doug Collins

How Does a Gallon of Gas Produce 20 Pounds of Carbon Dioxide?
from fueleconomy.gov

TOP STORIES

Untold Death in Iraq
Media pundits routinely underestimate civilian casualties
by Norman Solomon

The Perils of Power
A parable inspired by the Military Commissions Act of 2006
by Bruce Toien

TRANSPORTATION

Climb Aboard The (Rapid) Bus!
by Brian King

Highway 99: Not Too High, Not Too Low, Please
The no-viaduct, no-tunnel option gains steam in Seattle
opinion by Cary Moon and Julie Parrett, People's Waterfront Coalition

FREE THOUGHTS

READER MAIL
Cow Hormones, Watada, Election Computers, and Bush

Does the World Trade Center Study Add Up?
by Rodger Herbst

The Cholesterol Myth
Part 3 (conclusion): The dangers of "healthy eating"
by Barry Groves, PhD

POLITICS

MEDIA BEAT
Saddam's Unindicted Conspirator: Donald Rumsfeld
by Norman Solomon

WA Candidates Mostly Avoid Giving Voters Information
But in federal races WA Repubs far outscored Dems in responding to an issues survey
by Doug Collins

Want Some Dough? Try Running Against Maria Cantwell!
by Doug Collins

Dems Pose as Anti-Bush
opinion by John Jonik

Bush Breaks Economic Records
by Don Monkerud cartoon by John Jonik

CONTACTS & ACTIVISM

DO SOMETHING CALENDAR

NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS

NORTHWEST & BEYOND
Olympia 22 Trial Postponed
Movie About Seattle WTO Protests, Filmed in Canada
compiled by Doug Collins

CULTURE

Parenting for Passivity
Who we are is related to how we've been raised
by Doug Collins

Robert Pavlik Looks at Restaurant Signs
photos by Robert Pavlik

RIGHT BRAIN

THE WANDERINGS AND THOUGHTS OF KIP KELLOG
by Vincent Spada, #8

PUMPKIN EDDIE'S LIGHTNING POEMS
by Vincent Spada

Second Thoughts
poem by Bob Markey

Presidential Thinking
cartoon by Andrew Wahl

I'd like to be less responsible for global warming...

...but finding the most climate-friendly option is not always simple

by Doug Collins

 

1. What's the Best Way to Phoenix and LA?

I'm considering trips to visit relatives in both Phoenix and Los Angeles. Of course, the most ecologically friendly action would be just not to travel at all. Perhaps in the future I and other members of my family should strive to live closer to one another, so we won't need to travel so far to see each other. In the meantime, I want to see them occasionally. But what is the best way to go, and go easy on the earth at the same time?

Because Phoenix and LA are only about 400 miles away from each other, one thing I should definitely do is combine the trips, because that would certainly create a lot less in greenhouse gasses. Long bicycle trips are unfortunately out of the question at the moment. The amount of time necessary to bike would be much more than my schedule would allow, and my wife and kids just aren't avid bicyclists (at least not yet).

So the only real options are driving or flying, and maybe the Amtrak train. Let's compare them.

Using estimates based on the carbon dioxide calculator table (this page), if I travel in a fairly typical 20mpg car, I'll produce about one pound of carbon dioxide per mile. With a total driving distance of 3500 miles (Seattle to LA to Phoenix and back, with a few hundred extra miles for sidetrips), that means I'd produce about 3500 pounds of carbon dioxide if I traveled alone. If I carpool together with four other family members, the "per-capita" consumption is one-fifth of that, only 700 pounds of carbon dioxide per person.

Unlike average American cars, commercial aircraft have become much more fuel efficient in recent years. In the late 1990s, aircraft were averaging about 0.9 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger per mile. That is down to about 0.7 pounds now. If five of us bought round-trip seats to LA--2000 miles of air travel--the emissions of carbon dioxide per person would be 2000 miles x 0.7 pounds = 1400 pounds. Renting a typical car in LA in order to get around, sight-see a bit, and take the side-trip to Phoenix would add another, say, 1000 miles of driving, which would be about 1000 total pounds of carbon, or about 200 pounds per person for a group of five. The total carbon emissions for the family trip would thus be 1400 + 200 = 1600 pounds of carbon dioxide per person.

It's pretty clear that if you drive in a group of five, four, or even three, the car trip is better for the climate. If you carpool in a group of two, the per-capita emissions are roughly the same as for the plane (remember, these are only ballpark estimates). If you are alone, it's quite a bit better to fly.

But some cars are much better than others. If we drove from Seattle in a Toyota Prius, which would get about double the gas mileage, we could cut the car emissions in half. In this case, even two people in a Prius would be per-capita much better than flying. Even one person in a Prius would be better than flying, but in the same ballpark. A single person on a lighter motorcycle, say 60mpg, would be much better than flying. A larger car, such as an SUV, could be OK if it were well-packed with passengers.

Here's a rule of thumb which you can keep in mind for any long-distance travel in North America: a typical 20mpg car creates roughly the same emissions as two seats on an airplane for the same trip. So two people driving is about the same as two people flying.

Although the car trip produces about a pound of carbon per mile, compared to the the airplane's 1.4 pounds (0.7 pounds a seat), the car mileage between any two cities is always higher than that of the plane, which can fly in a straight line. This more-or-less cancels out the modest advantage of the two-occupant car.

