TerraPass Footprint

Vampire power finale (for now)

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:21:58 -0800

Is the PumPing Tap the be-all-end-all solution to home energy drain?

by Julia Wang

We seem to have an obsession here on combating �vampire power� (or at least writing about it in the past but it looks like we might run out of things to say soon*.

*Well… as soon as this gets developed since it�s still only a product in concept.

The PumPing Tap is a spring-loaded electrical socket that physically ejects a plug when it�s been left in the socket. MNN writer Matt Hickman summarized it quite nicely:

�Here�s how the PumPing Tap works: If, for example, you�ve just used the microwave oven but failed to unplug it when you�re done, a lighted ring on the socket turns from blue to red. After 10 minutes if you still haven�t used the microwave or unplugged it, the grand finale occurs: a spring mechanism ejects the plug right out of the socket. Pop!�

I can�t agree with him more that this is definitely not a good product for the easily startled. I also kind of share the sentiments of Shane McGlaun over at Slash Gear, who writes that the �PumPing Tap may be the most irritating design in history,� mostly for the fact that it would be horribly annoying for a socket to pop out behind say, a couch (though to deem something the �most irritating design� might be a stretch - has he looked on Amazon lately??)

But beyond even the couch example, would I really prefer a jumping electrical socket over let�s say, a smart strip with a built-in motion detector? (For me, the answer is an obvious �no� since I am terrified by my toaster - look, I watched Silence of the Lambs when I was far too young ok? Leave me alone).

I suppose if:

a) I wouldn�t flinch every time the electric tea kettle plug jumped out from the wall, b) this were somehow really easily integrated into all the products I need it to be (I mean… would I plug everything into this plug, only to then plug it into the socket? It�s not like I usually get to choose the plug that goes with my microwave, right?) c) it were soooo absurdly cheap that I wouldn�t even think twice about getting this product, and d) I wouldn�t use this on any socket that�s in an inconvenient location

� then maybe this would be an interesting gadget for those who aren�t very diligent about monitoring their energy use?

I�m sensing lots of logistical red flags to overcome. So for now, you can all happily look forward to more Vampire Power articles (at the very least, until the final Twilight movie comes out).

Carbon surcharges arrive on US flights

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:16:02 -0800

US-based airlines begin to levy fees to comply with regulations under EU emissions trading scheme.

by Erin Craig

It’s finally here. The first overt economic deterrent aimed at US consumers for their emissions of greenhouse gases has arrived on our shores. Figuratively, at least.

This past week, most major US airlines levied a $3 ticket surcharge on all flights to and from European Union (EU) nations after a European court determined that the �EU Aviation Directive� can and should apply to them. This means that US-based airlines will need to acquire and submit carbon emission permits in line with their emissions, consistent with the EU emissions trading scheme.

I say, hooray for fees!

But first, an explanation…

The EU emissions trading scheme has been in place for half a dozen years. It caps EU emissions and the cap declines over time. Regulated emitters are required to submit emission allowances and/or offsets to match their emissions. Most of the needed allowances are distributed for free to the emitters… but not all that they will likely require. If a company reduces its emissions a lot, it may have excess allowances to sell. Otherwise, it may have to buy allowances to meet its quota.

As a category of emitters, airlines are in a tough spot. There are things they can do to reduce their emissions, certainly - newer jets use less fuel, for example - but fundamentally, airline flight is a fossil-fuel-burning business. The US Dept. of Defense is spending big R&D bucks on aviation biofuels, and some airlines have smaller efforts underway, but jet fuel isn�t electricity and we can�t expect airlines to move away from fossil fuels as fast as we expect electricity to come from renewable sources (which isn�t nearly fast enough).

So, first Delta, then several others thereafter, decided to levy a ticket fee. I say, good for them.

And, OK, I know that this fee is seriously imperfect. It is a flat fee, and doesn�t account for the disproportionate impacts of business-class and first-class flying. All airlines adopted the same fee, which means you don�t get any sense of which airline is best managing its emissions. It doesn�t reflect the actual price of acquiring carbon emission permits, which varies because there is market for carbon in Europe.

