Here are some of the details from the N Y Times article:

The official name of the program would be Homestar, playing off the name Energy Star, a government program that promotes energy-efficient appliances.

It would cost $23 billion over two years. Of that, $6 billion would go to incentives to people who did at least two significant weatherization projects — such as air sealing, insulation, new light bulbs and new appliances. Homestar would have a list of 10 such projects. Households that did at least two would be eligible for up to $2,000. Households that did four would be eligible for up to $3,500. The government money could not pay for more than half of any project.

The nice part about this scheme is that it would actually focus on making some of the most valuable energy improvements a homeowner can do – sealing and insulating their home – rather than purchasing new trucks from the sputtering car makers. Cash for Caulkers scheme also has a lot of potential to put idle construction workers to good use, so it probably would help with job creation on some level. And the energy savings in many cases will pay for themselves within a few years time.

At Triangle Sustainability, energy audits and home (or business) weatherization are one of our core services for our customers. Our energy audit will help you identify where energy savings in your home exist and what the best methods are to fix them. Then you can either make the improvements yourself or hire us to come do them for you.

Ready to get started with an audit? E-mail us today at info@trianglesustainability.com and we’ll set up a time to come visit your home!

Recent reports by the Associated Press have noted that the most common trade-in/purchase combo was swapping an old Ford F-150 truck for a new Ford F-150. A light duty truck like the F-150 has a “full useful life” of around 120,000 miles, according to the EPA. So an old F-150 truck that got 15 mpg and was traded in for one that gets 17 mpg would lead to a total savings of around 950 gallons of gasoline. That equates to emissions savings of a bit more than 18,000 lbs of CO² during a typical truck’s lifespan.

To most people, 950 gallons of gas sounds like a decent amount of energy savings. But lets consider what we could get if we spent that money elsewhere. The clunkers rebates ranged from $3,500 to $4,500 based on what was being traded in and what was being purchased. I’ll be conservative and say I was going to trade in my old F-150 for a new one and would receive only the minimum $3,500 rebate.

So what if I was allowed to use that $3,500 on other types of energy savings, such as installing a solar photovoltaic system? For that amount of money, I could get a 2 kilowatt solar system installed on my roof (keep in mind that’s after accounting for various other federal and state incentive programs that greatly reduce the total cost of the system).

My solar system will surpass the carbon savings from the cash for clunkers truck upgrade in about 4 years time. Not a bad deal, considering the solar panels should run for 20 to 25 years and will also pay for themselves in about 9 years time. So not only do I displace a lot more carbon over the life of the panels, I also recoup my investment and start making money after a while.

Another option is to put the $3,500 directly towards buying carbon offsets. In North Carolina we have a cool program run by NC GreenPower that allows me to buy 500 lbs of CO² offsets for about $4 per month. So using that program I could displace 437,500 lbs of CO², about 24 times as much as in the cash for clunkers program.

You can, reasonably, argue that the government already has lots of incentive programs in place for solar or that buying carbon offsets doesn’t provide me with a tangible benefit, like getting a new car.

But the real point is that – despite the government’s efforts to say otherwise – it’s ludicrous to claim that cash for clunkers is about energy savings and making a dent in carbon emissions. If it was then buying a truck wouldn’t have been an option at all. The program was about getting money to struggling car manufacturers with the taxpayers picking up the tab, and the cause of climate change getting little more than lip service.

But there’s some good news, too. A recent report from the International Energy Agency spells out a strategy for stabilizing carbon atmospheric concentrations, perhaps in more detail than has been specified before.

For the IEA, keeping carbon concentrations at our below 450 ppm is the key, since that’s the level they believe will minimize the effects of global warming. Hence they call getting to that goal the “450 scenario.”

Achieving the 450 scenario, according to the IEA, requires pursuing a variety of different carbon abatement measures. These measures include pursuing greater energy efficiencies, renewable energy, biofuels, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (see figure).

