Created by Ferdi Rizkiyanto
Contents
Energy Efficiency
According to the New Scientist, efficiency could cut world energy use over 70 per cent
Water is a renewable resource. However, it takes considerable energy to treat water to make it potable (and eventually to treat in the sewer system so that it can be disposed of safely) so it makes no sense to waste it.
Conserving water has several benefits: it reduces the municipal cost of treating water and processing the extra sewage load; reducing heating costs of hot water; conserves a finite resource and last but not least, reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Low-flush toilets
You can replace old toilets with new dual-flush low-flow toilets. Normally the 3 litre (liquids) flush setting is sufficient (the other 6 litres is for solids.)
Be sure to measure the height and depth available. In our house the shelf above one of the toilets had to be removed because the flush controls (not levers) are on the top and needed more clearance. In another bathroom the toilet had to be moved forward about 2 inches ... this is not a big problem if you have a large bathroom but our one is quite small.
Old toilets, in Toronto, are removed in the regular garbage (only one per collection.) You have to disconnect the tank from the bowl (because when they are attached they are too heavy.)
Showers
Saving water and emissions by taking short (navy) showers
Retrofits
Building retrofits to increase energy efficiency are an essential component of any effort to mitigate climage change. However, there are many ways to conserve energy and reduce emissions that do not require building retrofits. We have prepared a list of measures that you may want to consider.
From a discussion with Greg Allen:
The primary barriers are financial, industrial capacity, consumer priorities and awareness, and high transactional costs.
Property Assessed Clean Energy municipal loans are rapidly developing in US jurisdictions and Toronto is interested. By repaying through property taxes, loans are relatively secure, have wide eligibility provided energy savings are commensurate with repayments, and transfer upon sale.
We should develop something like a feed-in tariff for conservation wherby households are reimbursed for loads that are lower than a base or previous year and would be based on system benefits such as deferred distribution upgrades, line losses, and new generation.
We need a net zero retrofit demonstration program to establish the technical and economic potential for decarbonizing.
Social marketing and leadership at the political level is necessary to clarify and motivate people about the connection to energy security, prosperity, and climate change mitigation.
Finally, we need support for accelerating the adoption of advanced products and techniques as well as skills training and research.
Retrofit rebates/grants
The Federal ecoEnergy program ended in 2010.
The Ontario Home Energy Savings Program mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/conservation/ohesp2/?page=ohesp2-intro ends in March 2011 but it requires an Energy Audit to be conducted before and after the retrofits are performed.
The Ontario Power Authority also has a grant program https://saveonenergyontario.ca/
and Power Saving Tips https://saveonenergyontario.ca/Consumer/Efficiency-Tips---Tools.aspx
UK 'Green deal' for energy-efficient homes begins parliamentary journey
Bill provides homeowners with up to £6,000 for insulation and places legal obligations on power companies to cut emissions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/08/green-deal-energy-effi...
Videos
Urban density and climate change
According to the report "Cities and greenhouse gas emissions: moving forward" by Daniel Hoornweg, Lorraine Sugar and Claudia Lorena Trejos
In Copenhagen in 2009, a coalition of environmental groups presented Canada with an unprecedented third consecutive “Fossil of the Year” award. Canada’s annual per capita production-based GHG emissions are 22.65 tCO2e, among the highest in the world and a 26 per cent increase since 1990, rather than the 6 per cent reduction agreed to in the Kyoto protocol. More than 80 per cent of Canada is urbanized, hence the majority of GHG emissions, if allocated per person, would be apportioned to urban residents ...
Averages emissions vary from a low of 6.4 tCO2e per capita in a central neighbourhood in Toronto to a high of 70.1 tCO2e per capita for an Albertan. There are variations within provinces and cities, and the same person can have different emissions depending on the geographical area used. For example, the same Toronto resident’s per capita emissions are 6.42 tCO2e for their household emissions, 9.5 tCO2e for citywide emissions, 11.6 tCO2e for the Greater Toronto metropolitan area, 16.0 tCO2e as a resident of the province of Ontario and 22.65 tCO2e as an average Canadian.
Emissions also vary significantly at the neighbourhood level, as shown in a study by VandeWeghe and Kennedy of consumption-based household emissions and production-based transport emissions by census tract for the city of Toronto. On average, residents in the city core produced 6.42 tCO2e per capita compared to 7.74 tCO2e per capita for residents in the surrounding suburbs. However, there were pockets within the city core that produced emissions as high as those in the suburbs; these census tracts represented wealthy neighbourhoods, characterized by high automobile use and older, inefficient homes. The lowest emissions were 1.31 tCO2e per capita for a dense inner-city neighbourhood with good access to public transportation. The highest emissions were 13.02 tCO2e per capita in a “sprawling” distant suburb.
Here are some numbers from the report for a few neighbourhoods in Toronto and the GTA.
- East York - total 1.31 tCO2e per capita (residential only)
- Etobicoke - total 6.62 tCO2e per capita (residential only)
- Whitby - total 13.02 tCO2e per capita (residential only)
On the other hand, Calgary had emissions of 17.7 tCO2e per capita in 2003 and as noted above, the province of Alberta had 70.1 tCO2e.
Natural gas
Carbon neutral natural gas
There are a number of companies that provide "carbon neutral" natural gas. Seems like a good idea except they require a 5 year contract and charge a premium for the privilege.
Why not just pay the premium to one of the Gold Standard Carbon Credit companies (since these gas companies are doing the same thing)? For around $160 CDN you can purchase enough credits to offset your annual consumption (in our case 2600 m3) of natural gas.
One company selling these credits is PlanetAir. This is a Canadian non-profit based in Montreal. Often these credits are used to offset GHGs involved in flying but they can also be used to offset household GHGs.
Renewable natural gas
BullFrog Power provides sustainable natural gas (produced by capturing and cleaning the energy-rich gas produced through the decay of organic matter in our everyday waste stream.)
Electricity
According to statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008004/article/10749-eng.htm#a2
Electricity represents 42% of total energy used in the home, but greenhouse gases are not directly emitted when households turn on their lights. However, greenhouse gases are emitted when electricity is generated using fossil fuels. Approximately one-quarter of electricity in Canada is produced using fossil fuels,5 such as coal and natural gas. The electric power industry is the top greenhouse gas emitter in Canada.
The use of electricity resulted in the greatest indirect emissions from households in 2004 even though it represented a small portion (2%) of total household spending. This is due to the high emissions associated with the production of electricity.
If you can afford the additional cost, carbon-free renewable electricity reduces emissions from electricity consumption to zero.
BullFrog Power provides sustainable electricity produced from wind power.
Time of Use billing (Smart meters)
Sustainable diet
Apart for a concern for the treatment of the animals that are used to produce protein for human consumption, there is evidence that eating beef etc. is contributing significantly to climate change.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956 states that:
“According to the FAO, the arm of the UN that works on worldwide hunger-defeating initiatives, animal farming presents a 'major threat to the environment' with such 'deep and wide-ranging' impacts that it should rank as a leading focus for environmental policy.”
“The report calls the livestock sector a 'major player' in affecting climate change through greenhouse-gas production. The FAO found that the ranching and slaughter of cows and other animals generates an estimated 18 percent of total human-induced greenhouse-gas emissions globally.”
This suggests that an emphasis on local food is misguided. Switching from a diet based on animal products to one where the protein products are mainly plant based (with legumes such as beans and lentils) will have much greater impact than eating local produce.
Here is another quote (from http://www.physorg.com/news103983167.html) :
“A kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef causes more greenhouse-gas and other pollution than driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home, according to a Japanese study.”