(Quick math: if you were buying large quantities of European emission permits at wholesale today, those permits would cost you about $7 to cover a one-way flight US - UK at today�s historically low EU carbon prices. The airlines get roughly two-thirds of their permits for free, so their actual compliance cost today is grossly about $2.33 for that one-way ticket, not including legal costs incurred fighting the requirement and administrative costs incurred to comply).

Even so. Even if some airlines make out like bandits, as some have suggested they might. Even so. I applaud the fee. It�s a very small fee for an activity that carries a fairly large and difficult to mitigate impact. I hope it makes people think about the connection between their flight and climate change. Even if only for a second. It�s a start.

New project enters comment period: Greenville County Landfill

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:37:46 -0800

The next project up for public comment is the Enoree Landfill municipal solid waste Landfill Gas to Energy Project.

by Julia Wang

The next project up for public comment is the Enoree Landfill municipal solid waste Landfill Gas to Energy Project.

The Enoree Landfill is a small, municipally-owned solid waste disposal facility in Greer, South Carolina which closed in 2007 after 12 years of use. Due to its small size, the landfill�s closure plan did not require an active gas management system, in which methane from decomposing trash is pulled from the landfill and destroyed. Nonetheless, Greenville Gas Producers LLC, funded and installed a gas collection system, flare, and later a landfill gas-to-energy system which depends on carbon credit revenues to create a reasonable investment return.

The official comment period for this project will last 21 days, but of course we’re always open to feedback on our projects at any time.

Please have a look and send any questions or comments to projects@terrapass.com by January 11, 2012.

Transit. It's taxing.

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:46:36 -0800

Incentives for commuters set to expire at end of year.

by Erin Craig

One of the less heralded benefits of the 2009 Recovery Act is a change in pre-tax commuter benefits. As with pre-tax health care and child care plans, commuter benefits allow you to set aside some of your paycheck before it�s taxed, and use that money to pay commute expenses - transit passes and parking. Employers also benefit from commuter benefits because they don�t pay employment taxes on your set-aside.

The Recovery Act boosted the limit on how much money could be set aside each month for transit passes, from $120/month to $230/month. The Act did not change the allowance for parking, which was already at $230/month.

Yes, you read that right. You got more tax-free funds for parking than you did for transit. A lot more.

But the Recovery Act changed all that, equalizing this bizarrely lopsided incentive.

Unfortunately, like many of the Recovery Act�s provisions, this change is set to expire on December 31. (Actually, it was set to expire December 31, 2010, but like many other provisions, was extended for a year.) The set-aside amounts will return to their original levels on January 1… except no, wait! The transit set-aside will return to its original level - $120/month. The parking allowance will go UP to $240/month!!

This frosts me.

I�m not going to debate here the relative societal benefits of driving to work vs. using mass transit. There are plenty of reasons why people drive to work. If Congress wants to give a break to those who have to drive to urban or otherwise congested areas for work, I�m not going to complain. But creating a lesser incentive for transit - where is the logic in that? Whose idea was this anyway?

A bit of research reveals this inequity goes back quite a ways. Congress enacted the law which enabled pre-tax commuter benefits for transit in 1998. But a year earlier, as part of an omnibus bill full of surprising loopholes (�Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997�), employers were given the ability to provide pre-tax benefits for parking. Those benefits were an expansion of an even older tax provision, which allowed employers to provide free parking (even in non-employer-owned lots) without affecting employee taxable income, provided the effective value of that benefit did not exceed a certain amount.

As best I can tell, the tax laws were trying to accommodate what were then considered ordinary employer practices by exempting such practices from taxation. Company cars. Free parking. In fact, these items enjoy tax-free treatment automatically adjusted to inflation. Transit passes as an employee benefit are much newer, and have never enjoyed the same treatment.

