Case Study: Carbon Audit of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Copyright 2002 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. |  Main Page  |  Press Release  |  Theory  |  Download  |  Instructions  | Introduction Rather than embark on a lengthy discussion of all the premises that undergird the carbon audit, we thought it best to hit the ground running by describing our first (analog) attempt at a carbon-emissions calculation for the environmental group Hudson River Sloop Clearwater. We are acutely aware of the irony in finding the environmental impact of a group that fights for environmental quality, but we hope the reader will understand how important it is that we walk the walk and talk the talk as environmentalists before we assume an authoritative posture. A full-length (130+ pages) discussion and bibliography of the Calculator and its genesis is available on request from Clearwater. We ask that our costs of copying and postage be covered. Before the Carbon Calculator was developed, we supervised Vassar College senior Jessica Polk in a for-credit internship project to perform a carbon audit on Clearwater, based upon an unpublished report by staff at the Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC; Brown et al, 1993). Jessica studied the WHRC report and we discussed it at length. We felt that one principal shortcoming was the lack of data on vehicle-miles attributable to everyday operations, particularly since Clearwater not only has a staff comparable in size to WHRC, but also operates the sloop almost continuously 8 months per year, occasionally under diesel power, and conducts a festival, the Clearwater Revival, which brings between 8,000 and 20,000 people to a festival site. We decided that a more complete picture of carbon emissions would be created by including vehicle-miles, and mass-transit miles if possible. We elected to study only the previous year, thereby leaving ourselves vulnerable to outliers. The data can be smoothed, of course, by updating and monitoring the data in future years, and possibly attempting to reconstruct past years. Jessica gathered much of the data, with our guidance, and prepared a preliminary draft report. We made the necessary changes and corrections, and completed the report which follows. Heating Heating at Clearwater’s office is entirely by natural gas. Data from Central Hudson indicated that over the previous year Clearwater had consumed 875,000 cubic feet of natural gas, sufficient to emit 28,000 pounds of carbon (Bruce Sieving, Central Hudson, personal communication, 1998). Electricity Use Electricity consumption was 12,360 KWH. Estimating a mix of power production sources, approximately 60% oil, 10% nuclear and hydroelectric, and 30% coal, based upon the composition of the physical power production landscape of the Hudson Valley and nearby states, we estimated Clearwater’s electricity-attributable carbon emissions to be 5,339.5 pounds of carbon. Paper Use Paper use at Clearwater reflected a wide range of print applications; from 1"x 3" tickets to 54 page program books. We received product descriptions and counts from all departments. Adjusted for varying stock weights, we estimated 572,270 pages used during the study year. Paper weights approximately 1 pound per 100 pages, so the total weight was 5,723 pounds. In addition, toilet paper and paper towels used during the study year weighed approximately 60 pounds. Since 40% of paper is carbon by weight, the carbon used in paper totaled 2,313.2 lbs. WHRC did not address recycling. We discussed the question of recycling. Clearwater recycles approximately 1,000 pounds of paper per year, and its membership, which is highly educated in environmental awareness, could be recycling an additional estimated 2,000 lbs./yr of Clearwater’s outgoing material. Much of the 1,000 lbs. paper recycled at the office is material that other individuals have sent. How much of that recycled paper can be subtracted from Clearwater’s annual burden? How much should be attributed to Clearwater? The latter question can be answered fairly simply, inasmuch as the incoming material, whether solicited or not, would not have been received had Clearwater not existed. Therefore, Clearwater can accept full attribution for its entire paper output and input. The former question, regarding the effects of recycling on carbon emissions, depends upon the number of times a given unit of fiber can or has been be re-used before it becomes waste, degrades, and gives off its carbon to the environment. When paper is recycled, 15% of the fiber becomes short-fiber waste, and although markets are emerging for this material, currently most of it goes into landfills (Ryan & Durning; 1997: 18, James Austin, personal communication, 1998). Paper fibers break down with repeated recycling, and three remanufacturing cycles seems to be the practical limit (ibid.). Each remanufacturing cycle consumes approximately half the resources of a virgin manufacturing process, primarily in the form of fossil fuel consumption. Thus, for a virgin paper object sent for recycling, the carbon emissions attributable to Clearwater will be 57.5%, because the embodied