Reducing Our Own Emissions 10%

Two Quaker Monthly Meetings in California (Pacific Yearly Meeting) will be looking at a proposal to commit to reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in the coming year. What will it take?

For people who fly, one tenth of the miles (or more) shifted to mass transit. For people who drive, some combination of driving less, driving more efficiently (a car with higher fuel economy, no more than 55 mph, etc), driving with others rather than alone. In the house, most people can cut back 10% easily by switching to more efficient light bulbs, replacing old appliances if not efficient with new ones, turning off the computer if you won’t be using it for a while, heating and lighting only rooms you are in. During the California electric crisis, we cut back 10% on electric use – when interviewed for local TV, everyone said, “I didn’t do anything really, just…”

Caveat: there will be a major improvement in energy efficiency soon, due to California’s new regulations. For example, vampire power — the energy sucked up by electronics and appliances not being used — will be more carefully regulated in coming years. For many microwave ovens, more electricity is consumed by the clock and keypad than by the oven!

For the first year of changing our behavior, it may make sense to ignore greenhouse gas emissions from mass transit, and concentrate on reducing use of the car, airplane, and motorized boats.

Comments? Is this a good goal for the first year, impossible goal?

16 Responses to “Reducing Our Own Emissions 10%”

  1. Bob Seeley says:

    A fairly astonishing amount could be done with conservation and greater efficiency with relatively little disruption of ordinary life. I’m talking about the overall picture here, although in our household we bought an Energy Star monitor for my computer and dropped our electric usage by one kilowatt hour per day. Better monitor, too.

    The New Yorker has a Talk of the Town piece on the amount of electricity wasted by inefficient distribution transformers. The government—not just the Bush administration, but they didn’t help—was supposed to propose new standards for transformers but has not until recently. The proposed standards, according to the piece, make no sense. But the main point is that by improving distribution transformers in ways that are technically feasible, we could decrease our electricity use. And if we use less, we need to generate less.

  2. JimL says:

    My business is renewable energy, mostly biomass to ethanol fuel and solar thermal energy to electricity. To clairify, solar thermal energy is a technology that take the suns energy, collect it and shine it on a pipe. The pipe has water in it that is converted to steam. The steam energy drives steam turbines that generate electricity. I agree 100% that all of us should practice conservation, but the problem is that the demand for electricity greatly exceeds the amount we could save through conservation. The answer, and I truly believe comes from God, let us take His earth and His sun and produce electrical energy. We know that the solar thermal energy falling on the Southwest USA each day exceeds the amount of energy used in the USA each day.

  3. Karen Street says:

    Bob mentions working with legislators to get better standards implemented. Friends in California are considering that as well in the proposed minute. New state laws here require industry to improve, but there is much more that could be done at a federal level. Residents of other states might work to get legislation similar to ours: mandate enormous reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, require public utilities to assume cap and trade programs are already in place (utilities must assume that coal and natural gas cost more than they actually do, a good idea because it is commonly accepted that cap and trade programs will soon be mandatory, but in most states, planners are required to assume continued low prices). Etc.

    But what about reducing individual emissions 10% more, from where you are now? Both in the house and in transportation? Having already made changes, would you be willing to commit to more? Would you be willing to fly and drive less? Or does the heart scream, No way!!!

    I want to address one part of the proposal. I’ve already made big changes, both in transportation and in the house. If others were committing to cut back 10%, reducing even more would feel part of a community effort.

  4. Gail Eastwood says:

    A reduction of 10% more than what I’m already doing still feels not all that hard; I’ve still got some fat to cut. (Harder for those who have already made all the easier changes–maybe my short-term goal should be to get to the place where I have no more easy changes to make.) I know 10% is still way not enough, but it’s in the right direction. Policy changes would smooth the way to more reductions, but in the meantime we need to be walking our talk.

