But wait. Human nature being what it is, scientists realize that if we depend on a penchant for sacrifice to forestall the greenhouse effect, we might as well start building sea walls to hold back the waters that will rise along with the thermostat. Surveys show that only about one fifth of those questioned would keep their homes warmer in summer or chillier in winter to help the environment. Luckily, though, conservation 1990s style doesn’t mean freezing in the dark. From superwindows that leak no heat to fridges that work like giant Thermos bottles, “there is ahost of technological changes we can make that will let us keep the amenities we’re used to,” says Eric Hirst of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Last week the World Resources Institute announced new data that suggest the greenhouse threat is more serious than had been realized. Forty million to fifty million acres of tropical forests are disappearing each year, said WRI–50 percent faster than earlier satellite photos showed. Deforestation is second only to the burning of fossil fuels as a source of carbon dioxide (CO[sub 2]). Even without the new data, an international panel convened at the urging of the Bush administration, and 38 other countries concluded last month that global warming will raise sea levels enough to inundate the plains of Holland and Bangladesh and obliterate the Maldives, among other disasters. It called for a 60 percent cut in CO[sub 2] emissions. Conservation is the cheapest and fastest way to do that, at least until solar and wind power, which emit no CO[sub 2], are widely available. Efficiency alone, calculates Christopher Flavin of Worldwatch Institute, could cut global CO[sub 2] emissions 3 billion tons a year by 2010, from today’s 5.6 billion.
Nations might start with that symbol of energy profligacy, air conditioners. They use hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) as the cooling fluid, and indirectly release CO[sub 2] when electricity to run them is generated. HCFCs and CO[sub 2] are greenhouse gases. But plug-in cooling needn’t turn up the global thermostat. A model patented last year by Albers Technologies Corp. of Arizona cools air to 64 degrees Fahrenheit, dehumidifies it and removes contaminants. It uses water, not HCFCs, and draws half the electricity of conventional units. At $2,000 for a unit big enough to cool a 1,500-square-foot house, it costs about the same as current models. No American makers have expressed an interest–they don’t want to fiddle with their product unless the government bans HCFCs. But last month a Saudi Arabian firm, Alessa Industries, agreed to turn out 25,000 every year beginning in 1992–and export 20,000 back to the United States.
Other breakthroughs are as close as the nearest window. During the winter, windows in the United States leak about as much heat as is provided by the oil flowing through the Alaskan pipeline every year. Researchers led by Stephen Selkowitz at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California can fix that with a “superwindow.” It has three layers of glazing and two coatings of metal oxides that cut heat loss; the space between the panes is filled with krypton and argon gases. Result: the window collects more heat on a winter’s day than it leaks at night. Superwindows today cost about 30 percent more than moderately efficient ones; even better versions are about to leave the lab. This week Libbey Owens Ford will introduce special glass coatings that allow sunlight to penetrate better than it can through plain glass, providing low-tech solar heating to a room. And LBL is working on a “smart window” that changes electronically from clear, which allows sunshine in on cold days, to reflective, which diverts rays on scorchers. Similar chameleonlike glass for car sun roofs can keep out enough sunshine to drastically cut the need for air conditioning, and should be in models next year.
Best bulbs: Researchers also have bright ideas for lighting, which accounts for almost 25 percent of U.S. electricity use. Replacing standard incandescents with the best bulbs, compact fluorescents, can cut electricity use by as much as two thirds. Last year Reno’s Peppermill Hotel Casino installed about 1,000 fluorescents, and halved its lighting bill. Although fluorescents can cost 20 times as much as incandescents, they last 10 times longer, saving the consumer money, and emit light indistinguishable from incandescents. Since fluorescent bulbs draw less electricity, substituting one for an incandescent prevents the emission of up to 382 pounds of CO[sub 2] that would otherwise be emitted from power plants (table). Other gizmos helped the Natural Resources Defense Council cut its office energy bill by more than half: occupancy sensors use infrared or ultrasonic signals to detect motion, turning lights off when no one is in the room. Because of such savings, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute says, “this is not a free lunch. This is a lunch you are paid to eat.”
Even refrigerators can help stave off the greenhouse. In today’s models, a single unit lowers temperatures in the freezer and moves chilled air to the fridge–which doesn’t need to be as cold. At Oak Ridge, researchers think that using different mixes of coolants and separate cooling loops could offer energy savings of an additional 20 percent. And by replacing the CFC insulation with vacuum insulation as in a Thermos, refrigerators wouldn’t need CFCs.
Electric utilities have led the charge toward energy efficiency partly from environmental concern, but largely because of the bottom line: it costs 30 to 50 percent less to cut demand for power than to build new generating capacity. Wisconsin Power Co. offers rebates for installing efficient refrigerators; Southern California Edison will pay customers to install more efficient windows. New England Electric offers rebates to lighting dealers so they will lower the price of fluorescents; it has also insulated more than 100,000 customers’ hot-water tanks for free. CEO John Rowe says, “Conservation is the heart of our environmental strategy.” But, only 10 states let utilities earn a return on investments in efficiency, hampering widespread adoption.
In the cold: For next year the administration is requesting $213 million for the Department of Energy’s conservation research, which now receives $411 million. The White House questions whether the United States will suffer from global warming, and therefore opposes making possibly expensive changes to control the greenhouse. But in a significant break with this wait-and-see policy, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher last month announced that Britain would cut CO[sub 2] growth 20 percent by 2005, stabilizing it at 1990 levels, if other nations follow suit. How? Heavy reliance on energy efficiency is a likely option. “You can cut carbon emissions 20, 30 percent without any economic cost,” says Michael Grubb of the Royal Institute for Economic Affairs. Bringing all homes up to the latest standards for insulation, for example, would cut emissions nearly 9 percent, estimates Stewart Boyle of Britain’s Association for the Conservation of Energy. This week the West German cabinet is expected to consider a proposal to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2010. Increasingly, as the world grapples with the uncertain threat of the greenhouse, the United States is being left out in the cold.
Using energy more efficiently, whether you’re driving or keeping a six-pack frosty, cuts emissions of CO2. It also saves money. ITEM EXTRA COST TIME TO CARBON AT PURCHASE PAY BACK SAVED Refrigerator $ 30 1.5yrs 180lbs Car $500 3yrs 800lbs One fluorescent lightbulb $ 7 1yr 223lbs Sources: Home Energy; Richard Heede, Rocky Mt. Institute
