29 Ways to Conserve & Save
Quick, cheap and easy ways to cut your electricity and water use while also cutting your expenses.
By Jane Bennett Clark, Senior Associate Editor
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, October 2007
Still stalling on going green? Procrastinate no longer. We give you 29 ideas for saving energy and water around your home that involve little or no installation and barely a bump in your routine. Individually, they cost less than $100. Collectively, they can save hundreds of dollars a year in household energy bills, thousands of gallons of water and thousands of pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions. You have every reason to follow these tips and not a single reason to ignore them.
Get cracking, folks.
13 Ways to Trim Energy UseHelp the environment and lower your electricity bill with these smart moves.
16 Ways to Stop Wasting WaterWith a few twists of the wrist, you can save water and money.
How Green Are You?Take our quiz.
How we calculated the savings
Many of these calculations rely on figures provided by Jeffrey Langholz and Kelly Turner in You Can Prevent Global Warming (and Save Money!) (Andrew McMeel, $11), updated to reflect an average electricity price per kilowatt-hour of 10.6 cents, the recent national residential average. Because unheated water costs less than a cent per gallon, we focus on conservation over cost.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Shopping guide to ECO friendly products
A Shopping Guide to Eco-Friendly Products
From appliances to home decorating, we tell you what to buy and where to find it.
By Pat Mertz Esswein, Associate EditorBy Pat Mertz Esswein, Associate EditorAmy Esbenshade Hebert
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, October 2007
Browse the aisles of a supermarket, department store or home-improvement center for eco-friendly products, and you might conclude that the greening of America had stalled at the starting gate. Even Home Depot, which introduced its Eco Options program last summer to identify products that meet its criteria for environmental friendliness, had few Eco Options signs at stores we visited, and stickering of individual products was nearly nonexistent.
Buying with the environment in mind will get easier as manufacturers adopt greener practices and offer greener products. But for now, save gas and aggravation by shopping on the Internet. We've included Web sites for the products recommended in this story, or go to http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/. A number of large cities also have green home centers, such as Amicus, near Washington, D.C.; Natural Built Home, in Minneapolis; and the Green Home Center, in San Francisco.
APPLIANCES
Problem: The average home annually creates twice the greenhouse emissions of the average car. The biggest culprits? Furnaces and air conditioners, which account for about half of the typical family's energy costs. Other appliances are responsible for another third of utility bills.
Better choices: Energy Star appliances generally use up to 50% less energy than products that meet only federal minimum standards (standards for water heaters are in development). Look for the yellow Energy Star label in stores, or check www.energystar.gov. For example, Energy StarPrated clothes washers and dishwashers use at least 30% less energy than standard models, and they save water, too. For a large-capacity, high-efficiency front-loading washer, check out the Kenmore HE5t ($1,300) and the Bosch Nexxt 500 Series ($1,099). In the ultra-efficient-dishwasher category, the Bosch Evolution 800 Series, introduced this summer, greatly exceeds the federal minimum standard for energy efficiency (it uses 60% less), but it's pricey (in stainless steel, $1,549).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new WaterSense program has begun certifying high-efficiency toilets that use only 1.3 gallons of water or less per flush. Replace a toilet made between 1980 and 1994 and you could save as much as $90 a year. We recommend the Kohler Cimarron EcoSmart toilet ($338 and up) or the Toto Aquia ($395). Both are dual-flush models that let you choose a lower or higher water flow as needed.
Trade-off: Some appliances cost more up front, but you'll recoup the extra cost in energy savings within five years.
Comments: Deciding what to replace first depends on your region's climate and your lifestyle. For example, if you live in a harsh, northern climate and your natural-gas furnace is 15 years old, you'll see big savings from a new model that achieves at least 90% efficiency, such as the Carrier Infinity 96. Such high-efficiency furnaces typically cost from $1,300 to $1,700, depending on size, or up to $4,000 installed (because of the need to upgrade vents and ductwork). You'll pay $1,000 more than you would for an 80%-efficient model, but you'll save about $32 per $100 of annual fuel costs when you replace, say, a 20-year-old, 65%-efficient model with a 95%-efficient one.
Another easy target is the beer fridge in the basement. Energy Star models, such as the Frigidaire FRT21HS6D ($599), use 40% less energy than conventional ones sold in 2001. Replacing a ten-year-old model with a new, high-efficiency fridge saves an average of $100 annually in energy costs.
