Start saving carbon now

There are many ways you can reduce global warming emissions at home and on the road. Below is a list of steps you can take to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions--a primary contributor to global warming--by potentially thousands of pounds. For each action below, we’ve indicated the amount of CO2 and money that you can save over the course of a year. Actions are prioritized by those with the largest CO2-savings at the top of the list to the smallest at the end. That way, you’ll have a framework for choosing the most effective ways to reduce your “carbon footprint.”

What size is your carbon footprint? According to recent government estimates, an individual’s carbon footprint — the CO2 emissions associated with a particular lifestyle — is about 22,000 pounds (11 tons) on average each year. Since that amount will vary depending on where you live and your particular lifestyle, you can get a personalized estimate by using an online carbon footprint calculator.

WHAT YOU CAN DO APPROXIMATE ANNUAL SAVINGS

1. Switch to green power CO2-savings: Up to 10,656 pounds*
Cost-savings: (Typically costs more)

Conventional energy production is the leading cause of air pollution and the largest source of CO2 emissions linked to global warming. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that for every kilowatt-hour of green power produced, one less pound of CO2 is emitted. When compared with conventional power generated from fossil fuels, green power generated from renewable resources like water, wind and solar energy is better for the environment. Read How to buy green electricity.

2. Seal and insulate duct system CO2-savings: Up to 10,140 pounds*
Cost-savings: Up to $319 (natural gas)
Up to $436 (oil)
Up to $775 (electricity)

Sealing the ducts in your home and insulating any portions that pass through unconditioned spaces, such as the attic, basement, or garage, could reduce CO2 emissions and your heating and cooling costs by up to 40 percent.

3. Drive a fuel-efficient car CO2-savings: About 8,000 pounds
Cost-savings: About $1,116

A car that gets 30 mpg will emit about half the CO2 of a 15 mpg vehicle. That’s a savings of 8,000 pounds if you drive 12,000 miles a year. To find the most fuel-efficient car that meets your needs, check our Green Ratings.

4. Replace an old hot water heater CO2-savings: Up to 3,285 pounds
Cost-savings: Up to $103 (natural gas)
Up to $141 (oil)
Up to $251 (electricity)

About 13% of a typical household’s energy is used for heating water. By choosing a newer hot water heater model—which are 10 percent more efficient than conventional models—you can reduce CO2 emissions by about 3,285 pounds annually.

5. Control heating temperatures CO2-savings: About 3,150 pounds*
Cost-savings: About $99 (natural gas)
About $135 (oil)
About $241 (electricity)

For every degree you lower your thermostat, you can cut energy use by about 3 percent. By lowering the heat by 5 degrees for 8 hours at night and 10 degrees for 8 hours during the day, for example, you can save about 3,150 pounds of CO2 annually.

6. Choose an energy-efficient central air conditioner CO2-savings: About 1,540 pounds
Cost-savings: About $118

Most homes have a central air conditioning unit with a 10 SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating). By choosing a new Energy Star qualified unit with a SEER of 14, you can reduce CO2 emissions by about 1,540 pounds annually, assuming it’s on for 1,320 cooling hours, or 8 hours a day for 5-6 months. And make sure that your contractor does the sizing calculations so you don't install a unit that's too big; it will cost more and require larger ducts to handle its higher airflow. The unit also may fail to provide the expected comfort.

7. Reduce driving speed and drive evenly CO2-savings: About 1,500 pounds
Cost-savings: About $209

Fuel consumption is directly related to the amount of CO2 emitted while driving no matter what vehicle you drive. In Consumer Reports tests of a compact family sedan and a large sport-utility vehicle, fuel economy was improved by almost 15 percent when driving 65 mph vs. 75 mph on the highway. That translates to an average annual CO2 savings of about 1,500 pounds. Note that the CO2 savings for the SUV were even greater than for the sedan (1,900 lbs/yr). Hard acceleration and braking can also waste fuel and lower your mileage by 33 percent on the highway and 5 percent around town. For more fuel-saving tips, click here.