World energy-related CO2 emissions abatement (source: IEA)

Based on the IEA’s handy graph and table, we can see that they believe end-use energy efficiency to be the greatest slice of the carbon-abatement pie. And within that category fall lots of measures that we each can take to boost our personal energy efficiency – better insulation, building sealing, replacing incandescent light bulbs, driving a car with better mileage, etc.

This serves as a nice reminder that it’s easy for each of us to take energy-savings steps today, rather than waiting for various forms of renewable energy to become more affordable. So what are you going to do to boost your own efficiency?

Now, it seems we are going back, very far indeed. Some recent research has noted that the earth’s carbon dioxide levels have climbed to levels not seen for 15 million years. Here’s an excerpt from the press release:

“The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” said the paper’s lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

This isn’t quite the kind of time travel I had envisioned in my childhood, it doesn’t involve meeting cool historical figures like Abraham Lincoln or observing my parents as kids. Unfortunately, this type of time travel will mean rising sea levels, drought and famine that will damage ecosystems and affect millions of people.

During the time period around 14 to 20 million years ago that Dr. Tripati and his colleagues studied, atmospheric carbon concentrations where at about 400 parts per million. That’s approximately where those levels are today, but some estimates show those levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if immediate action isn’t taken.

This serves, to me at least, as a striking reminder of the risks of not significantly reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and continuing to burn fossil fuels in spades. Unless, of course, we want to see what things were like when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

While other carbon calculators do exist – such as Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth calculator – they only provide the high level information about what all goes into our carbon footprints – both individually and nationally.

For those who would like to take a more serious look at what comprises your carbon emissions, I highly recommend the book “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air” by David MacKay.

MacKay, a Physics professor at the University of Cambridge, goes through a thorough investigation of all the direct and indirect carbon emissions that we’re each responsible for. He then tabulates those emissions against theoretical renewable energy alternatives. And I do mean theoretical – MacKay envisions such extreme scenarios as putting wind mills on almost every available acre in the UK or solar panels on every home. He focuses on what’s possible if we all used about as much renewable energy as we could.

The downside is that MacKay lives in Britain, and so his numbers are focused only on what the UK could do and don’t take into account U.S. consumption habits or potential renewable resources. But his book still provides a fantastic overview of the challenge behind actually going to a completely renewable-based energy supply, and he does it in a fun and very readable way for non-technical folks.

Best of all, MacKay gives his book away online for free, so you can download it in chapters or all at once and start reading today.

Many of us want to do something positive for the environment but don’t want to resort to such radical measures. And who has time to go sit in a redwood tree for months on end, anyway? I don’t, so I try to find ways that I can live green while minimizing the impact on my time and wallet. And thanks to a new initiative just announced in North Carolina, one aspect of being green just got easier.

Several months ago, a local non-profit company called N.C. GreenPower rolled out a program that allows North Carolinians to purchase carbon offsets from their power provider. If you aren’t familiar with the term, a carbon offset is a way for someone to pay to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions. Money from offsets typically goes towards renewable energy projects such as solar or wind, or towards planting more trees to soak up carbon emissions.

The concept of offsets isn’t anything new. Many travel-related companies, such as airlines and hotel chains, already offer their customers the ability to pay extra to “offset” the energy used while flying or staying the night. Yet these types of programs are unregulated, and so provide little assurance to customers that their money was well spent.

But the carbon offsets sold in the N.C. GreenPower program will be monitored by the N.C. Utilities Commission – making it one of the first programs in the nation to be regulated. The program also allows consumers a choice between purchasing carbon offsets or blocks of renewable energy. So, with some assurance that my money would really go towards reducing pollution, I decided to calculate just how much I’d need to spend to offset my family’s carbon emissions.

My first job was to tally up just how much carbon my family is responsible for. I started by evaluating my electric bill, and I calculated that we consume around 1,500 kilowatt hours of power each month on average. This equates to around 3,100 pounds of carbon emissions.

Next, I considered our monthly driving emissions. This was tricky since I had to account for things like gas mileage, the amount of driving we do and how much carbon is released per gallon of gasoline. After crunching the numbers, I found that our driving added another 2,100 pounds of monthly carbon emissions to our tab.