  5. Liz Opp says:

    The question of reducing travel in order to reduce emissions has been haunting me for the past year. And now, at a time when I was seriously considering restricting my flying to once a year–one year to the east coast; the next year to the west coast (I live in the middle and have family at both ends of the US)–I have learned that my east-coast family is experiencing what could become fairly urgent medical care for two members of my immediate family…

    This morning I wondered if I shouldn’t consider making two trips a year to the east coast alone… and what would I need to do in order to consider more seriously taking the train.

    So this blog post adds to the weight I have already been carrying recently. I’m not sure how I will be led in the upcoming weeks…

    Blessings,
    Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

  6. pixxaa says:

    Dear all,

    I would try to compensate for the emissions, if I had to take the car or fly

    To get to the last fwcc triennal in Aotearoa/NZ, almost everyone had to fly.
    To compensate for the emissions, dutch Friends set up a ‘Trees for Africa’ scheme, which would help the environment and the people living in Kenya.
    Several European YM joined.
    The project is still alive.*

    When financially strained or without a garden or forest nearby , you could adopt a public place somewhere and plant there yourself

    *
    Info at http://fwccemes.org/documents/files/…friends-92.pdf page 5 and http://www.quaker.org/fwcc/EMES/AmongFriends93.pdf scroll down page 3

    You could ask at
    Friends House, Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ.
    Money goes via Quaker Hulp (NL) .

  7. Gretchen Reinhardt says:

    I’m committed to at least a 10% personal reduction, and to raising the concern both in my family and in my meeting (and wherever I am), but I’m a long way from even being sure I can identify when I have reached my goal.

    Some things have felt easy and wonderful. I have finally gotten the recumbent bicycle (having had my 10-year-old bike stolen several months ago) I have wanted for 25 years, but never could “justify”. It has been an absolute delight to bike with my kids for errands and to meeting, and it reminds me of the joy I used to get from walking to school each day and “meeting” so many people along the way day after day that we began to actually feel like we knew one another. It is a huge improvement over driving. The challenge is that we live in such a vehicle-dominated city that there are many places I don’t feel safe going – especially with a child-trailer or a young child on their own bike. It does however spur-on my resolve to improve bike connectivity where I live.

    The most difficult part for me is finding a way to make changes as a family when we are not all equally committed to change. I put up a clothes line, and others “clean up” by taking it down. I could enjoy visiting family (6 day round-trip by car) by bus, but the idea sends other family members into frustration and a desire to “fly if we don’t need the vehicle while we are there”.

    I struggle to find the priorities of my own form of integrity. I seem to have a deep desire to begin by first knowing my GHG impact (before even trying to improve it), and yet that task is daunting. I have always related to the world through food, and I want to know where my food comes from. I would like to have a garden (something else that brings me great joy, but which I haven’t made time for in recent years), and support what food from my area that I can (I have just joined a CSA which will start delivery in 2 weeks), but the fact of the matter is that very little of my common food purchases are clearly identifiable as “local”, and most are not identifiable at all. Generally, here in Arizona, I would have to count California as “local”. I have found myself arranging to buy beef from family farmers in Kansas – believing that at least I’m not buying beef from a different continent (we haven’t decided to become vegetarians… and I’m not clear if we should), and hoping that family ties might be strenthened with the future possibility of combining family visits with “trade” of meat and wheat (for what in AZ?).

    And then, there is the continuing struggle to reconcile what I want and what I think I need. — both in terms of things that I don’t let go of, and which require time, space or energy to keep, and in terms of additional space. My family has worked with an architect for two years to design an “environmental/green” remodel… and yet it is still not at all clear to me (before we build) that our improvements will not only compensate for our additions, but help us to reduce overall. There may be many leaps of faith (and some of them may be wrong-headed).

    Our meeting will be considering the FGC Climate Change workshop epistle in a couple of weeks. I don’t have a sense as to whether Friends will take on a 10% reduction either as individuals or as the meeting.