BUILDING PRODUCTS
Problem: As the world's appetite for wood and agricultural land grows, we're consuming forests faster than they can grow or than we can replace them. Deforestation (of about 27,000 square miles annually) and poor forestry management cause erosion, diminish air and water quality, and leave fewer trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Better choices: The gold standard for responsible forest management is certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org). Ask your builder or contractor to use lumber with the FSC stamp (a checkmark and a tree). Or consider cellular PVC lumber, made from recycled plastic. For decking and other low-load uses (such as fences and railings), try composite lumber, such as Trex (www.trex.com). It's made from waste wood and recycled plastic, and it doesn't have to be painted or sealed.
Trade-offs: Because of supply-chain issues, FSC-certified lumber may be hard to find, and it will cost up to 15% more than a noncertified equivalent. Composite decking costs about the same as high-end redwood and cedar. Although most composite lumber is "UV stabilized" to stand up to sunlight, colors will fade a bit over time. Plus, critics wonder how this hybrid material will be recycled.
Comments: Three useful guides are www.toolbase.org, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's PATH program (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing), www.builditgreen.org (click on "green resources" and "fact sheets") and the GreenSpec Directory (www.buildinggreen.com; $89).
LAWN CARE
Problem: The EPA estimates that a gasoline-powered mower can produce as much pollution in an hour as 11 cars and that a riding mower can spew as much pollution as 34 cars. Plus, mowers often leak fuel. Pesticides that are used to fend off weeds may be carcinogenic, cause reproductive and developmental problems, and contaminate groundwater.
Better choices: Electric mowers use less energy than gas models, but they're impractical for large yards. The EPA has proposed new emissions standards that will take effect in 2011 or 2012; the final rules are likely to mirror California's current standards. In its ratings for lawn mowers this past spring, Consumers Union (www.greenerchoices.org) rated the John Deere X304 ($3,500) best for gas-powered riding mowers, and the Honda HRX217HXA ($800) topped the list of self-propelled mowers.
To keep your lawn weed-free, consider an Integrated Pest Management approach. IPM advocates using the solution that poses the least risk to health and the environment first. (For more on IPM, visit www.epa.gov/pesticides/controlling/garden.htm. At EPA's site, you can also read about biopesticides.) If you use a lawn service, find one that practices IPM. For example, Green Shield Certified (www.greenshieldcertified.org) recommends professionals who agree to avoid the use of chemicals unless absolutely necessary.
Trade-off: Sacrifice chemicals and you'll sacrifice lawn nirvana, too. If you decide to approach your lawn with a chemicals-as-a-last-resort mind-set, you could end up with a healthier lawn in the long run, but you'll need the patience to revisit problems (and pull weeds).
Comments: Use your mower's mulcher. That not only reduces your yard's need for fertilizers but also keeps clippings from heading to the landfill. Another option is to compost those clippings.
HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS
Problem: Laundry detergents, general-purpose cleaners and other products may contain nonylphenol ethoxylates, or NPEs, which can break down into a form that's toxic to aquatic life. Phosphates, found in dishwasher detergents, promote harmful algae growth. Petroleum-based cleaners, which make up a majority of the market, use up a nonrenewable resource.
Better choices: Companies don't have to reveal their secret formulas and may list slightly altered chemicals under other names. Look for cleaners that have survived tough scrutiny, such as Ipax's Green Unikleen multipurpose cleaner (www.ipax.com). Unikleen is a Green Seal-certified cleaner (www.greenseal.org), which means it's biodegradable, plus it contains no carcinogens and isn't toxic to humans or aquatic life. Green Seal has approved few consumer cleaners so far, but it will add more to the list by year's end. For cleaners free of NPEs, phosphates, chlorine and other problem chemicals, also try the Ecover (www.ecover.com), Seventh Generation (www.seventhgen.com) and BioKleen (www.biokleenhome.com) brands.
The EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) seal has less-stringent requirements, so more products meet its standards. A chemical's effectiveness is key; if alternative products don't work as well, a risky chemical may still be used. Several products in the Method line of cleaners (www.methodhome.com) that are sold at Target stores are DfE-recognized. To qualify for the Home Depot Eco Options line, products must be DfE-recognized.
Trade-off: Most grocers, except some organic specialty markets, do not stock green-certified cleaners, and you may pay more than for conventional cleaners. But as more certified products enter the market, prices should come down.
