Archive for the 'Climate Change' Category

Report: Widening Highways Increases Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on May 15, 2008
in Climate Change and Highway Expansion
. 0 Comments

Traffic on 826

There are several reasons why widening highways is usually a futile strategy to combat traffic congestion. For one, highway widening projects are costly and time consuming. It has also been well documented that adding new capacity to highways creates induced demand, which essentially means it will generate more traffic on the road. Consequently, over time the widened highway gradually fills up with additional traffic until it reaches a threshold, and is congested again. Of course, just the principle of widening highways is flawed because it encourages driving, it’s unsustainable, and it raids funds for other major transportation projects that are much more sustainable, such as transit. However, research from the Sightline Institute points out that widening highways also leads to substantial increases in GHG emissions in the mid-to-long term.

Conventional dogma preached by road-widening enthusiasts claims that additional capacity will decrease GHG emissions by easing traffic congestion. According to Sightline, this limited benefit only holds true in the short term, if at all. In the medium-to-long term, however, adding one mile of new highway lane will result in an increase in CO2 emission by more then 100,000 tons over 50 years. To quantify that, at current rates of emissions, 100,000 tons of CO2 equals the 50-year climate footprint of about 100 typical U.S. residents.

Image: Sightline Institute

How an Atlanta Family Slashed its Carbon Footprint and Gained a Life

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on May 13, 2008
in Climate Change, Commuting, Density, Sprawl, Transit and Walkability
. 5 Comments

The following article below is a reprint from NPR.org on April 1, 2008:

Atlanta Family Slashes Carbon Footprint

Atlanta resident Malaika Taylor used to live the typical suburban life — the kind that helps make America the world’s top contributor to climate change. But four years ago, fed up with commuting, Taylor and her 11-year old daughter, Maya, moved from the suburbs to the city.

And their “carbon footprint” shrank.

“There are some weekends when I don’t even use my car,” says Taylor.

The Taylors live in Atlantic Station, a new community in mid-town Atlanta designed to put jobs, homes and shopping all in one place, close to public transportation. Developments like Atlantic Station are springing up around the country, and proponents say they help cut car pollution, including the carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change.

Atlantic Station: A Climate Change Model

On a typical morning, Taylor walks her daughter to the bus stop and then keeps going 10 minutes to her job as a property manager at an apartment complex.

“I have to admit, if it’s raining or really cold, I drive,” she says.

Her mile-long commute is unusual in Atlanta, where the federal government estimates the average resident drives 32 miles each day. Early surveys show the people who live and work in Atlantic Station drive about a third that much, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

“We don’t often think of a development as a way to solve environmental problems. But this is really a unique example of kind of growing your way into better environmental quality,” says Geoff Anderson, who helped steer the Atlantic Station project through the regulatory process for the EPA. Anderson now heads Smart Growth America, an environmentally friendly development advocate.

At first, the EPA supported Atlantic Station as a way to help Atlanta fight its unhealthy smog problem. Anderson says now the agency sees the community as a model of how America can fight climate change.

“The two biggest things we do from a carbon perspective are, we heat our houses or cool them, or we drive. And when you combine that, that’s going to add up to a big chunk of your personal carbon footprint,” Anderson says.

A Smaller Impact

Reducing her carbon footprint was not Taylor’s intent when she moved. She just wanted her life back.

But living in the city has cut the small family’s impact on global warming to about half the national average for a family of two.

When they lived in the suburbs, Taylor filled up her gas tank three or four times every two weeks. Now she fills up once in two weeks.

Her other energy bills shrank, too.

In the winter, her gas bill to heat her suburban house was almost $200. Now she uses electricity to heat and cool their compact, two-bedroom loft. That bill tops out around $80, about 20 percent less than the average bill for an Atlanta household.

Apartments often have lower energy costs because of shared walls and smaller spaces. Americans send more than 1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air, or about a fifth of the nation’s total emissions. If lots of Americans lived like the Taylors, then the nation’s greenhouse-gas pollution could drop by hundreds of millions of tons.