For the Amtrak train option to LA and Phoenix, I'll take the carbon dioxide calculator's rough estimate of about 0.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger per mile for mass transit. The Amtrak, is, after all, powered by a huge diesel engine. Assuming about 3000 miles round trip total, that'd be about 1500 pounds per person. In addition, we'd still likely have to rent a car in both LA and Phoenix for getting around, so the complete figure would likely be close to 1550 pounds each for a group of five. That's about the same as taking the airplane.

One problem in comparing these three modes of transport is that you might think that "the airplane (or the train) is going to go whether or not I buy a ticket on it, so the greenhouse gasses will be the same either way." On the other hand, you have to consider that if nobody bought tickets for the same plane, the airline would surely cancel the flight. Basically, when there is less demand for flights, flight schedules are decreased. Such decreases do not happen immediately, but they do happen incrementally. Everyone who opts not to take a flight contributes to the incremental change. When you think about it in this way, you can see that everyone who uses airplanes, trains, or busses is responsible for their emissions.

Considering all the above, I would certainly fly or take the train if I were traveling alone. Probably in that case I'd fly because two round-trip legs on the Amtrak would likely be very expensive (based on the last time I checked). But since I am planning on traveling together with other family members (which will include at least four people), carpooling looks like it's the most ecological answer.

 

2. Home Warming vs Global Warming

I currently heat my home with natural gas, which costs roughly half as much as the electricity for the baseboard heaters I previously used. But recently I discovered that--in my very small domicile, well-insulated and not even heated very warm by American standards--I have been producing about 2300 pounds of carbon dioxide per year in heating with gas (at 11 pounds of carbon dioxide per therm of gas used).

Now, I know that the best home-heating conservation measures are rather low-tech: insulate your home as much as you can, use curtains to prevent convection and drafts around windows, and turn the thermostat down at night and when nobody is home. I have taken care of these things already. Now I want to take the next step.

First, I considered that maybe electric heat might be an option, even though it is more costly, because I thought--incorrectly--that Seattle electricity was all clean hydropower, produced from generators at various dams in the region. But it turns out that last year, in 2005, Seattle's electricity was 6.26% sourced from carbon-based fuel generators, according to Seattle City Light.

Seattle often buys electricity from non-hydro generators when the water flow at the hydropower dams is low. This percentage of carbon-sourced electricity is higher in the winter months and also in years when there is not as much rain or snowpack in the mountains.

Now, in the colder months when I would be heating my home, the electricity is almost certainly much more than 6.26% carbon-sourced. Although City Light has no monthly or seasonal figures, I'll take a rough estimate of 10% carbon-sourced for my electricity in all the heating months. This would roughly balance out the late spring and early summer months, when there is likely zero carbon-sourced electricity here because the dams are flowing well enough to meet all demand.

Carbon-sourced electricity typically results in about 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour (kwh) used. Based on my previous use of Seattle electricity for baseboard heat, it would take about 13,000 kwh extra electricity to heat my home per year. Doing the calculation 10% x 13,000 kwh x 1.5 pounds carbon = 1950 pounds estimated total carbon dioxide emissions per year for home heating.

Ironically, using the baseboard heat would not only be much more expensive than natural gas, it would also likely result in roughly the same carbon emissions.

That's what I call a bad proposition.

After reading more about heaters, however, I found that electric heat pumps are much more efficient than baseboard or portable electric heaters. In fact, they use roughly half the electricity for the same thermal gain. That also means that they create only half the carbon emissions, so about 1000 pounds a year. Electric heat pumps look like they could be not only economical, but also much better for the environment, at least if your electric source is 90% "clean" in the winter as it is in much of Washington.

But there's another catch, a Kantian dilemma: what if everyone who currently heats with natural gas does as I plan, and replaces their natural gas heater with an electric heat pump? It will result in much greater use of electricity in the colder months, forcing City Light--ironically--to probably purchase much more carbon-sourced electricity.

There are, however, two rays of hope. First, if everyone who currently uses electric baseboard heat also switched to heat pumps, there would be a great conservation of electricity. Second, Washington state is increasingly developing renewable energy--particularly wind power--and this may in the future displace the carbon-sourced generators.

I have to also consider that the manufacture and shipping of a new heat pump also expends a great deal of energy, and therefore would likely greatly add to my indirect responsibility for carbon emissions, though the amount is hard to quantify. On the other hand, my old natural gas heater is working just fine, at least for the time being, and using it requires no new production or shipping of anything, other than for minor repairs.

Balancing all the above factors brings me to the following conclusion: heat pumps are likely the best replacement for me, but I'd probably do just as well to wait until my current gas furnace finally conks out.

 

 

Carbon Dioxide Calculator

Here are some rough calculations for direct individual emissions, based on information from the National Audubon Society, Yes! Magazine, and other sources.

For home energy and car use, divide by the number of occupants or typical passengers to find the per-capita figure.

 

* 1 kilowatt hour of typical carbon-sourced electricity = 1.5 pounds CO2

* 1 kilowatt hour of mostly hydropower electricity (typical in many areas of WA) = 0.1 pounds CO2

* 1 gallon of heating oil = 22 pounds CO2

* 1 therm of natural gas = 11 pounds CO2

* 1 gallon of propane or bottled gas = 13 pounds CO2

* 1 mile traveled in a 20mpg car = 1 pound CO2

* 1 mile traveled in a commercial airliner per passenger = 0.7 pounds CO2

* 1 mile traveled on mass transit per passenger = 0.5 pounds CO2

[an error occurred while processing this directive]