energy and resource use in the next iteration of that fiber will be approximately 42.5% lower than for a virgin fiber object. Further, the recycling of an object made from already-recycled material, which is common at Clearwater, given the preponderance of environmentalist organizations and individuals with whom we communicate, lowers Clearwater’s attributable carbon emissions by the percentage of recycled material. From recycling-bin survey, we estimated that 47% of Clearwater’s paper recycling, by weight, was of paper that had already been recycled. From the department heads who purchased paper products for Clearwater, we learned that approximately 80% of new paper purchased for Clearwater printing and publications contains, on average, 50% recycled content. Of the 1,000 lbs. outgoing recycling, 47% of which is already recycled, the following calculations apply: 470 lbs. (recycled) X 0.4 (carbon content) = 188 lbs. X 0.575 (attribution) = 108.1 lbsC. 530 lbs. (Not recycled) X 0.4 (carbon content) = 212 lbsC. 212 + 108.1 = 320.1 lbsC. 320.1 lbsC X 0.575 (attribution) = 184 lbsC attributable to Clearwater. Of the 5,782 lbs. purchased for printing and publications, 80% of which is from 50% recycled feedstocks, and of which 2,000 lbs. (34.5%) becomes recycled, the following calculations apply: 5,782 lbs. X 0.2 (unrecycled) = 1,156.4 lbs. X 0.4 (carbon content) = 462.5 lbsC. 5,782 lbs. X 0.8 (recycled) = 4,625.6 lbs. X 0.4 (carbon content) = 1,850.2 lbsC. 1,850.2 lbsC X 0.5 (recycled feedstocks) = 925.12 lbsC X 0.575 (attribution) = 531.9 lbsC. 925.1 lbsC + 531.9 lbsC + 462.5 lbsC = 1,919.5 lbsC (attributable to Clearwater from new paper purchases, not including deletions from subsequent recycling). 1,919.5 X 0.345 (% subsequently recycled) = 662.2 lbsC X 0.575 = 380.8 lbsC (attributable to Clearwater). 1,929.5 X 0.655 = 1,257.3 lbsC (attributable to Clearwater). 1,257.3 lbsC + 380.8 lbsC = 1,638.1 lbsC adjusted carbon emissions from paper use. Vehicle Use Clearwater office employees were interviewed regarding miles traveled attributable to Clearwater, including driving to and from work each day. Personal automobile fuel consumption, averaging 16.93 gallons per day, over approximately 50 work-weeks, or 250 days, totaled 4,232.5 gallons. One gallon of gasoline emits 5.5 pounds of carbon (a mean of various citations ranging from 5.2-5.8), therefore the total carbon emissions from personal automobile use at Clearwater is approximately 23, 279 lbsC. The sloop Clearwater plies the waters of the Hudson, New York/New Jersey Harbor, and occasionally Long Island Sound for eight months of the year. The captains reviewed their fuel purchase invoices over several years, and the mean was approximately 1,700 gallons of mixed diesel and home heating oil. WHRC, citing Holdren, used 2.83 kgC/gal or heating oil in its calculations (Brown et al; 1993: 4). 2.83 kgC/gal converts to 6.2 lbsC/gal. Fuel oil weighs 8.09 lbs/gal, where gasoline weighs only 6.19 lbs/gal (Kinney; 1973: 330-331), thus while fuel oil contains slightly more carbon per gallon, it is less energy-dense than gasoline, at 77% and 93% C, respectively. Carbon emissions from fuel use aboard the sloop totaled 10,540 lbs./yr. The third major component of Clearwater’s vehicular carbon emissions profile was the Clearwater Revival, a festival that brings thousands of attendees to a single site for two days of entertainment tinged with environmental advocacy. Ron Aja, event coordinator, provided the following statistics:     600 cars in the general audience.     1,500 cars in off-site parking. Analysis of Revival attendees’ home addresses produced an average distance traveled: 28.4 mi. Ten free pairs of American Airlines tickets used for performers, averaging 950 miles per flight. No data could be estimated for mass transit use, although it is expected to be extensive since Clearwater negotiates a package deal with Metro-North, the commuter rail service out of New York City. The following calculations describe carbon emissions attributable to the Revival:   Total vehicle miles: 2,100 X 28.4 = 59,640.   Mean staff fuel mileage (mpg) used for Revival attendees: 26.9.   59,640 / 26.9 = 2,217 X 2 (round trip) = 4,434 gallons of gasoline consumed.   4,434 (gallons of gasoline) X 5.5 (lbsC/gal = 24,387 lbsC.   Air travel, consisting of 20 round-trips averaging 1,900 miles,       totaling 38,000 passenger-miles, contributed 7,524 lbsC       during the study year (after Brown et al; 1993 : 26). Clearwater’s carbon emissions profile for the study year is summarized in the table below: Carbon emissions from Hudson River Sloop Clearwater annual operations. Heating 28,000 lbsC Electricity 5,339.5 Paper 1,822.1 Vehicles: staff 23,279 Vehicles: sloop 10,540 Vehicles: Revival   24,387 Air travel 7,524 Total 100,891.6 lbsC (45,860 kgC, 45.86 tonnes) WHRC concluded that its carbon emissions of 53 tonnes/yr. could be offset (fixed), by the institution’s purchase and reforestation of 24 hectares (about 60 acres) of disturbed land. Using WHRC’s fixation rate of 2.2 tonnesC/ha/year, Clearwater would require some 21 hectares (52.5 acres) to achieve a similar effect. Conclusion The use of carbon