8. Control your hot water heater temperature CO2-savings: Up to 733 pounds*
Cost-savings: Up to $23 (natural gas)
Up to $31 (oil)
Up to $56 (electricity)

For every 10 degrees you reduce your hot water heater’s temperature, CO2 emissions are reduced by about 3-5 percent, or 733 pounds annually. Setting the thermostat at about 120 degrees, or between low and medium, is a reasonable temperature. And if your hot-water heater is less than 10 years old, you don't need to buy an insulated blanket for it—the newer units have enough insulation to make the extra layer unnecessary.

9. Tune up and maintain your car CO2-savings: Up to 580 pounds
Cost-savings: Up to $81

If you get your engine properly tuned and use the recommended grade of motor oil, you can cut CO2 emissions and improve mileage by up to 6 percent, particularly if your car is noticeably in need of a tune-up. Savings are based on driving 12,000 miles per year at 20 mpg.

10. Put your computer to sleep CO2-savings: About 576 pounds
Cost-savings: About $44

In the computer and monitor models recently tested by Consumer Reports, letting the system sleep for 12 hours out of every 24 would save about 576 pounds of CO2 annually. Obviously turning off the computer will save the most energy, but newer computers – those made within the last three years – use so little energy in sleep/standby mode that you don’t need to actually shut it down during daily use. And note that screen savers do not actually save energy.

11. Replace 5 regular bulbs with compact fluorescents CO2-savings: About 500 pounds
Cost-savings: About $38

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. By strategically replacing at least 5 heavily used 75-watt incandescent bulbs with 5 25-watt CFLs, you can reduce CO2 emissions. By using CFLs especially in places that are less accessible, like stairway fixtures, you can also get the benefits of less frequent changes because CFLs last from 5 to 13 times longer than standard bulbs, according to manufacturer's claims. While CFLs initially cost more, a single bulb can save from $25 to $45 over its life. Be aware that they do contain mercury, however, and should be carefully disposed. Check Earth911 for a Zip-code searchable listing of local disposal and recycling options.

12. Carpool or telecommute to work CO2-savings: About 400 pounds
Cost-savings: About $56

The average person drives about 3,000 miles to and from work every year. Not driving just one day a week can reduce CO2 emissions by about 8 pounds per week. That adds up to about 400 pounds of CO2 per year. The less you drive, the more you’ll save.

13. Control air conditioning temperatures CO2-savings: About 378 pounds*
Cost-savings: $29

For every degree you raise your thermostat, you can cut energy use by about 3 percent. By increasing the temperature by 3 degrees, you can save about 378 pounds of CO2 per year. Note that using a ceiling fan with your air conditioning can make a higher thermostat setting less noticeable by making your room feel 6 or 7 degrees cooler.

14. Choose an energy-efficient washing machine CO2-savings: About 356 pounds
Cost-savings: About $27

By choosing an Energy Star qualified washing machine over a conventional model, you can reduce emissions by about 356 pounds annually, assuming 392 loads per year. Consumer Reports recommends front-loading machines for the best all-around performance and our tests show that the most efficient machines can cut water consumption by about 25 percent compared with the least efficient models tested. Initially a front-loader may cost more than a top loading washing machine, but the extra cost will be paid back in a few years in energy savings. If a top-loader works better for you, there are some high-efficiency models available in this type too. To find the most efficient model that meets your needs, check our Green Ratings.

15. Combine errands or ride your bike instead of driving CO2-savings: About 340 pounds
Cost-savings: About $47

The average person drives almost 2,000 miles a year to go shopping. If you cut down on driving by just 10 miles per week by combining errands—or when it’s feasible, by skipping the car altogether, and walking or riding your bike instead—you could cut your CO2 emissions by nearly 340 pounds per year. That’s based on driving a car that gets 30 mpg, but if your car is less efficient, you’ll save even more.

16. Pump up your tires CO2-savings: About 264 pounds
Cost-savings: About $37

According to the Department of Energy, you can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires properly inflated. Our own testing revealed that a tire that is under-inflated by only 2 pounds per square inch could increase fuel consumption by about 1 percent. Check your owner’s manual for inflation recommendations.

17. Choose an energy-efficient room air conditioner CO2-savings: About 105 pounds
Cost-savings: About $8

Replacing a single window unit with a new Energy Star certified model over a conventional model can reduce CO2 emissions by about 105 pounds annually, assuming it’s on for 750 hours, or about 8 hours a day over three months. To find the most efficient model that meets your needs, check our Green Ratings.