Of course, the move didn’t come without tradeoffs.

“I can’t afford to buy a house in the city. It took me four garage sales to get rid of enough stuff to fit into my apartment. I thought I purged, and it still wasn’t enough, and I had to purge again,” says Taylor.

Gaining a Life

On one recent rainy afternoon, Taylor drives to pick up Maya at the bus stop. It takes them almost no time and hardly any gas or greenhouse gas emissions.

What’s more, when it’s time to take a trip to the grocery store, it takes only two minutes to get there, and she’s is back home within 15 minutes.

“That’s hands down one of the biggest perks about living here. The convenience, convenience, convenience,” Taylor says.

It’s only 4:20 p.m. Maya has already made a big dent in her homework. And Malaika has a few hours to kill.

“Maybe I’ll work out. Maybe we’ll play a game. It makes a huge difference just in the quality of our life,” Taylor says. “We get to spend a lot more time together. I think she’s happier. I’m happier. It makes life a lot better.”

Image: Flickr

More Bad News…

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on May 7, 2008
in Climate Change, Everglades, Sprawl and Urban Development Boundary
. 2 Comments

The Herald is reporting that the county commission overturned Mayor Alvarez’s veto in favor of moving the Urban Development Boundary for a Lowe’s at 8th St and 137th Ave and a retail center at Kendall Drive and (gulp), 167th Avenue (i.e. the Everglades). More sprawl, more self-interests, more incompetence. We’ll have lots more on this later.

A Dubious Distinction

Published
by
Mike Lydon
on April 30, 2008
in Bicycles, Bikes, Boston, Climate Change, Miami, Miami 21, Transportation, biking and transportation sustainability
. 3 Comments

Miami may be one of “America’s cleanest cities,” but it certainly is not one of the most bicycle-friendly. This fact was recently recognized in the June 2008 issue of Bicycle Magazine, which bestowed Miami with the dubious distinction of joining Dallas and Memphis as one of the three worst cities in America for bicycling. The excerpt, linked above states the following:

In Miami, the terrain lies pancake-flat and the sun shines bright nearly every day–perfect conditions for cycling. But Miami-Dade County has done little to foster safer streets for bikes, despite the fact that Florida ranks second in the nation in bicycle fatalities and that much of Miami’s poorer population relies on bikes for transportation. The county enacted the Bicycle Facilities Plan in 2001, but it failed to state any specific goals. The city of Miami has no finished lanes, and the only one under construction is less than a mile long. The rest of the county’s lanes are just as short, appearing randomly and disappearing a few blocks later. “We’re so far behind and in the dark with bikes it’s absurd,” bike-shop owner Chris Marshall told the Miami New Times in January. “I’d say we’re stuck in the ’60s, but it’s worse than the ’60s. In the ’60s you could still get around by bike.”

I agree that we are far behind, but the article fails to mention Mayor Diaz’s new Bicycle Advisory Committee, which is working under the umbrella of the Office of Sustainable Initiatives to create a bicycle master plan that dovetails with Miami 21. It’s an uphill battle, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Interestingly, the City of Boston, another cycling-poor city in which I have lived, repeatedly received similar honors from Bicycling Magazine. However, thanks to an aggressive agenda to improve cycling conditions the city is quickly altering its reputation. Let’s hope Miami is not too far behind.

Monday News

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on January 27, 2008
in Climate Change, Miami, News, Parks, Transit, WiFi and bike lanes
. 0 Comments
  • Free Miami Beach WiFi to Launch by Spring…sort of (Miami Sunpost)
  • Miami Beach Planning Commission Makes Big Changes (Miami Sunpost)

Election 2008: Who is the Smart Growth Candidate?

