Carbon Footprint A - SAGE - the natural home for authors, editors

Reducing Your Carbon FootprintCan individual actions reduce global warming?

As climate change rises closer to the top of the

government’s policy agenda — and an economic

crisis intensifies — more and more consumers

are trying to change their behavior so they pol-

lute and consume less. To reduce their individual “carbon foot-

prints,” many are cutting gasoline and home-heating consumption,

choosing locally grown food and recycling. While such actions are

important in curbing global warming, the extent to which consumers

can reduce or reverse broad-scale environmental damage is open

to debate. Moreover, well-intentioned personal actions can have

unintended consequences that cancel out positive effects. To have

the greatest impact, corporate and government policy must lead

the way, many environmental advocates say.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ......................987

BACKGROUND ..................993

CHRONOLOGY ..................995

CURRENT SITUATION ........1000

AT ISSUE ........................1001

OUTLOOK ......................1003

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................1006

THE NEXT STEP ..............1007

THISREPORT

Workers sort plastic at a San Francisco recyclingcenter. Seventy-one percent of Americans say they are

trying to reduce their carbon footprints, mainly bydriving less, using less electricity and recycling,

according to a recent poll.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, a division of SAGE Publications

www.cqresearcher.com

CQ Researcher • Dec. 5, 2008 • www.cqresearcher.comVolume 18, Number 42 • Pages 985-1008

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR

EXCELLENCE ◆ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

986 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

987 • Are measures of individ-ual carbon emissions valid?• Should government domore to encourage individ-uals to reduce their carbonfootprints?• Can individual actionsignificantly reduce globalclimate change?

BACKGROUND

993 Environmental AwakeningConcern about human ef-fects on the environmentdate back to air and waterpollution in ancient Rome.

994 Planetary EmergencyLeaders around the worldurge action to help theenvironment.

CURRENT SITUATION

1000 Creating IncentivesEmission credits may pushconsumers to lower theiremissions of carbon diox-ide (CO2).

1002 Obama’s PlanThe president-elect wantsto slash the nation’s carbon footprint.

OUTLOOK

1003 Economic ImperativesThe global financial crisiscould cut American con-sumers’ CO2 emissions, orworsen them.

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

988 Big Metro Areas HaveSmaller Carbon FootprintsLos Angeles emits less carbonper capita than Harrisburg, Pa.

989 Heating and Cooling EmitMost CarbonNation releases 450 millionmetric tons of carbon dioxide.

991 Most Americans Seeking toReduce FootprintMost Americans want to lowertheir impact for monetary andenvironmental reasons.

992 Majority of Americans AreReducing Energy UsageHalf of American householdsare trying to lower their en-ergy use.

995 ChronologyKey events since 1890.

1001 At IssueWill President-elect Obama’sclean energy plan work?

1002 Metro Areas Have BiggestImpactMore than half of all carbonemissions are from big metro-politan areas.

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1005 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

1006 BibliographySelected sources used.

1007 The Next StepAdditional articles.

1007 Citing CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

REDUCING YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT

Cover: Getty Images/Justin Sullivan

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. [email protected]

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITERS: Thomas J. Billitteri, Marcia Clemmitt, Peter Katel

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Rachel S. Cox,Sarah Glazer, Alan Greenblatt,

Barbara Mantel, Patrick Marshall,Tom Price, Jennifer Weeks

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa

FACT-CHECKER/PROOFREADER: Eugene J. Gabler

EDITORIAL INTERNS: Alexis Irvin, Vyomika Jairam

A Division ofSAGE Publications

PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER:John A. Jenkins

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REFERENCE INFORMATION GROUP:

Alix B. Vance

DIRECTOR, ONLINE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:Jennifer Q. Ryan

Copyright © 2008 CQ Press, a division of SAGE Pub-

lications. SAGE reserves all copyright and other rights

herein, unless previously specified in writing. No part

of this publication may be reproduced electronical-

ly or otherwise, without prior written permission. Un-

authorized reproduction or transmission of SAGE copy-

righted material is a violation of federal law carrying

civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional

Quarterly Inc.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Published weekly, except; (March wk. 4)

(May wk. 3) (July wk. 1) (July wk. 2) (Aug. wk. 2)

(Aug. wk. 3) (Nov. wk. 4) and (Dec. wk. 4), by CQ

Press, a division of SAGE Publications. Annual full-

service subscriptions start at $803. For pricing, call 1-

800-834-9020, ext. 1906. To purchase a CQ Researcher

report in print or electronic format (PDF), visit www.

cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single reports start

at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and electronic-rights

licensing are also available. Periodicals postage paid

at Washington, D.C., and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to CQ Research-

er, 2300 N St., N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037.

Dec. 5, 2008Volume 18, Number 42

CQResearcher

Dec. 5, 2008 987www.cqresearcher.com

Reducing Your Carbon Footprint

THE ISSUESWhen Karen Larson,

a mother of twoin Madbury, N.H.,

took the “New Hampshire Car-bon Challenge” she couldn’t be-lieve the results. 1

The statewide effort to helpresidents reduce their envi-ronmental impact includes anonline calculator to help con-sumers measure their “carbonfootprint” — the amount ofcarbon dioxide (CO2) creat-ed by their activities and con-sumption patterns. Carbondioxide is the main green-house gas (GHG) that scien-tists believe leads to globalwarming. 2

The calculator showed thatLarson could save $700 a yearand cut her carbon footprintby some 4,400 pounds bytaking such actions as re-placing her lightbulbs withcompact fluorescents, cuttingback on showers by a fewminutes, putting electronicson power strips that sheturned off when not in use,lowering her furnace a few degreesand getting an annual tune-up on herheating system.

“It blew my mind when I finishedand it told me how much money peryear I could save,” Larson says. Butthe financial savings were only a “sidebenefit” to a larger objective, she adds.“The main goal was to find out howto be more earth-friendly and not useso many resources.”

From voluntary actions like Larson’sto emerging federal policies promotedby President-elect Barack Obama, moreand more attention is shifting to theimpact consumers have on the envi-ronment and how individuals can lowerthe amount of carbon dioxide emitted

by the production, transportation, useand disposal of the goods and servicesthey consume.

Studies show the amount of CO2emitted by individuals can rival that ofindustry and commerce. For example:

• American consumers control —directly or indirectly — about two-thirds of the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions, compared to 43 per-cent for consumers elsewhere. 3

Passenger cars account for 17 per-cent of U.S. emissions, as do resi-dential buildings and appliances. 4

• Transportation accounts for a thirdof carbon output in the UnitedStates, 80 percent of it from high-way travel. 5

• The average home createsmore pollution than the av-erage car, according to the En-vironmental Protection Agency(EPA). 6 If every U.S. homereplaced a single incandes-cent lightbulb with a compactfluorescent, it would preventthe equivalent of the GHGemissions from more than800,000 cars. 7

“Individual actions canmake a significant difference,”says Bill Burtis, communica-tions manager for Clean Air-Cool Planet, an environmen-tal group in Portsmouth, N.H.“We’re not going to be ableto solve the problem withouta concerted and unified effortat reaching individuals andchanging behavior in residen-tial sectors, whether it’s thecompact fluorescent lightbulbor changing our use of two-cycle, highly polluting gas-powered lawn equipment.”

However, environmentaladvocates argue that while in-dividual carbon-fighting actionsare important, putting toomuch attention on voluntaryactions by individuals can un-

dermine efforts to pass mandatory gov-ernment policies to control emissions.

“Every time an activist or politicianhectors the public to voluntarily reachfor a new bulb or spend extra on aPrius, ExxonMobil heaves a big sighof relief,” Mike Tidwell, director of theChesapeake Climate Action Network,a grassroots group in Takoma Park,Md., wrote last year. 8

“While . . . we have a moral re-sponsibility to do what we can as in-dividuals, we just don’t have enoughtime to win this battle one householdat a time,” he wrote. “We must changeour laws. I’d rather have 100,000 Amer-icans phoning their U.S. senators twiceper week demanding a prompt phase-

BY THOMAS J. BILLITTERI

AFP

/Get

ty I

mag

es/J

ewel

Sam

adEarly-bird shoppers crowd into a Best Buy store in Los

Angeles at 5 a.m. on Nov. 28 for post-Thanksgivingbargains. Concern about climate change, coupled with

the nation’s economic woes, is causing many Americansto ratchet back on their consumption of goods and

services. But many environmentalists say governmentmust also do its part to reduce carbon emissions byenacting tough, environmentally friendly policies.

988 CQ Researcher

out of inefficient automobile enginesand lightbulbs than 1 million Ameri-cans willing to ‘eat their vegetables’and voluntarily fill up their drivewayand houses with the right stuff.”

Nonetheless, experts say concernabout climate change, coupled withworries about the faltering economy,are prompting more and more con-sumers to make environmentally friend-

ly choices. An ABC News/PlanetGreen/Stanford University poll in Julyfound that 71 percent of respondentssaid they were trying to reduce theircarbon footprint, mainly by driving less,using less electricity and recycling. Afourth of them said saving money wastheir primary goal, a third said im-proving the environment was their chiefaim and 41 percent said they were

motivated by a combination of thetwo. (See graph, p. 991.) 9

And according to a Harris Poll lastspring, more than 60 percent of re-spondents said they had cut theirhome energy use to offset their car-bon footprint or reduce their emis-sions, and 43 percent said they’d boughtmore energy-efficient appliances. 10

But such findings should be viewedwarily, say public opinion researchers.Soaring energy prices, reflected last sum-mer in $4-per-gallon gasoline prices, arelikely a stronger motivator for manyAmericans to cut their carbon appetitesthan concern about climate change, theysay. And only about one in 10 respon-dents to the Harris Poll said they hadever calculated their personal or house-hold carbon footprint, and more thanone in four said they were doing noth-ing to reduce emissions.

“Experience suggests that we shouldbe somewhat skeptical of claims peoplemake about doing the ‘right thing,’ ” Har-ris noted in an analysis of its poll re-sults. While the polling company foundit “encouraging” that so many Ameri-cans feel it is important to reduce theircarbon emissions, U.S. energy con-sumption keeps rising, leading Harristo conclude that “whatever actionspeople are taking are probably mod-est ones.” 11

The trend toward larger homes, forinstance, spurs greater energy use andhigher personal carbon output. Theaverage size of a new single-familyhome in the United States more thandoubled from 1950 to 2005 — from983 square feet to 2,434 — whilethe average number of occupants fell22 percent between 1950 and 2000. 12

Between 1990 and 2006, residential car-bon dioxide emissions jumped 26 per-cent, outpacing the 20 percent growthin population. 13

For many consumers — even thosecommitted to improving the environ-ment — cutting back on carbon isn’talways easy. For one thing, figuringout one’s environmental footprint can


Five Lowest Emitters

Five Highest Emitters

Big Metro Areas Have Smaller Carbon Footprints

Big-city areas like Los Angeles emit less carbon per capita than smaller areas like Knoxville, Tenn., in large part because urban areas have high-density development patterns or depend on low-polluting mass transit.

Source: “Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America,” Brookings Institution, May 2008

Highest and Lowest Carbon Emissions in Metro Areas

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Boise City/Nampa, ID

New York/Northern

New Jersey/Long Island,

NY-NJ-PA

Portland/Vancouver/Beaverton,

OR-WA

Los Angeles/Long Beach/

Santa Ana, CA

Honolulu,HI

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Nashville/Davidson/

Murfreesboro, TN

St. Louis,MO-IL

OklahomaCity, OK

Harrisburg/Carlisle, PA

Knoxville,TN

Carbon emissions(in tons/capita)

Carbon emissions(in tons/capita)

1,356 1,413 1,446 1,495 1,507

3,134 3,190 3,204 3,217 3,222


be a challenge. Should a footprint con-sist only of carbon-based fossil fuels,such as those that run most cars andpower plants, or should it also in-clude non-carbon-based greenhousegases like nitrous oxide emitted byfertilizers? Should it include methanegas released by landfills and from thedigestive tracts of cattle? How shouldpeople measure their share of emis-sions stemming from the manufactureand transportation of consumer goods?And how does one best measure hisshare of emissions stemming fromtravel in airplanes or trains?