18. Choose an energy-efficient refrigerator CO2-savings: About 98 pounds
Cost-savings: About $7

If your refrigerator is more than 10 years old, replacing it with an Energy Star qualified model can reduce CO2 emissions. Also, note that top or bottom freezer models are generally the most efficient models. To find the most efficient model that meets your needs, check our Green Ratings.

* * *

CO2-savings calculation assumptions: A gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2; a gallon of fuel oil, 22 pounds; a therm of natural gas, 12 pounds; a kilowatt-hour of electricity, 1.4 pounds.

Cost-savings calculation assumptions: A gallon of gasoline costs $2.79; a gallon of fuel oil, $2.45; A thousand cubic feet of natural gas (mcf), $13.31; a kilowatt-hour of electricity, 10.7 cents.

*Based on national averages from the latest figures available from the Department of Energy’s 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey of home energy uses and costs for a single family home of about 2,500 square feet.

Last updated April 2007

What is organic, green, eco-friendly?

Being green does mean your organic, being organic doesn’t mean your green, being eco-friendly doesn’t mean your green and being organic doesn’t mean your eco-friendly.

You can though be all of the above.

Often business today will twist the words to get people to buy a product .

What is organic, green, eco-friendly?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has put in place a set of national standards that food labeled "organic" must meet, whether it is grown in the United States or imported from other countries. After October 21, 2002, when you buy food labeled "organic," you can be sure that it was produced using the highest organic production and handling standards in the world.

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too

Natural and organic are not interchangeable. Other truthful claims, such as free-range, hormone-free, and natural, can still appear on food labels. However, don't confuse these terms with "organic." Only food labeled "organic" has been certified as meeting USDA organic standards.

At its core, the soul of green is "stewardship," the idea of making the best use of the resources available. Unfortunately, consensus ends there because everyone has a different sense of what the "best use" may be for any particular resource. The disagreement comes as we struggle to reconcile what's worth saving with all of the apparent costs.

Stewardship is the act of managing the assets or affairs on behalf of another. . For issues "green," though, the idea is that the most widely shared and universally needed resources should be managed with an eye to making them last. Fundamentally, these are water, air and soil, but others like energy/ fuels, trees, and even undeveloped space have become part of the common understanding of the green lexicon.

Green Products and Practices

Consider solar panels as an example. Beyond augmenting the power supply in houses, many household installations are configured to deliver excess generated electricity back to the power grid. This return makes the electric meter slow (or even reverse direction), simulating a lower electrical consumption. The consumer sees a reduced electric bill, the power grid gets a little more power to pass around, and the company has to consume less fuel to meet demands. The question that needs to be asked is whether the cost of the installation and maintenance would, in fact, "pay for itself" eventually.

The mathematics here can be pretty complicated, and in its simplest form involve some assumptions about the rate of inflation, the cost of buying electricity over the usable life of the equipment, the expected service life of the equipment, and the efficiency of the equipment. The details of those calculations are beyond the scope here, but a detailed analysis will show that the equipment will be worn out and need to be replaced before it's generated enough income to cover the capital cost. Each part of the equation (equipment, maintenance, installation, and power prices) needs to continue moving in the direction that they have been for fifty years: The price of electricity from the grid and the efficiency of the equipment need to increase and the cost of the equipment needs to decrease before the economics of solar panels become a "financially smart" installation.

But aren't they still green? Sure! Let's go back and look at the scenario where solar panels generate electricity and sell it back to the grid. We've seen that the financial costs are greater than the benefit to the individual, but what about the effects on society as a whole? What if half of all of the meters were turning backward at any one time? In the Northeast where "coal is king," less fuel burned translates to fewer emissions which can mean (among lots of other things) lowered rain pH (less acid) to impair lakes and streams. From the fish to the municipal water supply, everyone benefits!

The owner of the equipment gets the intangible benefit of having made a contribution to the greater good as well as the added bonus of having the electric bill reduced. However, the fiscal balance sheet cannot put a price on the intangible benefits of cleaner air or the "contribution to the greater good," so from a financial perspective, the costs outweigh the return on the investment. The federal government has provided some tax incentives to encourage this sort of "bigger than just me" action. But these are only incentives and don't approach reimbursing the actual hard-money capital or operational cost of these sorts of commitments. The not-for-profit organizations are quick to point out that "tax breaks" don't help them much at all.