Comments: EPA is starting a voluntary program that encourages companies to use safer alternatives to ingredients known as surfactants, such as NPEs. Some companies, such as Procter & Gamble and Unilever, have stopped using them altogether. And remember that the absence of a chemical smell doesn't mean a product can't do the job.
HOME DECORATING
Problem: Many things in your home are made with adhesives, solvents or finishes that emit volatile organic compounds, or VOCs (the big offender in adhesives is urea formaldehyde). VOCs contribute to smog outdoors and may be highly concentrated indoors, aggravating allergies and respiratory ailments.
Better choices: Most paints and stains, including some oil-based ones, already have low VOC content, per federal standards that are becoming more stringent. VOC-free paints, such as Yolo Colorhouse paints (www.yolocolorhouse.com), cost about the same as conventional manufacturers' premium paints ($39.95 per gallon).
For cabinetry and furniture, look for products constructed with solid-wood panels or engineered wood (particleboard or medium-density fiberboard) made with low- or no-VOC finishes and water-based adhesives. Woods should come from reclaimed or sustainable sources and preferably be FSC-certified. One recommendation for cabinets is Neil Kelly Cabinets (www.neilkellycabinets.com). Ikea, which claims it is committed to the environment, uses at least some FSC woods (www.ikea.com).
Cisco Brothers (www.ciscobrothers.com) uses only FSC woods in its upholstered furniture, sold primarily through small design shops and retailers. The Q Collection (www.qcollection.com), available through interior designers, offers high-end, environmentally friendly furniture and fabrics.
Trade-offs: Residential furniture is just starting to go green, so your choices may be limited. Plus, the U.S. Department of Agriculture confers organic certification only on cotton and wool fibers, not fabric (standards are coming). Textiles made from natural fibers or dyed with natural pigments may be treated with toxic substances, such as heavy metals or fire retardants.Comments: For an alternative to petroleum-based countertops, such as Corian,consider IceStone (www.icestone.biz; $90 to $140 per square foot). It's made from concrete and recycled glass, and you can use it for countertops, backsplashes or floor tiles. Or check out PaperStone (www.paperstoneproducts.com), made of 100% recycled, FSC- certified paper and water-based resins. Cost: $33 to $61 per square foot.
From appliances to home decorating, we tell you what to buy and where to find it.
By Pat Mertz Esswein, Associate EditorBy Pat Mertz Esswein, Associate EditorAmy Esbenshade Hebert
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, October 2007
Browse the aisles of a supermarket, department store or home-improvement center for eco-friendly products, and you might conclude that the greening of America had stalled at the starting gate. Even Home Depot, which introduced its Eco Options program last summer to identify products that meet its criteria for environmental friendliness, had few Eco Options signs at stores we visited, and stickering of individual products was nearly nonexistent.
Buying with the environment in mind will get easier as manufacturers adopt greener practices and offer greener products. But for now, save gas and aggravation by shopping on the Internet. We've included Web sites for the products recommended in this story, or go to http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/. A number of large cities also have green home centers, such as Amicus, near Washington, D.C.; Natural Built Home, in Minneapolis; and the Green Home Center, in San Francisco.
APPLIANCES
Problem: The average home annually creates twice the greenhouse emissions of the average car. The biggest culprits? Furnaces and air conditioners, which account for about half of the typical family's energy costs. Other appliances are responsible for another third of utility bills.
Better choices: Energy Star appliances generally use up to 50% less energy than products that meet only federal minimum standards (standards for water heaters are in development). Look for the yellow Energy Star label in stores, or check www.energystar.gov. For example, Energy StarPrated clothes washers and dishwashers use at least 30% less energy than standard models, and they save water, too. For a large-capacity, high-efficiency front-loading washer, check out the Kenmore HE5t ($1,300) and the Bosch Nexxt 500 Series ($1,099). In the ultra-efficient-dishwasher category, the Bosch Evolution 800 Series, introduced this summer, greatly exceeds the federal minimum standard for energy efficiency (it uses 60% less), but it's pricey (in stainless steel, $1,549).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new WaterSense program has begun certifying high-efficiency toilets that use only 1.3 gallons of water or less per flush. Replace a toilet made between 1980 and 1994 and you could save as much as $90 a year. We recommend the Kohler Cimarron EcoSmart toilet ($338 and up) or the Toto Aquia ($395). Both are dual-flush models that let you choose a lower or higher water flow as needed.