“Despite its ubiquitous appearance,there seems to be no clear definitionof [carbon footprint] and there is stillsome confusion [over] what it actuallymeans and measures,” noted a re-search firm in Great Britain, wherestudies on climate change and con-sumers’ environmental choices havebeen robust for years. 14

Consumers also must figure outwhich actions actually help the envi-ronment and which only seem to. Forexample, in a list of 10 “green heresies,”Wired pointed out that conventionalagriculture can be more environmen-tally friendly than organic farming.“Organic produce can be good forthe climate, but not if it’s grown inenergy-dependent hothouses and trav-els long distances to get to your fridge,”the magazine noted. 15

And of course, the geographic reali-ties of American life — homes and jobsseparated by miles — can thwart thegood intentions of even the most envi-ronmentally conscious consumer.

“When we don’t live close to wherewe work, there’s not much choice inthe matter,” says Duane T. Wegener, aprofessor of psychological sciences atPurdue University who studies the so-cial aspects of energy policy. The waysmost cities are built “tie us into a par-ticular level of energy use, and there’snot a lot of control over it.”

As consumers and policy makerscontinue to seek ways to reduce

harmful, globe-warming pollutants,here are some of the questions theyare asking:

Are measures of individual carbonemissions valid?

Measuring one’s carbon footprint isboth art and science.

A growing number of agencies andorganizations — from the federal En-vironmental Protection Agency to thenonprofit Nature Conservancy to theBerkeley Institute of the Environmentat the University of California — offeronline calculators intended to helppeople measure their greenhouse-gasemissions.

The calculators gauge the envi-ronmental impact of various activi-ties, from heating and lighting a hometo flying across the country, andguide consumers on how to reducetheir carbon output. But the calcu-lators vary widely in their detail andconclusions.

Air travel, a significant emissionsource, is a case in point. Calculatinga per-passenger carbon footprint is ahighly complex task that must takeinto account such factors as aircrafttype, weather conditions, the numberof landings and takeoffs along a givenroute and whether an aircraft flies witha full or partial load.

Home Heating and Cooling Emit Most Carbon

Space heating and cooling alone account for more than a third of all the energy used in residential buildings in the United States and more than 450 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Source: “Buildings Energy Data Book,” U.S. Department of Energy, November 2008

Carbon Dioxide Emissions FromResidential Energy Use

(by percentage and in million metric tons)

Space Heating24.6%

(292.8)

Space Cooling13.4%(159.7)

Water Heating12.4%(147.6)

Lighting12%

(142.5)

Electronics8.4%(100)

Refrigeration7.4%(88.6)

Wet Clean6.4%

(76.1)

Cooking4.7%(56.4)

Computers1%

(12.5)Other9.7%

(115.9)

990 CQ Researcher

In June the Montreal-based UnitedNations International Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO) introduced a car-bon calculator that “responds to thewish of many travelers for a reliableand authoritative method to estimatethe carbon footprint of a flight,” saidRobert Kobeh González, president ofthe ICAO Council. 16

But the calculator can produce mis-leading data, according to an officialof a company that produces fuel dataand supplied the aircraft-performancemodel used for the ICAO’s estimatesof airline emissions.

“Producing a single number is crude,”Dimitri Simos, a director at Lissys Lim-ited, said. “If you go from Heathrow[airport in London] to Athens, ICAOgives 217 kilograms [478 pounds] ofCO2 [per person]. That hides huge vari-ations. Fly in a full [Boeing] B767 andit’s nearer to 160 kg [352 pounds] perperson, or in a half-empty [Airbus] A340it’s more like 360 kg [793 pounds].” 17

While carbon calculators help makepeople more aware of their individ-ual environmental impact, DanielKammen, a professor in the energyand resources group at UC Berkeley,told the Chicago Tribune that “thedownside is that the methodology isbeing worked on as we speak.” 18

Still, many see the calculators asuseful. Elise L. Amel, director of en-vironmental studies and associateprofessor of industrial and organiza-tional psychology at the Universityof St. Thomas in Minneapolis, saysthat while most carbon calculatorsare “not very fine-grained,” they stillserve a valuable purpose.

“Usually the options for somebody’sresponse [to a calculator’s questions]don’t necessarily perfectly match anyone individual situation,” she says. Mostcalculators “use general categories” andgive a “rough estimate . . . so it’s nowonder they all give you a little some-thing different. But I don’t think theyshould be used to necessarily diagnoseeach minute activity that you should

adjust. They’re just to get people awarethat, ‘Wow, we’re using resources at arate that’s really hard to replace.’ ”

Making people think about theircarbon footprint — and doing some-thing about it — is the idea behindthe New Hampshire Carbon Challengeand its calculator. 19

The challenge, which has been on-line for a year, enables New Englandresidents to measure their carbon foot-prints, set goals for reducing theiremissions and pledge action. House-holds that take the challenge can belinked to other households throughorganizations such as churches, schools,civic group and businesses to showthe collective action of residents’ in-dividual efforts.

So far, about 1,000 households inNew Hampshire and Massachusettshave taken the challenge, and thou-sands more have used the calculatorand other Web-based tools developedby the challenge, says Denise Blaha,the organization’s codirector. Peoplewho have taken the challenge havereduced their home and vehicle ener-gy use by an average of 17 percent,saving roughly $850 annually in fueland electricity costs, she says. Morethan 5 million pounds of CO2 havebeen pledged for reduction as a resultof the challenge, with an energy costsaving of $700,000, she says.

“Households have really been theoverlooked sector,” Blaha says. “Mostof our actions are very, very concrete,real-world and simple to make: chang-ing lightbulbs, putting electronic de-vices on power strips and turning downyour thermostat.”

Still, while swapping energy-hogginglightbulbs for miserly compact fluores-cents may be simple, some efforts atenvironmental responsibility can bemaddeningly complex.

For example, some consumers tryto factor in “food miles” — the dis-tance food travels from farm to table— into their carbon-footprint calcula-tions. Conventional wisdom says food

travels an average of 1,500 miles fromfarm to plate, Jane Black, a Washing-ton Post food writer, noted in the on-line journal Slate. 20 But, she wrote,the ubiquitous figure is based on auniversity study of how far 33 fruitsand vegetables grown in the UnitedStates traveled to a Chicago producemarket. That figure, though it perhapsraises consumers’ awareness of the en-vironmental issues involved in foodchoices, oversimplifies the complex andglobal nature of the food industry,Black argued.

“If we all think in food miles, the an-swer is obvious: Buy local. But newstudies show that in some cases it canactually be more environmentally re-sponsible to produce food far from home.”

Black cited a 2006 report from Lin-coln University in New Zealand, whichconcluded that it was four times moreenergy efficient for people in Londonto purchase New Zealand lamb, whichfeeds on grass, than grain-fed lambfrom England.

She also noted that Tesco, the Britishgrocery giant, has begun adding car-bon labels to its products. The labels— which reveal how much carbonwas emitted by an item’s production,transportation and consumption — arenow on an initial 20 products, in-cluding orange juice and detergent. 21

But, Black wrote, “Like food miles,these new numbers raise as many ques-tions as they answer.”

Should government do more toencourage individuals to reducetheir carbon footprints?

While individuals can do much toreduce their carbon consumption andconserve precious resources, environ-mental advocates say policy makersshould provide more incentives to fur-ther those efforts.

“Government needs to take a holis-tic approach to the whole carbon foot-print issue,” says Eric Carlson, founderand president of Carbonfund.org, a non-profit organization in Silver Spring, Md.,



that sells “carbon offsets” — certificatesthat consumers and businesses can pur-chase voluntarily to help compensatefor their own carbon footprints. The cer-tificates are used to subsidize “green”efforts such as renewable-energy, refor-estation and energy-efficiency projects.

Carlson says the federal govern-ment has a number of piecemeal con-sumer programs that provide incen-tives for greater energy efficiency, suchas tax credits for home insulation andthe purchase of hybrid cars. But hesays Washington should adopt muchbroader policies aimed at encourag-ing business and consumers to tran-sition from carbon-emitting energy togreen power.

He suggests that the governmentadopt a “cap-and-trade” climate poli-cy that would set limits on how muchcarbon dioxide energy producers, util-ities or manufacturers could emit. (SeeCurrent Situation, p. 1000.) The Eu-ropean Union and a handful of othercountries have adopted similar carbon-trading systems since 2005. 22 Com-panies that emit less than allowableamounts could sell their excess “rightsto pollute” to others. In some versionsof the scheme the rights are auctionedto companies, and the auction rev-enue is returned to taxpayers or usedfor renewable-energy development.

Legislation sponsored by Sens.Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., and JohnW. Warner, R-Va., featured a cap-and-trade system, but the Senate rejectedit earlier this year. President-elect Obamafavors such a system.

Some have argued that cap-and-trade plans could raise energy costs,squeeze consumers and hurt the econ-omy more than help the environment.Cap-and-trade bills are “nothing shortof government re-engineering of theAmerican economy,” wrote Ben Lieber-man, a policy analyst at the conserv-ative Heritage Foundation. 23

Yet others say the approachwould be good for the environment,partly because it would tend to make

goods and services created andtransported in carbon-intensive waysmore expensive and lower the rel-ative price of items produced in lesscarbon-intensive ways. Producers andconsumers would have incentives tomake more environmentally friend-ly choices.

Including the cost of carbon emis-sions in the price of goods and ser-vices would give consumers an ideaof the carbon intensity of the itemsthey buy and motivate them to makegreener choices, says Eric Haxthausen,director of U.S. climate change policyfor the Nature Conservancy.

He gives the example of buyingfruit in a grocery store. “There’s a lotof emphasis on buying local,” he says.“It’s tricky, but the beauty of the cap-and-trade approach is that it’s all workedout through the pricing system. Youdon’t have to calculate whether thisfruit was shipped on an ocean-goingvessel” and therefore had a bigger car-bon footprint to reach the groceryshelf than fruit grown closer to home.The price “would distinguish betweena high and low” footprint.

Consumers need more informationabout the environmental consequencesof the goods and services they use,according to Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash.,chairman of the House Subcommitteeon Research and Science Education.For instance, he told the panel at ahearing last year, households consumemore than a third of the energy usedin the United States each year, 60 per-cent of which is used at home. Yetconsumers typically lack the informa-tion they need to factor energy useinto purchases and behaviors, he con-tinued, and both government and in-dustry have “fallen far short in pro-viding the needed information to thepublic in a way that will result in be-havior changes.” 24

At the hearing — on how the so-cial sciences can help solve the na-tion’s energy problems — John A. “Skip”Laitner, senior economist for technolo-gy policy at the American Council foran Energy-Efficient Economy, saidmore funding was needed “to expandour understanding of the social dy-namics of energy consumption, ener-gy conservation and energy efficiency.”

Americans Seeking to Reduce Footprint

More than 70 percent of Americans say they are trying to reduce their carbon footprints. Of those, a third say they want to improve the environment, while a quarter are seeking to save money.

Source: ABC News/Planet Green/Stanford University

Are you trying to reduceyour carbon footprint?

If yes, what’s theprimary reason?

Yes71%

No28%

Not sure

1%

Improve the environment

33%Save

money24%

Both equally41%

Not sure

2%

992 CQ Researcher

(See sidebar, p. 996.) Funding for non-economic social-science research on en-ergy consumption has fallen sharplysince the 1980s, he said. 25

Advocates also say part of the an-swer to shrinking individual environ-mental footprints is for government au-thorities, including those on the statelevel, to adopt stronger energy-efficiencybuilding standards for such things asthermal insulation and heating andcooling systems. While such codes are“unsexy,” Carlson says, they are high-ly effective in cutting energy consumptionand reducing carbon emissions.

Many environmental advocates alsocall for a wider array of subsidies andtax incentives for energy-efficient appli-ances and alternative-energy equipment.

California is widely viewed as onethe states most determined to promoteenergy efficiency and clean-energytechnology. For example, under a 10-year “Go Solar California” rebate pro-gram, the state plans to inject morethan $3 billion into financial incentives

for Californians to adopt solar energy.The money, which comes from utilitybills, is expected to pay for about 3,000megawatts of new solar energy. 26

But the program has sparked con-troversy in some quarters, as the SanFrancisco Chronicle noted last sum-mer. The rebates are aimed at cuttingsolar prices over time by creating abig and competitive solar industry inthe state, the newspaper said, but “solarremains far more expensive than manyother forms of power generation.”

