A couple of thoughts:

1. Tighten It Up!

Energy efficiency is the best carbon offset. Less energy used = less energy that needs to be generated. Did you know that houses use about 35% of all the electricity generated in the US?

We can — and will — all do our individual parts, but the construction of new coal plants can negate those efforts very quickly. See this eye-opener from Architecture 2030. Brief excerpt:

There are 151 new conventional coal-fired power plants in various stages of development in the US today….

If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent…
The CO2 emissions from just two medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.

2. And after you’ve tightened up (or while you’re saving up to do it), carbon offsets do help, as long as you’ve got a certified source. Christy is using Carbonfund.org, which is a good one. There are others. This is a new market, without standards or regulations, so do your due diligence to find one that is certified, and most important, retires the offset after it’s purchased. Some brokers keep selling the same offset repeatedly.

3. Check out Green Tags (renewable energy certificates) and White Tags (energy efficiency certificates) as offsets.

4. Carbon footprints (how low can you go)?

There are a number of carbon calculators that will help you measure your carbon footprint. Carbonfund.org has one. Also check out Airhead’s which gives you some comparison to averages in the US.

5. And there’s a new effort in Germany to help us understand our water footprint and how much water it takes to produce various food products. With the drought in the US SE, Atlanta about to run out of water and the wildfires in California, this is worth looking into. Don’t know about any water calculators yet.

6. As people concerned about climate change, energy, and the environment, please check out the national teach-in on January 31, 2008, Focus the Nation and do what you can in your local community to involve students, community leaders, religious organizations, government folks, and everyone else.

James Hansen, NASA climate scientist, wrote in 2006:

W]e have at most ten years — not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.

Let’s do it!

One of the coolest things I’ve seen lately on this topic is the effort in Berkeley to help its residents install solar energy without putting up any money up front. The idea is that the city puts up the money up front, the homeowner pays over 20 years, with interest, but the interest rate is a lot lower than an individual homeowner could get because the city is financing it for thousands of people at once. The savings in electrical bills turn out to be higher than the monthly payment, so it’s a clear win.

In lots of cases, renewable energy works this way: the up-front costs can be considerable, but after that, it’s considerably cheaper. We just need to find creative ways of financing.

Just think: if you could get solar cells on your roof without putting out any money, if you paid it off each month at a rate that is about the same as what you save on your electrical bills, wouldn’t you jump at it? (Whether it’s a saving might depend on time of year; in summer you’d definitely save money).

Most municipal and state credits/loans for solar through offices of public utilities tend to work this way. So everyone should go to the Energy Star link listed above and put in their state and zip. All grants and credits in any one area should come up as links. Most areas get the federal $2000 tax credit along with local grants or zero interest loans that are paid back from the savings on one’s utilities over time — no money up front.

In lots of cases, renewable energy works this way: the up-front costs can be considerable, but after that, it’s considerably cheaper. We just need to find creative ways of financing.

Just think: if you could get solar cells on your roof without putting out any money, if you paid it off each month at a rate that is about the same as what you save on your electrical bills, wouldn’t you jump at it? (Whether it’s a saving might depend on time of year; in summer you’d definitely save money).

http://www.kamazutra.be/corde

In several churches in Munich I noticed the vestibule is just a small room defined by heavy drapes inside the main doors. There is a perceptible temperature difference between the vestibule and the main space.

I have a soapstone wood burning stove with a catalytic combuster, which is supposed to burn the smoke also. It has an 80% efficiency rating. Soapstone also holds the heat for much longer than just plain iron.

Jill @ 43

I have a question. We often use our wood stove and keep the house temperature low (boiler system). Which is more damaging to the environment, running the heat or burning the wood?

Definitely have to look into this. Thanks.

That birdie is an absolute blast! Will be sending the linkie to a bunch-a-folk. Thanks. Sure did need a laugh right-about-now, sigh.

Best to you and yours. ;->

something i’ve wondered… do you-all know of anyone who’s estimated a consumption allowance per person on the planet?

for example, if we were to limit co2 to 450 ppm (yes, i know that’s no longer looking very likely)… how much carbon pollution could we produce and still not go over that limit? and about how much total consumption per person would that be?

i guess what i’m trying to get to is an objective measure for “obscene consumption.” certainly if each of us pollute at a level that, if duplicated by every human on the planet, would destroy planetary ecosystems…. that ought to qualify as obscene consumption.

sorta like if going to a thanksgiving dinner with 12 people and taking half the food… i think it would help our culture if we understood what it means to not take more than our share.

There is a wonderful work of fiction by Daniel Quinn entitled Ishmael. It talks about not taking more than our share.

selise @ 115

something i’ve wondered… do you-all know of anyone who’s estimated a consumption allowance per person on the planet?

for example, if we were to limit co2 to 450 ppm (yes, i know that’s no longer looking very likely)… how much carbon pollution could we produce and still not go over that limit? and about how much total consumption per person would that be?

i guess what i’m trying to get to is an objective measure for “obscene consumption.” certainly if each of us pollute at a level that, if duplicated by every human on the planet, would destroy planetary ecosystems…. that ought to qualify as obscene consumption.

sorta like if going to a thanksgiving dinner with 12 people and taking half the food… i think it would help our culture if we understood what it means to not take more than our share.

Haven’t had time to finish reading all posts, but I have thougt about this for a few years. If we could monitor and see a digital readout of our daily usage of utilities, like electricity, gas, water, etc, we would be more likely to set targets and reduce that usage. I think digital metering is available right now. I would propose a readout to computer, land line phone or cell phone, so immediate results could be seen with the click of a button. Anyone her that could flesh out this scheme?
Karen

I heard something startling recently that’s at least marginally relevant, in giving a sense of the enormity of the problems we all face.

E.O. Wilson, in a recent interview on C-Span, claimed that if the present-day energy consumption rate of the USA were the norm, world wide, it would take FOUR complete Earth’s-worth of resources to support.

I.e., impossible. frightening. coming from E.O. Wilson, undoubtedly something to take quite seriously indeed.

http://www.booktv.org/program……ionName=In Depth&PlayMedia=No

http://www.amazon.com/Creation…..amp;sr=8-1