Unintended Consequences of Thinking Green

There is also the idea that there are unintended consequences and unexpected outcomes each time one alternative is chosen over another. Wind energy is a great example. Advances in technology and engineering have brought the ancient windmill into focus as a modern power supply alternative. Current designs deliver more energy, with lower wind and slower blade speeds. What could possibly be a downside to that? There are two issues that have come to the forefront as more installations are proposed. The first is that they're large and present a distraction, and are even an eyesore to some. Their very nature requires that windmill "farms" are placed in open areas and ridge tops where winds are frequent and steady. The second is their effect on wildlife, particularly birds.

The rotating arms of windmills do, indeed, take a toll on bird populations, and are indiscriminate since sparrow or bald eagle alike could fall prey to the fast-moving blade tips. Wind farm opponents (including some of the most vocal "green groups") contend that mortality of raptors is particularly high since rodents, the birds' primary food source, congregate in large numbers at the base of the windmills, luring the hunting birds into what amounts to a well-baited trap. Other studies have concluded that raptor mortality for windmills/wind farms is actually no more significant than mortality from vehicle strikes, but that the dead birds are simply concentrated in a very small space, making the effect seem much larger. So the debate continues and despite the "green" nature of a windmill, it seems that even here, there remains a cost.

Many conservation efforts and programs are forced into an organization like a square peg into a round hole. Typically, they are only marginally successful any way that it's measured because the philosophy and mindset aren't part of the fabric or culture of the whole organization. When the champion is no longer pushing, driving, and demanding participation, the effort simply falls by the wayside, and all of the progress is lost. The "champion" may not even be a person. In some places, state and local governments have provided financial incentives, and when the money has dried up, programs have withered and gone away. Again, before your organization adopts any new "green" strategy, product, or approach, make certain that the culture will sustain it not because "we have to" but because "it's who we are."

What does it mean to be eco-friendly: not harmful to the environment: intended or perceived to have no harmful effect on the natural environment and its inhabitants.

Organic agriculture employs a combination of the best methods of traditional agriculture and modern technology. Present-day organic growers use tried-and-true practices such as crop rotation, growing a diversity of crops, planting cover crops, and adding organic matter to the soil. At the same time, most organic production systems include use of modern equipment, improved cultivars, and new technologies such as drip-irrigation and plastic mulch.

Organic Certification

The organic industry uses standards to verify that foods labeled “certified organic” are produced without the use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. If a grower sells $5000 or more of a product labeled as organic, he or she must be certified by a federally approved certifying agent. To be certified organic, land must not be treated with any prohibited substances for 3 years. During that 3-year period, a farm is considered transitional. In addition, a grower must have and follow an ecological soil management program. Growers in North Carolina can be certified organic by any organization that is approved by the National Organic Program, a division of the USDA. The North Carolina Crop Improvement Association is the organization that certifies many organic growers in North Carolina. More information on organic certification can be found at the author’s organic agriculture website: www.ncorganic.org , as well as at the homepage for the National Organic Program: www.ams.usda.gov/nop/ .

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's criteria for third-party certifiers of environmentally preferable products; and the criteria for bona fide ecolabeling bodies of the Global Ecolabeling Network.

The EPA criteria specify that a legitimate third-party certifier must have:

an open, public process that involves key stakeholders (businesses, environmental and consumer groups, states etc.) in developing its criteria or standards.

award criteria, assumptions, methods and data used to evaluate the product or product categories that are transparent (i.e., they are publicly available, easily accessed and understandable to the lay person).

a system of data verification and data quality.

a peer review process (with representation of all stakeholders) for developing the standards or criteria.

criteria which are developed based on a "systems" or life cycle approach (i.e., "cradle to grave").

an outreach program to educate the consumer, which includes clear communications to consumers that provide key information concerning environmental impacts associated with the product.

an established goal of updating standards or criteria as technology and scientific knowledge advance.

authority to inspect the facility whose product is certified to ensure compliance with the standards or criteria.

testing protocols for the products that are certified which ensure testing is conducted by a credible institution.

access to obtaining the seal by small and medium sized companies (e.g., the cost of the seal is not so high as to prevent access by companies).

compliance with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.