Moreover, a consumer watchdoggroup complained that wealthy com-panies or homeowners have receivedtoo many of the rebates, the Chroniclereported. Mark Toney, executive di-rector of The Utility Reform Network,said “subsidies should go to the mostneedy, not the most wealthy.” 27

A spokesman for the California Pub-lic Utilities Commission said in mid-November that a program to directsome solar-rebate money to low-incomehousing was in “the talking stage.”

Can individual action significantlyreduce global climate change?

In September the nonprofit PewCenter on Global Climate Changeand the Alcoa aluminum companyfoundation kicked off a partnershipaimed at encouraging the company’sU.S. employees and their local com-munities to reduce their energy con-sumption and shrink their carbonfootprints.

Pew and Alcoa initially are rolling outthe program at nine of the company’s120 U.S. locations, with plans to expandit. The Make an Impact program, mod-eled after a similar Alcoa effort in Aus-tralia, includes an interactive Web sitethat offers a carbon calculator and othertools to help employees cut their ener-gy bills and emissions.

Concern about energy efficiency andclimate change “is a huge focus in-side our business, and this is abouttranslating that into a tool that can beused to increase awareness and ac-tions on climate change” among Alcoa’semployees and their communities,says Libby Archell, director of com-munications for the Alcoa Foundation.

Katie Mandes, vice president of com-munications at the Pew center, saysefforts focused on individuals can makea significant difference in curbing green-house-gas emissions. “Are individualsgoing to be able to solve this prob-lem? No,” she says. “But is there arole for individuals? Yes. . . . It’s gotto be an across-the-board change.”

Individuals and households can playa larger role in cutting energy use andemissions than many consumers real-ize. “U.S. households account for about38 percent of national carbon emis-sions through their direct actions, a levelof emissions greater than that of anyentire country except China and larg-er than the entire U.S. industrial sec-tor,” wrote Gerald T. Gardner, profes-sor emeritus of psychology at theUniversity of Michigan-Dearborn, andPaul C. Stern, director of the Committeeon the Human Dimensions of Global


Efforts Focus on Home Energy Use

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are reducing home energy usage, including 43 percent who have bought more energy-efficient appliances, according to a recent survey. Nevertheless, more than a quarter are doing nothing to offset their carbon footprints.

Source: Harris Interactive, April 18, 2008

Which of the following have you done in an attempt to offset your carbon footprint or reduce your emissions?

010203040506070

80%

NothingOtherPurchasedcarbonoffsets

Purchaseda hybrid

car

Stoppeddrinkingbottledwater

Purchasedmore

locallygrownfood

Purchasedmore

energy-efficient

appliances

Reducedenergyusage

at home

63%

43%

27%21%

2% 2%

15%

27%

Percent responding


Climate Change at the National Re-search Council. 28 “By changing theirselection and use of household andmotor-vehicle technologies without wait-ing for new technologies to appear,making major economic sacrifices orlosing a sense of well-being, house-holds can reduce energy consumptionby almost 30 percent — about 11 per-cent of total U.S. consumption.”

A study by graduate students at theUniversity of Michigan’s School ofNatural Resources and Environmenta decade ago underscored how cost-effective changes in constructionmethods and other choices can reduceresidential energy consumption.

A conventionally built 2,450-square-foot home in Ann Arbor, Mich., hada global-warming potential equal to1,013 metric tons of CO2 over its lifespan — from construction to use and,ultimately, to demolition — with 92 per-cent of that occurring during the home’suse phase. An energy-efficient home,meanwhile, had a global-warming po-tential of only 374 metric tons of CO2— 67 percent of it occurring in thehome’s use phase. And although theenergy-efficient home cost about 10 per-cent more than the conventional home,over its lifespan the more efficient homewound up costing about the same asthe less efficient one. 29

And at today’s energy prices, thelife-cycle costs are substantially lowerfor the efficient house, according toGregory Keoleian, codirector of theCenter for Sustainable Systems at theUniversity of Michigan.

Refrigeration accounts for 8 percentof average U.S. residential energy con-sumption. 30 A separate study by thecenter found that households can savesignificant costs and energy by replac-ing refrigerators made before 1995.

Though many consumers still useold energy-hungry appliances, manyothers own units carrying the gov-ernment’s “Energy Star” label denot-ing energy efficiency. Last year alone,the joint program between the Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency and En-ergy Department helped Americans saveenough energy to avoid greenhouse-gas emissions equivalent to the out-put of 27 million cars while saving$16 billion on utilities. 31

Even so, the program has drawnsome criticism recently. ConsumerReports magazine in October ques-tioned the Energy Star label on sev-eral refrigerator models and said theprogram’s qualifying standards arelax and its testing procedures dated.Moreover, the article pointed out,the program allows companies totest their own products, with thegovernment relying on manufacturersto evaluate appliances made by com-petitors and to report suspicious claimsabout energy use. 32

Many environmentalists say that whileindividual carbon-reducing actions, in-cluding purchasing energy-efficient ap-pliances, are important in fighting GHGemissions, government action is crucial.

“We need fundamental change andstrong policy to drive those changes,”says Joe Loper, vice president of pol-icy and research at the Alliance to SaveEnergy, an advocacy group in Wash-ington. “If I take all those actions andreduce my footprint and no one elsedoes it, it’s not going to matter.”

Tidwell, of the Chesapeake ClimateAction Network, says living a low-carbonlifestyle is good, but “if that becomesthe dominant core of our response toclimate change, then we fail. We mightas well do nothing.

“Instead of wagging our finger atAunt Betty and telling her she needs tochange all her lightbulbs, what we needto do is pass laws in this country so thenext time Aunt Betty goes to buy light-bulbs, there are only energy-efficientlightbulbs. You do that with . . . statu-tory changes that send the right clean-energy market signals to the economy.”

In fact, Congress and the Bush ad-ministration did take a step in that di-rection last year with passage of anenergy bill that, among other things,

requires that traditional incandescentlightbulbs be phased out in favor ofmore-efficient ones by 2020. 33 ButTidwell asks, “Why wait 12 years?”

He compares the effort to fight GHGemissions to the 1960s-era battle for civilrights, noting that the government didn’trely on voluntary action to curb racialdiscrimination but instead banned it out-right. “When it comes to climate change,we have to start thinking of this as themoral and economic immediate crisis thatit is,” he says. With that in mind, he adds,“you quickly begin to realize that wehave to set strict energy standards thatare fair but mandatory.”

“We don’t have time to green ourneighborhoods one house at a time. Na-ture has chosen its own deadline.”

BACKGROUNDEnvironmental Awakening

C oncern about society’s impact onthe environment has deep histori-

cal roots. In ancient Rome, garbage, sewageand the detritus of the metal-working andtanning industries polluted the water andair, turning the fetid atmosphere into whatthe Romans sometimes called gravioriscaeli — “heavy heaven.” 34

In the 18th and 19th centuries, econ-omists and political philosophers suchas John Stuart Mill worried about theimpact of population growth, industri-alization and urbanization on food sup-plies, resources and natural beauty.

In 20th-century America, environ-mentalism and conservationism grewdeep roots, nurtured by the preserva-tion of lands for parks and monumentsunder Presidents Theodore Roosevelt(1901-1909) and William Howard Taft(1909-1913) and the formation of theCivilian Conservation Corps underPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945). 35 The Corps put hundreds of

994 CQ Researcher

thousands of unemployed youngadults, mostly men, to work plantingtrees, developing lakes and ponds, build-ing logging roads, improving camp-grounds and performing other tasks.

In the early 1960s, Rachel Carson,an environmental writer and marinebiologist with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, became what many regard asthe chief catalyst of the modern en-vironmental movement with publica-tion of her 1962 book Silent Spring,which described the threats that thepesticide DDT posed to the environ-ment and food chain. In an earlierwork, The Sea Around Us, publishedin 1951, she presciently warned of a“startling alteration of climate” and“evidence that the top of the worldis growing warmer.” 36

Other environmental milestones inthe second half of the 20th centuryreinforced the idea that choices madenot only by government and industrybut also by individuals could have aprofound influence on climate change,the sustainability of natural resourcesand, ultimately, the future of the humanrace. On the first Earth Day, April 22,1970, millions of Americans partici-pated in rallies and forums that helpedthrust environmental concerns onto thepolitical stage.

“It was on that day that Americansmade it clear that they understoodand were deeply concerned over thedeterioration of our environment andthe mindless dissipation of our re-sources,” Earth Day’s founder, the lateSen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wroteon the event’s 10th anniversary. “Thatday left a permanent impact on thepolitics of America.” 37

Throughout the 1970s, a tide of en-vironmental legislation flowed fromWashington, including the Clean AirAct of 1970, Endangered Species Actof 1973 and Clean Water Act of 1977.Also, the Environmental ProtectionAgency was formed in the early 1970sunder the Republican administrationof President Richard M. Nixon.

But environmentalism was not alwaysas durable as the millions who gath-ered on Earth Day 1970 had hoped. Inthe 1980s, for example, the Reagan ad-ministration drew heavy criticism for theactions of Interior Secretary James G.Watt and EPA Administrator Anne Gor-such, both of whom resigned under fire.

Still, the 1980s saw a growing aware-ness of the consequences of both indi-vidual and industrial behavior on theglobal climate. For example, the Mon-treal Protocol, an international treaty thatthe Reagan administration and scores ofother governments signed, called for theelimination of ozone-depleting chemi-cals called chlorofluorocarbons, foundin such items as air conditioners andconsumer aerosol products.

But getting a handle on carbon emis-sions has been a much tougher task.Richard A. Benedick, the Reagan ad-ministration’s chief representative in theMontreal Protocol talks, noted in TheNew York Times in 2005 that tacklingcarbon dioxide emissions was differentthan phasing out chlorofluorocarbons,which the newspaper noted were pro-duced by only a small number of com-panies in a few countries. 38

“Carbon dioxide is generated by ac-tivities as varied as surfing the Web,driving a car, burning wood or flyingto Montreal,” Times environmental re-porter Andrew C. Revkin pointed out.“Its production is woven into the fab-ric of an industrial society, and, fornow, economic growth is inconceiv-able without it.” 39

‘Planetary Emergency’

B y the late 1990s and early 2000sthe scientific community widely

agreed that carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases spelled a global cli-mate catastrophe in the making. Butmany consumers and policy makersseemed to ignore warnings of cata-strophic climate change. Domestic en-ergy use continued to soar at the turn

of the 21st century, gas-gulping sport-utility vehicles crowded the highwaysand conservative pundits belittled thenotion that human activity was alter-ing the climate in perilous ways.

In 2001 the Bush administrationbacked away from the Kyoto Proto-col, an international treaty setting tar-gets for industrialized nations to re-duce their greenhouse-gas emissions,which the Clinton administration signedbut never sent to the Senate for rati-fication. President George W. Bushcomplained that the treaty woulddamage the U.S. economy and that itdidn’t require developing countries tocut emissions. 40

Still, other voices have persisted inraising alarms about climate change,none so urgently as former Vice Pres-ident Al Gore. In a celebrated 2006documentary film and book — AnInconvenient Truth — Gore warnedof global peril stemming from risinggreenhouse-gas emissions. “Not onlydoes human-caused global warmingexist,” Gore wrote, “but it is alsogrowing more and more dangerous,and at a pace that has now made ita planetary emergency.” 41

While industry and governments arekey targets of Gore’s message, individ-ual Americans increasingly are hearingit too — sometimes from unlikelysources, including religious leaders. TheVatican announced this year that “pol-luting the environment” was amongseven new sins requiring repentance. 42

And in March, 44 Southern Baptist lead-ers, including the current president ofthe conservative Southern Baptist Con-vention and two past presidents, signeda declaration supporting stronger actionon climate change. 43 The year before,the convention had questioned the no-tion that humans are mainly responsi-bile for global warming.

While individual action is widelyviewed as important to protecting theenvironment, many still question howmuch impact consumers can have on


Continued on p. 996


Chronology1890-1960Conservation movement emerges,nurtured by government action,including passage of Air QualityAct in 1967.

•

1970s Under pressurefrom environmentalists, Congressenacts landmark anti-pollutionmeasures.

1970Millions gather for Earth Day onApril 22. . . . Congress establishesEnvironmental Protection Agencyand expands Clean Air Act.