After that, I added up some smaller factors, such as natural gas usage and air travel. Then I tacked on another 10 percent of the total, to make up for miscellaneous emissions that I couldn’t properly account for, such as the energy used at my office or what garbage men use to dispose of our trash.

Finally, I reached my family’s grand total of around 6,100 pounds of carbon emissions per month. That estimate might be on the high side since I made some assumptions – like that most of my electricity comes from coal-fired power plants instead of nuclear or gas. But at least it gave me a number to work with. And for those who don’t want to go through the same complicated process, there are plenty of carbon emissions calculators online that will give you a number for your family.

But now the really important question – how much is buying my way to carbon neutrality going to cost me each month? The N.C. GreenPower program sells a 500-pound carbon dioxide offset for $4 a month. So if I spend $52 a month – which is tax deductible – I’ll be offsetting more than the amount of carbon that my family produces, sort of. My accounting doesn’t take in every footprint factor, but at least it’s a decent back-of-the-envelope start.

While that amount of money is nothing to sniff at, it’s also about the same as many families spend on cable TV each month. And by comparison, if you wanted to generate your own energy and decided to install a solar-electric system, you’re going to end up paying around $10,000 at least.

So the N.C. GreenPower program is a pretty reasonable cost. Even better, it allows you to do something good for the environment without having to do anything radical or illegal like some crazed “environmentalist.” And while reducing our national dependence on fossil fuels will require more than just getting out our checkbooks, carbon offsets are a good start and something we can be proud of. Sounds like a good deal to me.

For the average homeowner, a few basic do-it-yourself projects can make a huge difference in terms of comfort and energy savings. One of the best top-to-bottom guides on getting your home’s envelope well sealed is called “Insulate and Weatherize” by Bruce Harley.

Harley does a fantastic job of stepping through some of the most important energy spaces in your home, such as the attic, basement, crawl space, kneewalls and windows, and he makes getting them sealed and insulated understandable for everyone.

Another nice guide to saving energy in your home is the Consumer Reports guide to reducing energy costs. Although this book has a broader scope than Harley’s, it doesn’t have as many great ideas or step you through the work as nicely.

If you’ve already done your best to seal your home and you’re ready to take the next step in pursuing energy efficiency – or if you’re not the do-it-yourself type of person – now is a great time to contact Triangle Sustainability for an energy audit.

An energy audit will help you find places that you missed in your insulating and sealing projects. But it will also provide you information on replacing appliances, solar and other renewable energy possibilities and how an energy management system can help you visualize, understand and reduce your energy usage. So wherever you’re at right now, start making the proper plans to make your home more energy efficient so you can save money and stay warm as the weather gets cooler.

Everyone wants energy audits. I hear it all the time – “I’m trying to go green and I want an audit of my house…” or business, school, etc. Don’t get me wrong, audits are a great way to start a journey into the green unknown. But they are just that – a start.

Think of an energy audit like taking a picture. It’s a snapshot of how your home or building is performing at the time the audit is conducted. The problem is, all the data contained in an audit is backwards looking. You can see what your energy usage was over the past month or year, but not what it is now or, even better, what it will be.

If you want to get serious about reducing your energy usage and environmental footprint, you need a real time energy management system. For homeowners, several good energy data collection systems are already on the market.

We’ve utilized The Energy Detective (TED), and found it to be great for monitoring a whole house’s energy usage or even a specific circuit, such as your washer and dryer. Another great one, called the Plogg, gives you access to plug-level data for a specific appliance and will even allow you to wirelessly shut off devices.

Installing and tying all these devices together into a comprehensive energy management system can be quite difficult. Triangle Sustainability can help you not only collect your data, but create reports on energy usage and costs.

We can also help you model your usage to determine what you’ll be using in the future based on variables like weather data and time of day. Best of all, we can collect this data right on your home computer or even send it to PDA for monitoring when you’re out of the house. This type of analytical information and control makes reducing your energy usage a lot easier and more understandable and enjoyable.

Sustainability is comprehensive. It has to be. You can’t develop a sustainable system and forget to address major components of that system because, well, it won’t be sustainable.