Trade-off: Some appliances cost more up front, but you'll recoup the extra cost in energy savings within five years.
Comments: Deciding what to replace first depends on your region's climate and your lifestyle. For example, if you live in a harsh, northern climate and your natural-gas furnace is 15 years old, you'll see big savings from a new model that achieves at least 90% efficiency, such as the Carrier Infinity 96. Such high-efficiency furnaces typically cost from $1,300 to $1,700, depending on size, or up to $4,000 installed (because of the need to upgrade vents and ductwork). You'll pay $1,000 more than you would for an 80%-efficient model, but you'll save about $32 per $100 of annual fuel costs when you replace, say, a 20-year-old, 65%-efficient model with a 95%-efficient one.
Another easy target is the beer fridge in the basement. Energy Star models, such as the Frigidaire FRT21HS6D ($599), use 40% less energy than conventional ones sold in 2001. Replacing a ten-year-old model with a new, high-efficiency fridge saves an average of $100 annually in energy costs.
BUILDING PRODUCTS
Problem: As the world's appetite for wood and agricultural land grows, we're consuming forests faster than they can grow or than we can replace them. Deforestation (of about 27,000 square miles annually) and poor forestry management cause erosion, diminish air and water quality, and leave fewer trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Better choices: The gold standard for responsible forest management is certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org). Ask your builder or contractor to use lumber with the FSC stamp (a checkmark and a tree). Or consider cellular PVC lumber, made from recycled plastic. For decking and other low-load uses (such as fences and railings), try composite lumber, such as Trex (www.trex.com). It's made from waste wood and recycled plastic, and it doesn't have to be painted or sealed.
Trade-offs: Because of supply-chain issues, FSC-certified lumber may be hard to find, and it will cost up to 15% more than a noncertified equivalent. Composite decking costs about the same as high-end redwood and cedar. Although most composite lumber is "UV stabilized" to stand up to sunlight, colors will fade a bit over time. Plus, critics wonder how this hybrid material will be recycled.
Comments: Three useful guides are www.toolbase.org, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's PATH program (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing), www.builditgreen.org (click on "green resources" and "fact sheets") and the GreenSpec Directory (www.buildinggreen.com; $89).
LAWN CARE
Problem: The EPA estimates that a gasoline-powered mower can produce as much pollution in an hour as 11 cars and that a riding mower can spew as much pollution as 34 cars. Plus, mowers often leak fuel. Pesticides that are used to fend off weeds may be carcinogenic, cause reproductive and developmental problems, and contaminate groundwater.
Better choices: Electric mowers use less energy than gas models, but they're impractical for large yards. The EPA has proposed new emissions standards that will take effect in 2011 or 2012; the final rules are likely to mirror California's current standards. In its ratings for lawn mowers this past spring, Consumers Union (www.greenerchoices.org) rated the John Deere X304 ($3,500) best for gas-powered riding mowers, and the Honda HRX217HXA ($800) topped the list of self-propelled mowers.
To keep your lawn weed-free, consider an Integrated Pest Management approach. IPM advocates using the solution that poses the least risk to health and the environment first. (For more on IPM, visit www.epa.gov/pesticides/controlling/garden.htm. At EPA's site, you can also read about biopesticides.) If you use a lawn service, find one that practices IPM. For example, Green Shield Certified (www.greenshieldcertified.org) recommends professionals who agree to avoid the use of chemicals unless absolutely necessary.
Trade-off: Sacrifice chemicals and you'll sacrifice lawn nirvana, too. If you decide to approach your lawn with a chemicals-as-a-last-resort mind-set, you could end up with a healthier lawn in the long run, but you'll need the patience to revisit problems (and pull weeds).
Comments: Use your mower's mulcher. That not only reduces your yard's need for fertilizers but also keeps clippings from heading to the landfill. Another option is to compost those clippings.
HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS
Problem: Laundry detergents, general-purpose cleaners and other products may contain nonylphenol ethoxylates, or NPEs, which can break down into a form that's toxic to aquatic life. Phosphates, found in dishwasher detergents, promote harmful algae growth. Petroleum-based cleaners, which make up a majority of the market, use up a nonrenewable resource.