1972Government bans DDT.

1973Endangered Species Act enacted.

1974Safe Drinking Water Act enacted.

1978New York State Department ofHealth declares public healthemergency at Love Canal haz-ardous waste landfill site.

1979Accident at Three Mile Island inPennsylvania, the most serious inthe history of U.S. commercialnuclear power plants, leads theNuclear Regulatory Commissionto tighten oversight.

•

1980s-1990sConcern about greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions and climatechange grows worldwide.

1983Interior Secretary James Watt andEPA chief Anne Gorsuch resignamid environmentalists’ criticism.

1987Twenty-four nations initially signMontreal Protocol, pledging to phaseout ozone-depleting chemicals; 169other countries eventually sign on.

1988NASA scientist James Hansen warnsCongress that global warming isoccurring.

1989Oil tanker Exxon Valdez runsaground, contaminating more than1,000 miles of Alaskan coastlineand killing hundreds of thousandsof birds and other wildlife in thebiggest U.S. oil spill in history.

1992First international pledge to reducegreenhouse-gas emissions emergesfrom Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil.

1997Kyoto Protocol limiting GHG emis-sions is approved, but wealthy na-tions are allowed to meet obliga-tions by purchasing “offset”projects in developing countries.United States signs but does notratify the agreement.

1998U.S. Green Building Council startsLeadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED) program torate energy-efficient buildings.

•

2000-PresentBush administration relaxesstrict environmental controls.

President-elect Barack Obamapledges to make environmentalissues a central focus.

2001President George W. Bush renegeson campaign pledge and rejectscontrols on greenhouse emissions.

2005Kyoto Protocol takes effect. . . .Members of European Unionbegin trading carbon credits.

2006“An Inconvenient Truth,” a docu-mentary film featuring former VicePresident Al Gore, focuses nationalattention on global warming.

2007Federal Trade Commission beginsreview of environmental marketingguidelines to include carbon offsets,renewable energy certificates andother so-called green products.

2008British supermarket giant Tescobegins to print “green scores” onsome items to show their environ-mental impact. . . . Senate rejectsglobal warming bill that features acap-and-trade system on green-house gas emissions. . . . AlcoaAluminum Co. and Pew Centeron Global Climate Change formpartnership to help Alcoa employ-ees and their communities reducetheir carbon footprints. . . . Presi-dent-elect Barack Obama says hispresidency will “mark a newchapter in America’s leadership onclimate change.” He pledges todevelop a two-year economic-stimulus plan to save or create2.5 million jobs, including “green”jobs in alternative energy and en-vironmental technology.

996 CQ Researcher

GHG emissions through their dailychoices. Research offers competing views.

In a 2007 study provocatively titled“The Carbon Cost of Christmas,” Eu-ropean researchers concluded that inthe United Kingdom total consump-tion and spending on food, travel,lighting and gifts over three days offestivities — Christmas Eve, Christ-mas Day and the traditional U.K. hol-iday of Boxing Day — could resultin as much as 650 kilograms [1,433pounds] of CO2 emissions per per-son — 5.5 percent of Britons’ totalannual carbon footprint and equiva-lent to the weight of 1,000 Christ-mas puddings. 44

The researchers said consumers couldcut their carbon emissions by more than60 percent by taking such steps as cut-ting out unwanted gifts, buying “low-

carbon” presents such as recycled wineglasses, reusing Christmas cards orusing the phone or e-mail to send greet-ings, composting vegetable peelingswhen cooking Christmas dinner andreducing holiday lighting.

“In this time of seasonal goodwill,we should all spare a thought for theplanet,” they wrote.

But another study by researchers atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy pointed to “very significant limits”that voluntary lifestyle choices can haveon energy use and carbon emissions.The researchers — MIT students underthe direction of Timothy Gutowski, aprofessor of mechanical engineering —studied 18 different lifestyles rangingfrom that of a Buddhist monk, a re-tiree and a 5-year-old to a coma pa-tient, pro golfer and investment banker.They found that even the most con-

strained lifestyle has an environmentalimpact far larger than the global aver-age and that none of the lifestyles —including the most modest, that of ahomeless person — ever resulted inCO2 emissions below 8.5 metric tonsannually, according to Gutowski. 45

“The takeaway [from the study] isthat we have a very energy-intensivesystem” that limits how much volun-tary actions by individuals can affectclimate change, Gutowski says. Still,he says, “I wouldn’t want to say peo-ple shouldn’t take voluntary action. It’sa complicated path. Groups may takevoluntary action, government agenciesnotice and then take actions that changethe system.”

Even so, individuals can sometimesinnocently make matters worse by try-ing to be “green.” An example is con-sumers’ efforts to recycle old computers


Continued from p. 994

Policy makers and environmentalists aren’t the only onestrying to figure out how to coax consumers to shrinktheir carbon appetites. So too are psychologists.

Last summer the American Psychological Association formeda task force to address the role that psychology can play inhelping individuals embrace environmentally sustainable prac-tices and cope with the consequences of climate change.

“There hasn’t been as much focus on the psychological im-pacts [of climate change], and we have reason to believe they’llbe very serious,” says task force member Susan Clayton, a pro-fessor of psychology and chair of environmental studies at theCollege of Wooster in Ohio.

If people have less access to “green, natural, healthy set-tings,” she says, the result could be increased stress and ag-gression and diminished social interaction. Climate change alsocould lead to increased competition for dwindling resourcessuch as food and water, sparking social conflict, she says.

When it comes to influencing individual behavior, Claytonsays it is “more effective to change the structure of the situa-tion” than trying to change people’s minds through preaching.

That might mean providing recycling bins to households, notsimply lecturing them on the merits of recycling. Letting con-sumers know how many of their neighbors are replacing theirlightbulbs with compact fluorescents also can be effective, shesays. “Social norms matter a lot. . . . Peer pressure never goes

away” as an effective catalyst for influencing behavior, she says.And, Clayton adds, providing the means for feedback on

individual behavior — say, putting separate electric meters inapartment houses so tenants can monitor their individual powerusage — can give consumers an incentive to conserve.

“Psychologists are increasingly becoming involved in helpingalleviate environmental problems,” according to Douglas Vakoch,an associate professor in the department of clinical psychologyat the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco.

“Most people recognize [that] we face a severe environ-mental crisis, but it’s hard to deal with that head-on becausemany people feel helpless to do anything about it. . . . Psy-chologists are very experienced in dealing with denial and inhelping to frame messages in ways that people can hear thebad news without being paralyzed by it.”

Vakoch says policy experts and government leaders can learnfrom the psychology field. “The most important lesson . . . isthat there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution to environmental prob-lems,” he says. “To create effective public policies, leaders needto recognize that different people are willing to adopt more en-vironmentally sound behaviors for different reasons. What’s com-pelling for one person will fail for another.”

Psychological research has helped shed light on individuals’understanding of environmental issues and their willingness tomake changes in their personal consumption habits.

Using Psychology to Influence Consumers’ BehaviorPeer pressure proves potent.


and other electronic items, which con-tain a toxic brew of chemicals, heavymetals and plastics such as mercury,lead and polyvinyl chloride.

In November the CBS News pro-gram “60 Minutes” followed recycledcomputer parts from Denver to Guiyu,China, which reporter Scott Pelley de-scribed as “one of the most toxicplaces on Earth . . . a town wherethe blood of the children is laced withlead.” In Guiyu, computer parts arestripped, melted down and recycledby impoverished Chinese risking theirhealth and lives for $8 a day. 46

“This is really the dirty, little secretof the electronic age,” said Jim Puckett,founder of the Seattle-based Basel ActionNetwork, a watchdog group namedfor a treaty intended to keep wealthynations from exporting toxic waste topoor countries. 47

One way to keep harmful productsfrom adding toxins to the environmentis to produce them in an environ-mentally conscious way in the firstplace. Forrester Research Inc. foundin a survey of 5,000 U.S. adults that12 percent were willing to pay morefor electronics that consume less en-ergy or are made by an environmen-tally friendly manufacturer. 48

In addition, computer manufactur-ers have been creating products thatare more energy efficient than pastmodels, companies are creating soft-ware to help older computers use lessenergy and some are making newmodels out of recycled materials, TheWall Street Journal reported. 49

Katharine Kaplan, a product man-ager in the Energy Star program, saidcomputer makers have sought to im-prove energy efficiency for years and

that “the newer focus has been ontoxins and recycling.” 50

But corporate efforts to make theirproducts and services green — andto induce consumers to sign on tothose efforts — can be challenging.For instance, in Britain, critics say car-bon labels on retail goods often con-fuse consumers or give them infor-mation they don’t want. 51

Forum for the Future, a London thinktank, expressed concern this year aboutgiving consumers information withoutproper context. “Only a handful of ourfocus group participants associated car-bon emissions [and climate change] withwhat they buy in the shops,” the groupstated in a report. “The majority knewthat carbon emissions are linked withcars, airplanes and factories. Theymade that connection because they can‘see’ the emissions, which makes them

For example, Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnickfound that as people’s knowledge about climate change grew,the more concerned about it they became, though political af-filiation and trust in science were also important factors.

The link between knowledge about climate change and con-cern about it “was especially true for respondents who de-scribed themselves as Democrats and those who said they trust-ed scientists,” Krosnick told the annual convention of theAmerican Psychological Association in August. “But for Re-publicans and those who had little trust in scientists, moreknowledge did not mean there was more concern.” 1

In another study, Robert B. Cialdini, a professor of psy-chology and marketing at Arizona State University, found thata small change in message cards asking guests at an upscalePhoenix hotel to reuse their towels had huge potential envi-ronmental consequences.

One card exhorted residents to “Help Save the Environ-ment” and was followed by information stressing respect fornature, Cialdini told a House subcommittee last year. 2 Anoth-er card stated “Help Save Resources for Future Generations,”followed by information stressing the importance of saving en-ergy for the future. A third card asked guests to “Partner WithUs to Help Save the Environment,” followed by informationurging them to cooperate with the hotel in preservation efforts.A fourth card, Cialdini noted, said “Join Your Fellow Citizens

in Helping to Save the Environment,” followed by informationthat the majority of hotel guests reuse their towels when asked.

The outcome was striking, he said. Compared with the firstthree messages, the final one — based on a “social norm,” orthe perception of what most others were doing — increasedthe reuse of towels by an average of 34 percent, Cialdini said.

Not everyone in the psychological field agrees that trying tochange consumer habits can ever do enough to make a signif-icant difference in nationwide or worldwide carbon emissionsor climate change. But many believe the effort is worthwhile.

“There’s a huge debate going on among psychologists overwhether it’s just futile to even bother talking about individualbehavior” or whether action by policy makers and corporationsis the key to solving the nation’s environmental problems, saysElise L. Amel, director of environmental studies and associateprofessor of industrial and organizational psychology at the Uni-versity of St. Thomas in Minneapolis.

“I think it’s got to be both. This is such a crucial problemcoming so quickly that we can’t leave any stone unturned.”

1 “Climate Change, Global Warming, Among Environmental Concerns Discussedat Psychology Meeting,” press release, American Psychological Association,Aug. 15, 2008.2 Robert B. Cialdini, testimony to the Subcommittee on Research and ScienceEducation, House Committee on Science and Technology, Sept. 25, 2007.

