Show Your Support

Green Your Being (GYB) is an initiative that encourages individuals and groups to meet in transit accessible locations. Benefits included lower transportation costs, lower fuel consumption, lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions , lower public infrastructure costs, better health from increased walking, access to resources by all.

Click here to show your support for Green Your Being.

Promoting Transit Utilization

McKinsey's 2009 report, "Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy," estimated that by 2030, global transport will account for 11.4 Gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) per year under a business as usual (BAU) scenario, but this amount can be reduced by 8.2 GtCO2e, down to 3.2 GtCO2e, by pursuing the measures that McKinsey has identified. This is a huge amount.

The transportation sector of the US economy accounted for 1.8 GtCO2e, or 27%, of the 6.6 GtCO2e of emissions in 2009, according to "Fast Facts" from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

According to seminal research by Princeton University professors Steven Pacala and Rob Socolow, a decrease in vehicle use may reduce emissions by 1 GtCO2 annually or 25 GtCO2 in total between 2004 and 2054. This reduction may be achieved through actions including urban design, mass transit, and telecommuting. These reduced emissions from decreased car travel are in addition to and equivalent in the impact of the reduced emissions from increased vehicle efficiency.

So, how can we help stimulate better urban design and increased utilization of mass transit and telecommuting? I propose an approach in a new white paper, "Promoting Transit Utilization," that draws on ideas from both behavioral economics and from neoclassical economics. One important component of this approach involves marketing transit utilization just like any other product or service--think automobiles and financial services. One example is our new "Walk" products, designed to stimulate a culture shift in demand for walking and other alternate forms of transportation.

Let us know what you think!

Let's Walk!

According to Cole Porter:

. . . birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it, let's do it . . . 

No, not that . . . I mean, let's Walk!

It's good for our health, our neighborhoods, our budgets, our highway department budgets, and our environment. Let's do one more thing: let's make it cool! Take that $100,000 you were planning on laying down on a new set of wheels, and lay it down for a cool new Walk jersey. You'll have a little change left over, so go ahead, buy one for your neighbor! Be the first ones in your neighborhood.

Green Your Being Store:

WMATA's SmarTrip Machines Offer Potential for Loss and Fraud

Here are the instructions from the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) website for topping up SmarTrip farecards:

"1. Go to a Passes/Farecards machine, located at the entrance of every Metrorail station.

2. Touch your SmarTrip® card to the circular target.

3. Follow the prompts on the screen.

4. Insert a) money or tokens, b) a used farecard or Metrochek valued less than $7 or c) an unused farecard or Metrochek of any value. If you have more than one farecard or Metrochek, each will require a separate transaction. You may also use your Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express or ATM card.

5. Press the plus (+) or minus (-) button until the amount displayed is the new value you want your SmarTrip® card to have. The added value cannot be less than the trade-in value of the Metrochek or farecard.

6. Touch the SmarTrip® card to the circular target a final time. This updates the card and shows the new balance."

Here's the problem. One of the prompts in "3. Follow the prompts on the screen" above is "Add Value." We discovered--by accident--that if a first SmarTrip user initiates this top up process but leaves the machine with the "Add Value" prompt on the screen, and a second SmarTrip user arrives, presses "Add Value," inserts money, and then touches the circular target with his or her card, the money remains in the machine but the transaction is cancelled.

Does the money go to the first person's card--a fraud opportunity--or does it simply end up in WMATA's account? We don't know. The good news is that we filled out a fare adjustment form which the station manager signed, and when we called the fare adjustment phone number a week later, were were cheerfully informed that the funds were now available for transfer to our SmarTrip card the next time we went by a Metro Station.

It was clear from discussions with the station manager and the agent on the phone that ours was not an isolated experience. However, as far as these WMATA employees seem to know, nothing is being done to eliminate this problem.

Meat vs Gas Guzzlers

A sea change in the consumption of beef may be in store for Americans, according to a story by Mark Bittman in the New York Times in 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html). Such a change would impact the subject of two public policy discussions and political debates: energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. Bittman makes two claims about the energy use and emissions from beef relative to that of driving that are of particular interest.

Citing the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan, one of the Bittman's claims is that the emissions from the production of 2.2 pounds of beef is equivalent to the emissions from driving the average European car 155 miles. Let's see.

Information we have indicates that the average European car emits 140 grams CO2 per kilometer, that there are 453.59 grams of CO2 per pound, that there are .621 miles per kilometer, that the average US auto is driven 10,000 miles per year, has an average miles per gallon of 20, and emits 10,211 pounds CO2 per year (this figure, based on our estimated miles per year and miles per gallon, is lower than the 12,500 pounds CO2 figure provided by EPA).

