April 19, 2007
Sustainable Living
“If we are to reduce our ecological footprint and move towards ‘One Planet Living’, it is vital that we
address the environmental performance of our existing homes. The challenge we face is to ‘retrofit’ sustainability
into our lives in a way that will enhance our sense of community, happiness and well-being, and will reduce our
impact on the planet.”1
It is with this quote that I ask my question: How can I, given my resources and location make my family’s home
more sustainable [good question]. We are a family of four living in Del Mar, California, just north of San Diego. First, I
will give a working definition of sustainability in the context of my question. I will then examine each of the goals that my
definition of sustainability contains, and determine ways in which I can feasibly accomplish them in a short time frame and
with minimal costs. [Nice clear statement of your intent]
“Sustainability” isn a semantic thorn in an environmentalist’s side [only from a language perspective], it is
difficult to make a universal definition of the concept, much less a particular one. In my case, sustainability is easier to
define; I am dealing with the lifetime of a house, and with quantifiable metrics. My ultimate goal is to leave the smallest
ecological footprint possible. I can think globally and act locally by reducing my carbon emissions. This will be my first
goal. Second, I will try to reduce my impact on the local ecosystem by reducing my waste production. This will include
reducing material through flows and reducing chemicals that harm the environment. Third, I will look at the impact of the
food I eat on the environment and ways to reduce the energy calories that are used to make my food calories. Finally, I will
examine the regionally critical issue of water consumption, and look at novel ways to reduce water use. [Nice clear set of
objectives]
My first challenge is to reduce the carbon emissions of the house through upgrading and possibly installing solar
panels [two sides of this – production and consumption. It is usually more cost effective to go after the consumption side
first – energy saved through efficient appliances and an efficient building is less expensive than energy earned through solar
panels]. Using an approach that is similar to the “wedge” model [site Pacala or the Pew center paper I assigned], I can be a
part of reducing global greenhouse emissions. If I could improve the energy efficiency of my house by just one-fourth, I
would be contributing to reducing greenhouse emissions by one-seventh over the next 50 years2 [something seems odd
here]. By replacing all the lights with CFLs, I would save 450 pounds of carbon over the lifetime of a each bulb3, multiply
that by the large number of light bulbs in my house and already I have made significant savings. The energy efficiency
should not stop there however. For example, the refrigerator that came with the house is probably close to 20 years old.
According to Energy Star, this old fridge costs $236 to run per year. A new, energy-efficient fridge would only cost $57 a
year4. With the prospect of getting a new appliance that works better than before, and the though of saving money to make
my dad happy, this kind of “greening” would be fairly easy to pull off, and really successful in reducing my emissions.
These are changes that can be made for little investment that would pay itself back quickly, as evidenced by the fridge.
Another way to go green which would require more investment, but would take care of all of my family’s carbon emissions
is solar power. Solar power would take advantage of two great opportunities, the enormous rebates California’s state
government gives right now for installing solar, and the abundant amount of sun that we get in San Diego. Despite this,
installing enough solar power to generate 100% of our energy usage would cost at least $10,0005 [that sounds like a bargain
to me]. This cost is somewhat prohibitive, and while it is a good long-term goal, It it would be better reduce consumption
first. This is because it requires the least investment and will start paying itself off right away [yes indeed].
The second goal of sustainability is to reduce waste; using environmentally friendly products, and making simple,
yet long-term lifestyle changes can accomplish this. Being in close proximity to the ocean, the chemicals used in sinks,
showers, outdoors, and in washing machines can all potentially run into the ocean [Ocean or not, anywhere in the country
the water is eventually going into some natural body of water]. In some cases, outdoor drains go directly to the ocean. The
ocean can be viewed as a tragedy of the commons on a massive scale. When another animal was added to the pasture in
Hardin’s example6, the farmer experienced a negativenet[?] benefit, but it was only a fraction of the total positive benefit.
With the case of the ocean however, there is no such fraction, people pollute without any disincentive, or at most an
impossibly small one [It is only a tragedy of the commons to the extent that each person benefits from the common
1 Francis, Anna and Wheeler, Joanne. One Planet Living in the suburbs. WWF-UK. November 2006. Accessed at:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/OPL_suburbs.pdf
2 Pew Center. 2006. Climate change 101: Understanding and responding to global climate change.
3 “Compact Florescent Bulbs” http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls
4 “Refrigerator Retirement Savings Calculator” at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=refrig.pr_refrigerators
5 http://www.heritagesolar.com/solarcalculator.htm
6 Hardin. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science
