Johns Manville: 44 percent of Americans think that cars emit the most greenhouse gases - wrong!
Many people are blissfully unaware of what it takes to make their everyday lives possible. Whether it be in how or what we drive, where or how we live; many facets of modern life have an environmental impact that the masses just don't know about. That's why the results of a survey conducted by Johns Manville regarding the consumption of energy and the creation of greenhouse gases are not all that surprising. First, the statistics:
- 44 percent said that road transportation ranked as the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions
- 35 percent said road transportation ranked as the single largest consumer of energy in the U.S.
- 12 percent said that residential buildings ranked as the single largest consumer of energy in the U.S.
- 4 percent said that residential buildings ranked as the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions
- 6 percent said that commercial buildings ranked as the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions
The reality is quite different from that perception. According to our source article, the U.S. residential sector ranks as the single largest energy consumer in the world, and homes worldwide account for 25 percent of total energy use. "Many homeowners don't realize that a typical house releases almost twice as much carbon dioxide annually as a typical car," said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy.
So, while it is certainly very important to be sure your car is as energy efficient as it can be, you should try and be sure that your home's up to snuff too.
[Source: Johns Manville via Environmental Leader]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
gnoble 1:05PM (10/05/2007)
I'm not entirely sure about this.
For the average Canadian, 50% of their GHG emissions come from transportation - and I assume we use more energy heating our homes. This number comes from Environment Canada and is quoted by a lot of organizations...
I guess we get a lot more of our energy from Hydro, but this still seems a bit off if you're looking at this for an individual's average emissions.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 2:01PM (10/05/2007)
This is according to Johns Manville, a company that produces energy efficient building products. While energy efficiency is all well and good, I wouldn't consider this comapny to have an impartial opinion.
The JM company is referring to a study by the McKinsey Global Institute, a consulting company. Where McKinsey got their figures is a mystery. It is also unknown if the study was sponsored by Johns Manville, but that sort of thing happens all the time.
Want to make your PR sound believable? Just hire a consulting firm to do an "independant" report, then refer to that report. Viola! Instant credibility.
Reply
rgseidl 2:39PM (10/05/2007)
I think it depends on whether you count only CO2 emissions during the operational life of a building or vehicle or, if you include the CO2 involved in construction and disassembly as well.
It's certainly true that buildings in the US tend to have high air conditioning load, especially businesses. I forget where, but I read that some 15% of all electricity produced in the US is used for A/C.
There are things you can do architecturally to mitigate this, e.g. a brise-soleil to avoid exposing large south-facing windows to direct sunlight, using double glazing or smart glass (opaque in the infrared), using insulation for both walls and roof, using roofing materials that reflect rather than absorb sunlight, mounting PV panels on the roof with an air gap underneath etc.
Unfortunately, all of these measures cost quite a bit of money . Electricity is not taxed heavily in the US, so there's little incentive to conserve it.
In theory, you could even use concentrated sunlight to directly to air condition your home using a Vuilleumier machine - no electricity involved. Some research is being done on these fairly exotic beasts in Germany, but for space heating rather than cooling. However, a heat pump and a refrigerator differ only in the location of the enclosed space relative to the machine.
On a much larger scale, some industrial plants with on-site electricity generation already operate absorption chillers powered by the waste heat. In the same vein, some power plants currently offering district heating in winter are looking at district cooling in the summer. District climate control is most easily implemented in urban renewal projects and greenfield construction. High building density greatly reduces the associated infrastructure cost.
Reply
Bill 3:45PM (10/05/2007)
It's a whole lot cheaper & easier to switch to a fuel-efficient vehicle as opposed to switching to a fuel-efficient house.
Reply
rgseidl 9:14AM (10/06/2007)
@ Bill -
insulating your roof, installing some double glazing and switching to energy star appliances does cost a lot of money, but rarely more than a new car. Besides, you can do the upgrades piecemeal over a number of years, as and when you can afford them. The only reason more people aren't doing it is because heating and a/c operation are too cheap in the US to bother.
Reply
mike 9:49AM (10/06/2007)
The only thing you can't really fix is the initial CHEAP construction of the Frame: 2 by 4 houses seem to be designed to leak heat.
2 by 4 houses are so cheap, and housing is such a bubble in the U.S. I was surprised to find that the REPLACEMENT cost of my house was 1/3 it's market price.
In other words there a 200% markup on houses, and you can't do ANYTHING about the FRAME.
Reply
Phil L. 9:00PM (10/07/2007)
mike -
Be careful: House REPLACEMENT costs (for insurance purposes) presume that land is indestructible. MARKET prices include the value of the land.
In my area, which has undergone big real estate jumps in the past 20+ years, it wouldn't be that uncommon to find a structure whose cost would be 1/3 of the market value of that same structure on a desirable lot.
Reply