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on January 24, 2008
in Climate Change, Election, Energy, Environment, Green Collar Jobs, Politics, Smart Growth, Sustainability and Transit
. 9 Comments
With election season now in full swing, the time has come to decide which candidate we think will best lead us for the next four years. Here on Transit Miami, we’ll be taking a close look at the presidential hopefuls to determine which candidate is the strongest on smart growth and livable cities issues.
Without further ado, let’s break down the remaining presidential frontrunners:

The Republicans: Now while Transit Miami is a non-partisan blog, Republicans and Libertarians generally do not have a strong record for supporting smart growth or transit-oriented urban policy. The Republican candidates for this year’s election are no exception. All of the front-runners are soft on climate change, using the typical rhetoric of voluntary reductions on greenhouse gas emissions. Fred Thompson, who has fortunately dropped out of the race already, at one point even mentioned considering opening up the Everglades for oil exploration.

The Democrats: Though far from meeting our high standards, the leading Democratic front-runners are unquestionably more dedicated to livable cities issues than Republicans. Here’s a breakdown of where the top three candidates, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards stand on planning-related issues:

Hillary Clinton: From “Powering America’s Future: Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address the Energy and Climate Crisis”:

“Hillary’s big three goals: “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 – the level necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030. Transform our carbon-based economy into an efficient green economy, creating at least 5 million jobs from clean energy over the next decade.”

“Creating a market-based cap and trade program, and auctioning 100% of greenhouse gas permits. Hillary would raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon (mpg) to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg in 2030.

“Increased public transit usage is one of the best strategies for addressing the energy and environmental costs of transportation…As President, Hillary will increase federal funding for public transit, including buses, light rail and subways, by $1.5 billion per year. She will also link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage and discourage sprawl. She will also invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. Intercity passenger rail is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it elieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it timulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas.”

Barack Obama: From Obama’s “Plan to Make America a Global Energy Leader”:

“Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities: Over the longer term, we know that the amount of fuel we will use is directly related to our land use decisions and development patterns, much of which have been organized around the principle of cheap gasoline. Barack Obama believes that we must move beyond our simple fixation of investing so many of our transportation dollars in serving drivers and that we must make more investments that make it easier for us to walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives.”

“Reform Federal Transportation Funding: As president, Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account. Obama will build upon his efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks, and he will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. Building more livable and sustainable communities will not only reduce the amount of time individuals spent commuting, but will also have significant benefits to air quality, public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Level Employer Incentives for Driving and Public Transit: The federal tax code rewards driving to work by allowing employers to provide parking benefits of $205 per month tax free to their employees. The tax code provides employers with commuting benefits for transit, carpooling or vanpooling capped at $105 per month. This gives drivers a nearly 2:1 advantage over transit users. Obama will reform the tax code to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal.”

John Edwards: From Edward’s “Achieving Independence and Stopping Global Warming Through a New Energy Economy”:

“Transform the Auto Industry to Lead the World in Cars of the Future: Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy. American automakers have the ingenuity to lead the world in building the clean, safe, economical cars of the future.”

“Raise Fuel Economy Standards: American cars and trucks are less efficient than they were two decades ago, despite the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Standards in China, Japan, and the European Union are between 40 and 100 percent higher. Edwards will raise standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2016, a step that could single-handedly reduce oil demand by 4 million barrels per day. [Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2004; Reicher, 2007]”

“Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled: Edwards will create incentives for states and regions to plan smart growth and transit-oriented development with benchmarks for reductions in vehicle miles traveled. He supports more resources to encourage workers to use public transportation and will encourage more affordable, low-carbon and low-ambient pollution transportation options.”

Transit Miami will not take the position to endorse any particular candidate at this point in time but we will however attempt to portray how the candidates stack up on the key issues. We believe Hilary Clinton has the best climate change policy and has the strongest ties to the type of people who will bring about positive environmental changes over the next four years. Barak Obama has the clearest development policy of the three democratic candidates and his platform specifically addresses the benefits of smart growth. Obama is endorsed by many bicycling groups and has even stated that he will push for better pedestrian and cycling oriented policy as president. John Edwards presents the most conservative approach, concentrating much of his policy of fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. We’re concerned about all of the candidates’ positions and emphasis on coal energy and alternative fuels and are disappointed to see that none adequately address better growth principles.