  8. david parsons says:

    When I linked I thought you were referring to the blogosphere, and suggesting 10% shorter posts or something 🙂 But reducing greenhouse gasses is a good idea too.

    Since it isn’t practical to move NZ 10% closer, nor to bicycle there, I really like the compensatory strategy. But why Africa? The USA has chopped down millions of square miles of forests. Why not trees for New York, or Chicago or somewhere? And how many trees equal 1000 jet miles?

    On changing cars: the pollution cost of manufacturing a new car, and disposing of an old car, are pretty high–possibly higher than the pollution saving of operating a more fuel efficient vehicle. Does anyone have hard data on how many MPG savings it takes to make the exchange worthwhile?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Dear David,

    Of course, it is always a good decision to plant a tree, wherever it is going to happen.

    Please find here the history of this quaker campaign:

    “At Triennial in New Hampshire in the United States in July 2000 a concern was voiced about the contribution Friends’ travelling makes to climatic
    change through the emission of carbon dioxide. A minute was adopted that Friends worldwide plant 9000 trees to absorb these emissions in order to compensate for our journey to New Zealand.
    Looking at the geographical spread of Friends around the world, as well as their numbers, proportionally Friends in Africa and the Americas would have to plant most of these trees.
    In fact Friends in Africa would have to plant some 50% of these 9000 trees, whereas Friends in the FWCC-EMES would have to plant around 720 trees, out of which a small Yearly Meeting such as Netherlands Yearly Meeting would have to take care of only four trees….. At the time of writing this it must be clear to most of the readers that we already live in a comparatively green environment with relatively speaking quite a lot of forests, parks, hedgerows and trees….whereas this is not so in other parts of the world….
    Last year my wife and I went to visit Kenyan Friends whom we worked with as development workers 30 (!!) years ago. It was quite a happy reunion and lovely to meet (those still alive), their children and grandchildren.
    What struck us however is that the population pressure on the natural resources has increased considerably. Where we remembered forested slopes in the highlands agricultural crops had replaced the trees. Deforestation has taken place on a pretty large scale.
    So Kenya really needs to plant trees again! However, Friends in Kenya hardly have the means tot do so!
    While reporting this to Netherlands Yearly Meeting it was felt that Friends in FWCC-EMES might combine their resources and enable Africa Section to plant (at least) all the 720 trees to be planted by our section in
    Kenya by transferring the means to do so to Kenyan Friends.
    In order for this to be effective and for carbon dioxide to be stored on a long term these trees would preferably have to be planted in groups and be managed to grow to maturity, either in small sustainable forestry plots or as fruit trees in the compounds of e.g. Friends Meeting Houses end Churches. It goes without saying that of course the tree species involved should be indigenous ones. Netherlands Yearly Meeting supported this concern and brought it before the FWCC-EMES Annual Meeting in Hungary at Easter recently. Dutch Friends offered to receive and coordinate financial contributions from Friends around Europe and to arrange for the implementation of the project in close cooperation with FWCCAfrica
    Section and a local Quaker forester. The Annual Meeting adopted a minute asking members of FWCCEMES Section to encourage their Yearly Meetings and individual Friends to join in this venture. So this is where I ask all of you as Yearly Meetings, Monthly Meetings and as individual Quakers: please join!
    Donations should be marked ‘Trees for Africa’ and sent to:
    Quaker Hulp (NL), […]
    Contact person for money transfers: Martin Touwen (e-mail: pnm.quakerhulpfondsATzonnetDOTnl)
    Contact person for the project: Kees Nieuwerth (e-mail: k.nieuwerthATwxsDOTnl)
    We are counting on a little help from our Friends!”
    Kees Nieuwerth

    source: http://www.quaker.org/fwcc/EMES/AmongFriends92.pdf

    PS:
    (Link to story about Kenyan Tree planter and Nobel peace prize winner Ms. Maathai who since the 1970’s led a campaign called the Green Belt Movement to plant tens of millions of trees across Africa to slow deforestation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3726024.stm)

  10. pixxaa says:

    [i] quoting from the first pdf above [/i]

    “At the last Triennial in New Hampshire in the United States in July 2000 a concern was voiced about the contribution Friends’travelling makes to climatic change through the emission of carbon dioxide. A minute was adopted that Friends worldwide plant 9000 trees to absorb these emissions in order to compensate for our journey to New Zealand.