I say, we have matured as a society. If we are going to muck around in differential tax treatment of employee benefits, those differential benefits ought to reflect the social benefits provided, not just what used to be common practice. Let�s make both the transit benefit equal to the parking benefit, and let�s tie that transit benefit to inflation.

(If you�d like to send a message to Congress on this issue, this website makes it easy.)

Attention: problem of global warming has been solved

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:17:56 -0800

NASA's latest discovery is a planet that resembles Earth (with a balmy temperature of 72° F).

by Julia Wang

Allow me to digress briefly from the stated blog topic: any time I see NASA in the news, I always think of this graphic, which I find hysterical. (For more barrels of laughs, if you�re ever short on any, I recommend searching �NASA� on theonion.com)

Anyway, NASA HAS discovered something super cool - what the media is branding as Earth 2.0.

Kepler-22b (what a super unsexy name - these 12 year-old Brits can do way better) is the first planet to be discovered in the habitable zone of a �sun-like star�:

The newly confirmed planet, Kepler-22b, is the smallest yet found to orbit in the middle of the habitable zone of a star similar to our sun. The planet is about 2.4 times the radius of Earth. Scientists don’t yet know if Kepler-22b has a predominantly rocky, gaseous or liquid composition, but its discovery is a step closer to finding Earth-like planets. Kepler-22b is located 600 light-years away. While the planet is larger than Earth, its orbit of 290 days around a sun-like star resembles that of our world. The planet’s host star belongs to the same class as our sun, called G-type, although it is slightly smaller and cooler.

Pause. Are you having thoughts of us getting into rocketships and jetting off? Because I kind of did.

So, no need to worry about global warming. Looks like our solution has been found… I jest, I jest (but can�t you hear a climate denier saying that?). This is an amazing discovery, and kudos to the team at NASA for their work!

This year's holiday checklist

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:40:26 -0800

Buy a live tree, some LED lights, and offsets.

by Julia Wang

Call me (Mrs.) Scrooge, but the holiday season (that is to say, the commercialization of the holidays) gets me a little bit crankypants because of the way everything is referred to as a �tradition.� Especially when some of these traditions have real environmental impacts.

First, you�ve got the tree. For those who are behind the times on the �live vs. fake� tree debate (i.e., what�s better? cutting a tree down ever year vs. tossing a plastic one in the landfill later down the road), here�s a great refresher from Grist�s �Ask Umbra�:

The short answer is, live trees are greener. The longer answer is, entire industries are waging battle over this question, the greenness of any tree is questionable, and it may be in our best interests to, ahem, bough out.

In addition, there are some other options that may be available to you (courtesy of Umbra�s readers): Get a permit to cut a tree on National Forest land, thus helping with needed maintenance. Choose a living tree and plant it later. Rent a living tree that will be planted later (currently an option in Oregon and California). Buy and decorate a potted (and therefore reusable) Norfolk pine. Build your own tree from pruned branches and chicken wire.

So by now, perhaps you�ve decided to forego the tree or maybe you�ve decided to maintain it thinking, �Oh but it�s a tree! It�s so beautiful and I can�t possibly bear to spend the holidays without one. What will the children say?! It�s ONLY once a year. I�ll be sure to replant it.� Either way, your conscience is feeling good. Time to decorate the tree. What�s the big deal? it�s just a Christmas tree, and you�re only going to be lighting it for, at most, 40 days? Seriously you crazy environmental hippies, why must you crush the joy out of everything? It�s not like you�re burning coal or something awful…

Oh wait. Remember how in some states, 50% of electricity comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels? The latest figure from the EIA shows 43% of US energy coming from coal-burning plants. (If you�re buying 100% renewable power, gold star for you; but think about your neighbor who isn�t).

Let�s do some back of the envelope math:

There are approximately 100 million households in the US. Let�s say 50% of them decide to buy a tree this year so that�s 50 million trees. According to one website, a decorated tree consumes 81kwh x 0.00068956 (EPA emissions factor x 2204.6 (converting mT to lbs) = 123 lbs of CO2.