Better choices: Companies don't have to reveal their secret formulas and may list slightly altered chemicals under other names. Look for cleaners that have survived tough scrutiny, such as Ipax's Green Unikleen multipurpose cleaner (www.ipax.com). Unikleen is a Green Seal-certified cleaner (www.greenseal.org), which means it's biodegradable, plus it contains no carcinogens and isn't toxic to humans or aquatic life. Green Seal has approved few consumer cleaners so far, but it will add more to the list by year's end. For cleaners free of NPEs, phosphates, chlorine and other problem chemicals, also try the Ecover (www.ecover.com), Seventh Generation (www.seventhgen.com) and BioKleen (www.biokleenhome.com) brands.
The EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) seal has less-stringent requirements, so more products meet its standards. A chemical's effectiveness is key; if alternative products don't work as well, a risky chemical may still be used. Several products in the Method line of cleaners (www.methodhome.com) that are sold at Target stores are DfE-recognized. To qualify for the Home Depot Eco Options line, products must be DfE-recognized.
Trade-off: Most grocers, except some organic specialty markets, do not stock green-certified cleaners, and you may pay more than for conventional cleaners. But as more certified products enter the market, prices should come down.
Comments: EPA is starting a voluntary program that encourages companies to use safer alternatives to ingredients known as surfactants, such as NPEs. Some companies, such as Procter & Gamble and Unilever, have stopped using them altogether. And remember that the absence of a chemical smell doesn't mean a product can't do the job.
HOME DECORATING
Problem: Many things in your home are made with adhesives, solvents or finishes that emit volatile organic compounds, or VOCs (the big offender in adhesives is urea formaldehyde). VOCs contribute to smog outdoors and may be highly concentrated indoors, aggravating allergies and respiratory ailments.
Better choices: Most paints and stains, including some oil-based ones, already have low VOC content, per federal standards that are becoming more stringent. VOC-free paints, such as Yolo Colorhouse paints (www.yolocolorhouse.com), cost about the same as conventional manufacturers' premium paints ($39.95 per gallon).
For cabinetry and furniture, look for products constructed with solid-wood panels or engineered wood (particleboard or medium-density fiberboard) made with low- or no-VOC finishes and water-based adhesives. Woods should come from reclaimed or sustainable sources and preferably be FSC-certified. One recommendation for cabinets is Neil Kelly Cabinets (www.neilkellycabinets.com). Ikea, which claims it is committed to the environment, uses at least some FSC woods (www.ikea.com).
Cisco Brothers (www.ciscobrothers.com) uses only FSC woods in its upholstered furniture, sold primarily through small design shops and retailers. The Q Collection (www.qcollection.com), available through interior designers, offers high-end, environmentally friendly furniture and fabrics.
Trade-offs: Residential furniture is just starting to go green, so your choices may be limited. Plus, the U.S. Department of Agriculture confers organic certification only on cotton and wool fibers, not fabric (standards are coming). Textiles made from natural fibers or dyed with natural pigments may be treated with toxic substances, such as heavy metals or fire retardants.Comments: For an alternative to petroleum-based countertops, such as Corian,consider IceStone (www.icestone.biz; $90 to $140 per square foot). It's made from concrete and recycled glass, and you can use it for countertops, backsplashes or floor tiles. Or check out PaperStone (www.paperstoneproducts.com), made of 100% recycled, FSC- certified paper and water-based resins. Cost: $33 to $61 per square foot.
How to End Global Warming
GOING LONG
How to End Global Warming
We can do much to stanch carbon emissions without establishing a maze of price controls and regulations, says columnist Jeremy Siegel.
By Jeremy J. Siegel, Contributing Editor
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, October 2007
The mere mention of global warming raises the temperature level of political discourse. On one side, many conservatives concede that the earth is getting warmer, but they do not believe that human activity is necessarily the cause -- and even if it is, they argue, there's little we can do about it. On the other side, some environmentalists believe that radical measures are called for -- measures that could grind economic growth to a halt.
Unfortunately, all the heated rhetoric obscures some viable, middle-of-the-road approaches. I strongly believe in the power of free markets, and I think we can use free-market solutions to attack global warming without imposing an undue burden on the world economy.
Key facts
I believe that global warming is real, that it stems mostly from the increase in greenhouse gases and that it does pose a long-term threat. The basic facts are well known. The world is pumping about 8 billion tons of carbon emissions from fossil fuels into the atmosphere each year, up nearly 500% from 1950. That number is likely to double by mid century if nothing is done to curtail emissions.