    Looking at the geographical spread of Friends around the world, as well as their numbers, proportionally Friends in Africa and the Americas would have to plant most of these trees.

    In fact Friends in Africa would have to plant some 50% of these 9000 trees, whereas Friends in the FWCC-EMES would have to plant around 720 trees, out of which a small Yearly Meeting such as Netherlands Yearly Meeting would have to take care of only four trees…..

    At the time of writing this it must be clear to most of the readers that we already live in a comparatively green environment with relatively speaking quite a lot of forests, parks, hedgerows and trees….whereas this is not so
    in other parts of the world….

    Last year my wife and I went to visit Kenyan Friends whom we worked with as development workers 30 (!!) years ago. It was quite a happy reunion and lovely to meet (those still alive), their children and grandchildren. What struck us however is that the population pressure on the natural resources has increased considerably. Where we remembered forested slopes in the highlands agricultural crops had replaced the trees. Deforestation has taken place on a pretty large scale.
    So Kenya really needs to plant trees again! However, Friends in Kenya hardly have the means to do so!

    While reporting this to Netherlands Yearly Meeting it was felt that Friends in FWCC-EMES might combine their resources and enable Africa Section to plant (at least) all the 720 trees to be planted by our section in
    Kenya by transferring the means to do so to Kenyan Friends.
    In order for this to be effective and for carbon dioxide to be stored on a long term these trees would preferably have to be planted in groups and be managed to grow to maturity, either in small sustainable forestry plots or as fruit trees in the compounds of e.g. Friends Meeting Houses end Churches. It goes without saying that of course the tree species involved should be indigenous ones. Netherlands Yearly Meeting supported this concern and brought it before the FWCC-EMES Annual Meeting
    in Hungary at Easter recently. Dutch Friends offered to receive and coordinate financial contributions from Friends around Europe and to arrange for the implementation of the project in close cooperation with FWCCAfrica Section and a local Quaker forester. The Annual Meeting adopted a minute asking members of FWCCEMES Section to encourage their Yearly Meetings and individual Friends to join in this venture.

    So this is where I ask all of you as Yearly Meetings, Monthly Meetings and as individual Quakers: please join!
    Donations should be marked ‘Trees for Africa’ and sent to:
    Quaker Hulp (NL)[…]
    Contact person for money transfers: Martin Touwen (e-mail: pnmDOTquakerhulpfondsATzonnetDOTnl)
    Contact person for the project: Kees Nieuwerth (e-mail: kDOTnieuwerthATwxsDOTnl)
    We are counting on a little help from our Friends!
    Trees for Africa: please join! Kees Nieuwerth

  11. Chris M. says:

    10% is a great goal, perhaps too modest, and I don’t know how I’d accomplish it. Last year I moved the office of the small nonprofit for which I work — the one that is promoting affordable, transit-oriented housing development! — cutting my commute from 26-30 miles each way (depending on route) to 12 miles each way. That was a big shift in the right direction. However, the location of my house relative to mass transit routes (BART and CalTrain) results in a 1-1.5 hour trip by transit. Plus I have a lot of meetings all over San Mateo County.

    I’m happy to report that the parent community at the San Francisco Friends School is self-organizing “One Less Car Day!” on October 4. Quoted below.

    — Chris M., SF Monthly Meeting

    ONE LESS CAR CAMPAIGN!
    Want to meet other families, get some exercise, have more fun in the morning AND strengthen the Quaker values of Stewardship (responsibility,
    conservation, protection and nurturing)? Let’s spare the air (and the congestion at pick up and drop off) by finding alternatives to one car/one child commutes!