We�re talking about 6.2 billion EXTRA lbs of CO2 just from Christmas tree lights (we didn�t even fully scope out the rest of the tree, the costs of transporting those trees from the tree farm, and let�s not get started on the artificial trees!).

Ok, what does that number mean? Well… just for fun, let�s compare using Google. You may remember that earlier this year, Google disclosed its carbon footprint at 1.5 million metric tons. 6.2 billion lbs of CO2 divided by 2204.6 (lbs of CO2 for 1 mT) equals 2.8 million mT, or approximately 1.87 Googles.

Switching to LEDs will certainly help, both in reducing your footprint and in your energy costs. But even if every person switched to LEDs this holiday season, we�d still be looking at 370,000 mT of CO2.

The point is this. Your own footprint in all of this is tiny. But of course it is, you�re one of now 7 billion people on this planet. It�s the little things that add up.

Consider buying offsets this year, for a friend or co-worker, to offset that tree, that flight home, or that box of cookies you�re shipping in the mail.

Cheers!

This land was made for you and me

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:10:47 -0800

The fracking debate and the issue of states' rights.

by Julia Wang

Before I start, I want to make a quick comment on behalf of the TerraPass Footprint (because we�ve gotten a lot of comments over the past few weeks, and I think there�s a bit of a misunderstanding of what the purpose of this blog is). The following content is MY opinion, and my opinion alone. While this blog is managed by TerraPass staff (and yes, we consider ourselves to be fairly informed on the issues that we write about), this blog doesn�t state �TerraPass� opinions about a topic, like hydraulic fracturing. If we were to formally publish our opinions, we would actually issue a formal statement.

And frankly, we won�t be issuing a statement on fracking; that�s just not what we do. There are other great organizations who publish really awesome, detailed research (think NRDC) and others who report on news stories (think Grist) - we�re really neither of those. We�re just a few wonky environmentalists who have a few opinions to say, and are helping to keep others out there like us informed of what�s going on.

So, with that said - look, we�re human! We don�t know everything there is to know about everything, and it really does help us out when you provide commentary to tell us if we missed something. So please do so. But please don�t call TerraPass �stupid� - TerraPass and the work that we do is separate from our blog, which has always been intended to be a less formal way for our community to share information with one another and engage in debate and dialogue. Debate is great! Calling TerraPass stupid is, well, hurtful.

Moving on to Julia�s opinion on today�s topic…

I have a confession to make. I finally watched Gasland - the Josh Fox documentary about hydraulic fracturing, or �fracking� - last week.

I wanted to watch it sooner, I meant to, but never got around to it. Like so many people, while I strive to lead a life that is conscientious and informed, there are times when I get a bit complacent. This is a great film to jolt you from that mindset. It�s worth a watch.

I found the stories and footage quite compelling. Even if the scientific evidence for fracking dangers is still inconclusive - technically speaking, there currently has not been a conclusive study on the dangers associated with the fracking process. The main EPA study (.pdf) from 2004, which concluded that there were �minimal� dangers posed, has been called into question for its focus on injection of fracking fluids, without consideration of disposal of fluids and other issues of environmental quality.

In any case, it�s clear that something is not right. That is to say, people�s houses should not explode and burn down because there was too much natural gas in their water pipes. People shouldn�t be able to light faucets or streams on fire (the Cuyahoga River, which �caught on fire�, is a large reason for why Nixon formed the EPA in the first place). Animals (and children) should not be losing their hair and getting sick. And to me, what�s fundamentally the most important thing at stake, is that there are people in the US - notably, people who are economically disadvantaged and who don�t have the resources to fight back - who are losing access to clean drinking water. If fracking isn�t the problem per se, then maybe we should re-focus on the problem. But the fact of the matter is that currently, there isn�t a way for regulators to get to the heart of the problem because of the Halliburton Loophole and other sidesteps that exempt the fracking process from protective environmental and human health regulations.