Global warming is expected to accentuate climatic extremes. Some areas of the world, particularly those in the far north, may benefit as the length of growing seasons increases. But warming is likely to bring excessive rain to some regions and drought to others. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects an increase in the frequency of major cyclonic storms, such as the intense hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005.
In my opinion, the most costly consequence of global warming is the possibility of rising ocean levels caused by melting ice and the expansion of warming water. Sea levels would rise by 23 feet if all of Greenland's ice sheet melted, and another 230 feet if all of Antarctica's ice melted. The latter scenario would submerge more than half the world's population. The IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise only 7 inches to 2 feet by the end of this century, although it is said the figure could be much greater, depending on ice-flow dynamics and other factors. But even modest melting could trigger climate changes that would make many of the world's largest cities uninhabitable and dramatically reduce the world's arable land.
Many believe that any attempt to curtail carbon emissions will sharply reduce economic growth and cause severe economic hardships. I disagree.
For starters, one study has shown that just by using today's technologies, it would be possible to reduce emissions by several billion tons per year without doing much harm to world economic output. This could be accomplished by increasing the amount of electricity produced at nuclear-power plants, doubling the fuel efficiency of automobiles and using more-energy-efficient technologies in buildings.
Consider the energy-efficiency improvements in California, which has the toughest environmental laws in the country. On a per-person basis, Californians use about one-third less energy than the average American and emit only about half as much carbon dioxide. Yes, energy prices are high in California, but no one I know would call the state impoverished because of its energy-saving initiatives.
Economic solution
The best way to conserve energy and slow global warming is to raise the price of carbon emissions. And the best way to do that, in my view, is to use the European Union's "cap and trade" system. The government sets the maximum amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that may be emitted, then establishes a market that allows businesses and individuals to buy and sell rights to produce the emissions. The price the market sets for these rights gives consumers and producers clear signals about how to conserve.
Once the proper price is put on greenhouse emissions, it should be the market -- not the government -- that picks the most efficient way to avoid them. (For this reason, I object to the Bush administration's plans to stimulate the production of ethanol, which may require as much energy to produce as it saves. This approach is simply a giveaway to special interests.)
We can take other actions to raise the price of carbon emissions, moves that would also have the effect of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. A tax on imported oil, matched by an across-the-board decrease in other taxes, would accomplish both of these goals without raising taxes overall.
And we shouldn't underestimate voluntary efforts by citizens to cut carbon emissions. The public surprised the "experts" 30 years ago when it embraced recycling. Global warming has caught the public's attention even more than recycling did a generation earlier.
Some prophets of doom warn that it may already be too late to stop the warming process. Even if the world can stabilize -- or reduce -- the amount of carbon emissions, some observers think the current levels of carbon dioxide are so high that the earth will continue to warm. Unfortunately, the pessimists could be right. The heating of the soil and tundra increases the activity of microorganisms, which further increases CO2 and methane emissions. Furthermore, as the oceans warm, they absorb less CO2, and the melting of the ice caps reduces the earth's reflective properties, which ward off some of the sun's rays. Ironically, as we reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere (also known as air pollution), we also increase the sun's power to warm the earth.
New realities
If we are already past the point of no return, then we will have to prepare ourselves for climatological and geographical changes that will adversely affect the world's economy. But we should continue to take measures to reduce global warming, even as we learn how to adapt to the new realities on land, in the seas and in the air. We can do much to stanch carbon emissions without establishing a maze of price controls and regulations.
Making a determined effort to reduce greenhouse emissions is a sensible insurance policy no matter the outcome. If we prevent warming, we will all be winners. If we can delay the warming process, then we will have more time to adapt to climate change. If our efforts go for naught and extreme weather changes occur anyway, future generations will at least know that we didn't just sit on our hands. The most damning action is to do nothing.
Columnist Jeremy J. Siegel is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and author of Stocks for the Long Run and The Future for Investors.
How to End Global Warming
We can do much to stanch carbon emissions without establishing a maze of price controls and regulations, says columnist Jeremy Siegel.
By Jeremy J. Siegel, Contributing Editor
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, October 2007
The mere mention of global warming raises the temperature level of political discourse. On one side, many conservatives concede that the earth is getting warmer, but they do not believe that human activity is necessarily the cause -- and even if it is, they argue, there's little we can do about it. On the other side, some environmentalists believe that radical measures are called for -- measures that could grind economic growth to a halt.