    On Wednesday, October 4th, International Walk to School Day, the Sports and Outdoor Ed Committee launches a school-wide effort to encourage
    alternative transportation to school. Let’s see how many families can leave their cars at home once a year, once a week, once a day!

    Look in next week’s Circle Back [the school newsletter] for lots of helpful and fun materials. ONE LESS CAR commuters will earn eco-points for their efforts, adding trees to the SFFS family map and qualifying for a special drawing of eco-prizes before Thanksgiving. Those who participate on October 4th will also get to breathe more deeply with their kids and the community at that morning’s Community for Worship at SFFS.

  12. Pam says:

    I really don’t know how I would accomplish this (okay, I probably could)

    I already don’t have a car (and am always thinking about getting one) – though I do borrow one relatively frequently, most recently to make the 5 mile trip to the vet numerous times for checkups, medications, medication adjustments, etc. There is a vet within walking distance of my house, but I went there last week, and didn’t really like them. (my own doctors is within walking distance – go figure!)

    I went through a period of not flying at all for a few years. THis has been recently complicated by my mother’s health issues (she is in a nursing home with dementia, in Pennsylvania, while I live in Minnesota – I am hoping to move her, which will involve some plane travel, but then that would be taken care of)

    It’s also been complicated by my rediscovery of a love of international travel. I have visited latin america (accessible by bike, but not in a short period of time!) the last two febrarys, and really enjoyed both the “cultural experience” and getting to be warm for the first time in months!) This is a totally wasteful and selfish expenditure, but I do love it. sigh.

    I can’t keep the heat in my house as low as I would like because it is shared with a tenant.

    I did just buy a front-loading washing machine when my old one died recently. I’m enjoying it immensely, though I couldn’t really tell you what it’s saving (though supposedly a lot!)

    I am wary of the “buy something to fix it” solution. As David pointed out, disposing of the old one (car or appliance) and manufacturing the new one are both big impacts on the environment. I have no doubt that what’s reflected on our bills when we make the change is impressive, but where is the old monitor/washing machine/car, and what impact did that transaction have on the whole? It’s my impression that with cars at least the improvement in efficiency has to be HUGE to make up for the impact of manufacturing a new, big, machine.

    And planting trees in africa is a great thing, as would be planting trees at home. Of course buying or otherwise protecting land for trees to grow on is at least as important.

    But really, you can’t “buy off” your negative impact. It happened, whether or not you plant a tree. Planting trees is great, and I think an awareness of the impacts we can have, both positive and negative, is important, but I worry that “mitigation” or whatever it’s called can turn into an easy out.

    peace
    Pam

  13. Don Bean says:

    I came home from the recent PYM inspired to do my “little” part to reduce my personal energy consumption, and I’ve seen a monthly electric bill reduction of 30% in the past two months from my usual average bill ($56/$60 vs $90/$100 average and July’s 2006 hottest month was $150) (45% to 55% over the last two years in the same month of the year, but less people in house now compared to previous years). Here are things I’ve done to achieve this; replaced all light bulbs in house to Sub-compact Fluorescent bulbs (cost $180 for 26 bulbs), unplugged an unused second re-fridge, unplugged chargers and small appliances while not using, power down two computers and related peripherals while away from house, not leave lights on while not in room, and using room fans vs AC (but weather’s been very moderate in past two months, so no AC not really put to test)

  14. Anonymous says:

    The most difficult part of a 10% reduction would be keeping track of total emissions. I am really not ready to commit to that record-keeping. I’m generally averse to calorie-counting, whether it’s weight loss or kilowatt hours. If I can lose weight without counting calories, I think I can reduce energy use without actually toting up all the tons of carbon. I’d rather be walking than record-keeping.