Amidst these issues, a question has been posed (as a possible solution to the fracking debacle) on whether states should regulate fracking independent of federal mandates. Here�s one opinion from Politico who says yes, of course. And their reasoning? Because Ohio regulators will be �better�, i.e., more knowledgeable about their own state, at regulating than say, the EPA. And that�s because an Ohioan knows what�s best for their towns/cities/state.

There is a strong history of states� rights in our country, and there is a reason why the 10th Amendment (�The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.�) is part of the original 10 in the Bill of Rights. I won�t digress too far into a US History Lesson (sorry, old habits of a former political science major)… states� rights are fundamental to the way our nation is governed, and I believe in its importance. I also believe there are times when the federal government has to step in and regulate. This is one of those instances.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 gave the EPA the power to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waterways. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 regulates the nation�s public drinking supply. When a person�s health and livelihood is involved, the matter should not be left to the states. And when waterways flow beyond state boundaries, it�s not just your land; it�s my land too.

At a minimum, the loopholes in the Safe Drinking Water Act that exempt the fracking industry from underground fluid injection standards, need to be removed. This exemption was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and handcuffs the EPA from overseeing the interactions between injection of fracking chemicals and changes in nearby drinking water.

There are real people with real lives who are being deeply affected. They are not being offered protection from their states, who have always had the option to intervene on their behalf.

I agree that we need to do more research before we can make better conclusions on the effects of fracking. And maybe there really is only a small number of people being affected… and maybe even they are only affected when fracking goes wrong. But to dismiss that part of the population - by citing the enormous potential for natural gas production as a solution to our energy crisis - is a catastrophic mistake. It takes away credibility from calling ourselves a �progressive� nation. Progressive countries do not deny their people the right to clean water, a right that the UN has determined is a basic human right. And seriously, don�t get me started on the fact that if you take away clean water, then the plastic bottle industry will have won…

So to all of those out there who point out that these are just a �one-in-a-million� example, that there are always opportunity costs and trade-offs that have to be made, that we have to look at the �big picture�, I refuse to accept that putting human lives at risk is an acceptable policy.

This is not to say that we should give up on developing our own clean energy supply; but �booms� like the current shale gas extraction can have dangerous, unintended consequences if done without enough planning. The latest from the DOE�s SEAB (Secretary of Energy Advisory Board) Subcommittee on Shale Gas Production reports that it is in the best interest of the federal government to take immediate action. It hardly seems fitting to me that decentralizing this decision to the 50 states (or the 36 most affected) would be a more efficient means to solving such a difficult problem.

Up for more reading? Check out these documents uncovered by the New York Times.

As the world turns

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:29:23 -0800

Web gadget shows changes to world population, global temperatures and other stats.

by Julia Wang

You can blame ample Facebook procrastination time for this latest discovery of mine (actually, I feel a bit late to the game - according to a quick Google search, this site has been around for at least 4 years now).

As you may have heard, world population surpassed the 7 billion mark last month (though this contrasts with other projections, like that of the US Census). Poodwadddle�s World Clock is a nifty little counter that shows changes happening around the globe, some directly affected by the rising population.

The clock sources its data from numerous databases, including the World Health Organization, CIA Factbook, and the US Census Bureau, among others. The constant ticking of the numbers is quite unsettling - it has the effect (probably intended) of making you want to just say STOP and hit the pause button.

But I guess that�s the point. Changes on the planet are happening all around us even if we don�t see it. And it�s not exactly like there is a big pause button…

So while I don�t want to dampen anyone�s spirits with these stats, I think it�s worthwhile to pass this site along to others in order to give some more tangibility to issues of deforestation, energy consumption, and illnesses - things that the majority of us are lucky not to have to see on a daily basis.

MOM's Organic announces TerraPass Your Gas initiative

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:53:20 -0800

DC/Baltimore area grocer launches campaign to offset customers' shopping trips.

by Julia Wang

If we dare say so, it�s the most brilliant marketing slogan that we didn�t come up with. TerraPass Your Gas through offsets with TerraPass!