Unfortunately, all the heated rhetoric obscures some viable, middle-of-the-road approaches. I strongly believe in the power of free markets, and I think we can use free-market solutions to attack global warming without imposing an undue burden on the world economy.
Key facts
I believe that global warming is real, that it stems mostly from the increase in greenhouse gases and that it does pose a long-term threat. The basic facts are well known. The world is pumping about 8 billion tons of carbon emissions from fossil fuels into the atmosphere each year, up nearly 500% from 1950. That number is likely to double by mid century if nothing is done to curtail emissions.
Global warming is expected to accentuate climatic extremes. Some areas of the world, particularly those in the far north, may benefit as the length of growing seasons increases. But warming is likely to bring excessive rain to some regions and drought to others. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects an increase in the frequency of major cyclonic storms, such as the intense hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005.
In my opinion, the most costly consequence of global warming is the possibility of rising ocean levels caused by melting ice and the expansion of warming water. Sea levels would rise by 23 feet if all of Greenland's ice sheet melted, and another 230 feet if all of Antarctica's ice melted. The latter scenario would submerge more than half the world's population. The IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise only 7 inches to 2 feet by the end of this century, although it is said the figure could be much greater, depending on ice-flow dynamics and other factors. But even modest melting could trigger climate changes that would make many of the world's largest cities uninhabitable and dramatically reduce the world's arable land.
Many believe that any attempt to curtail carbon emissions will sharply reduce economic growth and cause severe economic hardships. I disagree.
For starters, one study has shown that just by using today's technologies, it would be possible to reduce emissions by several billion tons per year without doing much harm to world economic output. This could be accomplished by increasing the amount of electricity produced at nuclear-power plants, doubling the fuel efficiency of automobiles and using more-energy-efficient technologies in buildings.
Consider the energy-efficiency improvements in California, which has the toughest environmental laws in the country. On a per-person basis, Californians use about one-third less energy than the average American and emit only about half as much carbon dioxide. Yes, energy prices are high in California, but no one I know would call the state impoverished because of its energy-saving initiatives.
Economic solution
The best way to conserve energy and slow global warming is to raise the price of carbon emissions. And the best way to do that, in my view, is to use the European Union's "cap and trade" system. The government sets the maximum amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that may be emitted, then establishes a market that allows businesses and individuals to buy and sell rights to produce the emissions. The price the market sets for these rights gives consumers and producers clear signals about how to conserve.
Once the proper price is put on greenhouse emissions, it should be the market -- not the government -- that picks the most efficient way to avoid them. (For this reason, I object to the Bush administration's plans to stimulate the production of ethanol, which may require as much energy to produce as it saves. This approach is simply a giveaway to special interests.)
We can take other actions to raise the price of carbon emissions, moves that would also have the effect of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. A tax on imported oil, matched by an across-the-board decrease in other taxes, would accomplish both of these goals without raising taxes overall.
And we shouldn't underestimate voluntary efforts by citizens to cut carbon emissions. The public surprised the "experts" 30 years ago when it embraced recycling. Global warming has caught the public's attention even more than recycling did a generation earlier.
Some prophets of doom warn that it may already be too late to stop the warming process. Even if the world can stabilize -- or reduce -- the amount of carbon emissions, some observers think the current levels of carbon dioxide are so high that the earth will continue to warm. Unfortunately, the pessimists could be right. The heating of the soil and tundra increases the activity of microorganisms, which further increases CO2 and methane emissions. Furthermore, as the oceans warm, they absorb less CO2, and the melting of the ice caps reduces the earth's reflective properties, which ward off some of the sun's rays. Ironically, as we reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere (also known as air pollution), we also increase the sun's power to warm the earth.
New realities
If we are already past the point of no return, then we will have to prepare ourselves for climatological and geographical changes that will adversely affect the world's economy. But we should continue to take measures to reduce global warming, even as we learn how to adapt to the new realities on land, in the seas and in the air. We can do much to stanch carbon emissions without establishing a maze of price controls and regulations.
Making a determined effort to reduce greenhouse emissions is a sensible insurance policy no matter the outcome. If we prevent warming, we will all be winners. If we can delay the warming process, then we will have more time to adapt to climate change. If our efforts go for naught and extreme weather changes occur anyway, future generations will at least know that we didn't just sit on our hands. The most damning action is to do nothing.
Columnist Jeremy J. Siegel is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and author of Stocks for the Long Run and The Future for Investors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