Thursday News

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on December 13, 2007
in Climate Change, Marlins, News, Obesity, Port Tunnel and biofuels
. 0 Comments


Streetsblog: London street closings a resounding success

Huffington Post: Fighting fat and climate change

George Monbiot: The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world

Miami Herald: Push for Miami port tunnel funding begins

Miami Today News: Soccer may join Marlins on Orange Bowl land

Report: Bush Administration Has Been Manipulating Climate Change Science

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on December 12, 2007
in Bali, Bush Administration, Climate Change, Global Warming and IPCC
. 1 Comment

It shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been following U.S. politics on climate change, but a new report has been released by the House Oversight Committee revealing the White House’s effort to stifle climate change science.

According to the report, the Bush Administration censored 150 federal climate scientists from eight federal agencies and “exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues.”

“The Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.”

Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s top institute studying climate and widely regarded top climate scientist on Earth, has said it. The world’s most outspoken journalist reporting on climate change, George Monbiot, describes it in his book. Now the House Oversight Committee shows how low the Bush Administration is willing to stoop to avoid taking action on climate change. It’s absolutely reprehensible, not to mention a little fascist for the executive branch of any democracy to manipulate science and censor what it doesn’t agree with.

Meanwhile, in Bail, talks continue in an effort to develop a post-Kyoto pact to take aim at climate change beyond 2012. Embarrassingly, it is again the U.S. that is the outcast here, refusing to commit to any kind of binding regulation to cut carbon emissions. I guess the Bush Administration must have chosen to ignore the recent IPCC report that warns of accelerating climate change and demands immediate international action. UN Chair Ban-Ki moon, who recently called climate change “the defining challenge of our age”, has called on the U.S. and China to take a “more constructive role” in the fight against climate change, yet the Bush Administration remains completely out-of-touch with reality.

Photo: Dan Wasserman, Boston Globe

Tufts Report: Miami could be Hottest Major City on Earth by 2100

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on November 30, 2007
in Climate Change, Global Warming, Miami-Dade County and Sprawl
. 5 Comments

A recent report conducted by Tufts University paints a very grim picture of Florida’s future if we don’t take swift action to fight climate change. According to the report, South Florida will be particularly vulnerable to warming effects.

Throughout the report, the researchers discuss two scenarios; the first, known as “rapid stabilization”, is the most optimistic scenario in which global emissions decrease at least 50% by 2050 and U.S. emissions decline at least 80% by the same period. The second scenario, referred to as “business-as-usual”, is a pessimistic scenario that projects the damages to our state if we continue to take little action.

Some of the reports noteworthy conclusions in the “business-as-usual scenario”:

  • Within vulnerable zones:
    • residential real estate now valued at over $130 billion
    • half of Florida’s beaches
    • 99% of Mangroves
  • Sea level could rise by as much as 23” by 2050 and 45” by 2100
    • 70% of Miami-Dade would be under water
    • 99.6% of Monroe would be under water
    • The Everglades would be almost completely inundated by salt water, and effectively destroyed
  • Heat waves will become more severe and more common, with new record temperatures and a gradual decline in nighttime cooling. The average heat index in summer will increase by 15-20% in much of the state. Miami will become several degrees warmer than Bangkok (probably the world’s hottest, most humid major city today) and daily highs in many Florida cities will exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit for nearly 2/3 or the year.
  • Annual statewide economic losses (that’s right…this is per year)
    • $92 billion by 2050
    • $345 billion by 2100
Of course there are those within the rapidly dwindling skeptic community that feel the negative effects of climate change are nothing that good ‘ol human ingenuity can’t solve. Such a reliance on technology to fight nature’s fury is such a dangerous and fleeting philosophy. The Miami-Dade County Climate Change Task Force’s Science and Technology Committee had this to say in the Tufts Report:

“The highly porous limestone and sand substrate of Miami-Dade County (which at present permits excellent drainage) will limit the effectiveness of widespread use of levees and dikes to wall off the encroaching sea.”