    Also I share a lot of energy use with other people who don’t share my desire to reduce emissions. I can’t measure my use separately.

    So I’d like to try some other thing to observe. I’d like to spend at least as much time walking and bicycling as in cars and buses, at least ten hours walking for each hour on a plane. I’d like to keep the lights off when I’m not in a room. I’d like to make my energy-efficient life look more appealing to others. I would imagine considering this in my daily review of each day’s consolation and desolation, rather than adding up all the answers numerically.

    I have already replaced all bulbs with flourescent, got a very efficient manual defrost refrigerator, turn off all the lights when absent, keep heat low and have no AC, hang clothes to dry, walk to the milk store, occupy small cozy apartment, all the easy stuff. The next steps will seriously change my work life and family connections.

    Probably the most important thing I personally could do right now would be to convince my high-energy housemates to do the little things I’m already doing. Not an easy road, either.

    For those with numerical tendencies: perhaps a better target would be to figure out a sustainable level of energy use, and reduce by 20% any consumption above that sustainable level. Those who are at the sustainable level wouldn’t need to reduce. Those who are at twice the sustainable level would reduce by 10% total. Those who are at even higher levels would reduce even more. Doesn’t that make better sense?

  15. Don Campbell says:

    Great conversation! We all need to be discussing these things and learning from each other.

    First, there is so much low-hanging fruit in our homes and businesses, we should go after those things as a baseline default, and keep at it. Phantom loads, those users that are working when you do nopt need them to, can use a lot of energy. If we can get a mass movement around this, we might even be able to shut down some nukes:)

    Alas, the real problem is that we in the US use 25% – 30% of the per capita energy available globally. Way above par. As Friends I would hope that we care enough about equity that this fact alone would move us into RADICALLY changing the lifestyles of ourselves and our communitites. This is where our public mindedness might go after the low-hanging fruit in publicly owned facilities, believe me, there is a huge amount of savings there and since pugging those holes has the effect of reducing pressure on property taxes it could get traction.

    An added dimension to the notion of equity is that the per capita energy available worldwide has been in DECLINE since 1979 (or 1982 according to some, doesn’t matter much). So we continue to mooch the world’s energy at the expense of…those in the middle east, africans, latin americans, poor folks in coastal Louisiana and so on. One day those folks will either come after us, or just sit back and watch us fall as our infrastructure crumbles unless we work to an honest and equitable way of life. These folks are right to be angry with us.

    I, frankly, do not believe we will really respond at a significant enough level to matter soon enough. People say we are living at the extreme of being gentle on our use of energy, but I think we are only modeling a next step on the way to a managed decline.

    So, look at Truth, act in and out of Love and let us radically change our lives and show the way to others. And get after our local and regional government agencies.

    For those interested in that approach, I have some starter info I will send you if you ask.

    And last of this ramble, the energy situation will impact our public health system and our food systems drastically.

    C’mon Friends, there is way too much fun to be had meeting these challenges in good company. It’s an opportunity not to be missed!

    Love to you all,

    Don

  16. Wendy Michener says:

    Hey,

    I want to report that my Meeting just had a discussion about what we are doing for climate change and it appears that everyone present had significantly changed their ways in the last year. People are now recycling who weren’t and everyone is changing their light bulbs. Many of us are using cloth bags or seriously thinking of adopting the practice. And people are remembering to car pool.

    And a total bottom-line firster has decided to use the train! Instead of driving his car he will ride and he is actually pleased about it. It will save him money, allow him to work on a new book and allow him to admire the fall foliage without being a danger to himself and others. He’s actually bummed that he can’t use the train for the whole trip. (The train doesn’t go there.) I consider this a sign that we are reaching a tipping point, when ordinary people who are focused on the short-term bottom line become willing to do the green thing.

    I think it is not so unrealistic to reach for spreading the 10% gospel. I think people are ready and it gives them something to reach for.

    Wendy