One of the newer facets of the environmental movement is called geoengineering. In short, geoengineers believe that since humans are doing such a good job messing up the planet, surely they can also find ways to fix it on the massive scale required to reverse the damage.

Geoengineers focus mostly on global warming. They have ideas about shooting particles into space and dumping tons of iron into the Antarctic Ocean to create huge algal blooms that will suck up CO₂.

These ideas sound interesting, but they’re dangerous. They are not sustainable, because geoengineers have little idea what the net result of implementing their ideas would actually be.

Another environmental fallacy that’s similar to geoengineering in the limited view of its scope is the “grand plan”. A “grand plan” is an environmental program or scheme cooked up by politicians and subsidized by the taxpayers.

The recent boom and bust of the biofuels movement – in particular ethanol – is an example of a “grand plan” gone awry. Most ethanol in the U.S. is made from corn. By heavily subsidizing corn-based ethanol, a tremendous debate of food versus fuel was unleashed.

That debate didn’t look quite so pernicious when gas prices sat at more than $4 per gallon. But gas prices have dropped – as have ethanol prices – and the food versus fuel debate continues, although in more muted tones.

The problem isn’t that biofuels are bad. One day we might get biofuels in significant quantities from more renewable and efficient feedstocks, such as waste biomass or algae. But in the meantime, why is the U.S. still keeping out more efficient forms of ethanol, such as from Brazilian sugarcane?

As opposed to geoengineering and the “grand plan”, the reason other people babble on about market-based solutions to environmental problems or using a triple-bottom-line approach isn’t just to sound smart. It’s because these methods allow ideas and systems to develop organically and holistically.

Geoengineering and the “grand plan” sound cutting edge. They sound cool. But for all the bells and whistles, those ideas aren’t comprehensive. And in the end, they probably won’t prove to be very sustainable either.

China is changing everything. In the U.S., we witness China’s effects all the time: many of the goods we buy are from China; we hear about how the Chinese manipulate their currency to keep the prices of their exports low; newspapers carry stories on their massive infrastructure expansions and political suppression. Without a doubt, China is what the technology world might call “disruptive”.

From an environmental perspective, China has major problems. According to a World Bank Survey, 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China. The Chinese government – notorious for padding the numbers – admits that at least 400,000 Chinese people die prematurely from respiratory illnesses annually. Half the population drinks water polluted with human and animal waste. Those numbers could be far higher, and the list of environmental offenses goes on and on.

Americans should be careful to point the finger. We are the most wasteful nation in the world in terms of energy and raw materials, and China isn’t likely to take that crown from us anytime soon.

But the reason China makes for such a fascinating case is because it’s just such a big country: four times the size of the U.S. in terms of population. With so many people and with such rapid economic growth, China’s potential to pollute the global environment is huge.

Some signs, however, are pointing to China’s problems with its abuse of the environment. Besides the millions who die from exposure to pollution, environmental problems are starting to hit China in a particularly sore spot – its economy.

In the last few years, Chinese products have come under international scrutiny for a multitude of quality and safety concerns – items directly related to the triple-bottom-line concept of sustainability. In one of the most recent episodes, Chinese drywall installed all over Florida was purported to have high levels of sulfur, causing corrosion to piping and electronics and, to add insult to injury, producing a really bad smell. Other product scares and recalls have involved children’s toys, high pesticide levels on vegetables and melamine-tainted infant formula.

While the bad press might be easy to hush up within China, in the rest of the world Chinese products are losing any brand value they might have had. At the moment, attempting to avoid the “made in China” label is pretty tough. But this should get a bit easier thanks to country-of-origin legislation, like the 2002 Farm Bill requiring labeling on seafood, meats fruits and veggies.

So what will the long-term ramifications of China’s unsustainability be? It’s hard to say for sure now, but the Chinese hunger for short-term growth is almost certainly going to result major, possibly insurmountable, economic hurdles in years to come. Just how far can China push its environment before its environment starts pushing back even harder? They seem determined to find out.