However, even if levees and dikes did present a viable option for fighting rising sea levels, it would be inordinately expensive to build such infrastructure in a state with over 1,200 miles of coastline (this doesn’t even factor in Lake Okechobee and other vulnerable watersheds).

This is serious business we’re talking about here. If we don’t start taking swift action to fight climate change, we all lose. Environmentalists lose for obvious reasons, business interests suffer as insurance rates skyrocket, tourism declines, and billions of dollars tied up in real estate become threatened. If you’re indifferent, you’ll still suffer from unprecedented heat and humidity, extremely high costs of living due to insurance and energy price hikes, and more frequent major hurricanes that threaten the lives of us all.

This makes the recent vote to move the UDB line all the more disgraceful. If there is any place that should be leading the fight on climate change, it’s South Florida and Miami-Dade County. Few places are as vulnerable geographically and no other region on Earth can lay claim to an ecosystem like the Everglades. However, this hasn’t stopped self-interest and incompetence from making South Florida one of the most sprawling, unsustainable regions in all of North America.

Click here to download the full report, “Florida and Climate Change: The Costs of Inaction”.

Wednesday News

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on October 10, 2007
in Climate Change, Miami, News and Transit
. 1 Comment

  • Climate Change: Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise even faster than projected
  • Transit: The Miami philosophy on transit is exposed
  • Pedestrian Safety: Woman hit by car in Allapattah

Tuesday News

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on October 2, 2007
in Climate Change, Corruption, Miami-Dade Empowerment Trust, News and Parking
. 3 Comments

  • Parking: “…parking is one of the biggest boondoggles — and environmental disasters — in our country”

  • Local Poverty Peddlers: Herlad reports on Miami-Dade Empowerment Trust corruption

Friday News

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on September 21, 2007
in Climate Change, Homeless, Miami, News and Vermont
. 0 Comments

  • Miami’s highly touted Community Partnership for the Homeless program is going national.
  • Vermont ruling on automobile emissions standards is a small victory in fight against climate change.

The Federal Government Stacks the Deck Against Transit

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on September 4, 2007
in Climate Change, DOT, Sustainability, Transit, federal policy and highways
. 11 Comments

As planners, advocates, and community groups, we can condemn poor localized planning to our heart’s content. Heck, we may even win a few battles now and again. However, if we want to win the war, we must carefully examine how federal policy affects transportation and planning.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at the Federal Department of Transportation’s budget for project funding in Fiscal Year 2008. Using completely backward, archaic philosophies, DOT has set aside $42,000,000,000 for highway projects, and a trifling $1,400,000,000 for transit projects. That’s right - $42 billion for highways and $1.4 billion for transit. We can certainly see where DOT’s priorities still lie.

How on earth are we supposed to improve inner city and regional transit, with the feds only dolling out $1.4 billion for transit projects? How are cities supposed to improve sustainability, reduce congestion, and improve mobility? Plus, when you consider all the money going towards highway building/expansion, it makes it even more difficult for transit systems to compete.

“There’s still a lack of understanding how fundamentally broken the transit program is. The demand for transit has never been higher…at the same time, the federal government substantially underfunds transit, so it’s very competitive to get those funds”, says Brookings Institution fellow Robert Puentes.

The Washington Post elaborates:

Unlike federal highway funds, which states receive based on a formula and may spend as they wish, money for new transit projects is awarded at the discretion of the FTA. The agency doesn’t have much to dole out. The FTA has proposed spending about $1.4 billion on new transit projects next fiscal year, compared with $42 billion that states will receive for highway maintenance and construction, according to federal figures. More than 100 transit projects across the country are expected to compete for federal money in coming years, according to a federal report.

In deciding which projects deserve funds, FTA officials consider primarily which would attract enough riders and save them enough time to be worth the investment. They also consider the state and local governments’ ability to help pay for construction, maintenance and operating costs. Other considerations include impact on air quality, development around stations and the ability to move lower-income workers to jobs.

FTA evaluations can take years, because it rates a project — and grants permission for it to move forward — at several different points, controlling it from preliminary engineering through construction.