as a surrogate for all environmental impacts may be imperfect, but carbon is a valid surrogate for most, if not all energy consumption, for all products and packaging directly or indirectly manufactured with fossil fuels, as well as for a rudimentary accounting of toxic chemicals, most of which use carbon-based molecular structures. The energy shadow that walks beside most forms of economic activity makes the carbon audit especially germane. Even garbage and recycling are well represented within the carbon audit. A finer grain of detail will depend on increased sophistication in life-cycle analysis, such that more precise data become available for determining environmental impacts. One of the most questionable audit elements is that of food Ñ the direct appropriation of net primary productivity by humans -- and at the time this audit was performed, as now, we remained unsure how best to capture the ‘fossil-fuel subsidy’. In the calculator we have attempted to capture food production carbon emissions by looking to economic first-principles, and assuming that the difference in price between organic and non-organic foods might reasonably approximate the cost-savings, hence price distortion, imparted by the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, processing, etc. Following on that, we further assumed that the cost savings could reasonably estimate the obverse Ñ the economic value of the inputs that help create the price variance, which we then expressed as values of gasoline for ease of understanding. It’s a stretch, admittedly, but without an extensive life-cycle analysis of an organic and a non-organic market-basket, it’s about the only approach we could find. Strategies for Reducing Environmental Impact: Based upon a review of the above results, we decided that eleven strategies could be undertaken which, when complete, could make Clearwater a demonstration project in transforming the environmental characteristics of a small institution. Reduce heating costs by insulating and weatherproofing Clearwater office. Convert sloop motor fuel to carbon-neutral biodiesel. Convert Clearwater’s vehicle fleet to biodiesel power. Install solar panels at the office for 100% of power needs. Operate the Clearwater Festival on renewable fuels. Maximize mass-transit usage by festival attendees. Encourage staff to acquire more fuel-efficient vehicles. Minimize air travel. Use rail to the greatest degree possible for travel to New York City and Albany. Acquire and set aside a parcel of land capable of fixing Clearwater’s carbon emissions. Purchase carbon credits and other market-based offsets. 1. Reduce heating costs by insulating and weatherproofing Clearwater office. We have fixed attic windows and used plastic sheet over certain leaky windows, but repeated attempts to re-insulate the attic have failed due to contractor ambivalence. We will have to be more aggressive. The walls are fiberglass-insulated, and most of the windows are double-glazed and weatherstripped. 2. Convert sloop motor fuel to carbon-neutral biodiesel. We cannot ask the sloop captains to operate the vessel in any way contrary to U.S. Coast Guard approval, so the Coast Guard has become the gatekeeper for our conversion process. We have found a provider of biodiesel manufactured to ASTM standards, but still the Coast Guard wants something in writing from the engine manufacturer attesting to the fuel’s suitability. The engine manufacturer, unfortunately, is one of the last holdouts against biodiesel. Other prominent manufacturers have embraced biodiesel—but not ours. Just recently, however, the manufacturer issued a new policy that seems to allow for the possibility, so our hopes have been renewed. It would be simple to get a new engine—but they cost between $25,000 and $35,000. We have high hopes that before the season is out we will be running 20% biodiesel in the sloop, and we are actively pursuing a donated engine. 3. Convert Clearwater’s vehicle fleet to biodiesel power. Again, we are willing to pay the $2.50 per gallon cost of biodiesel, but the cost of suitable vehicles is prohibitive at this time. So we sent out an appeal for donated diesel vehicles, and just took possession of a 1978 Mercedes-Benz in excellent condition. Because it is a vehicle of a certain age, we need to see how much of the fuel system contains natural rubber, and replace it with more modern synthetics that chemically resist the esters in biodiesel. In any event, we will be running that car on 20% biodiesel before the summer is out. 4. Install solar panels at the office for 100% of power needs. New York State offers many opportunities for persons wanting to install photovoltaics, including a ‘net-metering’ law, which requires utilities to meter and credit the homeowner for the surplus power that solar panels are sending into the grid. Net-metering eliminates the need for an expensive battery system to store excess power for night-time or overcast days. There are also subsidized discounts on hardware and low-interest loan guarantees -- one of the best-kept secrets in the state. Clearwater is crunching the numbers as we speak, and hopes to have an array on the building very soon. 5. Operate the Clearwater Festival on renewable fuels. One stage is completely powered by solar panels, two stages are powered by a diesel generator running on biodiesel, and the festival’s entire energy use is offset by the purchase of Wind Certificates from a wind-farm in Madison, NY (see #11). 