998 CQ Researcher

easy to interpret as being ‘bad for theenvironment.’ However, the link be-tween products and climate change wasless intuitive to them.” 52

In the United States, most companiesare willing to embrace only “incremen-tal change” on carbon labeling, JoelMakower, a sustainability consultant andcofounder and executive editor of Green-er World Media Inc., in Oakland, Calif.,told The Christian Science Monitor. 53

Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retail-er, kicked off a broad sustainability strat-egy in 2005 aimed at reducing the com-

pany’s environmental impact. But MattKisler, the company’s senior vice pres-ident of sustainability, told The Monitorthat he has doubts about current carbon-labeling methodologies and customers’ability to link carbon with consumergoods. “I’m not sure the consumer willever make a purchase based on the car-bon footprint, especially the mass con-sumer,” he told the newspaper. 54

Green goods can indeed be atough sell, but some analysts say amore concerted effort by business isneeded to guide consumers on the

merits of environmentally friendly items.A report by McKinsey & Co. con-

sultants this fall cited a 2007 consumersurvey by the trade publication ChainStore Age, which found that only 25 per-cent of respondents reported havingbought a green product other thanorganic foods or energy-efficient light-ing. The McKinsey researchers alsonoted that most green items havesmall market shares. For instance, greenlaundry detergent and household clean-ers account for less than 2 percent ofU.S. sales. 55


Here are several ways environmentalists, behavioralistsand climate scientists say individual consumers canshrink their own carbon footprints:

Alter driving habits. Use of private motor vehicles accountedfor more than 38 percent of total U.S. energy use in 2005, ac-cording to calculations by Gerald T. Gardner, professor emeritusof psychology at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, and PaulC. Stern, director of the Committee on the Human Dimensionsof Global Climate Change at the National Research Council. 1

Carpooling to work with another person can potentially saveas much as 4.2 percent of individual and household energy con-sumption, they estimated. Other savings can come from avoidingsudden accelerations and stops (up to 3.2 percent); combiningerrand trips to a half of current mileage (up to 2.7 percent); cuttingspeeds from 70 to 60 miles per hour (up to 2.4 percent) andgetting frequent tune-ups (3.9 percent).

Buying a car that gets an average of 30.7 miles per gallonrather than 20 can save an estimated 13.5 percent of householdenergy use, the authors estimated.

Reduce home energy consumption. Home space heat-ing accounts for 34 percent of a typical homeowner’s utilitybill, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Appliancesand lighting account for the same proportion, followed by waterheating (13 percent), electricity for air conditioning (11 percent)and refrigeration (8 percent). 2

Residential buildings not only soak up money for utilitiesbut also emit carbon dioxide. Heating accounts for 25 percentof CO2 emissions, according to the Energy Department, fol-lowed by cooling (13.4 percent), water heating (12.4 percent),lighting (12 percent) and electronics, including color televisions(8.4 percent). Refrigerators and freezers account for more than7 percent or residential carbon emissions. 3

Gardner and Stern estimated that replacing 85 percent of allincandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents of equal brightness

would reduce total individual and household energy consump-tion in the United States by 4 percent. Turning down the heatfrom 72 to 68 degrees during the day and to 65 degrees at night,and turning up the air conditioning from 73 to 78 degrees, wouldsave 3.4 percent of energy consumption, they estimated. 4

Many other steps can reduce a consumer’s energy consumption— and carbon footprint — as well. For example, a home-energychecklist assembled by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy suggests turning down the water-heater tem-perature to 120 degrees, cleaning or replacing furnace and air-conditioner filters, caulking leaky windows, improving attic and wallinsulation and replacing inefficient appliances, among other tips. 5

Downsize and scale back on consumption. Bigger homestypically use more energy, emit more carbon dioxide and pro-duce more waste (which winds up in methane-emitting land-fills) than smaller homes. Bigger cars tend to use more fuel.Bigger consumption patterns, from purchases of furniture, foodand electronics to car and airplane travel, add to consumers’emissions.

The median size of a new single-family home rose morethan 60 percent between 1970 to 2006, according to data fromthe National Association of Home Builders, and in 2006 near-ly a fourth of new homes contained 3,000 square feet or more.Also that year, more than a fourth of the new homes had threeor more bathrooms and about one in five had garage spacefor three or more cars. 6

Know that geography can matter. Researchers at theBrookings Institution, a think tank in Washington, found thatthe carbon footprints of the nation’s 100 largest metropolitanareas vary significantly and that development patterns and theavailability of rail transit play a key role in the differences.

“[R]egions with high density, compact development and railtransit offer a more energy- and carbon-efficient lifestyle thansprawling, auto-centric areas,” Brookings said. In addition, it

How to Shrink Your Carbon FootprintDriving habits and home energy use are key factors.


“Consumers in the United States andother developed countries have . . .done little to lighten their carbon foot-print,” the McKinsey consultants wrote.“Some of this lag between talking andwalking could reflect insincerity, lazi-ness or posturing. But much more ofit stems from the failure of business toeducate consumers about the benefitsof green products and to create andmarket compelling ones.” 56

Patagonia, the clothing and outdoor-gear retailer, tracks the environmentalfootprint of more than a dozen of its

products and shares both the good andbad on its Web site, though it warnsthat its environmental examinations are“partial and preliminary.” 57

For example, a down jacket’s foot-print, from origin of the fiber to the gar-ment’s distribution, spans more than 20,000miles, touching California, Hungary, Japan,China and Nevada. The jacket’s manu-facture and transportation created near-ly seven pounds of CO2 emissions andenough energy to burn an 18-watt com-pact fluorescent bulb continuously for 22days, according to Patagonia. 58

The jacket uses “high-quality goosedown . . . [that] comes from humanelyraised geese,” and the garment’s lightshell is made from recycled polyester,Patagonia says. But the zipper is treat-ed with a substance “that contains per-fluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a syntheticchemical that is now persistent in theenvironment.”

Says Patagonia, “We’re investigatingalternatives to the use of PFOA in waterrepellents — and looking for ways torecycle down garments.” 59

said, while carbon output from urban centers continues to grow,the carbon footprint of a resident of a large metro area is 14percent smaller than that of the average American and hasgrown in recent years by only half as much. 7

Beware of “greenwashing.” Along with an avalanche of “green”products and information on how to cut personal carbon emissionshas come a steady tide of “greenwashing” — what TerraChoice En-vironmental Marketing Inc., based in Philadelphia, calls “the act ofmisleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of acompany or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” 8

In a paper titled “The ‘Six Sins of Greenwashing,’ ” the firmsaid it surveyed six “category-leading big-box stores” and iden-tified 1,018 consumer products making 1,753 environmentalclaims. Of the total products examined, it said, “all but onemade claims that are demonstrably false or that risk mislead-ing intended audiences.” 9

Based on the survey, the firm identified what it said weresix patterns of greenwashing:

• The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off — Basing the sugges-tion that a product is “green” on only one environmentalattribute without paying attention to other factors that maybe more important, such as impacts on global warming, en-ergy or water use or deforestation. An example is papermarketed as having recycled content without attention to theair, water and global-warming impact of its manufacture.

• The Sin of No Proof — Making an environmental claimthat can’t easily be backed up by supporting informationor a reliable third-party certification.

• The Sin of Vagueness — Making poorly defined claims orones that are so broad that consumers are likely to misun-derstand the true meaning. An example is claiming a prod-uct is “chemical free.” “[N]othing is free of chemicals,” Terra-Choice said. “Water is a chemical. All plants, animals andhumans are made of chemicals as are all of our products.”

• The Sin of Irrelevance — Making claims that might betrue but are unimportant or not helpful. The most com-mon example concerns chlorofluorocarbons, a key factorin depletion of the ozone layer, TerraChoice said. “SinceCFCs have been legally banned for almost 30 years, thereare no products that are manufactured with it.”

• The Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils — Claims that,while they may be true within a product category, candistract consumers from the category’s broader envi-ronmental impact. Organic cigarettes are an example,TerraChoice said.

• The Sin of Fibbing — Making false claims, such as sayinga detergent is packaged in “100% recycled paper” but whosecontainer is made of plastic.

1 Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern, “The Short List: The Most EffectiveActions U.S. Households Can Take to Curb Climate Change,” Environment,September/October, 2008.2 “Your Home’s Energy Use,” U.S. Department of Energy, www1.eere.en-ergy.gov/consumer/tips/home_energy.html.3 “2008 Buildings Energy Data Book,” U.S. Department of Energy, http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/.4 Gardner and Stern, op. cit., http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/Table-View.aspx?table=2.4.3.5 “Home Energy Checklist for Action,” American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, www.aceee.org/consumerguide/checklist.htm.6 “Selected Characteristics of New Housing,” National Association of HomeBuilders, April 3, 2008, www.nahb.org/page.aspx/category/sectionID=130.7 “Brookings Institution Ranks Nation’s 100 Largest Metro Areas for CarbonFootprint,” press release, Brookings Institution, May 29, 2008, www.brook-ings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/press-release.pdf. The report is by Marilyn A. Brown, Frank Southworth and An-drea Sarzynski, “Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America,”Brookings Institution, May 8, 2008, www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/05_car-bon_footprint_sarzynski.aspx.8 “The ‘Six Sins of Greenwashing,’ ” TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc.,November 2007.9 Ibid.

1000 CQ Researcher


CURRENTSITUATION

Creating Incentives

B eginning in 2009 buyers of thefuel-sipping Honda Civic hybrid

will no longer receive one of the mostpopular incentives for going green: atax credit. 60

Tax incentives on hybrids phase outafter an automaker sells 60,000 of them,a benchmark Honda reached in 2007 andthat Toyota — maker of the hybrid Prius— hit in 2006. With gas prices havingfallen sharply since peaking at $4-plusper gallon last summer, “it’s getting a lotmore expensive to be an environmen-tally conscious driver,” The Wall StreetJournal noted in an article about dwin-dling tax incentives on hybrid cars. 61

Even so, the tax code remains oneof the most powerful tools in theenvironmental-policy arsenal.

Consumers have long received taxbreaks on everything from hybrid carsto energy-efficient appliances and homeweatherization. The Emergency Eco-nomic Stabilization Act of 2008 — theso-called bailout bill passed this fall todeal with the rapidly deteriorating econ-omy — included, extended or amend-ed several such incentives as well asothers aimed at businesses and publicutilities. 62 For example, the measure in-cluded tax breaks for solar systems togenerate electricity or heat hot water,energy-efficient home improvements andeven bicycle commuting. 63

As legislators and policy analysts con-template how climate change and en-ergy consumption are likely to unfoldin coming decades, they are weighingother ideas to reduce carbon emissions.

“The most efficient approaches toreducing emissions involve giving busi-nesses and individuals an incentive to

curb activities that produce CO2 emis-sions, rather than adopting a ‘command-and-control’ approach in which thegovernment would mandate how muchindividual entities could emit or whattechnologies they should use,” theCongressional Budget Office said in areport on policy options for reducingcarbon-dioxide emissions. 64

Cap-and-trade systems, which can bestructured in a variety of ways, providesuch incentives. They allow companiesthat emit CO2 and other polluting gasesto buy (or are allocated) emission cred-its that allow them to continue emittinga certain amount of the pollutant. Com-panies emitting less can save their al-lowances for the future or sell them ata profit to other companies.

So-called “cap-and-dividend” or “cap-and-cash-back” schemes also have beensuggested. Entrepreneur and writer PeterBarnes, the author of Who Owns theSky? and Climate Solutions: A CitizensGuide, described the idea this way: Thecaps would be placed “upstream — thatis, on the small number of companiesthat bring carbon into the economy. Anupstream cap could be administered with-out monitoring smokestacks, without alarge bureaucracy and without favoringsome companies over others. . . . If car-bon doesn’t come into the economy, itcan’t go out.”

Caps would be auctioned ratherthan given away free, and the rev-enue would go to taxpayers to helpoffset the higher price of fuel andother carbon-intensive products. 65

“This can be done through yearlytax credits, or better yet throughmonthly cash dividends wired . . . topeople’s bank accounts or debit cards.”

Because that income would be taxed,the government would recoup about25 percent of the money and could useit “as it sees fit,” Barnes wrote. “Moreimportantly, ordinary families would getthe lion’s share of the auction revenue,and get it in a way that rewards con-servation. Since everyone would get thesame amount back, those who use the

most carbon would lose, and thosewho use the least would gain — theirdividends would exceed what they payin higher prices.”

The approach would benefit low-income families because they use lessenergy than wealthier ones and wouldpay little if any tax on their dividends,Barnes argued.

Barnes wrote that while a carboncap would raise fuel prices “for yearsto come,” the cap-and-dividend approachwould protect families’ finances “by per-manently linking dividends to carbonprices. As carbon prices rise, so — au-tomatically — do dividends. If votersscream about rising fuel prices . . . politi-cians can truthfully say, ‘How you fareis up to you. If you guzzle, you lose;if you conserve, you gain.’ ”

The Chesapeake Climate ActionNetwork’s Tidwell favors the cap-and-dividend idea and says that while itwould lead to higher prices for fossil-based fuels, it would create an incen-tive for industry and consumers to con-serve and switch to alternative forms ofenergy. The cap-and-dividend approach,he argues, would “lead to more energy-efficient cars, the discontinued use ofenergy-inefficient lightbulbs, and it willovernight [provide an incentive for] en-ergy audits for homes, weatherization”and other carbon-reducing actions.