Using these inputs, we find that driving a European auto 70.5 miles emits as much CO2 as one pound of beef. European autos emit CO2 at a rate of 0.309 pounds per kilometer, 0.497 pounds per mile, and 35.0 pounds per 70.5 miles. US Beef consumption per capita is 87.3 pounds, which results in 3,055 pounds of CO2, which according to this claim is the amount generated by driving a European vehicle 6,150 miles. US vehicles emit over twice as much CO2 per mile as do European vehicles, which means that driving 2,992 miles in a US vehicle generates this same amount of CO2.

We have no reason to doubt this claim. However, as for the impact on climate change of beef consumption versus driving, an important conclusion from these calculations is that total emissions from beef consumption are less than thirty percent of the total emissions from US average vehicle miles traveled (VMT). (This doesn't consider substitute effects, i.e., that people who give up beef will eat something else that generates emissions at some unknown lower rate, and that a reduction in VMT may result in an increased use of an alternate form of transit that likewise generates emissions at some unknown lower rate.)

Citing Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, another of Bittman's claims is that the emissions reduction from a twenty percent reduction in beef consumption is equivalent to the emissions reduction that would be realized from switching from a standard sedan to the ultra-efficient Prius.

Using the estimate calculated above of 3,055 pounds CO2 per capita per year from beef consumption, a twenty percent reduction in beef consumption would reduce emissions by 611 pounds. A Prius gets 48 MPG and emits 4,807 pounds CO2 per year, compared to an Accord which gets 21 MPG (slightly higher than the average) and emits 9,217 pounds CO2 per year, which means switching from an Accord to a Prius would reduce CO2 emissions by 4,410 pounds. Therefore, we think this claim is wrong—one could eliminate all beef consumption and not come anywhere close to reducing the amount of CO2 that would be reduced by switching from a standard to an ultra-efficient vehicle.

Looking at the big picture, how much do we need to reduce our emissions? According to the UN and the World Bank, in 2006 the total US emissions per capita were approximately 42,460 pounds, of which "household" emissions (which includes vehicle emissions) were 20,680 pounds. US emissions were more than four times the global emissions per capita of 9,460 pounds. According to the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global CO2 emissions need to be reduced from the 2000 level by between 50% and 85% by 2050 in order to keep the average global temperature change at what is considered an acceptable level of between 2.0 and 2.4 degrees Celsius. This means the global per capita figure must fall to one eighth or less the US per capita figure. The US, a carbon intensive nation, would have to reduce its emissions by an astonishing 37,000 pounds or more to reach the global target, though no one expects nor is the US being asked to achieve that level of reduction.

Climate change can't be stopped by just changing our eating habits, by just changing our transportation habits, or by just changing any one other thing—we need to make meaningful changes across the board.

Item	Value	Source
Claim #1: emissions from 2.2 # beef equivalent to 155 Mi Euro driving
Given:
Euro Mi	155	NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
Beef #	2.2	NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
Inputs:
Euro gr CO2 / km	140.0	Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency
gr / #	453.6	Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weight
Mi / km	0.621	Google http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/features.html#calculator
Population 2009 (M)	307	Census http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+population#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en
Beef M # 2009	26,800	USDA http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
Avg Vehicle Mi / yr	10,000
Avg MPG	20
Avg CO2 / Vehicle / yr	10,211	US EPA 10,000 Mi 20 mpg http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator2.html#c=transportation&p=reduceOnTheRoad&m=calc_currentEmissions
Avg CO2 / Vehicle / yr	12,500	US EPA http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator2.html#c=transportation&p=reduceOnTheRoad&m=calc_currentEmissions
Find:
Euro Mi / Beef #	70.5
Euro # CO2 / km	0.309
Euro # CO2 / mi	0.497
# CO2 / # Beef	35.0
Beef / Capita 2009	87.3
# CO2 Beef / Capita 2009	3,055
CO2 Euro Vehicle / Beef	6,150
US # CO2 / mi	1.021
CO2 US Vehicle / Beef	2,992
Claim #2: 20% beef reduction equivalent to switch from standard to ultra-efficient vehicles
Given:
Beef Reduction	0.2
Inputs:
Accord (21 MPG) CO2 / yr	9,217
Civic (25 MPG) CO2 / yr	7,894
Prius (48 MPG) CO2 / yr	4,807
Find:
Reduced # CO2 at 20% less beef	611
# CO2 Accord - Prius	4410
# CO2 Civic - Prius	3087

- Stuart M. Whitaker