We are proud to partner with MOM�s Organic Market, a homegrown organic grocer in the DC/Baltimore region. Beginning this week, MOM�s will ask their customers for their zip code info in order to estimate mileage driven to and from MOM�s stores. On behalf of their customers, MOM�s will purchase carbon offsets from TerraPass projects in direct proportion to the emissions from its customers� shopping trips. MOM�s estimates it will be able to offset over 6,000 tons of CO2 per year, the equivalent of eliminating the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 1,067 passenger vehicles.

MOM�s has been an innovative and progressive green business for decades. In 1987, Scott Nash, founder of MOM�s, started a home delivery/mail order company of organic foods out of his mother’s garage. Today, MOM�s operates eight stores, each of them making unique contributions to sustainability (see store page for more info on each store).

MOM�s mission is to protect and restore the environment. It has launched several other campaigns, including �Plastic Surgery�, which eliminated all bottled water and replaced unnecessary plastic waste (plastic produce bags) with packaging made from biodegradable materials, �Stop the Trash�, an effort to increase landfill diversion (they achieved an 85% recycling rate), and �Think Outside the Bag�, eliminating plastic bags since November 2005 (a whole 3 years before Whole Foods).

And the campaigns are just a few highlights. MOM�s is the consummate example of an environmentally-run business which walks the walk. Their practices include sourcing local and organic whenever possible; selling only sustainable seafood; supporting renewable energy; composting; providing Green Benefits for employees, and much more.

We are thrilled to be a part of MOM�s efforts as a mission-driven grocer, and hope to see the business continue to grow!

A tale of two cars

Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:03:38 -0800

Caravan vs. Prius: a look beyond the cost of fuel.

by Erin Craig

Truism: Cars are expensive. Expensive to buy, expensive to fuel, expensive to maintain.

Since we all know this, (hence it being a truism), some data I recently came across caught me by surprise. And made we wonder whether I have been misjudging the actual cost of my driving choices.

Here�s the scoop, and I begin with a confession. I own a car. Actually, more than one. And I drive regularly. Indeed, this post is A Tale of Two Cars. One, a Prius. One, a minivan.

I was an early adopter of the Dodge Caravan double-sided-door minivan. In 1995, I got myself on a list and waited six months for my eggplant-colored, eggplant-shaped car-that-seats-seven. There is a part of my brain that, even, now has no regrets about this car. We have special needs in my family and a minivan was the only vehicle which accommodated the special modifications we required.

Nine years later, I got myself on another waiting list. I waited nine months for my silver Prius. Not to replace the minivan, because we still needed that, but to replace the two-seater my husband was driving. Our family of four was creating too many situations where one parent or the other was stuck with a car improperly sized for the task at hand.

Today, we are still driving both cars and, just for fun, compiled all of our repair and maintenance bills so we could have a look at the true cost of each one. Without any attempt to account for inflation, but including all expenses except purchase price, gas and insurance, here is where each car stood when it hit 120,000 miles:

Dodge minivan: 13.63 cents per mile Toyota Prius: 3.35 cents per mile

Ouch. And Wow. I mean, OK, I was not surprised that the minivan had higher maintenance bills. It is a heavy car and has gone through tires and transmissions and brakes with keen regularity. And of course, it has different functionality than a Prius. It carries lots of people and lots of stuff.

But 4x the cost for every mile? Not including gas? (The minivan�s gas cost is a bit more than double that of the Prius). Even the raw number without any comparison is a shocker. It�s almost as high as the cost of gas.

Wow.

And here�s what I learned. The cost of gas is the most obvious, most visible ongoing cost of driving a car. You get reminded of it very frequently. But ongoing maintenance costs aren�t trivial by comparison. They may be lower, but not a lot lower. So when you think about how much it�s going to cost you to drive somewhere, don�t fall into the trap of considering just the cost of gas and parking. And when you do drive, and especially when car-shopping, choose wisely. Buying more than you need costs you more than you think.