6. Maximize mass-transit usage by festival attendees. We have a package deal with the commuter railroad that stops at a nearby station. This package is actually the least-expensive way to attend the festival, and it is promoted by both Clearwater and the railroad. To further encourage use of this option, we have expanded the shuttle bus fleet that carries attendees from the station to the festival entrance so waiting is kept to a minimum. It’s only a mile, and when not in use the buses shut off their motors. People attending by car are charged $5 for the day’s parking, which is limited. 7. Encourage staff to acquire more fuel-efficient vehicles. A work-in-progress. The first conversion was the executive director, who sold his Audi and replaced it with a Subaru. His next car will be a middle-aged (hence somewhat affordable) Mercedes diesel wagon to run, of course, on biodiesel. One of the sloop captains sold her pickup truck and bought a thrifty Honda Civic. 8. Minimize air travel. A policy that has been put in effect (only after an astonishingly carbon-rich trip to Australia to speak at an international conference on rivers). 9. Use rail to the greatest degree possible for travel to New York City and Albany. Also a policy in effect. Some 50 vehicle trips per year have been eliminated. Clearwater staff has always car-pooled. 10. Acquire and set aside a parcel of land capable of fixing Clearwater’s carbon emissions. Little progress has been made, in part because we do not endorse forest set-asides as a comprehensive solution to the problem of global warming. There simply is not enough land on the planet to absorb the excess carbon emissions from our industrialized, SUV-driving society. Furthermore, what available land exists is already in full production absorbing carbon, so the simple act of purchasing it accomplishes nothing. Set-asides are not a bad thing, of course, and are to be encouraged for a variety of reasons. Arguably, if one saves a green area from imminent development some measurable carbon sink benefit may be claimed by the purchaser. 11. Purchase carbon credits and other market-based offsets. Tradable emissions permits and other market-based instruments are based on the assumption that if firms get to choose how, how much, or even if they will reduce their pollution levels they will do it more efficiently. ‘More efficiently’ apparently translates directly into more emissions cuts than are achieved by current regulations -- a pure fiction, in our opinion. But that’s a story for another time and place. What does work, however, is a transaction in which a consumer purchases a certificate binding the seller to convey to the purchaser the environmental attributes of an action that has been taken by the seller. Clearwater has purchased from Madison Wind Power a quantity of Pure Wind™ certificates that give us documented, verifiable ownership of the environmental attributes of a particular unit of wind-generated power. We will not get to enjoy one electron of this power, nor can we even claim that the power was generated because of our purchase. The power will be used by other households, offices, and even festivals, which is obviously desirable, but the primary benefit of this purchase is derived from paying Madison Wind the higher cost of its wind power—a price it is not getting by selling into the grid. This action sends a price signal in reverse, back to the company, and to other producers, with the message that we are consumers who want wind power, and we will pay more for it in preference to cheaper coal, oil, and even natural gas. Clearwater purchased enough wind certificates to offset a year’s worth of electricity consumption at the office and at the festival. There are several large power producers around the world that have switched from coal or oil to natural gas, hence earning many emissions credits. Rather than sell them to other power producers who need the permits to continue using coal or oil, they have elected to retire their credits by shifting markets. Instead of selling to other producers, they are selling the credits to one of several firms that break the credits into smaller—as small as $5 (US)—certificates and offer them directly to concerned consumers. Clearwater has not purchased any of these carbon credits, but the opportunity is available (www.natsource.com). Has Clearwater reduced its environmental impact? Without question we have reduced our carbon emissions, and we have a number of initiatives in process that will ultimately cut our carbon emissions by half or greater. There has been very little economic sacrifice involved in this transformation, and we believe that our quality of life has improved. We will post the results in future updates to the Carbon Calculator. Andre Mele Poughkeepsie, NY April, 2002 |  Main Page  |  Press Release  |  Theory  |  Download  |  Instructions  |