Household CO2 emissions in Minnesota

624 views

Published on

This slideshow examines household CO2 emissions in Minnesota households

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
624
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Environmental psychologists often use the Theory of Planned Behavior as a tool for understanding what factors control behavior. For example, if one doesn’t believe that oil resources are limited, it is unlikely they will feel compelled to save energy. On the other hand, one might “know” that oil supplies are running low, but have a feeling that you can’t make much of a difference by buying a small car – a lack of perceived control. Understanding the specific knowledge and beliefs underlying behavior can be used to develop policies to change behavior more effectively. Kristen Nelson will be talking more about this, regarding studies of household consumption.
  • Household CO2 emissions in Minnesota

    1. 1. Household CO2 Emissions in Minnesota City of Golden Valley Lawrence A. Baker University of Minnesota and WaterThink, LLC
    2. 2. Outline • Minnesota’s energy sources and trends • Twin Cities Household Ecosystem study (CO2 emissions) • Golden Valley?
    3. 3. 8% 0%3% 1% 21% 8% 20% 39% Coal Natural gas Petroleum Nuclear Hydro. Biomass Other Imported Sources of Minnesota’s energy for all uses (1,830 trillion BTUs in 2004)
    4. 4. 1% 2% 1% 2% 25% 2% 65% 2% Coal Natural gas Petroleum Nuclear Hydro. Biomass Wind Imported Electrical energy production in MN, 2004 (548 trillion BTUs)
    5. 5. Total Industrial Minnesota comparison among states: Commercial Cost per million BTU, rank: #36 Energy/capita: $2,989 per year ( #28) Transportation Residential 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Trillion BTU Minnesota energy use by sector, 2004
    6. 6. 2000 1500 Trillions of BTUs 1000 500 0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Trend in total energy use in Minnesota
    7. 7. 500 400 Trillion BTU/yr 300 200 Motor gasoline 100 Natural gas Coal 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Trend in carbon fuels in Minnesota
    8. 8. 400 Millions of BTUs per person Minnesota U.S. 300 200 100 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 Trend in per capita energy use
    9. 9. 12,000 2000 10,000 1500 VMT per person Miles per person 8,000 6,000 1000 Vehicle miles traveled 4,000 (Minnesota) +53% 500 Air travel, miles per person (U.S.) 2,000 +88% 0 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1970 1980 1990 2000 3000 3,000 Calories per person/day 2500 2,500 Size, square feet 2000 2,000 1500 Size of New Homes in U.S 1,500 +62%. 1000 1,000 Food consumption (U.S.), calories per day +24% 500 500 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 Per capita consumption has increased
    10. 10. 100 Percentage of Americans 80 who are “very happy” % quot;very happyquot; 60 40 20 0 1972- 1977- 1983- 1988- 1994- 2000- 1976 1982 1987 1993 1998 2006 Is energy consumption making us happier?
    11. 11. Twin Cities Household Ecosystem Study Why study households? 1. Households have a major influence on the ecological condition of post-industrial cities – most energy, water, carbon, nutrients. • Household consumption and pollution generation is flexible. • Understanding how consumption choices are made could inform environmental policy (education, taxes, incentives, regulation)
    12. 12. How important are households in the urban context? % for Twin Cities Residential land 29% Water use 43% Direct CO2 emissions 41% (national est.) N and P 40-50% Trees on private 90% property (national est.)
    13. 13. TCHEP Goals 1. What are the “fluxes” Inputs of C, N, and P, and how Carbon- natural gas, does this vary among gasoline, food, jet fuel, households? paper, etc. N and P - human and pet food, fertilizer, etc. 2. What demographic Outputs Carbon - CO2, garbage, sewage and behavioral factors N and P - lawn runoff, control consumption? sewage, garbage
    14. 14. Compartments Inputs Outputs Transportation Ecological network (household Emissions (CO2 , NOx) analysis of a Fuel (Corg), vehicles, air, Atmospheric N2 mass transit) household Household energy ecosystem (heating, cooling, Baker et al., 2007 appliances) Paper and plastics Exported garbage (Corg, Norg) Paper and plastics Corg, Norg, Porg Humans Wastewater (Corg, Food Corg,NorgPorg Porg, Norg PO43-, NH4+) Pets Respiration (CO2) Denitrification (N2, N2O, Atmospheric Turf NO2) CO2; fertilizer Export to street (Norg, NH4, NO3) (runoff + leaves) (Corg, Porg, Norg PO43-, NH4+, NO3-) Trees External compost (Corg, Norg, Porg) Soil (root zone) Export to vadose zone and aquifer (NO3-, PO43-)
    15. 15. Individual choice: Theory of Planned Behavior Anjen and Fishbein (many papers) BEHAVIORAL DECISION ATTITUDES TOWARD BELIEFS BEHAVIOR (KNOWLEDGE) SUBJECTIVE SOCIAL INTENT TO BEHAVIOR NORMATIVE NORMS BEHAVE BELIEFS PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL BELIEFS CONTROL How this might be used: - Identify the key motivations - Identify constraints toward changing behavior - Identify method for providing information
    16. 16. Pilot study of Falcon Heights, Minnesota Pilot survey of 35 households Falcon Heights, MN Tools: - In-home survey (80 questions) - Energy bills; odometer readings - Landscape measurements
    17. 17. Average carbon input to Falcon Heights homes Other Air travel 12% 14% Natural Gas 23% Auto 28% Electricity 23%
    18. 18. kg C/yr 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Household vehicles Electricity* Natural gas Domestic flights Mean and variance in component C fluxes International flights Lawns + trees (NPP)
    19. 19. Air travel 14,000 Vehicles 12,000 Food Natural gas Household C, kg/yr 10,000 Electricity 3 X! 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Low Typical High Carbon consumption varies hugely within Falcon Heights homes
    20. 20. 9,000 Air 8,000 Vehicles Food Wood Carbon input, kg/yr 7,000 Gas 6,000 Electric 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Sue Leif Sarah Young Merritt Grimes Hobbie teacher Clapp- Smith Household carbon profiles for volunteers
    21. 21. Per capita comparison Household kg C/person Leif household (4) 1,626 Clapp-Smith household (4) 2,231 Hobbie household (4) 1,648 Single male household (1) 3,450 Grimes household (2) 3,045 Falcon Heights study 3,440 World (total per capita) 1,193
    22. 22. Full-Scale TCHEP Rural Survey 15,000 mailed surveys (May-August 2008) - 3,300 responses - 21% response rate -First papers by Housing Units 2 Per Km 6.5 - 263.7 summer 2009 263.8 - 618.3 618.4 - 1167.9 1168.0 - 11825.6 -Public database in 2 Returned Surveys years ´ 0 2.5 5 Miles Urban
    23. 23. Minneapolis GHG emissions inventory, 1000 tons/yr 7% change overall Total Transportation 2006 2000 Comm/industrial Residential 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
    24. 24. Golden Valley Potential values of emissions reduction projects • Fulfill Mayor’s agreement (ICLEA process) • Develop baseline emissions to evaluate progress • Public relations • Participatory educational process • Build support for emissions reductions program – bikeways, light rail, etc. • Reduce energy costs - $3911 per capita (MN) – Municipal operations – Households

    ×