“Let’s let the invisible hand of [econ-omist] Adam Smith take over, but firstwe make carbon fuels more expensiveas they come out of the ground andgive the money back to all Americansin a way that protects the poor, so it’sfair and effective and market-driven.”

Roger W. Stephenson, executive vicepresident for programs at Clean Air-Cool Planet, says his group also favorsan approach that generates dividends,but rather than sending a check to in-dividuals, he says it would be better torecycle the revenue through the taxsystem for such purposes as reducingpayroll taxes, corporate tax rates andother business and consumer taxes and

Continued on p. 1002

no


At Issue:Will President-elect Obama’s clean energy plan work?Yes

yesBRACKEN HENDRICKSSENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICANPROGRESS

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, DECEMBER 2008

barack Obama is not yet sworn in as president, and it isfar too early to know the details of his policies, letalone their effectiveness. Yet it is clear from the recent

election campaign that the energy road map the president-electand Democrats in Congress have laid out will move the nationforward. After years of inaction and obstruction from the WhiteHouse, it is time for leadership. We must place clean energycenter stage in America’s economic renewal.

Clean energy means jobs and hundreds of billions in in-vestment. The country faces a collapsing housing market,record unemployment and a fiscal crisis that hurts communi-ties. New demand for goods and services from an energytransition can stimulate the economy. Retrofitting millions ofhomes for energy efficiency will put construction workersback on the job. Rebuilding our infrastructure for transit, alter-native fuels and a renewable electricity grid will jump-startlocal economies. And retooling industry to serve the growingmarket for a new generation of cars and clean technology isour best hope for restoring manufacturing jobs.

A recent study by the Center for American Progressshowed that investing $100 billion in smart incentives for en-ergy efficiency and renewable energy would create 2 millionjobs. These “green” jobs are in familiar professions in manu-facturing and construction, driven by new technology and in-novation. Clean and efficient energy investments have morelocal content and are harder to outsource, and they redirectspending from wasted energy into skilled labor. As a result,they create more jobs at better wages.

Climate solutions also mean fixing broken markets. Inactionin the face of global warming is not costless. Global warmingis the biggest market failure the world has ever known, and ifleft unchecked will cost the economy trillions of dollars in lostproductivity. We need smart policies that cap emissions andhelp businesses respond to the real costs of waste and pollu-tion. Designed properly, smart climate policies can cut energybills, increase consumer choice and create new markets anddesperately needed demand for the ingenuity of Americancompanies and workers.

We cannot drill our way out of our oil dependence, andwe cannot deny our way to a stable climate. Barack Obamaand congressional leaders instead have offered a vision thatinvests in innovation, that faces tough challenges squarely andthat finds opportunity in crisis. This is real leadership. It islong overdue, and it will put America back to work.No

KENNETH P. GREENRESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISEINSTITUTE

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, DECEMBER 2008

barack Obama campaigned on an energy agenda ofgreenhouse-gas pricing, vehicle-efficiency standards and afleet of plug-in hybrid cars. His plan is supposed to in-

crease energy independence, lower greenhouse-gas emissions andcreate 5 million “green” energy jobs. Will it work? It’s doubtful.

Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade program, which wouldreduce greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, is 10 percent more stringent than the variation (S 2191) pro-posed by Sens. John Warner and Joseph Lieberman that waskilled in 2007. The Congressional Budget Office estimatedtheir proposal would cost $1.2 trillion from 2009-2018. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency projected it would raise gasprices by $0.53 per gallon and hike electricity prices 44 per-cent in 2030. Economists at CRA International estimated theWarner-Lieberman proposal would result in a loss of 4 millionjobs by 2015, growing to 7 million by 2050. In the face of aglobal financial crisis and a long, deep recession, passage ofsuch a plan is both unlikely and undesirable.

The Obama plan also calls for reducing oil imports by tight-ening vehicle fuel-economy standards and subsidizing a fleet of1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles. But there’s a problem here:U.S. automakers are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, Amer-icans are strapped for cash, and plug-in hybrids are considerablymore expensive than currently available cars. The National Re-newable Energy Laboratory estimates the additional costs ofplug-in hybrid vehicles that slightly outperform conventional hy-brids at between $3,000 and $7,000. For the really fuel efficientones, the laboratory estimates a premium of $12,000-$18,000.

Hybrids also cost more to insure. Are Americans going toshell out that kind of cash in a recession? I don’t think so.Government fleets might buy some, but even they arestrapped for cash and will have to cut costs elsewhere toafford plug-in hybrids.

As for creating green jobs, “job creation” is simply a myth.Governments do not create private-sector jobs, or wealth.They can only curtail jobs in one way (through taxation orregulation) and generate other jobs with subsidies and incen-tives. But since they impose costs in “managing” such pro-grams — and because the market has already rejected thegoods that the government is pushing (or there would be noneed for intervention) — there are invariably fewer jobs andless wealth creation at the end of the day.

Markets create jobs, as markets create wealth: All the govern-ment can do is move it about to suit its priorities.

1002 CQ Researcher

modifying the earned-income tax cred-it for low-income working people. Somemoney could also be used for socialservices, such as giving a “carbon boostto the food-stamp program” to helpcompensate poor people who are out-side the tax system but nonethelessaffected by higher energy costs.

“We have to be sure that non-taxpayers are taken into account — thebottom quintile of the population —people who don’t pay taxes but whocan be affected disproportionately” bya carbon-capping system, he says.

While the cost of the emission al-lowances would raise consumers’ en-ergy prices, Stephenson says, the gov-ernment could limit the auction priceof the credits to avoid extremes inconsumers’ utility bills.

Stephenson says in addition to acarbon-cap regime, new technology andgreater energy efficiency — especiallyin transportation — also are neededto solve the climate-change problem.“Transport is 30 percent or more ofemissions,” he noted. “We cannot andare not going to stop driving. There-fore technology and efficiency solu-tions are essential.”

Obama’s Plan

P resident-elect Obama’s energy plancalls for a wide range of efforts

to reduce the carbon footprints of bothindustry and consumers, including an“economy-wide cap-and-trade pro-gram” aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.Under the plan, all pollution creditswould be auctioned and the proceedsused for investments in “clean” ener-gy, habitat protection and “rebates andother transition relief for families.” 66

The Obama plan also calls forother energy- and carbon-cutting ef-forts, including weatherizing at leasta million low-income homes annual-ly for the next decade, cutting elec-tricity demand 15 percent from pro-jected levels by 2020, putting a millionplug-in hybrid cars on the road by2015 and requiring a fourth of thenation’s electricity to be generated byrenewable sources by 2025. 67

Obama even wants the federalgovernment to practice what he ispreaching. He has said he wouldtransform the White House fleet toplug-in vehicles within a year of his

inauguration “as security permits” andensure that half of the new vehiclesthe government purchases are plug-ins and battery-powered cars by 2012,according to The New York Times. 68

In mid-November Jason Grumet, theObama campaign’s chief energy andenvironment adviser, told a conferenceon carbon trading that Obama “willmove quickly on climate change” butoffered no specifics. 69

Obama said during his campaign thatspending $150 billion over the nextdecade to increase energy efficiencywould help to create 5 million “green-collar” jobs in such industries as insula-tion installation, wind-turbine produc-tion and construction of energy-efficientbuildings. 70 But some policy expertshave questioned the job-creation num-ber and underlying assumptions behindit, and the numbers have even beendebated by the president-elect’s ownadvisers. 71 “U.S. automakers are tee-tering on the brink of bankruptcy, Amer-icans are strapped for cash and plug-inhybrids are considerably more expen-sive than currently available cars,” ac-cording to Kenneth P. Green, residentscholar at the American Enterprise In-stitute. “As for creating green jobs,”he continues, “ ‘job creation’ is simply amyth.” (See “At Issue,” page 1001.)

While many details of Obama’s en-ergy plan remain to be fleshed out,he is wasting no time in making cli-mate change and cutting CO2 emis-sions a priority. In November, in afour-minute video message to theGovernors’ Global Climate Summit,he said his presidency would “marka new chapter in America’s leader-ship on climate change.” 72 Separately,he also pledged to develop a two-year economic-stimulus plan to saveor create 2.5 million jobs, including“green” jobs in alternative energy.

“I promise you this: When I am pres-ident, any governor who’s willing to pro-mote clean energy will have a partnerin the White House,” Obama told theclimate summit. “Any company that’s


Continued from p. 1000

Big Metro Areas Have Big Impact

One-fifth of the nation’s overall residential and transportation carbon emissions come from the 10 largest metropolitan areas, reflecting their dominant influence on pollution.

Source: Brookings Institution

Remaining United States

Next 90 largest metro areas

Ten largest metro areas

44%

36%

20%


willing to invest in clean energy willhave an ally in Washington. And anynation that’s willing to join the cause ofcombating climate change will have anally in the United States of America.” 73

Fred Krupp, president of the Envi-ronmental Defense Fund, said Obamawas “clearly rejecting the timid, business-as-usual approach” to climate and en-ergy issues. 74

Eileen Claussen, president of thePew Center on Global ClimateChange, said in a statement that thepresident-elect’s remarks were “ex-actly the kind of leadership thecountry and the world have beenwaiting for. . . . We urge the bi-partisan leadership in Congress towork closely with the new presidentto quickly enact an economy-widecap-and-trade system.”

As policy makers in Washington turntheir attention toward shaping a newenergy strategy, concerns about aglobal climate catastrophe stemmingfrom carbon-dioxide and other GHGemissions have never been stronger.Greenhouse-gas emissions from de-veloped nations rose 2.3 percent be-tween 2000 and 2006, according tothe United Nations Framework Con-vention on Climate Change. 75 And in-dividuals, as well as industry, are thesource of those emissions.

The U.N. also reported in Novem-ber that a poisonous, brownish hazeof carbon dust from cars, coal-firedpower plants, wood-burning stoves andother sources was blocking out sunlightin Asia and other continents, alteringweather patterns and making peoplesick. 76 The thick, atmospheric blanketsprawls from the Arabian Peninsula tothe Yellow Sea, goes past North andSouth Korea and Japan in the spring,and sometimes drifts to California. 77

“We used to think of this browncloud as a regional problem, but nowwe realize its impact is much greater,”said Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan,the leader of the U.N. scientific panel.“When we see the smog one day and

not the next, it just means it’s blownsomewhere else.” 78

Achim Steiner, executive director ofthe U.N. Environment Program in Bei-jing, said, “The imperative to act hasnever been clearer.” 79

OUTLOOKEconomic Imperatives

S everal developments could lead tosignificant changes — both positive

and negative — in how consumersuse energy and leave their carbonimprints on the environment.

One is the financial crisis. In the shortterm, many consumers are feeling pres-sured financially to lower their thermostats,forgo vacations and take other steps toconserve money — all of which helpreduce carbon emissions.

In its annual Thanksgiving survey,AAA said the number of Americans plan-ning to travel by car, plane, bus or trainwas down 1.4 percent from last year’srecord and marked the first declinesince 2002. Air travel was expected tofall by 7.2 percent, the group said. 80

The nation’s economic woes also arecausing consumers — even the wealth-iest ones — to ratchet back on con-sumption of goods and services. “Peo-ple are saying, ‘We are going to savemoney, and we are going to save theenvironment,” said Wendy Liebmann,chief executive of WSL Strategic Retail,a consulting firm in New York. 81

But the economic slowdown couldalso drive up consumers’ carbon emis-sions. With state and federal budgetsunder severe pressure, less money maybe available for everything from tax cred-its for energy-saving home retrofitting tosubsidies for mass-transit services.

In November, financial pressurestemming from the credit crisis pro-pelled officials from 11 major transit

agencies — including those in NewYork, Boston, Washington, Los Angelesand Chicago — to seek help fromCongress to avoid cuts in bus andsubway service for millions of riders. 82

In New York, the Metropolitan Trans-portation Authority called for raisingfare and toll revenues by 23 percentin 2009 because of a huge budget gap,and it also drafted proposals for ser-vice reductions. 83

Such moves would likely put morecars on the road and lead to greateremissions.

In the longer term, the incomingObama administration could makedramatic changes to U.S. energy policythat would affect not only industry butconsumers as well.