So there you have it. This is what Miami is up against; this is what America is up against. It goes to show that our federal government is not serious whatsoever about curbing driving demand, pursuing sustainability, or fighting climate change. Until this gross discrepancy is corrected, we cannot expect any appreciable improvement in transit, traffic congestion, or the quality of our urban environments.

How do we fix this? It comes down to politics. We need to help elevate smart growth to the forefront of political issues for subsequent election campaigns. These planning issues are so important, so critical to millions of people, it’s unfathomable that they have not commanded more press time. I mean, after all, smart growth lumps together so many classic issues like the environment, energy, oil (gas prices), climate change, health care, and poverty. The trick will be finding a way to consolidate these issues, which will require a unified effort by leaders of each sub-issue.

Sooner or later it will happen, so let’s do what we can to make it sooner.

Beijing Aims to One-Up Paris

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on August 28, 2007
in Beijing, Bicycles, China, Climate Change, Paris and bike-sharing
. 7 Comments


When Paris unveiled its massive bike-sharing program earlier this month, it was the largest in the world, proving to be the envy of other global cities.

Not for long.

Beijing recently announced its plan to have 50,000 bikes available for share by 2008, when they will be hosting the Summer Olympics. The bike-sharing program is expected to take a bite out of traffic congestion and air pollution, which are becoming increasingly damaging problems as more people drive in the city.

Fifty-thousand bikes in a city of 17 million may seem insignificant, but it’s all part of a larger transportation strategy, which includes expanding the subway system to be one of the world’s greatest. It may also include odd-even day driving privileges, where license plates would be divided by odd and even numbers so that only half of the city’s motorists could legally drive each day. This hinges on the success of a four-day pilot program that was completed with mixed results earlier this month.

According to experts, eliminating 1.3 million cars from the streets of Beijing would translate into a 40% cut in carbon dioxide emissions. How does this relate to Miami? Well, beside serving as another example of a another city implementing bike-sharing, it’s very important in the global context of climate change. If China, which per capita only emits a tiny fraction of carbon dioxide that the United States does, continues to rapidly increase vehicle miles traveled, it will make it almost impossible to stabilize global CO2 levels at 550ppm (the largely agreed upon threshold for stemming the worst effects of climate change). Given the geography of South Florida, we should be very much concerned about Chinese emissions and sustainability.

It’s all interconnected.

Quantifying Our Disproportionate Contribution Toward Climate Change

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on August 14, 2007
in Climate Change, EPA, Global Warming, carbon dioxide and emissions
. 1 Comment

Many of us hear, on a fairly consistent basis, how harmful our daily actions are to the environment and global warming. We drive too much, live in houses too big (that are poorly insulated), and expend way too much energy with a shmorgishborg of energy-gluttonous appliances. However, I find it’s very rare that any of us can actually quantify these outputs.
I find this very troubling. It serves to distance ourselves from the realities our consumption. It’s like swiping a credit or debit card and never looking at the receipt - it’s much less painful that way because we don’t see the numbers were spending, and thus do not feel the full weight of the transactions. Similar to money management and cutting one’s budget, if we never see (or know) how much carbon dioxide we’re responsible for emitting each year, how will we know where to make cuts? The answer is, we probably won’t.

Fortunately, however, the EPA has done most of the legwork, creating an easy-to-use personal emissions calculator. It takes just a few minutes to fill out, and you’ll have a fairly accurate projection of your personal annual emissions. Even better, once you’ve quantified your emissions, you can check out the EPA’s thorough “What You Can Do” page, which breaks down how and where you can improve your energy efficiency, translating to carbon emissions cuts. There are links at the top and sidebar of the EPA’s page to a few other calculators related to energy consumption or emissions, that are worth checking out as well.

I mean, it’s a win-win to take advantage of these resources. If you care about making a difference and fighting climate change, then this tool will allow you to quantify your energy consumption and where you can make cuts. If you could care less about global warming, then this calculator will still point you in the direction of energy savings, which translates into more money in your pocket each month.