Who's the World's No. 1 Producer of CO2?

[Published, Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 28, 2007]

Regardless of whether or not one believes in climate change, no American wants the United States to be the world's top greenhouse-gas emitter. Thus, Americans were thankful that China was queuing up to surpass the U.S. as the globe's No. 1 producer of carbon dioxide.

Now, according to a report released by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Americans can breathe a sigh of relief. In 2006, the report states, China surpassed the U.S. in emissions by about 7.5 percent. Whew. No longer will the U.S. be the primary target, China will now be held culpable.

Or will it? All of this debate, including the post-G8 scramble for reduction targets, continues to ignore one critical component: the individual footprint. And in this arena, the U.S. tops the charts.

The average U.S.. citizen produces approximately 20 tons of greenhouse gases annually, compared with the Chinese average of roughly four tons. Even if China, as a nation, now ranks No. 1 in total emissions, the U.S. will continue to rank first in per-capita emissions. Couple this with a global drive to pursue the American dream, particularly in terms of standard of living, and per-capita emissions everywhere will increase. Consequently, there needs to be a conversation about each individual's impact -- a Kyoto, if you will, for humankind.

Worry not: A focus on the footprint does not inherently mean tiptoeing through life, but it does mean watching our weight. Short of simply offsetting individual emissions through tree plantings or carbon credit purchases, there is plenty to be done to reduce one's annual tonnage. In three particular categories -- e.g., home, food, and transport -- change is possible. Consider the following:

On powering the home, encouraging local utilities to adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of at least 15 percent is critical. This requires utilities to rely on renewable energy -- wind, solar, biomass, or other -- for a small but substantial percentage of their overall supply. The U.S. Senate considered such a standard but it failed to make it into the energy bill. This, or something like it, should be reconsidered immediately.

However, until public utilities are required to offer alternatives, much can be done to green the home and cut energy costs. Moreover, energy efficiency efforts like installing compact fluorescent light bulbs or "air shower" devices come with the added financial benefit of lower electricity and water bills, respectively. The home does not have to be a heavy emitter. And once utilities get onboard the RPS, it won't be.

On food, reducing the mileage between the producer and consumer is a start; so is considering diets that are less energy-intensive. On the former, businesses like Wal-Mart are quickly recognizing that local agribusiness can cuts costs for the retailer because of fewer miles traveled. On the latter, the same businesses are realizing that reduced packaging -- thus less energy-intensive -- saves money.

Furthermore, short of switching eaters off meat, a product 10 times as resource-intensive as wheat, businesses are seeing the benefits of grass-feeding cows and free-ranging chickens; it's less water used, less feed needed, and less waste managed. On all points, whether reduced mileage, packaging, or resource-intensity, there are opportunities for footprint reduction. And on all points, the cuts incurred means costs avoided.

On transportation, given the high price of fuel, finding greener and cheaper alternatives is a must. The Senate's Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, now set at 35 miles per gallon by 2020, is a small but important step, considering most developed nations set similar goals for 2007.

Comparing U.S. standards to other developed nations' targets may not impel Americans to act fast. But sales figures certainly will: Hybrids are now more hip than Hummers, visible in Toyota's climb to the top. As long as prices at the pump remain high -- a probable scenario given the state of petrol politics and the realities of a fledgling biofuels industry -- auto owners will continue to shift the market toward leaner and greener. And why not? The $3-$4 per gallon is making an unwanted footprint on the wallet.

While a post-Kyoto individual footprint analysis may be excessive and unfeasible, deferring responsibility to China simply because it topped the emissions charts is unwise. There is much to be gained when greening our homes, food, and transportation. By reducing our footprint, not only are we being socially and environmentally responsible; we are also being fiscally responsible. And nothing could be closer to American ideals or more worth mimicking by the world.