“Few challenges facing America, andthe world, are more urgent than com-bating climate change,” Obama toldthe governors’ climate summit. 84

Still unknown is whether Congress willpass a climate bill and how such legis-lation might be structured to provide in-centives for consumers to lower their car-bon emissions. “I think we have to waitand see” what Congress and the Obamaadministration do on energy policy, saysHaxthausen of the Nature Conservancy.

“A reasonable conjecture is that [theadministration] would want to get outin front of this issue, whether withlegislation or a set of principles. Inboth houses of Congress, members areready to work on this issue. They’llprobably be looking to the adminis-tration for signals.”

Notes1 See New Hampshire Carbon Challenge,http://carbonchallenge.sr.unh.edu/.2 For background, see Marcia Clemmitt, “Cli-mate Change,” CQ Researcher, Jan. 27, 2006,pp. 73-96; and Colin Woodard, “Curbing Cli-mate Change,” CQ Global Researcher, Feb-ruary 2007, pp. 27-50.3 Jeffrey Ball, “A Big Sum of Small Differences,”The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 2, 2008.4 Ibid.

1004 CQ Researcher


5 Marilyn A. Brown, Frank Southworth and An-drea Sarzynski, “Shrinking the Carbon Footprintof Metropolitan America,” Brookings Institution,May 2008, p. 8, www.brookings.edu/re-ports/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski.aspx.6 “What’s your EnviroQ? Answer Page,” En-vironmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/epahome/enviroq/index.htm.7 “Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs,” www.en-ergystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls.8 Mike Tidwell, “Consider Using the N-WordLess,” Grist, Sept. 4, 2007, http://grist.org/fea-ture/2007/09/04/change_redux/index.html.9 Gary Langer, “Fuel Costs Boost Conserva-tion Efforts; 7 in 10 Reducing ‘Carbon Foot-print,’ ” ABC News, Aug. 9, 2008, http://abc-news.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=5525064&page=1.10 Harris Interactive, “For Earth Day: Two-thirdsof Americans Believe Humans are Contributingto Increased Temperatures,” The Harris Poll #44,April 18, 2008, www.harrisinteractive.com/har-ris_poll/index.asp?PID=898.11 Ibid.12 Center for Sustainable Systems, University ofMichigan, “Residential Buildings,” http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-08.pdf.13 Ibid.14 Thomas Wiedmann and Jan Minx, “A De-finition of ‘Carbon Footprint,’ ” ISA [UK] Re-search & Consulting, June 2007, www.isa-re-search.co.uk/docs/ISA-UK_Report_07-01_carbon_footprint.pdf.15 Joanna Pearlstein, “Surprise! ConventionalAgriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet,” in“Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to RethinkWhat It Means to Be Green,” Wired, May 19,2008, www.wired.com/science/planetearth/mag-azine/16-06/ff_heresies_intro.16 “Universal, Neutral and Transparent Methodfor Estimating the Carbon Footprint of a Flight,”press release, International Civil Aviation Orga-nization, June 18, 2008, www.icao.int/icao/en/nr/2008/PIO200803_e.pdf.

17 Gerard Wynn, “Critics [say] air travel car-bon offsetting too crude,” Reuters, Aug. 21,2008, www.reuters.com/article/environment-News/idUSLK20281120080821.18 Tim DeChant, “Calculating footprint oftenuses fuzzy math; Results vary, but give ideaof environmental impact,” Chicago Tribune,Aug. 10, 2008, p. 1.19 The New England Carbon Estimator is athttp://carbonchallenge.sr.unh.edu/calculator.jsp.20 Jane Black, “What’s in a Number?” Slate,Sept. 17, 2008, www.slate.com/id/2200202/.21 See Eric Marx, “Are you ready to go on acarbon diet?” The Christian Science Monitor,Nov. 10, 2008, www.csmonitor.com/2008/1110/p13s01-wmgn.html.22 For background, see Jennifer Weeks, “Car-bon Trading,” CQ Global Researcher, November2008, pp. 295-320.23 Ben Lieberman, “Beware of Cap and TradeClimate Bills,” Web Memo No. 1723, HeritageFoundation, Dec. 6, 2007, www.heritage.org/Re-search/Economy/wm1723.cfm.24 Opening Statement of Chairman Brian Bairdbefore the Subcommittee on Research and Sci-ence Education, House Committee on Scienceand Technology, Sept. 25, 2007, http://sci-ence.house.gov/publications/OpeningStatement.aspx?OSID=1293.25 Testimony of John A. “Skip” Laitner beforethe Subcommittee on Research and Science Ed-ucation, House Committee on Science and Tech-nology, Sept. 25, 2007, p. 11, http://science.house.gov/publications/Testimony.aspx?TID=7922.26 David R. Baker, “State rebates lead morepeople to go solar,” San Francisco Chronicle,July 15, 2008, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/14/BUNL11OVEF.DTL.27 Quoted in ibid.28 Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern, “TheShort List: The Most Effective Actions U.S.Households Can Take to Curb ClimateChange,” Environment, September/October2008, www.environmentmagazine.org/

Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/gardner-stern-full.html.29 Steven Blanchard and Peter Reppe, “LifeCycle Analysis of a Residential Home inMichigan,” University of Michigan Center forSustainable Systems, September 1998, www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/research/lcahome/homelca.PDF. The project was submitted in par-tial fulfillment of requirements for the degreeof master of science in natural resources.30 “Residential Buildings,” Center for Sustain-able Systems, University of Michigan,http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-08.pdf.31 “About Energy Star,” www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index.32 “Energy Star has lost some luster,” ConsumerReports, October 2008, p. 24.33 Paul Davidson, “A new twist for light bulbsthat conserve energy,” USA Today, April 22, 2008,p. 10B, www.usatoday.com/money/industries/en-ergy/environment/2008-04-21-light-bulbs_N.htm.34 Environmental timeline, Radford University,www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/envhist/about.html.35 Jennifer Weeks, “Buying Green,” CQ Re-searcher, Feb. 29, 2008, pp. 193-216.36 Rachel Carson, The Sea Around Us, Illustrat-ed Commemorative Edition, Oxford UniversityPress, 2003, pp. 223, 225.37 Gaylord Nelson, “Earth Day ’70: What ItMeant,” EPA Journal, April 1980, www.epa.gov/history/topics/earthday/02.htm.38 Andrew C. Revkin, “On Climate Change,a Change of Thinking,” The New York Times,Dec. 4, 2005.39 Ibid.40 “Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol,” BBC News,Feb. 16, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci-ence/nature/4269921.stm.41 Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth (2006), p. 8.42 Daniel Stone, “The Green Pope,” Newsweek,April 17, 2008, www.newsweek.com/id/132523.43 Neela Banerjee, “Southern Baptists Back aShift on Climate Change,” The New York Times,March 10, 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/10baptist.html?scp=1&sq=southern%20baptists%20back%20a%20shift&st=cse.44 Gary Haq, Anne Owen, Elena Dawkinsand John Barrett, “The Carbon Cost of Christ-mas,” Stockholm Environment Institute, 2007,www.climatetalk.org.uk/downloads/Carbon-CostofChristmas2007.pdf.45 Timothy Gutowski, et al., “Environmental LifeStyle Analysis,” IEEE International Symposium onElectronics and the Environment, May 19-20,2008. All other authors were graduate or un-dergraduate students at the Massachusetts Insti-tute of Technology during the 2007 spring term.

About the AuthorThomas J. Billitteri is a CQ Researcher staff writer basedin Fairfield, Pa., who has more than 30 years’ experiencecovering business, nonprofit institutions and public policyfor newspapers and other publications. His recent CQ Re-searcher reports include “Campaign Finance,” “HumanRights in China” and “Financial Bailout.” He holds a BA inEnglish and an MA in journalism from Indiana University.


46 “Following The Trail Of Toxic E-Waste,”“60 Minutes,” CBS News, Nov. 9, 2008,www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60min-utes/main4579229.shtml.47 Ibid.48 Joseph De Avila, “PC Movement: HowGreen Is Your Computer?” The Wall StreetJournal, Sept. 4, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/ar-ticle/SB122048465164497063.html.49 Ibid.50 Ibid.51 Marx, op. cit.52 Ibid.53 Ibid.54 Ibid.55 Sheila M. J. Bonini and Jeremy M. Oppen-heim, “Helping ‘green’ products grow,” TheMcKinsey Quarterly, October 2008.56 Ibid.57 “Environmentalism: Leading the ExaminedLife,” Patagonia, www.patagonia.com/web/us/contribution/patagonia.go?assetid=23429&ln=267.See also www.patagonia.com/web/us/footprint/index.jsp.58 Ibid.59 www.patagonia.com/web/us/footprint/index.jsp.60 Mike Spector, “The Incentives to Buy Hy-brids Are Dwindling,” The Wall Street Jour-nal, Nov. 6, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/arti-cle/SB122593537581103821.html.61 Ibid.62 U.S. Department of Energy, “Consumer En-ergy Tax Incentives,” www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm. See also, “P.L. 110-343/TheEmergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:Energy Tax Incentives,” www.energy.gov/media/HR_1424.pdf.63 Ashlea Ebeling, “The Green Tax Gusher,”Forbes, Nov. 24, 2008, p. 150.64 “Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions,”Congressional Budget Office, February 2008, p.vii, www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf.65 Peter Barnes, “Obama’s ‘number 1 priority,’Reuters, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-de-bate/2008/11/11/obamas-number-1-priority/.66 “New Energy for America,” http://my.barack-obama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#emissions.67 Ibid.68 Jim Motavalli, “The Candidates’ Clean CarPlans,” The New York Times, Oct. 23, 2008,http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/the-candidates-clean-car-plans/.69 Deborah Zabarenko, “Obama will actquickly on climate change: adviser,” Reuters,

Nov. 12, 2008, www.reuters.com/article/envi-ronmentNews/idUSTRE4AB84K20081112?feed-Type=RSS&feedName=environmentNews.70 Jeffrey Ball, “Does Green Energy Add 5 Mil-lion Jobs? Pitch Is Potent; Numbers Are Squishy,”The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2008, p. A13.71 Ibid.72 The Associated Press, “Obama PromisesLeadership on Climate Change,” The New YorkTimes, Nov. 18, 2008, www.nytimes.com/apon-line/washington/AP-Obama-Climate-Change.html?sq=climate%20summit&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print.73 Quoted in ibid.74 Ibid.75 Richard Black, “Obama vows climate ‘en-gagement,’ ” BBC News, Nov. 18, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7736321.stm.76 Andrew Jacob, “Report Sees New PollutionThreat,” The New York Times, Nov. 14, 2008,www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/14cloud.html?hp.77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.79 Ibid.80 Oren Dorell and Alan Levin, “Economy setstravel back a bit for holiday,” USA Today, Nov.18, 2008, www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-11-18-aaa-holiday-travel-forecast_N.htm.81 Jennifer Saranow, “Luxury Consumers Scrimpfor Sake of Planet, and Because It’s Cheaper,”The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 4, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575617614495083.html.82 Lena H. Sun, “U.S. Transit Agencies AskCongress for Help in Averting Service Cuts,”The Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2008, p. 2D,www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar-ticle/2008/11/18/AR2008111803174_pf.html.83 William Neuman, “M.T.A. Said to Plan 23%Increase in Fare and Toll Revenue,” The NewYork Times, Nov. 19, 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/nyregion/19transit.html.84 Juliet Eilperin, “Obama Addresses ClimateSummit,” The Washington Post, www.wash-ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803286.html.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONAlliance to Save Energy, 1850 M St., N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036;(202) 857-0666; www.ase.org. Group that promotes energy efficiency worldwide.

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 529 14th St., N.W., Suite600, Washington, DC 20045-1000; (202) 507-4000; www.aceee.org. Fosters energyefficiency to promote economic prosperity and environmental protection.

Carbonfund.org, 1320 Fenwick Lane, Suite 206, Silver Spring, MD 20910; (240)247-0630; www.carbonfund.org. Provides certified carbon offsets to help individuals,businesses and organizations reduce their carbon footprints.

Chesapeake Climate Action Network, P.O. Box 11138, Takoma Park, MD 20912;(240) 396-1981; www.chesapeakeclimate.org. Grassroots group that fights globalwarming in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Clean Air-Cool Planet, 100 Market St., Suite 204, Portsmouth, NH 03801; (603)422-6464; www.cleanair-coolplanet.org. Nonprofit organization that partners withbusinesses, colleges and communities in the Northeast to reduce carbon emissions.

Energy Star, US EPA, Energy Star Hotline (62202J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,Washington, DC 20460; (888) 782-7937; www.energystar.gov. Environmental ProtectionAgency and Department of Energy program promoting energy-efficient products.

Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Dr., Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203-1606; (703) 841-5300; www.nature.org. Conservation organization that worksworldwide to protect ecologically sensitive land and water.

New Hampshire Carbon Challenge, 39 College Road, CSRC, Morse Hall,Durham, NH 03824; (603) 862-3128; http://carbonchallenge.sr.unh.edu. Works tohelp households and communities reduce their energy consumption.

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 550, Arlington,VA 22201; (703) 516-4146; www.pewclimate.org. Seeks new approaches to dealingwith climate change.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

1006 CQ Researcher

Books

Barnes, Peter, Climate Solutions: A Citizens Guide, ChelseaGreen Publishing, 2008.An entrepreneur and writer blames global warming on market

failure and misplaced government priorities.

Brower, Michael, and Warren Leon, The Consumer’s Guideto Effective Environmental Choices, Three Rivers Press, 1999.Though nearly a decade old, this book by veteran envi-

ronmental experts helps consumers determine what impacttheir decisions will have on the environment, backed by re-search from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Gore, Al, An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, 2006.The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner

argues that exploding population growth and a technologyrevolution have transformed the relationship between hu-mans and the Earth.

Articles

Ball, Jeffrey, “Six Products, Six Carbon Footprints,” TheWall Street Journal, Oct. 6, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/ar-ticle/SB122304950601802565.html.Companies calculate the carbon footprints of their products in

different ways, making it hard for consumers to compare goods.

Bonini, Sheila M., and Jeremy M.Oppenheim, “Helping ‘green’products grow,” The McKinsey Quarterly, October 2008.Two consultants contend that the failure of business to ed-

ucate consumers about green products has helped discour-age them from doing more to reduce their carbon footprints.

Ebeling, Ashlea, “The Green Tax Gusher,” Forbes, Nov. 24,2008, www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/150.html.As part of this fall’s $700 billion bailout bill, Congress enacted

a new round of tax breaks that benefit consumers who embraceenergy-saving home improvements and alternative energy.

El Nasser, Haya, “ ‘Green’ efforts embrace poor,” USA Today,Nov. 23, 2008, www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-23-green-poor_N.htm.Cities and community groups are trying to help low-income

households reduce their energy consumption.

Gardner, Gerald T., and Paul C. Stern, “The Short List:The Most Effective Actions U.S. Households Can Take toCurb Climate Change,” Environment, www.environ-mentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/gardner-stern-full.html.

A professor emeritus of psychology and the director of theNational Research Council’s Committee on the Human Di-mensions of Global Climate Change argue that householdsoften lack accurate and accessible information on how toreduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change.

Knight, Matthew, “Carbon dioxide levels already a danger,”CNN, www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/21/climate.dan-ger.zone/index.html.International scientists — led by James Hansen, director of

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies — conclude thatcarbon dioxide concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere are inthe danger zone, threatening food shortages, more intensestorms and other calamities.

Specter, Michael, “Big Foot,” The New Yorker, Feb. 25, 2008.An excessive carbon footprint is the modern equivalent of

a scarlet letter, but calculating one’s environmental impactof modern life “can be dazzlingly complex,” the writer says.

Wald, Matthew L., “For Carbon Emissions, a Goal of LessThan Zero,” The New York Times, March 26, 2008,www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/business/businessspecial2/26negative.html?scp=14&sq=carbon&st=cse.Researchers around the world are searching for so-called

carbon-negative technologies that remove carbon dioxidefrom the atmosphere.

Reports and Studies

“Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions,” Congres-sional Budget Office, February 2008, www.cbo.gov/ftp-docs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf.The congressional agency analyzes incentive-based options for

reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide.

Brown, Marilyn A., Frank Southworth and Andrea Sarzyn-ski, “Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of MetropolitanAmerica,” Brookings Institution, May 2008, www.brook-ings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/carbonfootprint_report.pdf.The researchers quantify transportation and residential car-

bon emissions for the 100-largest U.S. metropolitan areas.

Haq, Gary, Anne Owen, Elena Dawkins and John Bar-rett, “The Carbon Cost of Christmas,” Stockholm Envi-ronment Institute, 2007, www.climatetalk.org.uk/down-loads/CarbonCostofChristmas2007.pdf.Three days of Christmas festivities could result in 650 kilo-

grams (1,433 pounds) of carbon dioxide emissions per per-son, according to the United Kingdom-based researchers.

Selected Sources

Bibliography


Calculations

Ball, Jeffrey, “New Concept of Carbon Footprints MeansCalculating,” The Associated Press, Oct. 6, 2008.Companies calculate their carbon footprints differently, making

it difficult for consumers to effectively compare goods.

De Chant, Tim, “Calculating Footprint Often Uses FuzzyMath,” Chicago Tribune, Aug. 10, 2008, p. A1.Carbon footprint calculators help raise awareness for global

warming, but the methodology has yet to be perfected.

Lohr, Steve, “On the Web, an Advanced Carbon Calcu-lator for Personal Use,” The New York Times, May 15,2007, p. C4.A new Web service allows people to figure out their in-

dividual carbon dioxide production.

Scherer, Ron, “Wall Street Adds Climate Change to BottomLine,” The Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 27, 2007, p. 1.Calculating carbon footprints allows analysts to forecast the

potential risks of climate-change lawsuits and future costsof any emission regulations.

Government Action

“Fargo Officials Want to Figure ‘Carbon Credit,’ ” TheAssociated Press, Aug. 10, 2007.City officials in Fargo, N.D., want to calculate the city’s

carbon footprint by inventorying carbon emissions to see ifthe city is eligible for carbon credits.

Geewax, Marilyn, “Data Sought on ‘Carbon Footprint,’ ”Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 30, 2007, p. 1H.Some members of Congress want corporations to release more

information on their carbon footprints so investors can betterjudge whether they are exposing themselves to lawsuits.

Schwarzen, Christopher, “County Tackles Greenhouse-GasIssue,” Seattle Times, Aug. 4, 2007, p. B4.A Washington county has appointed a committee to assess

the environmental impact of county government operations.

Vega, Cecilia M., “S.F. Aims for Greenest Building Codes inU.S.,” The San Francisco Chronicle, March 20, 2008, p. A1.New regulations in San Francisco would require new, large

commercial buildings to contain environmentally friendly fea-tures by 2012, reducing carbon emissions by 60,000 tons.

Impact of Individuals

Beal, Tom, “Measure Your Carbon Footprint and ReduceIt,” Arizona Daily Star, Sept. 18, 2007, p. B1.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the aver-age household of two emits 41,500 pounds of carbon per year.

Karp, Greg, “Spending Green Helps Reduce the Size ofYour Carbon Footprint,” Morning Call (Pennsylvania),Sept. 21, 2008, p. D1.Many critics say individuals throw money at the global warm-

ing problem without modifying their behavior to actually reducetheir carbon footprint.

Streater, Scott, “Calculate Your Carbon Footprint — AndFigure Out Why It Matters,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram(Texas), Sept. 23, 2007.There is significant scientific evidence that global warming

has been caused by man-made activities.

Reduction Methods

“Awnings Reduce Homeowners’ Carbon Footprints,”Business Wire, March 7, 2008.Awnings are a proven method for reducing heat gain and

air-conditioning loads, which typically results in a reducedcarbon footprint.

“National Parks Ask Visitors to Reduce ‘Carbon Foot-print,’ ” The Associated Press, June 16, 2008.Zion National Park in Utah is asking its visitors to reduce their

carbon footprints by reducing driving, using energy-efficientappliances and purchasing clean-power sources.

Carroll, Cindy, “Reducing Carbon Footprint from the Com-fort of Home,” Union Leader (N.H.), Jan. 6, 2008, p. D1.Carbon footprints can be reduced by using less energy,

often without having to sacrifice comfort.

The Next Step:Additional Articles from Current Periodicals

CITING CQ RESEARCHER

Sample formats for citing these reports in a bibliography

include the ones listed below. Preferred styles and formats

vary, so please check with your instructor or professor.

MLA STYLEJost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher

16 Nov. 2001: 945-68.

APA STYLE

Jost, K. (2001, November 16). Rethinking the death penalty.

CQ Researcher, 11, 945-968.

CHICAGO STYLE

Jost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher,

November 16, 2001, 945-968.

?Are you writing a paper?

Need backup for a debate?

Want to become an expert on an issue?

For 80 years, students have turned to CQ Researcher for in-depth reporting on issues in the news. Reports on afull range of political and social issues are now available. Following is a selection of recent reports:

ACCESSCQ Researcher is available in print and online. For access,visit your library or www.cqresearcher.com.

STAY CURRENTTo receive notice of upcoming CQ Researcher reports, orlearn more about CQ Researcher products, subscribe to thefree e-mail newsletters, CQ Researcher Alert! and CQ ResearcherNews: http://cqpress.com/newsletters.

PURCHASETo purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or electronicformat (PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737.Single reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts andelectronic-rights licensing are also available.

SUBSCRIBEAnnual full-service CQ Researcher subscriptions—including44 reports a year, monthly index updates, and a boundvolume—start at $803. Add $25 for domestic postage.

CQ Researcher Online offers a backfile from 1991 and anumber of tools to simplify research. For pricing in-formation, call 800-834-9020, ext. 1906, or [email protected].

Upcoming ReportsMexico’s Drug War, 12/12/08

Limiting Lawsuits, 12/19/08

Preventing Cancer, 1/9/09

Environmental Activism, 1/16/09

Future of the Auto Industry, 1/23/09

In-depth Reports on Issues in the News

Civil LibertiesAffirmative Action, 10/08Gay Marriage Showdowns, 9/08America’s Border Fence, 9/08Immigration Debate, 2/08Prison Reform, 4/07Voting Controversies, 9/06

Crime/LawProstitution Debate, 5/08Public Defenders, 4/08Gun Violence, 5/07

EducationReading Crisis? 2/08Discipline in Schools, 2/08Student Aid, 1/08Racial Diversity in Public Schools, 9/07Stress on Students, 7/07

EnvironmentProtecting Wetlands, 10/08Buying Green, 2/08Future of Recycling, 12/07Disappearing Species, 11/07

Health/SafetyHeart Health, 9/08Global Food Crisis, 6/08Preventing Memory Loss, 4/08

International Affairs/PoliticsThe National Debt, 11/08Financial Bailout, 10/08Political Conventions, 8/08Human Rights in China, 7/08Race and Politics, 7/08Campaign Finance Reform, 6/08

Social TrendsFalling Birthrates, 11/08Regulating Credit Cards, 10/08Internet Accuracy, 8/08Financial Crisis, 5/08Cyberbullying, 5/08

Terrorism/DefenseRise in Counterinsurgency, 9/08Cost of the Iraq War, 4/08

YouthDebating Hip-Hop, 6/07

CQ RESEARCHER PLUS ARCHIVE

Get Online Access to VitalIssues From 1923 to the Present

For a free trial, visit http://library.cqpress.com/trials.

For pricing information, call 1-800-834-9020, ext. 1906 or e-mail [email protected].

*Editorial Research Reports, the predecessor to CQ Researcher, provides the same expert, nonpartisan reporting on the vital issues that have shaped our society.

CQ Press • 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 800 • Washington, DC 20037

CQ Researcher Plus Archive delivers fast, online access to every CQ Researcher report from 1991 to the present, PLUS lets you ex- plore the complete archive of Editorial Research Reports* from 1923-1990. Search and browse more than 3,600 in-depth reports.

Loaded with handy online features, CQ Researcher Plus Archive provides the trustworthy reporting and the advanced online functionality today’s research-ers demand. The new “Issue Tracker” feature pro-vides quick links to past and present reports on the specific topics you need.

New!

Carbon Footprint A - SAGE - the natural home for authors, editors

Documents

Transcript of Carbon Footprint A - SAGE - the natural home for authors, editors